Lomb-Scargle periodogram for complex exponential signal

  • Thread starter Thread starter tworitdash
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implementation of a generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram for aperiodically sampled complex data, referencing Brethorst's paper. The user attempts to validate their implementation, which they believe aligns with the Schuster periodogram, particularly under the assumption of equal lengths for the real and imaginary parts of the signal. Key equations derived include the expressions for quantities R, I, and the final expression for the periodogram, h2. The user seeks guidance on alternative periodograms that exhibit lower side-lobe levels than the Schuster periodogram.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lomb-Scargle periodograms
  • Familiarity with Schuster periodograms
  • Knowledge of complex signal processing
  • Proficiency in mathematical expressions involving trigonometric functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implementation details of Brethorst's generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram
  • Explore alternative periodograms with lower side-lobe levels, such as the Blackman-Tukey periodogram
  • Study the mathematical foundations of aperiodic sampling in signal processing
  • Investigate the implications of decay factors in periodogram models
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and practitioners in signal processing, particularly those working with complex data and periodogram analysis, will benefit from this discussion.

tworitdash
Messages
104
Reaction score
25
I found a paper by Brethorst where he developed a periodogram that is a generalized version of the Lomb-Scargle periodogram. You can find it here [1].

I tried to implement (22) from this paper to make a periodogram for an aperiodically sampled complex data that is stochastic. I observed that it is the same as a Schuster periodogram. I want to verify what I did. Please let me know if something is wrong.

In the paper, they added a decay factor in the model ## Z ##, which I set to [itex ] 0 [/itex ].
Second, they also have different lengths for the real and imaginary parts of the signal. However, for me, they are collected at the same time. ## N_R = N_I = N_d ##, and ## t_i = t_j ##.

I choose the $H$ as the basis ## H = 2 \pi f t ## as they do in (23).

If I go by these assumptions, the following quantities become:

$$\theta = \frac{1}{2} \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{0}{0}\right) = 0$$ From (20)
$$ C = N_d $$ from (17)
$$ S = N_d $$ from (18)

$$ R = \sum_{i = 1}^{N_d} d_R(t_i) \cos{(H(t_i))} - d_I(t_i) \sin{(H(t_i))} $$
$$ I = \sum_{i = 1}^{N_d} d_R(t_i) \sin{(H(t_i))} + d_I(t_i) \cos{(H(t_i))} $$

Here, ## d_R = \Re({z}) ##, and ## d_I = \Im({z}) ##. So, the final expression (22) becomes:

$$ \bar{h}^2 = \frac{1}{N_d} \times (R^2 + I^2) $$

I think this is the same as the Schuster periodogram. Am I correct? In that case, which periodogram should I use with lower side-lobe levels than the Schuster periodogram for the aperiodically sampled complex signal?

[1]: https://bayes.wustl.edu/glb/general.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K