Skip to content Skip to navigation

Connexions

You are here: Home » Content » Maximum Likelihood Estimators of Signal Parameters

Navigation

Content Actions

  • Download module PDF
  • Add to ...
    Add the module to:
    • My Favorites
    • A lens
    • An external social bookmarking service
    • My Favorites (What is 'My Favorites'?)
      'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark modules and collections directly in Connexions. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need a Connexions account to use 'My Favorites'.
    • A lens (What is a lens?)

      Definition of a lens

      Lenses

      A lens is a custom view of Connexions content. You can think of it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see Connexions through the eyes of organizations and people you trust.

      What is in a lens?

      Lens makers point to Connexions materials (modules and collections), creating a guide that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

      Who can create a lens?

      Any individual Connexions member, a community, or a respected organization.

    • External bookmarks
  • E-mail the author

Recently Viewed

Maximum Likelihood Estimators of Signal Parameters

Module by: Don Johnson

Many situations are either not well suited to linear estimation procedures, or the parameter is not well described as a random variable. For example, signal delay is observed nonlinearly and usually no a priori density can be assigned. In such cases, maximum likelihood estimators are more frequently used. Because of the Cramér-Rao bound, fundamental limits on parameter estimation performance can be derived for any signal parameter estimation problem where the parameter is not random.

Assume that the data are expressed as a signal observed in the presence of additive Gaussian noise.

l,l0L-1:rl=slθ+nl l l 0 L 1 r l s l θ n l (1)
The vector of observations rr is formed from the data in the obvious way. Evaluating the logarithm of the observation vector's joint density, lnpr|θr=-1/2lndet2π K n -1/2r-sθT K n -1r-sθ p r θ r -12 2 K n 12 r s θ K n r s θ where sθ s θ is the signal vector having P P unknown parameters, and K n K n is the covariance matrix of the noise. The partial derivative of this likelihood function with respect to the i th i th parameter θ i θ i , for real-valued signals, θ i lnpr|θr=r-sθT K n -1 θ i sθ θ i p r θ r r s θ K n θ i s θ and, for complex-valued ones, θ i lnpr|θr=r-sθH K n -1 θ i sθ θ i p r θ r r s θ K n θ i s θ If the maximum of the likelihood function can be found by setting its gradient to 0 0, the maximum likelihood estimate of the parameter vector is the solution of the set of equations
i,i1P:r-sθT K n -1 θ i sθ|θ,θ=θ̂ML=0 i i 1 P θ θ ML r s θ K n θ i s θ 0 (2)

The Cramér-Rao bound depends on the evaluation of the Fisher information matrix F F. The elements of this matrix are found to be

i,j,ij1P:Fij= θ i sθT K n -1 θ j sθ i j i j 1 P F i j θ i s θ K n θ j s θ (3)
Further computation of the Cramér-Rao bound's components is problem dependent if more than one parameter is involved, and the off-diagonal terms of F F are nonzero. If only one parameter is unknown, the Cramér-Rao bound is given by
Eε2b2θ+1+ddθbθ2θsθT K n -1θsθ ε 2 b θ 2 1 θ b θ 2 θ s θ K n θ s θ (4)
When the signal depends on the parameter nonlinearly (which constitute the interesting cases), the maximum likelihood estimate is usually biased. Thus, the numerator of the expression for the bound cannot be ignored. One interesting special case occurs when the noise is white. The Cramér-Rao bound becomes Eε2b2θ+ σ n 21+ddθbθ2l=0L-1θslθ2 ε 2 b θ 2 σ n 2 1 θ b θ 2 l 0 L 1 θ s l θ 2 The derivative of the signal with respect to the parameter can be interpreted as the sensitivity of the signal to the parameter. The mean-squared estimation error depends on the "integrated" squared sensitivity: The greater this sensitivity, the smaller the bound.

For an efficient estimate of a signal parameter to exist, the estimate must satisfy the condition we derived earlier. θsθT K n -1r-sθI+θbT-1θsθT K n -1θsθ θr ̂-θ-b θ s θ K n r s θ I θ b θ s θ K n θ s θ θ r θ b Because of the complexity of this requirement, we quite rightly question the existence of any efficient estimator, especially when the signal depends nonlinearly on the parameter (see this problem).

Example 1

Let the unknown parameter be the signal's amplitude; the signal is expressed as θsl θ s l and is observed in an array's output in the presence of additive noise. The maximum likelihood estimate of the amplitude is the solution of the equation r-θ̂MLsT K n -1s=0 r θ ML s K n s 0 The form of this equation suggests that the maximum likelihood estimate is efficient. The amplitude estimate is given by θ̂ML=rT K n -1ssT K n -1s θ ML r K n s s K n s The form of this estimator is precisely that of the matched filter derived in the colored-noise situation (see equation). The expected value of the estimate equals the actual amplitude. Thus the bias is zero and the Cramér-Rao bound is given by Eε2sT K n -1s-1 ε 2 s K n s The condition for an efficient estimate becomes sT K n -1r-θssT K n -1sθ̂ML-θ s K n r θ s s K n s θ ML θ whose veracity we can easily verify.

In the special case where the noise is white, the estimator has the form θ̂ML=rTs θ ML r s , and the Cramér-Rao bound equals σ n 2 σ n 2 (the nominal signal is assumed to have unit energy). The maximum likelihood estimate of the amplitude has fixed error characteristics that do not depend on the actual signal amplitude. A signal-to-noise ratio for the estimate, defined to be θ2Eε2 θ 2 ε 2 , equals the signal-to-noise ratio of the observed signal.

When the amplitude is well described as a random variable, its linear minimum mean-squared error estimator has the form θ̂LIN= σ θ 2rT K n -1s1+ σ θ 2sT K n -1s θ LIN σ θ 2 r K n s 1 σ θ 2 s K n s which we found in the white-noise case becomes a weighted version of the maximum likelihood estimate (see example). θ̂LIN= σ θ 2 σ θ 2+ σ n 2rTs θ LIN σ θ 2 σ θ 2 σ n 2 r s Seemingly, these two estimators are being used to solve the same problem: Estimating the amplitude of a signal whose waveform is known. They make very different assumptions, however, about the nature of the unknown parameter; in one it is a random variable (and thus it has a variance), whereas in the other it is not (and variance makes no sense). Despite this fundamental difference, the computations for each estimator are equivalent. It is reassuring that different approaches to solving similar problems yield similar procedures.

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback