IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO.
YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003
Array Interpolation and Bias Reduction
Per Hyberg, Member IEEE, Magnus Jansson, Member IEEE, Björn Ottersten, Senior Member IEEE
Abstract— Interpolation (mapping) of data from a given an-
tenna array onto the output of a virtual array of more suitable con-
figuration is well known in array signal processing. This operation
allows arrays of any geometry to be used with fast direction of ar-
rival (DOA) estimators designed for linear arrays. Conditions for
preserving DOA error variance under such mappings have been
derived by several authors. However, in many cases, such as om-
nidirectional signal surveillance over multiple octaves, systematic
mapping errors will dominate over noise effects and cause signifi-
cant bias in the DOA estimates.
To prevent mapping errors from unduly affecting the DOA es-
timates this paper uses a geometrical interpretation of a Taylor
series expansion of the DOA estimator criterion function to derive
an alternative design of the mapping matrix. Verifying simula-
tions show significant bias reduction in the DOA estimates com-
pared to previous designs. The key feature of the proposed design
is that it takes into account the orthogonality between the manifold
mapping errors and certain gradients of the estimator criterion
function. With the new design, mapping of narrowband signals
between dissimilar array geometries over wide sectors and large
frequency ranges becomes feasible.
Index Terms— Bias reduction, array interpolation, array map-
ping, array pre-processing
I. I NTRODUCTION
The concept of array interpolation (mapping) was introduced
around 1990 (see [1] - [5], and the references therein). Inter-
polation of wideband signals was treated in [6] - [8] and, using
experimental data, in [9]. Furthermore, the associated problem
of suppressing interfering signals was treated in, for example,
[10] and [11].
In the references above, array interpolation is applied mainly
for two reasons: First, to interpolate between available calibra-
tion points. Second, to possibly transform the data to corre-
spond to data from a particular array geometry (for example a
uniform linear array (ULA)). The latter in order to use avail-
able fast DOA estimators designed for such arrays. Thus, for
arbitrary array geometries in a one-dimensional (azimuth only)
model, we can in principal apply the “root-MUSIC” [12]- [14],
or “root-WSF” (MODE) [15], [16], algorithms, normally re-
stricted to a ULA geometry, to obtain the direction estimates
without the need for a time consuming parameter search. Simi-
larly, for two dimensional cases there exist computationally ef-
ficient ESPRIT-type algorithms for uniform rectangular arrays
[17].
The performance of mapped root-MUSIC and MODE has
been studied in several papers [4], [5], [18], [19]. Therein, the
interpolation errors were assumed to be negligible compared to
the finite sample effects due to noise. Hence, the main figure
Per Hyberg is with the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), Stockholm,
Sweden. E-mail per.hyberg@foi.se
Magnus Jansson and Björn Ottersten are with the Dept. of Signals, Sensors
and Systems, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
100
of merit was the DOA estimation error variance. Conditions
on the interpolation matrix for attaining the Cramér-Rao bound
(CRB) of this error variance were derived in [20] - [22]. In [23]
it was shown how an interpolation matrix could be designed
to better meet these conditions. This design also assumed the
interpolation errors to be negligible.
However, DOA estimation bias due to imperfect array map-
ping or various model errors, can dominate over the random
errors. One common example is radio signal reconnaissance
across multiple octave frequency bands using a single circular
array that, for processing speed, is mapped onto a linear ar-
ray. Such large relative bandwidths in combination with the
dissimilar array geometries can generate non-negligible DOA
bias, especially in the upper part of the covered band. The bias
minimization theory presented herein addresses this problem.
In addition, since in the signal surveillance application the
DOAs initially are unknown, we have to process wide az-
imuthal sectors, typically 30o , and design one common map-
ping matrix T for each sector (and each frequency band). Each
of these mapping matrices has to be a compromise over its sec-
tor, a fundamental difficulty that will leave unavoidable map-
ping errors. The wider the sector, the larger the errors. Al-
though these errors cannot be brought to zero, they are to some
extent controllable through the choice of T. Finding a T that
prevents these unavoidable errors from unduly affecting the
DOA estimates is the purpose of the present work.
Usually the mapping matrix T is designed to provide a best
least squares fit between the transformed response vectors of
the real array and the response vectors of the virtual array for a
set of DOAs comprising a sector. We show that such a best ar-
ray manifold match does not in general guarantee the smallest
DOA estimate bias. We also propose an alternative design of
T that can greatly reduce this bias. Instead of simply matching
the two array responses, the alternative design focuses on ro-
tating the mapping errors into orthogonality with the gradient
of the estimator criterion function and this way minimize their
influence on the DOA estimates.
Bias reduction was also treated in [24] of which the present
paper is an extension, providing a more thorough background
and more detailed derivations. Also, more simulation results
are presented to give a deeper understanding of the properties
of the proposed transformation matrix.
The paper is organized as follows: Section II presents the
data model and introduces notation. The conventional sector ar-
ray mapping approach is described in Section III. In Section IV
we give the bias analysis leading to our orthogonality condition
for zero bias within a first order error approximation. Section
V then presents a design algorithm for the mapping matrix that
yields minimum bias. The results are exemplified by a number
of simulations in Section VI. A bias reduction factor exceeding
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003
100 in some scenarios is demonstrated. Finally, some conclud-
ing remarks are given in Section VII.
II. DATA MODEL AND PREREQUISITES
As will be discussed later, the analysis is limited to one emit-
ter scenarios. Hence consider a general array of m antenna el-
ements. Assume that a narrowband far-field signal is received
by the array. For notational simplicity, the emitter is confined
to the horizontal plane, i.e., the DOA is described by azimuth
only. This incurs no loss of generality, and extension to the
two-dimensional case is straightforward.
Let θ denote the azimuth. A complex baseband model for the
received signal can then be written as
x(t) = a(θ)s(t) + n(t), (1)
where
- x(t) is the m × 1 array output vector at the discrete
time instant t,
- a(θ) is the m × 1 complex array response to a (unit-
power) source in the direction θ,
- s(t) is the received signal at a reference point at time
t,
- n(t) is the m × 1 noise vector at time t.
In the design of the transformation matrix response vectors
from Ncal calibration directions will be needed. For reference
to these calibration directions the superscript (i) will be used
and the collection of the calibration response vectors is denoted
A(θ(c) ) = [a(θ(1) ) . . . a(θ(Ncal ) )]. The entities of the virtual
array will carry the subscript v . Thus av (θ) and Av (θ (c) ) are
the virtual array responses. This virtual array consists of mv
antenna elements.
Array output data are assumed available for t = 1, 2, . . . , N .
Furthermore, the noise is assumed to be independent of the re-
ceived signal and spatially white with variance σ 2 . With a sto-
chastic signal model the data covariance matrix in the one emit-
ter case has the following structure:
R = a(θ)paH (θ) + σ 2 I, (2)
n o
2
where p = E |s(t)| is the power of the received signal, H
denotes Hermitian transpose, and I is the identity matrix.
This paper utilizes subspace based methods for DOA
estimation
Pm which rely on the eigendecomposition R =
j=1 λj ej ej , where {ej } are orthonormal eigenvectors cor-
H
responding to the eigenvalues {λj } with λ1 > λ2 = · · · =
λm = σ 2 . The property that the range of e1 , es (the signal
subspace) equals the range of a(θ) will also be used.
Moreover, note that es is only determined up to a phase
factor. To obtain unique signal eigenvectors, the phase factor
will henceforth be chosen so that es equals the correspond-
ing normalized array response vector; that is, es = ā(θ) ,
¡ ¢−1/2
a(θ) aH (θ)a(θ) , and similarly for the eigenvectors cor-
responding to the virtual array. This choice is always possible
in the analysis and design situation which is of interest herein.
Furthermore the following notation will be used:
- TLS is the manifold match mapping (interpolation)
matrix,
101
- Topt is the bias minimizing mapping matrix,
- ∆A, ∆a is the array manifold mapping error,
- es and ev are signal eigenvectors of the real and vir-
tual arrays,
- êv is a deterministic approximation of ev ,
(j)
- es is the signal eigenvector of the real array from a
single emitter in the jth calibration direction,
(j)
- ev is the signal eigenvector of the virtual array from
a single emitter in the jth calibration direction,
-
(j)
∆ev is the virtual signal eigenvector mapping error
in the jth calibration direction,
- ev,i is the ith signal eigenvector of the virtual array in
multiple emitter scenarios,
- ∆ev,i is the corresponding mapping error,
- d̄v is the derivative of the normalized response vector
āv (θ) of the virtual array with respect to θ,
- θ0 and θ̂ are the true and estimated azimuths respec-
tively,
- ∆θ is a (deterministic) DOA perturbation,
- V is the criterion function of the used estimator,
- V̇ and V̈ are the first and second derivatives respec-
tively of V with respect to θ,
- gv is the complex gradient of V̇ with respect to ev ,
(j)
- gv , gv,i is the complex gradient in the jth calibra-
tion direction and along the ith eigenvector in multi-
ple emitter scenarios respectively,
- µ and k are real constants.
III. A RRAY TRANSFORMATIONS
The perhaps most common way of designing the transfor-
mation matrix is to obtain a least squares fit between the trans-
formed array response and the response of the virtual array over
a sector of interest. That is,
TLS = arg minkTH A(θ(c) ) − Av (θ (c) )k2F , (3)
T
where k·kF denotes the Frobenius norm and θ (c) is the col-
lection of Ncal adjacent calibration directions comprising the
selected sector [1], [4]. With mv elements in the virtual ar-
ray, the matrix Av (θ (c) ) of virtual response vectors has size
mv × Ncal . This implies that T has size m × mv . If a(θ) is not
known analytically, the columns of A(θ(c) ) are chosen as the
array responses obtained from a calibration experiment.
Assuming more calibration points than antenna elements in
the real array (Ncal ≥ m) and that A(θ (c) ) is full rank, the least
squares solution to (3) is
³ ´−1
TLS = A(θ (c) )AH (θ (c) ) A(θ(c) )AH (c)
(4)
v (θ ).
The virtual array can of course always be configured “opti-
mally.” For example, it can preferably be a half wavelength
spaced ULA at a given frequency and always be oriented per-
pendicular to the bisector of the chosen calibration sector.
If the mapping error
∆A(θ (c) ) , TH A(θ (c) ) − Av (θ (c) ) (5)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003
can be put to zero, the mapping will be perfect at the calibrated
points. However, for mapping between dissimilar and/or wide
spaced arrays over large sectors, perfect match will seldom be
the case and biased estimates will result.
In the following we will study which properties should be
added to TLS to minimize DOA bias in situations where
k∆A(θ (c) )k 6= 0. To do this, in the next section we will study
how the DOA bias depends on T. This analysis leads to a gen-
eral first order condition for zero bias. Then this condition is
used to propose an improved design of the transformation ma-
trix T.
IV. B IAS ANALYSIS
In this section, principles that govern the magnitude of DOA
estimation bias in single emitter scenarios will be derived. The
derivation will be general and independent of any specific DOA
estimator or data pre-processing. The result is obtained by a
Taylor series expansion approach similar to the one in [25].
However, the focus in [25] was on DOA bias due to finite sam-
ple effects and noise, whereas our focus is on deterministic sig-
nal subspace eigenvector errors due to array transformations.
Since the virtual array can be viewed as delivering data to the
DOA estimator, a corresponding notation is used in the analy-
sis. Subspace based DOA estimators are considered and there-
fore an estimate êv of the signal subspace eigenvector ev of the
virtual array is needed. Furthermore, finite sample effects will
not be considered, i.e. N and/or SNR are assumed to be large
enough for such effects to be negligible, hence the bias analysis
to follow will be purely deterministic. To underline this, instead
of “estimate” the term “approximation” will be used for êv .
Henceforth θ0 is used to denote the true DOA to distinguish
it from the generic DOA θ. Furthermore, in the sequel it is
assumed that the DOA estimate θ̂ is taken at the extreme point
of a sufficiently smooth criterion function
V (θ, êv ), (6)
where êv denotes a general approximation of ev . Later êv will
be given a more specific mapping interpretation.
It is also assumed that the true DOA θ0 is obtained at the peak
or valley of V (θ, ev ), i.e. we get the true DOA if we insert the
true signal eigenvector associated with the virtual array. The
Taylor series expansion to follow assumes that the perturbation
∆ev defined as êv − ev , is small.
The derivatives of V (θ, êv ) and V (θ, ev ) with respect to θ
are denoted by V̇ (θ, êv ) and V̇ (θ, ev ), respectively. The second
derivative is denoted V̈ (θ, ev ). In addition, define ∆θ , θ̂−θ0 .
A. A Taylor series expansion
With the above definitions, a first order Taylor series expan-
sion of V̇ (θ̂, êv ) around (θ0 , ev ) is performed to assess the ef-
fect of a general perturbation ∆ev in ev on the DOA estimates.
Using the Brandwood derivative (13) in Appendix A, the
Taylor series expansion becomes
V̇ (θ̂, êv ) =V̇ (θ0 , ev ) + V̈ (θ0 , ev )∆θ
© ª
+ 2 Re gvH ∆ev + r. (7)
102
Here gv is the complex gradient along ev of V̇ (θ0 , ev ). The
remainder term r is at least quadratic in ∆θ and/or ∆ev and
can be neglected in a first order analysis.
Since θ̂ and θ0 by definition correspond to extreme points
of V (θ̂, êv ) and V (θ0 , ev ) respectively, we have V̇ (θ̂, êv ) =
V̇ (θ0 , ev ) = 0. Using (7) and assuming invertibility of the sec-
ond derivative, the resulting perturbation ∆θ in θ0 can be ex-
pressed as (up to a first order approximation)
h i−1
© ª
∆θ = − V̈ (θ0 , ev ) 2 Re gvH ∆ev . (8)
This expression shows the effect of a small perturbation ∆ev in
the signal subspace ev on the DOA estimate.
B. A mapping interpretation
To apply (8) to a deterministic array mapping scenario, let es
denote the (error free) signal subspace eigenvector of the real
array. Introduce a mapping matrix T such that TH es becomes
an approximation of ev , i.e. we presume that TH es ≈ ev .
The non-specific perturbation ∆ev in (8) can now be inter-
preted as the signal subspace mapping error, i.e. define ∆ev =
TH es − ev . With this interpretation (8) yields the (first order)
DOA mapping bias ∆θ due to the error ∆ev in the approxima-
tion TH es of ev .
Recall that (8) is only an expression for first order bias.
Hence,
© if Tª can be chosen such that the scalar product
Re gvH ∆ev in (8) is zero, then the remaining DOA bias is
explained by the higher order bias terms in r.
V. T RANSFORMATION MATRIX DESIGN
In this section, the general first order expression (8) is utilized
to formulate a design algorithm for T. The strategy aims at
designing a T such that the effect of the mapping error on the
DOA estimate is minimized for all (single) emitter directions
inside the mapped sector.
Observe that if d > 1 simultaneous emitters are present, i.e.
the virtual signal subspace contains several eigenvectors ev,i ,
i = 1, .., d, then the Taylor series expansion
© H (7)
ª will include a
sum over all d scalar products Re gv,i ∆ev,i , where ∆ev,i
is the mapping error in the ith signal eigenvector. Since the
different signal eigenvectors ev,i generally depend on the rela-
tive location and power of the sources, an off-line design of T
cannot be performed easily. Furthermore, it is difficult to de-
sign a single T with the property of minimizing all the d scalar
products.
To obtain a practical solution, the scope is therefore limited to
the one-source case. The resulting transformation matrix may
still be applied to cases with multiple sources and reduced bias
performance is expected, all depending on emitter proximity,
power and correlation.
Next note that V̈ is real and independent of the transfor-
mation matrix. Hence, to minimize first order bias, T should
be © chosen toª minimize the magnitude of the scalar product
Re gvH ∆ev . This can be geometrically interpreted as (in the
real part) making the mapping error ∆ev as orthogonal as pos-
sible to the gradient of the criterion function.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 103

A. A sector mapping matrix design C. Selection of the weighting factor

Since the true DOA is unknown, a transformation matrix is It remains to select the weighting factor µ. Clearly, µ = 0
designed to achieve minimum bias for all possible DOAs in leads to the solution Topt = TLS , (cf. (3)), i.e. a design of T
the sector of interest. A natural approach is to minimize the for best manifold match. On the other hand, choosing µ close
sum of the squares of the biases ∆θ(i) on a grid {θ(i) }N i=1 of
cal
to 1 puts a large emphasize on minimizing the first order ap-
1
DOA values (calibration points) across the sector . Further- proximation of DOA bias.
more, note that the minimizing T should have two desirable The choice µ = 1 leads to an under-determined system of
properties, namely (i), it should result in small errors ∆ev for equations and infinitely many solutions for T, including T = 0.
the first order approximation (8) to hold, and (ii), the orthog- It is clear that the solution must be constrained to ensure a small
onality between the gradient and the mapping error should be manifold mapping error in order for the bias analysis (7) to be
at least approximately met. Thus, a bias minimizing T may be valid. In the numerical examples in Section VI, Figure 4, it
designed as is demonstrated that the choice of the weighting factor is not
N cal ³
critical.
X
Topt = arg min (1 − µ)k∆ev(i) k2
T
i=1 D. Modifications to the first order design
¯ n o¯
¯ 2 Re g(i)H ∆e(i) ¯2 ´ Below, some possible modifications and simplifications of
¯ v v ¯
+µ ¯¯ (i) (i)
¯ ,
¯ (9) the design procedure are discussed.
¯ V̈ (θ , ev ) ¯ First, note that the weighting factor µ can be modified to in-
clude the second derivatives, thus providing some simplifica-
where the first term advocates requirement (i) and the second
tion to (10): Typically the mapping will be onto a half wave-
term (ii). Above, k·k is the vector 2-norm and µ a weighting (i)
length spaced virtual ULA. The second derivatives V̈ (θ(i) , ev )
factor, 0 < µ < 1, that allows a balancing between the two
properties (i) and (ii). are measures of the curvature of V at the peaks (or valleys)
(i) (i) (i) θ(i) , i.e. of the corresponding ULA beamwidths. For a typi-
Note that ∆ev are affine functions of T, ∆ev = TH es −
(i) cal broadside mapping sector, say up to +/ − 15o wide, these
ev , and that the above criterion (9) therefore is a quadratic beamwidths do not vary much. Therefore, the second deriva-
function of the elements of T. Hence, the minimizing T can be (i)
tives V̈ (θ(i) , ev ) in (9) and (10) are essentially constant across
obtained by solving a linear least squares problem (see Appen-
the sector. This constant value can then be incorporated in the
dix C).
weighting factor leading to the following simplified version of
B. Mapping matrix design for MUSIC and WSF (10):
To illustrate the general design above and to arrive at more N
Xcal ³

explicit expressions, the design criterion associated with MU- Topt = arg min (1 − k)kTH ā(θ(i) ) − āv (θ(i) )k2
T
SIC and WSF is presented. The detailed derivations are de- i=1
ferred to Appendix B. ¯ ¯2 ´
¯ (i) (i) ¯
(i) (i) (i) + k ¯Re{d̄H ⊥ H
v (θ )Πāv (θ(i) ) T ā(θ )}¯ (11)
First, note that ∆ev = TH es − ev = TH ā(θ(i) ) −
(i)
āv (θ ) where ā(·) and āv (·) are the normalized array re-
where 0 < k < 1 denotes the new weighting factor.
sponse vectors as defined in Section II. In Appendix B it is
(i) (i) Second, in the simulations it has been observed that it may
shown that gv = −Π⊥ d̄ (θ(i) ) and V̈ (θ(i) , ev ) =
ā (θ(i) ) v be useful to minimize not only the real part of the scalar prod-
v

2d̄H (i) ⊥ (i)

v (θ )Πā (θ(i) ) d̄v (θ ), where d̄v (θ) = ∂āv (θ)
∂θ and ucts gvH (θ(i) )TH ā(θ(i) ) but rather the magnitude. Hence, the
v
criterion corresponding to this modification is
Π⊥āv (θ) = I − āv (θ)āv (θ). Using this and the observation that
H

(i)H
gv āv (θ(i) ) = 0, implementing (9) for MUSIC and WSF re- N
Xcal ³

sults in Topt = arg min (1 − k)kTH ā(θ(i) ) − āv (θ(i) )k2

T
i=1
N
X cal ³
¯ ¯2 ´
Topt = arg min (1 − µ)kTH ā(θ(i) ) − āv (θ(i) )k2 ¯ (i) (i) ¯
T + k ¯d̄H
v (θ )Π⊥
āv (θ(i) )
TH
ā(θ ) ¯ . (12)
i=1
¯ ¯2
¯ Re{d̄H (θ(i) )Π⊥ T H
ā(θ (i)
)} ¯ ´ As shown in the simulations in the next section, this design re-
¯ v (i)
āv (θ ) ¯
+ µ ¯¯ (i) (i)
¯ .
¯ (10) duces the bias by roughly another factor of 10 for high SNRs
d̄H ⊥
¯ v (θ )Πāv (θ(i) ) d̄v (θ ) ¯ (see e.g. the lower ×−marked curve in Figure 1). In Section
We remark that quantities related to the virtual array are as- VI.A an intuitive explanation for this improved bias suppression
sumed to be known analytically whereas the real array response performance observed in the simulations is given.
only needs to be known in the calibration points {θ(i) }. The
latter fact is important in practical applications as we usually VI. S IMULATIONS
cannot assume a(θ) to be accurately known for all DOAs. Numerical examples have been conducted for the case of
1 One may also think of other possibilities, e.g. minimizing the maximum mapping from uniform circular arrays (UCAs) to ULAs, both
bias in the sector. consisting of 8 sensors. The arrays are confined to the same
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003
plane and the ULA is oriented broadside to the center of the
sector of interest. To illustrate bias effects, the UCA is wide-
spaced with four wavelengths between elements. This corre-
sponds to a typical signal surveillance application where omni-
directionality (the UCA) and stressed bandwidth (the wide an-
tenna spacing), can be combined with ULA based estimator
processing speed. It is however also a scenario where DOA bias
is large and can dominate over variance if no countermeasures
are taken [26], [27].
For DOA estimation root-MUSIC is used, although the pre-
sented bias reduction method can be applied to most DOA esti-
mation algorithms. In addition, for one emitter and when only
one parameter (azimuth) is estimated, the criterion functions of
MUSIC and WSF have the same structure (see [15] and Appen-
dix B). For these two estimators identical results are obtained.
Simulation data were generated according to the model in
Section II with spatially white and Gaussian circularly sym-
metric noise. N = 100 snapshots and 400 Monte Carlo runs
were used to calculate the DOA biases and the root mean square
(RMS) errors. Furthermore, to make the proposed design of T
also useful at lower SNRs (where finite data effects become vis-
ible), additional bias due to coloring of the measurement noise
by the (usually) non-unitary T should be avoided. Hence the
signal eigenvectors were obtained from an eigenvalue decom-
position of the real array output data sample covariance ma-
trix. Thereafter the signal eigenvectors were mapped by T to
form êv (cf. Section IV.B). With this, the MUSIC criterion was
formed as in (14) in Appendix B.
Unless otherwise stated, the various mapping matrices T
were calculated with the sector width set at 30o . For the cho-
sen scenario this is an empirical limit above which the mapping
errors begin to degrade the bias suppression. This means that in
the presented plots the achieved bias suppression is limited by
the fact that T is a compromise over the mapped sector.
A set of Ncal = 15 calibrated directions uniformly spread
across the 30o wide broadside azimuthal sector are used. The
beamwidth of the 8 element four wavelengths spaced UCA is
about 5o so with 30o /15 = 2o between the calibration direc-
tions there is a substantial amount of linear dependence in the
calibration response vector set A(θ(c) ). This indicates a suf-
ficient density of the calibration grid. The Ncal = 15 second
derivatives vary by only a few percent so in accordance with
(11) they were considered constant across the sector. Unless
otherwise stated, the weighting constant k (see (11)) was set to
0.99 to emphasize bias suppression.
A. Bias suppression at high SNR
The simulation results for a high SNR case of 40 dB are
shown in Figure 1 as the bias for a single emitter moving across
the 30o wide mapped sector. Figure 1 clearly illustrates the
bias suppression capability for the proposed design algorithm
(square-marked curve) as compared to the usual least squares
manifold matching design (3), (o-marked curve). Note the
sharp bias increase for emitters outside the mapped sector.
In Figure 1 the result obtained with the design (12) is also
included. In (12) the magnitude of the scalar product between
the gradient and the mapping error is minimized and not only
the real part as suggested by the first order analysis. As seen
104
10
1
Manifold match
New design wrp
New design nrp
10
0
10
-1
abs(Bias) in degrees
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
SNR=40 dB
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
DOA relative to sector center (deg)
10 15 20
Fig. 1. Bias as function of azimuth across the mapped 30o wide sector. T is
designed according to (11) (squares), (12) (× -marks), and, for reference, (3)
(circles). Note the logarithmic y-axis.
in the lower ×−marked curve in Figure 1 this leads to a sub-
stantial additional reduction of the bias. The explanation for
this possibility to further reduce the bias can be found in the
higher order error terms in the Taylor series expansion. Recall
that the design (11) aims at minimizing the first order approx-
imation of the DOA bias. Indeed, by computing the first order
DOA bias given by (8) it can be verified that T designed by
(11) efficiently cancels first order DOA bias. Hence, the re-
maining DOA bias as is shown by the square-marked curve in
Figure 1 is dominated by second and higher order error terms.
This also implies that higher order terms must be taken into
account if additional bias suppression is desired. Apparently,
the additional constraint to also minimize the imaginary part of
the scalar product between the gradient and the mapping error
proved to be useful in this example. However, note that no an-
alytical results are yet available supporting this approach. The
bias may not always be reduced compared to the first order de-
sign (although it did in all our simulations). Studying higher
order DOA bias effects analytically is cumbersome but could
perhaps give insights to designs reducing the bias even further.
Since the design procedure can be done off line, alternative
design strategies can be tested to determine the one that is best
suited for the application of interest.
B. Effect of SNR
As expected, the reduction of deterministic bias is most vis-
ible in high SNR scenarios, but it is also of interest to study
the effect of measurement noise. In Figure 2 the bias for a sin-
gle emitter with varying SNR and DOA is shown. When the
emitter SNR is reduced, errors in the (estimated) signal sub-
space eigenvectors es increase and deviate more significantly
from the span of the array response vectors. Due to these finite
sample effects, the bias increases (see Figures 2 and 3).
Figure 3 shows the RMS of all bias values inside a 20o wide
centered subsector. As before each such bias value was calcu-
lated as the mean of 400 Monte Carlo runs. For high SNR val-
ues the new algorithm without the real part operator is superior
(×-marked curve).
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 105

0.1
SNR=40 dB
0.08 SNR=20 dB
SNR=10 dB 0.25
0.06 Manifold match

0.04 0.2

RMS bias in degrees

Bias in degrees

0.02
0.15
0 Solid lines: SNR=40 dB

-0.02 0.1
Dashed lines: SNR=20 dB
-0.04
0.05 New design Dotted lines: SNR=10 dB
-0.06

-0.08 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Value of weighting factor k
-0.1
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
DOA relative to sector center (deg)
Fig. 4. Bias RMS across the sector as function of the weighting factor k when
the simplified design criterion (12) for T is used. The results of the manifold
Fig. 2. Bias across the mapped sector for different SNR values. T is designed match design are also shown (horizontal curves) for comparison.
according to (12).
TABLE I
1
10 C ONDITION NUMBERS OF THE MATRIX M IN (30) FOR DIFFERENT
Manifold match
New design nrp CHOICES OF k.
New design wrp

0
10
RMS bias in degrees

k log10 (cond(M))
-1
10
0 1.8171
0.5 2.4435
0.9 3.1643
-2
10 0.99 3.7260
0.999 4.2319
0.9999 4.7325
-3
10
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SNR in dB

D. Effect of sector width

Fig. 3. For each SNR the RMS of all the bias values inside a 20o centered
subsector of the 30o mapped sector is displayed.
C. Effect of the weighting factor
To study the effect of the weighting factor, in algorithm (12)
k was increased from 0 (corresponding to pure manifold match)
to 0.9999. For each such k the root mean square (RMS) of 20
bias values inside a 20o centered subsector of the 30o mapped
sector was formed. Figure 4 shows these RMS values plotted
against k for three different SNRs. As can be seen, the weight-
ing factor k in this case is not critical. The more the gradient or-
thogonality condition is enforced the lower the bias. Although
the bias analysis and design criterion assume that the mapping
bias dominates over noise effects, Figure 4 shows that the re-
sulting T displays good bias suppression for SNRs down into
the 10 dB range.
Table I displays the condition number (defined as the maxi-
mum singular value divided by the smallest) of the matrix M
in (30) in Appendix B. This condition number determines the
numerical conditioning of the linear system of equations used
to solve for Topt . The more the manifold matching term in the
design algorithm is downweighted the more ill-conditioned M
becomes, although the effect on T appears negligible.
The tendency of the mapping operation to generate bias de-
pends on sector width. This is illustrated in Figure 5 which
shows the RMS of all the bias values across the mapped sector
as a function of sector width.
In the simulated scenario, the bias due to mapping errors
dominate and the new designs give a significantly better perfor-
mance compared to the manifold matching design (3) for large
sector widths. When the sector width decreases the mapping
errors decrease and at some point they become negligible com-
pared to the bias due to the finite sample effects. For this reason
a “noise floor” is observed in Figure 5 for sector widths below
about 10◦ − 30◦ , depending on the effectiveness of the different
designs.
E. Effect of jammer inside mapped sector
The proposed design algorithm for T is based on a one emit-
ter analysis. When two or more emitters simultaneously im-
pinge on the array, the signal subspace of the array observation
space contains several signal eigenvectors. Only if the corre-
sponding response vectors are orthogonal can these eigenvec-
tors be associated with specific emitters. Usually the signal
eigenvectors will contain power from all emitters in a compli-
cated manner. Therefore, with the proposed design of T one
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 106

10
1

Manifold match
noise can also be pre-whitened. This is done by pre-multiplying
New design nrp the data with Σ−1/2 where Σ is the covariance matrix of the
New design wrp
10
0 colored noise. Note that this has the same effect as superimpos-
ing an inverted Capon spectrum on the DOA estimator criterion
function with the notch at the azimuth of the jammer, [11].
RMS bias in degrees

10
-1
A jammer pre-whitening example is also shown in Figure 6
where, for illustration, the colored noise was estimated without
10
-2 errors. Comparing the diamond- and ×- marked curves, the
bias reduction capability of the proposed T design is almost,
but not fully, restored by the pre-whitening.
-3
10
F. Effect of jammer outside mapped sector
10
-4 When the jammer moves outside the mapped sector it be-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Calibration sector width (degrees)
40 45 50
comes heavily mismatched to the virtual ULA after transforma-
tion by T, and the jammer now corresponds to a warped wave-
Fig. 5. RMS of the bias values across the sector as function of sector width. front impinging on the ULA. Since the bias reduction theory
Manifold match, the new design without (nrp), and with, (wrp), the real part presumes one dominating emitter, i.e. a one dimensional signal
operator are shown. SNR=40 dB. subspace, efficient spatial filtering is required in this case. Sim-
ulations indicate that the signal to jam ratio after this filtering
1.2
Manifold match Topt, k=0, should be at least 20 dB.
1 Bias min Topt, k= 0.99
Manifold match prewhitened
Spatial filtering as such has been treated elsewhere ( [10] and
0.8
Bias min pre-whitened the references therein).
0.6
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
Bias in degrees

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
SNR=40 dB
-0.4 Without real part in T design
Signal to jam ratio 10 dB
-0.6 Fixed jammer azimuth 5 deg
d incorrectly estimated at 1
-15 -10 -5 0 5
DOA relative to sector center (degrees)
Fig. 6. Bias as function of azimuth when a -10 dB jammer is present at 5o , i.e.
inside the mapped sector. The × -marked curve shows the improvement when
pre-whitening of the jammer is applied. For reference the corresponding curves
for manifold match mapping are also shown (square and circle markings).
strategy in a multiple emitter scenario would be to model the
strongest emitter only and treat the others as (colored) noise.
Obviously this presumes the desired emitter to dominate (which
may not always be the case).
Figure 6 illustrates a scenario with one (fixed) jamming emit-
ter at azimuth 5o , i.e. inside the mapped sector, but 10 dB
weaker than the desired (sweeping) signal. As seen the bias
suppression mechanism works at the jammer’s azimuth because
there both signals coincide and the signal subspace dimension
collapses to 1. When the sweeping emitter passes through other
azimuths, the bias varies depending on the degree of orthogo-
nality between the corresponding two response vectors. This is
due to the periodic perturbations in ∆ev . As seen from a com-
parison with the one emitter case, the proposed gradient orthog-
onality design is more sensitive to this perturbation of the signal
subspace (caused by the jamming emitter) than is the manifold
matching design.
If the covariance of the colored noise (comprised by the jam-
mer plus the white background noise) can be estimated, this
Herein, the problem of designing transformation matrices to
map the data from a given (real) antenna array onto a virtual
array structure is addressed. The transformation matrix is con-
structed using a set of calibration response vectors which means
that the response of the real array only needs to be known in the
calibration points.
The unavoidable mapping errors that occur give rise to bias
in the direction estimates. A first order analysis of the DOA
10 15
bias is performed for a single source and no finite sample ef-
fects. Conventional mapping matrix design via least squares
array manifold matching does not guarantee a small DOA er-
ror. Based on the analytical bias results, design criteria for the
transformation matrices are proposed that minimize the influ-
ence of the mapping error on the DOA bias. The analysis and
design criteria are general and estimator independent.
The performance of the proposed design criteria was inves-
tigated through simulations for the challenging case of wide
sector mapping (of narrowband signals) over a large frequency
range between arrays of very dissimilar geometries. This may
occur in omnidirectional radio signal surveillance using arrays
with extended upper frequency limits where fast DOA process-
ing (ULA based estimators) is required. Significant reductions
in bias were demonstrated for circular to linear array mapping.
In some cases, a bias reduction factor in excess of 100 was ob-
tained.
Suggested areas for further research include mapping per-
formance for noisy data and multiple emitters. Optimal bias
suppression taking second and higher order error terms into ac-
count also remains an open problem.
A PPENDIX
A. The complex gradient
In the analysis, gradients of real scalar functions with respect
to complex valued vectors are required. The convention intro-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 107

duced by Brandwood [28] is used : Let J(e) be a scalar func- āv (θ0 ) (see Section II), allows the gradient evaluated at θ0 and
tion of the complex vector e and its conjugate. Further, let ek ev to be expressed as
be the kth element of e and let xk and yk be the real and imag-
inary parts of ek , respectively. Then the kth component of the gv (θ0 , ev ) = −Π⊥
āv d̄v , (18)
gradient vector is defined as
where d̄v and āv are evaluated at θ0 . Note that the last step
µ ¶ implies that gvH āv = 0, a fact that is used to formulate the
1 ∂J(e) ∂J(e)
[∇e J(e)]k = +j . (13) design criteria (11) and (12).
2 ∂xk ∂yk
To obtain a convenient expression for the second derivative
With this convention, the differential of J(e) will be dJ(e) = of V with respect to θ, rewrite (17) as
2 Re{[∇e J(e)]H de}. Specifically, for J(e) = eH Re where R ¡ ¢
is any Hermitian matrix independent of e, we get ∇e J(e) = V̇ (θ, êv ) = 2 Re{d̄H H
v (θ) I − êv êv āv (θ)}, (19)
Re and dJ(e) = 2 Re{eH R de}. where the fact that Re{d̄H v āv } = 0 is used (follows from the
property āH d̄
v v = − d̄v v above). The desired expression is
H
ā
B. Implementation for WSF and MUSIC obtained by differentiating (19) and evaluating the result at θ =
θ0 and êv = ev :
Here expressions for the gradient and the second derivative
are given. These are required in (9) provided that MUSIC or V̈ (θ0 , ev ) = 2d̄H ⊥
v (θ 0 )Πāv (θ0 ) d̄v (θ 0 ). (20)
WSF is used for DOA estimation. The MUSIC, [12], [13], and
WSF, [15], estimates for one emitter scenarios are obtained by C. Calculation of T
minimizing the criterion functions The minimization problems (9), (10), (11), and (12) can be
solved in many ways. One approach is to apply the vec oper-
VM U SIC (θ, êv ) = av H (θ)Π⊥
êv av (θ) (14)
ator to both terms inside each norm and solve for a vectorized
and version t of T. Taking the (11) algorithm with the virtual array
VW SF (θ, êv ) = Tr{Π⊥ H
(15) terms retained as an example, we first reverse order between
av (θ) êv wêv },
factors by taking the Hermitian transpose
respectively. Here êv is an estimate of the signal subspace, ½ ° °2
¡ H ¢−1 H °
Π⊥ H
êv and Π⊥
−1 H (c) °
êv = I − êv (êv êv ) av = I − av av av av Topt = arg min (1 − k) °ĀH (θ (c) )T − ĀH v (θ )°
are the orthogonal projectors onto the estimated noise subspace T F
)
and onto the array manifold complement, respectively. For the NXcal ¯ n o¯2
¯ ¯
single source case, the weighting matrix of WSF reduces to the + k· ¯Re āH (θ(i) ) T g(i) H (i)
v − āv (θ ) gv
(i)
¯ ,
scalar w and it is straightforward to show that the two criterion i=1

functions lead to identical DOA estimates. In fact, assuming (21)

that aH
v (θ)av (θ) is constant, the WSF and MUSIC DOA esti-
where Ā, Āv are matrices of normalized response vectors, and
mate is obtained as the minimizing argument of n oNcal
θ (c) is a 1 × Ncal vector of calibration azimuths θ(i) .
V (θ, êv ) = −āH H
v (θ)êv êv āv (θ) (16) Thereafter the vec operator is applied to get
i=1

¡ ¢−1/2 n
where āv (θ) = av (θ) aH v (θ)av (θ) is the normalized ar- Topt = arg min (1 − k)
ray response vector of the virtual array as introduced in Section °³
T
´ °2
II. In the following, the common criterion for MUSIC and WSF ° H (c) °
· ° I ⊗ Ā (θ (c) ) vec(T) − vec(ĀH v (θ ))°
given above may be used. F
Differentiate V with respect to θ to obtain: N
X cal ¯ n³ ´
¯
+k· ¯Re gv(i)T ⊗ āH (θ(i) ) vec(T)
V̇ (θ, êv ) = −2 Re{d̄H H
v (θ)êv êv āv (θ)}, (17) i=1
o¯2 o
(i) (i) ¯
∂āv (θ) − āH
v (θ ) gv ¯ . (22)
where d̄v = ∂θ .
The gradient of V̇ (θ, êv ) with respect to the complex valued In (22) the following relation is used
vector êv is obtained using the definition of the gradient given ¡ ¢
in Appendix A vec(ABC) = CT ⊗ A vec(C), (23)
© ª
gv (θ, êv ) = ∇êv −2 Re{d̄H H
v (θ)êv êv āv (θ)
where ⊗ is the Kronecker product. Also note that the weighting
© ª factor k includes the second derivative V̈ , and that in a wide
= −∇êv êH H H H
v āv d̄v êv + êv d̄v āv êv
class of cases the last term in (22) is zero, a property that was
= −āv d̄H H
v êv − d̄v āv êv . used in the designs (10), (11) and (12).
The first norm in (22) contains a term of dimension
Since āH
v (θ)āv (θ) = 1, it is easily established that mv Ncal × 1, whereas all the penalty terms have dimension
H
āH −d̄v āv . This observation and the fact that ev =
v d̄v = mv × 1.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 108

Introducing the short hand notations R EFERENCES

√ [1] T. P. Bronez, “Sector interpolation of non-uniform arrays for efficient
M1 = 1 − k I ⊗ ĀH (θ (c) ) (24) high resolution bearing estimation,” in IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 5, (New York,
NY), pp. 2885–2888, Apr. 1988.
of size mv Ncal × mv m, [2] D. Swingler and R. Walker, “Line array beamforming using linear pre-
diction for aperture extrapolation and interpolation,” IEEE Trans. on
√ (c) Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 39, pp. 16–30, Jan 1989.
m2 = 1 − k vec(ĀH
v (θ )) (25) [3] M. Gavish and A. Weiss, “Direction finding using ESPRIT with interpo-
lated arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 39, pp. 1473–
1478, June 1991.
of size mv Ncal × 1, [4] B. Friedlander, “The root-MUSIC algorithm for direction finding with
√ (i)T interpolated arrays,” Signal Processing, vol. 30, pp. 15–29, January 1993.
(i)
M3 = k gv ⊗ āH (θ(i) ) (26) [5] A. J. Weiss and B. Friedlander, “Performance analysis of spatial smooth-
ing with interpolated arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 41, pp. 1881–1892, May 1993.
of size 1 × mv m, and finally [6] J. Krolik and D. Swingler, “Focused Wide-Band Array Processing by
Spatial Resampling,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 38, pp. 356–
√ H (i) (i) 360, Feb. 1990.
(i)
m4 = k āv (θ ) gv (27) [7] E. Doron and M. Doron, “Coherent wideband array processing,” in IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing
(ICASSP), vol. 2, pp. 497–500, 1992.
which is a scalar, we get from (22) by stacking terms [8] B. Friedlander and A. Weiss, “Direction finding for wideband signals
using an interpolated array,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 41, pp. 1618–16343, April 1993.
Topt = [9] D. Sidorowich and A. Gershman, “Two-dimensional wideband interpo-
°  lated root-MUSIC applied to measured seismic data,” IEEE Trans. on
° Re {M1 } − Im {M1 }
° Signal Processing, vol. 46, pp. 2263–2267, Aug. 1998.
° Im {M } Re n{M1 } o  [10] M. Pesavento and A. Gershman and Z.-Q. Luo, “Robust array interpo-
° n 1 o 
° (1) (1)  lation using second order cone programming,” IEEE Signal Processing
° Re M 3 − Im M3  Letters, vol. 9, pp. 8–11, Jan. 2002.
arg min ° ·
T ° .. ..  [11] J. Eriksson, On Detection and Estimation of Multiple Sources in Radar
° 
° n . o n . o  Array Processing. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology CTH,
° (N ) (N ) Dept. Signals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology CTH
° Re M3 cal − Im M3 cal Gothenburg, Sweden, Feb. 2002.
 °2  [12] R. O. Schmidt, “Multiple Emitter Location and Signal Parameter Esti-
Re {m2 } °  mation,” in Proc. RADC Spectrum Estimation Workshop, (Rome, NY),
°  
· ¸   Im {m 2 } °  

pp. 243–258, 1979.
°  [13] R. O. Schmidt, “A Signal Subspace Approach to Multiple Emitter Loca-
vec (Re {T})  m(1) ° tion and Spectral Estimation,” in PhD thesis, (Stanford University, Stan-
· − 4 ° . (28)
vec (Im {T})  .. °  ford, CA), Nov. 1981.
 . °  
°  

[14] A. Barabell, “Improving the resolution performance of eigenstructure-
(Ncal ) °  based direction-finding algorithms,” in IEEE International Conference
m 4 on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 8, (Boston,
MA), pp. 336–339, 1983.
Using the further short hand notation [15] M. Viberg and B. Ottersten, “Sensor array processing based on subspace
fitting,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 39, pp. 1110–1121,
May 1991.
Topt = arg min kMt − mk2 (29) [16] P. Stoica and K. Sharman, “A Novel Eigenanalysis Method for Direction
T of Arrival Estimation,” Proc. IEE, pp. F:19–26, Feb 1990.
[17] M. D. Zoltowski, M. Haardt, and C. P. Mathews, “Closed-form 2-D angle
for (28), with obvious definitions for M, t, and m, the mini- estimation with rectangular arrays in element space or beamspace via uni-
tary ESPRIT,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 44, pp. 316–328,
mizing transformation matrix is obtained from the least squares Feb. 1996.
solution [18] A. J. Weiss, B. Friedlander, and P. Stoica, “Direction of arrival estimation
· ¸ using MODE with interpolated arrays,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process-
vec (Re {T}) ing, vol. 43, pp. 296–300, Jan. 1995.
topt = = M† m. (30)
vec (Im {T}) [19] A. Gershman and J. Böhme, “A note on most favorable array geometries
for DOA estimation and array interpolations,” IEEE Signal Processing
This involves calculating the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse (†) Letters, vol. 4, pp. 232–235, Aug 1997.
[20] S. Andersson, “On optimal dimension reduction for sensor array signal
of a large (full rank) matrix of size (2mv + 1)Ncal × 2mv m. If, processing,” Signal Processing, vol. 30, pp. 245–256, Jan. 1993.
as a typical example, mv = m = 8 and Ncal = 15, the size of [21] S. Andersson, On Dimension Reduction in Sensor Array Processing. PhD
thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, Dec. 1992.
the matrix M is 255 × 128. This size will not slow down real [22] A. J. Weiss and B. Friedlander, “Preprocessing for direction finding with
time operation of a radio surveillance system however, since all minimal variance degradation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
mapping matrices, one for each sector and frequency, can be vol. 42, pp. 1478–1485, June 1994.
[23] J. Eriksson and M. Viberg, “Data reduction in spatially colored noise
calculated in advance. using a virtual uniform linear array,” in IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 5, (Istanbul,
Turkey), pp. 3073–3076, 2000.
[24] P. Hyberg, M. Jansson, and B. Ottersten, “Array mapping: Optimal trans-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT formation matrix design,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 3, pp. 2905–2908, May
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anony- 2002.
[25] X.-L. Xu and K. M. Buckley, “Bias analysis of the MUSIC location esti-
mous reviewers for their helpful comments which improved the mator,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 40, pp. 2559–2569,
quality of the paper. Oct. 1992.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. XX, NO. YY, MONTH ZZ, 2003 109

[26] P. Hyberg, “Circular to linear array mapping using calibration data,” in

IEE Eighth International Conference on HF Radio Systems and Tech-
niques, vol. 474, pp. 71–75, 2000.
[27] P. Hyberg, “Circular to linear array mapping using calibration data,” in
Proceedings of Antenn 2000, Nordic Antenna Symposium, (Lund, Swe-
den), pp. 125–130, 2000.
[28] D. H. Brandwood, “A complex gradient operator and its application in
adaptive array theory,” Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng., vol. 130, pp. 11–16, Feb.
1983. pts. F and H.

Per Hyberg received the M.S. degree in electrical

engineering from Lund University (LTH) Sweden in
1970 and the Technical Licentiate degree from Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH) in 2001. From 1971
PLACE he has been with the Swedish Defence Research Insti-
PHOTO tute (FOI) where he has worked in, and headed, many
HERE research projects, mainly in the fields of radar and
radar countermeasures. He has authored numerous
research reports and conference papers in these areas,
and was appointed Deputy research director (’labo-
rator’) and Research director (’forskningschef’), in
1983 and 1987 respectively. In 1987 he was elected member of the Royal
Swedish Academy of War Sciences. Mr. Hyberg is also a part time teacher
at the Swedish Defence College in Stockholm. His research interests are a. o.
in signal processing, currently sensor array direction finding for signal surveil-
lance applications.

Magnus Jansson received the Master of Science,

Technical Licentiate, and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from the Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, in 1992, 1995 and 1997,
PLACE respectively. In January 2002 he was appointed Do-
PHOTO cent in Signal Processing at KTH. From 1993, Dr.
HERE Jansson has held various research positions at the
Department of Signals, Sensors and Systems, KTH,
where he currently is an Associate Professor. Dr.
Jansson spent one year during 1998-99 at the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni-
versity of Minnesota in Minneapolis. His research interests include sensor array
signal processing, time series analysis, and system identification.

Björn Ottersten (S’87-M’89-SM’99) was born in

Stockholm, Sweden, 1961. He received the M.S.
degree in electrical engineering and applied physics
from Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, in
PLACE 1986. In 1989 he received the Ph.D. degree in electri-
PHOTO cal engineering from Stanford University, Stanford,
HERE CA. Dr. Ottersten has held research positions at
the Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping
University and the Information Systems Laboratory,
Stanford University. During 96/97 Dr. Ottersten was
Director of Research at ArrayComm Inc., Califor-
nia. He has authored papers that received the Signal Processing Society Pa-
per Award in 1993 and 2001. In 1991 he was appointed Professor of Signal
Processing at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, and he
is currently head of the Department of Signals, Sensors & Systems at KTH.
Dr. Ottersten is also a visiting professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Leuven and the Centre Universitaire, Luxembourg. Dr. Ottersten is co-editor
in chief of EURASIP Signal Processing Journal, Associate Editor for the IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing and member of the editorial boards of IEEE
Signal Processing Magazine and EURASIP Journal of Applied Signal Process-
ing. His research interests include wireless communications, stochastic signal
processing, sensor array processing, and time series analysis.