arXiv:1801.04658v1 [] 15 Jan 2018

Information Geometric Approach to Bayesian
Lower Error Bounds
M. Ashok Kumar

Kumar Vijay Mishra

Discipline of Mathematics
Indian Institute of Technology
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
Email: ashokm@iiti.ac.in

IIHR - Hydroscience & Engineering
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA, USA
Email: kumarvijay-mishra@uiowa.edu

Abstract—Information geometry describes a framework where
probability densities can be viewed as differential geometry
structures. This approach has shown that the geometry in the
space of probability distributions that are parameterized by
their covariance matrix is linked to the fundamentals concepts
of estimation theory. In particular, prior work proposes a
Riemannian metric - the distance between the parameterized
probability distributions - that is equivalent to the Fisher
Information Matrix, and helpful in obtaining the deterministic
Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB). Recent work in this
framework has led to establishing links with several practical
applications. However, classical CRLB is useful only for unbiased
estimators and inaccurately predicts the mean square error in
low signal-to-noise (SNR) scenarios. In this paper, we propose
a general Riemannian metric that, at once, is used to obtain
both Bayesian CRLB and deterministic CRLB along with their
vector parameter extensions. We also extend our results to the
Barankin bound, thereby enhancing their applicability to low
SNR situations.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Information geometry is a study of statistical models from a
Riemannian geometric perspective. The differential geometric
modeling methods were introduced to statistics by C. R. Rao
in his seminal paper [1] and later formally developed by
Cencov [2]. The information geometric concept of a manifold
that describes the parameterized probability distributions has
garnered considerable interest in recent years. The main
advantages include structures in the space of probability
distributions that are invariant to non-singular transformation
of parameters [3], robust estimation of covariance matrices [4]
and usage of Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) as a metric [5].
Information geometry has now transcended its initial
statistical scope and expanded to several novel research
areas including, but not limited to, Fisher-Rao Riemannian
geometry [6], Finsler information geometry [7], optimal
transport geometry [8], and quantum information geometry
[9]. Many problems in science and engineering use probability
distributions and, therefore, information geometry has been
used as a useful and rigorous tool for analyses in applications
such as neural networks [10, 11], optimization [12, 13],
radar systems [14, 15], communications [16], computer vision
[6], and machine learning [17, 18]. More recently, several
developments in deep learning [19, 20] that employ various

approximations to the FIM to calculate the gradient descent
have incorporated information geometric concepts.
The information geometry bases the distance between the
parameterized probability distributions on the FIM [3]. In
estimation theory, the well-known deterministic Cramér-Rao
lower bound (CRLB) is the inverse of FIM. Therefore,
the results derived from information geometry are directly
connected with the fundamentals of estimation theory. Nearly
all prior works exploited this information geometric link to
CRLB in their analyses because the CRLB is most widely
used benchmark for evaluating the mean square error (MSE)
performance of an estimator. However, the classical CRLB
holds only if the estimator is unbiased. In general, the
estimators are biased in many practical problems such as
nonparametric regression [21], communication [22], and radar
[23]. The above-mentioned information geometric framework
ceases its utility in these cases.
Moreover, the classical CRLB is a tight bound only
when the errors are small. It is well known that in case
of the nonlinear estimation problems with finite support
parameters, for example the time delay estimation in radar
[23], the performance of the estimator is characterized by
the presence of three distinct signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR)
regions [24]. When the observations are large or the SNR
is high (asymptotic region), the CRLB describes the MSE
accurately. In case of few observations or low SNR regions,
the information from signal observations is insufficient and
the estimator criterion is hugely corrupted by the noise.
Here, the MSE is close to that obtained via only a priori
information, that is, a quasi-uniform random variable on the
parameter support. In between these two limiting cases lies the
threshold region where the signal observations are subjected
to ambiguities and the estimator MSE increases sharply due
to the outlier effect. The CRLB is used only in the asymptotic
area and is not an accurate predictor of MSE when the
performance breaks down due to increase in noise.
In this paper, we propose the information geometric
framework that addresses these drawbacks of the classical
CRLB. The Bayesian CRLB [21] is typically used for
assessing the quality of biased estimators. It is similar to the
deterministic CRLB except that it assumes the parameters to
be random with an a priori probability density function. We

develop a general Riemannian metric that can be modified to
link to both Bayesian and deterministic CRLB. To address the
problem of the threshold effect, other bounds that are tighter
than the CRLB have been developed (see e.g. [25] for an
overview) to accurately identify the SNR thresholds that define
the ambiguity region. In particular, Barankin bound [26] is a
fundamental statistical tool to understand the threshold effect
for unbiased estimators. In simple terms, the threshold effect
can be understood as the region where Barankin deviates from
the CRLB [27]. In this paper, we show that our metric is
also applicable for the Barankin bound. Hence, compared to
previous works [3], our information geometric approach to
minimum bounds on MSE holds good for both the Bayesian
CRLB and deterministic CRLB, their vector equivalents and
the threshold effect through the Barankin bound.
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we
provide a brief background to the information geometry and
describe the notation used in the later sections. Further, we
explain the dual structure of the manifolds because, in most
applications, the underlying manifolds are dually flat. Here,
we define a divergence function between two points in a
manifold. In Section III, we establish the connection between
the Riemannian metric and the Kullback-Leibler divergence
for the Bayesian case. The manifold of all discrete probability
distributions is dually flat and the Kullback-Leibler divergence
plays a key role here. We also show that, under certain
conditions, our approach yields the previous results from [3].
In Section IV, we state and prove our main result applicable
to several other bounds before providing concluding remarks
in Section V.

space of all probability distributions on X . Let S ⊂ P be a
sub-manifold. Let θ = (θ1 , . . . , θk ) be a parameterization of
S. Given a divergence function 1 on S, Eguchi [31] defines a
Riemannian metric on S by the matrix
i
h
(D)
G(D) (θ) = gi,j (θ) ,
where

(D)

gi,j (θ)

:= −D[∂i , ∂j ]
∂ ∂
:= −
D(pθ , pθ′ )
∂θi ∂θj′

where gi,j is the elements in the ith row and jth column of the
matrix G, θ = (θ1 , . . . , θn ), θ′ = (θ1′ , . . . , θn′ ), and dual affine
∗
connections ∇(D) and ∇(D ) , with connection coefficients
described by following Christoffel symbols
(D)

Γij,k (θ)

:=

−D[∂i ∂j , ∂k ]

:=

−

∂ ∂ ∂
D(pθ , pθ′ )
∂θi ∂θj ∂θk′

θ=θ ′

and
(D∗ )

Γij,k (θ)

:=

−D[∂k , ∂i ∂j ]

:=

−

∂ ∂ ∂
D(pθ , pθ′ )
∂θk ∂θi′ ∂θj′

such that, ∇(D) and ∇(D
sense that

∗

(D)

)

,
θ=θ ′

form a dualistic structure in the

(D)

(D∗ )

∂k gi,j = Γki,j + Γkj,i ,

II. I NFORMATION G EOMETRY: A B RIEF BACKGROUND
A n-dimensional manifold is a Hausdorff and second
countable topological space which is locally homeomorphic
to Euclidean space of dimension n [28–30]. A Riemannian
manifold is a real differentiable manifold in which the tangent
space at each point is a finite dimensional Hilbert space and,
therefore, equipped with an inner product. The collection of
all these inner products is called a Riemannian metric.
In the information geometry framework, the statistical
models play the role of a manifold and the Fisher information
matrix and its various generalizations play the role of a
Riemannian metric. Formally, by a statistical manifold, we
mean a parametric family of probability distributions S =
{pθ : θ ∈ Θ} with a “continuously varying" parameter space
Θ (statistical model). The dimension of a statistical manifold
is the dimension of the parameter space. For example, S =
{N (µ, σ 2 ) : µ ∈ R, σ 2 > 0} is a two dimensional statistical
manifold. The tangent space at a point of S is a linear space
that corresponds to a “local linearization” at that point. The
tangent space at a point p of S is denoted by Tp (S). The
elements of Tp (S) are called tangent vectors of S at p. A
Riemannian metric at a point p of S is an inner product defined
for any pair of tangent vectors of S at p.
In this paper, let us restrict to statistical manifolds defined
on a finite set X = {a1 , . . . , ad }. Let P := P(X ) denote the

θ=θ ′

(1)

where D∗ (p, q) = D(q, p).
III. F ISHER I NFORMATION M ATRIX FOR
C ASE

THE

BAYESIAN

Eguchi’s theory in section II can also be extended to the
space P̃(X ) of all measures on X . That is, P̃ = {p̃ : X →
(0, ∞)}. Let S = {pθ : θ = (θ1 , . . . , θk ) ∈ Θ} be a
k-dimensional sub-manifold of P and let
S̃ := {p̃θ (x) = pθ (x)λ(θ) : pθ ∈ S},

(2)

where λ is a probability distribution on Θ. Then S̃ is a
k + 1-dimensional sub-manifold of P̃. For p̃θ , p̃θ′ ∈ P̃, the
Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL-divergence) between p̃θ and
p̃θ′ is given by
I(p̃θ kp̃θ′ ) =

X
x

=

X
x

p̃θ (x) log

X
p̃θ (x) X
−
p̃θ (x) +
p̃θ′ (x)
p̃θ′ (x)
x
x

pθ (x)λ(θ) log

pθ (x)λ(θ)
− λ(θ) + λ(θ′ ).
pθ′ (x)λ(θ′ )
(3)

1 By a divergence, we mean a non-negative function D defined on S × S
such that D(p, q) = 0 iff p = q.

(I)

We define a Riemannian metric G(I) (θ) = [gi,j (θ)] on S̃ by

and
(e)

kωX kp̃ := kXkp̃ =

(I)

gi,j (θ)
:= −I[∂i k∂j ]
=
=
=

pθ (x)λ(θ)
∂ ∂ X
pθ (x)λ(θ) log
−
∂θi ∂θj′ x
pθ′ (x)λ(θ′ )
X
∂i (pθ (x)λ(θ)) · ∂j log(pθ (x)λ(θ))
x
X

=

Now, for a (smooth) real function f on S̃, the differential of
f at p̃, (df )p̃ , is a member of Tp̃∗ (S) which maps X to X(f ).
The gradient of f at p̃ is the tangent vector corresponding to
(df )p̃ , hence satisfies

θ ′ =θ

(e)

(df )p̃ (X) = X(f ) = h(gradf )p̃ , Xip̃ ,

pθ (x)λ(θ)∂i (log pθ (x)λ(θ)) · ∂j (log(pθ (x)λ(θ)))

x

λ(θ)

X

(e)

·[∂j (log pθ (x)) + ∂j (log λ(θ))]

λ(θ) Eθ [∂i log pθ (X) · ∂j log pθ (X)]
· + ∂i (log λ(θ)) · ∂j (log λ(θ))

=
where

 (e)
λ
(θ) ,
λ(θ) gi,j (θ) + Ji,j

k(df )p̃ k2p̃ = h(gradf )p̃ , (gradf )p̃ ip̃ .

(e)

(10)

Since gradf is a tangent vector, we can write
gradf =
(4)
(5)

gi,j (θ) := Eθ [∂i log pθ (X) · ∂j log pθ (X)],

(9)

and

pθ (x)[∂i (log pθ (x)) + ∂i (log λ(θ))]

x

=

q
(e)
hX, Xip̃ .

(6)

k
X

hi ∂i

(11)

i=1

for some scalars hi . Applying (9) with X = ∂j , for each
j = 1, . . . , k, and using (11), we get
+(e)
* k
X
hi ∂i , ∂j
(∂j )(f ) =
i=1

and
λ
Ji,j
(θ) := ∂i (log λ(θ)) · ∂j (log λ(θ)).

(7)

k
X

=

i=1

(e)

λ
(θ)]. Then
Let G(e) (θ) := [gi,j (θ)] and J λ (θ) := [Ji,j


G(I) (θ) = λ(θ) G(e) (θ) + J λ (θ) .

(e)

Tp̃ (P̃) = {X (e) : X ∈ Tp̃ (P̃)} = {A ∈ RX̃ : Ep̃ [A] = 0}.
For the natural basis ∂i of a coordinate system θ = (θi ),
(m)
(e)
(∂i )ξ = ∂i p̃θ and (∂i )ξ = ∂i log p̃θ .
With these notations, for any two tangent vectors X, Y ∈
Tp̃ (P̃), the Fisher metric in (5) can be written as
(e)

hX, Y ip̃ = Ep̃ [X (e) Y (e) ].
Let S̃ be a sub-manifold of P̃ of the form as in (2),
together with the metric G(I) as in (5). Let Tp̃∗ (S̃) be the
dual space (cotangent space) of the tangent space Tp̃ (S̃) and
let us consider for each Y ∈ Tp̃ (S̃), the element ωY ∈ Tp̃∗ (S̃)
which maps X to hX, Y i(e) . The correspondence Y 7→ ωY
is a linear map between Tp̃ (S̃) and Tp̃∗ (S̃). An inner product
and a norm on Tp̃∗ (S̃) are naturally inherited from Tp̃ (S̃) by
hωX , ωY ip̃ := hX, Y

k
X

=

(8)

Notice that G(e) (θ) is the usual Fisher information matrix.
Also observe that P̃ is a subset of RX̃ , where X˜ := X ∪
{ad+1 }. The tangent space at every point of P̃ is A0 := {A ∈
P
RX̃ : x∈X̃ A(x) = 0}. That is, Tp (P̃) = A0 . We denote a
tangent vector (that is, elements of A0 ) by X (m) . The manifold
P̃ can be recognized by its homeomorphic image {log p̃ : p̃ ∈
P̃} under the mapping p̃ 7→ log p̃. Under this mapping the
tangent vector X ∈ Tp̃ (P̃) can be represented X (e) which is
defined by X (e) (x) = X (m) (x)/p̃(x) and we define

(e)
ip̃

hi h∂i , ∂j i(e)
(e)

hi gi,j ,

j = 1, . . . , k.

i=1

From this, we have

and so

i−1
h
[∂1 (f ), . . . , ∂k (f )]T ,
[h1 , . . . , hk ]T = G(e)
X

(g i,j )(e) ∂j (f )∂i .

(12)

From (9), (10), and (12), we get
X
(g i,j )(e) ∂j (f )∂i (f )
k(df )p̃ k2p̃ =

(13)

gradf =

i,j

i,j

where (g i,j )(I) is the (i, j)th entry of the inverse of G(I) .
The above and the following results are indeed an extension
of [3, Sec.2.5.] to P̃.
Theorem 1 ( [3]): Let A : X → R be any mapping (that is, a
vector in RX . Let E[A] : P̃ → R be the mapping p̃ 7→ Ep̃ [A].
We then have
Var(A) = k(dEp̃ [A])p̃ k2p̃ .
Proof: For any tangent vector X ∈ Tp̃ (P̃),
X
X(Ep̃ [A]) =
X(x)A(x)

(14)

x

(e)

= Ep̃ [Xp̃ · A]

=

(e)
Ep̃ [Xp̃ (A

− Ep̃ [A])].

(15)
(16)

(e)

Since A − Ep̃ [A] ∈ Tp̃ (P̃), there exists Y ∈ Tp̃ (P̃) such that
(e)
A − Ep̃ [A] = Yp̃ , and grad(E[A]) = Y . Hence we see that
k(dE[A])p̃ k2p̃
(e)

(e)

= Ep [Yp̃ Yp̃ ]
= Ep̃ [(A − Ep̃ [A]) ].

This implies that
X
X
ci cj (g (I) )i,j (θ). (21)
ci cj Covθ (θbi , θbj ) ≥
λ(θ)

Corollary 2 ( [3]): If S is a submanifold of P̃, then
Varp̃ [A] ≥ k(dE[A]|S )p̃ k2p̃

(17)

A − Ep̃ [A] ∈ {Xp̃ : X ∈ Tp̃ (S)} =: Tp̃ (S).

E RROR B OUNDS

We state our main result in the following theorem.
Theorem 3: Let S and S̃ be as in (2). Let θb be an estimator
of θ. Then
(a) Bayesian Cramér-Rao:

 
b ≥ Eλ [G(I) (θ)] −1 ,
(18)
Eλ Varθ (θ)

b
where Varθ (θ)
= [Covθ (θbi (X), θbj (X))] is the
covariance matrix and G(I) (θ) is as in (8). (In (18), we
use the usual convention that, for two matrices A and
B, A ≥ B means that A − B is positive semi-definite.)
(b) Deterministic Cramér-Rao (unbiased): If θb is an
unbiased estimator of θ, then
(19)

(c) Deterministic Cramér-Rao (biased): For any estimator θb
of θ,
b ≥ (1 + B ′ (θ))[G(e) (θ)]−1 (1 + B ′ (θ))
MSEθ [θ]
+b(θ)b(θ)T ,

b is the bias
where b(θ) = (b1 (θ), . . . , bk (θ))T := Eθ [θ]
and 1 + B ′ (θ) is the matrix whose (i, j)th entry is 0 if
i 6= j and is (1 + ∂i bi (θ)) if i = j.
(d) Barankin Bound: (Scalar case) If θb be an unbiased
estimator of θ, then
hP
i2
n
al (θ(l) − θ)
l=1
b ≥ sup
, (20)
Varθ [θ]
i2
n
Ph P
n,al ,θ (l)
al Lθ(l) (x) pθ (x)
x

i,j

That is,

Proof: Since (grad E[A]|S )p̃ is the orthogonal projection
of (grad E[A])p̃ onto Tp̃ (S), the result follows from the
theorem.

b ≥ [G(e) (θ)]−1 .
Varθ [θ]

Hence, taking expectation on both sides with respect to
λ, we get
X



 X
ci cj Eλ (g (I) )i,j (θ) .
ci cj Eλ Covθ (θbi , θbj ) ≥
i,j

(e)

(e)

i,j

i,j

with equality iff

OF

i,j

i,j

2

IV. D ERIVATION

Pk
b
b
b
b
(a) Let A =
i=1 ci θi , where θ = (θ1 , . . . , θk ) is an
unbiased estimator of θ, in corollary 2. Then, from (17),
we have
X
X
ci cj (g (I) )i,j (θ).
ci cj Covθ̃ (θbi , θbj ) ≥

l=1

where Lθ(l) (x) := pθ(l) (x)pθ (x) and the supremum is
over all a1 , . . . , an ∈ R, n ∈ N, and θ(1) , . . . , θ(n) ∈ Θ.
Proof:



b ≥ Eλ [G(I) (θ)−1 ].
Eλ Varθ (θ)

−1
But Eλ [G(I) (θ)−1 ] ≥ Eλ [G(I) (θ)]
by [32]. This
proves the result.
(b) This follows from (21) by taking λ(θ) = 1.
(c) Let us first observe P
that θb is an unbiased estimator of
k
θ + b(θ). Let A = i=1 ci θbi as before. Then E[A] =
Pk
i=1 ci (1 + bi (θ)). Then, from corollary 2 and (17), we
have
b ≥ (1 + B ′ (θ))[G(e) (θ)]−1 (1 + B ′ (θ))
Varθ [θ]

b = Varθ [θ]
b + b(θ)b(θ)T . This proves the
But MSEθ [θ]
assertion.
(d) For fixed a1 , . . . , an ∈ R and θ(1) , . . . , θ(n) ∈ Θ, let us
define a metric by the following formula
n
i2
XhX
g(θ) :=
al Lθ(l) (x) pθ (x).
(22)
x

l=1

b − θ,
Let f be the mapping p 7→ Ep [A]. Let A(·) = θ(·)
b
where θ is an unbiased estimator of θ. Then the partial
derivatives of f in (13) equals to
n
X

X
b − θ)
(θ(x)
al Lθ(l) (x) pθ (x)
x

=

l=1
n
X

al

l=1

=

n
X

X

b − θ) pθ(l) (x) pθ (x)
(θ(x)
pθ (x)
x

al (θ(l) − θ).

l=1

Hence from (13) and corollary 2, we have
hP
i2
n
al (θ(l) − θ)
l=1
b ≥
Varθ [θ]
i2
n
Ph P
al Lθ(l) (x) pθ (x)
x

(l)

l=1

Since al and θ are arbitrary, taking supremum over all
a1 , . . . , an ∈ R, n ∈ N, and θ(1) , . . . , θ(n) ∈ Θ, we get
(20).

V. C ONCLUSION
We have shown that our Theorem 3 provides a general
information geometric characterization of the statistical
manifolds linking them to the Bayesian CRLB for vector
parameters; the extension to estimators of measurable
functions of the parameter θ is trivial. We exploited the general
definition of Kullback-Leibler divergence when the probability
densities are not normalized. This is an improvement over
Amari’s work [3] on information geometry which only
dealt with the notion of deterministic CRLB of scalar
parameters. Further, we proposed an approach to arrive at
the Barankin bound thereby shedding light on the relation
between the threshold effect and information geometry. Both
of our improvements enable usage of information geometric
approaches in critical scenarios of biased estimators and low
SNRs. This is especially useful in the analyses of many
practical problems such as radar and communication. In future
investigations, we intend to explore these methods further
especially in the context of the threshold effect.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. R. Rao, “Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation
of statistical parameters,” Bulletin of Calcutta Mathematical Society,
vol. 37, pp. 81–91, 1945.
[2] N. N. Cencov, Statistical decision rules and optimal inference
(Translations of mathematical monographs). American Mathematical
Society, 2000, no. 53.
[3] S. Amari and H. Nagaoka, Methods of information geometry. American
Mathematical Society, Oxford University Press, 2000, vol. 191.
[4] B. Balaji, F. Barbaresco, and A. Decurninge, “Information geometry and
estimation of toeplitz covariance matrices,” in IEEE Radar Conference,
2014, pp. 1–4.
[5] F. Nielsen, “Cramér-Rao lower bound and information geometry,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1301.3578, 2013.
[6] S. J. Maybank, S. Ieng, and R. Benosman, “A Fisher-Rao metric for
paracatadioptric images of lines,” International Journal of Computer
Vision, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 147–165, 2012.
[7] Z. Shen, “Riemann-Finsler geometry with applications to information
geometry,” Chinese Annals of Mathematics-Series B, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.
73–94, 2006.
[8] W. Gangbo and R. J. McCann, “The geometry of optimal transportation,”
Acta Mathematica, vol. 177, no. 2, pp. 113–161, 1996.
[9] M. R. Grasselli and R. F. Streater, “On the uniqueness of the Chentsov
metric in quantum information geometry,” Infinite Dimensional Analysis,
Quantum Probability and Related Topics, vol. 4, no. 02, pp. 173–182,
2001.
[10] S. Amari, “Information geometry of neural networks: An overview,” in
Mathematics of Neural Networks, ser. Operations Research/Computer
Science Interfaces Series, S. W. Ellacott, J. C. Mason, and I. J. Anderson,
Eds. Springer US, 1997, vol. 8.

[11] ——, “Information geometry of neural learning and belief propagation,”
in IEEE International Conference on Neural Information Processing,
vol. 2, 2002, pp. 886–vol.
[12] S. Amari and M. Yukawa, “Minkovskian gradient for sparse
optimization,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing,
vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 576–585, 2013.
[13] H.-G. Beyer, “Convergence analysis of evolutionary algorithms that
are based on the paradigm of information geometry,” Evolutionary
Computation, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 679–709, 2014.
[14] E. de Jong and R. Pribić, “Design of radar grid cells with constant
information distance,” in IEEE Radar Conference, 2014, pp. 1–5.
[15] F. Barbaresco, “Innovative tools for radar signal processing based on
Cartan’s geometry of SPD matrices & information geometry,” in IEEE
Radar Conference, 2008, pp. 1–6.
[16] M. Coutino, R. Pribić, and G. Leus, “Direction of arrival estimation
based on information geometry,” in IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2016, pp. 3066–3070.
[17] K. Sun and S. Marchand-Maillet, “An information geometry of statistical
manifold learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning,
2014, pp. 1–9.
[18] S. Amari, “Natural gradient works efficiently in learning,” Neural
computation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 251–276, 1998.
[19] G. Desjardins, K. Simonyan, R. Pascanu et al., “Natural neural
networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015,
pp. 2071–2079.
[20] N. L. Roux, P.-A. Manzagol, and Y. Bengio, “Topmoumoute online
natural gradient algorithm,” in Advances in neural information
processing systems, 2008, pp. 849–856.
[21] R. D. Gill and B. Y. Levit, “Applications of the van Trees inequality: A
Bayesian Cramér-Rao bound,” Bernoulli, pp. 59–79, 1995.
[22] R. Prasad and C. R. Murthy, “Cramér-rao-type bounds for sparse
bayesian learning,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 61,
no. 3, pp. 622–632, 2013.
[23] K. V. Mishra and Y. C. Eldar, “Performance of time delay estimation
in a cognitive radar,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Process., 2017, pp. 3141–3145.
[24] H. L. Van Trees, K. L. Bell, and Z. Tian, Detection Estimation and
Modulation Theory, Part I: Detection, Estimation, and Filtering Theory,
2nd ed. Wiley, 2013.
[25] A. Renaux, P. Forster, P. Larzabal, C. D. Richmond, and A. Nehorai,
“A fresh look at the Bayesian bounds of the Weiss-Weinstein family,”
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5334–5352,
2008.
[26] E. W. Barankin, “Locally best unbiased estimates,” The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, pp. 477–501, 1949.
[27] L. Knockaert, “The Barankin bound and threshold behavior in frequency
estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 45, no. 9, pp.
2398–2401, 1997.
[28] S. Gallot, D. Hulin, and J. Lafontaine, Methods of information geometry.
Riemannian Geometry, 2004.
[29] J. Jost, Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis. Springer, 2005.
[30] M. Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry Volume I. Publish or Perish Inc., 2005.
[31] S. Eguchi, “Geometry of minimum contrast,” Hiroshima Mathematical
Journal, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 631–647, 1992.
[32] T. Groves and T. Rothenberg, “A note on the expected value of an inverse
matrix,” Biometrika, vol. 56, pp. 690–691, 1969.

