pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23262 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-25 · 📡 eess.SP

Recognition: unknown

An Interactive Graphical Tool to Check the Coarray Continuity of Two-Fold Redundant Sparse Arrays (TFRSAs) Under Single Sensor Failures

Namya Malik , Ashish Patwari , Sangeetha N
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 07:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords two-fold redundant sparse arraysdifference coarraysingle sensor failuregraphical user interfacedirection of arrival estimationarray designcontinuity checkredundancy verification
0
0 comments X

The pith

A graphical tool checks whether two-fold redundant sparse arrays keep a continuous difference coarray after any single sensor failure.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops an interactive MATLAB GUI to determine whether a given two-fold redundant sparse array truly maintains a continuous difference coarray when any one sensor fails. This verification matters because some arrays contain hidden position dependencies that create gaps in the coarray, breaking the redundancy intended for robust direction-of-arrival estimation. The framework simulates each possible single failure, recomputes the difference set, and flags any discontinuities. Numerical tests on examples from prior sparse-array studies confirm that the interface responds correctly in each case. The result is a practical aid for array designers to select safe configurations before building hardware.

Core claim

The authors develop and test a comprehensive framework implemented as a MATLAB GUI that checks the coarray continuity of TFRSAs under single sensor failures, revealing that certain array positions can cause discontinuities despite the apparent redundancy.

What carries the argument

The interactive graphical user interface built in MATLAB App Designer, which accepts array positions as input and reports whether single sensor removals produce holes in the difference coarray.

If this is right

  • Array designers can reject configurations that lose continuity under single failures before any hardware is built.
  • Systems relying on fault-tolerant DOA estimation gain a concrete way to enforce the two-fold redundancy property.
  • The tool makes explicit the distinction between nominal redundancy counts and actual continuity of the difference coarray.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same simulation approach could be extended to check continuity under two or more simultaneous failures.
  • Integration with array-optimization routines might allow automatic generation of provably continuous TFRSAs.
  • Existing sparse-array designs in the literature could be re-examined with the tool to uncover previously unnoticed continuity problems.

Load-bearing premise

That validation against a handful of known examples from the sparse-array literature is sufficient to guarantee the tool correctly identifies all possible continuity failures across every conceivable TFRSA configuration.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be an untested two-fold redundant sparse array in which manual computation shows a gap in the difference coarray after removing one specific sensor, yet the GUI reports that the coarray stays continuous.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23262 by Ashish Patwari, Namya Malik, Sangeetha N.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GUI Functions The input section allows the user to enter the test array in terms of sensor positions normalized to half wavelength. The weight distribution is displayed graphically to provide a direct representation of lag multiplicities across the aperture. The MATLAB code for weight function computation and plotting is provided in the Appendix view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: User Interface for Input Section and Weight Function Plotting view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Core Programming Logic for Performing Robustness Analysis for backend of the GUI view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Possible Scenarios During Robustness Analysis/Two view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Home Screen of the Designed GUI 5. GUI Validation/Numerical Results We next show the output obtained from the GUI simulator under various scenarios. In particular, it is interesting to note how the tool interprets coarray redundancy and accurately classifies the input arrays into different categories based on the double difference criterion. 5.1 Weight Function Plotting The tool can be used to visualize th… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Weight Function Graph of the 6-element MISC array 5.2 Robustness Check (Single Sensor Failure Analysis and HES Detection) The main difference between the current GUI and one of the recently introduced tools for coarray analysis [35] is its ability to verify array robustness. While the recent tool can check DCA continuity and report the hole-free status of an array, it cannot perform failure mode analysis. … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GUI response when MISC array is given as an input to the robustness check module view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Two-fold redundant sparse arrays possess inbuilt redundancy to tackle single-element failures. This property enables them to perform accurate direction of arrival (DOA) estimation even during single sensor faults. However, recent literature suggests that some TFRSAs suffer from hidden dependencies whereby a single sensor fault at peculiar positions within the array cause discontinuities (holes) in the difference coarray (DCA). This violates the very idea of providing two-fold redundancy. Such hidden dependencies could prove catastrophic in many critical applications such as defense, autonomous driving, and biomedical imaging. Despite this issue, no formal tools or techniques exist to ascertain whether a given array configuration is truly twofold redundant or not. To address this gap, we provide a comprehensive framework and a first-ever graphical user interface (GUI). The GUI has been built using the features in MATLAB app designer and tested with known examples available in sparse array literature. Several numerical examples have been discussed to check the tool's response in each scenario. We conclude that the GUI is functionally accurate and can be an indispensable tool for sparse array designers in making informed choices about array configurations prior to real deployment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents a MATLAB-based graphical user interface (GUI) tool, built with App Designer, to verify whether two-fold redundant sparse arrays (TFRSAs) maintain a continuous difference coarray (DCA) under single-sensor failures. It identifies the problem of 'hidden dependencies' that can create holes in the DCA despite nominal two-fold redundancy, notes the absence of prior formal tools for this check, describes the GUI's features for array configuration input and failure simulation, reports testing against known examples from the sparse-array literature, and concludes that the tool is functionally accurate and useful for designers in applications such as DOA estimation.

Significance. If the tool's correctness holds, the work fills a practical gap by providing an interactive means to detect failure-induced coarray discontinuities before deployment in critical systems (defense, autonomous driving, biomedical imaging). The GUI approach lowers the barrier for array designers to evaluate configurations, and the focus on TFRSAs directly addresses a recently identified limitation in the redundancy literature.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Numerical Examples] Abstract and Numerical Examples section: The central claim that 'the GUI is functionally accurate' rests solely on testing against a handful of known examples from the sparse-array literature. No quantitative metrics (e.g., detection rates, false-negative counts), formal specification of the coarray-construction or hole-detection algorithm, proof of correctness, or exhaustive enumeration of edge-case TFRSA geometries and failure positions are provided. This leaves open the possibility of undetected implementation errors for untested configurations, directly undermining the guarantee that the tool identifies all continuity failures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below, providing clarifications on the validation approach and scope of the GUI tool.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Numerical Examples] Abstract and Numerical Examples section: The central claim that 'the GUI is functionally accurate' rests solely on testing against a handful of known examples from the sparse-array literature. No quantitative metrics (e.g., detection rates, false-negative counts), formal specification of the coarray-construction or hole-detection algorithm, proof of correctness, or exhaustive enumeration of edge-case TFRSA geometries and failure positions are provided. This leaves open the possibility of undetected implementation errors for untested configurations, directly undermining the guarantee that the tool identifies all continuity failures.

    Authors: We agree that the validation in the manuscript is based on testing against known examples from the sparse-array literature rather than quantitative metrics or a formal proof of correctness. The GUI implements the standard difference coarray (DCA) construction from array element positions, followed by a deterministic check for continuity (i.e., whether all integer lags from the minimum to maximum are present without holes). Since the process is fully deterministic with no stochastic components, metrics such as detection rates or false-negative counts do not apply in the usual sense; correctness is verified by matching the tool's output to analytically known results for specific TFRSA configurations where hidden dependencies induce holes. We acknowledge that this does not constitute exhaustive enumeration of all possible TFRSA geometries and failure positions, which would be computationally prohibitive. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Numerical Examples section to include a clear specification of the coarray-construction and hole-detection steps (with pseudocode), additional edge-case examples drawn from the literature, and explicit discussion of the tool's limitations. This provides a stronger practical demonstration without altering the core contribution of the interactive GUI. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: tool validation on external literature examples

full rationale

The paper describes construction of a MATLAB GUI for checking difference-coarray continuity in TFRSAs under single-sensor failures, with validation performed on known examples drawn from the sparse-array literature. No mathematical derivations, equations, predictions, or first-principles results are present. The central claim of functional accuracy rests on external benchmarks rather than any self-referential definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. This is a standard software-tool paper whose correctness can be assessed independently of its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a software-tool paper rather than a mathematical derivation; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced or fitted.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5510 in / 1002 out tokens · 19457 ms · 2026-05-08T07:23:02.805358+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. A. Monzingo, R. L. Haupt, and T. W. Miller, Introduction to Adaptive Arrays. IET Digital Library, 2011. doi: 10.1049/SBEW046E

    work page doi:10.1049/sbew046e 2011

  2. [2]

    Krim and M

    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, Jul. 1996, doi: 10.1109/79.526899

    work page doi:10.1109/79.526899 1996

  3. [3]

    Haykin, J

    S. Haykin, J. P. Reilly, V . Kezys, and E. Vertatschitsch, ‘Some aspects of array signal processing’, IEE Proc. F - Radar Signal Process., vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 1–26, Feb. 1992, doi: 10.1049/ip-f-2.1992.0001

    work page doi:10.1049/ip-f-2.1992.0001 1992

  4. [4]

    Bellofiore, C

    S. Bellofiore, C. A. Balanis, J. Foutz, and A. S. Spanias, ‘Smart-antenna systems for mobile communication networks. Part 1. Overview and antenna design’, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 145–154, Jun. 2002, doi: 10.1109/MAP.2002.1039395

    work page doi:10.1109/map.2002.1039395 2002

  5. [5]

    L. C. Godara, ‘Application of antenna arrays to mobile communications. II. Beam -forming and direction- of-arrival considerations’, Proc. IEEE, vol. 85, no. 8, pp. 1195–1245, Aug. 1997, doi: 10.1109/5.622504

    work page doi:10.1109/5.622504 1997

  6. [6]

    Patwari, ‘Sparse Linear Antenna Arrays: A Review’, in Antenna Systems , H

    A. Patwari, ‘Sparse Linear Antenna Arrays: A Review’, in Antenna Systems , H. Al -Rizzo and S. Abushamleh, Eds, IntechOpen, 2022. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.99444

    work page doi:10.5772/intechopen.99444 2022

  7. [7]

    Ebrahimi, M

    M. Ebrahimi, M. Karimi, and M. Modarres -Hashemi, ‘Optimal sparse linear array design with reduced mutual coupling effect’, AEU - Int. J. Electron. Commun. , vol. 170, p. 154781, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2023.154781

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2023.154781 2023

  8. [8]

    Liu and P

    C.-L. Liu and P. P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Cramér –Rao bounds for coprime and other sparse arrays, which find more sources than sensors’, Digit. Signal Process. , vol. 61, pp. 43 –61, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2016.04.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2016.04.011 2017

  9. [9]

    Li et al., ‘Sparse Linear Arrays for Direction-of-Arrival Estimation: A Tutorial Overview’, IEEE Aerosp

    X. Li et al., ‘Sparse Linear Arrays for Direction-of-Arrival Estimation: A Tutorial Overview’, IEEE Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag., pp. 1–25, 2025, doi: 10.1109/MAES.2025.3527917

    work page doi:10.1109/maes.2025.3527917 2025

  10. [10]

    W. Liu, M. Haardt, M. S. Greco, C. F. Mecklenbräuker, and P . Willett, ‘Twenty-Five Years of Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing: A review of progress to date and potential research directions’, IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 80–91, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2023.3258060

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2023.3258060 2023

  11. [11]

    L. Yang, Y . Han, and S. Zhou, ‘Chinese remainder theorem -assisted ambiguity -free DOA estimation for coprime arrays’, AEU - Int. J. Electron. Commun. , vol. 209, p. 156270, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2026.156270

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2026.156270 2026

  12. [12]

    Improving pronunciation and accent conversion through knowledge distillation and synthetic ground-truth from native tts

    P. Kulkarni and P. P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Interpolation for Weight -Constrained Nested Arrays Having Non - Central ULA Segments in the Coarray’, in ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Apr. 2025, pp. 1 –5. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP49660.2025.10890061

    work page doi:10.1109/icassp49660.2025.10890061 2025

  13. [13]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Zhou, G. Cui, X. Tang, and P. Fan, ‘Enhanced Low-Redundancy Restricted Array for Direction of Arrival Estimation’, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 3731 –3747, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2024.3491713

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2024.3491713 2025

  14. [14]

    Camps, A

    A. Camps, A. Cardama, and D. Infantes, ‘Synthesis of large low -redundancy linear arrays’, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1881–1883, Dec. 2001, doi: 10.1109/8.982474

    work page doi:10.1109/8.982474 2001

  15. [15]

    Moffet, ‘Minimum-redundancy linear arrays’, IEEE Trans

    A. Moffet, ‘Minimum-redundancy linear arrays’, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 172 – 175, Mar. 1968, doi: 10.1109/TAP.1968.1139138

    work page doi:10.1109/tap.1968.1139138 1968

  16. [16]

    P. P. Vaidyanathan and P. Pal, ‘Sparse sensing with coprime arrays’, in 2010 Conference Record of the Forty Fourth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , Nov. 2010, pp. 1405 –1409. doi: 10.1109/ACSSC.2010.5757766

    work page doi:10.1109/acssc.2010.5757766 2010

  17. [17]

    Pal, P.P

    Piya Pal, P. Pal, P.P. Vaidyanathan, and P . P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Nested Arrays: A Novel Approach to Array Processing With Enhanced Degrees of Freedom’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 8, Art. no. 8, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1109/tsp.2010.2049264

    work page doi:10.1109/tsp.2010.2049264 2010

  18. [18]

    Zheng, W.-Q

    Z. Zheng, W.-Q. Wang, Y . Kong, and Y . D. Zhang, ‘MISC Array: A New Sparse Array Design Achieving Increased Degrees of Freedom and Reduced Mutual Coupling Effect’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1728–1741, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TSP.2019.2897954

    work page doi:10.1109/tsp.2019.2897954 2019

  19. [19]

    Wandale and K

    S. Wandale and K. Ichige, ‘xMISC: Improved Sparse Linear Array via Maximum Inter -Element Spacing Concept’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 30, pp. 1327–1331, 2023, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2023.3316018

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2023.3316018 2023

  20. [20]

    Z. Peng, Y . Ding, S. Ren, H. Wu, and W. Wang, ‘Coprime Nested Arrays for DOA Estimation: Exploiting the Nesting Property of Coprime Array’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 29, pp. 444 –448, 2022, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2021.3139577

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2021.3139577 2022

  21. [22]

    Raiguru et al., ‘Hole-Free DCA for Augmented Co-Prime Array’, Circuits Syst

    P. Raiguru et al., ‘Hole-Free DCA for Augmented Co-Prime Array’, Circuits Syst. Signal Process., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 2977–2987, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/s00034-021-01909-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00034-021-01909-0 2022

  22. [23]

    D. Chen, K. Ye, C. Xing, L. Zhou, and H. Sun, ‘An improved sparse array design for improving DOA estimation performance under mutual coupling effect’, AEU - Int. J. Electron. Commun. , vol. 206, p. 156215, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2026.156215

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2026.156215 2026

  23. [24]

    X. Wang, L. Zhao, and Y . Jiang, ‘Super Augmented Nested Arrays: A New Sparse Array for Improved DOA Estimation Accuracy’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 31, pp. 26 –30, 2024, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2023.3340599

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2023.3340599 2024

  24. [25]

    Raiguru, D

    P. Raiguru, D. C. Panda, and R. K. Mishra, ‘Multi -Source Detection Performance of Some Linear Sparse Arrays’, IETE J. Res., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–12, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03772063.2022.2038701

    work page doi:10.1080/03772063.2022.2038701 2022

  25. [26]

    Liu and P

    C.-L. Liu and P. P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Optimizing Minimum Redundancy Arrays for Robustness’, in 2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers , Oct. 2018, pp. 79 –83. doi: 10.1109/ACSSC.2018.8645482

    work page doi:10.1109/acssc.2018.8645482 2018

  26. [27]

    Disentangling correlated speaker and noise for speech synthesis via data augmentation and adversarial factorization

    C.-L. Liu and P. P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Composite Singer Arrays with Hole -free Coarrays and Enhanced Robustness’, in ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , Brighton, United Kingdom: IEEE, May 2019, pp. 4120 –4124. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8683563

    work page doi:10.1109/icassp.2019.8683563 2019

  27. [28]

    D. Zhu, F. Hu, L. Lang, P. Tang, X. Peng, and F. He, ‘Double Difference Bases and Thinned Arrays With Twofold Redundancy’, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. , vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 7366 –7371, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2017.2765738

    work page doi:10.1109/tap.2017.2765738 2017

  28. [29]

    Patwari, P

    A. Patwari, P. Raiguru, and A. Chandrasekaran, ‘ULA -inspired Two-Fold Redundant Sparse Linear Array with Closed-Form Expressions and 2/N Fragility’, in 2025 33rd European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Sep. 2025, pp. 2267–2271. doi: 10.23919/EUSIPCO63237.2025.11226104

    work page doi:10.23919/eusipco63237.2025.11226104 2025

  29. [30]

    Double Difference Bases and Thinned Arrays With Twofold Redundancy

    A. Patwari, ‘Comments on “Double Difference Bases and Thinned Arrays With Twofold Redundancy”’, Sep. 06, 2024, TechRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.172565620.02854040/v1

    work page doi:10.36227/techrxiv.172565620.02854040/v1 2024

  30. [31]

    Kunchala and A

    P. Kunchala and A. Patwari, ‘A Leap -on-Success Exhaustive Search Method to Find Optimal Robust Minimum Redundancy Arrays (RMRAs): New Array Configurations for Sensor Counts 11 to 20’, Jul. 14, 2025, arXiv: arXiv:2507.10706. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.10706

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.10706 2025

  31. [32]

    Accessed: Nov

    ‘Sensor Array Analyzer - Analyze beam patterns and performance characteristics of linear, planar, 3-D, and arbitrary sensor arrays - MATLAB’. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://in.mathworks.com/help/phased/ref/sensorarrayanalyzer-app.html

    2025

  32. [33]

    Barkhausen-Institut/AntennaArraySimulator. (Sep. 30, 2024). Python. Barkhausen Institut gGmbH. Accessed: Jan. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Barkhausen - Institut/AntennaArraySimulator

    2024

  33. [34]

    Accessed: Jan

    ‘GitHub - zinka/arraytool: Python based package for phased array antenna design and analysis’. Accessed: Jan. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/zinka/arraytool/tree/master

    2025

  34. [35]

    Patwari, A

    A. Patwari, A. Pandey, A. Dabade, and P. Raiguru, ‘Design and validation of a MATLAB -based GUI for coarray domain analysis of sparse linear arrays’, J. Adv. Signal Process., Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1186/s13634 - 025-01284-x

    work page doi:10.1186/s13634 2026

  35. [36]

    C. L. Liu and P. P. Vaidyanathan, ‘Remarks on the Spatial Smoothing Step in Coarray MUSIC’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1438–1442, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2015.2409153

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2015.2409153 2015

  36. [37]

    Wandale and K

    S. Wandale and K. Ichige, ‘A Generalized Extended Nested Array Design via Maximum Inter -Element Spacing Criterion’, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 30, pp. 31–35, 2023, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2023.3238912

    work page doi:10.1109/lsp.2023.3238912 2023

  37. [38]

    Patwari and P

    A. Patwari and P. Kunchala, ‘Novel Sparse Linear Array Based on a New Suboptimal Number Sequence with a Hole -free Difference Co -array’, Prog. Electromagn. Res. Lett. , vol. 116, pp. 23 –30, 2024, doi: 10.2528/pierl23102706

    work page doi:10.2528/pierl23102706 2024

  38. [39]

    P. Zhao, Q. Wu, G. Hu, L. Wang, and L. Wan, ‘Generalized Hole-Free Sparse Antenna Array Design With Even/Odd Maximum Interelement Spacing’, IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 716 – 720, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1109/LAWP.2024.3514150

    work page doi:10.1109/lawp.2024.3514150 2025

  39. [40]

    Patwari, S

    A. Patwari, S. R. S, and G. R. Reddy, ‘Discovering Optimal Robust Minimum Redundancy Arrays (RMRAs) through Exhaustive Search and Algebraic Formulation of a New Sub-Optimal RMRA’, Dec. 30, 2025, arXiv: arXiv:2512.24155. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.24155

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.24155 2025