Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. I NTRODUCTION
The LMF algorithm [1] is known to perform better than
the LMS algorithm in the case of non-Gaussian noise and
in low SNR environments. However, both algorithms do not
explore the special structure of sparsity that appears in many
systems, e.g., digital transmission channels [2] and wide area
wireless channels. Several approaches have been used to endow adaptive algorithms the ability to recognize such systems.
For example, the work in [3] uses sequential updating, since
the sparse filters are long by nature and most of the elements
are zeros. The proportionate LMF algorithm [4] and PNLMS
algorithm [5] are applied to sparse systems identification,
where the updating power depends on the value of the weight.
The advent of compressive sensing [6] and the least absolute
shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) [7], are different
approaches appeared by endowing adaptive algorithms with
the ability to recognize sparse structures. By adding l1 norm
regression to the LMS algorithm, the derived sparse-aware
algorithm called zero attractor LMS (ZA-LMS) algorithm [8].
This algorithm fundamentally tries to attract all the weights
to zero, and hence the naming zero attractor. To avoid the
strong bias of the ZA-LMS algorithm when the system is
not sparse, a weighted zero attractor is introduced in [8] to
endow the resultant adaption with the ability to recognize nonzero elements, and apply small attraction to zero for these
group of elements. The sparse LMF algorithms introduced
in [9] proved to outperform their counterpart sparse-aware
LMS algorithms in low SNR environment. However, both the
LMS and the LMF family sparse families inherit the slow
M. Bashir and A. Zerguine are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, KSA
(e-mail: {g201304570,azzedine}@kfupm.edu.sa).
(1)
(2)
where T is an N N transformation matrix and the transformed input is xi . Both xi and ui are of length N . The
transform domain LMF algorithm is given by
T 3
wi = wi1 + 1
i xi e (i)
(3)
wi = TT w
i
(4)
where
where w
i is the time domain weight vector and wi is the
transformed domain weight vector. is the step size, e(i) is the
error, the difference between the desired output and the output
of the adaptive system, and is the power normalization
matrix. Clearly (3) does not exploit any sparsity information
in its recursion. In order to exploit sparsity, we will alter the
J
wiT
(5)
= E[n2k2
]E[vi viT ]E[zi ]
i
= E[n2k2
]Rv E[zi ]
i
(12)
JZA
= e3 (i)xTi + ZA TT sgn(Twi )
wiT
(7)
0<<
T
wi = wi1 + 1 xTi e3 (i) ZA 1
i T sgn(Twi )
(9)
(10)
2
n2 T r(Rv )
(15)
A. Convergence Analysis
(14)
e(i) = n(i)
2
(2k 1)E[n2k2
]T r(Rv )
i
(17)
1 xTi .
where
=
Using energy conservation relation
arguments leads to the following [12]:
e i k2 + E
Ekw
|ea (i)|2
|ep (i)|2
e i1 k2 + E
= Ekw
2
kvi k2
kvi k22
(18)
(19)
(11)
EM SE = E|ea (i)|2
(20)
|ea (i)|2
|ep (i)|2
=
E
kvi k22
kvi k22
(21)
(22)
Then:
ksi k2vi vT
|ea (i)|
2 6
2
i
E
+
E
e
(i)kv
k
+
E
i
|
{z
}2
kvi k22
kvi k22
| {z }
A
B
vi si
3
2Eea (i)e (i) + ea (i)
{z
}
|
kvi k22
{z
}
|
C
D
e3 (i)vi si
(23)
2
|ep (i)|
kvi k22
{z
E = 6n2 w
iT Rv si
(31)
(30)
5n4 T r(Rv )
2 9n2 T r(Rv )
|
{z
}
EM SET DLM F
ksi kRv
1
+ E
w
i T r(Rv )[6n2
]si
T r(Rv )
T r(Rv )
{z
}
|
EM SEsparse
(32)
Moreover, we will also resort to the separation principle
assumption, which states that, at steady-state the adaption error
is independent of the input. Also, we will use the following
relation expectation approximation [14]:
E
EviT vi
Rv
viT vi
=
2
2
kvi k2
Ekvi k2
T r(Rv )
(24)
(25)
(26)
A 45
+ 15
T r(Rv )n2
(27)
ksi k2vi vT
i
kvi k22
ksi kRv
=E
T r(Rv )
(28)
(29)
where
=
6n2
1
452 T r(Rv )n4
(33)
5n4 T r(Rv )
ksi kRv
+ E
2
2 9n T r(Rv )
T r(Rv )
(34)
5n4 T r(Rv )
2 9n2 T r(Rv )
Ew
i T r(Rv )(6n2
1
)si (35)
T r(Rv )
ZALMF
ZALMS
TDZALMF
TDZALMS
2
4
MSD (dB)
MSD (dB)
ZALMF
ZALMS
TDZALMF
TDZALMS
10
12
14
6
8
10
16
12
18
14
20
22
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
iteration
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
iteration
Fig. 1: MSD curves for white Gaussian input with sparsity rate = 2.
Algorithm
ZA-LMS
ZA-LMF
TD-ZA-LMS
TD-ZA-LMF
First Experiment
5.5 105
5 106
4.5 105
9 106
Second Experiment
1 105
9 106
3.1 105
9 106
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Walach and B. Widrow, The least mean fourth (lmf) adaptive
algorithm and its family, Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 275283, 1984.
[2] W. Schreiber, Advanced television systems for terrestrial broadcasting:
Some problems and some proposed solutions, Proceedings of the IEEE,
vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 958981, 1995.
[3] D. Etter, Identification of sparse impulse response systems using an
adaptive delay filter, in Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, IEEE
International Conference on ICASSP85., vol. 10. IEEE, 1985, pp.
11691172.
[4] Y. Yilmaz and S. S. Kozat, An extended version of the nlmf algorithm based on proportionate krylov subspace projections, in Machine
Learning and Applications, 2009. ICMLA09. International Conference
on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 404408.
[5] D. L. Duttweiler, Proportionate normalized least-mean-squares adaptation in echo cancelers, Speech and Audio Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 508518, 2000.
[6] D. L. Donoho, Compressed sensing, Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 12891306, 2006.
[7] R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), pp.
267288, 1996.
[8] Y. Chen, Y. Gu, and A. O. Hero, Sparse lms for system identification,
in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2009. ICASSP 2009. IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 31253128.
[9] G. Gui and F. Adachi, Sparse least mean fourth algorithm for adaptive
channel estimation in low signal-to-noise ratio region, International
Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 31473157,
2014.
[10] S. Narayan, A. M. Peterson, and M. J. Narasimha, Transform domain
lms algorithm, Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 609615, 1983.
[11] K. Shi and X. Ma, Transform domain lms algorithms for sparse system
identification, in Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP),
2010 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 37143717.
[12] A. H. Sayed, Fundamentals of adaptive filtering. John Wiley & Sons,
2003.
[13] S. Zhao, Z. Man, S. Khoo, and H. R. Wu, Stability and convergence
analysis of transform-domain lms adaptive filters with second-order autoregressive process, Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 57,
no. 1, pp. 119130, 2009.
[14] C. Samson and V. Reddy, Fixed point error analysis of the normalized
ladder algorithm, Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 11771191, 1983.