{"title":"噪声条件下的两种自回归估计方法","authors":"L. Weruaga","doi":"10.1109/IEEEGCC.2011.5752587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The maximum-likelihood(ML) and the expectation-maximization criteria have been previously used in the problem of autoregressive estimation in noise. This paper presents a thorough comparative study of these techniques. Despite these criteria lead in both cases to apparently similar algorithms, the methodological differences and connections between both approaches are explored. Their performance, speed of convergence, and robustness of the solution are assessed with the help of simulated experiments. Further research work at increasing robustness in the ML approach is finally proposed.","PeriodicalId":119104,"journal":{"name":"2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCC)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two methods for autoregressive estimationin noise\",\"authors\":\"L. Weruaga\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IEEEGCC.2011.5752587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The maximum-likelihood(ML) and the expectation-maximization criteria have been previously used in the problem of autoregressive estimation in noise. This paper presents a thorough comparative study of these techniques. Despite these criteria lead in both cases to apparently similar algorithms, the methodological differences and connections between both approaches are explored. Their performance, speed of convergence, and robustness of the solution are assessed with the help of simulated experiments. Further research work at increasing robustness in the ML approach is finally proposed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCC)\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEEGCC.2011.5752587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEEGCC.2011.5752587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The maximum-likelihood(ML) and the expectation-maximization criteria have been previously used in the problem of autoregressive estimation in noise. This paper presents a thorough comparative study of these techniques. Despite these criteria lead in both cases to apparently similar algorithms, the methodological differences and connections between both approaches are explored. Their performance, speed of convergence, and robustness of the solution are assessed with the help of simulated experiments. Further research work at increasing robustness in the ML approach is finally proposed.