pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20403 · v1 · pith:F3DD4S4Snew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 📡 eess.AS

Causal Spatio-Temporal Sound Field Reconstruction

David Sundstr\"om , Filip Tronarp , Johan Lindstr\"om , Andreas Jakobsson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 06:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.AS
keywords sound field reconstructioncausal estimationspatio-temporal LMMSEwave equationdiffuse-field coherencemicrophone arraysreal-time processingsample selection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A causal spatio-temporal LMMSE estimator reconstructs sound fields more accurately from short causal measurement windows by deriving a covariance from the wave equation solution under stationary stochastic sources.

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

The paper tries to establish a method for sound field reconstruction when only causal, finite-window microphone measurements are available in real time. Traditional frequency-by-frequency processing becomes suboptimal because causal windows create correlations across frequencies. The authors model the sound field as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution, which produces a covariance function for a linear minimum mean-square error estimator that respects the underlying physics and relates closely to the diffuse-field coherence model. They add a budget-constrained sample selection step to keep computation manageable while minimizing reconstruction variance. Readers would care because this targets a core practical bottleneck in sound field control applications where accurate real-time representations are required but full non-causal data are unavailable.

Core claim

We formulate a causal finite-window spatio-temporal linear minimum mean-square error estimator for sound field reconstruction. The sound field is modeled as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution, which induces a physically interpretable covariance function. It is shown that this covariance function is closely related to the classical diffuse-field coherence model. Since the computational complexity grows rapidly with the number of spatio-temporal observations, we formulate a budget-constrained spatio-temporal sample selection approach to minimize the posterior reconstruction variance. The proposed estimator and sampling method

What carries the argument

The covariance function induced by modeling the sound field as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution, which is inserted into the causal finite-window spatio-temporal linear minimum mean-square error estimator.

If this is right

  • The estimator outperforms frequency-domain finite-window baselines in short-window reconstruction on both simulated and measured data.
  • The derived covariance function is closely related to the classical diffuse-field coherence model.
  • A budget-constrained spatio-temporal sample selection approach minimizes posterior reconstruction variance under computational limits.
  • The overall approach remains effective when applied to real measured sound fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same wave-equation-plus-stationary-source modeling step could be reused for causal reconstruction of other linear wave fields such as electromagnetic or seismic waves.
  • Relaxing the stationarity assumption on the driving source distribution would be a natural next step for handling time-varying acoustic environments.
  • The sample-selection strategy might generalize to adaptive placement of microphones in real-time sensing arrays.
  • Lower-latency accurate field estimates could directly benefit closed-loop active noise control or immersive audio rendering systems.

Load-bearing premise

The sound field can be accurately represented as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution that induces the covariance used in the estimator.

What would settle it

Direct side-by-side tests on measured causal microphone data that show the proposed estimator yields no lower reconstruction error than standard frequency-domain finite-window methods for short windows would refute the claimed improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20403 by Andreas Jakobsson, David Sundstr\"om, Filip Tronarp, Johan Lindstr\"om.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalized magnitude of the finite-window cross-frequency covariance between microphones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the NMSE as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Geometry of the measured DTU setup. Spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction NMSE as a function of SNR for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of the proposed estimator to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity of the proposed estimator to the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the NMSE as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reconstruction along the linear validation array illustrated in Figure 3. Dashed vertical lines mark the spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the spatio-temporal sample selection patterns for the proposed, random, and recent strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the number of selected microphones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustration of the number of observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In sound field control applications, it is commonly assumed that one has access to an accurate representation of the sound field in the region of interest. This is a problematic assumption since the reconstruction of a sound field from available microphone measurements is especially challenging in real-time applications where only causal measurements are available. Notably, causal time-windowed observations introduce correlation between frequency components, making sound field reconstruction methods that process each frequency band independently sub-optimal. In this work, we formulate a causal finite-window spatio-temporal linear minimum mean-square error estimator for sound field reconstruction. The sound field is modeled as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution, which induces a physically interpretable covariance function. It is shown that this covariance function is closely related to the classical diffuse-field coherence model. Since the computational complexity grows rapidly with the number of spatio-temporal observations, we formulate a budget-constrained spatio-temporal sample selection approach to minimize the posterior reconstruction variance. The proposed estimator and sampling strategy are evaluated using both simulated and measured sound fields, demonstrating improved short-window reconstruction compared to frequency domain finite-window baselines.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates a causal finite-window spatio-temporal linear minimum mean-square error (LMMSE) estimator for sound field reconstruction from microphone measurements. The sound field is modeled as the solution to the wave equation driven by a stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution, inducing a physically interpretable covariance function closely related to the classical diffuse-field coherence model. A budget-constrained spatio-temporal sample selection strategy is introduced to minimize posterior reconstruction variance. The estimator and sampling approach are evaluated on both simulated and measured sound fields, demonstrating improved short-window reconstruction performance relative to frequency-domain finite-window baselines.

Significance. If the central claims hold under the stated modeling assumptions, the work offers a principled extension of LMMSE estimation to causal spatio-temporal settings in acoustics. The derivation of the covariance directly from the wave equation provides a physically grounded alternative to purely empirical or frequency-independent models, which could benefit real-time applications such as sound field control and virtual acoustics by capturing cross-frequency correlations induced by finite causal windows.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The stationarity assumption on the driving stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution is load-bearing for the optimality of the causal finite-window LMMSE estimator and the claimed superiority over frequency-domain baselines. The induced covariance is derived under this premise, yet the manuscript does not appear to test robustness when the assumption is violated (as is common for speech, music, or transient signals). A concrete sensitivity analysis or comparison on non-stationary data would be required to substantiate the short-window gains.
  2. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The abstract reports improved reconstruction on simulated and measured fields, but the provided description lacks quantitative details such as error metrics with confidence intervals, exact numbers of microphones or time samples, dataset sizes, or ablation studies isolating the contribution of the spatio-temporal covariance versus the sampling strategy. This weakens verifiability of the performance claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Estimator formulation] Clarify the precise definition of the finite observation window and how the causal constraint is enforced in the estimator formulation to avoid ambiguity in the derivation.
  2. [Covariance derivation] The relation to the diffuse-field model is noted but would benefit from explicit citation of the specific prior coherence functions being referenced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential of the causal spatio-temporal LMMSE formulation. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The stationarity assumption on the driving stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution is load-bearing for the optimality of the causal finite-window LMMSE estimator and the claimed superiority over frequency-domain baselines. The induced covariance is derived under this premise, yet the manuscript does not appear to test robustness when the assumption is violated (as is common for speech, music, or transient signals). A concrete sensitivity analysis or comparison on non-stationary data would be required to substantiate the short-window gains.

    Authors: We agree that the stationarity assumption is central to the closed-form derivation of the spatio-temporal covariance from the wave equation and to the optimality of the finite-window LMMSE estimator. The model is intended for scenarios where the source distribution can be treated as wide-sense stationary over the observation window, which includes many diffuse-field and ambient-noise applications. We acknowledge that explicit validation on non-stationary signals such as speech or music would better substantiate the practical utility of the short-window gains. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated sensitivity study in Section IV that applies the estimator to recorded speech signals with controlled degrees of non-stationarity and compares reconstruction error against the frequency-domain baselines. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The abstract reports improved reconstruction on simulated and measured fields, but the provided description lacks quantitative details such as error metrics with confidence intervals, exact numbers of microphones or time samples, dataset sizes, or ablation studies isolating the contribution of the spatio-temporal covariance versus the sampling strategy. This weakens verifiability of the performance claims.

    Authors: The evaluation section (Section IV) already reports mean-squared-error values for multiple window lengths, microphone counts (8–16), and both simulated and measured data. To improve clarity and verifiability we will augment the section with (i) 95 % confidence intervals on all reported errors, (ii) explicit statement of the number of time samples per window and the size of the measured dataset, and (iii) an ablation table that isolates the contribution of the derived spatio-temporal covariance from that of the budget-constrained sampling procedure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is self-contained via explicit physical modeling

full rationale

The paper explicitly posits the sound field as the solution to the wave equation under a stationary stochastic source distribution (abstract), derives the induced covariance from that model, and constructs the causal LMMSE estimator from the resulting kernel. This chain is a standard first-principles modeling step rather than a self-referential definition or fitted input renamed as prediction. The noted relation to the classical diffuse-field coherence model is presented as a consistency check, not a renaming of a known empirical pattern. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked in the provided text to justify load-bearing choices. Evaluations on simulated and measured fields supply independent external checks, keeping the central construction non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the wave equation as governing physics and on the assumption of a stationary stochastic source distribution; no new particles or dimensions are introduced, but the source statistics act as an implicit modeling choice.

free parameters (1)
  • source distribution parameters
    The stationary stochastic spatio-temporal source distribution is postulated to induce the covariance; its specific parameters are not enumerated in the abstract but are required to define the covariance function.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The sound field satisfies the wave equation.
    Invoked in the modeling paragraph of the abstract to derive the covariance function.
  • domain assumption The driving source distribution is stationary in space and time.
    Stated in the abstract as the basis for the physically interpretable covariance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1362 out tokens · 29296 ms · 2026-05-21T06:55:17.602873+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

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Active noise control over space: A wave domain approach,

    J. Zhang, T. D. Abhayapala, W. Zhang, P. N. Samarasinghe, and S. Jiang, “Active noise control over space: A wave domain approach,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 774–786, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Variable span trade-off filter for sound zone control with kernel interpolation weighting,

    J. Brunnström, S. Koyama, and M. Moonen, “Variable span trade-off filter for sound zone control with kernel interpolation weighting,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., Singapore, 05 2022, pp. 1071–1075

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Optimizations of the spatial decomposition method for binaural reproduction,

    S. V. A. Gari, J. M. Arend, P. T. Calamia, and P. W. Robinson, “Optimizations of the spatial decomposition method for binaural reproduction,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 959–976, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Generation of zones of quiet using a virtual microphone arrangement,

    J. Garcia-Bonito, S. J. Elliott, and C. C. Boucher, “Generation of zones of quiet using a virtual microphone arrangement,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 3498–3516, 1997

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    An approach to massive multichannel broadband feedforward active noise control using wave-domain adaptive filtering,

    S. Spors and H. Buchner, “An approach to massive multichannel broadband feedforward active noise control using wave-domain adaptive filtering,” in IEEE workshop on applications of signal process. to audio and acoust., New Paltz, New York, 10 2007, pp. 171–174

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Spatial active noise control based on kernel interpolation of sound field,

    S. Koyama, J. Brunnström, H. Ito, N. Ueno, and H. Saruwatari, “Spatial active noise control based on kernel interpolation of sound field,” IEEE Trans. Audio Speech and Lang. Process., vol. 29, pp. 3052–3063, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    E. G. Williams, Fourier acoustics: sound radiation and nearfield acoustical holography, Academic press, New York, 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    A method for computing acoustic fields based on the principle of wave superposition,

    G. H. Koopmann, L. Song, and J. B. Fahnline, “A method for computing acoustic fields based on the principle of wave superposition,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 2433– 2438, 1989

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    An equivalent source technique for calculating the sound field inside an enclosure containing scattering objects,

    M. E. Johnson, S. J. Elliott, K. H. Baek, and J. Garcia-Bonito, “An equivalent source technique for calculating the sound field inside an enclosure containing scattering objects,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 1221–1231, 1998

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    An efficient parameterization of the room transfer function,

    P. Samarasinghe, T. Abhayapala, M. Poletti, and T. Betlehem, “An efficient parameterization of the room transfer function,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2217–2227, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Spatial decomposition method for room impulse responses,

    S. Tervo, J. Pätynen, A. Kuusinen, and T. Lokki, “Spatial decomposition method for room impulse responses,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 61, no. 1/2, pp. 17–28, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Room reverberation reconstruction: Interpolation of the early part using compressed sensing,

    R. Mignot, L. Daudet, and F. Ollivier, “Room reverberation reconstruction: Interpolation of the early part using compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2301–2312, 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,

    S. A. Verburg and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 3770–3779, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Room impulse response interpolation using a sparse spatio-temporal representation of the sound field,

    N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P. A Naylor, and T. Van Waterschoot, “Room impulse response interpolation using a sparse spatio-temporal representation of the sound field,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1929–1941, 2017

    work page 1929

  15. [15]

    A convolutional plane wave model for sound field reconstruction,

    M. Hahmann and E. Fernandez-Grande, “A convolutional plane wave model for sound field reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 152, no. 5, pp. 3059–3068, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Recursive spatial covariance estimation with sparse priors for sound field interpolation,

    D. Sundström, J. Lindström, and A. Jakobsson, “Recursive spatial covariance estimation with sparse priors for sound field interpolation,” in IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop, Hanoi, Vietnam, 06 2023, pp. 517–521

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Wahba, Spline models for observational data, SIAM, 1990

    G. Wahba, Spline models for observational data, SIAM, 1990

    work page 1990

  18. [18]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, The MIT Press, 11 2005

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    Sound field recording using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of infinite order,

    N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound field recording using distributed microphones based on harmonic analysis of infinite order,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 135–139, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Kernel ridge regression with constraint of Helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,

    N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Kernel ridge regression with constraint of Helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,” in IEEE Int. Workshop Acoust. Signal Enhancement, Tokyo, Japan, 09 2018, pp. 1–440

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Kernel learning for sound field estimation with l1 and l2 regularizations,

    R. Horiuchi, S. Koyama, J. G. C. Ribeiro, N. Ueno, and H. Saruwatari, “Kernel learning for sound field estimation with l1 and l2 regularizations,” in IEEE Int. Workshop Appl. Signal Process. Audio Acoust., New Paltz, NY, USA, 2021, pp. 261– 265

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Sound field estimation based on physics-constrained kernel interpolation adapted to environment,

    J. G. C. Ribeiro, S. Koyama, R. Horiuchi, and H. Saruwatari, “Sound field estimation based on physics-constrained kernel interpolation adapted to environment,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 32, pp. 4369–4383, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Sound field estimation using deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation,

    D. Sundström, S. Koyama, and A. Jakobsson, “Sound field estimation using deep kernel learning regularized by the wave equation,” in IEEE Int. Workshop Acoust. Signal Enhancement, Aalborg, Denmark, 09 2024, pp. 319–323

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Gaussian processes for sound field reconstruction,

    D. Caviedes-Nozal, N.A.B. Riis, F.M. Heuchel, J. Brunskog, P. Gerstoft, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Gaussian processes for sound field reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 1107–1119, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Frequency domain system identification using arbitrary signals,

    R. Pintelon, J. Schoukens, and G. Vandersteen, “Frequency domain system identification using arbitrary signals,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1717–1720, 2002

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Time domain identification, frequency domain identification. equivalencies! differences?,

    J. Schoukens, R. Pintelon, and Y. Rolain, “Time domain identification, frequency domain identification. equivalencies! differences?,” in IEEE Amer. Control Conf., Boston, MA, USA, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 661–666

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    State of the art in linear system identification: Time and frequency domain methods,

    L. Ljung, “State of the art in linear system identification: Time and frequency domain methods,” in IEEE Amer. Control Conf., Boston, MA, USA, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 650–660

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Time-domain sound field estimation using kernel ridge regression,

    J. Brunnström, M. B. Møller, J. Østergaard, S. Koyama, T. van Waterschoot, and M. Moonen, “Time-domain sound field estimation using kernel ridge regression,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 34, pp. 1243–1258, 2026

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    Reconstruction of room impulse responses over extended domains for navigable sound field reproduction,

    E. Fernandez-Grande, D. Caviedes-Nozal, M. Hahmann, X. Karakonstantis, and S. A. Verburg, “Reconstruction of room impulse responses over extended domains for navigable sound field reproduction,” in IEEE Immersive and 3D Audio: from Architecture to Automotive, Bologna, Italy, 2021, pp. 1–8

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Spatio-temporal Bayesian regression for room impulse response reconstruction with spherical waves,

    D. Caviedes-Nozal and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Spatio-temporal Bayesian regression for room impulse response reconstruction with spherical waves,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 31, pp. 3263–3277, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Optimal transport based impulse response interpolation in the presence of calibration errors,

    D. Sundström, F. Elvander, and A. Jakobsson, “Optimal transport based impulse response interpolation in the presence of calibration errors,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., pp. 1–12, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Room impulse response reconstruction with physics-informed deep learning,

    X. Karakonstantis, D. Caviedes-Nozal, A. Richard, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Room impulse response reconstruction with physics-informed deep learning,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 1048–1059, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Physics-informed neural network for volumetric sound field reconstruction of speech signals,

    M. Olivieri, X. Karakonstantis, M. Pezzoli, F. Antonacci, A. Sarti, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Physics-informed neural network for volumetric sound field reconstruction of speech signals,” EURASIP J. Audio, Speech, Music Process., vol. 2024, no. 1, pp. 42, 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Measurement of correlation coefficients in reverberant sound fields,

    R. K. Cook, R. V. Waterhouse, R. D. Berendt, S. Edelman, and M. C. Thompson Jr, “Measurement of correlation coefficients in reverberant sound fields,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1072–1077, 1955

    work page 1955

  35. [35]

    Jacobsen and P

    F. Jacobsen and P. M. Juhl, Fundamentals of general linear acoustics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2013

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Statistical wave field theory,

    R. Badeau, “Statistical wave field theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 573–599, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Mutual-information-based sensor placement for spatial sound field recording,

    K. Ariga, T. Nishida, S. Koyama, N. Ueno, and H. Saruwatari, “Mutual-information-based sensor placement for spatial sound field recording,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., Barcelona, Spain, 05 2020, IEEE, pp. 166–170

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Region- restricted sensor placement based on Gaussian process for sound field estimation,

    T. Nishida, N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Region- restricted sensor placement based on Gaussian process for sound field estimation,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Process., vol. 70, pp. 1718– 1733, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Optimal sensor placement for the spatial reconstruction of sound fields,

    S. A. Verburg, F. Elvander, T. van Waterschoot, and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Optimal sensor placement for the spatial reconstruction of sound fields,” EURASIP J. Audio, Speech, Music Process., vol. 2024, no. 1, pp. 41, 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Speech derever- beration,

    P. A. Naylor, N. D. Gaubitch, and E. Cross, “Speech derever- beration,” Noise Control Engineering Journal, vol. 59, 2011

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Bayesian sound field reconstruction using partial boundary information,

    D. Sundström, F. Elvander, and A. Jakobsson, “Bayesian sound field reconstruction using partial boundary information,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 33, pp. 4620–4631, 2025

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Spatial covariance estimation for sound field reproduction using kernel ridge regres- sion,

    J. Brunnström, M. B. Møller, J. Østergaard, T. van Water- schoot, M. Moonen, and F. Elvander, “Spatial covariance estimation for sound field reproduction using kernel ridge regres- sion,” in IEEE European Sig. Process. Conf., Palermo, Italy, 09 2025, pp. 86–90

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,

    Á. González, “Measurement of areas on a sphere using fibonacci and latitude–longitude lattices,” Mathematical geosciences, vol. 42, pp. 49–64, 2010

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    Room impulse response generator,

    E.A.P. Habets, “Room impulse response generator,” Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Tech. Rep, vol. 2, no. 2.4, pp. 1, 2006

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Optimal sensor placement for localizing structured signal sources,

    M. Juhlin and A. Jakobsson, “Optimal sensor placement for localizing structured signal sources,” Signal Processing, vol. 202, pp. 108679, 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Monson H Hayes, Statistical digital signal processing and modeling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996

    work page 1996

  47. [47]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Abramowitz and Stegun: Handbook of Mathematical Functions, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1972

    work page 1972