IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

1

Signal periodic decomposition with conjugate
subspaces

arXiv:1602.03979v1 [] 12 Feb 2016

Shi-wen Deng*, Ji-qing Han*, Member, IEEE,

Abstract—
In this paper, we focus on hidden period identification and
the periodic decomposition of signals. Based on recent results
on the Ramanujan subspace, we reveal the conjugate symmetry
of the Ramanujan subspace with a set of complex exponential
basis functions and represent the subspace as the union of a
series of conjugate subspaces. With these conjugate subspaces,
the signal periodic model is introduced to characterize the
periodic structure of a signal. To achieve the decomposition of
the proposed model, the conjugate subspace matching pursuit
(CSMP) algorithm is proposed based on two different greedy
strategies. The CSMP is performed iteratively in two stages. In
the first stage, the dominant hidden period is chosen with the
periodicity strategy. Then, the dominant conjugate subspace is
chosen with the energy strategy in the second stage. Compared
with the current state-of-the-art methods for hidden period
identification, the main advantages provided by the CSMP are
the following: (i) the capability of identifying all the hidden
periods in the range from 1 to the maximum hidden period
Q of a signal of any length, without truncating the signal; (ii)
the ability to identify the time-varying hidden period with its
shifted version; and (iii) the low computational cost, without
generating and using a large over-complete dictionary. Moreover,
we provide examples and applications to demonstrate the abilities
of the proposed two-stage CSMP algorithm, which include hidden
period identification, signal approximation, time-varying period
detection, and pitch detection of speech.
Index Terms—Hidden period identification, Periodic decomposition, Conjugate subspace, Periodic signal mode, Ramanujan
subspace.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Period estimation (detection) or periodicity identification is
a fundamental problem in the field of signal processing. The
periodicity of a signal refers to the fact that it repeats after a
certain duration of time. Specifically, the signal x[n] has the
period q that is the smallest positive integer satisfying x[n +
q] = x[n], ∀n ∈ Z. In the more complex case, the periodicity
of the signal cannot be observed directly, and it is the sum
of several periodic signals with different periods, which are
referred to as the hidden periods. However, traditional methods
such as the discrete Fourier transform (DFT), periodigram and
autocorrelation cannot effectively identify hidden periods in
signals [1]–[4]. We first formulate the problem of identifying
hidden periods as follows.
Problem 1: A signal x[n] of length N is generated by
a sum of L signals with periods q1 , · · · , qL , where N ≪
Manuscript received May X, 2016; revised XX XX, 2016.
*Deng Shi-Wen is with School of Mathematical Sciences, Harbin Normal
University, Harbin, China (e-mail: dengswen@gmail.com).
*Han Ji-Qing is with School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin, China (e-mail: jqhan@hit.edu.cn).

lcm(q1 , · · · , qL ). How do we identify the hidden periods
q1 , · · · , qL in the signal x[n]? More generally, given any
signal x[n] of length N and the maximum hidden period Q,
can it be approximated as a sum of periodic components with
periods q ∈ [1, · · · , Q] and the approximation error?
Recently, a variety of approaches have been proposed to
address the above problem. Considering the limitations of
the DFT for period estimation, Epps et al. [5], [6] extended
traditional DFT and autocorrelation and to propose the integer
DFT and hybrid methods for identifying the hidden periods.
Unfortunately, the integer DFT cannot characterize all of the
periodic behaviors of the signals. Sethares and Staley [1]
proposed the periodicity transform to extract the periodic
components of a signal by constructing ’periodic subspaces’
into which the signal is projected. Due to the ambiguity
of the definition of the period, the ’periodic subspaces’ in
[1] cannot exactly characterize the sets of periodic signals,
and hence, their periodic decomposition of a signal cannot
correctly identify the hidden periods and depended on the
order of extraction of the periodic components. To eliminate
the drawbacks in [1], Muresan and Parks [7] proposed exactly
periodic subspace decomposition (EPSD) by generating a series of orthogonal periodic subspaces based on the calculation
of the intersections of the ’periodic subspaces’ in [1]. However,
EPSD cannot achieve orthogonal decomposition for all the
periodic components due to the finite length of the signal. In
fact, only the periodic components whose periods are divisors
of the length of the signal can be orthogonal decomposed. A
detailed discussion of the above algorithms can be found in
our recent work [8].
More recently, Ramanujan sums were applied to analyze
the periodic behaviors of signals. Planat et al. [9], [10]
characterized the periodicity of the 1/f signal with the Ramanujan Fourier Transform (RFT). Unfortunately, the RFT
suffers the drawback of shift sensitivity [4]. To eliminate
this drawback, Vaidyanathan [4] proposed the Ramanujan
Periodic Transform (RPT) based on the Ramanujan subspaces
introduced by the same author in [3]. By projecting the signal
into a series of mutually orthogonal Ramanujan subspaces
associated with the hidden periods of the signal, the RPT
extracts the corresponding periodic components, which are
also mutually orthogonal. For a signal of finite length N ,
however, the RPT only generates Ramanujan subspaces whose
periods are divisors of N , which means that RPT can only
identify the hidden periods satisfying this condition. Tenneti
and Vaidyanathan [11], [12] proposed the Ramanujan Filter
Bank (RFB) based on the Ramanujan subspaces to identify all
the hidden periods of a signal. Although the RFB can identify

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

all the hidden periods, even those that change with time, the
identification results of the RFB contain some false hidden
periods due to the overlaps of the filter banks. Moreover, Pei
and Lu [2] introduced the intrinsic integer-periodic function for
identifying hidden periods based on the Ramanujan subspaces.
Some other approaches were proposed to identify the hidden
periods based on the representation of a signal over the redundant dictionary. Nakashizuka et al. [13] and Vaidyanathan et
al. [14] proposed methods for the periodic decomposition of
signals based on the framework of the spare representation of a
signal. In [14], the Farey dictionary is generated based on the
Farey sequence, over which the sparse representation of the
signal is obtained. It was further extended to the Ramanujan
dictionary-based approaches [15], [16]. However, one of the
serious drawbacks of these approaches is that the dictionary
will become too large when the expected maximum hidden
period Q is large, which means that a very large computational
cost is required for the decomposition over the dictionary.
The
PQ
dimension of the dictionary must be greater than 1=1 φ(q),
where φ(q) is the Euler’s totient function of q and is also
the dimension of the Ramanujan subspace associated with the
period q. For example, when Q = 512, the number of columns
of the dictionary is 79852!.
In this paper, we present the method of signal periodic
decomposition over conjugate subspaces based on the greedy
strategy, named conjugate subspace matching pursuit (CSMP),
which can efficiently and effectively solve Problem 1. The
CSMP is a subspace pursuit method that was first introduced
in [17] to obtain a better representation of a signal in the
time-frequency plane. However, the CSMP proposed in this
paper is completely different from the traditional matching
pursuit algorithms [17], [18] used in signal decomposition in
terms of constructing the dictionary and the greedy strategy,
which are the key problems for the matching pursuit algorithm.
To identify the hidden periods and to perform the periodic
decomposition of signals, the proposed method is based on
the results for the Ramanujan subspace in [3] and our recent
work [8]. First, we generate the Ramanujan subspace with
the complex exponential basis from the frequency point of
view and reveal that the Ramanujan subspace has conjugate
symmetry structure. Second, based on the symmetry structure,
the Ramanujan subspace is represented as the union of a series
of conjugate subspaces. The union of the conjugate subspaces
associated with all the hidden periods can be used as the
dictionary for the periodic decomposition. Third, unlike the
dictionary-based method [14], [15] or a traditional matching
pursuit algorithm such as [17], [18], we perform a two-stage
CSMP without constructing and using the whole dictionary.
In the first stage, the most dominant period of the signal
in the current iteration is chosen based on the periodicity
metric defined in [8] without calculating the projection of the
signal onto each Ramanujan subspace. In the second stage,
the projections of the signal into the conjugate subspaces
belonging to the Ramanujan subspace associated with the
chosen period are calculated, and the component with the
largest projection energy is removed from the current signal.
When the CSMP is stopped, the sums of the projections
belonging to the same Ramanujan subspace, denoted Sq , are

2

the periodic components with the hidden period q.
Compared with the current state-of-the-art methods for
hidden period identification, the main advantages provided by
the CSMP are the following: (i) the capability of identifying
all the hidden periods in the range from 1 to the maximum
period Q of a signal of any length, without truncating the
signal or the dictionary; (ii) the ability to identify the timevarying hidden period with its shifted version; and (iii) the
low computational cost, without generating and using the large
over-complete dictionary.
The paper is organized as follows. We begin with a brief review of some necessary concepts and results of the Ramanujan
subspace in Section II. In Section III, we redefine the Ramanujan subspace with the complex exponential basis, reveal its
complex conjugate symmetry, and provide the representation
of the Ramanujan subspace with its conjugate subspaces. The
general model for the periodic decomposition based on the
conjugate subspaces is introduced in Section IV. Section V
presents the CSMP algorithm to perform the signal periodic
decomposition. With the proposed method, some examples
and real applications are provided in Section VI. We provide
conclusions in Section VII.
II. R AMANUJAN

SUBSPACE

In this section, we briefly review some necessary concepts
and results of the Ramanujan subspace, which first appeared
in [3]. The Ramanujan subspace is constructed based on the
Ramanujan sums. For any positive integer q, the Ramanujan
sums is a sequence with period q and is defined as follows
cq (n) =

q
X

ej2πkn/q , for n = · · · , −1, 0, 1, · · ·

k=1
(k,q)=1

where (k, q) denotes the greatest common divisor (gcd) of k
and q and (k, q) = 1 means that k and q are coprime. Then,
the Ramanujan subspace Sq is defined by the column space
of the following integer circulant matrix Bq





Bq = 



cq (0)
cq (1)
cq (2)
..
.
cq (q − 2)
cq (q − 1)

cq (q − 1)
cq (0)
cq (1)
..
.
cq (q − 3)
cq (q − 2)

···
···
···
..
.
···
···

cq (1)
cq (2)
cq (3)
..
.
cq (q − 1)
cq (0)








where cq (·) is the Ramanujan sums.
According to [2]–[4], the Ramanujan subspace Sq is capable
of characterizing the periodic component of period q of the
signal. Moreover, the relationship between the Ramanujan
subspace and the DFT matrix proposed in [3] is summarized
as follows.
Theorem 1: The Ramanujan subspace Sq ⊂ Cq is identical
to the space spanned by those φ(q) columns of the q × q DFT
matrix, whose column indices k are coprime with q.
Note that when N is the integer multiple of q, say N = qM ,
the Ramanujan subspace SqM ⊂ CN is also denoted as Sq .
Therefore, the Ramanujan subspace Sq can characterize the
periodic behavior of the signal whose length is the integer

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

3

multiple of the period q. The definition of the Ramanujan
subspace will be extended in the following section.

π
2

1

2π 92

0.8

III. C ONJUGATE

SUBSPACES OF THE
SUBSPACE

R AMANUJAN

2π 19

0.6
0.4

2π 49

0.2

In this section, we first redefine the Ramanujan subspace
with a set of complex exponential basis functions and reveal
its complex conjugate symmetry structure. Then, the conjugate
subspace of the Ramanujan subspace are defined by a pair
complex exponential basis functions based on their complex
conjugate symmetry. Next, the Ramanujan subspace is represented with a series of conjugate subspaces.

0

0

π

−0.2
−0.4

2π 59

−0.6

2π 98

−0.8
−1

3π
2

−1

−0.5

0

2π 97
0.5

1

A. Complex conjugate symmetry of the Ramanujan subspace
The Ramanujan subspace Sq of the period q is a linear
subspace with dimension φ(q). According to Theorem 1,
from the frequency point of view, it consists of φ(q) center
frequencies, which are
ωq,i = 2π

ki
, i = 1, · · · , φ(q)
q

(1)

where the positive integer ki is coprime to q and satisfies
1 ≤ ki < ki+1 < q.
Instead of using the integer basis based on the Ramanujan
sums cq [n], the Ramanujan subspace Sq can be defined based
on the complex exponential functions
g(ωq,i ) = RN,q,i ejnωq,i , n = 0, · · · , N − 1

(2)

where RN,q,i is a constant associated with the frequency ωq,i
to obtain the unit-norm function satisfying kg(ωq,i )k = 1, n is
the time (or sample) index, and N is the signal length. Thus,
the Ramanujan subspace Sq can be redefined by the set of
φ(q)
basis functions {g(ωq,i )}i=1 , that is,
Sq , span {g(ωq,i )} , i = 1, · · · , φ(q)

(3)

Instead of restricting the signal length, N must be an integer
multiple of the period q, and the Ramanujan subspace in (3)
can be applied to signals of any length, which is an extension
of the traditional definition of the Ramanujan subspace. It is
worthwhile mentioning that this extension is achieved at the
φ(q)
expense of losing the orthogonality of the basis {g(ωq,i )}i=1 .
φ(q)
As the basis {g(ωq,i )}i=1 corresponds to the freφ(q)
quencies {ωq,i }i=1 , the Ramanujan subspace Sq has
a complex conjugate symmetry structure. For example,
when q = 9, the frequencies contained in Sq are
{2π 91 , 2π 29 , 2π 94 , 2π 95 , 2π 97 , 2π 89 }. Fig. 1 shows these frequencies distributed in an unit circle with a maximum frequency of
2π. Obviously, these frequencies 2π 19 and 2π 98 , 2π 92 and 2π 97 ,
and 2π 49 and 2π 59 are symmetric about the horizontal axis.
The symmetry among these frequencies implies that the corφ(q)
responding complex exponential functions {g(ωq,i )}i=1 also
have complex conjugate symmetry structure. The following
theorem indicates that the Ramanujan subspace Sq defined
by the complex exponential basis has complex conjugate
symmetry structure.

Fig. 1.

The frequencies are contained in the Ramanujan subspace S9 .

Theorem 2: Given the period q, the Ramanujan subspace
φ(q)
Sq represented by the complex exponential basis {g(ωq,i )}i=1
has complex conjugate symmetry, satisfying the following:
gq (ωq,i ) = gq (ωq,φ(q)−i ), if q ≥ 3

(4)

gq (ωq,i ) = gq (ωq,i ), if 1 ≤ q ≤ 2

(5)

i
where the frequency ωq,φ(q)−i = 2π q−k
q . The complex exponential function gq (ωq,i ) and its complex conjugate gq (ωq,i )
are referred to as a complex conjugate pair.
Proof:
If q ≤ 2, then φ(q) = 1. For this case, there exists only one
frequency component in Sq , and gq (ωq,1 ) is a real function (or
vector); hence, gq (ωq,1 ) = gq (ωq,1 ). Specifically, ω1,1 = 2π
and ω2,1 = π, for q = 1 and q = 2.
If q > 2, then φ(q) is even and φ(q) ≥ 2. Note that if
(ki , q) = 1, it follows that (q − ki , q) = 1 as well. For the
frequency component ωq,i contained in Sq , we have

ejnωq,i = e−jnωq,i
= cos(nωq,i ) − jsin(nωq,i )
= cos(2πn − nωq,i ) + jsin(2πn − nωq,i )
= ej2πn

q−ki
q

= ej2πnωq,φ(q)−i
where kφ(q)−i = q − ki . Hence,
gq (ωq,i ) = gq (ωq,φ(q)−i )
is proven.
Theorem 2 reveals an important property of the Ramanujan
subspace Sq when it is defined by a set of complex exponential
basis. This means that the Ramanujan subspace Sq can be
represented by a series of complex conjugate subspaces.
B. Representation of the Ramanujan subspace with conjugate
subspaces
With Theorem 2, we know that the complex exponential
basis of the Ramanujan subspace Sq contains a series of

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

4

following section.

1
0.9
c(9, 1)
c(9, 2)
c(9, 4)

0.8
0.7

IV. S IGNAL PERIODIC

In this section, we first introduce the signal periodic model
for formulating the aforementioned Problem 1 and reformulate
the model with CCSs. Then, the optimal problem for solving
the signal periodic model is presented. With the proposed
model, the periodic structure of a signal is explored.
We formulate the aforementioned Problem 1 as the following signal periodic model. Given the maximum hidden period
Q, we assume that the signal x ∈ RN can be represented as

|c|

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10

20

30

40

50

MODEL WITH CONJUGATE

SUBSPACES

60

N

Fig. 2. The correlation coefficients of the conjugate pairs of S9 as the
functions of length N .

x=

Q
X

xq + r

(9)

q=1

complex conjugate pairs. Let g(ωq,i ) and g(ωq,i ) be a complex
conjugate pair. The subspace Gq,i is referred to as the complex
conjugate subspace (CCS) of Sq , defined by
o
n
(6)
Gq,i = span g(ωq,i ), g(ωq,i ) ,

which is completely determined by g(ωq,i ) and its complex
conjugate g(ωq,i ).
The complex conjugate pair is not mutually orthogonal
when the length N is not an integer multiple of the period q. Let |c(q, i)| ∈ [0, 1) denote the absolute correlation
coefficient between g(ωq,i ) and g(ωq,i ), where c(q, i) ,
hg(ωq,i ), g(ωq,i )i. Fig. 2 shows the correlation coefficients of
these complex pairs of the basis of the Ramanujan subspace
S9 as functions of the length N . The correlation coefficient
satisfies |c(q, i)| = 0 only when the length N is an integer
multiple of the period 9. All of the values of these correlation
coefficients decrease when the length N increases, which
means that the orthogonality of the conjugate pair increases.
According to Theorem 2, there are Mq conjugate pairs in
the complex exponential basis of Sq , where

1, if q ≤ 2
Mq =
(7)
φ(q)/2, if q ≥ 3
Thus, the Ramanujan subspace Sq contains Mq CCSs corresponding to these complex conjugate pairs and can be
represented as the union of these CCSs as follows
Mq

Sq =

[

Gq,i

(8)

i=1

S
where the symbol “ ” denotes the union of these CCSs. SpeN
cially, the Ramanujan
Lsubspaces Sq ⊆ R can be represented
as the direct sum “ ” of these CCSs, as they are mutually
orthogonal when N is an integer multiple of q. In general,
when N is not an integer multiple of q, these CCSs are not
mutually orthogonal, and the intersection of the different CCSs
contains nonzero elements.
By representing the Ramanujan subspace Sq with the CCSs
in (8), the periodic component xq ∈ Sq can be represented
with these CCSs. We will construct this representation in the

where xq is the periodic component with the hidden period q,
which is the projection of the signal x onto the Ramanujan
subspace Sq , and r is the residual error. We refer to the
representation in (9) as the signal periodic model or signal
periodic decomposition. With the signal periodic model in
(9), the strengths of the hidden periodic components of the
signal x can be easily observed by their energies kxq k2 , for
q = 1, · · · , Q. Similar to the energy spectrum defined in
DFT, we refer to the strengths of these hidden periods as
the periodic spectrum of the signal x, demonstrated using an
example in Fig. 4 (b). Next, we will further represent the signal
periodic model with the CCSs of the Ramanujan subspace
corresponding to the hidden periods 1, · · · , Q. Before doing
so, we present the orthogonal projection of a signal into the
CCS below.
Let G be the CCS spanned by the complex conjugate pair
{g, ḡ}, that is, G = span{g, ḡ}. Because a real-world signal
is real valued, we only consider the orthogonal projection of
a real-valued signal in the CCS. The orthogonal projection of
the signal x ∈ RN onto G can be represented by
xG = 2Re(αg)

(10)

where Re(z) represents the real part of the complex vector
z ∈ CN . The complex coefficient α ∈ C is defined by
α ,hx, gi∗
1
(hg, xi − chḡ, xi)
=
1 − |c|2

(11)
(12)

where c = hg, ḡi and |c| ∈ [0, 1) is the correlation coefficient
between g and its complex conjugate ḡ. Here, we introduce
the symbol hx, gi∗ to denote the complex coefficient of the
projection of signal x onto the CCS G. Importantly, the projection xG of x onto the CCS G in (10) can be represented by
a single complex coefficient α, which satisfies the following:
kxG k2 = 2|hx, gi∗ | = 2|α|2

(13)

More details of the projection into the CCS are given in
Appendix VII-A.
The signal periodic model based on the CCSs is considered
here. With (8) and (10), the periodic component xq ∈ Sq can
be represented by the orthogonal projections of xq onto the

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

M

q
of Sq as follows
CCSs {Gq,i }i=1

xq = 2

Mq
X

Re(αq,i g(ωq,i ))

(14)

i=1

where αq,i is the orthogonal projection coefficient of xq onto
the conjugate subspace Gq,i . (14) provides a way of representing the periodic component of a signal based on the CCSs of
the corresponding Ramanujan subspace. By substituting (14)
into (9), the signal periodic model in (9) can be represented
as
x=2

Mq
Q X
X

Re (αq,i g(ωq,i )) + r

(15)

q=1 i=1

based on all the CCSs of the Ramanujan subspaces {Sq }Q
q=1 .
The signal periodic model in (15) reveals the intrinsic
periodic structure of the signal through a linear combination
of its hidden periodic components, but it cannot be directly
achieved in a linear manner. Let the complex matrix D ∈
CN ×M denotes the union of the complex exponential functions
{g(ωq,i )} in (15), where M is the total number of the CCSs
and
M=

Q
X

Mq = 2 +

Q
X

φ(q)/2

(16)

q=3

q=1

The complex vector α ∈ CM is stacked from the complex
coefficients {αq,i } using the rule
m=

q−1
X

Mp + i

(17)

p=1

where m ∈ [1, M ], q ∈ [1, Q], and i ∈ [1, Mq ]. Thus, the
signal periodic model in (15) can be written in matrix form
as
x = 2Re(DT α ) + r

(18)

where the superscript T denotes the matrix transposition (not
the conjugate transposition). Usually, for a finite-duration
signal x of length N , we have M ≫ N . This implies that D
is very redundant and that there exist infinite solutions of the
signal periodic model. Therefore, we expect to find a sparse
solution to the model in (18) by solving the following optimal
problem
α k0
min kα

α∈
α∈CM

subject to kx − 2Re(DT α )k2 ≤ ǫ

(19)

where ǫ > 0 is the error tolerance for the linear approximation.
We will present the CSMP algorithm to achieve the decomposition of the signal periodic model in the next section. It is
worthwhile mentioning that the over-complete dictionary D is
never constructed and used in our algorithm.
V. C ONJUGATE SUBSPACE

MATCHING PURSUIT

ALGORITHM

In this section, we present a two-stage CSMP algorithm for
the decomposition of the signal periodic model. The CSMP is

5

iteratively performed using some greedy strategies. Instead of
using the common greedy strategies, the periodicity strategy
and the energy strategy are proposed and used in the two
stages of the CSMP in Subsection V-A. In the first stage, the
dominant hidden period is chosen using a periodicity strategy.
The dominant CCS is chosen using an energy strategy in the
second stage. We provide the details of the two-stage CSMP
algorithm in Subsection V-B.
A. Greedy strategies
In each iteration, the CSMP is to choose a suitable CCS
based on a certain greedy strategy. However, the commonly
used strategies in MP [17]–[19] or the subspace pursuit [20]
algorithms are unsuitable for our CSMP algorithm. With these
strategies, the CSMP needs to calculate the projections of the
current residual signal in all the subspaces spanned by each
atom of the dictionary. This means that a high computational
cost is required to solve the optimal problem in (19), as the
size of the dictionary D may be very large when the maximum
hidden period Q is large. For example, when Q = 512,
the number of columns of D is 39927, which is almost
half the size of the Farey dictionary [14] or nested periodic
matrices used in [15]. On the other hand, the CCS chosen
in each iteration for the CSMP needs to capture the dominant
periodicity of the current residual signal rather than just match
the component in the residual signal with the dictionary atom
well.
We propose to perform the CSMP in two stages with different strategies, the periodicity strategy and energy strategy.
With the periodicity strategy in the first stage, the dominant
hidden period is chosen according to a certain periodicity
metric. With the energy strategy in the second stage, the
CCS is subsequently selected from the Ramanujan subspace
corresponding to the chosen hidden period, where the current
signal can obtain the maximum projection energy.
For the periodicity strategy in the first stage, the periodicity
metric first introduced in our recent work [8] is used to choose
the dominant hidden period, which is defined as
P (xq , q) ,

N +q
kxq k2
2q

(20)

where N is the signal length, q is the measured hidden period,
and xq is the hidden periodic component that is the projection
of the signal x onto the Ramanujan subspace Sq . Instead of
directly calculate the projection energy kxq k2 of the hidden
periodic component by projecting x into the Ramanujan subspace Sq , [8] shows that kxq k2 can be iteratively calculated
using
X
kxq k2 = kx̂q k2 −
kxp k2
(21)
p∈Γ

where Γ is the set of all the divisors of q expect for q itself
and kx̂q k2 is the estimate of the periodic energy. According
to [7], [8], [21], kx̂q k2 can be estimated by
!
M−1
X
q
2
ϕx (0) + 2
ϕx (lq)
(22)
kx̂q k =
N
l=1

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

where ϕx (·) is the autocorrelation function of x, M = ⌊N/q⌋,
and kx̂1 k2 = kx1 k2 . Thus, the dominant hidden period q ∗ can
be chosen by
q ∗ = argmin P (xq , q)

(23)

q∈[1,Q]

where Q is the maximum period. Importantly, it is unnecessary
to calculate the periodicity metric in (20) for the hidden periods by projecting the signal onto each Ramanujan subspace
{S1 }Q
q=1 . This greatly reduces the computational cost of the
CSMP.
With the chosen hidden period q ∗ in the first stage, the
Mq∗
of the
dominant CCS is chosen from all the CCSs {Gq∗ ,i }i=1
Ramanujan subspace Sq∗ , where
Gq∗ ,i = span{g(ωq∗ ,i ), g(ωq∗ ,i )}.
Because the CCS Gq∗ ,i can be completely determined by only
one basis function, the selection of the CCS is equivalent to
choosing the basis function g(ωq∗ ,i ). According to the energy
strategy, the dominant basis function is chosen for which
|αq∗ ,i∗ | ≥ |αq∗ ,i |, for i = 1, · · · , Mq∗

(24)

where αq∗ ,i is the complex projection coefficient of the signal
x onto the CCS Gq∗ ,i .
By projecting the signal x onto the CCS Gq∗ ,i∗ , the greedy
strategies of both periodicity and energy are achieved simultaneously. These strategies will be used in the following twostage CSMP at each iteration.

6

Algorithm 1 Conjugate subspace matching pursuit (CSMP)
Input: signal x ∈ RN
Output: complex projection coefficients α1 , · · · , αL and complex basis functions g1 , · · · , gL
Initialize: Set r0 = x
for l = 1 to L do
Stage 1:
(1) Find the dominant hidden period of rl−1 with the
periodicity strategy
ql = argmaxP (xq , q)
q∈[1,Q]

Stage 2:
(2) Generate complex exponential functions Dl =
Mq
{g(ωql ,i }i=1l according to ql
(3) Find the dominant CCS and projection coefficient with
the energy strategy
gl =argmax {|hrl−1 , gi∗ |}
g∈Dl

αl =hrl−1 , gl i∗
(4) Update residual rl = rl−1 − 2Re(αl gl )
end

satisfying
2

kxk = 2

L
X

kαl k2 + krL+1 k2

(28)

l=1

The details of the algorithm are described in Algorithm 1.
B. Two-stage CSMP algorithm
With the greedy strategies, the two-stage CSMP algorithm
is carried out as follows.
Let the initial residual signal r0 = x and Q be the maximum
hidden period of x. Let rl−1 denote the residual signal after
l − 1 iterations, which has already been computed in previous
iterations. In the l-th iteration, the dominant hidden period ql
of rl−1 is chosen by using the periodicity strategy at the first
stage. Subsequently, the dominant CCS Gql ,il , characterized
by the complex basis function g(ωql ,il ) of the Ramanujan
subspace Sql , is chosen with the energy strategy in the second
stage.
Then, the projection of rl−1 onto the dominant CCS Gql ,il ,
which is characterized by g(ωql ,il ), is removed to obtain the
new residual signal rl in the l-th iteration, that is
rl = rl−1 − 2Re (αql ,il g(ωql ,il ))

(25)

where αql ,il = hrl−1 , g(ωql ,il )i∗ , satisfying
krl k2 = krl−1 k2 − 2kαql ,il k2

(26)

For concise representation, let αl = αql ,il and gl = g(ωql ,il ).
The signal x can be represented with L periodic components
and the residual rL+1 as follows
x=2

L
X
l=1

Re(αl gl ) + rL+1

(27)

VI. E XAMPLES

AND APPLICATIONS

In this section, we provide several examples and applications to demonstrate the abilities of our proposed two-stage
CSMP algorithm. They include hidden period identification,
signal approximation, time-varying period detection, and pitch
detection of speech.
A. Identifying hidden periods
Some signals are generated by the superposition of several
periodic signals and hence contain hidden periods. More
generally and formally, we assume that the signal x[n] of
length N is generated by a sum of L signals with periods
q1 , · · · , qL , where N ≪ lcm(q1 , · · · , qL ), as described in
Problem 1. The aim of the examples here is to illustrate
the capability of the CSMP algorithm for identifying hidden
periods, compared with three methods: RFT [9], [10], RPT
[4], and EPSD [7].
The synthetic signal x[n] is composed of eight sinusoidal
components and is defined by


X
2πn
(29)
x[n] =
cos
q
q∈Γ

where Γ = {5, 12, 25, 26, 57, 58, 70, 85} is the set of hidden
periods and n is the sample index. The CSMP and three
other methods are used to identify the hidden periods of the

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

7

8
(a)
Strength

Amplitude

6
4
2

Reference

10

0

20

30

40

−4
200

300
400
Samples

500

600

(a)
Strength

Reference

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(b)
Strength

30

90

100

CSMP

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(c)
Strength

10

90

100

RFT

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(d)
Strength

10

90

100

RPT

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(e)
Strength

10

90

100

EPSD

10

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

90

80

100

Fig. 4. Hidden period identification for the synthetic signal of length 650
using several approaches.

Fig. 4(b) shows the results of identifying hidden periods
of a signal of length 650 with the CSMP algorithm. The
CSMP can correctly identify most of the hidden periods, but
the hidden period 58 is missing. Because the signal length
650 is too short, some overlap exists between the Ramanujan
subspaces S57 and S58 . More specifically, for the case of
the signal in (29), there is an overlap between the CCSs
G57,1 and G58,1 , where G57,1 ⊂ S57 and G58,1 ⊂ S58 . The
CSMP therefore fails to correctly distinguish the adjacent

90

100

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

90

100

RFT
20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(d)
Strength

10

90

100

RPT

10

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

(e)
Strength

signals of different lengths 650 and 1950. Because the signal
lengths 650 and 1950 are less than the least common multiple
127859550 of these periods in Γ, it is difficult to directly
observe the periodicity in x[n], as shown in Fig. 3. For the
CSMP, the maximum hidden period Q and the maximum
number of iterations L are set to 100 and 20, respectively. For
a fair comparison, the energies of these sinusoidal components
are used as the references to represent the strengths of these
hidden periods in x[n], as shown in Fig. 4(a) and 5(a). The
results of identifying the hidden periods with these methods
are discussed in detail as follows.

20

70

CSMP
10

Fig. 3. The synthetic signal of length 650 generated by summing several
sinusoidal components with the following periods: 5, 12, 25, 26, 57, 58, 70,
and 85.

10

60

(c)
Strength

100

50
Period

(b)
Strength

−2

90

100

EPSD

10

20

30

40

50
Period

60

70

80

90

100

Fig. 5. Hidden period identification for the synthetic signal of length 1950
using several approaches.

hidden periodic components x57 ∈ G57,1 and x58 ∈ G58,1 .
The periodic component x58 is captured by the CCS G57,1 ,
and hence, the hidden period 57 in Fig. 4(b) achieves more
strength than the other hidden periods. However, the CSMP
can correctly identify all these hidden periods including 57
and 58 of the signal in (29) of length 1950, as shown in Fig.
5 (b) because the overlap between the CCSs G57,1 and G58,1
decreases when the signal length increases; hence, the CSMP
can achieve perfect identification results compared with the
reference in Fig. 5(a). Although the hidden periods 25 and
26 are also adjacent hidden periods, the signal length 650 is
long enough for the CSMP to correctly distinguish them. In
general, a larger hidden period requires a longer signal length
to eliminate the overlap between the corresponding CCS and
other CCSs.
Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 5(c) show the results of identifying
hidden periods with the RFT algorithm. The RFT explores
the periodic structure of the signal x[n] by projecting it onto
each Ramanujan sum cq [n], for q = 1, · · · , 100. The square
values of these projection coefficients are used to represent the
strength of the hidden periods. Unfortunately, the Ramanujan
sums cq [n] cannot represent the whole Ramanujan subspace
Sq , as cq [n] is only one of the φ(q) basis vectors of Sq
(see [4] for more details). In both Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 5(c),
the smaller hidden periods {5, 12, 25, 26} can be identified
by the RFT to a certain extent, as the signal lengths 650
and 1950 are long enough to eliminate the overlaps among
these ‘smaller’ Ramanujan subspaces. In fact, the Ramanujan
subspaces S5 , S25 , S26 are manually orthogonal, as 5, 25, 26
are divisors of the lengths 650 and 1950. However, the RFT
only captures part of the strengths of the larger hidden periods
57, 58, 70, 85 of the signals of lengths 650 and 1950, due

B. Signal approximation
With the CSMP algorithm, a signal can be approximated
by a sum of periodic components. Assuming that Q is the
maximum period of the periodic components of the signal
x, a series of periodic components with period q ∈ [1, Q]
are selected to approximate the signal x. These periodic

(b)
Amplitude

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
100

200

300

400

2
0
−2

500

100

200

300

400

500

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4

(d)
Amplitude

(c)
Amplitude

Amplitude

100

200

300

400

2
0
−2

500

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

(f)
Amplitude

(e)
Amplitude

1
0.05
0
−0.05
200

300

400

500

Sample

0.5

50

100

Iteration

Sample

1
(h)
Error rate

1

0

0
−1

100

(g)
Error rate

to the overlaps among these larger Ramanujan subspaces.
In addition, many false periods are found around the true
hidden periods in Fig. 4(c) because the Ramanujan subspaces
associated with these periods are not mutually orthogonal for
a finite signal. When a signal x[n] of longer length 1950 is
used to identify the hidden periods with the RPT, as shown in
Fig. 5(c), the strengths of the false periods decrease because
the overlaps among these Ramanujan subspaces also decrease.
In fact, the RFT can be viewed as a special case of the EPSD
algorithm for identifying the hidden periods, and the only
difference between them is that the RFT can only capture the
Ramanujan subspace Sq in a single dimension but the EPSD
can capture the whole Sq .
Fig. 4(d) and 5(d) show the results of identifying hidden
periods using the RPT algorithm. In the RPT, the signal x[n]
is projected onto a series of orthogonal Ramanujan subspaces,
and the energies of the projections of x[n] into these subspaces
are used to represent the strengths of the hidden periods.
However, the RPT only generates the subspace Sq where the
period q is just the divisor of the signal length. This means that
the RPT only identify the periods that are the divisors of the
signal length. Specifically, as the hidden periods 5, 25 and 26
are divisors of the signal lengths 650 and 1950, respectively,
they can be correctly identified by the RPT as shown in Fig.
4(d) and Fig. 5(d). The Ramanujan subspace S50 , where the
period 50 is also a divisor of the signal length 650, has some
overlaps with other subspaces. This results in some signal
components being captured by S50 , and hence, the false hidden
period 50 can be found in Fig. 4(d). The overlap between S50
and other Ramanujan subspaces decreases when the signal
length increases, and hence, the false hidden period 50 can
be found in Fig. 5(d). Because only the Ramanujan subspaces
whose periods are the divisors of the signal length are mutually
orthogonal, the EPSD can correctly identify the hidden periods
5, 25, 26. The hidden period 12 is a smaller period compared
with the signal signal length 650 and 1950 and can also
be identified by the EPSD. However, the other Ramanujan
subspaces, S57 , S58 , S70 , and S85 , show some overlaps, and
hence, many false hidden periods are found in Fig. 4(e) and
5(e) around these periods. When the signal length increases,
the overlaps among these Ramanujan subspaces decrease and
the false hidden periods also decrease, as shown in Fig. 5(e).
In summary, due to the limited length of the signal, overlaps
exist among the Ramanujan subspaces, and many methods fail
to correctly identify hidden periods of the signal, such as RFT,
RPT and EPSD. Compared with these methods, the CSMP can
identify most hidden periods of the signal and achieves better
performance, which is attributed to its periodicity and energy
strategies and the representation of the Ramanujan subspace
with the CCSs.

8

(a)
Amplitude

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

150

200

0.5
0

50

100

150

200

Iteration

Fig. 6. Approximation of the speech and white noise with CSMP. (a) Speech;
(b) White noise; (c) Approximation of the speech in (a); (d) Approximation
of the white noise in (b); (e) Residual from approximating the speech; (f)
Residual from approximating the white noise; (g) Error rate for the speech
approximation; (h) Error rate for the noise approximation.

components can adaptively capture the periodic structure of
the signal. The CSMP can quickly achieve convergence if
the decomposed signal contains an obvious periodic structure,
whereas the convergence speed of the CSMP is relatively slow
if there is no obvious periodic structure in the signal.
Fig. 6 shows examples of approximating speech in Fig. 6(a)
and white noise in Fig. 6(b) by using the CSMP algorithm.
In the CSMP, the maximum period Q and the total number
L of iterations are set to 300 and 200, respectively. The
approximation and residue of the speech are shown in Fig. 6(c)
and (e), respectively. Compared with the approximation, the
residual signal has a smaller amplitude, which means that most
of the speech can be characterized by periodic components
with period q ∈ [1, 300]. The final approximation error of the
speech rate is 0.010. For the white noise, however, its residual
signal shown in Fig. 6(f) is relatively large compared to its
approximation, as shown in Fig. 6(d), and its approximate
error rate is 0.266. Fig. 6(g) and (h) show that the error
rates associated with approximating the speech and white
noise decrease as the number of iterations increases. The
approximation of the speech can quickly achieve convergence
after almost 100 iterations,but the approximation of the white
noise is relatively slow because there is an obvious periodic
structure in the speech but not in the white noise. Moreover,
the approximation error rate cannot further decrease even if
the number of iterations increases, as the maximum period
300 is less than that of both signals. We will present another

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

9

0
−5
100

200 300
Sample

200
100
0 0
10

400

(d)
Amplitude

0

200 300
Sample

400

3

4

3

4

0
−5
100

(f)
Amplitude

(e)
Amplitude

−1
2

200 300
Sample

6
7
8
Time (s)
(b) Time−period plane plot

2

5

(g)
Error rate

7

8

50

Iteration

Fig. 7.
The synthetic signal of length 400 with hidden periods 7, 10
and larger periods is approximated with different maximum periods Q. (a)
Synthetic signal; (b) Strength of the hidden periods; (c) Approximation with
the maximum period Q = 20; (d) Approximation with the maximum period
Q = 400; (e) Residual of the approximation in (c); (f) Residual of the
approximation in (d); (g) The error rates of two approximations with Q = 20
and Q = 400.

example to explain this problem.
A synthetic signal of length 400 is generated by superimposing several periodic signal with periods 7, 10 and other
larger periods, as shown in Fig. 7(a). The strengths of these
hidden periods are shown in Fig. 7(b) in logarithmic coordinates. The synthetic signal is approximated with different
maximum periods Q, 20 and 400. The final error rates for
the different maximum periods are 0.923 and 1.477E-6. The
residual signals of the approximations with different maximum
periods are shown in Fig. 7(e) and (f). For the case of Q = 20,
the residue in Fig. 7(e) contains hidden periodic components
whose periods far greater than 20. These periodic components
cannot be approximated by the signals with periods q ∈ [1, 20],
even if the number of iterations increases, as shown in Fig.
7(g). However, the signal in Fig. 7(a) can be approximated well
for the case Q = 200, as shown in Fig. 7(d), and its residue in
Fig. 7(f). Therefore, the maximum period Q must be greater
than the maximum period Q of the periodic components so
that a good approximation is achieved.
C. Tracing a time-varying period with shifted CSMP
The periodicity of some signals varies with time, such as
in an inverse chirp signal, speech and music. The periods of
these signals can change with time or be present for a short
duration. To detect the periodicity in these signals, the CSMP
can be performed in a shifted rectangular window over the

signal, which is referred to as shifted CSMP, similar to the
short-time Fourier Transforms. Before performing the shifted
CSMP, a suitable window size L needs to be chosen. Assuming
that the maximum period Q of the signal in the shifted window
is known, the window size L must satisfy L > Q. We present
two examples to demonstrate the capability of our method for
tracing a time-varying period.
In the first example, the inverse chirp signal [11], [12] is
defined by
x(t) = sin(1/at), t ∈ [2, 10]
where a = 0.01/2π. The discrete inverse chirp signal x[n] is
sampled from x(t) every 0.01 s, as shown in Fig. 8(a). In the

(a) Speech
Amplitude

40

6
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Period detection for an inverse chirp signal. (a) Inverse chirp signal;
(b) Time-period plane using the shifted CSMP.

0.5
0
−0.5
0.5

Period

30

10

400

Q=20
Q=400

20

9

40
20

200
Sample

0.5

10

10

60

1

0
0

9

80

0

−0.1
0

5

100

400

0.1

100

−0.5

5

400

5

−5

10

0

Period

(c)
Amplitude

0

200
Sample

2

Period

5

−5
0

0.5

Amplitude

5

(b)
Strength

(a)
Amplitude

(a) Inverse chirp signal
300

1

1.5

2
2.5
3
Sample
(b) Time−period plane plot

3.5

4
x 10

4

120
100
80
60
40
20
500

1000
Frame

1500

2000

Fig. 9. Period detection for speech. (a) Speech; (b) Time-period plane in the
frame index using the shifted CSMP.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

shifted CSMP, the maximum period Q and the window size
W are set to 100 and 150, respectively. In Fig. 8(b), the timeperiod plane shows the result of tracking the period of the
inverse chirp signal with the shifted CSMP. The figure clearly
shows that the period of the signal varies with time from 10 to
75 (corresponding to the time period range from 0.10 to 0.75
s). The example illustrates that the shifted CSMP can correctly
trace a period that varies with time, even with a fixed-length
window.
The speech has more complex periodic behaviors. Multiple
pitch detection for speech is the core of a broad range of
applications [22]. In the second example, a clean speech of
length 2.6 s with a sample rate of 8000 Hz is considered,
as shown in Fig. 9(a). In the shifted CSMP, the maximum
period Q and the window size W are set to 120 and 512,
respectively. The number of iterations of the CSMP in each
shifted window is set to 10, which means that 10 dominant
periodic components are chosen in each window. The timeperiod plane in Fig. 9(b) shows the result of tracking periods
of the speech in the frame index. There are obvious periodic
structures (pitches) when the voice is active in the speech that
vary with time.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented a new method called CSMP
to exploit the periodicity of signals and their decomposition
according to the periods. Apart from identifying the hidden
periods from signals, the CSMP is capable of detecting the
changes of the period with time. More generally, the CSMP
can decompose any signal into a series of periodic components
and residuals, which provides another view for exploiting the
structure of the signal that is different from traditional frequency analysis. Similar to the time-frequency representation,
the shifted CSMP also presents the representation of signals
in the time-period plane, which completely reveal the hidden
periods of the signal that vary with time. Different from the
traditional method based on a greedy strategy, the CSMP can
be effectively performed over CCSs in two stages without
using the dictionary. In the first stage, the dominant hidden
period is estimated based on the periodic metric of the signal
in each Ramanujan subspace, based on which the dominant
CCS is chosen for updating the signal. Finally, we applied the
CSMP to several examples for hidden period identification,
signal approximation and pitch detection in speech to illustrate
the effectiveness of the proposed method.
A PPENDIX
A. Orthogonal projection in the complex conjugate subspace
Let G be the conjugate subspace spanned by {g, ḡ}, i.e.,
G = span{g, ḡ}, and the matrix G = [g, ḡ]. Then, the
complex projection coefficients of the real signal x into G,
α = [α1 , α2 ]T , can be calculated by
α = (GH G)−1 GH x
Because
H

−1

(G G)

1
=
1 − |hg, ḡi|2



1,
−hg, g ∗ i
∗
−hg, g i,
1



10

and then, we have




1
hg, xi − hg, ḡihḡ, xi
α1
α=
=
α2
1 − |hg, ḡi|2 hḡ, xi − hg, ḡihg, xi
Note that as x is the real signal, the two complex projection
coefficients in the above equation are a complex pair, that is,
α1 = α2
Thus, the projection xG of x into the conjugate subspace G is
xG = G(GH G)−1 GH x
α
= Gα
= α1 g + α2 ḡ
= α1 g + ᾱ1 ḡ
= 2Re(αg)
where α = α1 = ᾱ2 and
1
α=
(hg, xi − hg, ḡihḡ, xi)
1 − |hg, ḡi|2
Moreover, we have
αk2 = |α1 |2 + |α2 |2 = 2|α|2
kxG k2 = kα
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the Major Research
plan of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
91120303), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. 91220301), Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang
Province of China (No. F2015012), and Academic Core Funding of Young Projects of Harbin Normal University of China
(No. KGB201225).
R EFERENCES
[1] W. A. Sethares and T. W. Staley, “Periodicity transforms,” IEEE Trans.
on Signal Process., vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 2953–2964, 1999.
[2] S. C. Pei, and K. S. Lu, “Intrinsic integer-periodic functions for discrete
periodicity detection,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters., vol. 22, no. 8,
pp. 1108–1112, 2015.
[3] P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Ramanujan sums in the context of signal processing
– Part I: fundamentals,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 16,
pp. 4145–4157, 2014.
[4] P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Ramanujan sums in the context of signal processing
– Part II: FIR representations and applications,” IEEE Trans. on Signal
Process., vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 4158–4172, 2014.
[5] J. Epps, E. Ambikairajah, and M. Akhtar, “An integer period DFT for
biological sequence processing,” in Proc. IEEE International Workshop
on Genomic Signal Processing and Statistics, 2008, pp. 1–4.
[6] J. Epps, “A hybrid technique for the periodicity characterization of
genomic sequence data,” Eurasip Journal on Bioinformatics & Systems
Biology, vol. 2009, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2009.
[7] D. D. Muresan and T. W. Parks, “Orthogonal, exactly periodic subspace
decomposition,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 2270–
2279, 2003.
[8] S. W. Deng and J. Q. Han, “Ramanujan subspace pursuit for signal periodic decomposition,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08112, arXiv:1512.08112
[9] M. Planat, “Ramanujan sums for signal processing of low frequency
noise,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Freq. Control Symp. PDA Exhib., 2002, pp.
715–720.
[10] M. Planat, M. Minarovjech, and M. Saniga, “Ramanujan sums analysis
of long-periodic sequenes and noise, ” EPL J., vol. 85, pp. 40005:1–5,
2009
[11] S. V. Tenneti and P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Ramanujan filter banks for
estimation and tracking of periodicities,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2015, pp. 3851–3855.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. X, NO. X, XX 2016

[12] P. P. Vaidyanathan and S. Tenneti, “Properties of Ramanujan filter
banks,” in Proc Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2015, pp.
2816–2820.
[13] M. Nakashizuka, H. Okumura, and Y. Iiguni, “A sparse periodic decomposition and its application to speech representation,” in Proc. 16th
European Signal Processing Conference, 2008, pp. 1–5.
[14] P. Vaidyanathan and P. Pal, “The Farey-dictionary for sparse representation of periodic signals,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2014, pp. 360–364.
[15] S. V. Tenneti, and P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Nested Periodic Matrices and
Dictionaries: New Signal Representations For Period Estimation,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 63, no. 14, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[16] P. P. Vaidyanathan, “Multidimensional Ramanujan-sum expansions on
nonseparable lattices.” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), 2015, pp. 3666–3670.
[17] M. M. Goodwin and M. Vetterli, “Matching pursuit and atomic signal
models based on recursive filter banks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1890-1902, 1999.
[18] S.-W. Deng, and J.-Q. Han, “Voice activity detection based on conjugate
subspace matching pursuit and likelihood ratio test,” Eurasip Journal on
Audio Speech & Music Processing, vol. 2011, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2011.
[19] S. G. Mallat and Z. Zhang, “Matching pursuits with time-frequency
dictionaries,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Process., vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3397–
3415, 1993.
[20] W. Dai and O. Milenkovic, “Subspace pursuit for compressive sensing
signal reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55,
no. 5, pp. 2230–2249, 2009.
[21] J. Wise, J. Caprio, and T. W. Parks, “Maximum likelihood pitch
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process., vol. 24,
no. 5, pp. 418–423, 1976.
[22] J. L. Roux, “Single and multiple F0 contour estimation through parametric spectrogram modeling of speech in noisy environments,” IEEE Trans.
Audio, Speech Language Process., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1135–1145, 2007.

Deng Shi-Wen Shiwen Deng received a B.E degree
from the Institute of Technology from Jia Mu Si University, JiaMuSi, China, in 1997, an M.E from The
School of Computer Science from Harbin Normal
PLACE
University, Harbin, China, in 2005, and a Ph.D from
PHOTO
the school of Computer Science from the Harbin
HERE
Institute of Technology in 2012. Currently, he is
with the School of Mathematical Sciences, Harbin
Normal University, Harbin, China. His research interests lie in the areas of speech and audio signal
processing, including content-based audio analysis,
noise suppression, and speech/audio classification/detection.

Han Ji-Qing Jiqing Han received B.S. and M.S.
degrees in electrical engineering and a Ph.D. in
computer science from the Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, in 1987, 1990, and 1998,
PLACE
respectively. Currently, he is the associate dean of
PHOTO
the school of Computer Science and Technology,
HERE
Harbin Institute of Technology. He is a member of
IEEE, a member of the editorial board of the Journal
of Chinese Information Processing, and a member of
the editorial board of the Journal of Data Acquisition
and Processing. Prof. Han is undertaking several
projects with the National Natural Science Foundation, 863Hi-tech Program,
National Basic Research Program. He has won three Second Prize and two
Third Prize awards in Science and Technology from the Ministry/Province.
He has published more than 100 papers and 2 books. His research fields of
expertise include speech signal processing and audio information processing.

11

