An analysis of beamforming algorithms for passive bottom reflection-loss estimation
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, ISSN: 0001-4966, Vol: 144, Issue: 5, Page: 3046-3054
2018
- 4Citations
- 8Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef2
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
This study provides an argument cautioning against the use of adaptive-beamforming (ABF) techniques in conjunction with a known method for estimating the bottom reflection loss from natural marine ambient noise. This application of ABF has been investigated in the past with rather inconsistent results. Furthermore, no formal proof that ABF algorithms do indeed provide an estimate of the bottom reflection loss is available. This study moves from a recent derivation of the relationship between the bottom reflection coefficient and the Fourier transform of the marine-noise spatial coherence function. The circumstances under which the beamforming operation approximates a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the spatial coherence function estimated from array data are analyzed. It is shown that, under certain conditions, conventional beamforming is equivalent to directly computing the DFT of the coherence function, as long as some subtle details are properly taken into account. Furthermore, it is shown that ABF cannot be guaranteed, in general, to perform this operation, and therefore provide an estimate of the bottom reflection coefficient. The conclusions are demonstrated on simulated and measured data.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85057841168&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.5080258; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30522322; https://pubs.aip.org/jasa/article/144/5/3046/646259/An-analysis-of-beamforming-algorithms-for-passive; http://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5080258; https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5080258
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know