3
$\begingroup$

Recently I came across a paper which converts an UCA into a virtual ULA, since ULA is easy to analyze and process mathematically. I have attached the paper here, A robust direction of arrival estimation method for uniform circular array. I want to know that if it is suitable in real scenarios? I am trying to generalize my neural network model which is trained for ULA, so if I receive real data which corresponds to UCA, will I still be able to use the model? I have attached the images of the specific page where the conversion from UCA to ULA is done.Page1Page2Page3.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Given the other questions you have asked, it seems you are moving REALLY fast into modeling and doing some of the processing you want to do. You've moved from basic STFT questions, to simple DOA estimation, pulsed-Doppler processing, and now into subspace algorithms like ESPRIT. It also seems you've fallen for the machine learning hype, as many of these processing techniques (especially for DOA estimation) are already robust in their "classical" form.

To answer your question:

The reason they split up the array into multiple arrays is a property of the ESPRIT algorithm. The fact that they start from a UCA and break it down into "equivalent" ULAs is expected. You would need to do this regardless of what the main array looks like. If one would have started with a single main ULA, one would still have to split it into multiple ULAs as well.

Without reading the entire paper (pay-wall) I'm actually surprised the authors are going through all this effort to "convert" the UCA steering vectors to ULA steering vectors. Given any array geometry, the steering vectors can be calculated directly. If you know the array geometry, you can calculate the time of arrival for each element.

Given an array of $N$ elements in a Cartesian coordinate system, each element has a position

$$p_n = \begin{bmatrix}x_n \\ y_n \\ z_n\end{bmatrix}$$

You then define the unit vector according to your desired angle of arrival given $\text{az}$ and $\text{el}$:

$$\hat{r} = \begin{bmatrix}-cos(el)cos(az) \\ -cos(el)sin(az) \\ -sin(el)\end{bmatrix}$$

Where the entries are negative due to the direction of the incoming plane wave. The time of arrival at each sensor is then

$$\tau_n = \frac{\hat{r}^Tp_n}{c}$$

From here you can convert the time delay to a phase delay to define the steering vectors $a$. Once you have the steering vectors, you can continue to beamform in the classical sense or using other techniques.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ as you have mentioned that traditional DOA estimation algorithms are quite robust, in regards to that I came across a review article which claims some of the shortcomings of traditional methods "1. The received coherent signal will cause the signal subspace and the noise subspace to permeate each other, reducing accuracy of subspace-like algorithms.2. The resolution of the DOA estimation will be limited by the physical aperture of the array, and the maximum no.of resolvable targets will be limited by the number of elements.3. Most methods need the no.of signal sources in advance." $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25, 2024 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ Since I lack the experience, I wanted to know how important these factors are $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25, 2024 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @ananya I'm comparing the classical methods vs anything with AI/ML. There are of course subspace algorithms that have been around for a long time that are also robust, but these still are not dependent on AI/ML. My critique is in your pursuit of using neural nets vs classical and subspace algorithms for DOA estimation. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26, 2024 at 22:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.