2014 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC)
Near-Field Source Localization with Partly Sensor
Gain and Phase Uncertainties
Weiliang Zuo∗ , Jingmin Xin∗ , Guangmin Wang∗ , Jiasong Wang† , Nanning Zheng∗ and Akira Sano‡
∗ Institute
of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
† State Key Laboratory of Astronautic Dynamics, Xi’an 710043, China
‡ Department of System Design Engineering, Keio University, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan
Abstract—In this paper, we consider the source localization
for the multiple near-field narrowband signals impinging on a
uniform linear array (ULA) with partly gain and phase uncer-
tainties. By dividing the ULA into two overlapped symmetric
subarrays and assuming that they have partly unknown gain and
phase responses but correspondingly identical, a new modified
generalized ESPRIT based method is presented, in which the
direction of arrival (DOA) and range are estimated separately.
Moreover, we prove that the proposed method is equivalent to the
spectral Fresnel-region rank reduction (FR-RARE) [15] method,
but more computationally efficient than it. The simulations
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Passive source localization finds its important applications
in speaker localization using microphone arrays, guidance
(homing) systems, radar, sonar, wireless communication ,seis-
mic exploration and so on (e.g., [1] and references therein), and
plenty of algorithms have been developed for dealing with the
direction-of-arrival (DOA) estimation of the multiple far-field
narrowband signals, where the propagating waves have planar
wavefronts, among which the multiple signal classification
(MUSIC) [2] and estimation of signal parameters via rotational
invariance techniques (ESPRIT) [3] methods are very popular.
However, when the signals are located in the near-field
of the array, the wavefronts emitted from these signals are
spherical rather than planar at the sensor array. Therefore,
the above-mentioned techniques for the far-filed signals are
not applicable. Therefore, based on the symmetric uniform
linear array (ULA), many algorithms have been proposed
for estimating the DOA and range of the multiple near-
field narrowband signals, such as the weighted linear method
[6] and the high-order-statistic based (i.e., cumulant) method
[7]. Moreover, in [14], the authors extended the generalized
ESPRIT (GESPRIT) [5] to the symmetric subarrays for the
near-field source localization (N-GESPRIT). Meanwhile, based
on the idea of the conventional RARE method [4], the authors
in [15] developed a spectral Fresnel-region rank reduction (FR-
RARE) algorithm with symmetric sparse array for near-field
source localization. Comparing with the conventional near-
field source localization methods, the N-GESPRIT and FR-
RARE methods do not require high-order-statics computation
or parameter pairing or multidimensional searching.
In addition, the problem of DOA estimation of the far-
field signals using partly calibrated arrays has been studied
considerably (e.g., [8] and [9]), but the near-field source local-
ization under unknown gain and phase responses receives a few
consideration. However, when some sensors of the subarrays
978-1-4799-4903-8/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE 160
encounter in gain and phase uncertainties, the aforementioned
methods are not directly applicable. Under this condition,
many algorithms have proposed for bearing estimation of the
multiple far-filed signals with unknown subarrays responses
[3]–[5], by take advantage of the rotational invariance property
of the subarrays, in which the key idea is that they utilize
the known part of array geometry. But these methods are
not applicable for the near-field scenario. In [10], they extend
the RARE [4] method to its 2-Dimensional (2-D) version for
the near-field source localization. Unfortunately, this method
requires 2-D search which is time-consuming.
Therefore, in this paper, based on the N-GSEPRIT, we
propose a simple but efficient method for localizing the
multiple near-filed narrowband signals with partly calibrated
ULA. Firstly, by dividing the ULA into two overlapped
symmetric subarrays and assuming that the subarrays have
partly unknown gain and phase responses but correspondingly
identical, we get the DOA estimates, in which we choose a
more appropriate weighting matrix [11], [12] to get a better
estimation performance. Then Inspired by the conventional
RARE method, a determinant based algorithm is presented
for the range estimation. Both the DOA and range estimation
are independent of the unknown gains and phases. Moreover,
we prove that the proposed method is equivalent to the
FR-RARE [15] method, but more computationally efficient
than it. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed method is
demonstrated by numerical examples.
II. DATA M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
As shown in Fig. 1, we consider K near-field narrowband
noncoherent signals {sk (n)} impinging on a ULA consisting
of 2M + 1 sensors with spacing d, where the central 2Mc + 1
sensors from −Mc to Mc are assumed to be fully calibrated.
Let the center of the array be the phase reference point, then
the received noisy signal xm (n) at the m-th sensor can be
expressed as
K
xm (n) = γm sk (n)ejτmk + ωm (n) (1)
k=1
where m = −M, · · · , M , γm is the gain and phase uncertain-
ties on the m-th sensor, sk (n) denotes the k-th signal, ωm (n)
is the additive noise, and τmk is the phase delay due to the
time delay between the reference sensor and the m-th sensor
for the k-th signal, which is given by [16]
 
2π
τmk = rk2 + (md)2 − 2rk md sin θk − rk (2)
λ
 2014 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC)

VN
where θk and rk are the range and DOA of the k-th signal,
and λ is the wavelength. When the signal k is in the Fresnel UN
region (i.e., rk ∈ (0.62(D3 /λ)1/2 , 2D2 /λ), where D is the TN
aperture of the array [15], a good approximation of τmk can
be obtained by using the second-order Taylor expansion as [6] G G
 2
2 d 0  0 F    0 F  0F 
τmk = ωk m + φk m + O (3) 0F 0
rk2
Fig. 1. The partly calibrated ULA with the symmetrical geometric configu-
where ωk  2πd sin θk /λ, φk  πd2 cos2 θk /(λrk ), and ration.
O(d2 /rk2 ) represents terms of order greater or equal to d2 /rk2
that are neglected here, so τmk = ωk m + φk m2 . Thus, the are given by
received noisy signal xm (n) by the k-th sensor in (1) can be ā1 (θk , rk , γ 1 ) = P 1 Γ(γ)a(θk , rk ) (9)
expressed as ā2 (θk , rk , γ 2 ) = P 2 Γ(γ)a(θk , rk ) (10)
K
xm (n) =
2
γm sk (n)ej(ωk m+φk m ) + ωm (n) (4) where P 1 and P 2 are the selection matrices defined by
k=1
P 1 = [I M +1 0(M +1)×M ] and P 2 = [0(M +1)×M I M +1 ],
respectively, where 0m×n denotes the m × n zero matrix, I m
The received signals vector x(n)  [x−M (n), x−M +1 (n), denotes the m×m identity matrix, γ 1 = P 1 γ and γ 2 = P 2 γ.
· · · , xM −1 (n), xM (n)]T can be rewritten in a vector-matrix Then they can be expressed as
form as ⎡ ⎤
γ|M | ejτM k
K
⎢ .. ⎥
x(n) = Γ(γ) a(θk , rk )sk (n) + ω(n) ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
k=1 ⎢ γ|Mc +1| ejτ(Mc +1)k ⎥
= Γ(γ)As(n) + ω(n) ⎢ ⎥
ā1 (θk , rk , γ 1 ) = ⎢ jτ
e Mc k ⎥ (11)
⎢ ⎥
= Ās(n) + ω(n) (5) ⎢ .. ⎥
⎢ . ⎥
where ( · ) denotes transpose, s(n) and ω(n) are the
T ⎣ ⎦
ejτ1k
vectors of incident signals and additive noises given 1
by s(n)  [s1 (n), s2 (n), · · · , sK (n)]T and ω(n)  ⎡ ⎤
1
[ω−M (n), ω−M +1 (n), · · · , ωM −1 (n), ωM (n)]T , respectively, jτ−1k
while Ā is the steering matrix of the partly calibrated ULA ⎢ e ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
defied by Ā  Γ(γ)A, where A is the ideal array steering ⎢ ⎥
⎢ . ⎥
matrix given by A  [a(r1 , θ1 ), a(r2 , θ2 ), · · · , a(rK , θK )], ⎢ ⎥
ā2 (θk , rk , γ 2 ) = ⎢ e jτ−Mc k
⎥ (12)
and a(rk , θk ) is the array steering vectors which can be ⎢ γ jτ ⎥
⎢ |Mc +1| e −(Mc +1)k ⎥
expressed as ⎢ .. ⎥
⎡ 2 ⎤ ⎣ . ⎦
ejM ωk +jM φk jτ−M k
⎢ .. ⎥ γ|M | e
⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥ Then, from (11) and (12), we can easily see
⎢ e jωk +jφk ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ā2 (θk , rk , γ 2 ) = J M +1 Φk ā1 (θk , rk , γ 1 ) (13)
a(rk , θk ) = ⎢
⎢ 1 ⎥.
⎥ (6)
⎢ e−jωk +jφk ⎥ where  
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥ Φk = diag e−j(2ωk )M , · · · , e−j(2ωk ) , 1 , (14)
⎣ . ⎦
2
−jM ωk +jM φk
e and J m is an m×m anti-identity matrix satisfying J 2m = I m .
Additionally, Γ(γ) is the gain and phase uncertainties matrix Then the symmetric property gives [14]
given by Ā2 = J M +1 [Φ1 ā1 (θ1 , r1 , γ 1 ), · · · , ΦK ā1 (θK , rK , γ 1 )].
Γ(γ) = diag{γ} (7) (15)
In this paper, we assume that the array response matrix Ā has
where diag{ · } denotes the diagonal matrix operator, and γ is full rank (i.e.,rank{Ā} = K), the incident signals {sk (n)}
the gain and phase uncertainties vector with the dimension of are zero-mean wide-sense stationary random processes, the
2M + 1, which is given by additive noises {wm (n)} are temporally and spatially complex
γ = [γ−M , · · · , γ−Mc −1 , 1, · · · , 1, γMc +1 , · · · , γM ]T . (8) white Gaussian random process with zero-mean and variance
   σ 2 and uncorrelated with the incident signals {sk (n)}, and the
2Mc +1
numbers of the incident signals K is known and satisfies the
In this paper, we assume that the array is partly calibrated, relation K ≤ M .
the unknown gain and phase responses have the relation of
γ−m = γm = γ|m| and γMc = γMc −1 = · · · = γ0 = 1.
III. N EAR - FIELD S OURCE L OCALIZATION

Inspired by the conventional ESPRIT algorithm [3], we di- Under the basic assumptions, from (5), we have the array
vide the partly calibrated ULA into two overlapping symmetric covariance matrix R of the received data as
subarrays. Let Ā1 consists of the first M + 1 rows of Ā and R = E{x(n)x(n)H } = Γ(γ)ARs AH ΓH (γ) + σ 2 I 2M +1
Ā2 consists of the last M + 1 rows of Ā, and their columns (16)

161
 2014 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC)

where Rs is the signals covariance matrix defined by Rs  be written as

E{s(n)sH (n)}, E{w(n)wH (n)} = σ 2 I 2M +1 , E{ · } repre- H
fGES (θ) = det{Û s1 B̂(θ)} (26)
sents the statistical expectation, and ( · )H denotes the Hermi-
tian transpose. It’s easily to obtain the eigendecomposition of where B̂(θ) = J M +1 Û s2 − Φ(θ)Û s1 . Introducing the nota-
covariance matrix as [2] tions
R = U s Λs U H s + U n Λn U n (17) Φ(z) = diag{z M , · · · , z, 1} (27)
where U s and U n are the orthonormal matrices composed with z = e−j4πd sin θ/λ , and the denominator of (26) can be
of signal- and noise-subspace eigenvectors of R, respectively, written as the following polynomial
whereas Λs is a K ×K diagonal matrix consisting of K largest H
fGES (z) = det{Û s1 B̂(z)} (28)
eigenvalues, while Λn is a (2M + 1 − K) × (2M + 1 − K)
diagonal matrix consisting of 2M +1−K smallest eigenvalues. where B̂(z) = J M +1 Û s2 − Φ(z)Û s1 .
When the N snapshots of array data are available, the array
covariance and its eigendecompositon can be calculated as
B. DOA Estimation via a Modified GESPRIT Method
1 
N
H
R̂ = x(n)xH (n) = Û s Λ̂s Û s + Û n Λ̂n Û n (18) By choosing the weighting matrix W in (25) as W =
N n=1
B(θ) [11], [12], the DOAs can be estimated by minimizing
where x̂ denotes the estimate of the variable x. Therefore, the following cost function
the problem we are interested in is to estimate the DOAs fM GES (θ) = det{B H (θ)B(θ)} (29)
and ranges under the partly unknown gains and phases but
correspondingly identical from the array observations. where B(θ) = J M +1 U s2 −Φ(θ)U s1 . Note that this definition
of the cost function in (29) is different from that in (26). In
a similar way to the above, the denominator of (29) can be
A. DOA Estimation with Partly Calibrated Arrays written as the following polynomial, in the finite sample case,
H
fM GES (z) = det{B̂ (z)B̂(z)} (30)
Since the signal subspace U s spans the same space as the
perturbed steering matrix Ā, i.e., span(U s ) =spanĀ, there where B̂(z) = J M +1 Û s2 −Φ(z)Û s1 . The roots of fM GES (z)
exists a K × K nonsingular matrix T satisfying appear in conjugate reciprocal pairs and, therefore, the bearing
U s = ĀT . (19) estimation can be obtained in the similar way as in root-
MUSIC.
Similar to the partition of the steering matrix Ā, we can divide
U s into two parts as U s1 = P 1 U , and U s2 = P 2 U , where
U s1 and U s2 consist of the first and last M + 1 rows of U s , C. Equivalence of Proposed Method and FR-RARE for Near-
respectively. Consequently, we have field Source Localization
U s1 = Ā1 T (20) It was shown in [11], [12] that the modified GESPRIT is
U s2 = Ā2 T (21) equivalent to the RARE technique in far-field scenario. In this
section, we will investigate the equivalence of the proposed
According to the generalized ESPRIT in [5], we introduce a
method and the FR-RARE [15] method in near-field scenario.
diagonal matrix
 4πd 4πd
 For convenience, we directly write the cost function of the
Ψ(θ) = diag e−j( λ sin θ)M , · · · , e−j( λ sin θ) , 1 , (22) FR-RARE method as follows
and from (15), (20) and (21), we can form a (M + 1) × K fRARE (θ) = det{D H (θ)U n U Hn D(θ)} (31)
matrix B(θ) as where D(θ) is a (2M + 1) × (M + 1) matrix [15] given by
⎡ −jωM ⎤
B(θ) = J M +1 U s2 − Ψ(θ)U s1 e ··· 0 0
= Q(θ)T (23) ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
where the matrix Q(θ) has the following form ⎢ 0 · · · e−jω 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Q(θ) = J M +1 Ā2 − Ψ(θ)Ā1 D(θ) = ⎢ 0 ··· 0 1 ⎥. (32)
⎢ 0 · · · ejω 0 ⎥
= [(Φ1 − Ψ(θ))ā1 (θ1 , r1 , γ 1 ), · · · , ⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
⎣ ..
. ⎦
(ΦK − Ψ(θ))ā1 (θK , rK , γ 1 )]. (24) . . .
Hence the kth column of the (M + 1) × K matrix Q(θ) e jωM
··· 0 0
becomes to 0(M +1)×1 when θ = θk , which implies that the
matrix B(θ) is singular by considering the fact that T in (23) Now, let us partition the signal subspace U s as
 
is nonsingular, i.e., rank{B(θ)}=rank{Q(θ)}= K − 1. As Ū s1 }M
M + 1 > K, the (M + 1) × K matrix B(θ) is a tall matrix, U s = u0 H
}1 (33)
and an arbitrary (M + 1) × K full-rank matrix W can be Ū s2 }M
introduced to get a K × K square matrix as where uH 0 is the (M + 1)th row vector of the U s . By some
F (θ) = W H B(θ). (25) simple calculations, the cost function in (29) can be readily
Firstly, we choose W = U s1 [5]. Thus in the finite sample rewritten as
case, the cost function of the N-GESPRIT based method can fM GES (θ) = det{2I p − 2U 0 − ΥH (θ)Υ(θ)} (34)

162
 2014 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC)

where Υ(θ)  J M Ū s2 + Φ̄(θ)Ū s1 and U 0  u0 uH

0 . Then and γ̄ is a M − Mc + 1 vector given by
we partition D(θ) in (32) as γ̄ = [γM , γM −1 , · · · , γMc +1 , 1]T , (43)
⎡ ⎤
IM 0M ×1 2πd πd2 2
and ω̂  sin θ̂, φ(r)  cos θ̂. Then inserting (41), we
D(θ) = ⎣ 0H 1 ⎦Φ 2
H
(35) λ λr
M ×1 can rewrite (40) as
J M Φ̄(θ) 0M ×1 H
j2ω(M −1) H γ̄ H H(r)H D H (θ̂)Û n Û n D(θ̂)H(r)γ̄ = γ̄ H C(r)γ̄ = 0
where Φ̄  diag{e j2ωM
,e , · · · , e }, and Φ
j2ω 2
(44)
denotes the Hermitian transpose of the positive definite square- where
root of Φ. By using the well-known property of block matrix H
determinants [18], the cost function in (31) can be reexpressed C(r)  H(r)H D H (θ̂)Û n Û n D(θ̂)H(r) (45)
as is a (M − Mc + 1) × (M − Mc + 1) Hermitian matrix. Similar
fRARE (θ) = κdet{2I M − Υ(θ)ΞΥH (θ)} to the convectional RARE [4] method, the matrix C(r) is
 −1  independent of γ. And if K ≤ M , C(r) is, in general, full
Ξ ΥH (θ) rank. Equation (44) may hold true only if the matrix C(r)
= κμdet
Υ(θ) 2I M drops rank so that rank{C(r)}< K or, equivalently,
1
= κμ2M det{Ξ−1 − ΥH (θ)Υ(θ)} (36) det{C(r)} = 0 (46)
2
−1 Thus, the ranges {rk }Kk=1 can be calculated in the Fresnel
where κ  det{1 − uH 0 u0 } = 1 − ζ, μ  1/det{Ξ }, and
1 region, by solving the following polynomial
Ξ  I K + 1−ζ U 0 , where ζ  u0 u0 . Making use of the well
H

known matrix inversion lemma (e.g., see [17] and references fr (z) = det{Ĉ(z)} (47)
therein), we get where
Ξ−1 = I K − U 0 (37) H
Ĉ(z) = H(z)H D H (θ̂)Û n Û n D(θ̂)H(z) (48)
Moreover, we have where z = e jφ(r)
. Meanwhile, the estimates of the ranges
U 0 u0 = ζu0 (38) {r̂k }K
k=1 and the DOAs {θ̂k }K
k=1 are automatically paired
That is to say the only one nonzero eigenvalue of the matrix is without any additional processing.
ζ and the corresponding eigenvector is u0 . It’s easy to known
det{Ξ−1 } = 1 − ζ, so κμ = 1. Then we have IV. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
fRARE (θ) = 2M −K fM GES (θ). (39)
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the pro-
Similar to the analysis in [12] for far-field signals, we can posed method in localizing the multiple near-field narrowband
easily see that the size of the matrix B H (θ)B(θ) in (29) is signals by using a ULA consisting of 2M + 1 = 9 sensors
K × K, while the size of the matrix D H (θ)U n U H n D(θ) in with element spacing d = λ/4, where the unknown gains and
(31) is (M + 1) × (M + 1). With the assumption that K ≤ M , phases vector given by γ̄ = [0.89ejπ/8 , 0.91e−jπ/10 , 1]T , and
we prove that the proposed method is equivalent to the FR- the central 5 sensors of the ULA from −2 to 2 are assumed
RARE [15] method, but more computationally efficient than to be perfectly calibrated. Two signals with equal power arrive
the FR-RARE method. from the directions (−5◦ , 2.2λ) and (12◦ , 2.6λ). Meanwhile,
the behavior of the FR-RARE algorithm [15], N-GESPRIT
D. Range Estimation With Gain and Phase Uncertainties [14] and the Cramer-Rao lower bound (CRB) [6] are also
presented, while SNR is defined as the ratio of the signal power
Once we get the DOA estimates, the problem is reduced to to the noise variance at each sensor. In this paper, the root mean
finding the ranges r with the unknown gains and phases with square errors (RMSEs) of the DOA and range are calculated,
the steering vectors ā(θ, r, γ). Since the noise subspace U n respectively, by the formula [6]
has been estimated in (18), the range spectrum function can 

be directly constrcted by MUSIC [2] algorithm  1  N K

H RM SEθ =  (θ̂k,p − θk )2 (49)

āH (θ̂, r, γ)Û n Û n ā(θ̂, r, γ) = 0 (40) KP p=1
k=1
Based on the symmetric subarrays and the basic assumptions, 

we can rewritten the steering vectors as follows  1  N K
(r̂k,p − rk )2
RM SEr =  (50)
ā(θ̂, r, γ) = D(θ̂)H(r)γ̄ (41) KP p=1 rk2
k=1
where H(r) is a (M + 1) × (M − Mc + 1) matrix given by
⎡ jφ(r)M 2 ⎤ where θ̂k,p and r̂k,p denotes the estimates of θk and rk at the
e ··· 0 0 pth run, respectively. The results in each of the examples below
⎢ .. . .. .. ⎥ are obtained from P = 1000 independent Monte Carlo trails.
⎢ . . . . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ··· e jφ(r)(Mc +1) 2
0 ⎥ Example 1–Performance versus SNR: The number of snap-
⎢ ⎥
H(r) = ⎢
⎢ ejφ(r)Mc
2 ⎥ , (42)
⎥ shots used is N = 64. The RMSEs of estimates of the DOAs
⎢ .. ⎥ and ranges versus SNRs are shown in Fig. 2. The performance
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣
0
Mc ×(M −Mc ) . ⎥
⎦
of the proposed method is exactly identical to the FR-RARE
ejφ(r) algorithm but more efficient than it, while the performance of
1 the DOA estimates is super better than the N-GESPRIT based

163
 2014 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC)

DOA Estimation Performance versus SNR

10
2 has the same performance as the FR-RARE [15] method, but
more computationally efficient than the FR-RARE. Simulation
results verify the performance of the proposed method.
RMSE(deg)

0
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the National Natural
−2
10 Science Foundation of China under Grant 61172162 and the
−10 0 10 20 30 40
SNR (dB) Suzhou Natural Science Foundation under Grant SYG201224.
Range Estimation Performance versus SNR
10
0 R EFERENCES
[1] H. Krim and M. Viberg, “Two decades of array signal processing
RMSE

research: The parametric approach,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 13,
10
−2 no. 4, pp. 67-94, Jul. 1996.
[2] R. O. Schmidt, “Multiple emitter location and signal parameters esti-
mation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 267-280,
−10 0 10 20 30 40 Mar. 1986.
SNR (dB) [3] R. Roy and T. Kailath, “ESPRIT-estimation of signal parameters via
rotational invariance techniques,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal
Fig. 2. RMSE of DOA estimation and range estimation versus SNR (dash
Process., vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 984-995, Jul. 1989.
line: N-GESPRIT; solid line: the Proposed Method; “”: FR-RARE; dotted
line: CRB) in example 1 (2M + 1 = 9, N = 64, and K = 2). [4] C. M. S. See and A. B. Gershman, “Direction-of-arrival estimation
in partly calibrated subarray-based sensor arrays,” IEEE Trans. Signal
2
DOA Estimation Performance versus Number of Snapshots Process., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 329-328, Feb. 2004.
10
[5] F. Gao and A. B. Gershman, “A generalized ESPRIT approach to
direction-of-arrival estimation,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 12, no.
RMSE(deg)

3, pp. 254-257, Mar. 2005.

0
10 [6] 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, Oct. 2005.
−2
10 [7] J. Liang and D. Liu, “Passive Localization of Near-Field Sources Using
1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 Cumulant,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 953-960, Aug. 2009.
Number of Snapshots
[8] A. Liu, G. Liao, C. Zeng, Z. Yang, and Q. Xu, “An Eigenstructure
Range Estimation Performance versus Number of Snapshots
10
0 Method for Estimating DOA and Sensor Gain-Phase Errors,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 5944-5956, Dec. 2011.
[9] B. Liao and S. C. Chan, “Direction Finding With Partly Calibrated
−1
RMSE

10
−2
10
1 2
10 10 10
Number of Snapshots
Fig. 3. RMSE of DOA estimation and range estimation versus number of
snapshots (dash line: N-GESPRIT; solid line: the Proposed Method; “”: FR-
RARE; dotted line: CRB) in example 2 (2M + 1 = 9, SN R = 5dB, and
K = 2).
method with almost same computational burden, especially at
the low SNR.
Example 2–Performance versus Number of Snapshots: The
SNR is fixed at 5dB, and the number of snapshots varies form
10 to 10000. The results are shown in Fig. 3. It can be observed
that for both DOAs and ranges estimation, the proposed
method behaves better than the N-GESPRIT algorithm.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, based on the GESPRIT and the conventional
RARE method, we propose a new efficient method for multiple
near-field sources localization problem under partly unknown
gain and phase responses without multidimensional search,
high-order statistics and eigendecomposition. The proposed
method receive a reasonably good estimates of the parameters
of both DOAs and ranges, where the estimates of DOAs
and ranges are automatic paired without additional associate
procedure. In addition, we prove that the proposed method
Uniform Linear Arrays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propag., vol. 60,
no. 2, pp. 922-929, Feb. 2012.
[10] D. Xie, J. Huang, and H. Ge, “Localization of near-field sources with
partly calibrated subarray-based array,” in Proc. IEEE 5th Conference on
3 4 Industrial Electronics and Applications. Taichung, Jun. 2010, pp. 1758-
10
1761.
[11] A. B. Gershman, M. Rübsamen, and M. Pesavento, “One- and two-
dimensional direction-of-arrival estimation: An overview of search-free
techniques,” Signal Process., vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1338-1349, May 2010.
[12] 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 11th International Conference on
Signal Processing. Beijing, China, Oct. 2012, vol. 1, pp. 360-363.
[13] P. Parvazi and A. B. Gershman, “Direction-of-arrival and spatial sig-
nature estimation in antenna arrays with pairwise sensor calibration,”
in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal
Processing. Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 2618-2621, Mar. 2010.
[14] 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, Jun.
2007.
[15] 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, Oct. 2011.
[16] A. L. Swindlehurst and T. Kailath, “Passive direction of arrival and
range estimation for near- field sources,” in Proc. 4th Workshop on
Spectrum Estimation and Modeling. Minneapolis, MN, Aug. 1988,
pp. 123-128.
[17] J. Xin and A. Sano, “Computationally efficien-t subspace-based method
for direction-of-arrival estima-tion without eigendecomposition,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 876C893, Apr. 2004.
[18] M. Pesavento and J. F. Böhme, “Eigenstructure-based azimuth and
elevation estimation in sparse uniform rectangular arrays,” in Proc.
Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop. Aug.
2002, pp. 327-331.

164