Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 29 references

DM-SBL: Channel Estimation under Structured Interference

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion-guided sparse Bayesian sampler estimates channels under structured interference.

desk verdict New combination of EM-tuned SBL prior and diffusion posterior sampling for channel estimation under structured interference, with large reported gains but an unproven K-sample factorization and a dimensional typo that need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05582 v1 pith:ZLXWWVRG submitted 2024-12-07 eess.SP cs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

Yifan Wang , Chengjie Yu , Jiang Zhu , Fangyong Wang , Xingbin Tu , Yan Wei , Fengzhong Qu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPcs.ITcs.LGmath.IT
keywords channelestimationdiffusionmodelsstructuredinterferencesparseBayesianlearningposteriorsamplingunderwateracousticcommunicationscore-basedgenerativelinearinverseproblems
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

DM-SBL sets out to solve channel estimation when the received signal is corrupted by both additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and structured interference, such as a radar or sonar signal sharing the same bandwidth. It jointly estimates the sparse channel and the interference: the interference score is learned once by a diffusion model, and the channel is described by a Gaussian prior whose variance enforces sparsity and is updated by expectation maximization during the reverse diffusion. Two posterior-sampling approximations, DMPS and PiGDM, are used for the noise-perturbed likelihood. The central numerical claim is that both variants dramatically outperform methods that treat interference as AWGN, with the single-realization NMSE at SNR = 30 dB and SIR = 5 dB reaching about $-30$ dB for DM-SBL versus $-8.90$ dB for SBL.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a joint reverse SDE run on K parallel samples of both channel and interference. The joint posterior is made tractable by the factorization $p(\bar{h}_t, \bar{n}_t \mid y) = \prod_{i,j} p(h_t^{(i)}, n_t^{(j)} \mid y)^{1/K}$ in Eq. (13), which yields the score decomposition in Eq. (15): each channel sample is entangled with all interference samples through averaged likelihood terms, and vice versa. The channel-score half is analytic because $p(h_t^{(i)}; \gamma)$ is Gaussian with covariance $\Sigma_{h,t} = 2(1-\alpha^2(t))I_L + \alpha^2(t)\mathrm{diag}(\gamma)$, while the interference-score half comes from a trained network $s_\theta(n_t, t)$. DMPS and PiGDM provide the two approximations to the noise-perturbed likelihood, and $\gamma$ is updated by EM using the sample mean and variance of the K channel samples.

What would settle it

Run DM-SBL on a synthetic problem in which the true joint posterior is computable, for example a Gaussian channel prior with known gamma and Gaussian structured noise with known covariance, and compare the sampled channel mean with the optimal MMSE estimate; if the factorization approximation is poor at small K or at large t, the NMSE gap would reveal systematic bias instead of near-optimal estimates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a channel-specific score network is unnecessary: only the structured interference's score is learned, while the sparse channel is carried by a Gaussian prior $p(h;\gamma) = \mathcal{CN}(h; 0, \mathrm{diag}(\gamma))$ whose variance $\gamma$ is re-estimated at every reverse-time step by EM from the parallel channel samples. The joint reverse SDE separates $y = Ah + n + \epsilon$ into a sparse signal and a structured noise component. At SNR = 30 dB and SIR = 5 dB, DM-SBL (DMPS) and DM-SBL (PiGDM) achieve single-realization channel NMSE of $-29.95$ dB and $-30.47$ dB, respectively, versus $-8.90$ dB for SBL, and at SIR = $-5$ dB DM-SBL remains informative while the baselines fail.

Load-bearing premise

The method depends on the Eq. (13) factorization approximating the true joint posterior closely enough that the mean of the channel samples is trustworthy; no error bound or validation is given for that approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low SIR, performance stays stable across SNR, while AWGN-assuming baselines degrade sharply; at SIR = -5 dB DM-SBL still yields useful estimates and the baselines exceed 0 dB NMSE.
  • Using more parallel samples K and more sampling steps T lowers the NMSE of the averaged estimate, and the mean of samples is consistently better than any single sample.
  • Because no channel score is trained, the same learned interference score transfers across channel settings (p0 = 10, L = 200 and p0 = 15, L = 300) with only the EM-updated gamma adapting.
  • Both likelihood approximations work; PiGDM gives slightly better NMSE than DMPS at a modest increase in runtime (about 11 s versus 18 s for the tested setting).
  • The framework is presented as applicable to other linear inverse problems in which structured interference contaminates measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a testable ablation would hold the learned interference score fixed and vary K, since the K-sample averaging in Eq. (13) is doing double duty as both a Monte Carlo estimate and an approximation to the joint posterior; if most of the gain persists even at K = 1, the factorization is less load-bearing than it appears.
  • Editorial inference: the same joint sampler could be applied to other inverse problems with structured artifacts, such as radar clutter suppression or image reconstruction with correlated sensor noise, provided the artifact class can be simulated for score training.
  • Editorial inference: the hyperparameters mu and kappa in Eq. (37) are set per scenario with no tuning rule, so a natural extension is to derive them from the relative scales of the prior and likelihood scores rather than fixing them manually.
  • Editorial inference: because the interference score is the only trained component, deployment cost is dominated by simulating realistic interference, not by collecting channel-specific training data.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DM-SBL, a diffusion-model-based sparse Bayesian learning method for estimating a sparse channel from observations corrupted by both AWGN and structured interference. The interference score is learned by a diffusion model, while the channel is modeled as a zero-mean Gaussian with sparsity-controlling variance gamma updated via an EM-like procedure. The joint reverse SDE is run over K parallel channel and interference samples using a factorized posterior approximation, and two likelihood approximations (DMPS and PiGDM) are used. Simulations on an underwater acoustic channel with LFM interference report large NMSE improvements over MMSE, SBL, EM-BGGAMP, VAMP, and OMP, especially at low SIR.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper offers a practical way to exploit a learned interference score without training a channel score, which is attractive for underwater acoustic and radar/communication coexistence scenarios. The analytic channel score, the use of two different perturbed-likelihood approximations, and the K-sample averaging are useful engineering contributions, and the paper reports computational times and a clear algorithmic framework. However, the validity of the method rests on an unproven K-sample factorization, the printed algorithm and score equations contain dimensional/indexing errors that block literal reproduction, and the evaluation is limited to LFM interference against AWGN-based baselines only. These gaps currently prevent the strong empirical claims from being fully supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (13)-(15)] Equation (13) defines the joint posterior targeted by the reverse SDE as a product over all pairs of K-sample posterior factors. This is called an 'implementation trick' and no derivation, error bound, or validation is provided. Since the score updates in Eq. (15) and the final channel estimate are the mean under this factored density, the central claim rests on this approximation. Please add either a derivation or a reference explaining the validity of this factorization for the K-sample joint posterior of h and n, or provide an empirical validation, e.g., a small-scale experiment comparing the factorized score with a Monte-Carlo estimate of the true conditional score, and an ablation over K (K = 1, 4, 16, 64, 256).
  2. [Section III-A, Eq. (25) and Eq. (29)] Equation (25) contains a dimensional error: the DMPS score for h_t^{(i)} uses y - (1/alpha(t)) A^H h_t^{(i)} - ..., but A is M x L, so A^H h_t^{(i)} is L-dimensional and cannot be subtracted from y; the correct term, as in Eq. (22)-(24) and Table I, is A h_t^{(i)}. Similarly, Eq. (29) states that nabla_{h_t} \hat{h}_t = (I_M + ...)/alpha(t), while the quantity is an L x L Jacobian and must be I_L. These errors make the algorithm impossible to execute exactly as printed and must be corrected.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (36) and Algorithm 1 lines 16, 27] The EM update gamma_new(l) = (1/alpha^2(t))(nu_h^t(l) + |\hat{h}_t(l)|^2) - 2(1-alpha^2(t))/alpha^2(t) can be negative, because the subtracted term can dominate when the sample variance and mean are small. Since gamma is a variance, negative values are invalid and would break the subsequent score evaluation. Please modify the update to gamma <- max(0, expression), or derive the constrained EM solution, and verify that the reported results use such a clip.
  4. [Algorithm 1, lines 2, 19-25] The reverse-time discretization is not written consistently: dt is initialized to -1/T, but line 19 updates h^{(i)}_{t-dt} using h^{(i)}_{t-dt} on the right-hand side instead of h^{(i)}_t, and because dt < 0 the quantity t-dt = t + 1/T moves forward in time rather than backward. This is not the standard predictor-corrector discretization of the reverse SDE and cannot be reproduced as printed. Please rewrite the loop with an explicit decreasing time grid and correct the update equations.
  5. [Section IV] The experimental section supports the central claim only for LFM interference and only against AWGN-based baselines, and it does not state the number of Monte Carlo realizations or provide error bars for Figs. 6 and 7. To substantiate the abstract's broad claim, add a comparison with a structured-interference-aware method such as the diffusion-based approach of [9], report results for at least one additional interference class (e.g., CW or HFM), and provide confidence intervals or error bars. Also state whether the mu and kappa values are tuned per SIR/SNR setting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the complicate structure' should be 'the complicated structure'.
  2. [Section III-C heading] The heading 'Updating γ' is preceded by the typo 'nusiance parameter' in the text; it should be 'nuisance parameter'.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption repeats labels (a), (b), (c) for the second row of subfigures; the lower row should be labeled (d), (e), (f).
  4. [Fig. 3 caption and Section IV text] The text refers to 'DM-SBL (GDM)' in several places (e.g., Fig. 3 caption and the discussion after Fig. 7); this should be 'DM-SBL (ΠGDM)' for consistency with the notation introduced in Section III-B.
  5. [Eq. (34) following text] The word 'elemenwise' should be 'elementwise'.
  6. [Section IV, Table II] The pilot length is not reported, only the resulting M = 200; given M = N - L + 1, stating N for L = 200 and L = 300 would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DM-SBL's reported gains are empirical results against external baselines; Eq. (13) is an explicitly labeled approximation, not a hidden input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison, and its derivation chain does not reduce any prediction to its own inputs by construction. The channel update uses an analytic Gaussian prior (Eqs. 16-19) combined with two published likelihood approximations, DMPS and PiGDM, neither of which is derived from the paper's target result. The interference score is learned by a neural network, not assumed from the channel estimate. The EM update for gamma in Eq. (36) is the standard SBL-style update using sample moments of the current posterior samples; while the samples and gamma are mutually dependent through iteration, this is an estimation algorithm, not a definitional equivalence. The K-sample factorization in Eq. (13) is explicitly called an 'implementation trick' borrowed from [10,20] and is a heuristic approximation without an error bound; this is a correctness and generalization risk, but the paper does not present it as a derived first-principles result, so it is not circularity. The headline NMSE figures are measured against external baselines (MMSE, SBL, OMP, VAMP, EM-BGGAMP) and are not fitted outputs of the method. The only self-citations, such as refs. [4] and [22] including authors Qu and Zhu, are background and simulation-setup references and are not load-bearing. The dimensional inconsistency in Eq. (25), where A^H h_t appears instead of A h_t, is an implementation/correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the diffusion-model score for interference, the SBL channel prior, the K-sample factorization trick, the EM update for gamma, and the DMPS or PiGDM likelihood approximations. No new physical entity is introduced. The main free parameters are the hand-tuned weighting coefficients kappa and mu, the empirical r_t, and several unspecified algorithm settings such as rho, nu, beta_min, and beta_max.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa (interference score weight) = 0.18 (DMPS, L=200); 0.05 (PiGDM, L=200); 0.15 (DMPS, L=300); 0.05 (PiGDM, L=300)
    Introduced in Eq (37) to improve stability; hand-picked per algorithm and channel length in the simulations.
  • mu (channel prior weight) = 1 for all simulations
    Set by hand in Eq (37) without a stated selection rule.
  • r_t (PiGDM posterior standard deviation) = sqrt(2(1 - alpha^2(t)))
    Called an empirical parameter in Sec III-B when approximating p(h0|ht) and p(n0|nt) as Gaussian with covariance r_t^2 I.
  • gamma initialization scale rho = not specified
    Algorithm 1 line 1 uses gamma <- rho * 1_L but does not define or report rho.
  • Number of reverse steps T and parallel samples K = T=500, K=256 in main results
    Algorithm settings chosen in Sec IV-A; Fig 5 studies T, but K is not varied.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math VP-SDE score-based diffusion framework and score matching produce a usable estimate of the score function.
    Adopted in Sec II-B; background methodology not re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper K-sample joint posterior factorization p(bar-h_t, bar-n_t | y) = product_{i,j} p(h_i,n_j | y)^(1/K).
    Eq (13) calls this an implementation trick; it underpins the reverse SDE (14) and score decomposition (15).
  • ad hoc to paper Conditional posterior score separates into channel prior, interference score, and averaged likelihood terms.
    Eq (15) uses the factorization plus independence p(h_i,n_j)=p(h_i)p(n_j); not exact for the true joint posterior.
  • domain assumption The trained interference score matches the distribution of interference seen at test time.
    Sec II-A motivates structured interference as LFM, CW, HFM, or ship noise, but the paper does not state the training distribution or demonstrate generalization beyond simulated LFM.
  • domain assumption DMPS and PiGDM noise-perturbed likelihood approximations are valid for complex-valued data.
    Sec III-A and III-B adopt published approximations without modification for complex signals, though the score network processes real and imaginary parts separately.
  • domain assumption The sparse channel prior h ~ CN(0, diag(gamma)) is adequate for underwater acoustic channels.
    Eq (3) states the standard SBL assumption; used to derive the analytic channel score.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DM-SBL: Channel Estimation under Structured Interference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLXWWVRG

@misc{pith2026241205582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DM-SBL: Channel Estimation under Structured Interference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLXWWVRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05582}
}
read the original abstract

Channel estimation is a fundamental task in communication systems and is critical for effective demodulation. While most works deal with a simple scenario where the measurements are corrupted by the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), this work addresses the more challenging scenario where both AWGN and structured interference coexist. Such conditions arise, for example, when a sonar/radar transmitter and a communication receiver operate simultaneously within the same bandwidth. To ensure accurate channel estimation in these scenarios, the sparsity of the channel in the delay domain and the complicate structure of the interference are jointly exploited. Firstly, the score of the structured interference is learned via a neural network based on the diffusion model (DM), while the channel prior is modeled as a Gaussian distribution, with its variance controlling channel sparsity, similar to the setup of the sparse Bayesian learning (SBL). Then, two efficient posterior sampling methods are proposed to jointly estimate the sparse channel and the interference. Nuisance parameters, such as the variance of the prior are estimated via the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. The proposed method is termed as DM based SBL (DM-SBL). Numerical simulations demonstrate that DM-SBL significantly outperforms conventional approaches that deal with the AWGN scenario, particularly under low signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) conditions. Beyond channel estimation, DM-SBL also shows promise for addressing other linear inverse problems involving structured interference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Probabilistic graph of the forward process and system model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Iterative joint conditional sampling procedure for DM-SBL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Amplitude of PK i=1 h (i) t /(Kα(t)) and ground truth in DM-SBL (ΠGDM): (a) t = 0.998; (b) t = 0.98; (c) t = 0.8; (d) t = 0. • OMP [27]: Classic compressed sensing algorithm based on greedy method, where the sparsity of the channel h is known. • SBL [28]: The noise and interference are assumed to be AWGN, the prior of the channel h is assumed to be Gaussian distributed and the sparsity is controlled by its variance.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ground truth and estimated channel amplitude in a single realization, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sampled channel NMSE versus time t for different setting of sampling steps T using DM-SBL (DMPS) and DM-SBL (ΠGDM), number of samples K = 256 in each time step, p0 = 10, L = 200, SNR = 30 dB and SIR = 5 dB. (a) DM-SBL (DMPS), T = 60; (b) DM-SBL (DMPS), T = 250; (c) DM-…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The NMSEs of the channel estimates versus SNR for all algorithms, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The NMSEs of the channel estimates versus SNR for all algorithms, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Structure of the score estimating network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Removing structured noise with diffusion models,

    T. S. Stevens, H. van Gorp, F. C. Meral, J. Shin, J. Yu, J.-L. Robert, and R. J. van Sloun, “Removing structured noise with diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05290 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Joint channel estimation and impulsive noise mitigation in underwater acoustic ofdm communication systems,

    P. Chen, Y . Rong, S. Nordholm, Z. He, and A. J. Duncan, “Joint channel estimation and impulsive noise mitigation in underwater acoustic ofdm communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 6165–6178, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    On the estimation of doubly-selective fading channels,

    F. Qu and L. Yang, “On the estimation of doubly-selective fading channels,” in 2008 42nd Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems . IEEE, 2008, pp. 1279–1284

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Efficient estimation and prediction for sparse time-varying underwater acoustic channels,

    Y . Zhang, R. Venkatesan, O. A. Dobre, and C. Li, “Efficient estimation and prediction for sparse time-varying underwater acoustic channels,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1112–1125, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Bayesian iterative channel estimation and turbo equalization for multiple- input–multiple-output underwater acoustic communications,

    X. Qin, F. Qu, and Y . R. Zheng, “Bayesian iterative channel estimation and turbo equalization for multiple- input–multiple-output underwater acoustic communications,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 326–337, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Exploiting spatial–temporal joint sparsity for underwater acoustic multiple-input–multiple-output communications,

    Y . Zhou, F. Tong, A. Song, and R. Diamant, “Exploiting spatial–temporal joint sparsity for underwater acoustic multiple-input–multiple-output communications,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 352–369, 2020. December 10, 2024 DRAFT JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 20

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Song, Learning to Generate Data by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distribution

    Y . Song, Learning to Generate Data by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distribution . Stanford University, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Mimo channel estimation using score-based generative models,

    M. Arvinte and J. I. Tamir, “Mimo channel estimation using score-based generative models,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3698–3713, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Solving linear inverse problems using higher-order annealed langevin diffusion,

    N. Zilberstein, A. Sabharwal, and S. Segarra, “Solving linear inverse problems using higher-order annealed langevin diffusion,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Score-based source separation with applications to digital communication signals,

    T. Jayashankar, G. C. Lee, A. Lancho, A. Weiss, Y . Polyanskiy, and G. Wornell, “Score-based source separation with applications to digital communication signals,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Diffusion model based posterior sampling for noisy linear inverse problems,

    X. Meng and Y . Kabashima, “Diffusion model based posterior sampling for noisy linear inverse problems,” in The 16th Asian Conference on Machine Learning (Conference Track) , 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems,

    J. Song, A. Vahdat, M. Mardani, and J. Kautz, “Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Improved techniques for training score-based generative models,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Improved techniques for training score-based generative models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 12 438–12 448, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, “Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Reverse-time diffusion equation models,

    B. D. Anderson, “Reverse-time diffusion equation models,” Stochastic Processes and their Applications , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 313–326, 1982

    1982

  11. [19]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,

    H. Chung, J. Kim, M. T. Mccann, M. L. Klasky, and J. C. Ye, “Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14687 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, “Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 8780–8794, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Kotz and N

    S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson, Breakthroughs in Statistics: F oundations and basic theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Joint cfo, gridless channel estimation and data detection for underwater acoustic ofdm systems,

    L. Wan, J. Zhu, E. Cheng, and Z. Xu, “Joint cfo, gridless channel estimation and data detection for underwater acoustic ofdm systems,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. , vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1215–1230, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    C. R. Berger, S. Zhou, J. C. Preisig, and P. Willett, “Sparse channel estimation for multicarrier underwater December 10, 2024 DRAFT JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 21 acoustic communication: From subspace methods to compressed sensing,”IEEE Trans. Si...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Expectation-maximization gaussian-mixture approximate message passing,

    J. P. Vila and P. Schniter, “Expectation-maximization gaussian-mixture approximate message passing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 61, no. 19, pp. 4658–4672, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Generalized approximate message passing,

    “Generalized approximate message passing,” 2011. [Online]. Available: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ gampmatlab/

    2011

  18. [26]

    Vector approximate message passing,

    S. Rangan, P. Schniter, and A. K. Fletcher, “Vector approximate message passing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 6664–6684, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,

    T. T. Cai and L. Wang, “Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,” IEEE Transactions on Information theory , vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4680–4688, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,

    M. E. Tipping, “Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,” Journal of machine learning research, vol. 1, no. Jun, pp. 211–244, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18 . ...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.