1
$\begingroup$

In Bartlett's PSD estimate one averages over L segments of the squared DFT coefficients. From wikipedia I found this formula

$$ \textrm{PSD}(k) = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L} \frac{1}{M} \lvert X^{[l]}(k)\rvert^2 \tag{1}$$ where $X^{[l]}$ denotes the DFT of the $l^{\rm th}$ segment.

With my (not so standard) DFT Definition

$$ X(k) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{n=1}^{N}x[n]e^{-j\omega_kn}, \textrm{with } \omega_k = \frac{2\pi k}{N} \tag{2} $$

Bartlett's method results in

$$\textrm{PSD}(k) = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L} \frac{1}{M} \lvert\sqrt{M}\cdot X^{[l]}(k)\rvert^2 = \frac{1}{L}\sum_{l=1}^{L} \lvert X^{[l]}(k)\rvert^2 \tag{3}$$

A similar formula is given in my textbook for the (unbiased) sample variance of the DFT coefficients of a periodic signal:

$$ \hat{\sigma}_x^2(k) = \frac{1}{L-1}\sum_{l=1}^{L} \lvert X^{[l]}(k) - \hat{X}(k)\rvert^2 \tag4$$

with sample mean $\hat{X}(k) = \frac{1}{L} \sum_{l=1}^{L} X^{[l]}(k)$

Assuming that $\hat{X}=0$, equations $(3)$ and $(4)$ seem to be biased & unbiased estimates of the variance $\sigma_X^2(k)$.

Questions:

  • Always assuming $\hat{X}=0$, is it generally correct to interpret the PSD as an biased estimate of the DFT variance? If not, can someone explain the difference, please?
  • Would Bartlett's method become an unbiased estimator for the DFT variance if $(3)$ was scaled by $\frac{1}{L-1}$ instead of $\frac{1}{L}$?
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

So, as usual, I start by pointing out what the PSD actually is:

The power spectral density is the Fourier Transform of the autocorrelation function of a wide-sense stationary random process.

Always assuming $\hat{X}=0$, is it generally correct to interpret the PSD as an biased estimate of the DFT variance? If not, can someone explain the difference, please?

The Wiener-Chintschin¹ theorem points out that this happens to coincide with the expectation value of the absolute of the Fourier transform of a signal. In other words, to answer your first question:

The PSD is a stochastic (hence, "invisible") property of a random process. The DFT can be used to estimate that; not the other way around!


To answer your second question, a bit of juggling the term of variance is required:

Would Bartlett's method become an unbiased estimator for the DFT variance if (3) was scaled by $\frac{1}{L-1}$ instead of $\frac{1}{L}$?

Variance is formally defined as the expectation of the square of the deviation of any observation to the mean:

$$Var(X) = \mathbf E\left[\left(X-\mu\right)^2\right]$$

Now, applying Parseval's theorem, the power in a time and frequency domain should be identical. Considering a white random process, where the covariance of two samples is 0, it's easy to see that variance is kind-of-linear:

$$Var\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^L X_i\right) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^N Var(X_i)$$

Considering the special case of L=1, it becomes clear that $(4)$ isn't applicable here – you kind of get the standard deviation of the process, but not the variance.


¹ there's more latin-lettered spellings to Chintschin than there's letters in in his cyrillic name...

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1 for the footnote. I had the same issue with Tchebyshev, so I wrote it in cyrillic in my thesis. One of my examiners took exception to it. :-) $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Jun 24 '16 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterK. when I had handed in my Bachelor's Thesis, my professor came in the other day, barging through the lab door, Mr. Müller, you misquoted!; that being a major scientific no-no, I was seriously worried. I was later told that I wrote "harris" with a capital H and he was making fun of me. Phew. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jun 24 '16 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ If that's quoting fred harris, then you did misquote! :-) $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Jun 24 '16 at 17:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterK. no doubt about that. But I was of course worried that I didn't mark a foreign result clearly enough and might be guilty of plagiarism in the eyes of my –powerfully (and at times, loudly) eloquent– professor. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jun 24 '16 at 19:04
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcusMüller Thanks for your answer. The first question is answered. I'm not sure about the second. Your paragraph about Parseval's Theorem confuses me a bit. I'm not sure how time domain comes into play here. I'm actually interested in the variance of a single DFT coefficient $X(k)$. $\endgroup$ – snowflake Jul 1 '16 at 22:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.