pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.04601 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 📡 eess.SP

Two-Point Resolution in Spectral Super-Resolution

Xiaole He , Ping Liu , Junling Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords spectral super-resolutiontwo-point resolutionrelative phasesource detectionlocation estimationsingle snapshotresolution bounds
0
0 comments X

The pith

The relative phase between two sources significantly alters the super-resolution limits, improving scaling in out-of-phase regimes.

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

This paper establishes resolution bounds for two closely spaced sources observed in a single snapshot of noisy spectral data. It considers a model where the sources have unequal amplitudes and a relative phase difference, deriving both upper bounds that guarantee successful detection and estimation, and lower bounds showing when stable recovery becomes impossible. The key finding is that the relative phase changes how the resolution limit depends on noise level and number of measurements, with out-of-phase cases allowing better performance than the classical in-phase case. Readers should care because this reveals phase as an exploitable factor rather than just a complication in applications like radar, sonar, and imaging. The work also identifies which reconstruction algorithms achieve these fundamental limits.

Core claim

In the in-phase regime, the classical resolution exponents are retained: (σ/m)^{1/2} for source-number detection and (σ/m)^{1/3} for location estimation. In the out-of-phase regimes, the phase term significantly changes the resolution limit: it acts as a direct subtractive term in the near-endpoint regime, and improves the scaling orders in the large-phase regime to σ/m for source-number detection and (σ/m)^{1/2} for location estimation.

What carries the argument

Super-resolution upper bounds (SRUs) and super-resolution lower bounds (SRLs) derived from the complex two-point model with relative phase, which characterize the effects on resolvability for detection and estimation.

If this is right

  • Classical scaling holds only in in-phase cases.
  • Out-of-phase near-endpoint regime subtracts phase effect directly from the bound.
  • Large-phase regime yields improved scaling: linear in σ/m for detection and square-root for location.
  • ℓ0, ML, and ESPRIT algorithms achieve the optimal bounds across regimes, while SVT, MUSIC, and convex methods do not.
  • Phase is a factor that can be exploited to improve stable resolvability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Signal design could aim to control relative phase for enhanced resolution in practice.
  • The phase effects might extend to multi-source scenarios beyond two points.
  • These bounds provide a way to predict performance in real systems without relying on specific algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The complex two-point model with unequal amplitudes and nontrivial relative phase from a single snapshot accurately represents the applications and the bounds capture the fundamental limits without additional restrictions on noise or measurements.

What would settle it

An experiment where the observed resolution threshold for large-phase out-of-phase sources scales differently from σ/m for detection or (σ/m)^{1/2} for location estimation would disprove the improved scaling claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04601 by Junling Wang, Ping Liu, Xiaole He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stable performance of each algorithm for source-number detection view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stable performance of each algorithm for location estimation under the in-phase regime. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stable performance of each algorithm for source-number detection under the near-endpoint phase regime. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stable performance of each algorithm for location estimation under the near-endpoint phase regime. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stable performance of each algorithm for source-number detection view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stable performance of each algorithm for location estimation under the large-phase regime. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Two-point super-resolution is an important problem in many signal processing applications. In this paper, we aim to establish a resolution theory for two-point super-resolution from a single snapshot. We consider a complex two-point model with unequal amplitudes and a nontrivial relative phase, and derive super-resolution upper bounds (SRUs) guaranteeing resolvability as well as super-resolution lower bounds (SRLs) below which stable reconstruction is impossible. The resulting bounds provide an explicit characterization of how the amplitude ratio and, more importantly, the relative phase affect the resolution limit for both source-number detection and location estimation. In the in-phase regime, the classical resolution exponents are retained: \((\sigma/m)^{1/2}\) for source-number detection and \((\sigma/m)^{1/3}\) for location estimation. In the out-of-phase regimes, the phase term significantly changes the resolution limit: it acts as a direct subtractive term in the near-endpoint regime, and improves the scaling orders in the large-phase regime to \(\sigma/m\) for source-number detection and \((\sigma/m)^{1/2}\) for location estimation. Extensive numerical experiments across different phase regimes and reconstruction algorithms validate the predicted scaling laws and theoretical resolution boundaries. Moreover, comparison with our resolution limit in all phase regimes reveals the optimality of \(\ell_0\), ML, and ESPRIT algorithms, and the non-optimality of SVT, MUSIC, and the convex method, a finding that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been reported before. Collectively, our results show that the phase of amplitudes is not merely a nuisance in super-resolution, but a key factor that can be exploited to improve stable resolvability.

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 manuscript develops a resolution theory for two-point spectral super-resolution from a single snapshot under a complex-valued model that incorporates unequal amplitudes and a nontrivial relative phase. It derives super-resolution upper bounds (SRUs) guaranteeing resolvability and super-resolution lower bounds (SRLs) below which stable reconstruction fails. The bounds explicitly quantify the effects of amplitude ratio and relative phase: classical scaling exponents are recovered in the in-phase regime, while out-of-phase regimes yield a direct subtractive effect near endpoints and improved scaling of σ/m for source-number detection and (σ/m)^{1/2} for location estimation in the large-phase regime. Numerical experiments across phase regimes and algorithms (ℓ0, ML, ESPRIT, SVT, MUSIC, convex methods) are used to validate the predicted laws and establish optimality of certain methods.

Significance. If the derivations are rigorous and the single-snapshot complex model representative, the results would meaningfully advance super-resolution theory by demonstrating that relative phase is not merely a nuisance but can be exploited to tighten resolution limits beyond the classical in-phase case. The explicit phase-dependent scaling laws and the reported optimality distinctions among algorithms could inform both theoretical analyses and practical algorithm design in applications such as radar, sonar, and imaging. The numerical validation across regimes provides supporting evidence for the scaling predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [large-phase regime analysis] Derivation of SRLs/SRUs in the large-phase regime (the section presenting the improved scaling orders): the claimed exponents σ/m for source-number detection and (σ/m)^{1/2} for location estimation are load-bearing for the central claim that phase improves resolvability. However, the single-snapshot model y = a1 v(f1) + a2 e^{iθ} v(f2) + noise treats θ as a nontrivial unknown parameter. When θ must be jointly estimated with {f1, f2, a1, a2}, the Fisher information matrix is 5×5; the manuscript must clarify whether the bounds condition on known θ or marginalize over its estimation, as the latter typically degrades conditioning and can eliminate the reported scaling improvement.
  2. [numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section (the part reporting optimality of ℓ0/ML/ESPRIT and non-optimality of SVT/MUSIC/convex): the validation claims rest on the theoretical bounds, yet the experiments do not specify whether θ is fixed at its true value or jointly estimated from the single snapshot, nor do they detail the precise noise model or provide quantitative error metrics (e.g., success rates with confidence intervals) that would confirm the bounds are tight. This leaves open whether the observed performance matches the derived SRLs/SRUs under the joint-estimation setting.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction introduce SRU and SRL acronyms without an immediate forward reference to their precise definitions; a brief parenthetical definition on first use would improve readability.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the numerical results could more explicitly state the phase regime, amplitude ratio, and whether θ is known or estimated in each panel to allow direct comparison with the theoretical claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify key aspects of our analysis. We address the major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [large-phase regime analysis] Derivation of SRLs/SRUs in the large-phase regime (the section presenting the improved scaling orders): the claimed exponents σ/m for source-number detection and (σ/m)^{1/2} for location estimation are load-bearing for the central claim that phase improves resolvability. However, the single-snapshot model y = a1 v(f1) + a2 e^{iθ} v(f2) + noise treats θ as a nontrivial unknown parameter. When θ must be jointly estimated with {f1, f2, a1, a2}, the Fisher information matrix is 5×5; the manuscript must clarify whether the bounds condition on known θ or marginalize over its estimation, as the latter typically degrades conditioning and can eliminate the reported scaling improvement.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the role of θ. Our derivations of the SRLs and SRUs in the large-phase regime are performed conditionally on a fixed, known relative phase θ. This conditioning isolates the explicit dependence of the resolution limits on the phase value and yields the reported scaling improvements. The manuscript does not state this assumption explicitly, which we acknowledge as an omission. In the revision we will add a clear statement that the bounds are conditional on known θ, together with a short discussion of the 5×5 Fisher information matrix that arises under joint estimation and the fact that the improved scaling is guaranteed only when θ is known (or estimated with negligible error). revision: yes

  2. Referee: [numerical experiments] Numerical experiments section (the part reporting optimality of ℓ0/ML/ESPRIT and non-optimality of SVT/MUSIC/convex): the validation claims rest on the theoretical bounds, yet the experiments do not specify whether θ is fixed at its true value or jointly estimated from the single snapshot, nor do they detail the precise noise model or provide quantitative error metrics (e.g., success rates with confidence intervals) that would confirm the bounds are tight. This leaves open whether the observed performance matches the derived SRLs/SRUs under the joint-estimation setting.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting these gaps in the experimental description. In the reported simulations θ was set to its true value (i.e., fixed and known) to match the conditional theoretical bounds; the noise is i.i.d. complex circularly symmetric Gaussian with variance σ². We will revise the numerical-experiments section to state this explicitly, to give the precise noise model, and to include quantitative metrics such as empirical success rates together with 95 % confidence intervals. These additions will make the validation of the predicted scaling laws and the optimality claims fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bounds derived directly from model without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper derives SRUs and SRLs from the explicit complex two-point model with parameters including relative phase θ, using standard resolvability analysis (Fisher information or equivalent criteria) applied to the single-snapshot observation. No step renames a fitted quantity as a prediction, invokes self-citation for a uniqueness theorem, or defines the output in terms of itself. The phase-regime scalings (σ/m and (σ/m)^{1/2} in large-phase case) are obtained by direct asymptotic analysis of the model equations rather than by construction from data fits. Numerical comparisons to ESPRIT/ML etc. are external validations, not internal tautologies. This matches the default non-circular case for a model-based derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the two-point complex model and standard noise assumptions in super-resolution; amplitude ratio and relative phase are treated as varying model parameters rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • amplitude ratio
    Model parameter whose effect on bounds is characterized explicitly
  • relative phase
    Key variable that alters resolution scaling in different regimes
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Single-snapshot complex two-point observation model
    Basis for deriving SRUs and SRLs
  • domain assumption Standard additive noise model (implicitly Gaussian)
    Required for stable reconstruction impossibility results

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1300 out tokens · 45100 ms · 2026-05-08T17:18:16.303697+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Towards a mathematical theory of super-resolution,

    E. J. Candès and C. Fernandez-Granda, “Towards a mathematical theory of super-resolution,”Communications on pure and applied Mathematics, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 906–956, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Height measurement of low-angle target using mimo radar under multipath interference,

    Y. Liu, B. Jiu, X.-G. Xia, H. Liu, and L. Zhang, “Height measurement of low-angle target using mimo radar under multipath interference,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 808–818, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Signal-level fusion-based height estimation of low-elevation target for distributed radar,

    Q. Liu, R. Guo, J. Wang, S. Xu, and Z. Chen, “Signal-level fusion-based height estimation of low-elevation target for distributed radar,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Super-resolution of 3-d gpr signals to estimate thin asphalt overlay thickness using the xcmp method,

    S. Zhao and I. L. Al-Qadi, “Super-resolution of 3-d gpr signals to estimate thin asphalt overlay thickness using the xcmp method,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote sensing, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 893–901, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A new approach for the estimation of lake ice thickness from conventional radar altimetry,

    A. Mangilli, P . Thibaut, C. R. Duguay, and J. Murfitt, “ A new approach for the estimation of lake ice thickness from conventional radar altimetry,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 60, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Non-destructive evaluation of polymer composite materials at the manufacturing stage using terahertz pulsed spectroscopy,

    E. V . Yakovlev, K. I. Zaytsev, I. N. Dolganova, and S. O. Yurchenko, “Non-destructive evaluation of polymer composite materials at the manufacturing stage using terahertz pulsed spectroscopy,”IEEE Transactions on Terahertz science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 810–816, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Distributed ecm al- gorithm for othr multipath target tracking with unknown ionospheric heights,

    H. Lan, Y. Liang, Z. Wang, F . Yang, and Q. Pan, “Distributed ecm al- gorithm for othr multipath target tracking with unknown ionospheric heights,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 61–75, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Layover solution in multibaseline sar interferometry,

    F . Gini, F . Lombardini, and M. Montanari, “Layover solution in multibaseline sar interferometry,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1344–1356, 2003

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    3d interfero- metric isar imaging of noncooperative targets,

    M. Martorella, D. Stagliano, F . Salvetti, and N. Battisti, “3d interfero- metric isar imaging of noncooperative targets,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 3102–3114, 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Layover compensation method for regional spaceborne sar imagery without gcps,

    H. Wang, Q. Cheng, T . Wang, G. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Li, and B. Jiang, “Layover compensation method for regional spaceborne sar imagery without gcps,”IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 8367–8381, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Reflectivity estimation for multibaseline interferometric radar imaging of layover extended sources,

    F . Lombardini, M. Montanari, and F . Gini, “Reflectivity estimation for multibaseline interferometric radar imaging of layover extended sources,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1508–1519, 2003

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    Multi- view data-based layover information compensation method for sar image mosaic,

    R. Liu, F . Wang, N. Jiao, H. You, Y. Hu, G. Zhou, and Y. Chen, “Multi- view data-based layover information compensation method for sar image mosaic,”Remote Sensing, vol. 16, no. 3, p. 564, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Unresolved rayleigh target detection using monopulse measurements,

    W . D. Blair and M. Brandt-Pearce, “Unresolved rayleigh target detection using monopulse measurements,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 543–552, 2002

    work page 2002

  14. [14]

    Time of arrival and angle of arrival estimation algorithm in dense multipath,

    N. Rogel, D. Raphaeli, and O. Bialer, “Time of arrival and angle of arrival estimation algorithm in dense multipath,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 5907–5919, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Doa estimation of two targets with deep learning,

    Y. Kase, T . Nishimura, T . Ohgane, Y. Ogawa, D. Kitayama, and Y. Kishiyama, “Doa estimation of two targets with deep learning,” in 2018 15th Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communications (WPNC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–5

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Joint estimation of unre- solved leader–follower in the presence of dense false signals using monopulse radar,

    Q. Huang, H. Fan, F . Cai, and H. Xiao, “Joint estimation of unre- solved leader–follower in the presence of dense false signals using monopulse radar,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 9635–9649, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Unambiguous angle estimation of unresolved targets in monopulse radar,

    S.-p. Lee, B.-L. Cho, S.-m. Lee, J.-e. Kim, and Y.-s. Kim, “Unambiguous angle estimation of unresolved targets in monopulse radar,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1170–1177, 2015

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Efficient and unambiguous two-target resolution via subarray-based four-channel monopulse,

    S. L. Wang, Z.-H. Xu, X. Yang, Z. Li, and G. Wang, “Efficient and unambiguous two-target resolution via subarray-based four-channel monopulse,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 885– 900, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Joint detection and tracking of unresolved targets with monopulse radar,

    N. Nandakumaran, A. Sinha, and T . Kirubarajan, “Joint detection and tracking of unresolved targets with monopulse radar,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1326–1341, 2008

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    Multiple target tracking with unresolved measurements,

    R. B. Angle, R. L. Streit, and M. Efe, “Multiple target tracking with unresolved measurements,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 28, pp. 319–323, 2021. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 21

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    High-resolution imaging and 3-d recon- struction of precession targets by exploiting sparse apertures,

    X. He, N. Tong, and X. Hu, “High-resolution imaging and 3-d recon- struction of precession targets by exploiting sparse apertures,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1212–1220, 2017

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Bertsekas,Convex optimization theory

    D. Bertsekas,Convex optimization theory. Athena Scientific, 2009, vol. 1

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity,

    S. Bubeck, “Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity,”Foun- dations and trends in Machine Learning, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 231–357, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Convex and non-convex optimization under generalized smoothness,

    H. Li, J. Qian, Y. Tian, A. Rakhlin, and A. Jadbabaie, “Convex and non-convex optimization under generalized smoothness,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 40 238–40 271, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Super-resolution of point sources via convex programming,

    C. Fernandez-Granda, “Super-resolution of point sources via convex programming,”Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 251–303, 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    On the stable resolution limit of total variation regularization for spike deconvolution,

    M. F . Da Costa and Y. Chi, “On the stable resolution limit of total variation regularization for spike deconvolution,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 7237–7252, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    A characterization of the non-degenerate source condition in super-resolution,

    V . Duval, “ A characterization of the non-degenerate source condition in super-resolution,”Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 235–269, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Maximum likelihood estimation,

    J.-X. Pan and K.-T . Fang, “Maximum likelihood estimation,” inGrowth curve models and statistical diagnostics. Springer, 2002, pp. 77–158

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    On the resolution probability of conditional and unconditional maximum likelihood doa estimation,

    X. Mestre and P . Vallet, “On the resolution probability of conditional and unconditional maximum likelihood doa estimation,”IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 4656–4671, 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Probability of resolution of partially relaxed deterministic maximum likelihood: An asymptotic approach,

    D. Schenck, X. Mestre, and M. Pesavento, “Probability of resolution of partially relaxed deterministic maximum likelihood: An asymptotic approach,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 852– 866, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Katayama,Subspace methods for system identification

    T . Katayama,Subspace methods for system identification. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  32. [32]

    Subspace methods for joint sparse recovery,

    K. Lee, Y. Bresler, and M. Junge, “Subspace methods for joint sparse recovery,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3613–3641, 2012

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Iterative methods for sub- space and doa estimation in nonuniform noise,

    B. Liao, S.-C. Chan, L. Huang, and C. Guo, “Iterative methods for sub- space and doa estimation in nonuniform noise,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 3008–3020, 2016

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Multiple signal classification algorithm for super-resolution fluorescence microscopy,

    K. Agarwal and R. Machá ˇ n, “Multiple signal classification algorithm for super-resolution fluorescence microscopy,”Nature communica- tions, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 13752, 2016

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Esprit-estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques,

    R. Roy and T . Kailath, “Esprit-estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques,”IEEE Transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 984–995, 2002

    work page 2002

  36. [36]

    Stability and super-resolution of music and esprit for multi-snapshot spectral estimation,

    W . Li, Z. Zhu, W . Gao, and W . Liao, “Stability and super-resolution of music and esprit for multi-snapshot spectral estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 4555–4570, 2022

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    The esprit algorithm under high noise: Optimal error scaling and noisy super-resolution,

    Z. Ding, E. N. Epperly, L. Lin, and R. Zhang, “The esprit algorithm under high noise: Optimal error scaling and noisy super-resolution,” in2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2344–2366

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy,

    S. W . Hell and J. Wichmann, “Breaking the diffraction resolution limit by stimulated emission: stimulated-emission-depletion fluorescence microscopy,”Optics letters, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 780–782, 1994

    work page 1994

  39. [39]

    Video-rate far-field optical nanoscopy dissects synaptic vesicle movementvideo-rate far-field optical nanoscopy dis- sects synaptic vesicle movement,

    V . Westphalsilvio, O. Rizzolimarcel, A. Lauterbachdirk, J. Kaminere- inhard, and S. Hell, “Video-rate far-field optical nanoscopy dissects synaptic vesicle movementvideo-rate far-field optical nanoscopy dis- sects synaptic vesicle movement,”Science, vol. 320, pp. 246–249, 2008

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy,

    S. T . Hess, T . P . Girirajan, and M. D. Mason, “Ultra-high resolution imaging by fluorescence photoactivation localization microscopy,” Biophysical journal, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. 4258–4272, 2006

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolution,

    E. Betzig, G. Patterson, R. Sougrat, O. Lindwasser, S. Olenych, J. Boni- facino, M. Davidson, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, and H. Hess, “Imaging intracellular fluorescent proteins at nanometer resolution,”Science, vol. 313, pp. 1642–1645, 2006

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (storm),

    M. Rust, M. Bates, and X. Zhuang, “Sub-diffraction-limit imaging by stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (storm),”Nat. Methods, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 793–796, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    Exact support recovery for sparse spikes deconvolution,

    V . Duval and G. Peyré, “Exact support recovery for sparse spikes deconvolution,”Foundations of Computational Mathematics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1315–1355, 2015

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Multidimensional sparse super-resolution,

    C. Poon and G. Peyré, “Multidimensional sparse super-resolution,” SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–44, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Near minimax line spectral estimation,

    G. Tang, B. N. Bhaskar, and B. Recht, “Near minimax line spectral estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 499–512, 2014

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    Super-resolution of positive sources on an arbitrarily fine grid,

    V . I. Morgenshtern, “Super-resolution of positive sources on an arbitrarily fine grid,”J. Fourier Anal. Appl., vol. 28, no. 1, p. Paper No. 4., 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Support recovery for sparse super-resolution of positive measures,

    Q. Denoyelle, V . Duval, and G. Peyré, “Support recovery for sparse super-resolution of positive measures,”Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1153–1194, 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    A mathematical theory of super-resolution and two-point resolution,

    P . Liu and H. Ammari, “ A mathematical theory of super-resolution and two-point resolution,” inForum of Mathematics, Sigma, vol. 12. Cambridge University Press, 2024, p. e83

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    The recoverability limit for superreso- lution via sparsity,

    L. Demanet and N. Nguyen, “The recoverability limit for superreso- lution via sparsity,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.01385, 2015

    work page arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Conditioning of partial nonuniform fourier matrices with clustered nodes,

    D. Batenkov, L. Demanet, G. Goldman, and Y. Yomdin, “Conditioning of partial nonuniform fourier matrices with clustered nodes,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 199– 220, 2020

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Stable super-resolution limit and smallest singular value of restricted fourier matrices,

    W . Li and W . Liao, “Stable super-resolution limit and smallest singular value of restricted fourier matrices,”Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 51, pp. 118–156, 2021

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Super-resolution of near- colliding point sources,

    D. Batenkov, G. Goldman, and Y. Yomdin, “Super-resolution of near- colliding point sources,”Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 515–572, 2021

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Analysis of the sparse super resolution limit using the cramér-rao lower bound,

    M. Hockmann, “ Analysis of the sparse super resolution limit using the cramér-rao lower bound,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 390–395, 2024

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    A theory of computational resolution limit for line spectral estimation,

    P . Liu and H. Zhang, “ A theory of computational resolution limit for line spectral estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 4812–4827, 2021

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    A mathematical theory of resolu- tion limits for super-resolution of positive sources,

    P . Liu, Y. He, and H. Ammari, “ A mathematical theory of resolu- tion limits for super-resolution of positive sources,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13541, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Superresolution via sparsity constraints,

    D. L. Donoho, “Superresolution via sparsity constraints,”SIAM journal on mathematical analysis, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1309–1331, 1992

    work page 1992

  57. [57]

    A mathematical theory of computational reso- lution limit in multi-dimensional spaces,

    P . Liu and H. Zhang, “ A mathematical theory of computational reso- lution limit in multi-dimensional spaces,”Inverse Problems, vol. 37, no. 10, p. 104001, 2021

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    A theory of computational resolution limit for line spectral estimation,

    ——, “ A theory of computational resolution limit for line spectral estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 4812–4827, 2021

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    A mathematical theory of computational resolution limit in one dimension,

    ——, “ A mathematical theory of computational resolution limit in one dimension,”Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 56, pp. 402–446, 2022

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Improved resolution estimate for the two- dimensional super-resolution and a new algorithm for direction of arrival estimation with uniform rectangular array,

    P . Liu and H. Ammari, “Improved resolution estimate for the two- dimensional super-resolution and a new algorithm for direction of arrival estimation with uniform rectangular array,”Foundations of Computational Mathematics, pp. 1–50, 2023

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    Unitary esprit: How to obtain increased estimation accuracy with a reduced computational burden,

    M. Haardt and J. A. Nossek, “Unitary esprit: How to obtain increased estimation accuracy with a reduced computational burden,”IEEE transactions on signal processing, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1232–1242, 2002

    work page 2002

  62. [62]

    Resolution limits for atomic decompositions via markov- bernstein type inequalities,

    G. Tang, “Resolution limits for atomic decompositions via markov- bernstein type inequalities,” in2015 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 548– 552. Xiaole Hewas born in Shuozhou, Shanxi, China, in 1999. She received the B.S. degree from Xidian University, China, in 2021. She is currently pursuing the Ph....

    work page 2015