pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26793 · v2 · pith:4LFL6X5Wnew · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.LG · eess.SP

Super-resolution Multi-signal Direction-of-Arrival Estimation by Hankel-structured Sensing and Decomposition

Georgios I. Orfanidis , Dimitris A. Pados , George Sklivanitis , Elizabeth S. Bentley This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG eess.SP
keywords direction-of-arrival estimationsuper-resolutionHankel structurematrix decompositionmaximum-likelihood estimationL1 normL2 normarray signal processing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Hankel-structured sensing and decomposition framework produces super-resolution multi-signal direction-of-arrival estimates that are maximum-likelihood optimal under Gaussian or Laplace noise.

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

The paper develops a framework for estimating directions of arrival for multiple signals when spatial sampling is hardware-constrained and coherence time is short. It structures the collected data as a Hankel matrix and decomposes that matrix under either an L2 or L1 norm. The L2 formulation is maximum-likelihood optimal when noise is white Gaussian; the L1 formulation is maximum-likelihood optimal for i.i.d. isotropic Laplace noise and therefore resists impulsive interference. Simulations indicate that both versions reach super-resolution at lower signal-to-noise ratios and with higher success rates than existing methods. The work targets practical sensing in autonomous systems that must operate with limited resources and in imperfect conditions.

Core claim

A novel framework for rapid super-resolution multi-signal direction-of-arrival estimation is obtained by Hankel-structured sensing and data matrix decomposition of arbitrary rank under both the L2 and L1-norm formulation; the resulting L2-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in white Gaussian noise and the L1-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in independent identically distributed isotropic Laplace noise.

What carries the argument

Hankel-structured sensing and data matrix decomposition of arbitrary rank, which recovers the arrival directions by enforcing the low-rank structure implied by the multi-signal model.

If this is right

  • The L2-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in white Gaussian noise.
  • The L1-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in i.i.d. isotropic Laplace noise and therefore robust to impulsive interference.
  • Both estimators exhibit super-resolution performance at significantly lower SNR than competing approaches.
  • Resolution probability is substantially higher than that of recent methods under the same conditions.
  • The framework supports hardware-constrained spatial sampling over large arrays with limited coherence time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition approach could be applied to related array-processing tasks such as source localization or beamforming when similar low-rank structure is present.
  • Real-world deployment on physical arrays would test how closely actual sensor noise matches the Laplace model used for robustness claims.
  • Because the decomposition handles arbitrary rank, the method may not require prior knowledge of the exact number of signals.
  • The framework could be combined with further compression steps to reduce the number of physical sensors still more.

Load-bearing premise

The data matrix must admit a low-rank Hankel structure that is consistent with the underlying multi-signal model.

What would settle it

An experiment in which the collected data matrix lacks the expected low-rank Hankel structure yet the proposed estimators still claim to outperform standard methods at low SNR would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26793 by Dimitris A. Pados, Elizabeth S. Bentley, George Sklivanitis, Georgios I. Orfanidis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sliding-window sensing across a uniform linear array of view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Summary of proposed L2-norm K-signal DoA estimation algorithm from Hankel-sensed data. The following theorem establishes the maximum￾likelihood optimality of the proposed L2-norm K-signal DoA estimator from the data matrix X in the presence of i.i.d white Gaussian noise. The proof is given in the Appendix. Theorem 1. Under independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) circularly symmetric complex Gaussian n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of proposed L1-norm K-signal DoA estimation algorithm from Hankel-sensed data. IV. Simulation studies and comparisons In this section, we present simulation studies designed to evaluate the performance of the proposed DoA estimators under the sensing architecture introduced in Section II. The experiments focus on assessing the resolution capa￾bilities of the proposed Hankel matrix decomposition– ba… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected SNR required for successful resolution as a function view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability of resolution versus SNR for view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability of resolution versus ∆θ for SNR = 10 dB: (a) M = 16, and (b) M = 32. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b) view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected SNR required for successful resolution as a function view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Probability of resolution versus SNR for view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Probability of resolution versus SNR for view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Probability of resolution versus ∆θ for SNR = 10dB, impulse probability p = 0.1: (a) M = 16, and (b) M = 32. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b) view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Probability of resolution versus ∆θ for SNR = 15dB, impulse probability p = 0.1: (a) M = 16, and (b) M = 32. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b) view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motivated by sensing modalities in modern autonomous systems that involve hardware-constrained spatial sampling over large arrays with limited coherence time, we develop a novel framework for rapid super-resolution multi-signal direction-of-arrival (DoA) estimation based on Hankel-structured sensing and data matrix decomposition of arbitrary rank, under both the $L_2$ and $L_1$-norm formulation. The resulting $L_2$-norm estimator is shown to be maximum-likelihood optimal in white Gaussian noise. The $L_1$-norm estimator is shown to be maximum-likelihood optimal in independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) isotropic Laplace noise, offering broad robustness to impulsive interference and corrupted measurements commonly encountered in practice. Extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed methods exhibit powerful super-resolution capabilities, requiring significantly lower SNR and achieving substantially higher resolution probability than recent competing approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hankel-structured sensing and decomposition framework for super-resolution multi-signal DoA estimation under hardware constraints. It introduces L2-norm and L1-norm estimators, asserting that the L2 version is maximum-likelihood optimal under white Gaussian noise and the L1 version is maximum-likelihood optimal under i.i.d. isotropic Laplace noise. Simulations are used to demonstrate superior super-resolution performance, lower SNR requirements, and higher resolution probability relative to recent competing methods.

Significance. If the ML-optimality derivations hold after accounting for the structure of the sensing model, the framework would supply a theoretically grounded, robust approach to DoA estimation that directly addresses impulsive interference and limited coherence time. The combination of Hankel low-rank decomposition with explicit noise-model optimality could influence practical array processing in autonomous systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the L2-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in white Gaussian noise is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the Hankel construction re-uses each raw measurement noise sample across multiple matrix entries. This induces correlations, so that Frobenius-norm minimization on the observed Hankel matrix does not coincide with the log-likelihood on the original array data vector (or covariance). The same mismatch applies to the L1-norm claim under i.i.d. Laplace noise. A weighted norm or an explicit equivalence proof is required to substantiate the optimality statements.
  2. [Sensing model and estimator derivation] Section describing the sensing model and estimator derivation: The low-rank Hankel structure is invoked to recover directions of arrival, but the manuscript must clarify whether the noise model is placed directly on the Hankel entries or on the underlying array snapshots. If the latter, the optimality proofs must compensate for the overlapping entries; otherwise the estimators are not ML for the physical measurement process.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Simulations] Simulation section: The abstract reports superior performance but supplies no details on the number of Monte-Carlo trials, exact array geometry, or how the competing methods were implemented; these omissions hinder reproducibility.
  2. [Notation] Notation: The distinction between the observed data matrix and the reconstructed low-rank Hankel matrix should be made explicit in all equations to avoid ambiguity when discussing the norms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight an important subtlety in the noise modeling that we have now addressed explicitly. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the placement of the noise model and to supply the requested equivalence proof that accounts for entry overlaps in the Hankel matrix. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the L2-norm estimator is maximum-likelihood optimal in white Gaussian noise is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the Hankel construction re-uses each raw measurement noise sample across multiple matrix entries. This induces correlations, so that Frobenius-norm minimization on the observed Hankel matrix does not coincide with the log-likelihood on the original array data vector (or covariance). The same mismatch applies to the L1-norm claim under i.i.d. Laplace noise. A weighted norm or an explicit equivalence proof is required to substantiate the optimality statements.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s identification of the correlation issue arising from overlapping entries. The original derivation places white Gaussian (respectively i.i.d. isotropic Laplace) noise on the underlying array snapshots; the Hankel matrix is obtained by a known linear mapping of these snapshots. In the revised manuscript we have added Appendix A, which derives the exact log-likelihood of the original data vector and shows that it is equivalent to a weighted Frobenius-norm (respectively weighted L1-norm) criterion on the observed Hankel matrix, where the weighting matrix is explicitly constructed from the overlap pattern. The unweighted norms used in the main text are therefore the ML estimators after this equivalence is established. The same construction applies to the L1 case. We believe this resolves the concern while preserving the stated optimality claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sensing model and estimator derivation] Section describing the sensing model and estimator derivation: The low-rank Hankel structure is invoked to recover directions of arrival, but the manuscript must clarify whether the noise model is placed directly on the Hankel entries or on the underlying array snapshots. If the latter, the optimality proofs must compensate for the overlapping entries; otherwise the estimators are not ML for the physical measurement process.

    Authors: We thank the referee for requesting this clarification. The revised Section 3 now states explicitly that the probabilistic noise model is defined on the raw array snapshots. The subsequent estimator derivation has been expanded to include the linear mapping to the Hankel matrix and the explicit compensation for overlapping entries via the covariance (or scale) matrix of the vectorized Hankel observations. The resulting weighted-norm criteria are shown to be exactly maximum-likelihood for the physical measurements. These additions directly address the referee’s requirement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in ML-optimality derivations

full rationale

The paper presents L2-norm and L1-norm estimators derived from Hankel-structured sensing and decomposition, then states they are maximum-likelihood optimal under white Gaussian and i.i.d. isotropic Laplace noise respectively. These claims are positioned as first-principles results from the respective noise models applied to the structured matrix. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described framework. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the stated assumptions; any mismatch between raw-array noise statistics and induced Hankel-entry correlations is a correctness concern rather than a reduction of the result to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides insufficient detail to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no explicit fitting constants or new postulated objects are named.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1055 out tokens · 29114 ms · 2026-05-21T00:20:47.273911+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. L. Van Trees, Optimum array processing: Part IV of detec- tion, estimation, and modulation theory. John Wiley & Sons, Apr. 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Two decades of array signal processing research: The parametric approach,

    H. Krim and M. Viberg, “Two decades of array signal processing research: The parametric approach,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 67–94, Jul. 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Application of antenna arrays to mobile com- munications. II. beam-forming and direction-of-arrival consid- erations,

    L. C. Godara, “Application of antenna arrays to mobile com- munications. II. beam-forming and direction-of-arrival consid- erations,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, no. 8, pp. 1195–1245, Aug. 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Direction- of-arrival analysis of airborne ice depth sounder data,

    U. Nielsen, J.-B. Yan, S. Gogineni, and J. Dall, “Direction- of-arrival analysis of airborne ice depth sounder data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 2239–2249, Apr. 2017. 12 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b...

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Coherent DOA estimation in sea surface observation with direction-finding HF radar,

    J. Zhao, Y. Tian, B. Wen, and Z. Tian, “Coherent DOA estimation in sea surface observation with direction-finding HF radar,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 6651–6661, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    DOA estimation of underwater acoustic signals based on deep learning,

    P. Li and Y. Tian, “DOA estimation of underwater acoustic signals based on deep learning,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Seminar Artif. Intell., Netw. Inf. Technol. (AINIT), Shanghai, China, Oct. 2021, pp. 221–225

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Direction-of-arrival angle and position estimation for extended targets using multichannel airborne radar data,

    S. K. Joshi, S. V. Baumgartner, A. B. C. da Silva, and G. Krieger, “Direction-of-arrival angle and position estimation for extended targets using multichannel airborne radar data,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 19, pp. 1–5, Feb. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Maximum likelihood methods for direction-of-arrival estimation,

    P. Stoica and K. C. Sharman, “Maximum likelihood methods for direction-of-arrival estimation,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1132–1143, Jul. 1990

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

    Sensor array data processing for multiple-signal sources,

    F. Schweppe, “Sensor array data processing for multiple-signal sources,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 294–305, Mar. 1968

    work page 1968

  10. [10]

    MUSIC, maximum likelihood, and Cramér–Rao bound,

    P. Stoica and A. Nehorai, “MUSIC, maximum likelihood, and Cramér–Rao bound,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 720–741, May 1989

    work page 1989

  11. [11]

    Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,

    R. Schmidt, “Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 276–280, Mar. 1986

    work page 1986

  12. [12]

    ESPRIT—estimation of signal parame- ters via rotational invariance techniques,

    R. Roy and T. Kailath, “ESPRIT—estimation of signal parame- ters via rotational invariance techniques,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 984–995, Jul. 1989

    work page 1989

  13. [13]

    Sensor array processing based on subspace fitting,

    M. Viberg and B. Ottersten, “Sensor array processing based on subspace fitting,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1110–1121, May 1991

    work page 1991

  14. [14]

    Subspace direction finding with an auxiliary-vector basis,

    R. Grover, D. A. Pados, and M. J. Medley, “Subspace direction finding with an auxiliary-vector basis,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 758–763, Jan. 2007

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    Tensor-based near-field localization using massive antenna arrays,

    I. Podkurkov, G. Seidl, L. Khamidullina, A. Nadeev, and M. Haardt, “Tensor-based near-field localization using massive antenna arrays,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 69, pp. 5830– 5845, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Performance analysis of direction finding with large arrays and finite data,

    M. Viberg, B. Ottersten, and A. Nehorai, “Performance analysis of direction finding with large arrays and finite data,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 469–477, Feb. 1995

    work page 1995

  17. [17]

    Coverage analysis of UA Vs in millimeter wave networks: A stochastic geometry approach,

    M. Boschiero, M. Giordani, M. Polese, and M. Zorzi, “Coverage analysis of UA Vs in millimeter wave networks: A stochastic geometry approach,” in Proc. Int. Wireless Commun. Mobile Comput. Conf. (IWCMC), Limassol, Cyprus, Jun. 2020, pp. 351–357

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Millimeter wave wireless assisted robot navigation with link state classification,

    M. Yin, A. K. Veldanda, A. Trivedi, J. Zhang, K. Pfeiffer, Y. Hu, S. Garg, E. Erkip, L. Righetti, and S. Rangan, “Millimeter wave wireless assisted robot navigation with link state classification,” IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc., vol. 3, pp. 493–507, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Path planning under uncertainty to localize mmWave sources,

    K. Pfeiffer, Y. Jia, M. Yin, A. K. Veldanda, Y. Hu, A. Trivedi, J. Zhang, S. Garg, E. Erkip, S. Rangan, and L. Righetti, “Path planning under uncertainty to localize mmWave sources,” in 13 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b) Fig. 15: Probability...

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Radio SLAM: A review on radio- based simultaneous localization and mapping,

    B. Amjad, Q. Z. Ahmed, P. I. Lazaridis, M. Hafeez, F. A. Khan, and Z. D. Zaharis, “Radio SLAM: A review on radio- based simultaneous localization and mapping,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 9260–9278, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    A comprehensive survey on internet of things (IoT) toward 5g wireless systems,

    L. Chettri and R. Bera, “A comprehensive survey on internet of things (IoT) toward 5g wireless systems,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–32, Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Toward fine-grained indoor localization based on massive MIMO-OFDM system: Experiment and analysis,

    C. Li, S. D. Bast, E. Tanghe, S. Pollin, and W. Joseph, “Toward fine-grained indoor localization based on massive MIMO-OFDM system: Experiment and analysis,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 5318–5328, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Single-sample direction-of-arrival estimation for fast and robust 3d localization with real measure- ments from a massive MIMO system,

    S. Mazokha, S. Naderi, G. I. Orfanidis, G. Sklivanitis, D. A. Pados, and J. O. Hallstrom, “Single-sample direction-of-arrival estimation for fast and robust 3d localization with real measure- ments from a massive MIMO system,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), Rhodes Island, Greece, Jun. 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    mmWave M2M networks: Improving de- lay performance of relaying,

    Z. Chen and D. Smith, “mmWave M2M networks: Improving de- lay performance of relaying,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 577–589, Jan. 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    A survey of emerging M2M systems: Context, task, and objective,

    Y. Cao, T. Jiang, and Z. Han, “A survey of emerging M2M systems: Context, task, and objective,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1246–1258, Jun. 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Computationally efficient DOA and carrier estimation for coherent signal using single snapshot and its time-delay replications,

    R. Wu, M. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “Computationally efficient DOA and carrier estimation for coherent signal using single snapshot and its time-delay replications,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2469–2480, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    A sparse signal reconstruction perspective for source localization with sensor arrays,

    D. Malioutov, M. Çetin, and A. S. Willsky, “A sparse signal reconstruction perspective for source localization with sensor arrays,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 3010– 3022, Aug. 2005

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Underdetermined DOA estimation under the compressive sensing framework: A review,

    Q. Shen, W. Liu, W. Cui, and S. Wu, “Underdetermined DOA estimation under the compressive sensing framework: A review,” IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 8865–8878, Nov. 2016

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Square-root lasso: Pivotal recovery of sparse signals via conic programming,

    A. Belloni, V. Chernozhukov, and L. Wang, “Square-root lasso: Pivotal recovery of sparse signals via conic programming,” Biometrika, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 791–806, Nov. 2011

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    New method of sparse parameter estimation in separable models and its use for spectral analysis of irregularly sampled data,

    P. Stoica, P. Babu, and J. Li, “New method of sparse parameter estimation in separable models and its use for spectral analysis of irregularly sampled data,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 35–47, Jan. 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    A note on the SPICE method,

    C. R. Rojas, D. Katselis, and H. Hjalmarsson, “A note on the SPICE method,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 61, no. 18, pp. 4545–4551, Sep. 2013

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Connection between SPICE and square- root LASSO for sparse parameter estimation,

    P. Babu and P. Stoica, “Connection between SPICE and square- root LASSO for sparse parameter estimation,” Signal Process., vol. 95, pp. 10–14, Feb. 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Sparse signal reconstruction from limited data using FOCUSS: A re-weighted minimum norm algorithm,

    I. F. Gorodnitsky and B. D. Rao, “Sparse signal reconstruction from limited data using FOCUSS: A re-weighted minimum norm algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 600– 14 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (b) Fig. 17: Probabili...

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Subset selection in noise based on diversity measure minimization,

    B. D. Rao, K. Engan, S. F. Cotter, J. Palmer, and K. Kreutz- Delgado, “Subset selection in noise based on diversity measure minimization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 760–770, Mar. 2003

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Sparse learning via iterative minimization with application to MIMO radar imaging,

    X. Tan, W. Roberts, J. Li, and P. Stoica, “Sparse learning via iterative minimization with application to MIMO radar imaging,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1088– 1101, Mar. 2011

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    A fast approach for overcomplete sparse decomposition based on smoothed ℓ0 norm,

    H. Mohimani, M. Babaie-Zadeh, and C. Jutten, “A fast approach for overcomplete sparse decomposition based on smoothed ℓ0 norm,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 289–301, Jan. 2009

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    Source localization and sensing: A nonparametric iterative adaptive approach based on weighted least squares,

    T. Yardibi, J. Li, P. Stoica, M. Xue, and A. B. Baggeroer, “Source localization and sensing: A nonparametric iterative adaptive approach based on weighted least squares,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 425–443, Jan. 2010

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    Compressed sensing off the grid,

    G. Tang, B. N. Bhaskar, P. Shah, and B. Recht, “Compressed sensing off the grid,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 7465–7490, Nov. 2013

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Robust spectral compressed sensing via structured matrix completion,

    Y. Chen and Y. Chi, “Robust spectral compressed sensing via structured matrix completion,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 6576–6601, Oct. 2014

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Sparse methods for direction-of-arrival estimation,

    Z. Yang, J. Li, P. Stoica, and L. Xie, “Sparse methods for direction-of-arrival estimation,” in Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 7. Academic Press, 2018, pp. 509– 581

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Single-snapshot DOA estimation by using compressed sens- ing,

    S. Fortunati, R. Grasso, F. Gini, M. S. Greco, and K. LePage, “Single-snapshot DOA estimation by using compressed sens- ing,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2014, pp. 1–17, Jul. 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Array signal process- ing with interconnected neuron-like elements,

    R. Rastogi, P. Gupta, and R. Kumaresan, “Array signal process- ing with interconnected neuron-like elements,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), Dallas, TX, USA, Apr. 1987, pp. 2328–2331

    work page 1987

  43. [43]

    Neural networks for narrowband and wideband direction finding,

    D. Goryn and M. Kaveh, “Neural networks for narrowband and wideband direction finding,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), New York, NY, USA, Apr. 1988, pp. 2164–2167

    work page 1988

  44. [44]

    Direction of arrival estimation using artificial neural networks,

    S. Jha and T. Durrani, “Direction of arrival estimation using artificial neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1192–1201, Sep. 1991

    work page 1991

  45. [45]

    Model-based deep learning: Key approaches and design guide- lines,

    N. Shlezinger, J. Whang, Y. C. Eldar, and A. G. Dimakis, “Model-based deep learning: Key approaches and design guide- lines,” in Proc. IEEE Data Sci. Learn. Workshop (DSL W), Toronto, ON, Canada, Jun. 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Single-snapshot direction- of-arrival estimation of multiple targets using a multi-layer perceptron,

    J. Fuchs, R. Weigel, and M. Gardill, “Single-snapshot direction- of-arrival estimation of multiple targets using a multi-layer perceptron,” in Proc. IEEE MTT-S Int. Conf. Microw. Intell. Mobility (ICMIM), Detroit, MI, USA, Apr. 2019, pp. 1–4

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Deep-MLE: Fusion 15 between a neural network and MLE for a single snapshot DOA estimation,

    M. L. L. de Oliveira and M. J. G. Bekooij, “Deep-MLE: Fusion 15 between a neural network and MLE for a single snapshot DOA estimation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), Singapore, May 2022, pp. 3673–3677

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Performance advantages of deep neural networks for angle of arrival estimation,

    O. Bialer, N. Garnett, and T. Tirer, “Performance advantages of deep neural networks for angle of arrival estimation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), Brighton, U.K., May 2019, pp. 3907–3911

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Interpretable and efficient beamforming-based deep learning for single snapshot DOA estimation,

    R. Zheng, S. Sun, H. Liu, H. Chen, and J. Li, “Interpretable and efficient beamforming-based deep learning for single snapshot DOA estimation,” IEEE Sensors J., Dec. 2023, early Access

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Single-sample direction-of- arrival estimation by Hankel-matrix decompositions,

    G. I. Orfanidis, D. A. Pados, G. Sklivanitis, E. S. Bentley, J. Suprenant, and M. J. Medley, “Single-sample direction-of- arrival estimation by Hankel-matrix decompositions,” in Proc. 56th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput., Pacific Grove, CA, USA, Nov. 2022, pp. 1026–1030

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Time-series analysis with small and faulty data: L1-norm decompositions of hankel matrices,

    G. I. Orfanidis, D. A. Pados, and G. Sklivanitis, “Time-series analysis with small and faulty data: L1-norm decompositions of hankel matrices,” in Proc. SPIE Big Data IV: Learning, Analytics, and Applications, vol. 12097, Orlando, FL, USA, May 2022, pp. 97–104

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Channel reconstruction-aided MUSIC algorithms for joint AoA & AoD estimation in MIMO systems,

    T. Ma, Y. Xiao, and X. Lei, “Channel reconstruction-aided MUSIC algorithms for joint AoA & AoD estimation in MIMO systems,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 322–326, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    On single snapshot direction-of-arrival estimation,

    C. Degen, “On single snapshot direction-of-arrival estimation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Wireless Space Extreme Environ. (WiSEE), Montréal, QC, Canada, Oct. 2017, pp. 92–97

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,

    Y. Hua and T. Sarkar, “Matrix pencil method for estimating parameters of exponentially damped/undamped sinusoids in noise,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 814–824, May 1990

    work page 1990

  55. [55]

    Elimination of the effects of mutual coupling in adaptive thin wire antennas,

    R. S. Adve, “Elimination of the effects of mutual coupling in adaptive thin wire antennas,” Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA, 1996

    work page 1996

  56. [56]

    MUSIC for single-snapshot spectral estimation: Stability and super-resolution,

    W. Liao and A. Fannjiang, “MUSIC for single-snapshot spectral estimation: Stability and super-resolution,” Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 33–67, Jan. 2016

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    On spatial smoothing for direction-of-arrival estimation of coherent signals,

    T.-J. Shan, M. Wax, and T. Kailath, “On spatial smoothing for direction-of-arrival estimation of coherent signals,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 806–811, Aug. 1985

    work page 1985

  58. [58]

    Single snapshot DOA estimation based on spatial smoothing MUSIC and CNN,

    C. Liu, W. Feng, H. Li, and H. Zhu, “Single snapshot DOA estimation based on spatial smoothing MUSIC and CNN,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Signal Process., Commun. Comput. (ICSPCC), Xi’an, China, Aug. 2021, pp. 1–5

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. V. Loan, Matrix Computations, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD, USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996

    work page 1996

  60. [60]

    Optimal rank-1 Hankel approximation of matrices: Frobenius norm and spectral norm and Cadzow’s algorithm,

    H. Knirsch, M. Petz, and G. Plonka, “Optimal rank-1 Hankel approximation of matrices: Frobenius norm and spectral norm and Cadzow’s algorithm,” Linear Algebra and its Appl., vol. 629, pp. 1–39, Nov. 2021

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Hankel and Toeplitz rank-1 decomposition of arbitrary ma- trices with applications to few-shot signal direction-of-arrival estimation,

    G. I. Orfanidis, D. A. Pados, G. Sklivanitis, and E. S. Bentley, “Hankel and Toeplitz rank-1 decomposition of arbitrary ma- trices with applications to few-shot signal direction-of-arrival estimation,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., submitted, Apr. 2026

    work page 2026

  62. [62]

    Birkes and Y

    D. Birkes and Y. Dodge, Alternative Methods of Regression. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1993

    work page 1993

  63. [63]

    Least absolute deviations curve- fitting,

    P. Bloomfield and W. Steiger, “Least absolute deviations curve- fitting,” SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 290–301, 1980

    work page 1980

  64. [64]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cam- bridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  65. [65]

    An iterative technique for absolute devi- ations curve fitting,

    E. J. Schlossmacher, “An iterative technique for absolute devi- ations curve fitting,” J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., vol. 68, no. 344, pp. 857–859, Dec. 1973

    work page 1973

  66. [66]

    A new descent algorithm for the least absolute value regression problem,

    G. O. Wesolowsky, “A new descent algorithm for the least absolute value regression problem,” Commun. Statist. Simul. Comput., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 479–491, Jul. 1980

    work page 1980

  67. [67]

    Single snapshot DOA estimation,

    P. Häcker and B. Yang, “Single snapshot DOA estimation,” Adv. Radio Sci., vol. 8, pp. 251–256, Sep. 2010

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    S. L. Marple, Jr., Digital Spectral Analysis. Mineola, NY, USA: Dover Publications, Mar. 2019

    work page 2019