---
abstract: 'Utilizing multisnapshot quantized data in line spectral estimation (LSE) for improving the estimation accuracy is of vital importance in signal processing, e.g., channel estimation in energy efficient massive MIMO systems and direction of arrival estimation. Recently, gridless variational line spectral estimation (VALSE) treating frequencies as random variables has been proposed. VALSE has the advantage of low computation complexity, high accuracy, automatically estimating the model order and noise variance. In this paper, we utilize expectation propagation (EP) to develop multi snapshot VALSE-EP (MVALSE-EP) to deal with the LSE from multisnapshot quantized data. The basic idea of MVALSE-EP is to iteratively approximate the quantized model as a sequence of simple multiple pseudo unquantized models sharing the same frequency profile, where the noise in each pseudo linear model is i.i.d. and heteroscedastic (different components having different variance). Moreover, the Cramér Rao bound (CRB) is derived as a benchmark performance of the proposed algorithm. Finally, numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness of MVALSE-EP, in particular for the application of direction of arrival (DOA) problems.'
author:
- 'Jiang Zhu, Qi Zhang, Benzhou Jin and Zhiwei Xu [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: Gridless Variational Line Spectral Estimation with Multiple Measurement Vector from Quantized Samples
---

<span>**keywords**</span>: Variational Bayesian inference, DOA, expectation propagation, quantization, line spectral estimation, multisnapshot, gridless

Introduction
============

Line spectral estimation (LSE) refers to the process of estimating the frequency and amplitude parameters of several superimposed complex sinusoidal signals. As a fundamental problem in signal processing fields, it has various applications in radar, sonar and channel estimation. Also, the LSE with multiple measurement vectors (MMVs) has been studied extensively recently @Gerstoft [@Mamandipoor; @Lin; @Fang; @Yang3; @Chi; @Yang1; @RAM; @yangzaibook; @yangzaitit].

LSE with MMVs appears in many applications such as array processing @Krim, structural health monitoring @Heylen, wireless communications @Barbotin and radar @Yang. In array signal processing, MMV is often termed as snapshots, and multi snapshot data is used to improve the performance of DOA estimation. In structural health monitoring, sensors are deployed to estimate the modal parameters of a physical structure (e.g., a bridge or building) in multiple sampling instants.

As modern electronic systems scale up in bandwidth, the cost and power consumption of conventional high-precision (e.g., 10-12 bits) analog-to-digital converter (ADC) are huge due to the high sampling rate @Singh. One possible approach is to use the low resolution ADC (often 1 $\sim$ 3 bits) @shalom [@Liu2018; @FangAD]. As shown in @SAR1991 [@Jin2019], when the line spectral undergoes one bit quantization, the binary data contains plentiful self-generated @SAR1991 and cross-generated harmonics @Jin2019, and conventional fast Fourier transform (FFT) will overestimate the model order. As a result, effects of heavy quantization involving nonlinear operation must be taken into consideration to design efficient algorithms for LSE with MMVs.

Related Work
------------

In @Badiu, a gridless variational LSE (VALSE) which treats the frequency as random variables is proposed. VALSE automatically estimates the model order, the parameters of the prior distribution, and noise variance. Also, excellent performance is shown numerically. Later, @Qi develops the multi snapshot VALSE (MVALSE) to deal with the LSE with MMVs. It is numerically shown that the frequency estimation benefits significantly from the MMVs. For the LSE from quantized data, @JiangVALSEQ develops VLASE-EP by combining both the expectation propagation (EP) @Minka and the unified inference framework @meng1. This work studies the LSE with MMVs from quantized data and propose MVALSE-EP. The multi snapshot LSE with quantized data is iteratively approximated as multiple pseudo unquantized models sharing the same frequency profile, in contrast to @JiangVALSEQ which is a single pseudo unquantized model. Compared to @Qi where the noise is homogeneous, the noise in the LSE with MMVs is i.i.d. and heteroscedastic (different components having different variance), and the algorithm needs to be rederived.

Main Contributions
------------------

In this paper, LSE with MMVs from quantized data are studied. The multi snapshot LSE from quantized data is iteratively approximated as multiple pseudo unquantized models sharing the same frequency profile. Then we develop the gridless multi snapshot VALSE algorithm to jointly estimate the frequency and amplitudes. The Cramèr Rao bound (CRB) is also derived to characterize the performance of MVALSE-EP. Numerical results demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

Notation
--------

Let $K$ and $M$ denote the number of frequencies and the number of measurements. Let $l$ denote the $l$th snapshot, and let $k$ denote the $k$th frequency. For the complex weight matrix ${\mathbf W}\in {\mathbb C}^{K\times L}$ or ${\mathbf W}\in {\mathbb C}^{N\times L}$, let ${\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l}\in{\mathbb C}^K$ or ${\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l}\in{\mathbb C}^N$ denote the $l$th column of ${\mathbf W}$. In addition, let ${\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}^{\rm T}\in{\mathbb C}^{1\times L}$ denote the $k$th row of ${\mathbf W}$, and $w_{kl}$ denotes the $(k,l)$th element of $\mathbf W$. Let ${\rm vec}(\cdot)$ denote a vec operator which transforms a matrix into a vector by stacking the columns of the matrix one underneath the other.

Problem Setup {#setup}
=============

Let ${\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal N}\in {\mathbb C}^{N\times L}$ be a full data matrix, composing of equispaced samples given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{signal-generate}
{\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal N}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^K  {\mathbf a}_N(\tilde{\theta}_k)\tilde{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}^{\rm T},\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ denotes the number of complex sinusoids, $\tilde{\theta}_k\in [-\pi,\pi)$ is the $k$th frequency, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf a}_N(\theta)=[1,{\rm e}^{{\rm j}\theta},\cdots,{\rm e}^{{\rm j}(N-1)\theta}]^{\rm T}.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that only $M\leq N$ noisy measurements of those components of ${\mathbf Z}_N$ are observed and are quantized into a finite number of bits, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quantmodel}
{\mathbf Y}={\mathcal Q}(\Re\{{\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal M}+{\mathbf N}\})+{\rm j}{\mathcal Q}(\Im\{{\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal M}+{\mathbf N}\}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal M}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^K  {\mathbf a}_{\mathcal M}(\tilde{\theta}_k)\tilde{\mathbf w}_k^{\rm T}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf a}_{\mathcal M}(\theta)=[{\rm e}^{{\rm j}m_1\theta},{\rm e}^{{\rm j}m_2\theta},\cdots,{\rm e}^{{\rm j}m_{M}\theta}]^{\rm T},\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathcal M}=\{m_1,\cdots,m_M\}\subseteq \{0,1,\cdots,N-1\}$, the noise ${N}_{ij}$ are i.i.d. and ${N}_{ij}\sim {\mathcal {CN}}({ N}_{ij};{0},\sigma^2)$, $\sigma^2$ is the variance of the noise. To simplify the notation, ${\mathbf a}(\theta)$ and ${\mathbf Z}$ are used instead of ${\mathbf a}_{\mathcal M}(\theta)$ and ${\mathbf Z}_{\mathcal M}$. Equation (\[quantmodel\]) can be equivalently formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf y}_l={\mathcal Q}(\Re\{{\mathbf z}_l+{\mathbf n}_l\})+{\rm j}{\mathcal Q}(\Im\{{\mathbf z}_l+{\mathbf n}_l\}),~l=1,\cdots,L.\end{aligned}$$ which is beneficial to develop MVALSE-EP algorithm as shown later.

For the LSE with MMVs, we plan to exploit the multisnapshot to jointly recover the number of spectrums $\hat{K}$ (also named as model order), the set of frequencies $\hat{\boldsymbol \theta}=\{\hat{\theta}_k\}_{k=1}^{\hat{K}}$, the corresponding weight vector $\{\hat{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}\}_{k=1}^{\hat{K}}$ and the LSE $\hat{{\mathbf Z}}_N=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\hat{K}}\hat{\mathbf a}_N\hat{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}^{\rm T}$ from quantized measurements ${\mathbf Y}$.

Since the sparsity level $K$ is usually unknown, the line spectral signal consisting of $N$ complex sinusoids is assumed @Badiu $$\begin{aligned}
\label{signal-model}
{\mathbf Z}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^N {\mathbf a}({\theta}_k){\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}^{\rm T}\triangleq {\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf W},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta})=[{\mathbf a}({\theta}_1),\cdots,{\mathbf a}({\theta}_N)]$ and $N$ satisfies $N> K$. To model the unknown nature of $K$, the binary hidden variables ${\mathbf s}=[s_1,...,s_N]^{\rm T}$ are introduced, where $s_k=1$ means that the $k$th frequency is active, otherwise deactive (${\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}={\mathbf 0}$). The probability mass function of $s_k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sprob}
p(s_k) = \rho^{s_k}(1-\rho)^{(1-s_k)},\quad s_k\in\{0,1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Given that $s_k=1$, we assume that ${\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}\sim {\mathcal {CN}}({{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}};0,\tau{\mathbf I}_T)$. Thus $(s_k,{{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}})$ follows a Bernoulli-Gaussian distribution, that is $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\mathbf w}_k}|s_i;\tau) = (1 - s_k){\delta}({{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}}) + s_k{\mathcal {CN}}({{\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}};0,\tau{\mathbf I}_L).\label{pdfw}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[sprob\]) and (\[pdfw\]), it can be seen that the parameter $\rho$ denotes the probability of the $k$th component being active and $\tau$ is a variance parameter. The variable ${\boldsymbol \theta} = [\theta_1,...,\theta_N]^{\rm T}$ has the prior PDF $p({\boldsymbol \theta}) = \begin{matrix} \prod_{k=1}^N p(\theta_k) \end{matrix}$. Without any knowledge of the frequency $\theta$, the uninformative prior distribution $p(\theta_k) = {1}/({2\pi})$ is used @Badiu. For encoding the prior distribution, please refer to @Badiu [@Qi] for further details.

Given $\mathbf Z$, the PDF $p({\mathbf Y}|{\mathbf Z})=\prod\limits_{m=1}^M\prod\limits_{l=1}^Lp(Y_{ml}|Z_{ml})$ of $\mathbf Y$ can be easily calculated through (\[quantmodel\]). Let $$\begin{aligned}
&{\boldsymbol \Omega}=(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_N,({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s})),\\
&{\boldsymbol \beta} = \{\rho,~\tau\}\end{aligned}$$ be the set of all random variables and the model parameters, respectively. According to the Bayes rule, the joint PDF $p({\mathbf Y },{\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jointpdf}
p({\mathbf Y },{\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta})=p({\mathbf Y}|{\mathbf Z})\delta({\mathbf Z}-{\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf W})\prod\limits_{k=1}^N p(\theta_k)p({\mathbf w}_k|s_k)p(s_k).\end{aligned}$$ Given the above joint PDF (\[jointpdf\]), the type II maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of the model parameters $\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}_{\rm ML}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MLbeta}
\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}_{\rm ML}=\underset{\boldsymbol \beta}{\operatorname{argmax}}~ p({\mathbf Y };{\boldsymbol \beta})=\underset{\boldsymbol \beta}p{\operatorname{argmax}}~\int p({\mathbf Y },{\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta}){\rm d}{\mathbf Z}{\rm d}{{\boldsymbol \Omega}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the minimum mean square error (MMSE) estimate of the parameters $({\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MMSE}
(\hat{\mathbf Z},\hat{{\boldsymbol \Omega}})={\rm E}[({\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega})| {\mathbf Y};{\boldsymbol \beta}_{\rm ML}],\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is taken with respect to $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega}|{\mathbf Y };\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}_{\rm ML})=\frac{p({\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega},{\mathbf Y };\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}_{\rm ML})}{p({\mathbf Y };\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}_{\rm ML})}\end{aligned}$$ Directly solving the ML estimate of $\boldsymbol \beta$ (\[MLbeta\]) or the MMSE estimate of $({\mathbf Z},{\boldsymbol \Omega})$ (\[MMSE\]) are both intractable. As a result, an iterative algorithm is designed in Section \[Algorithm\].

Cramér Rao bound {#bound}
================

The Cramér Rao bound (CRB) is a lower bound of unbiased estimators. Here the CRB is derived as the performance benchmark of the algorithm. To derive the CRB, $K$ is assumed to be known, the frequencies ${\boldsymbol \theta}\in{\mathbb R}^K$ and weights ${\mathbf W}\in{C}^{K\times L}$ are treated as deterministic unknown parameters. As for the quantizer $Q(\cdot)$, the quantization intervals are $\{(t_d,t_{d+1})\}_{d=0}^{|{\mathcal D}|-1}$, where $t_0=-\infty$, $t_{{\mathcal D}}=\infty$, $\bigcup_{d=0}^{{\mathcal D}-1}[t_d,t_{d+1})={\mathbb R}$. Given a real number $a\in [t_d,t_{d+1})$, the representation is $$\begin{aligned}
Q(a)=\omega_d, \quad {\rm if}\quad a\in [t_d,t_{d+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Note that for a quantizer with bit-depth $B$, the cardinality of the output of the quantizer is $|{\mathcal D}|=2^B$. Let $\boldsymbol \kappa$ denote the set of parameters, i.e., ${\boldsymbol \kappa}=[{\boldsymbol \theta}^{\rm T},{{\rm vec}^{\rm T}(\mathbf G)},{\rm vec}^{\rm T}(\boldsymbol \phi)]^{\rm T}\in {\mathbb R}^{(2L+1)K}$ where $g_{kl}=|w_{kl}|$ and $\phi_{kl}=\angle w_{kl}$. The probability mass function (PMF) of the measurements $p({\mathbf Y}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf Y}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})=\prod\limits_{m=1}^M\prod\limits_{l=1}^L p(Y_{ml}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})=\prod\limits_{m=1}^M\prod\limits_{l=1}^L p(\Re\{Y_{ml}\}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})p(\Im\{Y_{ml}\}|{\boldsymbol \kappa}).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the PMFs of $\Re\{Y_{ml}\}$ and $\Im\{Y_{ml}\}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
p(\Re\{{Y}_{ml}\}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})=\prod\limits_{\omega_d\in {\mathcal D}}p_{\Re\{{Y}_{ml}\}}(\omega_d|{\boldsymbol \kappa})^{I_{Q(\Re\{{Y}_{ml}\})=\omega_d}},\\
p(\Im\{{Y}_{ij}\}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})=\prod\limits_{\omega_d\in {\mathcal D}}p_{\Im\{{Y}_{ml}\}}(\omega_d|{\boldsymbol \kappa})^{I_{Q(\Im\{{Y}_{ml}\})=\omega_d}},\end{aligned}$$ where $I_{(\cdot)}$ is the indicator function, $$\begin{aligned}
&p_{\Re\{{Y}_{ml}\}}(\omega_d|{\boldsymbol \kappa})={\rm P}\left(\Re\{{Y}_{ml}\}\in[t_d,t_{d+1})\right)
={\Phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Re\{{Z}_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})
-\Phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Re\{{Z}_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})},\\
&p_{\Im\{{Y}_{ml}\}}(\omega_d|{\boldsymbol \kappa})={\rm P}\left(\Im\{{Y}_{ml}\}\in[t_d,t_{d+1})\right)
={\Phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Im\{{Z}_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})-\Phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Im\{{Z}_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})}.\end{aligned}$$ The CRB is equal to the inverse of the Fisher information matrix (FIM) ${\mathbf I}({\boldsymbol \kappa})\in{\mathbb R}^{(2L+1)K\times (2L+1)K}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf I}({\boldsymbol \kappa})={\rm E}\left[\left(\frac{\partial \log p({\mathbf y}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)\left(\frac{\partial \log p({\mathbf y}|{\boldsymbol \kappa})}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)^{\rm T}\right].\end{aligned}$$ To calculate the FIM, the following Theorem @Fu is utilized.

\[FIMlemma\] @Fu The FIM ${\mathbf I}({\boldsymbol \kappa})$ for estimating the unknown parameter ${\boldsymbol \kappa}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quanFIM}
{\mathbf I}({\boldsymbol \kappa})=\sum\limits_{m=1}^M \sum\limits_{l=1}^L  \left({\lambda}_{ml}\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\left(\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)^{\rm T}+\chi_{ml}\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\left(\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}   }{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)^{\rm T}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For a general quantizer, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{ml}=\frac{2}{\sigma^2}\sum\limits_{d=0}^{|{\mathcal D}|-1}\frac{[\phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})-\phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})]^2}{\Phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})-\Phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ml}=\frac{2}{\sigma^2}\sum\limits_{d=0}^{|{\mathcal D}|-1}\frac{[\phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})-\phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})]^2}{\Phi(\frac{t_{d+1}-\Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})-\Phi(\frac{t_{d}-\Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\sigma/\sqrt{2}})},\end{aligned}$$ For the unquantized system, the FIM is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{unqFIM}
&{\mathbf I}_{\rm unq}({\boldsymbol \kappa})=\frac{2}{\sigma^2}\sum\limits_{m=1}^M \sum\limits_{l=1}^L  \left(\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\left(\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)^{\rm T}+\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\left(\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}   }{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}\right)^{\rm T}\right).\end{aligned}$$

According to Theorem \[FIMlemma\], we need to calculate $\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}$ and $\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}$. Since $Z_{ml}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^K{\rm e}^{{\rm j}(m_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl})}g_{kl}$, we have, for $k=1,\cdots,(2L+1)K$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{partialder}
&\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\theta_k}}=-\emph{m}_m\sin(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kj})g_{kl}, \notag\\
&\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial g_{kl}}=\cos(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl}),\notag\\
&\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial \phi_{kl}}=-\sin(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl})g_{kl},\notag\\
&\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\theta_k}}=\emph{m}_m\cos(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl})g_{kl},\notag\\
&\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial g_{kl}}=\sin(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl}),\notag\\
&\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial \phi_{kl}}=\cos(\emph{m}_m\theta_k+\phi_{kl})g_{kl},\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\emph{m}_m$ is the $m$th ordered element in $\mathcal M$. Stacking the above results, we obtain $\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}$ and $\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \theta}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(l-1)K} \\
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\mathbf g}_{l}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(L-l)K} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(l-1)K} \\
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Re\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \phi}_{l}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(L-l)K} \\
                                                                       \end{array}\right],~\frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \kappa}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \theta}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(l-1)K} \\
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\mathbf g}_{l}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(L-l)K} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(l-1)K} \\
                                                                         \frac{\partial \Im\{Z_{ml}\}}{\partial {\boldsymbol \phi}_{l}} \\
                                                                         {\mathbf 0}_{(L-l)K} \\
                                                                       \end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf g}_{l}=[g_{1l},\cdots,g_{Kl}]^{\rm T}$ and ${\boldsymbol \phi}_{l}=[\phi_{1l},\cdots,\phi_{Kl}]^{\rm T}$. The CRB for the quantized and unquantized settings are ${\rm CRB}({\boldsymbol \kappa})={\mathbf I}^{-1}({\boldsymbol \kappa})$ and ${\rm CRB}_{\rm unq}({\boldsymbol \kappa})={\mathbf I}_{\rm unq}^{-1}({\boldsymbol \kappa})$, respectively. The CRB of the frequencies are $[{\rm CRB}({\boldsymbol \kappa})]_{1:K,1:K}$, which will be used as the performance metrics.

MVALSE-EP Algorithm {#Algorithm}
===================

In this section, MVALSE-EP algorithm is developed based on EP. The factor graph and the algorithm module are shown in Fig. \[FC\_fig\].

Componentwise MMSE
------------------

Specifically, in the $t$th iteration, let ${m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf Z}}^t({\mathbf Z})=\prod\limits_{l=1}^L{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)$ denote the message transmitted from the factor node $\delta({\mathbf Z}-{\mathbf A}{\mathbf W})$ to the variable node $\mathbf z$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)={\mathcal {\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t),{\rm diag}({\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t)))}.\end{aligned}$$ According to EP, the message $m_{{\mathbf Z}\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf Z})$ transmitted from the variable node ${\mathbf Z}$ to the factor node $\delta({\mathbf Z}-{\mathbf A}{\mathbf W})$ can be calculated as @Minka

\[extBz0\] $$\begin{aligned}
m_{{\mathbf Z}\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf Z})&\propto \frac{{\rm Proj}[{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf Z}}^t({\mathbf z})p({\mathbf Y}|{\mathbf Z})]}{{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf Z}}^t({\mathbf Z})}\\
&\propto \frac{\prod\limits_{l=1}^L{\rm Proj}[{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)p({\mathbf y}_l|{\mathbf z}_l)]}{\prod\limits_{l=1}^L{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)}
\triangleq \prod\limits_{l=1}^L\frac{{\rm Proj}[q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]}{{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)} \triangleq \prod\limits_{l=1}^L m_{{\mathbf z}_l\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l),\end{aligned}$$

where $\propto $ denotes identity up to a normalizing constant. First, the MMSE estimate of ${\mathbf z}_l$ can be obtained, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)={\rm E}[{\mathbf z}_l|q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)],\label{comb_means}\\
&{\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)={\rm Var}[{\mathbf z}_l|q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]\label{comb_vars},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm E}[\cdot|q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]$ and ${\rm Var}[\cdot|q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]$ are the mean and variance operations taken componentwise with respect to the distribution $\propto q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)$. Here we adopt the diagonal EP and ${\rm Proj}[q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{postBz}
{\rm Proj}[q_{{\rm B},l}^t({\mathbf z}_l)]={\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t),{\rm diag}({\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t))).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[postBz\]) in (\[extBz0\]), the message $m_{{\mathbf z}_l\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l)$ from the variable node ${\mathbf z}_l$ to the factor node $\delta({\mathbf z}_l-{\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l})$ is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{extBtoA}
m_{{\mathbf z}_l\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l)&\propto \frac{{\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t),{\rm diag( {\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t))})}{{\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t),{\rm diag ({\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t))})}\propto {\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t),{\rm diag }({\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t))),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ and ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ are @meng1

$$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)=\left(\frac{1}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)}-\frac{1}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t)}\right)^{-1},\label{extB_var}\\
&{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)={\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)\odot\left(\frac{{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)}-\frac{{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t)}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t)}\right),\label{extB_mean}\end{aligned}$$

where $\odot$ denotes componentwise multiplication. Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{extBtoAall}
m_{{\mathbf Z}\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf Z})\propto \prod\limits_{l=1}^Lm_{{\mathbf z}_l\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l)\propto \prod\limits_{l=1}^L{\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t),{\rm diag }({\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t))).\end{aligned}$$

![Factor graph of the joint PDF (\[jointpdf\]) and the module of the MVALSE-EP algorithm. Here the circle denotes the variable node, and the square denotes the factor node. According to the dashed block diagram in Fig. 1 (a), the problem can be decomposed as two modules in Fig. 1 (b), where module A corresponds to the standard linear model, and module B corresponds to the MMSE estimation. Intuitively, the problem can be solved by iterating between the two modules, where module A performs the MVALSE algorithm, and module B performs the componentwise MMSE estimation.<span data-label="FC_fig"></span>](factor1.pdf){width="3.6in"}

![Two equivalent factor graphs of the joint PDF (\[jointpdf2\]). The dashed square denotes the pseudo factor graph. Also, the factor graph of Fig. \[FC2\] (b) is borrowed from @Badiu.<span data-label="FC2"></span>](factor2.pdf){width="3.6in"}

MVALSE module
-------------

According to (\[extBtoAall\]), the message $m_{{\mathbf Z}\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf Z})$ transmitted from the variable node $\mathbf Z$ to the factor node $\delta({\mathbf Z}-{\mathbf A}{\mathbf W})$ is Gaussian distributed and is independent of the snapshot $l$. Based on the definition of the factor node $\delta({\mathbf Z}-{\mathbf A}{\mathbf W})$, $L$ pseudo linear observation models $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heomodel}
\tilde{\mathbf y}_l(t)={\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l}+\tilde{\mathbf n}_l(t),\quad l=1,\cdots,L\end{aligned}$$ are obtained, where $\tilde{\mathbf n}_l(t)\sim {\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf 0},{\rm diag}(\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_l^2(t)))$, $\tilde{\mathbf y}_l(t)={\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_l^2(t)={\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$. For the $l$th equation in (\[heomodel\]), the variances of the heteroscedastic noise $\tilde{\mathbf n}_l(t)$ are different. In addition, All the equations share the same frequency ${\boldsymbol \theta}$. As a result, MVALSE algorithm needs to derived. For simplicity, we omit the iteration index $t$.

For model (\[heomodel\]), the factor graph is also presented in Fig. \[FC2\]. Given the pseudo observations $\tilde{\mathbf Y}$ and nuisance parameters ${\boldsymbol \beta}$, the above joint PDF is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jointpdf2}
p(\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta}) &\propto\left(\prod_{k=1}^Np(\theta_k)p(s_k)p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)\right)p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}|{\boldsymbol \theta},{\mathbf W})\notag\\
&\propto\left(\prod_{k=1}^Np(\theta_k)p(s_k)p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)\right)\prod_{l=1}^L p(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l|{\boldsymbol \theta},{\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)$ and $p(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l|{\boldsymbol\theta},{\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l})$ instead of $p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k;\tau)$ and $p(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l|{\boldsymbol\theta},{\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l};{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_l)={\mathcal {CN}}(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l;$\
${\mathbf A}({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l},{\boldsymbol \Sigma}_l)$, and ${\boldsymbol \Sigma}_l={\rm diag}(\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_l^2(t))$. Performing the type II maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of the model parameters $\hat{\boldsymbol\beta}_{\rm ML}$ are still intractable. Thus variational approach where a given structured PDF $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is used to approximate $p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is adopted, where $p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})=p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}, {\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta})/p(\tilde{\mathbf Y};{\boldsymbol \beta})$ and $p(\tilde{\mathbf Y};{\boldsymbol \beta})=\int p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}, {\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta}) {\rm d}{\boldsymbol \Omega}$. The variational Bayesian uses the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence of $p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ from $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ to describe their dissimilarity, which is defined as @Murphy [p. 732] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KLdef}
&{\rm{KL}}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|{\tilde{\mathbf Y}})||p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}))=\int q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})\log \frac{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}{p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol \Omega}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, the posterior PDF $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is chosen from a distribution set to minimize the KL divergence. The log model evidence $\ln p({\tilde{\mathbf Y};\boldsymbol\beta})$ for any assumed PDF $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is @Murphy [pp. 732-733] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DL}
\ln p({\tilde{\mathbf Y};\boldsymbol\beta})= {\rm{KL}}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})||p({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}))+ {\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DL-L}
{\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})) = {\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[\ln{\tfrac{p(\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol \beta})}{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ For a given data $\tilde{\mathbf Y}$, $\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y};{\boldsymbol\beta})$ is constant, thus minimizing the KL divergence is equivalent to maximizing ${\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}))$ in (\[DL\]). Therefore we maximize ${\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}))$ in the sequel.

For the factored PDF $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$, the following assumptions are made:

-   Given $\tilde{\mathbf Y}$, the frequencies $\{\theta_i\}_{i=1}^N$ are mutually independent.

-   The posterior of the binary hidden variables $q({\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ has all its mass at $\widehat{\mathbf s}$, i.e., $q({\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})=\delta({\mathbf s}-\widehat{\mathbf s})$.

-   Given $\tilde{\mathbf Y}$ and $\mathbf s$, the frequencies and weights are independent.

As a result, $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ can be factored as $$\begin{aligned}
q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = \prod_{i=1}^Nq(\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y})q({\mathbf W}|{\tilde{\mathbf Y}},{\mathbf s})\delta({\mathbf s}-{\widehat{\mathbf s}}).\label{postpdf}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the factorization property of (\[postpdf\]), the frequency ${\boldsymbol \theta}$ can be estimated from $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ as @Badiu

\[ahat\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\widehat{\theta}_i = {\rm arg}({\rm E}_{q(\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[{\rm e}^{{\rm j}\theta_i}]),\label{ahat_a}\\
&\widehat{\mathbf a}_i = {\rm E}_{q(\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[{\mathbf a}_N(\theta_i)],~i\in\{1,...,N\},\label{ahat_b}\end{aligned}$$

where ${\rm arg}(\cdot)$ returns the angle. Given that $q({\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = \delta(\mathbf {s-\widehat{s}})$, the posterior PDF of $\mathbf W$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w_s}
q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = \int q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\mathbf s})\delta(\mathbf {s-\widehat{s}}){\rm d}{\mathbf s} = q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y},\widehat{\mathbf s}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal S$ be the set of indices of the non-zero components of $s$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\mathcal S = \{i|1\leq i\leq N,s_i = 1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, we define $\widehat{\mathcal S}$ based on $\widehat{\mathbf s}$. The model order is the cardinality of $\widehat{\mathcal S}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\widehat{K} = |\widehat{\mathcal S}|.\end{aligned}$$ The following procedure is similar to @Qi. Maximizing ${\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}))$ with respect to all the factors is also intractable. Similar to the Gauss-Seidel method @Bertsekas, $\mathcal L$ is optimized over each factor $q({\theta_i}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$, $i=1,\dots,N$ and $q({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ separately with the others being fixed. Maximizing ${\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y});{\boldsymbol \beta})$ (\[DL-L\]) with respect to the posterior approximation $q({\boldsymbol \Omega}_d|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ of each latent variable ${\boldsymbol \Omega}_d,~d=1,\dots,N+1$ yields @Murphy [pp. 735, eq. (21.25)] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{upexpression}
\ln q({\boldsymbol \Omega}_d|\tilde{\mathbf Y})={\rm E}_{q({{\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\boldsymbol \Omega}_d}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega})]+{\rm const},\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is taken with respect to all the variables ${\boldsymbol \Omega}$ except ${\boldsymbol \Omega}_d$ and the constant ensures normalization of the PDF. In the following, we detail the procedures.

### Inferring the frequencies {#yita}

For each $k = 1,...,N$, we maximize $\mathcal L$ with respect to the factor $q({\theta_i}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$. For $k\notin{\mathcal S}$, we have $q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y})= p(\theta_k)$. For $k\in{\mathcal S}$, the optimal factor $q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ can be calculated as @Murphy [pp. 736-737] $$\begin{aligned}
\ln q(\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = &{\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_i}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[
\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}, {\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol\beta})\right]+ \rm const,\label{q_cal}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[ahat\]) and (\[jointpdf2\]) in (\[q\_cal\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\ln q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = {\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_k}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}, {\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol\beta})] + {\rm const}\notag\\
=&{\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_k}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\ln(p(\boldsymbol\theta)p(\mathbf s)p(\mathbf {W|s})p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}|\boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf W))] + {\rm const}\notag\\
=&\ln p(\theta_k)-\sum\limits_{l=1}^L{\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_k}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-{{\mathbf A}_{\widehat{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})^{\rm H}\boldsymbol\Sigma_l^{-1}(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l- {\mathbf A}_{\widehat{\mathcal S}}{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})]+{\rm const}\notag\\
=&\ln p(\theta_k)+  \sum\limits_{l=1}^L\Re\{{\boldsymbol\eta}_{k,l}^{\rm H}{\mathbf a}(\theta_k)\}+{\rm const},\end{aligned}$$ where the complex vector $\boldsymbol\eta_i$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yita-i}
{\boldsymbol\eta}_{k,l} = 2\boldsymbol\Sigma_l^{-1}\left[\left(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-\sum_{r\in\widehat{\mathcal S} \backslash \{k\}}{\widehat{\mathbf a}}_r{\widehat{w}}_{r,l}\right){\widehat{w}}^*_{k,l}-\sum_{r\in\widehat{\mathcal S} \backslash \{k\}}{\widehat{\mathbf a}}_r{\widehat{C}}_{r,k;l}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $``\sim k"$ denote the indices $\widehat{\mathcal S}$ excluding $k$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\widehat{w}}_{r,l}={\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_k}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[{{w}}_{r,l}],\\
&p{\widehat{C}}_{r,k;l}={\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{\theta_k}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[{{w}}_{r,l}{{w}}_{k,l}^*]-{\widehat{w}}_{r,l}{\widehat{w}}_{k,l}^*,\end{aligned}$$ $q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is calculated to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pdf-q}
q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y})\propto p(\theta_k){\rm exp}(\sum\limits_{l=1}^L{\Re}\{{\boldsymbol\eta}_{k,l}^{\rm H}{\mathbf a}(\theta_k)\}).\end{aligned}$$ Since it is hard to obtain the analytical results (\[ahat\_b\]) for the PDF (\[pdf-q\]), $q(\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is approximated as a von Mises distribution. For further details, please refer to @Badiu [Algorithm 2: Heurestic 2].

### Inferring the weights and support {#W-and-C}

Next we keep $q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y}),k=1,...,N$ fixed and maximize $\mathcal L$ w.r.t. $q({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$. Define the matrices $\mathbf J$ and $\mathbf h$ as

\[J-H\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{J}_{ij;l}=    
\begin{cases}
{\rm tr}({\boldsymbol\Sigma}_l^{-1}),&i=j\\
{\widehat{\mathbf a}}^{\rm H}_i{\boldsymbol\Sigma}_l^{-1}{\widehat{\mathbf a}}_j,&i\neq{j}
\end{cases},\quad i,j\in\{1,2,\cdots,N\},\\
&{\mathbf h}_l = \widehat{\mathbf A}^{\rm H}{\boldsymbol\Sigma}_l^{-1}\tilde{\mathbf y}_l.\end{aligned}$$

According to (\[upexpression\]), $q({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
&\ln q({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y}) = {\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}\setminus{({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s})}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[
\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega};{\boldsymbol\beta})\right]+ {\rm const}\notag\\
=& {\rm E}_{q{(\boldsymbol\theta|\tilde{\mathbf Y}})}\left[\sum_{k=1}^N \ln p(s_k) + \sum\limits_{k=1}^N\ln p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)+\sum\limits_{l=1}^L\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l|{\boldsymbol \theta},{\mathbf w}_{\cdot,l})\right]+{\rm const}\notag\\
=& -\sum\limits_{k\in {\mathcal S}} {\mathbf w}_k^{\rm H}{\mathbf w}_k/\tau-(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-\hat{\mathbf A}_{\mathcal S}{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l})^{\rm H}{\boldsymbol\Sigma}_l^{-1}(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-\hat{\mathbf A}_{\mathcal S}{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l})\notag\\
=& -\sum\limits_{l=1}^L {\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l}^{\rm H}{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l}/\tau-(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-\hat{\mathbf A}_{\mathcal S}{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l})^{\rm H}{\boldsymbol\Sigma}_l^{-1}(\tilde{\mathbf y}_l-\hat{\mathbf A}_{\mathcal S}{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l})\notag\\
=&-\sum\limits_{l=1}^L({\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l} - \widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l})^{\rm H}\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S},l}^{-1}({\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l} - \widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l}) + {\rm const},\label{Ws_pos}\end{aligned}$$ where

\[W-C-1\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S},l} = \left({{\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S};l}}+\frac{{\mathbf I}_{|{\mathcal S}|}}{\tau}\right)^{-1},\\
&\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l} = \widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S},l}.\label{What}\end{aligned}$$

It is worth noting that calculating $\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S},l}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l}$ involves a matrix inversion. In the Appendix \[findmaxz\], it is shown that $\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S},l}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S},l}$ can be updated efficiently.

From (\[postpdf\]), the posterior approximation $q({\mathbf W},{\mathbf s}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ can be factored as the product of $q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\mathbf s})$ and $\delta({\mathbf s}-{\widehat{\mathbf s}})$. According to the formulation of (\[Ws\_pos\]), for a given $\widehat{\mathbf s}$, $q({\mathbf W}_{\widehat{\mathcal S}}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ is a complex Gaussian distribution, and $q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y};\widehat{\mathbf s})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y};\widehat{\mathbf s}) = \prod\limits_{l=1}^L{\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l};\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l},\widehat{\mathbf C}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})\prod_{i\not\in\widehat{\mathcal S}}\delta(w_{i,l}).\label{qwpdfiid}\end{aligned}$$

Plugging the postulated PDF (\[postpdf\]) in (\[DL-L\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L-ws}
&{\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y});~\widehat{\mathbf s})={\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[\frac{p(\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega};~\widehat{\mathbf s})}{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\right]\notag\\
=&{\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\sum_{k=1}^N \ln p(s_k) + \ln p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)+\ln p(\tilde{\mathbf Y}|{\boldsymbol \theta},{\mathbf W})-\ln q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})]+{\rm const}\notag\\
=&-\sum\limits_{l=1}^L\ln\det({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})+\sum\limits_{l=1}^L{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}^{\rm H}(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}\notag\\
+&||\mathbf s||_0\ln\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}+||\mathbf s||_0\ln\frac{1}{\tau}+{\rm const}\notag\\
\triangleq &\ln Z(\mathbf s)\end{aligned}$$ Then we need to find $\hat{\mathbf s}$ which maximizes $\ln Z(\mathbf s)$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{maxlns}
\hat{\mathbf s}=\underset{\mathbf s}{\operatorname{argmax}}~\ln Z(\mathbf s).\end{aligned}$$ Similar to @Badiu, a greedy iterative search strategy shown in Appendix \[findmaxz\] is proposed. In general, numerical experiments show that $O(\hat{K})$ steps is often enough to find the local optimum.

Once $\mathbf s$ is updated as ${\mathbf s}'$, the mean $\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ and covariance ${\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ of the weights should be updated accordingly. For the active case, $\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ and covariance ${\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ are updated according to (\[mean\_up\_act\]) and (\[cov\_up\_act\]), while for the deactive case, $\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ and covariance ${\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ are updated according to (\[mean\_up\_deact\]) and (\[cov\_up\_deact\]).

### Estimating the model parameters

After updating the frequencies and weights, the model parameters $\boldsymbol\beta = \{\rho,~\tau\}$ is estimated via maximizing the lower bound ${\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y});{\boldsymbol \beta})$ for fixed $q({\boldsymbol\Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$. Straightforward calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&{\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y});\boldsymbol \beta)= {\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[\ln\tfrac{p({\tilde{\mathbf Y},{\boldsymbol \Omega};\boldsymbol \beta})}{q{({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}}\right]\notag\\
=&{\rm E}_{q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\sum_{k=1}^N \ln p(s_k) + \ln p({\mathbf w}_{k,\cdot}|s_k)]+{\rm const}\notag\\
=&||{\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0\ln\rho} + (N - ||\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0)\ln(1-\rho) + L||\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0\ln\frac{1}{\pi\tau}-\sum\limits_{l=1}^L{\rm E}_{q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}\left[\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf w}^{\rm H}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}\right]  + {\rm const}.\end{aligned}$$ Because $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
{\rm E}_{q({\mathbf W}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})}[\mathbf w^{\rm H}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf w_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})]
=\widehat{\mathbf w}^{\rm H}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},;}+{\rm tr}({\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})\notag,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
{\mathcal L}(q({\boldsymbol \Omega}|\tilde{\mathbf Y});\boldsymbol \beta) = -\frac{1}{\tau}\sum\limits_{l=1}^L\left[\widehat{\mathbf w}^{\rm H}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}+{\rm tr}(\widehat{{\mathbf C}}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})\right] + ||\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0(\ln\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}-L{\rm ln}\tau)+N\ln(1-\rho)+{\rm const}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Setting $\frac{\partial\mathcal L}{\partial\rho}=0$, $\frac{\partial\mathcal L}{\partial\tau}=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mu-rou-tau-hat}
\widehat{\rho} = &\frac{||\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0}{N},\notag\\
\widehat{\tau} = &\frac{\sum\limits_{l=1}^L\widehat{\mathbf w}^{\rm H}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}+{\rm tr}(\widehat{{\mathbf C}}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l})}{L||\widehat{\mathbf s}||_0}.\end{aligned}$$

### Summary of the MVALSE algorithm

Now the MVALSE algorithm is summarized as Algorithm \[VALSE\] for completeness. Let $\hat{\mathcal S}$ be the estimation of $\mathcal S$ by the MVALSE algorithm. Note that for the first outer iteration, the MVALSE is initialized using the noncoherent estimation @Badiu [subsection E of Section IV]. For the outer iteration greater than $1$, VALSE is initialized with the previous results.

\[ht\]

**Input:**  Signal vector $\tilde{\mathbf Y}$, noise variance $\{\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_l^2\}_{l=1}^L$\
**Output:**  The model order estimate $\widehat{K}$, frequencies posterior PDF $q({\theta}_i|\tilde{\mathbf y}),i\in{\widehat{\mathcal S}}$, complex weights estimate $\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}$ and covariance matrix $\hat{\mathbf C}_{\hat{S},l}$, and reconstructed signal $\widehat{\mathbf z}$

\[1\] Initialize $\widehat{\rho},\widehat{\tau}$ and $q_{\theta_i|\tilde{\mathbf Y}}(\theta_i),i\in\{1,\cdots,N\}$; compute $\widehat{\mathbf a}_i$ **repeat**     Update $\widehat{\mathbf s},\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}~{\rm and}~\widehat{\mathbf C}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}$ (<span>Section</span> \[W-and-C\])     Update $\widehat{\rho}$, $\widehat{\tau}$ (\[mu-rou-tau-hat\])     Update $\boldsymbol\eta_i$ and $\widehat{\mathbf a}_i$ for all $i\in \widehat{\mathcal S}$ (<span>Section</span> \[yita\]) **until** stopping criterion is satisfied **return** ${\widehat K}$, $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}_{\widehat{\mathcal S}}$, $\widehat{\mathbf w}_{\widehat{\mathcal S},l}$, $\hat{\mathbf C}_{\hat{S},l}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf Z}$

From MVALSE module to MMSE module
---------------------------------

According to the approximated posterior PDF $q({\mathbf W}_S|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$ and $q({\boldsymbol \theta}|\tilde{\mathbf Y})$, we calculate the message ${m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{extA}
{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)&=\frac{{\rm Proj}[\int q({\mathbf w}_{S,l}|\tilde{\mathbf y}_l)\delta({\mathbf z}_l-{\mathbf A}_S({\boldsymbol \theta}){\mathbf w}_{S,l})q({\boldsymbol \theta}|\tilde{\mathbf y}){\rm d}{\mathbf w}_{S,l}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol \theta}]}{ m_{{\mathbf z}_l\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l)}\notag\\
&\triangleq \frac{{\rm Proj}[q_{\rm A}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)]}{m_{{\mathbf z}\rightarrow \delta}^t({\mathbf z}_l)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we calculate the posterior means and variances of ${\mathbf z}_l$ averaged over $q_{\rm A}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)$ as @JiangVALSEQ $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}=\hat{\mathbf A}_{\hat{S}}\hat{\mathbf w}_{\hat{S},l},\label{post_means_A}\\
&{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}= {\rm diag}(\hat{\mathbf A}_{\hat{S}}\hat{\mathbf C}_{\hat{S},l}\hat{\mathbf A}_{\hat{S}}^{\rm H})+\left(\hat{\mathbf w}_{\hat{S},l}^{\rm H}\hat{\mathbf w}_{\hat{S},l}{\mathbf 1}_{M}-|\hat{\mathbf A}_{\hat{S}}|^2|\hat{\mathbf w}_{\hat{S},l}|^2\right)\notag\\
&+{\rm tr}(\hat{\mathbf C}_{\hat{S},l}){\mathbf 1}_M-|\hat{\mathbf A}_{\hat{S}}|^2{\rm diag}(\hat{\mathbf C}_{\hat{S},l}).\label{post_vars_A}\end{aligned}$$ Thus ${\rm Proj}[q_{\rm A}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)]$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Proj}[q_{\rm A}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)]={\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post},{\rm diag}({\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post})).\end{aligned}$$ According to (\[extA\]), ${m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^{t+1}({\mathbf z}_l)$ is calculated to be $$\begin{aligned}
{m}_{\delta\rightarrow {\mathbf z}_l}^{t+1}({\mathbf z})={\mathcal {CN}}({\mathbf z}_l;{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1),{\rm diag}({\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1))),\end{aligned}$$ where the extrinsic ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)$ and variance ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)$ are given by @meng1 $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)}= \frac{1}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}(t)}-\frac{1}{\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{w,l}^2(t)},\label{extvarA}\\
&{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)={{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)}\odot\left(\frac{{\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}(t)}{{\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}(t)}-\frac{\tilde{\mathbf y}_l(t)}{\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_{w,l}^2(t)}\right),\label{extmeanA}\end{aligned}$$ and we input them to module B. The algorithm iterates until convergence or the maximum number of iterations is reached. It is worth noting that for unquantized system, MVALSE-EP is reduced to the MVALSE algorithm. The MVALSE-EP algorithm is summarized as Algorithm \[VALSE\_ep\].

\[h\]

\[1\] Initialize ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(1)={\mathbf {10}}^{4}$, ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(1)={\mathbf 0}_M$, $\forall l$; Set the number of outer iterations $T_{\rm outer}$; Compute the post mean and variance of ${\mathbf z}_l$ as ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)$ (\[comb\_means\]), ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm post}(t)$ (\[comb\_vars\]), $\forall l$. Compute the extrinsic mean and variance of ${\mathbf z}_l$ as ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ (\[extB\_mean\]) and ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ (\[extB\_var\]), and set $\tilde{\boldsymbol \sigma}_l^2(t) ={\mathbf v}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$ and $\tilde{\mathbf y}_l(t)={\mathbf z}_{{\rm B},l}^{\rm ext}(t)$. If $t=1$, initialize $\rho$, $\tau$, $q(\theta_k|\tilde{\mathbf Y}),~k=1,\cdots,N$ and compute $\hat{\mathbf A}$ using $\tilde{\mathbf Y}(t)$. Then run the VALSE algorithm \[VALSE\] until the stopping criterion is satisfied. Otherwise, run the MVALSE algorithm \[VALSE\] directly with initialization provided by the previous results of the MVALSE. Calculate the posterior means ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}(t)$ (\[post\_means\_A\]) and variances ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm post}(t)$ (\[post\_vars\_A\]). Compute the extrinsic mean and variance of ${\mathbf z}_l$ as ${\mathbf v}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)$ (\[extvarA\]), ${\mathbf z}_{{\rm A},l}^{\rm ext}(t+1)$ (\[extmeanA\]).Return $\hat{\boldsymbol \theta}$, $\hat{\mathbf W}$, $\hat{\mathbf Z}$ and $\hat{K}$.

Computation Complexity
----------------------

In @Badiu [@Qi], the computation complexity of MVALSE is $O((NL\hat{K}^3+MNL\hat{K})\times T)$ with $T$ being the number of iterations and $\hat{K}$ being the number of estimated spectrals. For the proposed MVALSE-EP, its main computation complexity is dominated by the MVALSE as the MMSE step can be performed componentwisely. Compared to the atomic norm based sparse parametric approach (SPA) implemented by the off-the-shelf SDP solver, SDPT3 @SDPT3, the overall computation complexity is $O(M^2L+M^{4}N^{2.5}+N^{4.5})$ @Yang1. Typically, the number of iterations $T$ is small, thus the computation complexity of the MVALSE-EP is significantly lower than that of the atomic norm based algorithm.

Numerical Simulation {#NS}
====================

In this section, numerical experiments are conducted to verify the proposed algorithm. We evaluate the signal estimation error, frequency estimation error, the correct model order estimation probability under quantized measurements.

The frequencies are randomly drawn such that the minimum wrap around distance is greater than $2\pi/N$. We evaluate the performance of the VALSE algorithm utilizing noninformative prior, i.e., $p(\theta_i)=1/(2\pi), ~i=1,\cdots,N$. The magnitudes of the weight coefficients are drawn i.i.d. from a Gaussian distribution ${\mathcal N}(1,0.04)$, and the phases are drawn i.i.d. from a uniform distribution between $[-\pi,\pi]$. For multi-bit quantization, a uniform quantizer is adopted and the quantization interval is restricted to $[-3\sigma_z,3\sigma_z]$, where $\sigma_z^2$ is the variance of the signal $\Re\{{\mathbf z}_N\}$ or $\Im\{{\mathbf z}_N\}$. In our setting, it can be calculated that $\sigma_z^2\approx K/2$. For one-bit quantization, zero is chosen as the threshold. We define the signal to noise ratio (SNR) as ${\rm SNR} = 20{\rm log}(||\mathbf A(\boldsymbol\theta){\mathbf W}||_{2}/||\mathbf N||_{\rm 2})$.

The number of maximum outer iterations is set as $T_{\rm outer}=120$. As for the inner MVALSE algorithm, the number of inner iteration is set as $500$. For unquantized system, we run the multi snapshot VALSE (MVALSE) algorithm provided by @Qi.

The normalized MSE (NMSE) of signal $\hat{\mathbf Z}$ (for unquantized and multi-bit quantized system) and $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$ are defined as ${{\rm NMSE}}({\mathbf Z})\triangleq 20{\rm log}(||\hat{\mathbf Z} - {\mathbf Z}||_{\rm F}/||{\mathbf Z}||_{\rm F})$ and ${{\rm MSE}}(\boldsymbol\theta)\triangleq20{\rm log}(||\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta} - \boldsymbol\theta||_2)$, respectively. Please note that, due to magnitude ambiguity, it is impossible to recover the exact magnitude of $\tilde{w}_k$ from one-bit measurements in the noiseless scenario. Thus for one-bit quantization, both the NMSE and debiased NMSE are used. The debiased NMSE of the signal defined as ${{\rm dNMSE}}({\mathbf Z})\triangleq \underset{\mathbf c}{\operatorname{min}}~10\log ({\|{\mathbf Z}^*-{\rm diag}({\mathbf c})\hat{\mathbf Z}\|_{\rm F}}/{\|{\mathbf Z}^*\|_{\rm F}})$ are calculated. As for the frequency estimation error, we average only the trials in which all those algorithms estimate the correct model order. All the results are averaged over $300$ Monte Carlo (MC) trials unless stated otherwise. The model order is correctly estimated only when both $\hat{K}=K$ and ${\rm NMSE}({\mathbf Z})\leq -10{\rm dB}$ are satisfied. The empirical probability of correct model order estimation ${\rm P}(\hat{K}=K)$ is adopted as a performance metric. The MSE of the frequency estimation is calculated only when the model order is correctly estimated.

NMSE of the line spectral versus the iteration
----------------------------------------------

At first, an experiment is conducted to show that the MVALSE-EP converges and the NMSEs of the line spectral versus the iteration are presented in Fig. \[fig:subfig4\]. The results are averaged over $50$ MC trials. Note that MVALSE-EP converges in a few tens iterations except under $1$ bit quantization. Meanwhile, the NMSE performance of the MVALSE-EP improves as ${\rm SNR}$ increases, especially for higher bit-depth. For $1$ bit quantization, the dNMSE decreases as SNR increases. As the bit-depth increases, the performance of the MVALSE-EP approaches to that of the MVALSE algorithm. The gap between MVALSE and MVALSE-EP ($3$ bit) becomes larger as SNR increases.

Posterior PDF of the MVALSE-EP
------------------------------

The first experiment shows that increasing the number of snapshots reduces the uncertain degrees of frequency estimates. The posterior PDF of the frequencies $q(\theta_i|{\mathbf Y})$ are plotted. The results are averaged over $50$ MC trials and is presented in Fig. \[PDF\]. For each trial, the posterior PDF of the frequency $q(\theta_i|{\mathbf y})$ is approximated as a von Mises distribution ${\mathcal {VM}}(\theta_i,\mu_i,\kappa_i)$, where $\mu_i$ and $\kappa_i$ are the mean and concentration parameters. Since the precision is approximately $\kappa_i$ for the von Mises distribution ${\mathcal {VM}}(\theta_i,\mu_i,\kappa_i)$ when $\kappa_i$ is large @Direc, the arithmetic mean of the mean parameter and the concentration parameter are obtained as the average of the MC trials. It can be seen that the mean of the posterior PDF is close to the true frequency. In addition, as the bit-depth or the snapshots increases, the posterior PDF of the frequencies $q(\theta_i|{\mathbf Y})$ become more peaked, and thus more concentrated, which implies that the uncertain degrees becomes smaller.

Estimation by varying Snapshots
-------------------------------

The performance of the VALSE-EP with varied snapshots is investigated and the results are plotted in Fig. \[ResvsG\]. It can be seen that performances improve as the number of snapshots $L$ increases. As for the LSE estimation, the NMSE decreases slowly and saturates as $L$ increases. In addition, the MSE of the frequency estimation decreases and is close to the CRB.

Estimation by varying $K$
-------------------------

Here the performance of the VALSE-EP is investigated with respect to the number of spectrum $K$, and the results are presented in Fig. \[ResvsK\]. From Fig. \[zMSEvsK\] and Fig. \[thetaMSEvsK\], it can be seen that as the number of spectrum $K$ increases, the NMSE and the MSE of the frequencies increase. In addition, the MSE of the frequencies is close to the CRB. From Fig. \[ProbKvsK\], the correct model order estimation probability decreases as the number of spectrum $K$ increases, especially for the one-bit scenario.

Application: DOA estimation
---------------------------

The last experiment is conducted to show the excellent performance of MVALSE on DOA problems. We assume a uniform linear array with half wavelength $\lambda$ element spacing $d$, i.e., $d=\lambda/2$. The true DOAs are $[-2,5,12]^{\circ}$. We set $N=M=80$, $L=4$. The results are presented in Fig. \[DOA\]. The performance of MVALSE-EP under $3$ bit quantization is close to that of MVALSE, and MVALSE-EP under $1$ bit quantization works well as ${\rm SNR}\geq 0$ dB.

Conclusion {#con}
==========

In this paper, a MVALSE-EP algorithm is proposed to deal with the LSE problem with MMVs from quantized data. The MVALSE-EP utilize the multi snapshot data to improve the frequency estimation and has a low computation complexity. In addition, the MVALSE-EP provides the uncertain degrees of the frequency estimates from quantized samples. Finally, substantial numerical experiments are conducted to show the excellent performance of the MVALSE-EP.

Appendix {#Appendix}
========

Finding the local maximum of $\ln Z(\mathbf s)$ {#findmaxz}
-----------------------------------------------

A greedy iterative search strategy similar to @Badiu is adopted to find a local maximum of $\ln Z(\mathbf s)$. In the $p$th iteration, the $k$th test sequence $\mathbf t_k$ which flips the $k$th element of $\mathbf s^{(p)}$ is obtained. Then $\Delta^{(p)}_k=\ln Z(\mathbf t_k)-\ln Z({\mathbf s}^{p})$ is calculated for each $k=1,\cdots,N$. If $\Delta^{(p)}_k<0$ holds for all $k$, the algorithm is terminated and $\widehat{\mathbf s}$ is set as ${\mathbf s}^{(p)}$, otherwise $t_k$ corresponding to the maximum $\Delta^{(p)}_k$ is chosen as $\mathbf s^{(p+1)}$ in the next iteration.

When $k\not\in{\mathcal S}$, that is, $s_k=0$, we activate the $k$th component of $\mathbf s$ by setting $s_k^{'}=1$. Now, ${\mathcal S}'=\mathcal S\cup\{k\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\notag\label{delta_z1}
\Delta_k &= \ln Z(\mathbf s')-\ln Z(\mathbf s)\notag\\
&=\sum\limits_{l=1}^L \left(\ln\det(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S|})-\ln\det(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|})\right)\notag\\
&+\ln\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}+\sum\limits_{l=1}^L \left(\ln\frac{1}{\tau}+\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S'},l}^{\rm H}(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|})^{-1}\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S'},l}- \mathbf h_{{\mathcal S},l}^{\rm H}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}\right)\notag\\
&\triangleq\sum\limits_{l=1}^L \Delta_{k,l}+\ln\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\mathbf j}_{k,l}$ be ${\mathbf j}_{k,l} =[J_{ik,l}|i\in {\mathcal S}]^{\rm T}$. By using the block-matrix determinant formula, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{det_J}
\ln(\det(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|}))=\ln{\det({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S|})}+ {\rm ln}{\left({\rm tr}(\boldsymbol\Sigma_l^{-1})+\frac{1}{\tau}-{\mathbf j}_{k,l}^{\rm H}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ By the block-wise matrix inversion formula, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inv_J}
&{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S'},l}^{\rm H}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S'},l}
={\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}^{\rm H}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}\notag\\
+&\frac{q_l^*q_l}{{\rm tr}(\boldsymbol\Sigma_l^{-1})
+\frac{1}{\tau}-{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{k,l}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}},\end{aligned}$$ where $ q_l = h_{k,l}-{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{k,l}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}$. Plugging (\[det\_J\]) and (\[inv\_J\]) in (\[delta\_z1\]), and let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v-k-u-k}
&v_{k,l} = \left({\rm tr}(\boldsymbol\Sigma_l^{-1})+\frac{1}{\tau}-{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{k,l}(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\right)^{-1}~{\rm and}~\notag\\
&u_{k,l} = v_{k,l}\left(h_{k,l}-{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{k,l}({\mathbf J}_{{\mathcal S},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}{\mathbf I}_{|\mathcal S|})^{-1}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S},l}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta_{k,l}$ can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{delta-k-active}
\Delta_{k,l} = \ln\frac{v_{k,l}}{\tau} + \frac{|u_{k,l}|^2}{v_{k,l}}.\end{aligned}$$ Given that $\mathbf s$ is changed into ${\mathbf s}'$, the mean $\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ and covariance ${\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ of the weights can be updated from (\[W-C-1\]), i.e.,

$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cov_update}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l} &= (\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|})^{-1},\\
\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l} &= \widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S'},l}.\end{aligned}$$

In fact, the matrix inversion can be avoided when updating $\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ and ${\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$. It can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cov_up_act}
&{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}=\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}'_{{\mathcal S'\backslash k},l}} & {\widehat{\mathbf c}}'_{k,l} \\
{\widehat{\mathbf c}'^{\rm H}_{k,l}} & \widehat{C}'_{kk,l}
\end{pmatrix}=
(\mathbf J_{{\mathcal S'},l}+\frac{1}{\tau}\mathbf I_{|\mathcal S'|})^{-1} \notag\\
=&\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l} & \mathbf 0 \\
\mathbf 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}+v_{k,l}\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l} \\
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_k\\
-1
\end{pmatrix}^{\rm H},\notag\\
=&\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}+v_{k,l} {\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}({\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l})^{\rm H} & -v_{k,l} {\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\\
-v_{k,l} ({\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l})^{\rm H} & v_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ ${\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ is obtained if ${\widehat{\mathbf c}}'_{k,l}$, $\widehat{\mathbf c}'^{\rm H}_{k,l}$ and $\widehat{C}'_{kk,l}$ are inserted appropriately in ${\widehat{\mathbf C}'_{\mathcal S'\backslash k,l}}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mean_up_act}
&\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}=\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'\backslash k},l}}\\
\widehat{w}'_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}=
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S'},l}\mathbf h_{{\mathbf S}',l}\notag\\
=&\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S},l}+v_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf j_{k,l}\mathbf j^{\rm H}_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S},l}-v_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf j_{k,l} h_{k,l}\\
-v_{k,l}\mathbf j^{\rm H}_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf h_{\mathcal S} + v_{k,l}h_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}\notag\\
=&\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}\mathbf h_{{\mathcal S},l}-u_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\\
u_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[mean\_up\_act\]) and (\[cov\_up\_act\]), one can see that after activating the $k$th component, the posterior mean and variance of ${w}_{k,l}p$ are ${u}_{k,l}$ and $v_{k,l}$, respectively. For the deactive case with ${s}_k=1$, ${s}'_k = 0$ and ${\mathcal S}'=\mathcal S\backslash\{k\}$, $\Delta_k = \ln Z(\mathbf s')-\ln Z(\mathbf s)$ is the negative of (\[delta-k-active\]), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{delta-k-deactive}
\Delta_k =-\sum\limits_{l=1}^L\left(\ln\frac{v_{k,l}}{\tau} + \frac{|{u}_{k,l}|^2}{v_{k,l}}\right)-\ln\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}.\end{aligned}$$ Similar to (\[cov\_up\_act\]), the posterior mean and covariance update equation from ${\mathcal S}'$ to ${\mathcal S}$ case can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C_deactive}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}'_{{\mathcal S'},l} & \mathbf 0 \\
\mathbf 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}+v_{k,l}\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l} \\
-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\\
-1
\end{pmatrix}^{\rm H}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}} & {\widehat{\mathbf c}}_{k,l} \\
{\widehat{\mathbf c}^{\rm H}_{k,l}} & \widehat{C}_{kk,l}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W_deactive}
\begin{pmatrix}
\widehat{\mathbf w}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}-u_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\\
u_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf h}_{{\mathcal S'},l}-u_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}\\
u_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}}\\
\widehat{w}_{k,l}
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{\mathbf c}_{k,0,l}$ denotes the column of ${\widehat{\mathbf C}}_{{\mathcal S,0},l}$ corresponding to the $k$th component. According to (\[C\_deactive\]) and (\[W\_deactive\]), one has

\[C\_de\_appro\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}+{v_{kl}}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{kl}{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{kl}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}&={\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}},\label{C_de_approa}\\
-v_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}&= {\widehat{\mathbf c}}_{k,l}\label{C_de_approb}\\
v_{k,l} &= \widehat{C}_{kk,l},\label{C_de_approc}\\
{\widehat{\mathbf w}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l} - {u}_{kl}\widehat{\mathbf C}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}&={\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}},\label{C_de_approd}\\
{u}_{kl}&={\widehat{w}_{kl}}.\label{C_de_approe}\end{aligned}$$

Thus, ${\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ can be updated by substituting (\[C\_de\_approb\]) and (\[C\_de\_approc\]) in (\[C\_de\_approa\]), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cov_up_deact}
{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l} = {\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}} - v_{kl}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}{\mathbf j}^{\rm H}_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf C}'}_{\mathcal S'} = {\widehat{\mathbf C}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}} - \frac{{\widehat{\mathbf c}}_{k,l}{\widehat{\mathbf c}}^{\rm H}_{k,l}}{\widehat{C}_{kk,l}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, ${\widehat{\mathbf w}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l}$ can be updated by substituting (\[C\_de\_approb\]) and (\[C\_de\_approe\]) in (\[C\_de\_approd\]), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mean_up_deact}
{\widehat{\mathbf w}'}_{{\mathcal S'},l} = {u}_k\widehat{\mathbf C}'_{{\mathcal S'},l}{\mathbf j}_{k,l}+ {\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}} = {\widehat{\mathbf w}_{{\mathcal S\backslash k},l}} -  \frac{\widehat{w}_{k,l}}{{\widehat{C}}_{kk,l}}{\widehat{\mathbf c}}_{k,l}.\end{aligned}$$ According to $v_{k,l} = \widehat{C}_{kk,l}$ (\[C\_de\_approc\]) and $u_{k,l} = {\widehat{w}_{k,l}}$ (\[C\_de\_approe\]), $\Delta_{k,l}$ (\[delta-k-deactive\]) can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{delta-k-deactivesim}
\Delta_{k,l} =-\ln\frac{{\widehat{C}}_{kk,l}}{\tau} - \frac{|{w}_{k,l}|^2}{{\widehat{C}}_{kk,l}}.\end{aligned}$$

P. Gerstoft, C. F. Mecklenbräuker, A. Xenaki, and S. Nannuru, "Multisnapshot sparse Bayesian learning for DOA," *IEEE Signal Process. Lett.*, vol 23, no. 10, pp. 1469-1473, 2016. B. Mamandipoor, D. Ramasamy and U. Madhow, "Newtonized orthogonal matching pursuit: Frequency estimation over the continuum," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 64, no. 19, pp. 5066-5081, 2016. J. Zhu, L. Han, R. S. Blum and Z. Xu, "Newtonized orthogonal matching pursuit for line spectrum estimation with multiple measurement vectors," arXiv preprint, arXiv:1802.01266, 2018. J. Fang, F. Wang, Y. Shen, H. Li and R. S. Blum, "Superresolution compressed sensing for line spectral estimation:an iterative reweighted approach," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 64, no. 18, pp. 4649-4662, 2016. Z. Yang and L. Xie, "Continuous compressed sensing with a single or multiple measurement vectors," *IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal Processing*, pp. 288-291, 2014. Y. Li and Y. Chi, "Off-the-grid line spectrum denoising and estimation with multiple measurement vectors," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1257-1269, 2016. Z. Yang, L. Xie and C. Zhang, "A discretization-free sparse and parametric approach for linear array signal processing," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 62, no. 19, pp. 4959-4973, 2014. Z. Yang and L. Xie, "Enhancing sparsity and resolution via reweighted atomic norm minimization," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 995-1006, Feb. 2016. Z. Yang Z, J. Li, P. Stoica P and Xie L, "Sparse methods for direction-of-arrival estimation," *Academic Press Library in Signal Processing*, vol. 7, pp. 509-581, 2018. Z. Yang, J. Tang, Y. C. Eldar, and L. Xie, "On the sample complexity of multichannel frequency estimation via convex optimization," *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, 2019. H. Krim and M. Viberg, "Two decades of array signal processing research: The parametric approach," *IEEE Signal Process. Mag.*, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 67-94, 1996. W. Heylen and P. Sas, Modal analysis theory and testing. Katholieke Universteit Leuven, 2006. Y. Barbotin, A. Hormati, S. Rangan, and M. Vetterli, "Estimation of sparse MIMO channels with common support," *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 3705-3716, 2012. J. Yang, A. Bouzerdoum, F. H. C. Tivive and M. G. Amin, "Multiple-measurement vector model and its application to through-the-wall radar imaging," *IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing*, Prague, pp. 2672-2675, 2011. J. Singh, O. Dabeer and U. Madhow, "On the limits of communication with low-precision analog-to-digital conversion at the receiver," *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 3629-3639, 2009. F. Franceschetti, V. Pascazio and G. Schirinzi, "Processing of signum coded SAR signal: theory and experiments," *IEE Proceedings F - Radar and Signal Processing* , vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 192-198, 1991. Z. Liu, C. Li and Z. Zhang, "One-bit recursive least-squares algorithm with application to target localization," *IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.*, Early Access, pp. 1-16, 2018. J. Fang, and H. Li, "Adaptive distributed estimation of signal power from one-bit quantized data," *IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.*, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1893-1905, 2010. O. B. Shalom and A. J. Weiss, "DOA estimation using one-bit quantized measurements," *IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.*, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 868-884, Jul. 2002.p B. Jin, J. Zju, Q. Wu, Y. Zhang and Z. Xu, "One-bit LFMCW radar: spectrum analysis and target detection," *arXiv*, Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09440.pdf.

M. A. Badiu, T. L. Hansen and B. H. Fleury, "Variational Bayesian inference of line spectral estimation," *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 2247-2261, 2017. J. Zhu, Q. Zhang, P. Gerstoft, M. A. Badiu and Z. Xu, "Variational Bayesian line spectral estimation with multiple measurement vectors," *Signal Processing*, vol. 61, pp. 155-164, 2019. J. Zhu, Q. Zhang and X. Meng, "Grid-less variational Bayesian inference of line spectral estimation from quantized samples," arXiv preprint, arXiv:1811.05680. T. Minka, "A family of algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference," Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. X. Meng, S. Wu and J. Zhu, "A unified Bayesian inference framework for generalized linear models," *IEEE Signal Process. Lett.*, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 398-402, 2018. K. V. Mardia and P. E. Jupp, *Directional Statistics*. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 2000. K. P. Murphy, *Machine Learning A Probabilistic Perspective*. MIT Press, 2012. Bertsekas, D. P. and Tsitsiklis : *Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods*, Athenan Scientific: Massachusetts, 1997. H. Fu and Y. Chi, "Quantized spectral compressed sensing: Cramér-Rao bounds and recovery algorithms," *IEEE Trans. on Signal Process.*, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 3268-3279, 2018. K.-C. Toh, M. J. Todd, and R. H. Tütüncü, "SDPT3-a MATLAB software package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3," *Optimiz. Methods Softw.*, vol. 11, no. 1-4, pp. 545-p581, 1999.

[^1]: Jiang Zhu, Qi Zhang and Zhiwei Xu are with the Key Laboratory of Ocean Observation-imaging Testbed of Zhejiang Province, Ocean College, Zhejiang University, No.1 Zheda Road, Zhoushan, 316021, China. Benzhou Jin is with the College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, China.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1906'}