See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311909897

Target Localization in Multistatic Passive Radar

Using SVD Approach for Eliminating the
Nuisance Parameters

Article in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · September 2017

DOI: 10.1109/TAES.2017.2669558

CITATIONS READS

3 95

2 authors:

Ali Noroozi Mohammad Ali Sebt

Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NLFM Waveform Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Noroozi on 07 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Target Localization in
Multistatic Passive Radar Using
SVD Approach for Eliminating
the Nuisance Parameters
ALI NOROOZI
MOHAMMAD ALI SEBT
K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
In this paper, a weighted least squares (WLS) method is presented
to find the location of a single target by the use of bistatic range (BR)
measurements in multistatic passive radar. The proposed method is
based on the idea of eliminating the nuisance parameter. Then, the
method employs several WLS minimizations to obtain the target loca-
tion estimate. The weighting matrix producing a significant improve-
ment in the performance of the method is derived in two different
conditions—one of them results in the maximum likelihood estimator
(MLE) and the other one leads to the best linear unbiased estimator
(BLUE). The accuracy properties of the method are analyzed, and the
Cramer-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for target localization accuracy is
also derived. In addition, in a two-dimensional space and in the case of
localizing with one transmitter and the minimal number of receivers,
the different placements of receivers are analytically determined, in
each of which the location solution is not unique. Furthermore, from
different aspects, the BR-based localization is compared to the hyper-
bolic localization derived from range difference (RD) measurements.
Manuscript received July 4, 2015; revised August 9, 2016; released for
publication December 20, 2016. Date of publication February 15, 2017;
date of current version August 7, 2017.
DOI. No. 10.1109/TAES.2017.2669558
Refereeing of this contribution was handled by F. Govaers.
Authors’ addresses: The authors are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4416,
Iran, E-mail: (ali_noroozi@ee.kntu.ac.ir, sebt@kntu.ac.ir).
0018-9251/16 
C 2017 IEEE
1660 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
I. INTRODUCTION
Multistatic passive radar (MPR) systems, which use ex-
isting transmitters as illuminators of opportunity like radio
or television transmitters, have received considerable recent
attention. Compared to conventional active radar systems,
MPR systems have diverse advantages such as low cost,
covertness, smaller size, immunity to electronic counter-
measures (ECMs), the potential ability of detecting stealth
targets, and no need for frequency allocations.
In MPR systems, generally, there exist multiple trans-
mitters and receivers located at different spatial coordinates.
Each of the receivers collects the signals reflected by a tar-
get. According to type of collecting information, a variety
of localization techniques have been proposed for passive
radar systems. The received signal strength (RSS) [1], [2],
angle/direction of arrival (AOA or DOA) [3]–[5], and time
difference of arrival (TDOA) are applied in passive radar
systems. The performance of TDOA technique in terms of
accuracy and simplicity can be, for the most part, better
than that of the others.
In passive radar systems, the relative delay can be mea-
sured by comparing the reference signal with the reflected
target echo. The delay can then be converted to the bistatic
range (BR), which is the sum of transmitter–target and
target–receiver ranges. These BRs form a set of elliptic
equations through which the target position is obtained.
The target localization problem in MPR can be related
to either hyperbolic or elliptic positioning. In hyperbolic
positioning, the range difference (RD) between the target
and the two transmit or receive sensors is measured. The
RDs form a set of hyperbolic equations whereby the posi-
tion of the target is determined. Hyperbolic positioning has
been widely used in the source localization problem and
to date various closed-form solutions have been proposed
for this case [6]–[17]. In contrast, the elliptic positioning is
based on the BR values. Note that the locus of constant BR
is an ellipsoid with foci located at the positions of trans-
mit and receive sensors. In [18] and [19], the accuracy of
BR-based method is shown to be better than the RD-based
method.
The problem of the target localization using the BR
measurements in the presence of multiple transmitters and
receivers has drawn considerable attention in the last few
years. In [20], two closed-form solutions utilizing least-
square technique, namely spherical-interpolation (SI) and
spherical-intersection (SX), are proposed in MPR with only
one receiver. It is also shown that the SX method outper-
forms the SI method. In [21], another least squares solution
is presented in which only a small number of the BR equa-
tions are used and then these equations are changed to the
RD ones. The target location is then estimated by the use of
these RD equations. A closed-form two-step weighted least
squares (WLS) method is developed in [22] to obtain the
target position. The method can approximate the maximum
likelihood estimator (MLE) under the conditions that the
noise is small and the same in all the measurements. Nev-
ertheless, these conditions may never satisfy, especially the
second one. Recently, in [23] and [24], another closed-form first formulate the problem for the ith transmitter and then
WLS method for target location estimation is presented in extend it to multiple transmitters.
two different conditions—when the measurement noise is The Euclidean distance between the target and the ith
small, which leads to the MLE, and when it is not, which transmitter is
results in the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) [25].  
In [23] and [24], it is also shown that the proposed method RtT xi = xT xi − xt 

outperforms the other methods presented in the previous  2  2  2
work. = xT xi − xt + yT xi − yt + zT xi − zt .
This study addresses the problem of target location esti- (1)
mation with several transmitters and receivers and presents
a closed-form WLS solution for this problem. Note that The Euclidean distance between the target and the jth
there exist some nuisance parameters in the problem for- receiver is
mulation and the minimum number of them is equal to  
the minimum number of transmitters and receivers. We RtRxj = xRxj − xt 

first eliminate the nuisance parameters by premultiplying  2  2  2
the problem formulation by a matrix obtained through the = xRxj − xt + yRxj − yt + zRxj − zt .
singular value decomposition (SVD) approach. Then, the (2)
method uses a weighting matrix to improve its performance
in two different conditions: first, when the measurement The Euclidean distances from the ith transmitter and the
noise is small and we are able to approximate the derived jth receiver to the origin can be computed, respectively, as
error equation and second, when the noise in BR measure-   
ment is relatively high. In the case that the noise in measured RT xi = xT xi  = xT2 xi + yT2 xi + zT2 xi (3)
BRs is small, the solution leads to the MLE. On the other    2
hand, when the noise is large, the solution results in the RRxj = xRxj  = xRx j
+ yRx
2
j
+ zRx
2
j
. (4)
BLUE [25].
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section II The TDOA measurements multiplied by the propaga-
formulates the problem based on BR measurements de- tion velocity of an electromagnetic wave is the difference
rived from N receivers and M transmitters. Furthermore, of ranges between the direct and indirect paths. The BR
the following section introduces a weighting matrix in two is defined as the sum of the transmitter–target range and
different cases to further improve the performance of the target–receiver range the same as [20]. According to this
estimator. In Section III, the error analysis is derived and definition, The BR for the pair of ith transmitter and the jth
the bias of the target location estimation and its Cramer- receiver is given by
Rao lower bound (CRLB) are also presented. Section IV
discusses the placements, which can cause ambiguity. In RbT xi Rxj = RtT xi + RtRxj

Section V, the BR method is compared with the RD method  2  2  2
in MPR systems. Section VI is devoted to the simulation = xT xi − xt + yT xi − yt + zT xi − zt

results and the selection of the most appropriate placement.  2  2  2
Finally, Section VII concludes the study. + xRxj −xt + yRxj −yt + zRxj −zt .
In this paper, bold upper- and lowercase letters are used (5)
to represent matrix and column vector, respectively. Â(or
â) is the measured or estimated value of the matrix A (or By rearranging (5), we have
a). The error term in the Â(or â) is denoted by A(or a). 
 2  2  2
Ik and Ok denote an identity matrix and a zero matrix of RbT xi Rxj − xT xi − xt + yT xi − yt + zT xi − zt
size k×k. The symbol  stands for the Hadamard product. 
 2  2  2
= xRxj − xt + yRxj − yt + zRxj − zt .
II. LOCALIZATION METHOD (6)

Consider a three-dimensional (3-D) scenario in which By squaring both sides of (6) and applying (2), (3), and
there exist M transmitters and N receivers. The ith transmit- (4), it can be obtained
ter is located at known position xT xi = [ xT xi yT xi zT xi ]T
for i = 1 , ... , M. The transmitters send out waveforms  T 1 2 
xRxj − xT xi xt = RRxj − RbT 2
xi Rxj − RT xi
2
and then they are reflected by an object at unknown posi- 2
tion xt = [ xt yt zt ]T , called here the target. Later, each of + RbT xi Rxj RtT xi . (7)
the receivers at known positions xRxj = [ xRxj yRxj zRxj ]T ,
j = 1 , ... , N, collects the direct signals from the transmit- For the set of N receivers, (7) can be cast into matrix
ters and the reflected signals from the target. The aim of this form as
paper is to find the position of the target by making use of
the collected information. In the discussion that follows, we Si xt = zi + ri RtT xi (8)

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1661
where Due to measurement errors and noise in the BRs, the
⎡ ⎤ noise-free measurements (i.e., RbT xi Rxj ) in A and b are not
xTRx1− xTT xi
⎢ .. ⎥ available, but there exist the noisy values of them, Â and b̂.
Si = ⎣ . ⎦ (9)
By substituting these two values into (17), the error vector,
xTRxN − xTT xi N×3 which is the difference between the right-hand and left-hand
⎡ 2 ⎤
RRx1 − RbT 2
xi Rx1 − RT xi
2 sides of this equation, is expressed as
1⎢ .. ⎥
zi = ⎣ . ⎦ (10) ε = Âxt − b̂. (20)
2
RRxN − RbT xi RxN − RT xi N×1
2 2 2
The WLS solution of (20), which minimizes the cost
⎡ ⎤
RbT xi Rx1 function c(xt ) = εT Wε with respect to the target position
⎢ .. ⎥ xt , is [25]
ri = ⎣ . ⎦ . (11)
 −1
RbT xi RxN N×1 x̂t = ÂT WÂ ÂT Wb̂ (21)
In (8), the target position xt and the range between the
where W is a symmetric positive definite matrix of dimen-
target and the ith transmitter are unknowns. The aforemen-
sion (MN) × (MN), which is used to improve the perfor-
tioned equation represents a linear system for the unknowns
mance of the estimation. A suitable choice of the matrix
xt and RtT xi . Now the nuisance parameter RtT xi can be re-
can significantly improve the performance of the estimator.
moved by premultiplying (8) by the matrix Mi of dimension
The inverse of the error covariance matrix is an appropriate
(N − 1) × N, of which the vector ri is in the null space,
choice since it minimizes the parameter variance of x̂t [26].
given by [6]
In the discussion that follows, it will be shown that this
Mi = VT Di (12) choice leads to either the MLE when the noise measure-
where ments is low or the BLUE when it is not.

Di = (diag (ri ))−1 (13) A. Low-Noise Measurements

and the matrix V is obtained from the SVD of the matrix Let r̂ be all the BR measurements. These measurements
I − Z, which is given by can be represented as
  
   z 0 VT r̂ = r + n (22)
(I − Z) = U u = U z VT (14)
0T 0 vT
⎡ ⎤ where r = [ rT1 . . . rTM ]T denotes all the noise-free BR
0 1 ... 0 measurements, n = [ nT1 . . . nTM ]T is the noise vector and
⎢ .. .. . . .. ⎥ ni = [ nT xi Rx1 . . . nT xi RxN ]T denotes the noise present in
⎢ ⎥
Z=⎢. . . .⎥ = circular shift matrix
⎣0 0 ... 1⎦ the measurements of the ith transmitter. It is assumed that
1 0 . . . 0 N×N the measured BRs are corrupted by additive mutually un-
correlated zero mean white Gaussian noise with covariance
(15)
matrix
where U and V are orthogonal matrices of length N ×  T 
 
(N − 1) corresponding to nonzero singular values of Cn = E nnT = diag σ21 T σ22 T . . . σ2M T (23)
(I − Z), u and v are vectors spanning the null space of
(I − Z) and (I − Z)T , respectively, and corresponding to where σ2i = [ σ2i,1 σ2i,2 . . . σ2i,N ]T for i = 1, . . . , M.
zero singular value of (I − Z), and  z is a diagonal ma- Substituting (22) into (20) and using the first-order Taylor
trix with N − 1 nonzero singular values of (I − Z). Since series expansion of 1/(RbT xi Rxj + nT xi Rxj ) about RbT xi Rxj
(I − Z)Di ri = 0, we can conclude that VT Di ri is zero as for i = 1 , ... , M and j = 1 , ... , N, yields
well. After premultiplying (8) by the matrix Mi , it follows  T
that ε = εT1 . . . εTM
Mi Si xt = Mi zi . (16) εi = − VT D2i Ni (Si xt − zi ) + VT ni
1
Now, we generalize the problem to M transmitters. Af- − VT Di (IM + Di Ni ) (ni  ni )
ter performing the aforementioned procedure for each of 2
  1
the transmitters and then stacking all the resulting equa- = VT IM −Di RtT xi ni − VT Di (IM + DiNi ) (ni  ni )
tions into matrix form, the problem can be represented as 2
(24)
Axt = b (17)
where
where
 T Ni = diag (ni ) . (25)
A = (M1 S1 )T . . . (MM SM )T (18)
 T When the noise measurements are small, we can neglect
b = (M1 z1 )T . . . (MM zM )T . (19) any terms, which contain products of noise. Under this

1662 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
circumstance, εi can be reduced to
     
εi ≈ VT IN − Di RtT xi ni . (26) E ni ηTi Ni = E Ni ηi nTi
3  T  3
Therefore, the error vector becomes a Gaussian random
= diag σ4i,1 σ4i,2 . . . σ4i,N = C2ni
vector with the covariance matrix given by 2 2
⎡ ⎤ (33)
Cε1 . . . Cε1,M  
⎢ .. ⎥   15  T
Cε = ⎣ ... . . . . ⎦ E Ni ηi ηTi Ni = diag σ6i,1 σ6i,2 . . . σ6i,N
4
CεM,1 . . . CεM 15 3
      = C . (34)
Cεi = E εi εTi ≈ VT IN −Di RtT xi Cni IN − Di RtT xi V 4 ni
 
Cεi,j = E εi εTj = ON−1 , i = j. (27) Using the properties of the moments of the Gaussian
distribution noted earlier, applying (31) to (34), and de-
The solution of the WLS estimation under this condi- noting E{ηi ηTi } and E{ηi ηTj } as Cηi and Cηi,j , the error
tion is similar to the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, covariance matrix is simplified to
given by ⎡ ⎤
 −1 Cε1 . . . Cε1,M
x̂t = ÂT C−1
ε Â ÂT C−1
ε b̂. (28) ⎢
Cε = ⎣ ... . . . .. ⎥
. ⎦
According to (21) and (28), it follows that the weighting CεM,1 . . . CεM
matrix, as mentioned before, is    
Cεi = VT IN − Di RtT xi Cni IN − Di RtT xi V
W = C−1
ε . (29) 15
+ VT Di Cηi Di V + VT D2i C3ni D2i V
 4
B. High-Noise Measurements
− 3VT IN − Di RtT xi C2ni D2i V
On the other hand, if the noise term in range measure-
1
ments is large, the second term in (24) can be considerable Cεi,j = VT Di Cηi,j Dj V. (35)
and cannot be neglected. In this case, it is far from easy to 4
determine the distribution of error vector. Thus, we are un- Finally, it should be mentioned that the weighting matrix
able to determine the optimal solution and it is consequently requires the knowledge of the values of the range RtT xi .
reasonable to apply a suboptimal estimator. The BLUE is Thus, we can first use (21) with W = IMN to obtain an
a common approach employed under this case and can be initial solution for calculating RtT xi and then derive the
derived from using only the first and second moments of final answer from (21) with W = C−1 ε .
the probability density function (PDF) [25]. Note that this
estimator is more suitable for practical applications because III. ERROR ANALYSIS
it does not require all the information about the PDF. The A. Covariance and Bias of Parameters
BLUE of the target position xt is the same as (28), which
the exact value of the error covariance matrix using (24) is This section discusses the effect of noise on the perfor-
given by mance of the algorithm. As noted in the previous section,
    it is assumed that the BR observations are corrupted with
Cεi = VT IN − Di RtT xi Cni IN − Di RtT xi V additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). In addition, it was
   
+ VT Di E ηi ηTi Di V + VT D2i E Ni ηi ηTi Ni D2i V expressed in (22) that the noise term in the measured BRs
    are of normal distribution with zero mean and covariance
− VT IN − Di RtT xi E ni ηTi Ni D2i V
   matrix given by (23).
− VT D2i E Ni ηi nTi IN − Di RtT xi V First, we write the error covariance matrix expression
1    
Cεi,j = VT Di E ηi ηTj Dj V (30) Cov (x̂t ) = E xt xTt . (36)
4
where ηi = 12 ni  ni . In (30), we use the fact that the To derive the covariance matrix, it is necessary to com-
odd moments of a normal random variable with zero pute the additive noise term xt . Because of the noise, we
mean are zero, so that E{ni ηTi }, E{ηi nTi }, E{Ni ηi ηTi }, and have b̂ = b + b, Â = A + A, and x̂t = xt + xt . By
E{ηi ηTi Ni } are zero, which are contained the sum of odd substituting these values into (21), it follows that
moments. In addition, we get  T 
A + AT W (A + A) (xt + xt )
⎧  
⎪ 3
⎪ σ4i,k , k = l = AT + AT W (b + b) . (37)
   ⎨
4
E ηi ηTi kl = (31) By subtracting the actual values from the noisy ones,
⎪
⎪ 1
⎩ σi,k σi,l , k = l
2 2
performing some simple manipulation, and using (20), we
4
   find that
1 2 2
E ηi ηj kl = σi,k σj,l
T
(32)  −1
4 xt = − AT WA AT W ε. (38)

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1663
 Putting (38) into (36) and carrying out some multipli- If we assemble ∂RbT xi Rxj /∂xt for j = 1, . . . , N into a
cations, we get the covariance matrix of x̂ given by vector, ∂ri /∂xt can be expressed as
 −1  −1 ⎡ T  T ⎤
Cov (x̂t ) = AT WA AT W Cε WA AT WA (39) xt − xT xi xt − xRx1
⎢  + 
xt − xRx  ⎥

⎢ xt − xT xi  ⎥
where Cε is given by (29). If the inverse of the error covari- ⎢ 1 ⎥
ance matrix C−1 ∂ri ⎢ . ⎥
ε is applied as the weighting matrix, then =⎢ ⎢
.. ⎥ , i = 1, . . . , M.
⎥
(39) reduces to ∂xt ⎢ T  T ⎥
 −1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ xt − xT xi xt − xRxN ⎦
Cov (x̂t ) = AT C−1 ε A . (40)   +  
xt − xT x  xt − xRx 
i N
Furthermore, from (38), the bias of the estimator is (49)
 −1 Finally, the CRLB is obtained by putting the computed
biasxt = E {xt } = − AT WA AT W E {ε} (41)
derivative ∂r/∂xt into (45).
where the error vector is given by (24). To derive the bias, it
is necessary to obtain the expected value of the error vector IV. AMBIGUITY IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACE
In a two-dimensional space and in the case of a min-
E {εi } = −VT Di ηi . (42)
imal number of receivers with only one transmitter, there
B. Cramer-Rao Lower Bound exist three receivers in the environment (more details are
included in [6] and [20]). Under these conditions, this sec-
Since the target position bias is small, it can be ignored tion wants to determine the receiver placement in which we
in comparison with the target position covariance values. are not able to find the target position uniquely. Note that
Under this condition, the problem is an unbiased estimation in the problem considered here there are three scalar linear
of the target position problem whose performance can be equations as (7) to find the target position. According to
compared to the CRLB. The CRLB is able to determine these equations, the ambiguity occurs in two cases. First,
a lower bound on the variance of any unbiased estimator. when one of the equations is the scale of the other one and
The CRLB is obtained by taking the inverse of the Fisher second, when the linear combination of two equations is
information matrix, given by the scale of the third one. It is assumed that, without loss of
   
∂ ln p (r̂ ; xt ) T ∂ ln p (r̂ ; xt ) generality, the transmitter is placed at the origin. Hence, the
I (xt ) = E (43) general form of linear equation in two-dimensional spaces
∂xt ∂xt
given by (7) can be expressed as
where p(r̂ ; xt ) denotes the PDF of r̂ parameterized by the xRxj xt + yRxj yt
1 2 
unknown parameter xt . In the case of Gaussian observa-
tions, with mean vector μr and covariance matrix Cr , the = xRxj + yRx2
− R 2
bT x Rx
Fisher information matrix becomes 2 j 1 j

     2  + RbT x1 Rxj RtT x1 , j = 1, 2, 3 (50)

∂ μr T −1 ∂ μr 1 ∂C
C−1
r
I (xt ) = Cr + tr r . where xt , yt and RtT x1 are unknown parameters.
∂xt ∂xt 2 ∂xt
(44) A. First Case
By doing some mathematical manipulation it is easy
As noted earlier, the transmitter is located at the origin
to show that the second term in (44) is zero. Therefore,
and it is assumed that the equation corresponding to the first
the CRLB for the problem under consideration using (22)
receiver xRx1 is the scale of the second one xRx2 . It follows
simplifies to
from (50) for j = 1, 2 that
   −1
∂r T −1 ∂r 1 2 
−1
CRLB (xt ) = I (xt ) = Cn (45) I1 = xRx1 xt + yRx1 yt = xRx1 + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx1
∂xt ∂xt 2 1

+ RbT x1 Rx1 RtT x1

where Cn is given by (23). To obtain ∂r/∂xt , we have
1 2 
    T I2 = xRx2 xt + yRx2 yt = xRx2 + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx2
∂r ∂r1 T ∂rM T 2 2

= ... . (46) + RbT x1 Rx2 RtT x1 (51)

∂xt ∂xt ∂xt
Now, it suffices to obtain ∂ri /∂xt for i = 1, . . . , M. It and
⎧
follows from (1), (2), and (5) that ⎨ xRx1 = α xRx2
    I 1 = α I2 ⇒ yRx1 = α yRx2 . (52)
RbT xi Rxj = xt − xT xi  + xt − xRxj  . (47) ⎩
RbT x1 Rx1 = α RbT x1 Rx2
By taking the derivative of (47), we obtain that
According to (51) and (52), it is obtained that
 T  T  2   2 
∂RbT xi Rxj xt − xT xi xt − xRxj +yRx −RbT x1 Rx2 = α xRx2 +yRx2 −RbT x1 Rx2 .
2 2 2 2 2
=   +  . (48) α xRx
xt − xT x  xt − xRx 
2 2
∂xt i j
(53)

1664 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
 and
I 3 = α1 I 1 + α2 I 2
⎧
⎨ xRx3 = α1 xRx1 + α2 xRx2
⇒ yRx3 = α1 yRx1 + α2 yRx2 . (56)
⎩
RbT x1 Rx3 = α1 RbT x1 Rx1 + α2 RbT x1 Rx2
So
2
xRx + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx3
3
 2 3 2   2 
= α1 xRx1 +yRx1 −RbT2
x1 Rx1 +α2 xRx2 +yRx2 −RbT x1 Rx2 .
2 2

(57)
By rearranging (57), we have
 2  2 
α1 − α1 xRx + y 2
Rx − R 2
bT x Rx
Fig. 1. Ambiguity in BR-based localization in two-dimensional space.    12 1 1 1

+ α22 − α2 xRx + y 2
Rx − R 2
bT x1 Rx2
 2 2

+ 2α1 α2 xRx1 xRx2 + yRx1 yRx2 − RbT x1 Rx1 RbT x1 Rx2 = 0.
We have either α = 1 or xRx 2
2
+ yRx
2
2
= RbT 2
x1 Rx2 . Since
(58)
α = 1 means that two receivers are located in the same
By solving (58), we can determine the placements in
position, it cannot be satisfied. Therefore, we have xRx 2
+
j which the ambiguity occurs. But finding the solution of this
yRxj = RbT x1 Rxj for j = 1, 2. From (52), it is found that the
2 2
equation is a nontrivial task. After some thought and careful
transmitter and these two receivers are placed on a straight consideration, it can be found that the solutions of (58) are
line the special cases of the first case of the ambiguity.
As a result, in BR-based localization in two-
2
RRx j
= RbT
2
x1 Rxj , for j = 1, 2 dimensional space and in the case of the minimal number
 2 of receivers with one transmitter, the ambiguity occurs only
⇒ RRxj = RtT x1 + RtRxj ,
2
for j = 1, 2
⎧ when two receivers are located on one side of the transmit-
⎨ RRxj = RtT x1 + RtRxj ter and the target is between the transmitter and the receiver,
⇒ or , for j = 1, 2. (54) which is closer to the origin.
⎩
−RRxj = RtT x1 + RtRxj
V. BISTATIC RANGE VERSUS RANGE DIFFERENCE
The expression −RRxj = RtT x1 + RtRxj cannot be sat-
In Section II, the target localization problem was for-
isfied, and from RRxj = RtT x1 + RtRxj , we can conclude
mulated using BR measurements, whereas the equations of
that the target is located on the line passing through the
finding the target position can be written in terms of RD
transmitter and the two receivers. Furthermore, this case
measurements, which, as mentioned previously, is the dif-
occurs when the two receivers are located on one side of
ference between the two BR values (that is, dT x1 Rxj,1 =
the transmitter and the target is between the transmitter and
RbT x1 Rxj − RbT x1 Rx1 , j = 2, . . . , N). In this section, we
the receiver, which is closer to the origin. As shown in
compare these two methods in the presence of only one
Fig. 1, we are able to obtain the position of target T2 , but
transmitter in the following criteria.
not the target T1 and the position of the third receiver is
arbitrary. A. Minimal Number of Receivers
In an n-dimensional space, the proposed method based
B. Second Case
on the BR measurements can localize the target clearly
It is assumed that a linear combination of the first two with at least n receivers; whereas in the same condition
equations leads to the last one. Thus an estimator based on the RD measurements requires at
least n + 1 receivers to find the target position uniquely.
1 2  As a result, the RD-based localization requires one extra
I1 = xRx1 xt + yRx1 yt = xRx1 + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx1
2 1
receiver in the case of minimal number of receivers with one
+ RbT x1 Rx1 RtT x1 transmitter. Thus, from this criterion the BR-based method
1 2  is preferable.
I2 = xRx2 xt + yRx2 yt = xRx2 + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx2
2 2
B. Performance in the Presence of Noise
+ RbT x1 Rx2 RtT x1
In the next section, simulations are performed to com-
1 2 
I3 = xRx3 xt + yRx3 yt = xRx3 + yRx
2
− RbT
2
x1 Rx3 pare the performance of these two methods for the problem
2 3
of estimating the position of a single target. The simulation
+ RbT x1 Rx3 RtT x1 (55) results show that the performance of the BR-based method

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1665

Fig. 2. Ambiguity in RD-based method in two-dimensional space:
(a) first case and (b) second case.
is quite better than the RD-based method. In [18] and [19],
it is also shown that the BR-based method outperforms the
RD-based method.
C. Ambiguity
As noted in the previous section, in the BR-based
method in two-dimensional space and in the case of the
minimal number of receivers, the ambiguity occurs when
two receivers are located on one side of the transmitter and
the target is between the transmitter and the receiver, which
is closer to the origin.
In the RD-based method, the ambiguity occurs in two
cases (for further details, see [9]). The first case occurs when
three receivers are placed on a straight line and the target is
also located on this line and this target is not between the
two of them and is surely located on one side of these three
receivers, as shown in Fig. 2(a). In the second case, when
four receivers are located at the vertices of a rectangle and
the target is located on the axes of symmetry, as shown in
1666 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
Fig. 2(b). As a consequence, the probability of ambiguity
in the BR-based localization is less than the other one.
Due to the reasons mentioned earlier, we recommend
that the BR-based localization is employed in MPR.
VI. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, simulation results on the performance
of the proposed method to the problem of localizing a
single target are presented. Here, the performance of the
proposed method is compared to that of our previous work
[24]. The selection of the appropriate placement of the re-
ceivers in the case of the minimal number of receivers with
one transmitter in the presence of noise is then consid-
ered. Finally, a simulation is conducted to draw a com-
parison between the BR-based method and the RD-based
method. The performance of the proposed localizer is eval-
uated according to the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of
the target location estimation. The results indicate that the
performance of the BR-based method is much better than
the RD-based method. In addition, the calculated covari-
ance of the proposed method is quite close to simulation
results.
In all simulation studies, the measurements of the range
are corrupted by an additive zero-mean Gaussian error with
a standard deviation of σi,j = 10−4 RbT xi Rxj (0.01% error)
for i = 1, . . . , M and j = 1, . . . , N. It should be noted that
the standard deviation of additive noise is dependent on the
time jitter at each receiver, which is proportional to the BR
value. The sample variance and bias were generated using
1000-trial Monte-Carlo runs. The RMSE, defined by
  
RMSE (p̂) = E p − p̂2

= Var (x) + Bias2x + Var (y) + Bias2y
is our criterion for evaluating the performance of the pro-
posed method and selecting the appropriate receiver place-
ment. Finally, since the considered standard deviation of
error σi,j is small, (29) is applied in simulations as the
weighting matrix required in the proposed method.
A. Evaluation of the Different Estimators
To compare the performance of the proposed method
and the other WLS method [24] with the CRLB, the sim-
ulation was conducted with a number of transmitters and
receivers. The positions of the transmitters and receivers in
the x–y plane are depicted in Fig. 3. The altitudes of trans-
mitters and receivers are also listed in Table I. Assuming
that the target is flying along the x-axis at an altitude of
2 km. The standard deviation of x-, y-, and z-error of the
algorithms as the x-coordinate of the target varies from −50
to 50 km are given in Fig. 4(a), (b), and (c), respectively.
The curve marked with ࢩ corresponds to the WLS method
[24]. The curves marked with  and ◦ correspond to the
unweighted and weighted version of the proposed method,
respectively. The root of the CRLB is marked with ♦ as
well. The results show that the proposed WLS method out-
performs the LS method. In addition, the performance of
 Fig. 3. Position of transmitters and receivers.

TABLE I
Altitudes of the Transmitters and Receivers

Transmitter Tx1 Tx2 Tx3 Tx4 Tx5 Tx6 -

z-Offset (km) 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.7 -

Receiver Rx1 Rx2 Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6 Rx7

z-Offset (km) 0 0.2 0.35 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.15

the proposed WLS method is the same as the WLS method

[24] in this scenario because the resulting curves of these
two methods overlap in the x-, y-, and z-directions. Never-
theless, the main advantage of the proposed method over
the WLS one [24] is that in this method the size of the
regressor matrix A and the unknown vector (here xt ) is re-
duced. From these figures, it can also be concluded that
the performance of the proposed WLS method in the x-
and y-directions is nearly optimal as the error in the tar-
get location estimation gets almost close to the root of the
CRLB. We can also see that the performance of TDOA-
based localization techniques in the z-direction, as noted
in [24], is not good. The main cause of this problem is
the lack of diversity in the z-direction (for more details,
see [24]).

B. Receiver Placement
Assuming that a region with a radius of 100 km should
be covered in order to select the desired receiver placement.
Fig. 4. Plots of the standard deviations and the root of the CRLB.
There are three receivers (the minimal number of receivers (a) Standard deviation of x, (b) standard deviation of y, and (c) standard
required in the proposed method) in this region and it is deviation of z.
also assumed that the opportunity transmitter is located
TABLE II
at the origin. The positions of receivers for four different Position of Receivers
configurations are given in Table II and Ro is equal to
the radius of the region under consideration. The target Placement Coordinate Axis Receiver 1 Receiver 2 Receiver 3
position is considered for all points with the coordinates 1 xi ◦
Ro cos (30 ) ◦
−Ro cos (30 ) 0
of (i, j ) × 10 km (where i and j are integers) which are yi Ro sin (30◦ ) Ro sin (30◦ ) −Ro
located in the covered area. 2 xi Ro cos (45◦ ) −Ro cos (45◦ ) 0
The contours of the RMSE are plotted for all positions yi Ro sin (45◦ ) Ro sin (45◦ ) −Ro
of target in four proposed configurations and are given in 3 xi Ro cos (60◦ ) −Ro cos (60◦ ) 0
yi Ro sin (60◦ ) Ro sin (60◦ ) −Ro
the third column of Table III. Generally, the estimation error 4 xi Ro cos (60◦ ) −Ro cos (30◦ ) 0
increases with increasing the distance from the origin and yi Ro sin (60◦ ) Ro sin (30◦ ) −Ro
being close to the position of receivers. The two factors,

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1667
 TABLE III
Performance of Proposed Method in the Four Different Placements

more symmetrical layout and that the receivers are located fraction of coverage area with a localization RMSE more
on the circle under coverage (i.e., Placement 1), lead to than the value shown on the abscissa, where these figures
improve the localization performance and hence the error are plotted for the RMSEs. The information presented in
will be decreased. The second column of Table III shows the this table shows that the theoretical covariance computed in

1668 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
 TABLE IV TABLE V
Mean Root of Variance of x Plus the Variance of y and the Position of Receivers
RMSE of All Target Positions in the Coverage Region
√ Case Coordinate Receiver 1 Receiver 2 Receiver 3 Receiver 4
Placement Ave. Var(x) + Var(y) (m) Ave. RMSE (m) Axis

1 26.6338 26.6364 1 xi Ro cos (30◦ ) −Ro cos (30◦ ) 0 -

2 28.5367 28.5394 yi Ro sin (30◦ ) Ro sin (30◦ ) −Ro -
3 36.1286 36.1319 2 xi Ro cos (30◦ ) −Ro cos (30◦ ) 0 0
4 28.9691 28.9716 yi Ro sin (30◦ ) Ro sin (30◦ ) −Ro −50

Fig. 5. Comparison of the performance among the whole of receiver

placement based on the RMSE criterion. Fig. 6. Comparison of the performance of two considered approaches.

Section III is to a great extent consistent with the simulation

results.
Table IV lists the average of the root sum of the vari-
ance of x and y and RMSE of all positions of target in the
previously introduced coverage area. As it can be seen, the
proposed estimator appears to be relatively unbiased. As
the RMSE is nearly equal to the root sum of the variance
of x and y in all cases, the performance of the proposed
estimator can be evaluated by comparison with the CRLB,
which defines a lower bound on the performance of any
unbiased estimator.
For selecting the appropriate receiver layout and com-
parison among the performance of different configurations
easily, the figures of the second column of Table III for
simulation results are merged in Fig. 5.
According to Table IV and Fig. 5, Placement 1 performs
better than the rest. Thus, Placement 1, namely equilateral
triangle on the circle, is selected as the appropriate receiver
placement based on the RMSE criterion.

C. BR-based method versus RD-based method

Now, a simulation was made to compare the perfor-
mance of the proposed method based on BR and RD mea-
surements. The coordinates of the receivers are shown in
Table V. In the first case (Placement 1), there exist three re-
ceivers, which is equal to the minimal number of receivers
required in the BR-based method. In this case, we are not
able to find the target position by the RD-based method.
So, we consider the second case and add an extra receiver Fig. 7. Effect of the placement of the receivers on the performance of
near the origin (position of the transmitter) to compare the two considered methods. (a) Comparing the performance among
performance of the RD-based localization with the BR- three states, and (b) improving the performance by increasing the number
of receivers.
based localization in similar situations. We also perform

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1669
the second case for the BR-based method to evaluate the area in the case of the minimal number of receivers with
performance of these two methods with the same receivers. one transmitter.
The results of the simulation are shown in Fig. 6. In this
scenario, it is assumed that the target moves from the point REFERENCES
(−Ro , 0) to the point (Ro , 0) on the x-axis. The RMSE ver-
[1]
sus the x-axis is illustrated in this figure. The performance
of both methods near the origin is the same, but when we
are far from the origin, the RMSE of the RD-based method
is considerable. In other words, the BR-based method per-
forms so better than the RD-based method for the points [2]
that are far from the origin. One of the reasons is that the
RD values are smaller than the BR values; thus, the noise
can be more influential on the RD values. Moreover, the
performance of the BR-based method with three receivers [3]
and with four receivers are almost the same.
Note that the error of the target position estimation de- [4]
pends considerably on the placement of the receivers. For
instance, if Receiver 4 is placed at (0, 0.5 Ro ), the perfor-
mance of the RD-based method will be degraded substan-
tially, as illustrated in Fig. 7(a). The comparison between
[5]
the BR-based methods with three and four receivers with
further details is also shown in Fig. 7(b).
[6]
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a closed-form WLS solution was presented
for estimating the position of a single target by the use of [7]
the BR measurements collected by an MPR network. First,
each of the nuisance parameters was eliminated by pre-
multiplying the problem formulation by a matrix obtained [8]
through the SVD approach. Several WLS minimizations
were then carried out by the proposed method to find the
target position. The weighting matrix, which can generate a
remarkable improvement in the performance of the method, [9]
was derived in two different conditions—when the noise in
the measured BR is small and when it is not. In the case
of low noise, the noise terms of second order and higher [10]
were neglected in the derived error equation. The solution
of the problem was then shown to be the same as the MLE
under this condition. On the other hand, when the noise
level was high, the WLS solution resulted in the BLUE. [11]
In addition, a detailed theoretical analysis of the proposed
method and the CRLB for the target localization problem
were presented. These expressions are practically useful to
evaluate the performance of the method and to design the
[12]
localization systems. Moreover, in a two-dimensional space
and in the case of a minimal number of receivers with one
transmitter, the receiver placements in which a target loca-
tion cannot be obtained uniquely were analytically deter- [13]
mined. We also compared the performance of the proposed
method by using the BR and RD measurements. The BR-
based localization outperforms the RD-based localization [14]
in the simulation results. As a result, we recommend the
BR-based localization for using in MPR. Via simulations,
we also found that the proposed method has a relatively
[15]
small bias in comparison to the standard deviation of the
estimates. Finally, the equilateral triangle on the circle con-
figuration was selected to arrange receivers in the circular
1670 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 53, NO. 4 AUGUST 2017
A. J. Weiss
On the accuracy of a cellular location system based on RSS
measurements
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1508–1518,
Nov. 2003.
C. Meesookho, U. Mitra, and S. Narayanan
On energy-based acoustic source localization for sensor net-
works
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 365–377,
Jan. 2008.
R. A. Poisel
Electronic Warfare Target Location Methods, 2nd ed. Norwood,
MA, USA: Artech House, 2012, pp. 139–223.
P. Stoica and K. Sharman
Maximum likelihood methods for direction-of-arrival estima-
tion
IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 38, no. 7,
pp. 1132–1143, Jul. 1990.
J. A. Cadzow
Methods of direction-of-arrival
In Proc. IEEE Pacific Rim Conf. Commun., Comput. Signal
Process., May 1991, pp. 25–28.
B. Friedlander
A passive localization algorithm and its accuracy
analysis
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 234–245, Jan. 1987.
J. O. Smith and J. S. Abel
The spherical interpolation method of source localization
IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 246–252, Jan. 1987.
J. O. Smith and J. S. Abel
Closed-form least-squares source location estimation from
range-difference measurements
IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 35, no. 12,
pp. 1661–1669, Dec. 1987.
A. Noroozi and M. A. Sebt
The spherical interpolation method of emitter localization using
weighted least squares
IET Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 841–854, Oct. 2016.
H. C. Schau and A. Z. Robinson
Passive source localization employing intersecting spherical
surfaces from time-of-arrival differences
IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 35, no. 8,
pp. 1223–1225, Aug. 1987.
G. Mellen, M. Pachter, and J. Raquet
Closed-form solution for determining emitter location using
time difference of arrival measurements
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1056–
1058, Jul. 2003.
M. D. Gillette and H. F. Silverman
A linear closed-form algorithm for source localization from
time-differences of arrival
IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 1–4, 2008.
J. S. Abel
A divide and conquer approach to least-squares estimation
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 423–427,
Mar. 1990.
R. O. Schmidt
Least-squares range difference location
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 234–242,
Jan. 1996.
Y. T. Chan and K. C. Ho
A simple and efficient estimator for hyperbolic location
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1905–1915,
Aug. 1994.
 [16] K. C. Ho [23] A. Noroozi and M. A. Sebt
Bias reduction for an explicit solution of source localization Target localization from bistatic range measurements in multi-
using TDOA transmitter multi-receiver passive radar
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2101–2114, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 2445–2449,
May 2012. Dec. 2015.
[17] R. A. Poisel [24] A. Noroozi and M. A. Sebt
Electronic Warfare Target Location Methods, 2nd ed. Norwood, Weighted least squares target location estimation in multi-
MA, USA: Artech House, 2012, pp. 274–281. transmitter multi-receiver passive radar using bistatic range
[18] L. Rui and K. C. Ho measurements
Elliptic localization: Performance study and optimum receiver IET Radar, Sonar, Navig., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1088–1097,
placement Jun. 2016.
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 62, no. 18, pp. 4673–4688, [25] S. M. Kay
Sep. 2014. Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I: Es-
[19] A. Noroozi and M. A. Sebt timation Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall,
Comparison between range-difference-based and bistatic- 1993.
range-based localization in multistatic passive radar [26] K. C. Ho and X. Wenwei
In Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Radar, Jun. 2015, pp. 1058–1063. An accurate algebraic solution for moving source location using
[20] M. Malanowski and K. Kulpa TDOA and FDOA measurements
Two methods for target localization in multistatic passive radar IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 2453–2463,
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 572–580, Sep. 2004.
Jan. 2012. [27] J. Neering, M. Bordier, and N. Maı̈zi
[21] M. Dianat, M. R. Taban, J. Dianat, and V. Sedighi Optimal passive source localization
Target localization using least squares estimation for MIMO In Proc. Int. Conf. Sensor Comm. 2007. Sensor Tech., Appl.,
radars with widely separated antennas Oct. 2007, pp. 295–300.
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2730– [28] J. S. Abel and J. O. Smith
2741, Oct. 2013. Source range and depth estimation from multipath range differ-
[22] M. Einemo and H.Ch. So ence measurements
Weighted least squares algorithm for target localization in dis- IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 37, no. 8,
tributed MIMO radar pp. 1157–1165, Aug. 1989.
Elsevier Signal Process., vol. 115, pp. 144–150, Oct. 2015.

Ali Noroozi was born in Iran in 1989. He received the B.S. degree in the communications
field from the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, in 2012, and
the M.S. degree in the communications field in 2014 from K. N. Toosi University of
Technology, Tehran, where he is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree.
His current research interests include multistatic passive radar, target localization, radar
signal processing, estimation theory, and detection theory.

Mohammad Ali Sebt was born in Iran. He received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees
all in electrical engineering from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2005,
2007, and 2011, respectively.
Since 2011, he has been a Faculty Member with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran. His current research interests include
radar signal processing, detection and estimation theory, and array signal processing.

NOROOZI AND SEBT: TARGET LOCALIZATION IN MULTISTATIC PASSIVE RADAR USING SVD APPROACH 1671

View publication stats