Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Multi-UAV Tracking Evaluation Using 5G Uplink Signals on an O-RAN ISAC Simulation Testbed

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that multi-target UAV tracking on a 5G integrated-sensing link is limited by detection contention and identity management rather than by sensitivity, and that wall-clock evaluation artifacts can masquerade as tracking…

desk verdict A disciplined, honestly-scoped O-RAN ISAC testbed evaluation whose headline claim (contention, not sensitivity) is real but conditional on a declared target count the authors themselves flag as indefensible in the field. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10784 v1 pith:Q3NRMZNV submitted 2026-08-11 cs.NI eess.SP

Arun K. Gurung , Satha K. Sathananthan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIeess.SP
keywords integratedsensingandcommunicationO-RAN5GNRuplinksoundingreferencesignalmulti-targettrackingdataassociationcounter-UASbistaticradaruniformplanararray
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

The paper tries to establish that, for cellular integrated sensing and communication, the binding constraint on multi-target tracking is contention for detections rather than sensitivity, and that a counter-UAS consumer needs identity and track availability, not just detection accuracy. It builds an emulation-only testbed that repurposes the 5G uplink sounding reference signal as a passive radar waveform, flies three UAVs of differing size and altitude through one bistatic pair, and measures where the pipeline loses targets. The claim, if true, redirects effort: a sensor that detects every target can still fail to track them because two targets share one detection in about 74% of coherent processing intervals, and the weakest targets are detected far more often than they are tracked. The paper also argues that evaluation artifacts, such as the testbed running far slower than real time, can change the diagnostic; re-scoring the same detections on the sensor's own timeline lifts coverage and inverts the error decomposition.

What carries the argument

The carrier is the uplink-sounding-reference-signal sensing chain: clutter-subspace deflation, range-Doppler order-statistic CFAR with non-maximum suppression, single-snapshot interferometric angle estimation on a 2×4 planar array, and an extended Kalman filter with probabilistic data association and birth inhibition running as a RIC xApp. The decisive quantity is the contested-cell fraction, the share of coherent processing intervals in which two targets' nearest detection is the same detection; it is what separates the contention claim from a sensitivity claim. A second load-bearing mechanism is the sensor-timeline replay, which re-spaces recorded detections at the 0.64 s coherent-processing-interval period so that tracker constants carrying wall-clock units, such as publication lifetime and coverage polling, no longer dominate the metric.

What would settle it

Run the same three-target scene with the detector's capacity supplied as two targets instead of three: if the weakest target's detections vanish silently from the range-Doppler map, then the contention-not-sensitivity conclusion is an artifact of the declared target count rather than a property of the sensor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper argues that for three simultaneous UAVs observed by one bistatic pair with an 8-element planar receive array, the sensor detects all three targets but cannot feed a usable multi-target picture to a counter-UAS command-and-control system. The binding limit is contention, not sensitivity: in 73.7±4.8% of coherent processing intervals two targets' nearest detection is the same detection, and targets are detected far more often than they are tracked (one target is detected in 72.7±4.0% of intervals yet holds a track in 12.9% of its life). Elevation from the planar array does not separate targets that share a range-Doppler cell, but it is the deciding association discriminant in 58% of intervals. The paper also claims that the testbed's wall-clock slowness imposes a 38.0% coverage ceiling that makes 'mostly tracked' unreachable by construction, and that re-scoring the same detections on the sensor's own timeline raises coverage from 14.6% to 41.5% and changes the GOSPA error decomposition.

Load-bearing premise

The detector's internal buffers are sized from the true target count, which a real counter-UAS sensor would not know, so every availability and coverage figure in the paper assumes the sensor has been told how many targets to expect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For cellular-ISAC multi-target tracking, once every target is detectable, further sensitivity investment will not improve C2-useful tracking; the levers are association and birth-admission rules.
  • A counter-UAS consumer that needs stable identifiers will judge this sensor unusable even though detection is largely successful, because two of the three targets hold tracks in well under a fifth of their detection-bearing intervals.
  • Any evaluation of a real-time-constrained digital twin must either run at or above real time or state which timeline its tracker constants live in; wall-clock scoring can create a coverage ceiling that looks like tracker failure.
  • A vertical aperture on a single array should be budgeted for association rather than promised as 3-D localization, since it cannot resolve coincident range-Doppler cells but can settle association in 58% of intervals in this geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the contention result transfers beyond this geometry, then the highest-value work is identity management, including birth admission, multi-hypothesis tracking, and track-level confidence, rather than waveform or sensitivity engineering.
  • The declared-target-count caveat suggests a deployable detector needs an online count estimator or a capacity law robust to under-declaration; the paper shows exactly why silent drops are the failure mode to guard against.
  • The sensor-timeline replay discipline likely generalizes to any hardware-in-the-loop or emulation campaign: metrics scored on host wall-clock time can be dominated by execution-rate artifacts, so publications should state the units of every tracker constant.
  • A downstream fusion node should not integrate the exported detection confidence over a track's life, because the calibration is per cell and ignores association ambiguity; the paper explicitly leaves track-level confidence uncalibrated, implying that is the next necessary step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates multi-target UAV detection, association, and tracking on an O-RAN simulation testbed that reuses the 5G NR uplink sounding reference signal as a passive radar waveform. Three UAVs with different altitudes, velocities, and radar cross sections fly a single bistatic geometry over a 2x4 planar receive array. The evaluation is scored against what a counter-UAS C2 consumer needs, not detection accuracy alone. The main claims are: (i) once every target is detected, contention—two targets sharing one nearest detection—is the binding limit rather than sensitivity; (ii) targets are detected far more often than they are tracked; (iii) the vertical aperture buys association rather than localization; and (iv) concurrent tracks can be exported to a C2 fusion node over a SAPIENT adapter carrying a calibrated detection confidence. The statistical design is 10 noise seeds on one deterministic trajectory and one gNB siting, plus a single alternative-heading experiment, all in emulation without radios.

Significance. If the contention-not-sensitivity claim holds, the paper makes a useful and falsifiable point: for this class of cellular ISAC sensors, the bottleneck in multi-target tracking is association and identity preservation, not raw detection. The paper is unusually disciplined in its evaluation reporting. It discloses that the N=10 campaign is actually two batches of 5 from different repository revisions, runs permutation tests at the revision boundary, withdraws the small-sample identity claim when it does not survive doubling, conditions the gated RMSE and quantifies its selection effect, and repeatedly states that magnitudes are scenario-specific while mechanisms are what transfer. It also ships committed artifacts and a single script that regenerates all figures, which is exemplary for reproducibility. These strengths make the paper's limitations especially important: the central measurement, per-target availability under contention, is obtained with a detector whose capacity is set from the true target count, a quantity unavailable to a real counter-UAS sensor.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VIII-C and Table I] The detector's raw CFAR crosser list and per-CPI detection cap are derived from a declared target count N_T=3 (560 and 18 entries), and the paper states that N_T is 'declared, not estimated' and that an under-declared count 'silently drops the weakest target.' Because the per-target availability figures (83.7/72.7/53.7%) and the contested-cell fraction (73.7±4.8%) are measured under a detector pre-told the true number of targets, the headline 'contention, not sensitivity' conclusion is conditional on exactly the field condition that fails. Please add a robustness experiment with over- and under-declared N_T (e.g., 1, 2, 4, 5) showing whether the weakest target is dropped and whether the contention-versus-sensitivity ordering survives, or explicitly reframe the conclusion as applying only to a detector with a priori target-count knowledge.
  2. [Section IX-G and Table IX] The diagonal-heading experiment is the only geometric variation, and its control did not hold: availability fell for all three targets, including the two whose trajectories were unchanged (UA V-A 83.71→77.93, UA V-C 53.73→46.94). The paper reports this honestly, but it means the experiment cannot attribute the contention rise to the heading change rather than to other scene differences, and the 73.7±4.8% contention estimate therefore rests on a single favorable geometry. Please provide at least one additional geometry in which the unchanged targets hold still, or restrict the contention claim to the rendered scenarios rather than presenting it as a transferable mechanism.
  3. [Section X, Table X, and Table VII] The 7.5 m bistatic range-bias constant was configured but never reached the estimator, so every bistatic range figure carries the uncorrected under-read. This directly affects the per-target accuracy rows in Table VII and the statement that UA V-A meets the 1 m to 10 m use-case requirement (8.13 m). While the disclosure is scrupulous, the one quantitative comparison to an external KPI is made against a knowingly biased measurement. Please report the corrected values, or state quantitatively why the bias does not change the comparison, before the KPI table is used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The string 'UA V' appears throughout the title and abstract where 'UAV' is intended; this appears to be a rendering artifact and should be normalized.
  2. [Section XII-D and Figure 3] The caption says '4 object_id' and the text says the tracker carried the 3 targets on five slots of which four reached confirmation; this is consistent but the relationship between 'five slots' and 'four identities' would be clearer if explained in the caption or a table.
  3. [Section XII-B] The statement that the bridged wall-clock continuity figure is below the unbridged sensor-timeline one is central to the timeline argument; a small table reporting single-target continuity on both timelines with and without bridging would make this easier to read than the current prose.
  4. [Section I and Reference [8]] The companion manuscript [8] carries the coordinate frame, measurement model, and platform description; please state its review status or provide a stable citation so readers can verify that the deferred derivations are publicly available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central contention-vs-sensitivity result is measured on an independent multi-target campaign, and the declared-N_T instrumentation is an explicitly conditional limitation rather than a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim is an empirical comparison within its own multi-target campaign: per-target availability (83.7/72.7/53.7%) and the contested-cell fraction (73.7±4.8%) are computed from rendered detections and one-to-one assignments, not derived from the inputs. The detector-capacity constants (512-entry crosser list, 16-detection cap) are indeed derived from a declared N_T=3 (Section VIII-C), but this is an acknowledged instrumentation choice: the authors state 'N T is declared, not estimated' and that declaring N_T 'would be indefensible in the field.' That limits generality — under a wrong N_T the weakest target can be silently dropped — but it does not make the measured availability/contention numbers equal to the input by construction; they vary across targets, seeds, and the alternative-heading experiment. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the detection-confidence map is a calibration from the single-target PD-vs-SNR characterization, explicitly restricted to detector-cell confidence and not exported as track or identity confidence. Citations to the companion manuscript [8] supply platform background and single-target characterization, but the paper re-reports the figures it relies on (e.g., PD=0.90 at the operating point in Appendix C), and the multi-target claim rests on this paper's own logs, replay, and controls. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz imported by citation, and no renaming of a known result; the paper's own limitations (one geometry, 10 seeds, emulation-only) are stated as scope restrictions rather than hidden by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, and the honest non-finding is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a handful of disclosed modeling and evaluation choices: the detector is told the true target count, the channel and targets are point-like emulations with no RF impairments, and the statistical design is one geometry with ten seeds. These are stated openly, but they bound the generality of the numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Declared target count N_T = 3
    Detector crosser-list and per-CPI detection cap are sized from the true scene target count (Section VIII-C); a field sensor would not know this, and under-declaration silently drops the weakest target.
  • EKF measurement noise stds (sigma_R, sigma_v, sigma_az, sigma_el) = 6.0 m, 0.89 m/s, 6 deg, 9.3 deg
    Set from truth-referenced residual spread after cone-angle correction (Section X, Table I); they gate association and influence identity metrics.
  • Scoring gate radius = 20 m
    Coverage and gated RMSE are defined within this hand-chosen gate; the paper shows the gated advantage reverses when the gate is removed (Section IX-C), so the gate is load-bearing for the reported accuracy claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each UAV scatters as a single diffuse sphere with no extended-body scattering, rotor micro-Doppler, occlusion, or target-to-target coupling.
    Section III-B; the contention and detection numbers are computed for point-like echoes, and real airframe echoes could merge or separate differently.
  • domain assumption The emulator's ray-traced channel plus AWGN reproduces the sensing statistics of a real RF link.
    No radios are used; oscillator, timing and interference impairments are absent (Section I, Scope). The calibrated link budget is a simulation-level anchor, not a hardware measurement.
  • domain assumption The single deterministic trajectory and one gNB siting are representative enough that the identified mechanisms transfer.
    The paper itself says magnitudes are scenario-specific and only mechanisms transfer (Sections IX-C and XIII); this assumption is load-bearing for any generalization.
  • domain assumption The detection stream is independent of the wall clock, so re-timing changes only two tracker constants.
    Section XI-A/C; the sensor-timeline replay is valid only because the emulator delivers every CPI to the sensing chain within the 640 ms window, leaving the sequence of detections unchanged.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-UAV Tracking Evaluation Using 5G Uplink Signals on an O-RAN ISAC Simulation Testbed." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3NRMZNV

@misc{pith2026260810784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-UAV Tracking Evaluation Using 5G Uplink Signals on an O-RAN ISAC Simulation Testbed},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3NRMZNV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10784}
}
read the original abstract

We evaluate multi-target detection, association and tracking end to end on an O-RAN simulation testbed built from OpenAirInterface, FlexRIC and Sionna RT that repurposes the 5G NR uplink sounding reference signal as a passive radar waveform, and against what a counter-UAS command-and- control (C2) consumer requires rather than by detection alone. Three UAVs differing in altitude, velocity and radar cross section (-8 to -20 dBsm) fly one bistatic pair with an 8-element planar receive array. Once every target is detected the binding limit is contention, not sensitivity - two targets share one nearest detection in about 74% of coherent processing intervals, and targets are detected far more often than they are tracked. Elevation from that array cannot separate targets sharing a range-Doppler cell, but it decides association in 58% of intervals. Concurrent tracks are exported from the RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC) xApp to a C2 fusion node over a SAPIENT interface carrying a calibrated detection confidence, validated at schema level against a mock fusion node. The evaluation is emulation-only on one geometry with 10 noise seeds, the mechanisms are characterized and analyzed to identify the key factors influencing multi-target tracking performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Section V gives the single-target reference, Section VI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The evaluated pipeline. 3 UAVs over a single bistatic pair with a planar receive array, from ray-traced propagation to the SAPIENT export; the chain reads left to right across two rows. Block labels: ECA, clutter-subspace deflation; RD, range–Doppler map; PDA, probabilistic data association; ASM, SAPIENT autonomous sensor module; HLDMM, fusion node (Section XII). Red markers number the three multi-target failure poi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 3-target scene and its tracks, from the rendered trace. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Messages received by the counter-UAS C2 over one 3-target transit, reconstructed from the wire feed (right-hand end of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Feasibility Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication,

    3GPP, “Feasibility Study on Integrated Sensing and Communication,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report (Study Item) TR 22.837, 2024, v19.4.0; study report, not a normative speci- fication

    2024

  2. [2]

    Study on Channel Model for NR Integrated Sensing and Commu- nication,

    ——, “Study on Channel Model for NR Integrated Sensing and Commu- nication,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Report TR 38.867, 2025, release-19 study item; study report, not a normative specification

    2025

  3. [3]

    CR to introduce channel model for Integrated Sensing and Communication,

    ——, “CR to introduce channel model for Integrated Sensing and Communication,” Change Request CR 38.901-0027, Release 19, TSG status: approved, 2025, 3GPP Portal, CrId 577179; introduces an ISAC channel model into TR 38.901. Channel-model work, not a normative sensing waveform or service specification

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    O-RAN Architecture Description,

    O-RAN Alliance, “O-RAN Architecture Description,” O-RAN Al- liance, Technical Specification O-RAN.WG1.O-RAN-Architecture- Description-v07.00, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    O-RAN E2 Application Protocol (E2AP),

    ——, “O-RAN E2 Application Protocol (E2AP),” O-RAN Alliance, Technical Specification O-RAN.WG3.E2AP-R003, 2024, defines the RIC subscription/indication procedures an E2 service model must com- ply with

    2024

  6. [6]

    Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art, and the Road Ahead,

    F. Liu, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and L. Hanzo, “Joint Radar and Communication Design: Applications, State-of-the-Art, and the Road Ahead,”IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3834–3862, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Integrated Sensing and Communications: Towards Dual-Functional Radar-Communication Systems,

    F. Liu, L. Zheng, Y . Cui, C. Masouros, A. P. Petropulu, H. Griffiths, and Y . C. Eldar, “Integrated Sensing and Communications: Towards Dual-Functional Radar-Communication Systems,”IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1728–1747, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    5G ISAC-Based UAV Detection and 3-D Tracking Using Uplink Sounding Reference Signals on an End-to-End O-RAN Simulation Testbed

    A. K. Gurung, S. K. Sathananthan, and S. R. Pokhrel, “5G ISAC- Based UA V Detection and 3-D Tracking Using Uplink Sounding Ref- erence Signals on an End-to-End O-RAN Simulation Testbed,” 2026, arXiv:2608.05826 [cs.NI]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental demonstration of multi-target tracking in integrated sensing and communication,

    M. Bauhofer, M. Henninger, M. Kottkamp, L. Giroto, P. Grill, A. Felix, T. Wild, S. ten Brink, and S. Mandelli, “Experimental demonstration of multi-target tracking in integrated sensing and communication,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22180, 2025

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Reliable UA V detection with ISAC,

    S. Saur, M. Doll, A. Grudnitsky, S. Mandelli, L. Giroto, M. Henninger, and T. Wild, “Reliable UA V detection with ISAC,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23561, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fuse-then-detect for passive UA V localization using multi-UE 5G uplink signals,

    W. Huang, N. Gonz ´alez-Prelcic, V . Ratnam, M. Bayraktar, and C. J. Zhang, “Fuse-then-detect for passive UA V localization using multi-UE 5G uplink signals,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.11955, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Multi-TRP assisted UA V detection in 3GPP 5G-advanced ISAC net- work,

    N. Varshney, S. Blandino, J. Wang, A. Bodi, C. Gentile, and N. Golmie, “Multi-TRP assisted UA V detection in 3GPP 5G-advanced ISAC net- work,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26113, 2026. 25

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    MULTI-SCOUT: Multistatic integrated sensing and com- munications in 5G and beyond for moving target detection, positioning, and tracking,

    Y . E. Sagduyu, K. Davaslioglu, T. Erpek, S. Kompella, G. Anderson, and J. Ashdown, “MULTI-SCOUT: Multistatic integrated sensing and com- munications in 5G and beyond for moving target detection, positioning, and tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02613, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The future takes flight: AT&T and Ericsson demonstrate drone detection outside of AT&T stadium,

    AT&T and Ericsson, “The future takes flight: AT&T and Ericsson demonstrate drone detection outside of AT&T stadium,” Press release, Jul. 2026, https://about.att.com/story/2026/att-ericsson-drone-detection. html

    2026

  7. [15]

    dApps: Distributed applications for real-time inference and control in O-RAN,

    M. Polese, L. Bonati, S. D’Oro, S. Basagni, and T. Melodia, “dApps: Distributed applications for real-time inference and control in O-RAN,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02370, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Enabling programmable inference and ISAC at the 6GR edge with dApps,

    M. Polese, R. Gangula, and T. Melodia, “Enabling programmable inference and ISAC at the 6GR edge with dApps,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.29146, 2026

    2026

  9. [17]

    Toward native ISAC support in O-RAN architectures for 6G,

    E. Baena, R. Krishnan, M. Vu, G. Zussman, and D. Koutsonikolas, “Toward native ISAC support in O-RAN architectures for 6G,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03607, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    dApp use cases and requirements,

    O-RAN Alliance nGRG, “dApp use cases and requirements,” O-RAN Alliance, Tech. Rep. nGRG-RR-2024-10, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    FlexRIC: An SDK for Next-Generation Disaggregated and Programmable RANs,

    R. Schmidt, S. Shariat, A. Karimzadeh, F. Kaltenberger, A. Clemente, and N. Nikaein, “FlexRIC: An SDK for Next-Generation Disaggregated and Programmable RANs,” inProc. ACM CoNEXT, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    OpenAirInterface: An Open-Source Software Radio Platform for 5G Research,

    F. Kaltenberger, A. Khodakarami, C. D. Vleeschouwer, L. S. Cardoso, and R. Knopp, “OpenAirInterface: An Open-Source Software Radio Platform for 5G Research,” inProc. IETF/IRTF Open Networking Summit, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Sionna: An Open-Source Library for Next-Generation Physical Layer Research,

    J. Hoydis, S. Cammerer, F. A. Aoudia, A. Vem, N. Binder, G. Marcus, and A. Keller, “Sionna: An Open-Source Library for Next-Generation Physical Layer Research,”arXiv preprint, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11854

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Disturbance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,

    F. Colone, D. W. O’Hagan, P. Lombardo, and C. J. Baker, “A Multistage Processing Algorithm for Disturbance Removal and Target Detection in Passive Bistatic Radar,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 698–722, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,

    H. Rohling, “Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target situations,”IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. AES-19, no. 4, pp. 608–621, 1983

    1983

  16. [24]

    ESPRIT – estimation of signal parameters via rotational invariance techniques,

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

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.