arxiv: v1 [stat.ap] 29 Jun 2015

Transcription

1 Performance Anaysis of the Decentraized Eigendecomposition and ESPRIT Agorithm Wassim Sueiman, Marius Pesavento, Abdehak M. Zoubir arxiv: v1 [stat.ap] 29 Jun 2015 Abstract: In this paper, we consider performance anaysis of the decentraized power method for the eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix based on the averaging consensus protoco. An anaytica expression of the second order statistics of the eigenvectors obtained from the decentraized power method which is required for computing the mean square error MSE of subspace-based estimators is presented. We show that the decentraized power method is not an asymptoticay consistent estimator of the eigenvectors of the true measurement covariance matrix uness the averaging consensus protoco is carried out over an infinitey arge number of iterations. Moreover, we introduce the decentraized ESPRIT agorithm which yieds fuy decentraized direction-of-arriva DOA estimates. Based on the performance anaysis of the decentraized power method, we derive an anaytica expression of the MSE of DOA estimators using the decentraized ESPRIT agorithm. The vaidity of our asymptotic resuts is demonstrated by simuations. keywords: decentraized eigendecomposition, power method, decentraized DOA estimation, ESPRIT, averaging consensus. 1. Introduction Centraized processing in sensor networks requires the coection of measurements or sufficient statistics from a sensor nodes at a fusion center FC before processing to obtain meaningfu estimates. A major drawback of a such centraized processing scheme with a singe FC, is the existence of communication bottenecks in arge sensor networks with muti-hop communications [14, 20]. Averaging consensus AC protocos [3, 7, 8, 24, 25] achieve an iterative fuy decentraized cacuation of the average of scaars that are distributed over a network of nodes. AC protocos use ony oca communications between neighboring nodes, thus, avoiding muti-hop communication. Moreover, AC protocos perform computations at the nodes and require no FC. Thus, AC protocos eiminate communication bottenecks. These attributes of AC protocos make them attractive and a fuy scaabe aternative to centraized processing schemes in arge sensor networks [14]. The eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix is required in many appications, such as signa detection [21 23], machine earning [1], and DOA estimation [9 11, 13, 15 18]. Conventionay, the eigendecomposition is carried out in a centraized fashion, which hinders its appication in arge sensor networks. In [14], an agorithm which achieves a fuy decentraized eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix is introduced. This agorithm combines the conventiona power method PM [5, p. 450], which represents a centraized iterative eigendecomposition agorithm, with the AC protoco to achieve a fuy decentraized eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix. We refer to this agorithm as the decentraized power method d-pm. Anaytica expressions of the second order statistics of the eigenvectors and eigenvaues of the conventiona centraized sampe covariance matrix are presented in [2, Theorem 9.2.2] which capture the finite sampe effects. However, the accuracy of the eigendecomposition obtained from the sampe covariance matrix using the d-pm not ony suffers from finite sampe effects and finite PM iterations, but aso depends on the convergence speed of the AC protoco. This additiona mismatch is introduced by the decentraized impementation and can be mitigated if the AC protoco is carried out over a arge number of iterations. However, a arge number of AC iterations is not aways possibe since it is associated with a arge communication overhead and atency. A performance anaysis of the decentraized eigendecomposition which considers estimation errors introduced by the AC protoco is of wide interest for a arge variety of appications. In [20], we presented a fuy decentraized DOA estimation agorithm using party caibrated arrays. Our DOA estimation agorithm combines the d-pm with the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm [13] and is thus referred to as the decentraized ESPRIT d-esprit agorithm. The numerica simuations carried out in [20] and [19] show that the d-esprit agorithm achieves simiar performance as the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm when a arge number of AC iterations is used. However, an anaytica study of the performance of the d-esprit agorithm which supports these 1

2 simuations has not been considered so far. Moreover, the behavior of the d-esprit agorithm when ony a sma number of AC iterations is carried out has not been studied before. The first and main contribution of this paper consists in the derivation of an anaytica expression of the second order statistics of the eigenvectors for the sampe covariance matrix computed using the d-pm. Based on this expression, we show that the d-pm is not a consistent estimator of the eigenvectors of the true measurement covariance matrix, uness the AC protoco is carried out over an infinitey arge number of iterations. Moreover, we show that when the number of AC iterations used in the d-pm converges to infinity, our expression and the conventiona expression in [2, Theorem 9.2.2] become equivaent. The second contribution of this paper consists in the derivation of an anaytica expression of the MSE in DOA estimation using the d-esprit agorithm. The remainder of this paper is organized as foows. The measurement mode is introduced in Section 2. In Section 3, we briefy revise the AC protoco [24] and the d-pm [14] and their main properties, used ater in the anaysis. Section 4 considers the performance anaysis of the d-pm, namey the computation of the second order statistics of the eigenvectors resuting from the d-pm. The d-esprit agorithm and its performance anaysis are presented in Section 5. Simuation resuts in Section 6 compare the performance of the d-pm and the d-esprit agorithm with our anaytica expressions of Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 and with the Cramér-Rao Bound CRB for party caibrated arrays [16]. In this paper, T, and H denote the transpose, compex conjugate and the Hermitian transpose operations. The eement-wise Hadamard product, diagona or bock diagona matrices and the trace of a matrix are denoted by, diag[ ] and Tr[ ], respectivey. The rea part and the argument of compex numbers are denoted by Re[ ] and arg[ ], and j is the imaginary unit. The expectation operator and the Kronecker deta are expressed as E[ ] and δ i,j, whie [ ] i,j, [ ] i, I i, 0 i and 1 i stands for the i, jth entry of a matrix, the ith entry of a vector, the i i identity matrix, the a zeros vector of size i and the a ones vector of size i, respectivey. The sets of rea and compex numbers are denoted by R and C. Variabe x at the qth PM iteration is expressed as x q. The conventiona centraized estimate of x is denoted by ˆx whereas its decentraized estimate computed using the AC protoco is denoted by x. In decentraized estimation, we distinguish between estimates which are avaiabe at a nodes, such an estimate at the kth node is denoted by x [k], and estimates which are distributed among a the nodes, where the kth node maintains ony a part of the corresponding estimate denoted by x k. 2. Measurement Mode We consider a network of M = K k=1 M k sensors custered in K nodes, where the kth node comprises of M k sensors. The assignment of the sensors to the individua nodes is characterized by the sensor seection matrix T, whose entries are defined as { 1, if the ith sensor beongs to the jth node [T ] i,j 1 0, otherwise, where i = 1,..., M and j = 1,..., K. The measurement vector at the kth node at time t is denoted as z k t C M k 1 and the overa measurement vector is denoted as zt [z T 1 t,..., z T Kt] T C M 1. 2 The random measurement vector zt is assumed to be zero-mean with covariance matrix R E[ztz H t]. The eigendecomposition of the true measurement covariance matrix R is defined as R UΛU H, 3 where U [u 1,..., u M ] and Λ diag[λ 1,..., λ M ] and u 1,..., u M are the eigenvectors of R, corresponding to the eigenvaues λ 1 > > λ M. For the ater use, we define the matrix B U Γ 1 U H, 4 where U = [u 1,..., u 1, u +1,..., u M ] and Γ = diag[λ 1 λ,..., λ 1 λ, λ +1 λ,..., λ M λ ]. In practice, the covariance matrix R is not avaiabe, and can ony be estimated from observations of zt, t = 1,..., as ˆR 1 ztz H t. 5 t=1 We refer to the conventiona estimator of the sampe covariance matrix in Eq. 5 as the centraized estimator, since it requires that a measurements from every node are avaiabe at a FC. Let ˆΛ,ÛU, ˆλ i and ûu i be the estimates of Λ, U, λ i 2

3 and u i for i = 1,..., M, respectivey, obtained from the centraized eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix ˆR. In the foowing section, the decentraized estimation of the eigenvaues and eigenvectors of the true covariance matrix R using AC protoco, i.e., without a FC, is introduced and anayzed. We denote as Λ,ŨU, λ i and ũu i the decentraized estimates of Λ, U, λ i and u i for i = 1,..., M respectivey. 3. Averaging Consensus and the Decentraized Power Method In this section, the AC protoco and its convergence properties are reviewed. Moreover, the decentraized eigendecomposition using the d-pm [14] is revised Averaging Consensus Let x 1,..., x K denote K scaars which are avaiabe at K distinct nodes in the network, where the kth node stores ony the kth scaar. Denote the conventiona average of these scaars as x 1 K K k=1 x k. In AC protocos [3,7,8,24,25], x is computed iterativey, where at the pth AC iteration, the kth node sends its current oca estimate of the average x p 1 k to its neighboring nodes, denoted as the set k, and receives the corresponding average estimates of the respective neighboring nodes. Then, the kth node updates its oca estimate of the average as foows x p k = w k,k x p 1 k + w i,k x p 1 i 6 i k where w i,k is the weighting factor associated with the communication ink between node i and node k, which satisfies w i,k = 0 when i / k [24]. The AC iteration in Eq. 6 is initiaized with x 0 k = x k for k = 1,..., K. For more detais, see [24]. Denote with W the matrix whose entries are [W ] i,j = w i,j for i, j = 1,..., K and et x p = [x p 1,..., xp K ]T, then, the update iteration in Eq. 6 can be expressed as x p = W x p 1 = W 2 x p 2 = = W p x 0. 7 Iteration 7 converges asymptoticay for p to the vector of averages x1 K if and ony if Let the eigendecomposition of the matrix W be W p 1 K 1 K 1 T K. 8 W [β 1,..., β K ] = [β 1,..., β K ] diag[α 1,..., α K ], 9 where α 1 > > α K. According to [24], the matrix W which satisfies the asymptotic convergence condition 8 possesses the foowing properties: P1: The principe eigenvaue of the matrix W is unique singe mutipicity and equas to one, i.e., α 1 = 1. The corresponding normaized principa eigenvector of the matrix W is given by β 1 = 1 K 1 K. P2: The remaining eigenvaues of W are stricty ess than α 1 in magnitude. In the foowing, we assume that the weighting matrix W satisfies the convergence condition 8, which permits the use of properties P1 and P2 in our anaysis in Sec. 4. We express the decentraized estimate of the average x at the kth node using p AC iterations as x [k] [W p x 0 ] k, 10 where [W p x 0 ] k denotes the kth entry of the vector W p x 0. The notation x [k] is used since the corresponding average is computed using the AC protoco and every node stores ocay the computed average The Decentraized Power Method In this section, we first review the conventiona centraized PM [5, p. 450], then we review the d-pm [14]. The conventiona PM is an iterative agorithm which can be used to compute the eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix ˆR. Let us assume that 1 eigenvectors of ˆR have been computed using the PM, then the th eigenvector is computed using the iteration 3

4 ûu q = I M ÛU 1 ÛU H 1 ˆR ûu q 1, 11 where ûu q denotes the th eigenvector of ˆR at the qth PM iteration, I M is the M M identity matrix and ÛU 1 [ûu 1,...,ûu 1 ] is the concatenation of the 1 previousy computed eigenvectors of ˆR. The vector ûu 0 is a random initia vaue. If the PM is carried out for a sufficienty arge number of PM iterations Q, then, the normaized vector ûu = ûu Q / ûu Q 12 is the th eigenvector of the matrix ˆR. The d-pm [14] performs the computations in Eq. 11 and Eq. 12 in a fuy decentraized fashion based on the AC protoco. The key idea of the d-pm is to partition the th vector as ũu q [ũu qt,1,...,ũuqt,k ]T, where the kth node stores and updates ony the kth part, ũu q,k CMk 1, of the vector ũu q. ote that the notation ũu,k is used, since the vector ũu,k is computed using the AC protoco and stored ony at the kth node. In the d-pm, iteration 11 is spit into two steps. In the first step, the intermediate vector is cacuated. In the second step, the vector ũu q ũu q ũu q is updated as = ũu q ˆR ũu q 1 13 ŨU H q 1 ŨU 1ũu, 14 where ŨU 1 [ũu 1,...,ũu 1 ]. In the foowing, we review how both Steps 13 and 14 and the normaization Step 12 can be carried out in a fuy decentraized fashion [14]. Substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 13, yieds ũu q = 1 t=1 zt z q t,, 15 where z q t, zh tũu q 1. ote that z q t, = K k=1 zh k tũuq 1,k, where z H k tũu,k is computed and stored ocay at the kth node. Thus, in anaogy to 10, the estimate of z q t, at the kth node computed using the AC protoco is [ z q t,,[k] = K W P [z H 1 tũu q 1,1,..., z H Ktũu q 1,K, 16 where P is the number of AC iterations used in this protoco [14]. Using parae instances of the AC protoco, the kth node wi ocay maintain the scaars { z q t,,[k] } t=1. Thus, each node k can ocay compute one part of the vector ũu q as ũu q,k = 1 t=1 z k t z q t,,[k], that in turn perform the first step of the d-pm iteration described in Eq. 13. ote that in the second step of the d-pm iteration ony the second term of Eq. 14 has to be computed in a decentraized fashion [14]. This term can be written as ŨU H q 1 ŨU 1ũu = 1 i=1 ũu H i ũ q i,, where ũ q i, ũu H q i ũu. In anaogy to 15, each node can ocay compute its corresponding part of ŨU H q 1 ŨU 1ũu once the scaars {ũ q i, } 1 i=1 are avaiabe at every node. This can be achieved using 1 parae instances of the AC protoco as [ ] ũ q i,,[k] = K W P1 [ũu H q i,1 ũu,1,...,ũuh q i,k ũu,k ]T, 17 k where ũ q i,,[k] is the ith scaar computed at the kth node and P 1 is the number of AC iterations used in these 1 AC protoco instances. Thus achieving the second step of the d-pm iteration. After a sufficienty arge number of PM iterations Q, the vector ũu Q is normaized as in Eq. 12. This normaization can be carried out ocay once the norm ũu Q is avaiabe at each node which is achieved using the AC protoco as [ ũu Q 2 [k] =K W P2 [ũu QH,1 ũu Q,1,...,ũuQH Q,K ũu, 18 ]T ] k,k ]T ] k where P 2 is the number of iterations used in the AC protoco instance. Thus, using the d-pm, the eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix can be cacuated without FC. 4

5 In the d-pm, communication between the nodes is required to compute the scaars in 16, 17 and 18. From a signaing perspective, the first and most expensive computation is that of the scaars in Eq. 16, where AC protoco instances, i.e., P AC iterations, are carried out to compute these scaars. The second most expensive computation ies in Eq. 17 which requires 1 AC protoco instances. The third and east expensive computation is the normaization of the eigenvectors which requires ony one AC protoco instance. 4. Performance Anaysis of The Decentraized Power Method In this section, we first reformuate the d-pm as an equivaent centraized PM. Based on the centraized formuation, we derive an asymptotic anaytica expression of the second order statistics of the eigenvectors for the sampe covariance matrix obtained from the d-pm. Moreover, we show that the d-pm is not a consistent estimator of the eigenvectors of the true measurement covariance matrix R Assumptions Our performance anaysis focuses on the errors resuting from using a finite number of AC iterations P < to compute the scaars { z q t,,[k] } t=1 in Eq. 16, because, from a signaing perspective, this step represents the most expensive cacuation in the d-pm. Thus, the foowing assumptions are made: A1: The number of AC iterations P 1 and P 2 used to compute the scaars in 17 and the normaization factors in 18, respectivey, are arge compared to the number of AC iterations used to compute the scaars { z q t,,[k] } t=1, i.e., P 1 P and P 2 P. Thus, errors resuting from the finite number of AC iterations in Eq. 18 and Eq. 17 are negigibe compared to those in Eq. 16. A2: The number of PM iterations Q is sufficienty arge such that the errors resuting from the finite number of PM iterations are negigibe Error Expressions for the Decentraized Power Method The decentraized eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix using the d-pm yieds the vectors {ũu } M =1. Since under Assumptions A1 and A2 these vectors depend on P and not on P 1, P 2 and Q, we denote them as {ũu P } M =1. Due to finite AC iteration effects P <, these vectors do not exacty correspond to the eigenvectors of the matrix ˆR. The foowing theorem provides further insights into the properties of the vectors {ũu P } M =1. Theorem 1. Under Assumption A1, the vectors {ũu P } M =1 are the eigenvectors of the matrix RP K T W P T T ˆR, 19 where T is the sensor seection matrix defined in Eq. 1 and ˆR is the centraized sampe covariance matrix defined in Eq. 5. Proof. We prove Theorem 1 by induction. Thus, first we prove that the vector ũu 1 P, which is computed using the d-pm, is the principe eigenvector of the matrix RP. Then, assuming that the vectors {ũu i P } 1 i=1 are the principe 1 eigenvectors of the matrix RP, we prove that ũu P is the th eigenvector of the matrix RP. For convenience, we drop the dependency on P from RP and ũu P, throughout the derivations. ote that when the d-pm is used to compute the vector ũu 1, then Eq. 14 reduces to ũu q 1 = 1 t=1 [ z q t,1,[1] zt 1 t,..., z q t,1,[k] zt Kt] T, 20 since the matrix ŨU 0 = 0. Let z 1 t 0 M1 0 M1 Zt 0 M2 z 2 t MK 1, 0 MK 0 MK z K t 5

6 where z k t is defined in Eq. 2. Then, Eq. 20 is written as ũu q 1 = = K K ZtW P Z H t t=1 t=1 k=1 ũu q 1 1 K αk P Ztβ k β H k Z H t ũu q 1 1, 21 where the eigendecomposition of the matrix W in Eq. 9 is used, T is the sensor seection matrix defined in Eq. 1 and P is the number of AC iterations used to compute the scaars { z q t,1,[k] } t=1. The product Ztβ k can be rewritten as Ztβ k = [ β k,1 z T 1 t,..., β k,k z T Kt ] T 22 = T β k zt where β k = [β k,1,..., β k,k ] T. Substituting Eq. 22 into Eq. 21, yieds 1 = K K αk P T β k zt T β k zt H t=1 k=1 K K = α P k T βk β H k T T ztz H t ũu q 1 1 t=1 k=1 K = K α P k T βk β H k T T 1 ztz H t ũu q 1 1 k=1 t=1 = K T W P T T ˆR ũu q 1 1. ũu q ũu q 1 1 Thus, the decentraized computation of ũu 1 using the d-pm can be written as the foowing iteration ũu q 1 = R ũu q 1 1, 23 where R is defined in Eq. 19. ote that Eq. 23 corresponds to the update procedure of the conventiona PM appied to the matrix R. Thus, after a sufficienty arge number of PM iterations Q, the resuting vector ũu Q 1 converges if normaized to the principe eigenvector of the matrix R. It foows from Assumption A1 that the decentraized normaization of ũu Q 1 is accurate. Thus, under Assumption A1, the vector resuting from appying the d-pm to the sampe covariance matrix ˆR is the principe eigenvector of the matrix R computed using the conventiona PM. This concudes the first part of the induction. For the second part of the induction, we assume that the vectors {ũu i } 1 i=1 are computed using the d-pm and they are the first 1 eigenvectors of the matrix R. Then, we prove the induction for the vector ũu. The computation of the vector ũu using the d-pm is achieved as foows. First, the vector ũu q, which is defined in Eq. 13 is computed in a decentraized fashion. In anaogy to Eq. 20, ũu q can be rewritten as ũu q = R ũu q Second the scaars {ũ q i, } 1 i=1 are computed in a decentraized fashion. Since under Assumption A1 the AC errors resuting from this computation are negigibe, the decentraized iteration used to compute the vector ũu is reduced to ũu q = I M ŨU 1 ŨU H 1 R ũu q ote that Eq. 25 is equivaent to the conventiona PM iteration 11 appied to compute the th eigenvector of the matrix R. After Q iterations of the d-pm, the resuting vector ũu Q is normaized. Again under Assumption A1, the normaization is accurate, thus, the resuting normaized vector ũu is the th eigenvector of the matrix R computed using the conventiona PM. 6

7 Theorem 1 shows that, when the d-pm is used with a finite number of sampes and a finite number of AC iterations P to estimate the eigenvectors {u } M =1 of the true covariance matrix R, then three different types of errors occur: E1: Errors resuting from the finite number of AC iterations P. These errors are expressed in the matrix T W P T T. E2: Errors resuting from the finite number of sampes. These errors are expressed in ˆR. E3: Errors resuting from the finite number of PM iterations Q, which we negect as stated in Assumption A2. Since the averaging matrix W is assumed to satisfy the convergence condition 8, we concude that KT W P T T 1 M 1 M as P, consequenty, RP ˆR. We remark that RP K T W P T T R when, i.e., for a finite number of AC iterations P, the eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix using the d-pm is not an asymptoticay consistent estimator of the eigenvectors of the true measurement covariance matrix R. Theorem 1 simpifies the performance anaysis of the d-pm, since it provides a ink to an equivaent centraized agorithm formuation which can be anayzed using the conventiona statistica anaysis techniques and resuts [2]. In the seque, we start our performance anaysis by introducing the error vectors which represent E1 and E2 types of errors. Then, we compute anaytica expressions for these errors and finay we derive the second order statistics of the eigenvectors obtained from the d-pm. For the centraized eigendecomposition, the sampe estimate of the th eigenvector ûu of the true covariance matrix R is expressed as ûu u + δu, 26 where the error vector δu accounts ony for the finite sampe effects, i.e., E2 type of errors, used in the computation of the sampe covariance matrix. The decentraized estimate of the th eigenvector is expressed as ũu P u + δũu P, 27 where the error vector δũu P accounts for errors resuting from the finite number of sampes and the finite number of AC iterations, i.e., E1 and E2 type of errors. Simiary, we define ˆR R + δr 28 and RP R + δ RP, 29 where δr accounts ony for E2 type of errors and δ RP accounts for both E1 and E2 types of errors. Using the aforementioned notation, the second order statistics of the eigenvectors computed using the d-pm are expressed as E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ]. The foowing theorem simpifies the computation of E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] by introducing a simpe expression for δũu P. Theorem 2. Under Assumptions A1 and A2, the error vector δũu P is given by where B is defined in Eq. 4, δũu P = B δr u + h P h P = K T k = diag[t β k ], T is defined in Eq. 1 and β k and α k are defined in Eq. 9. Proof. See Appendix A. K αk P T k R T H k u, 30 k=2 ote that in Theorem 2 the E1 type of errors are expressed in terms of the vector h P which depends on the number of AC iterations P and on the eigenvaues and eigenvectors of the weighting matrix W, except for the principe eigenvaue and eigenvector. Since the magnitude of α k is stricty ess than one for k = 2,..., K see Sec. 3.1, it foows from Eq. 30 that h P 0 as P, i.e., the AC protoco is carried out for an infinitey arge number of iterations. Consequenty, δũu P contains no E1 type of errors when P. In Theorem 2, the E2 errors are 7

8 expressed in terms of the matrix δr. If an infinite number of sampe is avaiabe, i.e., then δr 0. Consequenty, δũu P 0 as both P and tend to infinity. Based on Theorem 2, anaytica expressions for E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] are introduced in the foowing theorem. These expressions are usefu for computing the MSE of estimators which are based on the d-pm as we show ater for the d-esprit agorithm. Theorem 3. Under Assumptions A1 and A2 E[δũu P δũu H mp ] = λ M i=1 i λ i λ λ i 2 u i u H i δ,m + B h P h H mp B H m and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] = λ λ m u u T m λ λ m 2 δ,m 1 + B h P h T mp B T m where δ,m is the Kronecker deta, is the number of sampes, B is defined in Eq. 4 and h P is defined in Eq. 30. Proof. See Appendix B. ote that ony the second terms in E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] depend on the number of AC iterations P through the vectors h P and h m P and as P, these terms converge to zero. Consequenty, E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] tend to the centraized case found in [2], when P. Moreover, as for P <, E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] do not converge to zero, i.e. the d-pm is not a consistent estimator for {u } M =1, uness P is infinitey arge. Theorem 3 shows that, in the second order statistics of the eigenvector estimates, the AC errors appear as an additive error term which is remarkabe since in Theorem 1 the corresponding errors for the sampe covariance are expressed as an eement-wise mutipication with the matrix T W P T T. ote that in practice P can not be chosen to be arbitrariy arge, thus, the second terms in E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] wi aways be non-zero. However, P can usuay be chosen such that the second terms in E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] are of the same order as the first terms. The proper choice of P wi be further addressed in the simuations in Sec Performance Anaysis of the d-esprit Agorithm In this section, we briefy review the decentraized ESPRIT d-esprit agorithm presented in [20]. Then, resuts from Theorem 3 are appied to derive an anaytica expression for the MSE of DOA estimation using the d-esprit agorithm Signa Mode and the ESPRIT Agorithm Consider a panar sensor array composed of K identicay oriented uniform inear subarrays, where the kth subarray is composed of M k sensors. The distance d between two successive sensors measured in haf waveength is identica for a subarrays, see Fig. 1. The dispacements between the subarrays are considered to be unknown, thus, the array is party caibrated. Signas of L far-fied and narrow-band sources impinge on the system of the subarrays from directions θ = [θ 1,..., θ L ] T. The output of the kth subarray at time t is given by z k t = A k θst + n k t, 31 where z k t [z k,1 t,..., z k,mk t] T is the baseband output of the M k sensors, st [s 1 t,..., s L t] T is the signa vector of the L Gaussian sources and n k t [n k,1 t,..., n k,mk t] T is the vector of temporay and spatiay compex circuar white Gaussian sensor noise. The steering matrix of the kth subarray is A k θ [a k θ 1,..., a k θ L ], 8

9 upper group subarray 2 subarray 5 subarray 1 ower group subarray 3 subarray 4 subarray 6 Figure 1: Array topoogy and sensor grouping for 6 subarrays. The read ines indicate communication inks between neighboring subarrays. where a k θ is the response of the kth subarray corresponding to a source from direction θ reative to the array broadside a k θ = e jπξt k κ [1, e jπd sin θ,..., e jm k 1πd sin θ ] T, 32 where κ = [sin θ, cos θ ] T and ξ k is the position of the first sensor in the kth subarray reative to the reference sensor in the first subarray, which is considered to be unknown. The measurement vector of the array is zt = Aθst + nt, 33 where zt [z T 1 t,..., z T K t]t, as in Eq. 2, Aθ [A T 1 θ,..., A T K θ]t and nt [n T 1 t,..., n T K t]t. The measurement covariance matrix is R E[ztz H t] = AθP A H θ + σ 2 I M 34 where P E[sts H t] is the source covariance matrix and σ 2 is the noise variance and E[ntn H t] = σ 2 I M. The eigendecomposition of the measurement covariance matrix can be partitioned as R = U s Λ s U H s + U n Λ n U H n 35 where Λ s R L L and Λ n R M L M L are diagona matrices containing the signa and noise eigenvaues, respectivey, U s [u 1,..., u L ] C M L and U n [u L+1,..., u M ] C M M L are the signa and noise eigenvector matrices, respectivey, and u 1,..., u M are the eigenvectors of the matrix R corresponding to the eigenvaues λ 1... λ L λ L+1 =...=λ M =σ 2, see Eq. 3. The ESPRIT agorithm expoits the transationa invariance structure of the measurement setup. This invariance structure is expressed in Fig. 1, where the sensors of the array are partitioned into upper and ower groups. The upper group contains the first M k 1 sensors of the kth subarray and the ower group contains the ast M k 1 sensors of the kth subarray. The two groups are reated by a transation with ag d [13]. Let J diag[j 1,..., J K ] and J diag[j 1,..., J K ], where J k [I Mk, 0 Mk ] and J [0 Mk 1, I Mk 1], denote the seection matrices corresponding to the upper and ower groups, respectivey. Based on the seection matrices, we define two matrices U s JU s and U s JU s. In the conventiona Least Squares ESPRIT [13], the DOAs are computed from the eigenvaues of the matrix Ψ = U H 1 s U s U H s U s 36 as foows θ = sin 1 argψ /πd 37 where ψ for = 1,..., L are the eigenvaues of the matrix Ψ, see [13] for detais. In practice, the true covariance matrix 34 is not avaiabe and its finite sampe estimate ˆR is cacuated from snapshot of the array output as in Eq. 5. Let ÛU s,ûu s,ûu s,ûu i, ˆΨ, and ˆψ be the estimates of U s, U s, U s, u i, Ψ, and ψ, respectivey, obtained from the eigendecomposition of the sampe covariance matrix ˆR. 9

10 5.2. The d-esprit Agorithm The decentraized ESPRIT d-esprit agorithm which is presented in [20] comprises two decentraized steps, first, the decentraized signa subspace estimation using the d-pm, second, the decentraized estimation of the matrix Ψ. The decentraized signa subspace estimation is carried out as expained in Sec The resuting decentraized estimate of U s, denoted as ŨU s, is distributed among the subarrays, where each subarray stores ony a part from ŨU s. In [20], based on the AC protoco, a decentraized agorithm for estimating the matrix Ψ is introduced. Denote the corresponding estimate at the kth subarray as Ψ [k]. In [20], the computation of Ψ [k] is achieved by rewriting Eq. 36 as C [k] Ψ [k] = F [k], 38 where C [k] and F [k] are respectivey the decentraized estimate of U H s U s and U H s U s, at the kth subarray. The AC protoco is used to compute each entry of the matrices C [k] and F [k] as foows: [ c i,j,[k] =K W P3 [ũu H i,1j H 1 J 1 ũu j,1,...,ũu H i,kj H KJ K ũu j,k ] T] 39 k, and [ f i,j,[k] =K W P3 [ũu H i,1j H 1 J 1 ũu j,1,...,ũu H i,kj H KJ K ũu j,k ] T] 40 k, where c i,j,[k] and f i,j,[k] denote the i, jth entries of the matrices C [k] and F [k], respectivey, and P 3 denotes the number of AC iterations used to compute c i,j,[k] and f i,j,[k]. Thus, the kth subarray can estimate the matrix Ψ as presented in Eq. 38. The DOA estimation is carried out ocay in the kth subarray using the eigenvaues of the matrix Ψ [k] in Eq. 37. To simpify the performance anaysis of the d-esprit agorithm, the foowing assumption is made A3: The number of AC iterations P 3 which is used to compute Ψ [k] from ŨU s is arge compared to the number of AC iterations used to compute ŨU s, i.e., P 3 P. Under Assumption A3, the AC errors in the decentraized estimate of Ψ are negigibe compared to those in ŨU s. Thus, the decentraized estimate of Ψ is a good approximation of the centraized one using ŨU s, i.e., Ψ [k] = Ψ = ŨU H 1 U H s ŨU s ŨU s, 41 s where ŨU s JŨU s, ŨU s JŨU s and k = 1,..., K. Let ψ for = 1,..., L be the eigenvaues of Ψ. In the d-esprit agorithm, ψ is used as an estimate of ψ. Thus, we define the estimation error δ ψ as for = 1,..., L, where δ ψ accounts for both E1 and E2 types of error The MSE for DOA Estimation based on d-esprit ψ ψ + δ ψ, 42 In [12], the MSE of DOA estimation using the conventiona Least Squares ESPRIT is presented. Assumption A3 aows us to use the anaysis from [12] by repacing E[δu δu H m] and E[δu δu T m] with E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ], respectivey. Thus, the foowing resut from [12] hods, E[δ θ 2 ] = E[ δ ψ 2 ] Re[ 2E[δ ψ ψ 2 ]] 2 πd cos θ 2, 43 where E[ δ ψ 2 ] = γ H E[δŨU s r r H δũu H s ]γ, 44 E[δ ψ 2 ] = µ H E[δŨU s r r T δũu T s ]µ, 45 10

11 ŨU s = U s + δũu s, γ H q U H 1 s U s U H s J ψ J and µ H q U H 1 s U s U H s J ψ J. The th eft and right eigenvectors which correspond to the th eigenvaue of the matrix Ψ are denoted as q and r, respectivey. In Eq. 44 and Eq. 45, we repaced the conventiona error δu s by δũu s in the corresponding expressions of [12]. Using the expression from Theorem 3, the expectation of the right hand side of Eq. 44 is rewritten as E[δŨU s r r H δũu H s ] = L L [ r r H ] i,j E[δũu i P δũu H j P ] i=1 j=1 = 1 + L i=1 i=1 j=1 M j=1 j i λ i λ j λ i λ j 2 [ r r H ] i,i u i u H i L L [ r r H ] i,j B i h i P h H j P B H j. 46 Simiary, the expectation of the right hand side of Eq. 45 is written as E[δŨU s r r T δũu T s ] = = + L i=1 j=1 L L [ r r T ] E[δũu i,j i P δũu T j P ] L i=1 i=1 j=1 L j = 1 j i [r r T ] i,jλ i λ j u i u T j λ i λ j 2 L [r r T ] i,j B i h i P h T j P B T j. 47 Equations provide the anaytica expressions of the MSE for the DOA estimator using the d-esprit agorithm. The second terms of Equations 46 and 47 differ from the expressions in [12]. ote that because of these terms, the MSE does not approach zero even if an infinitey arge number of sampes is avaiabe, i.e. the d- ESPRIT agorithm is not a consistent estimator of the DOAs. However, the simuations in Sec. 6 demonstrate that for a finite number of sampes and a moderate SR, a finite number of AC iterations is sufficient to achieve a performance comparabe to that of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm [13], and to achieve the CRB [16]. 6. Simuation Resuts An array composed of K = 6 subarrays each containing 2 sensors, i.e., M = 12, separated by haf-waveength is used in the simuations. The ocations of the first sensors at the subarrays are 0, 0, 0.45, 0.99, 3.02, 0.45, 5.61, 0.90, 8.03, 1.46 and 8.70, 0.50 measured in haf-waveength. The upper and ower seection matrices of the kth subarray are J k = [1, 0] and J k = [0, 1]. The array topoogy depicted in Fig. 1 is assumed. Thus, the neighboring sets are 1 = {2, 3}, 2 = {1, 3}, 3 = {1, 2, 4}, 4 = {3, 5, 6}, 5 = {4, 6} and 6 = {4, 5}, where the kth subarray communicates ony with its neighbors k. The entries of the weighting matrix W are seected as foows 1 max{card[, if i j and j i],card[ j]} i [W ] i,j = w i, if i = j 48 0, otherwise, where card[ i ] is the number of eements in the set i. The weighting factors {w i } K i=1 are chosen as w i = 1 K j=1 w i,j; refer to [24] for further detais. This choice of the weighting factors ony requires that each node knows the degree of its neighbors, thus, oca but not goba knowedge about the network topoogy is required at the node eve. The weighting matrix W resuting from the weighting scheme in Eq. 48 guarantees asymptotic convergence of the AC protoco, provided that the graph associated with the network is not bipartite [24]. Signas from L = 3 equa-powered Gaussian sources impinge onto the array from directions 14, 10 and 5. In the seque, we evauate our anaytica expressions for the performance of the d-pm and the d-esprit agorithm. 11

12 6.1. Performance of the d-pm In the first set of simuations, shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the performance of the d-pm is evauated as foows. We estimate L = 3 eigenvectors of the sampe covariance matrix at the ith reaization using the d-pm, i.e., we compute ŨU s i = [ũu 1 i,ũu 2 i,ũu 3 i], for i = 1,..., 200 reaizations. Since the eigendecomposition is unique up to a mutipication with a unity-magnitude compex scaar, we use the method introduced in [4, Eq. 54] to compute this scaar and correct the estimated eigenvectors. Then, the error matrix δũu s i = ŨU s i U s is computed, where U s = [u 1, u 2, u 3 ] is the true signa subspace. At the ith reaization, we define the normaized square error SE of the d-pm as SE d-pm i Tr[δŨU s iδũu H s i]/tr[u s U H s ]. 49 Finay, we compute the root mean square error RMSE RMSE d-pm SE d-pm i 200 i= The RMSE which is obtained from our anaytica expression for the d-pm agorithm is denoted as ARMSE d-pm and it is computed as ARMSE d-pm E[δũu P δũu H mp ]/Tr[U s U H s ], 51 =1 where E[δũu P δũu H mp ] is given in Theorem 3. In Fig. 2, we compare RMSE d-pm from 200 reaizations with the ARMSE d-pm at different SRs where the number of sampes is fixed to = 100 and the number of AC iterations P is taken to be 10, 20 and 30. The number of PM iterations is fixed to Q = 10 for a simuations. It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the error in the estimated eigenvectors decreases with increasing SR unti it reaches a certain vaue, which depends on P, then it is saturated. ote that the error computed using the anaytica expressions ARMSE d-pm corresponds we to the one computed over 200 reaizations RMSE d-pm. In Fig. 3, the SR is set to 10 db and RMSE d-pm and ARMSE d-pm are computed for different numbers of sampes for three different numbers of AC iterations 10, 20 and 30. The number of PM iterations is fixed to Q = 10. From Fig. 3, it can be observed that the error in the estimated eigenvectors decreases with for sma vaues of. However when is arge, RMSE d-pm and ARMSE d-pm do not change with as it can be seen in Fig. 3 for P = 10 and P = 20. For P = 30, RMSE d-pm and ARMSE d-pm show a good correspondence at very arge vaues of which is not dispayed in the figure. Moreover, a arger number of AC iterations resuts in a smaer error. This behaviour of the RMSE d-pm is in accordance with our concusion that the d-pm is a consistent estimator of the eigenvectors of the true measurement covariance matrix ony when P is infinitey arge, see Sec. 4. It can aso be observed in Fig. 3 that the error computed using the anaytica expressions ARMSE d-pm corresponds to the one computed from 200 reaizations of RMSE d-pm Performance of the d-esprit Agorithm In the second set of simuations, whose resuts are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, the performance of the d-esprit agorithm is evauated and compared to the anaytica expressions of Sec. 5. The RSME of the d-esprit agorithm is computed over 200 reaizations as RMSE d-esprit i= θ i θ 2, 52 where θ i is the estimate of θ computed at the ith reaization using the d-esprit agorithm. The anaytica expression of the RMSE of the d-esprit agorithm is ARMSE d-esprit 1 3 =1 3 E[δ θ 2 ] =1 1 2, 53 12

13 10 0 RMSE d-pm P=10 RMSE d-pm P=20 RMSE d-pm P=30 ARMSE d-pm P=10 ARMSE d-pm P=20 ARMSE d-pm P=30 RMSE SR db Figure 2: The performance of the d-pm as a function of SR for a fixed number of sampes = 100. where E[δ θ 2 ] is computed using Equations In this set of simuations, the number of PM iterations is set to Q = 2. Moreover, in this simuation we pot the RMSE of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm computed as in Eq. 52, aong with the corresponding performance anaysis of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm from [12], which we denote as ARMSE ESPRIT, and the CRB for the conventiona party caibrated arrays [16]. Fig. 4 demonstrates ARMSE d-esprit and RMSE d-esprit for different SRs where a fixed number of sampes = 100 is assumed. ote that at ow SRs the performance of the d-esprit agorithm is simiar to that of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm and it improves with increasing SR. However, at high SRs, it can be observed that the performance of the d-esprit agorithm deviates from that of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm. It is cear from Fig. 4 that this deviation depends on the number of AC iterations P. Thus, for P = 30 and SR vaues up to SR = 15 db the performance of the d-esprit agorithm is simiar to that of the conventiona ESPRIT agorithm and both achieve the conventiona CRB, whereas for P = 10 this deviation starts from SR = 0 db. Moreover, it can be seen from Fig. 4 that the RMSE of the d-esprit agorithm at high SRs is saturated and cannot be decreased uness the number of AC iterations is increased. In Fig. 5, the SR is fixed to 10 db and ARMSE d-esprit and RMSE d-esprit are computed for different number of sampes. It is obvious that the error in the d-esprit agorithm does not approach zero when, which is in accordance with our concusion in Sec. 5, that the d-esprit agorithm is not a consistent estimator of the DOAS, uness the number of AC iterations P is infinitey arge. In Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, it can be observed that the vaues obtained for the averaged RMSE of d-esprit agorithm RMSE d-esprit are simiar to the resuts of the anaytica expression ARMSE d-esprit. 7. Concusions In this paper, we derived an anaytica expression for the second order statistics of the eigenvectors for the sampe covariance matrix computed using the d-pm. This anaytica expression is used to derive the MSE of the DOA estimates obtained from the d-esprit agorithm. It has been shown that the AC errors in d-pm and d-esprit agorithm are dominant when is very arge or the SR is very high. In our anaysis, errors resuting from a sma number of PM iterations is not considered. evertheess, in the simuations, it has been shown that 10 PM iterations are sufficient to make these errors negigiby sma. 13

14 10 0 RMSE 10 1 RMSE d-pm P=10 RMSE d-pm P=20 RMSE d-pm P=30 ARMSE d-pm P=10 ARMSE d-pm P=20 ARMSE d-pm P= ,000 umber of Sampes Figure 3: The performance of the d-pm as a function of for a fixed SR = 10 db. A. Proof of Theorem 2 Proof. In order to prove Theorem 2, the matrix RP is written in terms of ˆR and W. Then, a first order anaysis is carried out. For convenience, we drop the dependency on P from RP, ũu P and h P throughout the proof. The argest eigenvaue of the matrix W is α 1 = 1 and its corresponding eigenvector is β 1 = 1 K 1 K, see Sec. 3.1, thus R = K T W P T T ˆR K = K T αk P β k β H k T T ˆR k=1 K = ˆR + K αk P T β k β H k T T ˆR = ˆR + K k=2 K αk P T k ˆR T H k, k=2 where T k = diag[t β k ] and, for the ast equaity, the rank one Hadamard product property [6, p. 104] is used. ote that the second term in Eq. 54 accounts for the errors resuting from the finite number of AC iterations P <, and that R ˆR when P. Substituting Eq. 28 in Eq. 54 yieds 54 K R = R + δr + K αk P T k R + δr T H k k=2 K R + δr + K αk P T k R T H k k=2 55 where the term K k=2 αp k T k δr T H k is negected in the approximation since the magnitudes of α 2,..., α K are a stricty smaer than one see Sec. 3.1 and they are mutipied with the sma variation δr. 14

15 RMSE degree RMSE d-esprit P=10 RMSE d-esprit P=20 RMSE d-esprit P=30 ARMSE d-esprit P=10 ARMSE d-esprit P=20 ARMSE d-esprit P=30 Conventiona ESPRIT ARMSE ESPRIT CRB [16] SR db Figure 4: The performance of the d-esprit agorithm as a function of SR for a fixed number of sampes = 100. Mutipying Eq. 55 from the right with ũu and keeping the first order terms, we find K R ũu R + δr + K αk P T k R T H k u + δũu k=2 Ru + δru + h + Rδũu, 56 where h is defined in Eq. 30. The eft hand side of Eq. 56 can be written as R ũu = λ ũu, where λ is the th eigenvaue of R. Expressing λ as a perturbation in λ, i.e., λ = λ + δ λ, the eft hand side of Eq. 56 becomes R ũu = λ + δ λ u + δũu 57 λ u + δ λ u + λ δũu, where ony first order terms are kept. Substituting Eq. 57 in Eq. 56 yieds The matrix R λ I M can be written as R λ I M δũu δ λ u δru h 58 M R λ I M = λ k λ u u H k k=1,k 59 = U Γ U H where U and Γ are defined in Eq. 4. Thus mutipying Eq. 59 by B U Γ 1 U H we find δũu B δ λ u δru h = B δru + h

16 RMSE degree 10 1 RMSE d-esprit P=10 RMSE d-esprit P=20 RMSE d-esprit P=30 ARMSE d-esprit P=10 ARMSE d-esprit P=20 ARMSE d-esprit P=30 Conventiona ESPRIT ARMSE ESPRIT CRB [16] ,000 umber of Sampes Figure 5: The performance of the d-esprit agorithm as a function of for a fixed SR = 10 db. B. Proof of Theorem 3 Proof. In order to prove Theorem 3, we compute E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] based on the expression of δũu P which we found in Theorem 2. Then, resuts from [2] are used to simpify the computed expression. For convenience, we drop the dependency on P from ũu P and h P throughout the proof. Using the resut from Theorem 2, E[δũu P δũu H mp ] and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] are written as E[δũu P δũu H mp ] B E[δRu + h u H mδr + h H m]b H m = E[B δru u H mδrb H m] + B h h H mb H m 61 and E[δũu P δũu T mp ] B E[δRu + h u T mδr + h T m]b T m = E[B δru u T mδrb T m] + B h h T mb T m. 62 Using the foowing resuts from Theorem in [2] 1 and in Eq. 61 and Eq. 62 proves the theorem. E[B δru u H mδrb H m] = λ M i=1 i E[B δru u T mδrb T m] = λ λ m λ i λ λ i 2 u u H δ,m u u T m λ λ m 2 δ,m 1 1 See aso the proof of the Theorem [2, p. 454]. 16

17 References [1] C. Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine earning, voume 1. springer ew York, [2] D. R. Briinger. Time series: data anaysis and theory, voume 36. Society for Industria and Appied Mathematics SIAM, [3] M. H. DeGroot. Reaching a consensus. Journa of the American Statistica Association, 69345: , [4] B. Friedander and A. J. Weiss. On the second-order statistics of the eigenvectors of sampe covariance matrices. IEEE Transactions on Signa Processing, 4611: , [5] G. H. Goub and C. F. Van Loan. Matrix computations, voume 3. Johns Hopkins University Press, Batimore, fourth edition, [6] C. R. Johnson. Matrix theory and appications, voume 40. Proceedings of Symposia in Appied Mathematic, American Mathematica Society, [7] R. Ofati-Saber, A. Fax, and R. M. Murray. Consensus and cooperation in networked muti-agent systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 951: , [8] R. Ofati-Saber and R. M. Murray. Consensus probems in networks of agents with switching topoogy and time-deays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Contro, 499: , [9] P. Parvazi and M. Pesavento. A new direction-of-arriva estimation and caibration method for arrays composed of mutipe identica subarrays. In IEEE Internationa Workshop on Signa Processing Advances in Wireess Communications SPAWC, pages , San Francisco, CA, USA, June [10] M. Pesavento, A. B. Gershman, and M. Haardt. Unitary root-music with a rea-vaued eigendecomposition: A theoretica and experimenta performance study. IEEE Transactions on Signa Processing, 485: , [11] M. Pesavento, A. B. Gershman, and K. M. Wong. Direction finding in party caibrated sensor arrays composed of mutipe subarrays. IEEE Transactions on Signa Processing, 509: , Sept [12] B. D Rao and K. Hari. Performance anaysis of ESPRIT and TAM in determining the direction of arriva of pane waves in noise. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 3712: , [13] R. Roy and T. Kaiath. ESPRIT-estimation of signa parameters via rotationa invariance techniques. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 377: , ov [14] A. Scagione, R. Pagiari, and H. Krim. The decentraized estimation of the sampe covariance. In Asiomar Conference on Signas, Systems, and Computers, pages , Pacific Grove, CA, USA, Oct [15] R. Schmidt. Mutipe emitter ocation and signa parameter estimation. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 343: , Mar [16] C. M. S. See and A. B. Gershman. Direction-of-arriva estimation in party caibrated subarray-based sensor arrays. IEEE Transactions on Signa Processing, 522: , [17] P. Stoica and K. C. Sharman. Maximum ikeihood methods for direction-of-arriva estimation. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 387: , Juy [18] W. Sueiman and P. Parvazi. Search-free decentraized direction-of-arriva estimation using common roots for non-coherent party caibrated arrays. In IEEE Internationa Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing ICASSP, pages , May [19] W. Sueiman, P. Parvazi, M. Pesavento, and A. M. Zoubir. Decentraized direction finding using Lanczos method. In IEEE Sensor Array and Mutichanne Signa Processing Workshop SAM, pages 9 12, June

18 [20] W. Sueiman, M. Pesavento, and A. M. Zoubir. Decentraized direction finding using party caibrated arrays. In European signa processing conference EUSIPCO, pages 1 5, Sept [21] M. Wax and T. Kaiath. Decentraized processing in sensor arrays. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 335: , Oct [22] M. Wax and T. Kaiath. Detection of signas by information theoretic criteria. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 332: , [23] D. B. Wiiams and D. H. Johnson. Using the sphericity test for source detection with narrow-band passive arrays. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signa Processing, 3811: , [24] L. Xiao and S. Boyd. Fast inear iterations for distributed averaging. Systems & Contro Letters, 531:65 78, [25] L. Xiao, S. Boyd, and S. Kim. Distributed average consensus with east-mean-square deviation. Journa of Parae and Distributed Computing, 671:33 46,