4.5 Article

Maximum-likelihood and other processors for incoherent and coherent matched-field localization

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 132, Issue 4, Pages 2273-2285

Publisher

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.4730978

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper develops a series of maximum-likelihood processors for matched-field source localization given various states of information regarding the frequency and time variation of source amplitude and phase, and compares these with existing approaches to coherent processing with incomplete source knowledge. The comparison involves elucidating each processor's approach to source spectral information within a unifying formulation, which provides a conceptual framework for classifying and comparing processors and explaining their relative performance, as quantified in a numerical study. The maximum-likelihood processors represent optimal estimators given the assumption of Gaussian noise, and are based on analytically maximizing the corresponding likelihood function over explicit unknown source spectral parameters. Cases considered include knowledge of the relative variation in source amplitude over time and/or frequency (e. g., a flat spectrum), and tracking the relative phase variation over time, as well as incoherent and coherent processing. Other approaches considered include the conventional (Bartlett) processor, cross-frequency incoherent processor, pair-wise processor, and coherent normalized processor. Processor performance is quantified as the probability of correct localization from Monte Carlo appraisal over a large number of random realizations of noise, source location, and environmental parameters. Processors are compared as a function of signal-to-noise ratio, number of frequencies, and number of sensors. (C) 2012 Acoustical Society of America. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4730978]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available