Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Optimized Transmission for Parameter Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sensor relay gain and phase design for parameter estimation, centralized or decentralized, reduces to a cyclic quadratic optimization that matches semidefinite-programming designs at a fraction of the runtime.

desk verdict Solid low-complexity gain design with a real runtime win over SDP baselines, but the paper's 'optimality' claim leans on a false convexity statement and should be qualified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00600 v1 pith:7VVGH3EI submitted 2019-08-01 eess.SP cs.DCcs.MAcs.SYeess.SY

Shahin Khobahi , Mojtaba Soltanalian , Feng Jiang , A. Lee Swindlehurst This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.DCcs.MAcs.SYeess.SY
keywords wirelesssensornetworksparameterestimationgainoptimizationpowermethod-likeiterationsADMMconsensusphase-shiftbeamformingselectionanalogrelaydesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Wireless sensors that relay noisy measurements of an unknown parameter usually need to have their transmission gains and phase shifts tuned, and the natural formulations of that tuning problem are non-convex and expensive. This paper tries to establish that the tuning can be reformulated, by an over-parametrization, as a sequence of cheap quadratic projections that monotonically reduce the estimation variance. The same reformulation is shown to cover a centralized fusion center and a decentralized consensus estimator, and to handle fixed-energy, phase-only, quantized-phase, and sensor-selection constraints. If correct, a wireless network can re-optimize its relays as channels change, reaching the accuracy of semidefinite-programming designs at under one percent of the runtime in the large-network simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the over-parametrized block matrix $R = \begin{pmatrix} \eta_0 & a^H H^H \\ H a & H D V D^H H^H + M \end{pmatrix}$ together with its Rayleigh quotient $g(y,a) = y^H R y$ under the constraint $y_1 = 1$. The identity $y^H R y = \eta_0 + \tilde{y}^H M \tilde{y} + \begin{pmatrix} a \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}^H Q \begin{pmatrix} a \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$ turns the gain update into a quadratic program, and the minimizer $y$ for fixed $a$ is the scaled first column of $R^{-1}$, obtained by a Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization against the remaining rows. The power-method-like iteration $a^{(t+1)} = \mathrm{projection}\left(\tilde{Q} \begin{pmatrix} a^{(t)} \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}\right)$ then makes the objective monotone, with each projection instantiated for fixed-energy, phase-only, quantized-phase, or sensor-selection constraints. This machinery is what lets the paper claim per-iteration complexity $O(\max\{L N^2, M^2\})$ and the SDP-matching numerical performance.

What would settle it

Build a connected graph whose local "highest information value" assignments do not form a cover where every observation is retained exactly once—for instance, three mutually connected nodes where two parents pick the same child and one observation is never retained—then compare the variance predicted by (27) with the Monte Carlo variance of the distributed MLE from (14). If they disagree, or if the global compression matrix $G = \mathrm{blkdiag}(\{T_i\})$ does not select each sensor row exactly once, the decoupling premise is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the variance of the maximum-likelihood estimate, $\mathrm{Var}(\hat{\theta}_{\mathrm{ML}}) = \left(a^H H^H (H D V D^H H^H + M)^{-1} H a\right)^{-1}$, can be minimized over the complex gain vector $a$ by minimizing the Rayleigh quotient $y^H R y$ over $a$ and an auxiliary vector $y$ with $y_1 = 1$, where $R$ is the block matrix with $\eta_0$ in the top-left corner, $a^H H^H$ and $H a$ on the off-diagonal blocks, and $H D V D^H H^H + M$ in the bottom-right block. For fixed $a$, the optimal $y$ is a scaled version of the first column of $R^{-1}$ and can be found by a Gram-Schmidt step; for fixed $y$, the problem becomes a quadratic form in $a$ whose update is a power-method-like projection onto the constraint set. Alternating the two updates produces a monotonically decreasing objective, as stated in equation (43). Decentralized estimation is handled by a compression rule that keeps each amplified observation at exactly one neighbor, which decouples the noise covariance and lets ADMM average consensus drive every node to the global MLE. Numerically, the paper reports estimation variance essentially equal to the SDP-based method in [7] with less than 1% of its runtime at $N=50$ and $N=60$ nodes.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme depends on the claim that each node's amplified observation is retained by exactly one neighbor under the local highest-information rule, so that the global noise terms are uncorrelated and the variance formula (27) and the factored MLE (14) are valid; this property is asserted in Remark 1 rather than proven for arbitrary connected graphs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sensor relays can be re-optimized whenever channels change, because each gain update costs only a matrix-vector product and a projection, instead of a semidefinite program.
  • In the decentralized case, every node's local estimate converges to the global maximum-likelihood estimate, so no fusion center is required and the estimation variance is the same as if all data were collected centrally.
  • The same algorithm covers fixed-energy, phase-only, quantized-phase, and K-out-of-N sensor-selection constraints, so one design routine replaces several specialized solvers.
  • The runtime advantage grows with network size: the paper reports below 1% of the SDP runtime for $N=50$ decentralized and $N=60$ centralized sensors, which matters for adaptive large-scale networks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • In my reading, the monotone decrease in (43) establishes convergence to a stationary point of the biconvex surrogate, not a certificate of global optimality for the original non-convex gain problem; the near-optimality rests on the numerical match with the SDP baseline.
  • The compression rule "keep the neighbor with the highest information value" is one natural choice; a testable extension is whether choosing the retaining node by a global or learned criterion could lower variance further while still keeping the noise covariance block-diagonal.
  • The same over-parametrization and alternating Gram-Schmidt/power-method pattern may apply to other unimodular quadratic programs and waveform-design problems where a non-convex quadratic objective is optimized over unit-modulus or sparsity constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers the design of complex transmission gains (amplitude and phase) in analog wireless sensor networks to minimize the variance of maximum-likelihood parameter estimation, in both a centralized (fusion center) and a decentralized (consensus-based) architecture. The authors propose an over-parametrization of the variance objective, leading to a cyclic optimization over an auxiliary vector y and the gain vector a; the a-update is performed via power-method-like iterations that the paper claims monotonically increase a surrogate objective. A data-compression/diffusion rule is introduced that decouples sensor observations, and an ADMM-based average consensus is used to compute the global MLE distributively. Numerical experiments compare the method with the SDP-based approach of [7] and show comparable estimation variance at drastically lower runtime, especially for large networks.

Significance. If the runtime claims hold, the proposed framework is practically significant for large-scale WSNs where channel statistics vary rapidly. The compression and consensus scheme is a useful contribution, and the algorithm is simple and handles several constraint sets (fixed energy, phase-only, quantized phases, sensor selection). The theoretical contribution is modest: the paper proves monotone decrease of the objective but does not establish global optimality of the power-method iterations; in fact, the optimality claim in Section IV-B is based on an incorrect convexity assertion. The computational complexity analysis (O(N^2) per iteration) is a strength, and the numerical benchmarking against an independent SDP solver gives credible evidence of practical efficiency.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-B, text after Fig. 4] The claim that (40) is convex in the finite-energy scenarios and that matching the general-purpose QCQP solver 'verifies the optimality' is incorrect. Problem (40) maximizes the convex quadratic [a;1]^H \tilde{Q} [a;1] over the nonconvex sphere constraint ||a||^2=N; it is a nonconvex QCQP, not a convex program. Consequently, neither the power-method-like iterations nor the general-purpose QCQP solver is guaranteed to find a global optimum, and numerical agreement of the two does not certify optimality. The statement should be removed or replaced with a more modest empirical claim.
  2. [Remark 2] The assertion that (33) is biconvex in (y,a) is not correct. For fixed y, the objective g(y,a) is quadratic in a with matrix Q in (38), whose block structure has a zero bottom-right block and generally nonzero off-diagonal blocks; such a matrix is indefinite, so the minimization over a is not convex. Hence the cyclic approach is not an 'alternate convex search' as stated. The monotonicity chain in (43) does not rely on biconvexity and remains valid, but Remark 2 should be corrected.
  3. [Equation (38)] The Hadamard-product identity \tilde{y}^H H D V D^H H^H \tilde{y} = a^H ((H^H \tilde{y}\tilde{y}^H H) \odot V) a is valid only when V is diagonal. The manuscript introduces V = \Sigma in (28) as a general covariance for the centralized case and does not state that it is diagonal; if correlated sensor noise is allowed, the derivation of the subproblem (39) fails. Please state the diagonal-noise assumption explicitly and discuss the correlated case, or restrict the scope accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (24)] The limit defining P_c is written with I_i(k) instead of P_i(k); this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Equation (41)] The dimensions in the norm are inconsistent (a row vector minus a column vector); the intended expression is || [a(t+1);1] - \tilde{Q} [a(t);1] ||^2.
  3. [Section II-C, definition of N_i] The text says 'including itself' but the set definition {j : {i,j}\in E} excludes i, and the example N_3={1,2,4} is consistent with the latter interpretation; please correct the wording.
  4. [Equations (12) and (28)] The symbol M is used both for the dimension of the compressed observation vector (M=2|E|-r) and for the noise covariance matrix M=\sigma_n^2 I_M; please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
  5. [Contributions bullet (page 4)] The statement that the method 'demonstrates far better estimation accuracy compared to other methods' is stronger than what Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 4 show for the phase-shift-only comparison; please align the claims with the numerical evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: core claims are benchmarked against the independent SDP method of [7]; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations to the authors' prior power-method work appear.

full rationale

The paper's central results—estimation-variance matching and sub-1% runtime versus the SDP method—are evaluated against the independent algorithm of [7] (Figs. 2, 4, 5), so they are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The monotone-decrease claim in (43) follows from the cyclic minimization inequalities written out in the paper, and the inner power-method monotonicity is cited to the authors' own prior papers [46]-[48]; while this is self-citation, it is transparent and concerns a previously published, parameter-free lemma rather than an assumption that includes the present target result, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The decentralized decoupling asserted in Remark 1 is valid by construction: each parent node retains exactly one selected neighbor, giving each column of H a single nonzero and a diagonal R_w, so (13)-(15) factor as stated. The main weakness is not circularity but the unsupported optimality remark in Section IV-B: (40) maximizes a convex quadratic form over the nonconvex sphere, so it is not a convex program, and matching a general-purpose QCQP solver on the same nonconvex problem does not certify global optimality. That is a correctness concern outside the circularity rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central optimization result relies on standard matrix identities and monotonicity results borrowed from the authors' prior power-method work, plus domain assumptions of independent sensor noise, connected graphs, and the unproven single-retention property of the compression scheme.

free parameters (3)
  • ADMM penalty parameter rho = not specified
    Arbitrary positive constant in (18)-(19); affects convergence speed but not the consensus fixed point.
  • Power-method shift lambda = lambda > lambda_max(Q)
    Introduced in (40) to make the surrogate matrix positive definite; does not change the argmax but is required for the monotonicity argument.
  • Over-parametrization offset eta0 = eta0 > N ||H||_F^2 / lambda_min(M)
    Chosen by the sufficient condition (57) to keep eta positive; does not affect the optimal sensor gains.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The block matrix R in (32) has a positive Schur complement, ensured by the choice of eta0 in Appendix A.
    Needed for the identity e1^H R^{-1} e1 = eta^{-1} and the invertibility of R.
  • standard math The power method-like iterations from [46]-[48] monotonically increase the quadratic objective in (40) when the surrogate matrix is positive semidefinite.
    Basis for the monotonic decrease of the estimation variance in (43).
  • domain assumption Sensor observation noise is independent across nodes, so V is diagonal and the Hadamard-product identity in (38) holds.
    Required for the quadratic reformulation in (38); not stated explicitly for the centralized case.
  • domain assumption The network graph is connected, time-invariant, and transmissions always succeed.
    Required for the ADMM consensus updates (18)-(19) and the diffusion strategy to converge.
  • ad hoc to paper The compression rule retains each node's observation at exactly one neighbor, making the compressed observations uncorrelated.
    Asserted in Remark 1; underpins the factored MLE (14) and the variance formula (27).
  • domain assumption The ADMM consensus algorithm of [43] remains valid when the averaged variables are complex as in (20)-(22).
    The cited derivation is for real-valued variables; complex consensus is not explicitly justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimized Transmission for Parameter Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VVGH3EI

@misc{pith2026190800600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimized Transmission for Parameter Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VVGH3EI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00600}
}
read the original abstract

A central problem in analog wireless sensor networks is to design the gain or phase-shifts of the sensor nodes (i.e. the relaying configuration) in order to achieve an accurate estimation of some parameter of interest at a fusion center, or more generally, at each node by employing a distributed parameter estimation scheme. In this paper, by using an over-parametrization of the original design problem, we devise a cyclic optimization approach that can handle tuning both gains and phase-shifts of the sensor nodes, even in intricate scenarios involving sensor selection or discrete phase-shifts. Each iteration of the proposed design framework consists of a combination of the Gram-Schmidt process and power method-like iterations, and as a result, enjoys a low computational cost. Along with formulating the design problem for a fusion center, we further present a consensus-based framework for decentralized estimation of deterministic parameters in a distributed network, which results in a similar sensor gain design problem. The numerical results confirm the computational advantage of the suggested approach in comparison with the state-of-the-art methods---an advantage that becomes more pronounced when the sensor network grows large.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An intuitive illustration of the proposed data compression and diffusion strategy for a graph with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of (a) the runtime and (b) the estimation variance of the proposed method and the SDP-based approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence of the ADMM-based ML estimate. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimation performance of various sensor gain/phase-shift optimization approaches vs. number of sensors. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of runtime for the proposed method and the state-of-the-art SDP-based approach of [7]. The proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of various sensor selection algorithms ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Estimation in phase-shift and forward wireless sensor networks,

    F. Jiang, J. Chen, and A. Swindlehurst, “Estimation in phase-shift and forward wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 61, no. 15, pp. 3840–3851, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [46]

    Designing unimodular codes via quadratic optimization,

    M. Soltanalian and P. Stoica, “Designing unimodular codes via quadratic optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1221–1234, March 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [48]

    Single-stage transmit beamforming design for MIMO radar,

    M. Soltanalian, H. Hu, and P. Stoica, “Single-stage transmit beamforming design for MIMO radar,” Signal Processing, vol. 102, pp. 132–138, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [1]

    Optimized transmission for consensus in wireless sensor networks,

    S. Khobahi and M. Soltanalian, “Optimized transmission for consensus in wireless sensor networks,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 3419–3423

    work page 2018

  5. [2]

    Uncoded transmission is exactly optimal for a simple Gaussian “sensor

    M. Gastpar, “Uncoded transmission is exactly optimal for a simple Gaussian “sensor” network,” IEEE Trans. Info. Theory, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 5247–5251, Nov. 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [3]

    Estimation diversity and energy efficiency in distributed sensing,

    S. Cui, J.-J. Xiao, A. J. Goldsmith, Z.-Q. Luo, and H. V . Poor, “Estimation diversity and energy efficiency in distributed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 4683–4695, Sep. 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [4]

    Distributed estimation over fading MACs with multiple antennas at the fusion center,

    A. D. Smith, M. K. Banavar, C. Tepedelenlioglu, and A. Spanias, “Distributed estimation over fading MACs with multiple antennas at the fusion center,” in Proc. IEEE Asilomar , Nov. 2009, pp. 424–428

    work page 2009

  8. [5]

    On the effectiveness of multiple antennas in distributed detection over fading MACs,

    M. K. Banavar, A. D. Smith, C. Tepedelenlioglu, and A. Spanias, “On the effectiveness of multiple antennas in distributed detection over fading MACs,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1744–1752, May 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 55 references
  1. [6]

    Estimation over fading channels with limited feedback using distributed sensing,

    M. K. Banavar, C. Tepedelenlio ˘glu, and A. Spanias, “Estimation over fading channels with limited feedback using distributed sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 414–425, 2010. August 5, 2019 DRAFT 25

    2010

  2. [8]

    Optimal power allocation for parameter tracking in a distributed amplify-and-forward sensor network,

    ——, “Optimal power allocation for parameter tracking in a distributed amplify-and-forward sensor network,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2200–2211, May 2014

    2014

  3. [9]

    Massive MIMO for wireless sensing with a coherent multiple access channel,

    F. Jiang, J. Chen, A. Swindlehurst, and J. Lopez-Salcedo, “Massive MIMO for wireless sensing with a coherent multiple access channel,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 3005–3017, June 2015

    2015

  4. [10]

    Energy-efficient routing for signal detection in wireless sensor networks,

    Y . Yang, R. S. Blum, and B. M. Sadler, “Energy-efficient routing for signal detection in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 2050–2063, 2009

    2009

  5. [11]

    Empirical studies of bio-inspired self-organized secure autonomous routing protocol,

    K. Saleem, N. Fisal, and J. Al-Muhtadi, “Empirical studies of bio-inspired self-organized secure autonomous routing protocol,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 2232–2239, 2014

    2014

  6. [12]

    Optimal and near-optimal cooperative routing and power allocation for collision minimization in wireless sensor networks,

    F. Mansourkiaie and M. H. Ahmed, “Optimal and near-optimal cooperative routing and power allocation for collision minimization in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1398–1411, 2015

    2015

  7. [13]

    Designing routes for source coding with explicit side information in sensor networks,

    H. Luo and G. J. Pottie, “Designing routes for source coding with explicit side information in sensor networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1401–1413, Dec 2007

    2007

  8. [14]

    Compressive wireless sensing,

    W. Bajwa, J. Haupt, A. Sayeed, and R. Nowak, “Compressive wireless sensing,” in Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks . ACM, 2006, pp. 134–142

    2006

  9. [15]

    Joint sourcechannel communication for distributed estimation in sensor networks,

    W. U. Bajwa, J. D. Haupt, A. M. Sayeed, and R. D. Nowak, “Joint sourcechannel communication for distributed estimation in sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3629–3653, Oct 2007

    2007

  10. [16]

    Asymptotically optimal energy-aware routing for multihop wireless networks with renewable energy sources,

    L. Lin, N. B. Shroff, and R. Srikant, “Asymptotically optimal energy-aware routing for multihop wireless networks with renewable energy sources,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON) , vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1021–1034, 2007

    2007

  11. [17]

    Joint energy management and resource allocation in rechargeable sensor networks,

    R.-S. Liu, P. Sinha, and C. E. Koksal, “Joint energy management and resource allocation in rechargeable sensor networks,” in 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM . IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–9

    2010

  12. [18]

    Dehar: A distributed energy harvesting aware routing algorithm for ad-hoc multi-hop wireless sensor networks,

    M. K. Jakobsen, J. Madsen, and M. R. Hansen, “Dehar: A distributed energy harvesting aware routing algorithm for ad-hoc multi-hop wireless sensor networks,” in 2010 IEEE International Symposium on” A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks”(WoWMoM). IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–9

    2010

  13. [19]

    Delay-sensitive opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks,

    C.-C. Hsu, H.-H. Liu, J. L. G. G ´omez, and C.-F. Chou, “Delay-sensitive opportunistic routing for underwater sensor networks,” IEEE sensors journal , vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 6584–6591, 2015

    2015

  14. [20]

    Eecor: An energy-efficient cooperative opportunistic routing protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks,

    M. A. Rahman, Y . Lee, and I. Koo, “Eecor: An energy-efficient cooperative opportunistic routing protocol for underwater acoustic sensor networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 14 119–14 132, 2017

    2017

  15. [21]

    Performance and trade-offs of opportunistic routing in underwater networks,

    L. F. M. Vieira, “Performance and trade-offs of opportunistic routing in underwater networks,” in 2012 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) . IEEE, 2012, pp. 2911–2915

    2012

  16. [22]

    Routing pressure: A channel-related and traffic-aware metric of routing algorithm,

    M. Tang, X. Lin, and M. Palesi, “Routing pressure: A channel-related and traffic-aware metric of routing algorithm,” IEEE transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 891–901, 2013

    2013

  17. [23]

    Energy harvesting wireless communications: A review of recent advances,

    S. Ulukus, A. Yener, E. Erkip, O. Simeone, M. Zorzi, P. Grover, and K. Huang, “Energy harvesting wireless communications: A review of recent advances,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 360–381, 2015

    2015

  18. [24]

    Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks: What the literature says?

    A. Sarkar and T. S. Murugan, “Routing protocols for wireless sensor networks: What the literature says?” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 3173–3183, 2016

    2016

  19. [25]

    Joint sensor selection and multihop routing for distributed estimation in ad-hoc wireless sensor networks,

    S. Shah and B. Beferull-Lozano, “Joint sensor selection and multihop routing for distributed estimation in ad-hoc wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 61, no. 24, pp. 6355–6370, 2013. August 5, 2019 DRAFT 26

    2013

  20. [26]

    Parameter estimation in wireless sensor networks with faulty transducers: A distributed em approach,

    S. S. Pereira, R. L ´opez-Valcarce, and A. Pages-Zamora, “Parameter estimation in wireless sensor networks with faulty transducers: A distributed em approach,” Signal Processing, vol. 144, pp. 226–237, 2018

    2018

  21. [27]

    Distributed estimation using reduced-dimensionality sensor observations,

    I. D. Schizas, G. B. Giannakis, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Distributed estimation using reduced-dimensionality sensor observations,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 4284–4299, 2007

    2007

  22. [28]

    Nonlinear precoding for multipair relay networks with one-bit ADCs and DACs,

    C. Kong, A. Mezghani, C. Zhong, A. L. Swindlehurst, and Z. Zhang, “Nonlinear precoding for multipair relay networks with one-bit ADCs and DACs,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 303–307, 2018

    2018

  23. [29]

    Massive MIMO downlink 1-bit precoding for frequency selective channels,

    H. Jedda, A. Mezghani, J. A. Nossek, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Massive MIMO downlink 1-bit precoding for frequency selective channels,” in IEEE 7th International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), 2017

    2017

  24. [30]

    Signal recovery from 1-bit quantized noisy samples via adaptive thresholding,

    S. Khobahi and M. Soltanalian, “Signal recovery from 1-bit quantized noisy samples via adaptive thresholding,” in 2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers , Oct 2018, pp. 1757–1761

    2018

  25. [31]

    MIMO communications with low resolution ADCs,

    J. Mo, “MIMO communications with low resolution ADCs,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2018

    2018

  26. [32]

    Deep signal recovery with one-bit quantization,

    S. Khobahi, N. Naimipour, M. Soltanalian, and Y . C. Eldar, “Deep signal recovery with one-bit quantization,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , May 2019, pp. 2987–2991

    2019

  27. [33]

    In a one-bit rush: Low-latency wireless spectrum monitoring with binary sensor arrays,

    M. S. Stein and M. Fauß, “In a one-bit rush: Low-latency wireless spectrum monitoring with binary sensor arrays,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03180, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [34]

    A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus,

    L. Xiao, S. Boyd, and S. Lall, “A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks . IEEE Press, 2005, p. 9

    2005

  29. [35]

    An efficient algorithm for unit-modulus quadratic programs with application in beamforming for wireless sensor networks,

    C. G. Tsinos and B. Ottersten, “An efficient algorithm for unit-modulus quadratic programs with application in beamforming for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 169–173, 2018

    2018

  30. [36]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2011

    2011

  31. [37]

    Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links part I: Distributed estimation of deterministic signals,

    I. D. Schizas, A. Ribeiro, and G. B. Giannakis, “Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links part I: Distributed estimation of deterministic signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 350–364, 2008

    2008

  32. [38]

    Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links part II: Distributed estimation and smoothing of random signals,

    I. D. Schizas, G. B. Giannakis, S. I. Roumeliotis, and A. Ribeiro, “Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links part II: Distributed estimation and smoothing of random signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1650–1666, 2008

    2008

  33. [39]

    An efficient algorithm for unit-modulus quadratic programs with application in beamforming for wireless sensor networks,

    C. G. Tsinos and B. Ottersten, “An efficient algorithm for unit-modulus quadratic programs with application in beamforming for wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 169–173, Feb 2018

    2018

  34. [40]

    Detection in analog sensor networks with a large scale antenna fusion center,

    F. Jiang, J. Chen, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “Detection in analog sensor networks with a large scale antenna fusion center,” in 2014 IEEE 8th Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM) , June 2014, pp. 245–248

    2014

  35. [41]

    Convex optimization-based beamforming,

    A. B. Gershman, N. D. Sidiropoulos, S. Shahbazpanahi, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, “Convex optimization-based beamforming,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 62–75, 2010

    2010

  36. [42]

    Energy efficient collaborative beamforming in wireless sensor networks,

    B. B. Haro, S. Zazo, and D. P. Palomar, “Energy efficient collaborative beamforming in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 496–510, 2014

    2014

  37. [43]

    On the linear convergence of the ADMM decentralized consensus optimization

    W. Shi, Q. Ling, K. Yuan, G. Wu, and W. Yin, “On the linear convergence of the ADMM decentralized consensus optimization.” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing , vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1750–1761, 2014

    2014

  38. [44]

    Linear coherent decentralized estimation,

    J. Xiao, S. Cui, Z. Luo, and A. J. Goldsmith, “Linear coherent decentralized estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 757–770, Feb 2008. August 5, 2019 DRAFT 27

    2008

  39. [45]

    Stoica and R

    P. Stoica and R. Moses, Spectral Analysis of Signals . New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. [Online]. Available: http://user.it.uu.se/˜ps/ref.html

    2005

  40. [47]

    Joint design of the receive filter and transmit sequence for active sensing,

    M. Soltanalian, B. Tang, J. Li, and P. Stoica, “Joint design of the receive filter and transmit sequence for active sensing,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 423–426, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Biconvex sets and optimization with biconvex functions - A survey and extensions,

    J. Gorski, F. Pfeuffer, and K. Klamroth, “Biconvex sets and optimization with biconvex functions - A survey and extensions,” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research , vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 373–407, June 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    A survey on sensor networks,

    I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y . Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “A survey on sensor networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 102–114, 2002

    2002

  43. [51]

    On the feasibility of distributed beamforming in wireless networks,

    R. Mudumbai, G. Barriac, and U. Madhow, “On the feasibility of distributed beamforming in wireless networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1754–1763, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    Cyclic minimizers, majorization techniques, and the expectation-maximization algorithm: A refresher,

    P. Stoica and Y . Sel ´en, “Cyclic minimizers, majorization techniques, and the expectation-maximization algorithm: A refresher,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 112–114, 2004

    2004

  45. [53]

    Rearrangement inequalities,

    P. W. Day, “Rearrangement inequalities,” Canad. J. Math , vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 930–943, 1972

    1972

  46. [54]

    Complex quadratic optimization and semidefinite programming,

    S. Zhang and Y . Huang, “Complex quadratic optimization and semidefinite programming,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 871–890, 2006

    2006

  47. [55]

    S. J. Wright and J. Nocedal, Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York, 1999. August 5, 2019 DRAFT 28 5 10 15 20 25 3010 −3 10 −2 10 −1 10 0 number of sensors, N estimation variance Proposed: gain optimization Proposed: phase−shift only SDP−based approach No feedback Numerica...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.