Comparison of RLS, LMS, and sign algorithms for tracking randomly time-varying channels

The performance of adaptive FIR filters governed by the recursive least-squares (RLS) algorithm, the least mean square (LMS) algorithm, and the sign algorithm (SA), are compared when the optimal filtering vector is randomly time-varying. The comparison is done in terms of the steady-state excess mean-square estimation error /spl xi/ and the steady-state mean-square weight deviation, /spl eta/. It is shown that /spl xi/ does not depend on the spread of eigenvalues of the input covariance matrix, R, in the cases of the LMS algorithm and the SA, while it does in the case of the RLS algorithm. In the three algorithms, /spl eta/ is found to be increasing with the eigenvalue spread. The value of the adaptation parameter that minimizes /spl xi/ is different from the one that minimizes /spl eta/. It is shown that the minimum values of /spl xi/ and /spl eta/ attained by the RLS algorithm are equal to the ones attained by the LMS algorithm in any one of the three following cases: (1) if R has equal eigenvalues, (2) if the fluctuations of the individual elements of the optimal vector are mutually uncorrelated and have the same mean-square value, or (3) if R is diagonal and the fluctuations of the individual elements of the optimal vector have the same mean-square value. Conditions that make the values of /spl xi/ and /spl eta/ of the LMS algorithm smaller (or greater) than the ones of the RLS algorithm are derived. For Gaussian input data, the minimum values of /spl xi/ and /spl eta/ attained by the SA are found to exceed the ones attained by the LMS algorithm by 1 dB independently of R and the mutual correlation between the elements of the optimal vector. >

[1]  B. Anderson,et al.  Performance of adaptive estimation algorithms in dependent random environments , 1980 .

[2]  B. Widrow,et al.  Adaptive noise cancelling: Principles and applications , 1975 .

[3]  Mamadou Mboup,et al.  Steady-state superiority of LMS over LS for time-varying line enhancer in noisy environment , 1991 .

[4]  B. Widrow,et al.  Stationary and nonstationary learning characteristics of the LMS adaptive filter , 1976, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[5]  Eweda Eweda,et al.  Convergence of the RLS and LMS adaptive filters , 1987 .

[6]  Theo A. C. M. Claasen,et al.  Some Considerations on the Design of Adaptive Digital Filters Equipped with the Sign Algorithm , 1984, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[7]  Eweda Eweda Optimum step size of sign algorithm for nonstationary adaptive filtering , 1990, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[8]  O. Macchi Optimization of adaptive identification for time-varying filters , 1984, The 23rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[9]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  Adaptation and tracking in system identification - A survey , 1990, Autom..

[10]  S. Thomas Alexander,et al.  Adaptive Signal Processing , 1986, Texts and Monographs in Computer Science.

[11]  David D. Falconer,et al.  Tracking properties and steady-state performance of RLS adaptive filter algorithms , 1986, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[12]  Sung Ho Cho,et al.  Tracking analysis of the sign algorithm in nonstationary environments , 1990, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[13]  O. Macchi,et al.  Compared speed and accuracy of the RLS and LMS algorithms with constant forgetting factors , 1988 .

[14]  E. Eweda,et al.  Analysis and design of a signed regressor LMS algorithm for stationary and nonstationary adaptive filtering with correlated Gaussian data , 1990 .

[15]  Fuyun Ling,et al.  Nonstationary learning characteristics of least squares adaptive estimation algorithms , 1984, ICASSP.