BeBeC-2018-S 01 ARRAY METHODS : WHICH ONE IS THE BEST ?

When it comes to process measured array data, the question which processing method to choose arises. With the large number of methods available, it is impossible to clearly decide which method is the best, because all seem to have their advantages and disadvantages. Many different criteria, such as precision of results and speed of computation, can be of interest. The contribution discusses some of these criteria and makes an attempt to define them in a way that they can be estimated from computed results of given test cases. It is also shown that a decision for one method should not be based on the result of one single test case only. Considering this, a Monte-Carlo-method is introduced to compare different methods on the basis of a large number of test cases (N = 12600). The choice of the test cases is explained and results for multiple criteria and different methods are discussed.

[1]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Least angle regression , 2004, math/0406456.

[2]  Thomas F. Brooks,et al.  A Deconvolution Approach for the Mapping of Acoustic Sources (DAMAS) Determined from Phased Microphone Arrays , 2004 .

[3]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  On the “degrees of freedom” of the lasso , 2007, 0712.0881.

[4]  Aiaa Paper,et al.  CLEAN based on spatial source coherence , 2007 .

[5]  K. Ehrenfried,et al.  Comparison of Iterative Deconvolution Algorithms for the Mapping of Acoustic Sources , 2007 .

[6]  Takao Suzuki.  Generalized Inverse Beam-forming Algorithm Resolving Coherent/Incoherent, Distributed and Multipole Sources , 2008 .

[7]  Ennes Sarradj,et al.  AEROACOUSTIC SOURCE CHARACTERISATION USING SUBSPACE AND DECONVOLUTION TECHNIQUES , 2009 .

[8]  Ennes Sarradj,et al.  A fast signal subspace approach for the determination of absolute levels from phased microphone array measurements , 2010 .

[9]  Nikolas S. Zawodny,et al.  Comparison of Microphone Array Processing Techniques for Aeroacoustic Measurements , 2010 .

[10]  Robert P. Dougherty,et al.  Deconvolution of Sources in Aeroacoustic Images from Phased Microphone Arrays Using Linear Programming , 2013 .

[11]  Gert Herold,et al.  PRELIMINARY BENCHMARKING OF MICROPHONE ARRAY METHODS , 2014 .

[12]  Zhigang Chu,et al.  Comparison of deconvolution methods for the visualization of acoustic sources based on cross-spectral imaging function beamforming , 2014 .

[13]  Christophe Picard,et al.  A UNIFIED FORMALISM FOR ACOUSTIC IMAGING TECHNIQUES: ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE FRAME OF A DIDACTIC NUMERICAL BENCHMARK , 2016 .

[14]  Gert Herold,et al.  A Python framework for microphone array data processing , 2017 .

[15]  Danielle J. Moreau,et al.  A Comparison of Microphone Phased Array Methods Applied to the Study of Airframe Noise in Wind Tunnel Testing , 2017 .

[16]  Gert Herold,et al.  A Microphone Array Method Benchmarking Exercise using Synthesized Input Data , 2017 .

[17]  Gert Herold,et al.  Performance analysis of microphone array methods , 2017 .