Cart (Loading....) | Create Account
Close category search window
 

Signal Processing for Microwave Array Imaging: TDC and Sparse Recovery

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

4 Author(s)
Shi Jun ; Univ. of Electron. Sci. & Technol. of China, Chengdu, China ; Zhang Xiaoling ; Xiang Gao ; Jianyu Jianyu

Unlike 1-D and 2-D microwave images, 3-D microwave image behaves typical sparsity. Consequently, sparse recovery technique can be used for 3-D microwave signal processing. Three popular signal processing techniques, the time-domain correlation method (TDC), pseudo-inverse method (PI), and compressed sensing method (CS), are discussed in this paper. We find that PI and CS methods can eliminate the side-lobe coupling error of TDC method with the cost of additional noise gains. The performances of TDC, PI, and CS methods are influenced by the autocorrelation matrix of the measurement matrix, which is determined by the distribution of the sparse array and the number of receivers. In general case, the measurement matrix of microwave 3-D imaging cannot be considered as a group of independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with zero mean. As a result, many properties developed under the i.i.d. Gauss random variable and i.i.d. random variable with zero mean hypotheses cannot explain the microwave 3-D imaging problem accurately. Further discussions on the effects of the image sparsity and number of receivers on TDC, PI, and CS methods are presented in this paper. In usual case, the sparser the image is, the better the imaging result is. In the aspect of the number of receivers (assuming that array size is fixed), when the receiver number is relatively small, increasing it can reduce the coupling error of TDC method and the noise gains of PI and CS methods. When the number of receivers is large enough, increasing it makes less contribution to improving the coupling error or noise gains. Finally, we show that under ill condition, CS method is far more stable than PI method by numerical experiment.

Published in:

Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:50 ,  Issue: 11 )

Date of Publication:

Nov. 2012

Need Help?


IEEE Advancing Technology for Humanity About IEEE Xplore | Contact | Help | Terms of Use | Nondiscrimination Policy | Site Map | Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology.
© Copyright 2014 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.