2-D Angle of Arrival Estimation with Two Parallel Uniform Linear Arrays for Coherent Signals

Two‐dimensional DOA estimation for noncoherent and coherent signals using subspace approach

“…In this section, we compute the complexity of the proposed algorithm and, then, compare it with the complexities of OPADE and FBSS‐DPR . Generally, the number of snapshots t n is much larger than M and K .…”

“…Thus, the computation flops is about Furthermore, the main computational requirement of OPADE, is , where the size and the number of subarrays are defined by m O and L O such that m O ≥ K c +1 and 2 L O =2( M − m O +1)> K M , for p =1,2,…, P , also the number of iterations is ℓ . In addition, the main computation flops of FBSS‐DPR is about , where the size and the number of subarrays are defined by m D and L D such that m D ≥ K +1 and 2 L D =2( M − m D +1)> K , respectively. In regard to the number of flops, calculated above, it can be deduced that the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm and OPADE is approximately similar, but by contrast, the FBSS‐DPR has the lowest computation flops.…”

“…The problem of two‐dimensional (2D) direction‐of‐arrivals (DOAs) estimation of a mixture of noncoherent and coherent narrowband signals has attracted a lot of interest in many practical application scenarios such as radar, sonar, and wireless communication. Compared with the maximum likelihood (ML) method in the works of Sheinvald et al and Stoica and Nehorai, the subspace‐based algorithms (eg, other works) can offer a good trade‐off between the performance and computational complexity and have attained considerable attentions.…”

“…Particularly, the performance of the estimation algorithms is compared to the ultimate performance corresponding to the Cramer‐Rao bounds (CRBs). Additionally, the computation flops of the proposed algorithm is calculated and compared with that of oblique projection based approach for 2D direction estimation (OPADE), and determination and polynomial rooting FBSS‐(DPR) …”

“…The proposed algorithm is introduced in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to the comparison of the computational complexity of the proposed algorithm with OPADE and FBSS‐DPR in terms of the number of flops. The simulation results are represented in Section 5, and finally, conclusions are given in Section 6.…”