2)$ during most of the iterations of VALSE). As indicated in Sec. \[sec:approx\_vonMises\], the complexity of the MVM approximation is $\mathcal{O}(DMN)$ with Heuristic 1 and $\mathcal{O}(MN)$ with Heuristic 2; thus, the update of the pdfs of all frequencies with indices in $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ has complexity $\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}DMN)$, respectively $\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}MN)$.

Simulation Experiments
======================

In this section, we use computer simulations to assess the performance of the VALSE algorithm and state-of-the-art methods under different scenarios.

Setup, metrics and algorithms
-----------------------------

Referring to , the $K$ values $\{\omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ of the angular frequencies are generated one-by-one: $\omega_k$ is drawn from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$ until a minimum (wrap-around) distance $\Delta\omega$ is ensured between $\omega_k$ and each of the $k-1$ previously generated values. The complex amplitudes $\{\alpha_k\}_{k=1}^K$ are generated randomly by drawing their magnitudes from $\mathcal{N}(1,0.1)$ and phases from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$. The noise samples contaminating the observations  are independent and zero-mean complex Gaussian distributed.

The following metrics are evaluated by averaging from 500 independent trials: the normalized mean square error of signal reconstruction, $\operatorname{E}[\|\mathbf{\hat x}-\vx\|_2^2/\|\vx\|_2^2]$; the success rate, which we compute as the empirical probability of $\hat{K}=K$; and frequency estimation error. For a given simulation point, the frequency estimation error is evaluated only for the algorithms that provide a success rate $\geq 0.1$ by averaging only the trials in which all those algorithms output $\hat{K}=K$. The assignment of estimated components to the true ones is performed according to the Munkres’ (or Hungarian) algorithm [@Munkres1957] with the cost being the squared error of frequency estimates. We also report the runtime per trial for different problem sizes as an indicator of the complexity of the methods. The Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLB) on the reconstruction and frequency estimation errors are computed by assuming $K$
2)$ during most of the iterations of VALSE). As indicated in Sec.   \[sec: approx\_vonMises\ ], the complexity of the MVM approximation is $ \mathcal{O}(DMN)$ with Heuristic 1 and $ \mathcal{O}(MN)$ with Heuristic 2; therefore, the update of the pdfs of all frequency with indices in $ \hat{\mathcal{S}}$ has complexity $ \mathcal{O}(\hat{K}DMN)$, respectively $ \mathcal{O}(\hat{K}MN)$. 

 Simulation Experiments 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 In this incision, we practice computer simulations to assess the operation of the VALSE algorithm and country - of - the - art methods under different scenarios. 

 Setup, system of measurement and algorithms 
 ----------------------------- 

 Referring to  , the $ K$ value $ \{\omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ of the angular frequency are generated one - by - one: $ \omega_k$ is drawn from $ \mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$ until a minimum (wrap - around) distance $ \Delta\omega$ is ensured between $ \omega_k$ and each of the $ k-1 $ previously generated value. The complex amplitudes $ \{\alpha_k\}_{k=1}^K$ are generated randomly by drawing their magnitude from $ \mathcal{N}(1,0.1)$ and phases from $ \mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$. The noise samples pollute the observations    are independent and zero - mean complex Gaussian distributed. 

 The following metrics are measure by averaging from 500 independent trials: the normalized mean square error of signal reconstruction, $ \operatorname{E}[\|\mathbf{\hat x}-\vx\|_2 ^ 2/\|\vx\|_2 ^ 2]$; the success rate, which we compute as the empirical probability of $ \hat{K}=K$; and frequency estimation error. For a given simulation point, the frequency estimation mistake is evaluated only for the algorithm that leave a achiever rate $ \geq 0.1 $ by averaging only the trials in which all those algorithms output $ \hat{K}=K$. The assignment of estimated components to the genuine ones is performed according to the Munkres ’ (or Hungarian) algorithm   [ @Munkres1957 ] with the cost being the squared error of frequency estimates. We besides report the runtime per trial for different problem sizes as an indicator of the complexity of the methods. The Cramér - Rao lower leap (CRLB) on the reconstruction and frequency estimation errors are computed by assuming $ K$
2)$ duging most of the iteratiuns of VALSE). As indicaved in Aec. \[sec:aporox\_vonMises\], the complexity lf the NVM approximation is $\mxthcal{O}(DMJ)$ with Hwuriwric 1 and $\mefhcal{O}(MK)$ witg Heuxiwtic 2; thus, the update of the pdfs of anl fxequencies with indices in $\hat{\mathcaj{S}}$ has volplexity $\mathcwl{O}(\hse{K}DMH)$, respectively $\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}MN)$.

Simulztion Eqperiments
======================

In this section, we use computer slmulwtions to assess tje performabce jd the VALSE xlgorithm and state-of-tge-art methods under different szenarnos.

Setup, mejxucs dnd algoritims
-----------------------------

Refvrring to , the $K$ valuev $\{\omega_l\}_{k=1}^K$ of the angmlar hreqyencies are generated one-by-one: $\omega_k$ if drawn fsoj $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$ unrio a mhnimgm (wfqp-afouhd) djstancf $\Dxlta\omega$ ia ensured bwtween $\omega_k$ and escr of the $k-1$ prebiouslr denerated values. The complex amplitudes $\{\allha_k\}_{k=1}^K$ are generated rabdomly by drawing thelr magnittdes from $\mathcal{N}(1,0.1)$ and phases from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$. Tve nomsd scnples xojtaminating the observations  are independent whd zvro-mean complex Gcussian distribuyef.

Tng following mejrics axs svaluated by averahing frjm 500 ibdependenu trisls: the normalized mean squqre error of wignal reconstructnon, $\operatoruame{E}[\|\msthbf{\nat x}-\vx\|_2^2/\|\vx\|_2^2]$; the success rcte, whjch we compkte as ths empirical probacilpty mf $\hat{K}=K$; and frequency estymation ecror. Yor a gixen ximulaeion point, the nsequency estimatioj errlr is evaluahed only for the algorithms thav provide a soccass rate $\gez 0.1$ by averaging onjy the trials nn which all ghose algogithms ouvput $\hat{K}=K$. Tre assignment lf estimated componegts ro tye true unes is perforked accorbnng to thw Munkres’ (or Hungavian) xmgorithm [@Munkres1957] wiuh the cost beinb tfe fqlarxd erwmr of frequetcy dstkkates. We also reiorg thr runtime per trial xor sifferent problem xides as an indicatjr of the comllexity of the metjods. Vhe Cremér-Rao lorer bounds (CRLB) on the reconstduction ajd nrequency estymatlon grrors are eomputed by assuming $K$
2)$ during most of the iterations of indicated Sec. \[sec:approx\_vonMises\], complexity of the Heuristic and $\mathcal{O}(MN)$ with 2; thus, the of the pdfs of all frequencies indices in $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ has complexity $\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}DMN)$, respectively $\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}MN)$. Simulation Experiments ====================== In this we use computer simulations to assess the performance of the VALSE algorithm and methods different Setup, and algorithms ----------------------------- Referring to , the $K$ values $\{\omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ of the angular frequencies are generated $\omega_k$ is drawn from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$ until a minimum distance $\Delta\omega$ is ensured $\omega_k$ and each of the previously values. The amplitudes are randomly by drawing magnitudes from $\mathcal{N}(1,0.1)$ and phases from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$. The noise samples contaminating the observations are independent and zero-mean Gaussian distributed. metrics are by from independent trials: the square error of signal reconstruction, $\operatorname{E}[\|\mathbf{\hat rate, which we compute as the empirical probability $\hat{K}=K$; and estimation error. For a given simulation the frequency estimation error is evaluated only for algorithms that provide a success rate $\geq 0.1$ by averaging only the trials in which algorithms output $\hat{K}=K$. The of estimated components the ones performed to the (or Hungarian) algorithm [@Munkres1957] with the cost being the squared error frequency estimates. We also report the runtime per trial for sizes an indicator of complexity of the methods. Cramér-Rao bounds (CRLB) on the frequency errors assuming
2)$ during most of the iterations Of VALSE). As iNdicaTed In SEc. \[Sec:aPproX\_vonMises\], the coMPlexIty of the MVM approximatiOn is $\mAtHCal{O}(dmN)$ With HEuristiC 1 AnD $\MAthCaL{O}(mN)$ wItH heUristIc 2; tHus, the uPdate of the PdfS oF all frequencIEs With indiceS in $\Hat{\mathcal{S}}$ hAs cOmplexItY $\maTHcal{O}(\Hat{k}DMN)$, rEspectIVely $\maThcal{O}(\hat{k}Mn)$.

simulaTIon ExpeRIMeNts
======================

IN this section, we use COmPUter simulationS to assEsS ThE PErfOrmAnce of the VaLsE algORithm anD StATE-Of-tHE-art methods unDer differenT SceNarios.

seTup, MEtrics And alGoRIthMs
-----------------------------

Referring To , thE $K$ values $\{\oMega_k\}_{k=1}^k$ Of the anGUlar freQuenciEs aRe gEnerATeD oNe-bY-oNE: $\omEGa_K$ is DRawN from $\matHcAl{u}(-\pi,\pi)$ UntiL A MINimuM (wrAp-arOund) dIstance $\Delta\oMegA$ is eNSurEd betWeen $\oMega_K$ aNd eacH of the $K-1$ prevIoUsly generated vaLues. the compleX amPlItuDeS $\{\alphA_K\}_{k=1}^K$ are GenEraTed randOmly by dRAwiNg THEIr Magnitudes from $\mathCaL{n}(1,0.1)$ AnD phases fRom $\matHCaL{U}(-\PI,\pi)$. The noIsE saMpleS COntamInatINg The obserVationS  ArE iNdependEnT and zeRo-MeaN coMplex gAussIan disTributed.

the foLLowing metrics aRE evaluated by aVErAGInG From 500 IndEpendent triAls: tHE norMaliZEd MeaN SquarE erroR oF SiGNal reconstruction, $\opErAtornaMe{E}[\|\maThbf{\hat x}-\vx\|_2^2/\|\vx\|_2^2]$; tHe success rATE, Which we cOmpuTE aS The empirical prObabiLity of $\hat{K}=k$; And frequEncy eStimatioN error. For A GIven simuLatIon PoiNt, tHE FrEquency estimaTIOn erRoR is evalUatEd only fOr tHe aLgoRitHmS that provIde a succEsS rAtE $\gEq 0.1$ bY averAGing only ThE trIaLs iN whicH All thoSe algOritHmS oUTpuT $\hat{K}=K$. THE aSSIgnmEnT oF estImaTeD compOnenTS to The true Ones is perForMEd acCoRdIng to thE Munkres’ (or HunGaRian) algoriThM [@MuNkres1957] wITH the cost Being the squared error of fREquency EstImateS. We aLso report The RuntimE peR Trial fOr diffErent PrOblEM Sizes AS An IndIcAtor of the cOMPleXity oF tHe meThods. ThE Cramér-Rao lower bouNDs (CrLB) on the reconStrUctiON AnD frEQuENcy EsTImaTIOn errors are compUted by assuMiNG $K$
2)$ during most of the ite rations of  VALS E).  As  i ndic ated  in Sec. \[sec : appr ox\_vonMises\], the co mplex it y  oft he  MVMapproxi m at i o n i s$\ mat hc a l{ O}(DM N)$  with H euristic 1  an d$\mathcal{O} ( MN )$ with He uri stic 2; thus , t he upd at e o f  thepdf s ofall fr e quenci es with i nd i ces in $\hat{\ m a th cal{ S}}$ has complexi t y$ \mathcal{O}(\h at{K}D MN ) $, r esp ect ively $\ma th cal{O } (\hat{K } MN ) $ . 

S i mulation Expe riments
=== = === ====== == === = ===

I n thi ss ect ion, we use  com puter sim ulatio n s to as s ess the  perfo rma nce  oft he  V ALS Ea lgo r it hma ndstate-of -t he -artmeth o d s unde r d iffe rentscenarios.

S etu p, m e tri cs an d alg orit hm s
--- ------ ----- -- -------------
Refe rring to, t he  $K $value s  $\{\o meg a_k \}_{k=1 }^K$ of the  a n g u la r frequencies arege n e ra ted one- by-one :  $ \o m ega_k$ i sdra wn f r o m $\m athc a l{ U}(-\pi, \pi)$u nt il  a mini mu m (wra p- aro und ) dis t ance  $\Del ta\omega $ ise nsured between $\omega_k$ an d  e a c ho f th e $ k-1$ previo usly gene rate d  v alu e s. Th e com pl e xa mplitudes $\{\alpha _k \}_{k= 1}^K$  are generate d randomly b y  drawing  the i rm agnitudes from  $\ma thcal{N}(1 , 0.1)$ an d pha ses from  $\mathca l { U}(-\pi, \pi )$.  Th e n o i se  samples cont a m inat in g the o bse rvation s are  in dep en dent andzero-mea nco mp le x G aussi a n distri bu ted .
Th e fol l owingmetri cs a re  e v alu ated by av e r agin gfr om 5 00in depen dent tri als: th e normali zed mean  s qu are err or of signalre constructi on , $ \opera t o rname{E} [\|\mathbf{\hat x}-\vx\ | _2^2/\| \vx \|_2^ 2]$;  the succ ess  rate,  wh i ch wecomput e asth e e m p irica l pr oba bi lity of $\ h a t{K }=K$;  a nd f requenc y estimation error .  Fo r a given sim ula tion p oi nt, th e  fr eq u enc y estimation erro r is evalu at e donly for t h e a lg orithms  that p rovid e  a succ ess rate$\geq 0.1 $by a v e rag ing only t he trial s in whic h  allt ho se al gor ithmsou tpu t $\h at{K}= K $.The a ssignm en t of e stima te d compon ents to the true ones i s perf ormed  ac cording t o t h e M unkres’ ( or H ungarian)alg ori thm [ @Mu n kres1 957] wi tht he co st b e ing the s q ua red e rr or of frequ e n c y e stima tes .  We al so r eport the runtime per trial fordiff e r ent  pr o blem  s izes as an ind ica to r of the c om plexity ofthe meth od s . The  Cramé r-Raolower b o u nd s  (CRLB ) on  th e reconst ruc ti o n and f re qu e ncy es tima ti on err ors ar e  com p u ted by assuming$K$
2)$ during_most of_the iterations of VALSE)._As indicated_in_Sec. \[sec:approx\_vonMises\], the_complexity_of the MVM_approximation is $\mathcal{O}(DMN)$_with Heuristic 1 and_$\mathcal{O}(MN)$ with Heuristic_2;_thus, the update of the pdfs of all frequencies with indices in $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ has_complexity_$\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}DMN)$, respectively_$\mathcal{O}(\hat{K}MN)$.

Simulation_Experiments
======================

In_this section, we use computer_simulations to assess the performance_of the_VALSE algorithm and state-of-the-art methods under different scenarios.

Setup,_metrics_and algorithms
-----------------------------

Referring to ,_the $K$ values $\{\omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ of the angular frequencies are_generated one-by-one: $\omega_k$ is drawn from_$\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$ until a_minimum_(wrap-around)_distance $\Delta\omega$ is ensured_between $\omega_k$ and each of the_$k-1$ previously generated values. The complex_amplitudes $\{\alpha_k\}_{k=1}^K$ are generated randomly by drawing_their magnitudes from $\mathcal{N}(1,0.1)$ and phases_from $\mathcal{U}(-\pi,\pi)$. The noise samples_contaminating the_observations  are independent and zero-mean_complex Gaussian distributed.

The_following metrics_are evaluated by_averaging from 500 independent trials: the_normalized mean square_error of signal reconstruction, $\operatorname{E}[\|\mathbf{\hat x}-\vx\|_2^2/\|\vx\|_2^2]$;_the_success rate, which_we_compute_as the_empirical probability of_$\hat{K}=K$;_and frequency_estimation_error. For a given simulation point,_the_frequency estimation error is evaluated only for_the algorithms that provide_a_success rate $\geq 0.1$_by averaging only the trials_in which all those algorithms output_$\hat{K}=K$. The_assignment of_estimated components to the true ones is performed according to the_Munkres’ (or Hungarian) algorithm [@Munkres1957] with the_cost being the squared_error of_frequency_estimates. We also_report_the runtime_per trial for different problem sizes as_an indicator_of the complexity of the methods._The Cramér-Rao lower bounds_(CRLB)_on the reconstruction and frequency estimation_errors are computed by assuming $K$