New Subspace-Based Method for Localization of
Multiple Near-Field Signals and Statistical Analysis
Weiliang Zuo∗† , Jingmin Xin∗† , Nanning Zheng∗† , and Akira Sano‡
∗ Instituteof Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
† NationalEngineering Laboratory for Visual Information Processing and Applications,
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
‡ Department of System Design Engineering, Keio University, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan
Abstract—This paper investigates the localization of multi-
ple near-field narrowband signals impinging on a symmetri-
cal uniform linear array (ULA), and a new computationally
efficient subspace-based method is proposed. The directions-
of-arrival (DOAs) and ranges are estimated separately with
a one-dimensional (1-D) subspaced-based estimation technique
without eigendecomposition, where the null spaces are obtained
through a linear operation of the matrices formed from the
anti-diagonal elements of the noiseless array covariance matrix,
and the estimated DOAs and ranges are automatically paired
without any additional processing. Furthermore, the statistical
analysis of the proposed method is studied, and the asymptotic
mean-square-error (MSE) expressions of the estimation errors
are derived. The effectiveness and the theoretical analysis of
the proposed method are verified through numerical examples,
and the simulation results show that our method provides good
estimation performance for both the DOAs and ranges.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Localization of multiple narrowband near-field signals im-
pinging on an array of sensors plays important role in many
practical applications of array processing, such as sonar,
collision avoidance radar, electronic surveillance, seismology,
speech enhancement, and biomedical imaging (e.g., [1]– [4]).
Unlike the far-field signals, where the wave emanated from
the signal source can be considered as the plane-wave at the
array characterized by the direction-of-arrival (DOA) only, and
the range (i.e., distance) becomes irrelevant, when the signal
source is close to the array and lies in the near-field (i.e.,
the Fresnel region), the wave impinging on the array has the
spherical wavefront characterized by two independent location
parameters (i.e., the range and DOA).
Numerous methods were proposed for the spherical wave-
front model (e.g., [5]– [8]), for examples, the modified two-
dimensional (2D) MUSIC [5], the polynomial rooting ap-
proach [6], the maximum-likelihood (ML) location estimator
[7], and the spherical harmonics domain method [8]. However,
most of these methods involve multidimensional searching or
high-order Taylor series expansion and have high computation-
al load. Actually, by approximating the nonlinear propagation
time delay of the spherical wavefront model into a quadratic
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grants 61671373 and 61790563, and the Programme of
Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities under Grant B13043.
‹,((( 
wavefront model with its second-order Taylor expansion (i.e.,
Fresnel approximation), the estimation of location parameters
can be facilitated [9]. Consequently many localization methods
were proposed for the near-field narrowband signals [10]–
[16], for instance, the path-following methods [10], [11],
the high-order statistics (HOS) (or cyclostationarity) based
methods [12]– [15]. In contrast to the aforementioned methods
based on the traditional spherical wavefront model [5]– [8],
these methods usually require low computational effort, but
they suffer some systematic errors introduced by the Fresnel
approximation [17], while some correction methods were
considered to mitigate the systematic error [18].
More recently, by utilizing the geometric configuration of
centro-symmetric linear arrays [19] and the quadratic wave-
front approximation model, lots of HOS (or cyclostationarity)
and second-order statistic (SOS) based localization methods
were developed [20]– [28]. Among them, the HOS (or cy-
clostationarity) based methods [20]– [23] often involve mul-
tidimensional searching or are suitable only for the incident
signals with specifically temporal properties, and they require
many array snapshots and have high computational load, while
the SOS-based methods [24]– [28] are more efficient compared
to the former. However, the weighted linear prediction method
(WLPM) [25] has a rather complicated way to calculate the
weighting matrix, while the generalized ESPRIT and MUSIC
based method (GEMM) [26] performs worse for finite array
snapshots, because the generalized ESPRIT [29] encounter-
s ambiguity in some scenarios owing to the selection of
weighting matrix [30], while the rank reduction based method
(RARE) [27] generally performs better than GEMM with more
computation load [31]. Additionally, the sparse recovery meth-
ods have difficulty determining the regularization parameter
that balances the tradeoff between the Frobenius norm term
and 1 -norm term in the objective function [28].
In this paper, we investigate the problem of localizing multi-
ple near-field narrowband signals impinging on a symmetrical
uniform linear array (ULA) with the SOS of the received array
data, and we propose a new subspace-based method without
eigendecomposition by utilizing the anti-diagonal elements of
the noiseless array covariance matrix. The asymptotic mean-
square-error (MSE) expressions of the estimation errors are
derived for both the estimated DOAs and ranges. The effec-
$VLORPDU
tiveness of the proposed method and the theoretical analysis the major cross-diagonal (for m = 0) and that along the mth
are demonstrated though numerical examples. The simulation ( 1 ≤ |m| < 2M ) upper (for m > 0) or lower (for m < 0)
results show that our method generally performs well at diagonal off the major cross-diagonal as
relatively low SNR and/or with small number of snapshots.
(R)pq  E{xp (n)x∗q (n)}
II. DATA M ODEL 
K

We consider K near-field narrowband noncoherent signals = rsk ej(2p+m)γmk + σ 2 δp,−p−m  ρm (p) (5)
{sk (n)} impinging on a ULA consisting of 2M + 1 sensors k=1

with spacing d, and the center of the array is the phase for p = −M +m2 , −M +m2 +1, · · · , −1, 0, 1, · · · , M −m1 −
reference point. In near-field, using a second-order Taylor 1, M − m1 , and q = −p − m, where m1 = 0.5(|m| + m),
expansion, then the received noisy signal xm (n) at the m-th m2 = 0.5(|m| − m), and γmk  ψk − mφk . By partitioning
sensor can be approximatively modeled as [9], [25] the matrix R in (4) into four submatrices as

K
2  K 2M +1−K

xm (n) = sk (n)ejψk m+φk m + ωm (n) (1) R11 , R12 K (6)
k=1 R= R21 , R22 2M +1−K
where m = −M, · · · , M , sk (n) denotes the k-th signal, we have the noise variance σ 2 from R21 and R22 as [33]
ωm (n) is the additive noise, while the electric angles ψk and
tr{R22 Π}
φk can be expressed as [9] σ2 = (7)
2 2
tr{Π}
2πd sin θk πd cos θk
ψk  − , φk  (2) where Π  I 2M +1−K − R21 R†21 , and R†21 = (RH −1
λ λrk 21 R21 )
†
·RH21 , while (·) and tr{·} signify Moore-Penrose pseudoin-
where θk and rk are the range and DOA of the k-th signal,
verse and the trace operator, and I m stands for an m × m
and λ is the wavelength, while the range rk is in the Fresnel
identity matrix. Hence from (5) and (7), we get the noiseless
region (i.e., rk ∈ (0.62(D3 /λ)1/2 , 2D2 /λ), where D is the
correlation ρ̄m (p) of the received array data
aperture of the array [9]. Then the received signals can be
rewritten compactly ρ̄m (p)  ρm (p) − σ 2 δp,−p−m
x(n) = As(n) + w(n) (3) K
= rsk ejmγmk ej2pγmk  r̄ Tms bm (p) (8)
where x(n)  [x−M (n), · · · , x0 (n), · · · , xM (n)]T , s(n)  k=1
[s1 (n), s2 (n), · · · , sK (n)]T , and w(n)  [w−M (n), where r̄ ms  [rs1 ejmγm1 , rs2 ejmγm2 , · · · , rsK ejmγmK ]T ,
· · · , w0 (n), · · · , wM (n)]T , while A is the array response and bm (p)  [ej2pγm1 , ej2pγm2 , · · · , ej2pγmK ]T . Evidently,
matrix defined by A  [a(θ1 , r1 ), a(θ2 , r2 ), · · · , {ρ̄m (p)} can be interpreted as the received “signals” for a
2
a(θK , rK )], and a(θk , rk )  [e−jM ψk ejM φk , · · · , virtual array of 2M + 1 − |m| sensors illuminated by K
2
e−jψk ejφk , 1, ejψk ejφk , · · · , ejM ψk ejM φk ]T , where (·)T rep- “signals” {rsk }, and these “signals” {ρ̄m (p)} differ only by a
resents transposition. phase factor γmk (cf. [34]).
In this paper, we make the basic assumptions that the matrix Consequently by dividing the virtual array into L = M +1−
A has full rank (i.e., rank{A} = K), the additive noise w(n) m1α (L ≥ K, i.e., |m| ≤ 2M + 2 − 2K − α(m)) overlapping
is temporally and spatially complex white Gaussian random subarrays with K̄ = M + 1 − m2α sensors, where K̄ ≥ L,
processes with zero-mean and variance σ 2 and uncorrelated m1α = 0.5(|m| + α(m)), m2α = 0.5(|m| − α(m)), and
with the signals {sk (n)} which are assumed temporally com- α(m) = 0.5[1−(−1)m ], we can express the correlation vector
plex white Gaussian random processes, and the number of the ζ ml of the lth subarray as
incident signals K is known and satisfies the relation K ≤ M .
ζ ml  [ρ̄m (M − K̄ − m2 − l + 1), ρ̄m (M − K̄ − m2 − l + 2),
III. L OCALIZATION OF N EAR - FIELD S IGNALS W ITHOUT
· · · , ρ̄m (M − m2 − l)]T
E IGENDECOMPOSITION
= [bm (M − K̄ − m2 − l + 1), bm (M − K̄ − m2 − l + 2),
A. Linear Operator Modeling with Noiseless Correlations
· · · , bm (M − m2 − l)]T r̄ ms
Under the basic assumptions, from (3), we obtain the (2M + M −K̄−m2 −l+1
1) × (2M + 1) array covariance matrix R = Ām D m r̄ ms (9)

R  E{x(n)xH (n)} = ARs AH + σ 2 I 2M +1 (4) in which Ām  [bm (0), bm (1), · · · , bm (K̄ −1)]T , and D m 
diag(ej2γm1 , ej2γm2 , · · · , ej2γmK ). By concatenating (9) for
where Rs  E{s(n)sH (n)} = diag(rs1 , rs2 , · · · , rsK ) with l = 1, 2, · · · , L and performing some simple manipulations,
rsk  E{sk (n)s∗k (n)}, while E{·}, {·}∗ , and (·)H represent we obtain a correlation matrix Z m as
the statistical expectation, complex conjugate, and Hermitian
transposition, respectively, and diag(·) denotes the diagonal Z m  [ζ m1 , ζ m2 , · · · , ζ mL ]T
∗ −K̄−m2 +1 T
matrix operator. We can express its pqth element (R)pq along = Ãm R̄ms D M
m Ām (10)


 T
in which Ãm  [bm (0), bm (1), · · · , bm (L−1)]T , and R̄ms  and Q̂m = [P̂ m , −I L−K ]T , in which ΠQ̂m is calculated
diag(rs1 ejmγm1 , rs2 ejmγm2 , · · · , rsK ejmγmK ). using the matrix inversion lemma implicitly, and the orthonor-
Under the assumptions, the ranks of two Vandermonde ma- malization of the matrix Q̂m is used in ΠQ̂m to improve the
trices Ãm and Ām and two diagonal matrices R̄ms and D m estimation performance [35].
are given by rank(Ãm ) = min(L, K) = K, rank(Ām ) = From (16), by setting m = 0, we can see that the DOAs
min(K̄, K) = K, and rank(R̄ms ) = rank(D m ) = K. Hence can be estimated with one-dimensional searching, i.e.,
the rank of the L × K̄ matrix Z m in (9) is obtained as
f0 (θ) = aH
0 (θ)ΠQ̂0 a0 (θ) (19)
Z m = K, i.e., the dimension of signal subspace of Z m equals
the number of incident signals K. Once we have the DOA estimates {θ̂k }K
∗ k=1 , by setting m =
Then we can divide the L × K matrix Ãm in (10) into two m̄ = 0, from (16), we have
parts as follows:
 ∗  fm̄ (θ̂k , r) = aH
m̄ (θ̂k , r)ΠQ̂m̄ am̄ (θ̂k , r) (20)
∗ Ãm1 }K
Ãm = ∗ (11) where the estimated parameters θ̂k and r̂k are paired automat-
Ãm2 }L−K
ically without any additional processing.
∗
Since Ãm1 is a submatrix of the Vandemonde matrix Ãm with
∗ Therefore when the finite array data {x(n)}N n=1 are avail-
∗ able, the implementation of the proposed method for near-field
full rank in (11), we can find that Ãm1 is invertible and the
∗ localization is summarized as follows:
rows of Ãm2 are a linear combination of linear independent
∗ 1) Calculate the sample covariance matrix R̂ with (15).
rows of Ãm1 , equivalently, there is a K × (L − K) linear
∗ ∗
operator P m between Ãm2 and Ãm1 as [32] 2) Estimate the noise variance σ 2 with (6) and (7), and
calculate the noiseless correlation ρ̄ˆm (p) with (8).
∗ ∗
Ãm2 = P H
m Ãm1 . (12) 3) Estimate the DOAs {θk }K k=1 by finding the phases of
the K zeros of the following polynomial p0 (z) closest
Hence from (10) and (12), by partitioning the matrix Z m in to the unit circle in the z-plane with (19), where p0 (z) 
(10) as Z m = [Z Tm1 , RTm2 ]T , where Z m1 and Z m2 consist of pH0 (z)ΠQ̂0 p0 (z), and p0 (z)  [1, z
−1
, · · · , z −(L−1) ]T ,
the first K and the last L − K rows, respectively, the linear and z  ej4πd sin θ/λ .
operator P m can be obtained from the noiseless correlation 4) Estimate the ranges {rk }K k=1 by finding the phases
matrix Z m (cf. [35]) of the K zeros of the following polynomial pm̄ (z)
−T T −1 closest to the unit circle in the z-plane with (20),
P m = Ãm1 Ãm2 = (Z m1 Z H
m1 ) Z m1 Z H
m2 . (13) H
where pm̄ (z)  pH m̄ (z)Γ (θ̂k )ΠQ̂m̄ Γ(θ̂k )pm̄ (z),
From (12), we easily get and pm̄ (z)  [1, z −1 , · · · , z −(L−1) ]T ,
4j ψ̂k
∗ Γ(θ̂k )  diag{1, e , · · · , e2(L−1)j ψ̂k }, and
QH
m Ãm = O (L−K)×K (14) ze 2j m̄πd2 cos2 θ̂k /(λr)
.
where Qm  [P Tm , −I L−K ]T , while O m×n stands for an IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
m × n null matrix.
For sufficiently larger number of snapshots N , we can ob-
B. Parameter Estimation and Pairing tain the asymptotic MSE expressions of the DOAs and ranges
estimates of the proposed method by the following Theorems.
Thus when only finite and noisy array data are available, Theorem 1: The large-sample MSE of the estimation error
the array covariance matrix R can be obtained θ̂k − θk of the near-field signals obtained by (19) is given by
1 
N
MSE(θ̂k ) = var{θ̂k }
R̂ = x(n)xH (n) (15)
N n=1 σ2 2 2 H
=
2N H0kk2 Re{σ Tr{M 0k M 0k } + σ Tr{M 0k M 0k }
where N is the number of snapshots. Then from (14), the
parameters {γmk }K + 2Tr{M 0k R̄M 0k } + Tr{M H
0k R̄M 0k }
k=1 of the K near-field signals can be
estimated by minimizing the following cost function + Tr{M 0k R̄M H
0k }} (24)
H −1
f (θ) = aH
m (γmk )ΠQ̂m am (γmk ) (16) where g 0 (θk )  ΠQ0 d0 (θk ), h0 (θk )  Z H 01 (Z 01 Z 01 )
·a01 (θk ), H0kk  dH 0 (θ k )Π d (θ
Q0 0 k ), d (θ
0 k )  da 0 (θ)
∗
where am (γmk ) is the kth column of the matrix Ãm given ·/(dθ)|θ=θk , M 0k  (g H
0 (θ k )⊗I 2M +1 )C 0 (h (θ
0 k )⊗I 2M +1 ),
∗
by am (γmk )  [1, e−2jγmk , · · · , e−j2(L−1)γmk ]T , and R̄ = R − σ 2 I 2M +1 , a01 (θk ) denotes the k column of Ã01 ,
H H
and C 0 = C m |m=0 given at the bottom of this page (where
ΠQ̂m = Q̂m (Q̂m Q̂m )−1 Q̂m ei is a (2M + 1) × 1 unit vector with a unity element at
H H H the ith location and zeros elsewhere), while ⊗ signifies the
= Q̂m (I L−K − P̂ m (P̂ m P̂ m + I K )−1 P̂ m )Q̂m(17)
H H
Kronecker product and Re{ · } denotes the real part of the
P̂ m = (Ẑ m1 Ẑ m1 )−1 Ẑ m1 Ẑ m2 (18) bracketed quantity.


 Proof: Omitted.  102
(a) DOA Estimation Performance versus SNR

Theorem 2: The large-sample MSE of the estimation error

r̂k − rk of the near-field signals obtained by (20) is given by

RMSE(deg)
100
MSE(r̂k ) = var{r̂k }
H̄ 2 σ2 10-2
= m̄kk
2 MSE( θ̂ k ) + 2 Re{σ 2 Tr{M m̄k M m̄k }
Hm̄kk 2N Hm̄kk -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
+ σ 2 Tr{M m̄k M H m̄k } + 2Tr{M m̄k R̄M m̄k }
SNR (dB)
(b) Range Estimation Performance versus SNR
+ Tr{M H m̄k R̄M H
m̄k } + Tr{M m̄k R̄M m̄k }}
σ 2 H̄m̄kk 100
2 Re{σ 2 Tr{M m̄k M 0k }

RMSE
N Hm̄kk H0kk
+ σ 2 Tr{M m̄k M H
0k } + 2Tr{M m̄k R̄M 0k }
10-2

+ Tr{M H H
m̄k R̄M 0k } + Tr{M m̄k R̄M 0k }} (28)
10-4
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
where g m̄ (θk , rk )  ΠQm̄ dm̄ (θk , rk ), hm̄ (θk , rk )  SNR (dB)
H −1
ZH m̄1 (Z m̄1 Z m̄1 ) · am̄1 (θk , rk ), Hm̄kk  dH m̄r (θk , rk )
·ΠQm̄ dm̄r (θk , rk ), H̄m̄kk  −dH m̄r (θk , rk )ΠQm̄ dm̄θ (θk , rk ), Fig. 1. RMSEs of the (a) DOA and (b) range estimates versus the SNR
dm̄r (θk , rk )  ∂am̄ (θk , rk ) · /(∂r)|r=rk , dm̄θ (θk , rk ) (dashed line: GEMM; solid line: the proposed method; “∗”:theoretical RMSE;
dotted line: CRB) for Example 1 (N = 128, (2◦ , 2.9λ), and (19◦ , 3.3λ)).
 ∂am̄ (θk , rk ) · /(∂θ)|θ=θk , M m̄k  (g H m̄ (θk , rk ) ⊗
I 2M +1 )C m̄ (hm̄ (θk , rk ) ⊗ I 2M +1 ), am̄1 (θk ) denotes the k
∗
column of Ãm̄1 , and C m̄ = C m |m=m̄ given at the bottom 102
(a) DOA Estimation Performance versus Snapshots

of this page.
101
RMSE(deg)

Proof: Omitted. 
100
V. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
10-1
Now we evaluate the estimation performance of proposed
10-2
method with a ULA consisting of 2M + 1 = 11 sensors with 101 102 103 104
d = λ/4. The GEMM [26] and the Cramer-Rao lower bound Number of Snapshots
(CRB) [25] are carried out for comparison, the results in each (b) Range Estimation Performance versus Snapshots

of the example below are obtained from 1000 independent

100
trails, and m̄ is set at m̄ = 1 for Example 1 and 2.
RMSE

Example 1—Performance versus SNR: Two near-field sig- 10-1

nals with equal power (i.e., rs1 = rs2 = rs ) are local- 10-2
ized at (2◦ , 2.9λ) and (19◦ , 3.3λ), the SNR is varied from
10-3
−10dB to 40dB, while the number of snapshots is fixed at 101 102 103 104

N = 128. The sources are noncoherent SNR1

with the correlation Number of Snapshots

1 10 10 0
matrix (e.g., [36]) Rs = σ2 SNR2 , where
0 10 10
rs
SNR1 = SNR2 = σ2 and the signal power is kept equal
to one for each simulation. The averaged root mean-squared-
errors (RMSEs) of the estimated DOAs and ranges of two
signals in terms of the SNR are shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b),
respectively. Obviously, the DOA estimation performance of
the proposed method performs well than the GEMM [26],
while the range estimation has a satisfactory performance. The
empirical RMSEs of the proposed method coincide well with
the theoretical RMSEs derived in Section IV (except at low
Fig. 2. RMSEs of the (a) DOA and (b) range estimates versus the num-
ber of snapshots (dashed line: GEMM; solid line: the proposed method;
“∗”:theoretical RMSE; dotted line: CRB) for Example 2 (SNR = 5dB,
(2◦ , 2.9λ), and (19◦ , 3.3λ)).
SNR), and they decrease monotonically with the increasing
SNR and are very close to the CRB.
Example 2—Performance versus Number of Snapshot: The
simulation conditions are similar to those in Example 1, except
that the SNR is set at 5dB, and the number of snapshots is

⎡ ⎤
e2M +2−K̄−m1 eTK̄+m2 , e2M +3−K̄−m1 eTK̄−1+m2 , ··· , e2M +1−m1 eT1+m2
⎢e2M +1−K̄−m eT , e2M +2−K̄−m1 eTK̄+m2 , ··· , e2M −m1 e2+m2 ⎥
T
⎢ 1 K̄+1+m2 ⎥
Cm =⎢ . .. .. .. ⎥ (27)
⎣ .. . . . ⎦
T
e1−m1 e2M +1+m2 , e2−m1 eT2M +m2 , ··· , T
eK̄−m1 e2M +2+m2


varied from 10 to 10000. The empirical RMSEs of the DOAs
and ranges against the number of snapshots are plotted in
Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), and they are compared with the GEMM
and the CRBs. The proposed method has better localization
performance than the GEMM (except the range estimation
with larger number of snapshots), The empirical RMSEs of the
estimated DOAs and that of the estimated ranges agree very
well with the CRB, when the number of snapshots becomes
large.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a new computationally efficient subspace-
based method without multidimensional searching, HOS, or
eigendecomposition was proposed for localization multiple
near-field signals impinging on a symmetrical ULA, where the
estimated DOAs and ranges are automatically paired without
any additional processing. Furthermore, the explicit asymptotic
MSE expressions of the estimated DOAs and ranges were clar-
ified for the proposed method. Finally, the effectiveness and
the theoretical analysis were substantiated through numerical
examples.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Pasupathy and W.J. Alford, “Range and bearing estimation in passive
sonar,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 244–249,
1980.
[2] D.H. Johnson and D.E. Dudgeon, Array Signal Processing: Concepts
and Techniques. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[3] H. Krim and M. Viberg, “Two decades of array signal processing
research: The parametric approach,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 13,
no. 4, pp. 67-94, 1996.
[4] P.R.P. Hoole, Ed., Smart Antennas and Signal Processing for Communi-
cations, Biomedical and Radar Systems. Southampton, U.K.: WIT Press,
2001.
[5] Y.-D. Huang and M. Barkat, “Near-field multiple source localization by
passive sensor array,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 9, no. 7,
pp. 968–975, 1991.
[6] A.J. Weiss and B. Friedlander, “Range and bearing estimation uisng
polynomial rooting,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 130-137,
1993.
[7] J.C. Chen, R.E. Hudson, and K. Yao, “Maximum-likelihood source
localization and unknown sensor location estimation for wideband
signals in the near-field,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 50, no. 8,
pp. 1843-1854, 2002.
[8] L. Kumar and R.M. Hegde, “Near-field acoustic source localization
and beamforming in spherical harmonics domain,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 64, no. 13, pp. 3351–3361, 2016.
[9] A.L. Swindlehurst and T. Kailath, “Passive direction-of-arrival and range
estimation for near-field sources,” in Proc. IEEE 4th ASSP Workshop
Spec. Est. Mod., pp. 123-128, Minneapolis, MN, Aug. 1988.
[10] D. Starer and A. Nehorai, “Passive localization of near-field sources by
path following,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 677-
680, 1994.
[11] J. Lee, C. Lee, and K. Lee, “A modified path-following algorithm using
a known algebraic path,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 47, no. 5,
pp. 1407–1409, 1999.
[12] R.N. Challa and S. Shamsunder, “High-order subspace-based algorithms
for passive localization of near-field sources,” in Proc. IEEE 29th
Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comput., vol. 2, pp. 777-781, Pacific
Grove, CA, Nov. 1995.
[13] N. Yuen and B. Friedlander, “Performance analysis of higher order
ESPRIT for localization of near-field sources,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 709–719, 1998.

[14] Y. Wu, L. Ma, C. Hou, G. Zhang, and J. Li, “Subspace-based method for
joint range and DOA estimation of multiple near-field sources,” Signal
Process., vol. 86, no. 8, pp. 2129–2133, 2006.
[15] J. Liang, X. Zeng, B. Ji, J. Zhang, and F. Zhao “A computationally
efficient algorithm for joint range–DOA–frequency estimation of near-
field sources,” Digital Signal Process., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 596–611, 2009.
[16] H. Chen, X. Zhang, Y. Bai, and J. Ma, “ Computationally efficient DOA
and range estimation for near–field source with linear antenna array,”
in Proc. the World Cong. Engineer. and Comput. Science, vol. 1. San
Francisco, USA, 2017.
[17] Y.S. Hsu, K.T. Wong, and L. Yeh, “Mismatch of near-field bearing-range
spatial geometry in source-localization by a uniform linear array,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3658–3667, 2011.
[18] P. Singh, Y. Wang, and P. Chargè, “A correction method for the near
field approximated model based localization techniques,” Digital Signal
Process., vol. 67, pp. 76–80, 2017.
[19] H. Gazzah and J.P. Delmas, “CRB-based design of linear antenna
arrays for near-field source localization,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1965–1974, April 2014.
[20] M. Haardt, R.N. Challa, and S. Shamsunder, “Improved bearing and
range estimation via high-order subspace based unitary esprit,” Proc.
IEEE 13th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Sys. Computers, vol. 1, pp. 380–
384, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1996.
[21] J.H. Lee and C.H. Tung, “Estimating the bearings of near-field cyclosta-
tionary signals,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 110–
118, 2002.
[22] J. Liang and D. Liu, “Passive localization of near-field sources using
cumulant,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 953-960, Aug. 2009.
[23] J. Li, Y. Wang, C. Le Bastard, G. Wei, B. Ma, M. Sun, and Z. Yu,
“Simplified high-order DOA and range estimation with linear antenna
array,” IEEE Comm. Lett., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 76-79, 2017.
[24] J. Lee, Y. Chen, and C. Yeh, “A covariance approximation method for
near-field direction-finding using a uniform linear array,” IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1293–1298, 1995.
[25] E. Grosicki, K. Meraim, and Y. Hua, “A weighted linear prediction
method for near-field source localization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3651-3660, 2005.
[26] W. Zhi and M.Y.W. Chia, “Near-field source localization via symmetric
subarrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 409-412, 2007.
[27] J. W. Tao, L. Liu, and Z.-Y. Lin, “Joint DOA, range, and polarization
estimation in the Fresnel region,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.,
vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2657–2672, 2011.
[28] K. Hu, S.P. Chepuri, and G. Leus, “Near-field source localization: Sparse
recovery techniques and grid matching,” IEEE 8th Sensor Array and
Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop (SAM), A Coruna, 2014,
pp. 369–372.
[29] F. Gao and A.B. Gershman, “A generalized ESPRIT approach to
direction-of-arrival estimation,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 254–257, 2005.
[30] G. Wang, J. Xin, J. Wu, J. Wang, N. Zheng, and A. Sano, “New
generalized ESPRIT for direction estimation and its mathematical link to
RARE method,” in Proc. IEEE 12th Int. Conf. Signal Process., pp. 360–
363, Beijing, China, October 2012.
[31] W. Zuo, J. Xin, G. Wang, J. Wang, N. Zheng, and A. Sano, “Near-
field source localization with partly sensor gain and phase uncertainties,”
Proc. IEEE 15th Int. Workshop Signal Process. Advances in Wireless
Commun., pp. 160–164, Toronto, ON, 2014.
[32] S. Marcos, A. Marsal, and M. Benider, “The propagator method for
sources bearing estimation,” Signal Process., vol. 42, pp. 121-138, 1995.
[33] J. Sanchez-Araujo and S. Marcos, “Statistical analysis of the propagator
method for DOA estimation without eigendecomposition,” in Proc. IEEE
8th Workshop Statistical Signal and Array Process., pp. 570-573, Corfu,
Greece, Jun. 1996.
[34] J. Xin and A. Sano, “Direction estimation of coherent signals using
spatial signature,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 414-
417, 2002.
[35] J. Xin and A. Sano, “Computationally efficient subspace-based method
for direction-of-arrival estimation without eigendecomposition,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 876-893, 2004.
[36] R. Boyer and G. Bouleux, “Oblique projections for direction-of-arrival
estimation with prior knowledge,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process.,
vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1374–1387, April 2008.