Stability and MSE analyses of affine projection algorithms for sparse system identification

We analyze two algorithms, viz. the affine projection algorithm for sparse system identification (APA-SSI) and the quasi APA-SSI (QAPA-SSI), regarding their stability and steady-state mean-squared error (MSE). These algorithms exploit the sparsity of the involved signals through an approximation of the l0 norm. Such approach yields faster convergence and reduced steady-state MSE, as compared to algorithms that do not take the sparse nature of the signals into account. In addition, modeling sparsity via such approximation has been consistently verified to be superior to the widely used l1 norm in several scenarios. In this paper, we show how to properly set the parameters of the two aforementioned algorithms in order to guarantee convergence, and we derive closed-form theoretical expressions for their steady-state MSE. A key conclusion from the proposed analysis is that the MSE of these two algorithms is a monotonically decreasing function of the sparsity degree. Simulation results are used to validate the theoretical findings.

[1]  Yuantao Gu,et al.  $l_{0}$ Norm Constraint LMS Algorithm for Sparse System Identification , 2009, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[2]  Paulo S. R. Diniz,et al.  Affine projection algorithms for sparse system identification , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[3]  Paulo S. R. Diniz,et al.  Sparsity-Aware Data-Selective Adaptive Filters , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[4]  Michael Elad,et al.  Sparse and Redundant Representations - From Theory to Applications in Signal and Image Processing , 2010 .

[5]  Ligang Liu,et al.  An improved mu-law proportionate NLMS algorithm , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[6]  Sergios Theodoridis,et al.  Online Sparse System Identification and Signal Reconstruction Using Projections Onto Weighted $\ell_{1}$ Balls , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[7]  Donald L. Duttweiler,et al.  Proportionate normalized least-mean-squares adaptation in echo cancelers , 2000, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[8]  Ali H. Sayed,et al.  A unified approach to the steady-state and tracking analyses of adaptive filters , 2001, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[9]  Paulo S. R. Diniz,et al.  Steady-State MSE Performance of the Set-Membership Affine Projection Algorithm , 2013, Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing.

[10]  Akihiko Sugiyama,et al.  A generalized proportionate variable step-size algorithm for fast changing acoustic environments , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[11]  Gitta Kutyniok,et al.  1 . 2 Sparsity : A Reasonable Assumption ? , 2012 .

[12]  P. L. Combettes.  The foundations of set theoretic estimation , 1993 .

[13]  Andy W. H. Khong,et al.  Efficient Use Of Sparse Adaptive Filters , 2006, 2006 Fortieth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.

[14]  Sergios Theodoridis,et al.  Adaptive algorithm for sparse system identification using projections onto weighted ℓ1 balls , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[15]  V. Nascimento,et al.  Sparsity-aware affine projection adaptive algorithms for system identification , 2011 .

[16]  慧 廣瀬.  A Mathematical Introduction to Compressive Sensing , 2015 .

[17]  S.L. Gay,et al.  An efficient, fast converging adaptive filter for network echo cancellation , 1998, Conference Record of Thirty-Second Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (Cat. No.98CH36284).

[18]  Kazuhiko Ozeki,et al.  An adaptive filtering algorithm using an orthogonal projection to an affine subspace and its properties , 1984 .

[19]  Ali H. Sayed,et al.  Mean-square performance of a family of affine projection algorithms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[20]  Mike Brookes,et al.  Adaptive algorithms for sparse echo cancellation , 2006, Signal Process..