Authors' reply to "Comments on 'Min-Norm interpretations and consistency of MUSIC, MODE, and ML'"

For original article see Ephraim et al. (IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 43, p. 2937-42, Dec. 1995). For comments to original article see Stoica and Ottersten (IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 46, p. 2262-3, Aug. 1998). In the present reply to the comments the authors note that the signal subspace fitting approach of Ephraim et al. (1995) is different from that of Viberg and Ottersten (1991), and the consistency proof in Ephraim et al. contains the missing steps in the proofs of Viberg and Ottersten, and Stoica and Nehorai (1989). These facts, as well as the correctness of the results in Ephraim et al., are not disputed in Stoica and Ottersten. Stoica and Ottersten rather assert that the results in Ephraim et al. were either known or obvious.