www.ietdl.

org

Published in IET Signal Processing

Received on 17th December 2007
Revised on 14th September 2008
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222

ISSN 1751-9675

Block-based fuzzy step size NLMS algorithms

for subband adaptive channel equalisation
Y.H. Ng H. Mohamad T.C. Chuah
Faculty of Engineering, Multimedia University, Jalan Multimedia, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: tcchuah@mmu.edu.my

Abstract: Judicious selection of the step size parameter is crucial for adaptive algorithms to strike a good balance
between convergence speed and misadjustment. The fuzzy step size (FSS) technique has been shown to improve
the performance of the classical xed step size and variable step size (VSS) normalised least mean square (NLMS)
algorithms. The performance of the FSS technique in the context of subband adaptive equalisation is analysed and
two novel block-based fuzzy step size (BFSS) strategies for the NLMS algorithm, namely xed block fuzzy step size
(FBFSS) and adaptive block fuzzy step size (ABFSS) are proposed. By exploiting the nature of gradient noise
inherent in stochastic gradient algorithms, these strategies are shown to substantially reduce the
computational complexity of the conventional FSS technique without sacricing the convergence speed and
steady-state performance. Instead of updating the step size at every iteration, the proposed techniques adjust
the step size based on the instantaneous squared error once over a block length. Design methodology and
guidelines that lead to good performance for the algorithms are given.

1 Introduction permissible range. These predicaments limit the usage of

The normalised least mean square (NLMS) algorithm [1] is
one of the most widely used adaptive algorithms in many
signal processing applications because to its robustness and
ease of implementation. The performance of this algorithm
is governed by a step size parameter whose value determines
a trade-off between convergence speed and steady-state
misadjustment. In general, a larger step size leads to faster
convergence but results in larger misadjustments and vice
versa.
To achieve a good trade-off between convergence and error
misadjusments, various variable step size (VSS) techniques
that initially utilise a larger step size and subsequently shift
to a smaller step size have been proposed [2 7]. This
heuristic approach can be obtained by adjusting the step size
value according to some criterion. However, all algorithms
in [2 6] require specication of additional constants (e.g.
forgetting and weighting parameters, smoothing factor and
so on) to control the learning behaviour. Furthermore,
optimal choice of these parameters is highly dependent on
the problem and ne tuning is required. Besides, care should
be exercised to prevent the step size from exceeding the
such algorithms.
In [7], instead of interpreting linguistic rules in a
mathematical model as in VSS techniques, step size
adjustment implemented directly in a linguistic model using
a fuzzy approach was proposed. It was shown that the fuzzy
step size (FSS) technique outperforms the conventional VSS
techniques in [2, 3]. Furthermore, the step size used in the
FSS technique is self-constrained, thereby eliminating the
requirement of supervision.
To date, most existing VSS techniques only focus on
fullband adaptive lter structures. Recently, subband
adaptive equalisers have been demonstrated to exhibit faster
convergence speed at a complexity lower than their fullband
counterparts [8, 9]. Subband adaptive equalisers are well
suited for parallel implementation because equalisation can
be performed independently in each band. In this regard,
the aforementioned design issues plaguing the VSS
techniques are compounded as the overall equaliser
performance is determined by the performance of
individual subband equalisers. To address these issues, an

IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32 23

doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
www.ietdl.org
FSS technique that provides reliable implementation can
be invoked.
To the best of our knowledge, no work on FSS technique
for subband adaptive lters has been published to date.
However, both the VSS and FSS techniques are too costly
to be implemented as step size adaptation is needed for
every subband equaliser. To overcome this problem, we
propose two novel block-based fuzzy step size (BFSS)
techniques that exploit the nature of gradient noise in
stochastic gradient algorithms to reduce the complexity of
the FSS technique by updating the step size over a block
length. In the xed block fuzzy step size (FBFSS)
technique, it is difcult to obtain the optimum block
length for practical channels as the channel characteristics
are unknown and time-varying. To circumvent this
problem, we propose a modied FBFSS approach called
adaptive block fuzzy step size (ABFSS), whereby the block
length of the ABFSS approach is adapted according to the
instantaneous squared error.
It is important to stress that the proposed BFSS strategies
are different from the fuzzy sequential partial update (FSPU)
technique in [10] and the fuzzy logic-controlled block
adaptive ltering (FLC-BAF) in [11]. As compared with
the conventional FSS technique, the FSPU technique leads
to reduced complexity but suffers from slower convergence,
while the FLC-BAF technique attains faster convergence
speeds at the expense of a higher computational
Figure 1 Schematic of the subband adaptive equaliser utilising the FSS NLMS algorithm
24
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
complexity. Clearly, these issues are exacerbated when the
techniques are to be implemented into subband adaptive
lters. Other approaches include the NLMS algorithm
based on the Kalman lter [12], non-parametric technique
[13] and neural network method [14].
2 Subband adaptive equaliser
structure and FSS technique
In this paper, vectors are represented by boldface lower case
letters and matrices by boldface upper case letters. (.)T and
(.)H symbolise the transpose and Hermitian operations,
respectively.
In this section, we propose a novel subband adaptive
equaliser that incorporates FSS as depicted in Fig. 1.
The impulse response of the bth analysis lter fb[n] can be
derived from a real-valued low-pass prototype nite impulse
response (FIR) lter p[n] of even length Lp by using a
generalised discrete Fourier transform (GDFT)
fb [n] p[n]  e j(2p=B)(bb0 )(nn0 ) n 0, 1, 2,    , Lp  1
b 0, 1, 2,    , B  1 (1)
The impulse response of the bth synthesis lters gb[n] can be
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222

written as
gb [n] ; fb [n]
if the GDFT is selected with a time-offset n0 according to
Lp  1
n0 
2
In Fig. 1, the received signal r [n] and the training signal
dtraining [n] are split into B subbands by the analysis lter
bank and decimated by a factor of X. Oversampled lter
banks with an oversampling ratio of B/X . 1 are preferred
as any aliased components of this approach would lie in the
stopband of the respective analysis lter [15, 16]. We
dene the input tap-delay line vector for the bth subband as:
r b [m] [rb [m] rb [m  1]; . . . ; rb [m  (Lsubband  1)]]T (4)
where m denotes the new sampling instant after the
decimation process and Lsubband denotes the length of the
subband equaliser. The subband signal rb[m] is obtained by
ltering the input signal r[n] using the analysis lter fb[n]:
Lp 1
X inputs need to be limited to the domain of the input
rb [m] fb [v]  r[Xm  v] b [ [0, B  1] X , B (5)
v0
Let wb[m] denote the weight vector for the bth subband,
wb [m] [wb,0 [m] wb,1 [m] wb,2 [m]; . . . ; wb,Lsubband 1 [m]]
The subband equaliser output ^s[m] is given by
^sb [m] wH
b [m]r b [m]
Therefore the error signal within each subband can be
calculated as
eb [m] dtrainingb [m]  ^sb [m]
The equaliser coefcients for different subbands are adjusted
independently using the individual subband error signal by
means of the NLMS algorithm:
mb [m]
wb [m 1] wb [m] r b [m]eb [m]
a rH
b [m]r b [m]
mb [m]
wb [m] r [m]eb [m]
a jjr b [m]jj2 b
where a is a small positive constant to avoid division by zero
if jjr b [m]jj2 0 and 0 , mb [m] , 2 is the range of
normalised step size for the bth subband at the mth iteration
mb [m] FIS(eb2 [m])
where FIS(.) denotes the fuzzy inference function whose
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222
www.ietdl.org
operation is based on the fuzzy IF-THEN rules to be
presented later. The fullband equaliser output ^s[n] can be
(2) reconstructed using a synthesis lter bank.
Fig. 2 illustrates the block diagram of a subband adaptive
lter with the step size of the NLMS algorithm updated by
a fuzzy inference system (FIS).
(3)
The FIS is based on the principle of fuzzy logic originally
developed by Zadeh [17], which is used to handle linguistic
concepts. In channel equalisation, the FIS provides an
adaptation mechanism that converts the linguistic control
strategy based on the channel characteristics into an
adaptive parameter control strategy. The FIS consists of
three main processors, namely fuzzier, rule inference
engine and defuzzier.
The fuzzier transforms the input variables into their
respective degrees to which they belong to each of the
appropriate fuzzy sets by using membership functions
(MBFs). The fuzzy sets are used to partition the continuous
domain of the FIS input and output variables into a small
number of overlapping regions labelled with linguistic terms
to cover the entire universe of discourse. The crisp numerical
variables. The output of the fuzzication process
demonstrates a fuzzy degree of membership between 0 and 1.
In this paper, three fuzzy sets, namely small, medium
T and large are used for the input and output fuzzy
variables, which correspond, respectively, to the squared
(6) error and lter step size. Some examples of membership
functions are depicted in Fig. 3. The input limit for the
squared error is very much larger than 0.2, but for clarity, it
is only shown until 0.2 in Fig. 3a. It should be stressed
(7) that the optimum position of the fuzzy sets within their
respective limits for different types of channels is different.
Next, the following fuzzy IF-THEN rules are applied:
(8) IF eb2 [m] is large, THEN mb [m] is large.
IF eb2 [m] is medium, THEN mb [m] is medium.
(9)
(10)
Figure 2 Block diagram of a subband adaptive lter with
the FSS NLMS algorithm
25
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
www.ietdl.org

where q is the number of sections used in approximating

  the
area under the aggregated MBF and MBF mib [m] is the
MBF value at location mib [m]. The centroid technique is
preferred over other defuzzication techniques as it can
produce the smallest mean squared error (MSE) and lends
itself well for digital implementation. Moreover, other
approaches require comparison operations, which
complicate the implementation of defuzzication [7].

When the classical xed step size NLMS algorithm is

employed for adaptive subband ltering, the step size value
is chosen to be identical for each subband because the
signal characteristic in each subband is not known a priori.
However, by utilising the FSS NLMS algorithm, the step
size can vary differently in each subband thereby resulting
in faster convergence.

3 Block-based fuzzy step size

(BFSS) NLMS algorithms
In this section, we propose two novel BFSS NLMS
Figure 3 Membership functions algorithms.
a Membership functions for the squared error spread over its
universe of discourse
b Membership functions for the step size spread over its bound 3.1 Fixed block fuzzy step size (FBFSS)
NLMS algorithm
IF eb2 [m] is small, THEN mb [m] is small.
As the gradient of stochastic gradient algorithms is estimated
using a single sample of the input ensemble, their update
If the FSS technique is applied to the LMS algorithm
directions are subject to random uctuations called gradient
instead of the NLMS algorithm, the additional rule such
noise. Consequently, the instantaneous squared error does
that a small mb [m] is assigned when a very large eb2 [m]
not decrease monotonically from sample to sample, instead
occurs can be included. This rule prevents the FSS LMS
decays gradually in a noisy fashion.
algorithm from overreacting to some abnormal conditions,
which may cause abrupt perturbations in the error signal.
The gradient noise can be treated as a random disturbance
to the FIS as the only input is the instantaneous squared
Next, we apply the implication operation, which is dened
error. For this reason, updating the step size for every
as the shaping of the consequent (THEN-part) of the rule
sample is wasteful of computational resources. We propose
based on the antecedent. In this paper, the Larson product
a low-complexity FBFSS NLMS algorithm that updates
implication operation [18] is adopted. The next step in the
the step size on a block-by-block basis as in Table 1.
fuzzy inference engine is to aggregate all outputs of each rule
into a single fuzzy set for the step size variable by applying
As the step size is updated in every block, there will be less
the maximum operator. This inference process is commonly
disturbance to the FIS system. When K is large, this
known as the Mamdani-style inference [19] in which the
approach can signicantly reduce the computational
step size MBF is considered to be the fuzzy set. It has been
complexity of the FSS NLMS algorithm. However, care
shown to be more appropriate than the Sugeno-style fuzzy
should be exercised in selecting K. Intuitively, a small K
inference [19] that utilises singleton step size MBFs as
will result in convergence speeds similar to that of the FSS
coarser adjustments for the step size in the Sugeno method
NLMS algorithm. If K is under-determined, the FBFSS
cannot adapt to the changing environment accurately [7].
NLMS algorithm is not implemented efciently. On the
contrary, the FBFSS NLMS algorithm will converge
The nal process of the FIS is defuzzication that converts
slower than the FSS NLMS algorithm when K is over-
the aggregated fuzzy value for the step size into a crisp value
determined, in particular when K is comparable with or
to be used by the NLMS algorithm. Here, the centroid
larger than the number of step size adaptations needed by
technique that returns the centre of area under the
the FSS NLMS algorithm. In such situations, the step size
aggregated MBFs curve is utilised [18]
could be trapped in a suboptimum range, with the
Pq i
 i  minimum duration equal to the block length. For adaptive
i1 mb [m]MBF mb [m] equalisation, a larger K should be applied to very dispersive
mb [m] Pq  i
 (11)
i1 MBF mb [m] channels as a longer training duration is required.

26 IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008 doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222

Table 1 FBFSS NLMS algorithm
Step 1: Initialisation.
 Step 3: Step size and block length adaptation.
1 m1
C1 0 and j
K else
where C1 and K denote the counting index and the block
length, respectively.
Step 2: Execute (7) and (8) and C1 C1 1.
Step 3: Step size adaptation.
IF C1 j, then execute (10) and reset C1 0.
Else set mb[m] mb[m 2 1].
Step 4: Tap weights adaptation by the NLMS algorithm.
Execute (9).
Step 5: Repeat steps 2 to 4.
The problem of block length selection arises when the
channel characteristics are unknown. As a conservative
guide, we suggest setting the block length to be close to
the lter length. This can be justied by the fact that the
convergence speed is inversely proportional to the lter
length and in most adaptive ltering applications,
the training duration required for convergence is larger than
the lter length. In particular, for subband adaptive
equalisation, the required training duration is found to be
very much larger than the subband lter length [8, 9].
Although the suggested K value might not be the optimal
choice from the viewpoint of complexity saving, but in
most cases, this suggested block length can effectively
minimise the trapping duration to achieve satisfactory
convergence performances while achieving a complexity
lower than that of the FSS NLMS algorithm. As the FSS
and FBFSS NLMS algorithms are converging, the lter
coefcients are approaching their respective steady-state
values. It is understandable that mb [1] for both the FSS
and FBFSS NLMS algorithms will be identical.
Consequently, this results in the same eb [1] and e[1]
values for both algorithms.
In practice, many channels are time-varying with different
levels of dispersiveness, therefore the block length should be
adapted accordingly. To full this requirement, we propose a
novel time-varying BFSS NLMS algorithm in the next
subsections.
3.2 Adaptive block fuzzy step size (ABFSS)
NLMS algorithm
In the ABFSS NLMS algorithm, the block length is adapted
to the fullband squared error e2 [n] based on the adaptive
switching thresholds. In this regard, steps 1, 2, 4 and 5 of
the FBFSS NLMS algorithm described in Section 3.1
remain unchanged, with the exception that step 3 being
modied as in Table 2.
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222
www.ietdl.org
Table 2 Step 3 of ABFSS NLMS algorithm
IF C1 j, then execute (10) for step size adaptation and
perform the following table lookup for block length
adaptation:
8
>
> K1 if e2 [n]  d1
>
> if d2  e2 [n] , d1
< K2
>
K .. ..
> . .
>
>
>
> K if d  e 2
[n] , dL1
: L1 L
KL if e2 [n] , dL
where K1 . K2 . . . . . KL21 . KL and d1 . d2 . . . . .
dL21 . dL denote the preset block lengths and switching
thresholds, respectively. The subscript L represents the
number of switching levels.
Reset C1 0.
Else set mb[m] mb[m 2 1].
With this setting, the block length decreases as the number
of subband iterations increases. It exploits the fact that the
FSS at the early training phase is larger and thus a larger
step size can be utilised for a longer duration and
unnecessary step size updates can be reduced. A small step
size near convergence can also be avoided from being
trapped for a long duration. As the complexity incurred in
block length adaptation using the fullband squared error is
independent of the number of subbands, the complexity
can be kept to a minimum. Consequently, the block length
for different subbands at any instant will be identical.
With regard to the convergence speed and steady-steady
error, the performances of ABFSS NLMS algorithms are
expected to be similar to that of the FSS NLMS algorithm
if the switching thresholds are properly set. Also, it is
worth mentioning that the time-varying feature of the
block length of the ABFSS NLMS algorithm provides an
extra degree of freedom to facilitate algorithm design.
4 Computational complexities
In this section, the computational complexities of the
proposed algorithms are derived. The computational
complexity of the FIS for each step size adaptation,
denoted by CFIS , is summarised in Table 3.
The CFIS is quantied in terms of the number of counts
to perform special instructions that include table lookup,
comparison, addition and multiplication. More precisely,
the additional costs involved in preparing the input
variable prior to fuzzication are also included in CFIS .
However, the complexity associated with block length
adaptation of the ABFSS NLMS algorithm can be
neglected as it is insignicant compared with the overall
complexity. To alleviate the computational load in the
27
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
www.ietdl.org
Table 3 Computational complexity of the FIS for every step-size adaptation
Stage
Fuzzication of input 1 for computing squared
Fuzzy Larson product implication
Aggregation of output using max operator
Defuzzication using centroid method over
q-point interval
Total computational complexity, CFIS
centroid calculation, fewer points (q) should be used as
the main computational burden is incurred by the
defuzzication process.
The complexity of a subband adaptive equaliser that
requires N training iterations to converge is
 satisfactory convergence speed and steady-state performance
B 1  
CT N 8   Lsubband  6  Lp 12  B  log2 B
X X
ABCFIS (12)
where A denotes the number of step size adaptations required
for each subband to converge. Likewise, AFSS , AFBFSS and
AABFSS represent the number of step size adaptations needed
for the FSS, FBFSS and ABFSS NLMS algorithms,
respectively. The complexity of the xed step size NLMS
algorithm can be determined from (12) with A 0.
AFSS and AFBFSS can be expressed by (13) and (14),
respectively
N
AFSS (13)
X
AFSS
AFBFSS (14)
K
Equations (12) (14) are also applicable to a fullband
counterpart, where B 1 X 1 and Lsubband represents the
length of the fullband equaliser.
5 Simulation results
We consider a 64-QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation)
signal transmitted over a channel with a system
function h(z) 0.182 0.269 z 21 0.888 z 22 0.269 z 23
0.182 z 24 at signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) 30 dB. To
maximise both the signal-to-alias ratio (SAR) and power
complementarity, an iterative least-squares method is
employed to design the prototype lter [20]. The
oversampled GDFT modulated lter bank with a prototype
lter length of Lp 60 splits the fullband signal into B 4
subband signals, each of which is decimated by a factor of
28
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
Multiplication Addition Special instructions
Lookup table (3 lookups)
error
3
3q maximum operators
q 2q 22
q4 2q2 2 3 lookups 3q maximum
operators
X 3. The SAR is 70.14 dB, which is sufcient to ensure
that the aliasing effect in various subbands is negligible [21].
D Lsubband/2 is chosen [22] and Lsubband is set to 53. For
the xed step size NLMS algorithm, m 0.4 is utilised. This
value is found through computer experiments to give
over the investigated channel. The MBFs in Fig. 3 have
been employed for the FSS NLMS and the proposed
algorithms. Block lengths of K 50 and 450 are used for
the FBFSS NLMS algorithm. Table 4 shows the block
length setting of the ABFSS NLMS algorithm.
5.1 MSE performance comparison
The performance of different algorithms is assessed in terms
of the MSE for both the transient and steady-state
behaviours. The MSE results were averaged over an
ensemble of 20 runs.
In Fig. 4, it is observed that the all FSS-based (FSS,
FBFSS and ABFSS) NLMS algorithms achieve
comparable convergence speeds that are signicantly faster
than that of the xed step size NLMS algorithm. It is also
noteworthy that for the FBFSS NLMS algorithm, a
slightly better convergence performance is achieved with a
block length of K 450 over 50. This is because the
performance of the BFSS techniques is affected by the
instantaneous squared error, thus depending on the channel
characteristic, a block length value, which gives good block
smoothing results can be found. Also, all algorithms
converge to approximately the same steady-state error.
However, for applications where only a limited training
period is available, better equalisation performances can be
achieved using the FSS-based NLMS algorithms. For
instance, it is evident in Fig. 4 that the FSS-based NLMS
algorithms achieve a performance gain of 4 dB to 5 dB over
the xed step size NLMS algorithm if only 1500 training
symbols are available.
Subband decomposition of the received signal reduces the
eigenvalue spread in each subband. The eigenvalue spread
can be approximated by the ratio of the maximum and
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222
 www.ietdl.org

Table 4 The block length setting of ABFSS NLMS algorithm

Squared error (e 2[n]) Block length (K )

2
e [n] 0.6 400
2
0.3 e [n] , 0.6 200
2
0.1 e [n] , 0.3 100
2
e [n] , 0.1 50

minimum spectral dynamics in each subband. Because of the

different eigenvalue spreads within each of the B 4
subbands, the learning and steady-state characteristics of
each subband are different. Results that compare the MSE
convergence characteristics within individual subbands are
shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Figure 5 Illustration of individual subbands MSE
performance for the xed step size and FSS NLMS
Note that for the simulated channel spectral interval [0; 2 algorithms
p], the channel spectrum is symmetric at p as the simulated
channel is real-valued. Thus, the MSE convergence curves
for subband indexed b 0 and 1 are almost identical to space constraint, only the results with b 0 and 1 are
shown. It is evident that the different step-size transient
the MSE convergence curves for subband indexed b 3
and 2, respectively. In general, it is observed that the overall characteristics of the subbands contribute to a better
convergence speed is inuenced by the convergence speeds performance over the xed step size NLMS algorithm.
Note that in Fig. 8, the step-size oscillation is very large
of individual subbands. Furthermore, the overall MSE
curves attain nal steady-state errors, which level out at during the transient stage. Further, in the initial phase of
about 225 dB because of the limitation imposed by the the transient stage, the step size may wander over a
suboptimum low step size range, for several iterations. This
subband indexed b 1 and 2. Therefore the results in
Figs. 5 and 6 are in good agreement with the results in Fig. 4. is because the input to the FIS system appears to be
random during the early training stage and constitutes a
random disturbance to the step-size adaptation process. As
To gain a better insight into the behaviours of different
algorithms, Fig. 7 compares their performances in a tracking the step-size adaptation of the FSS NLMS algorithm is
mode with the same equaliser settings used in Fig. 4. The performed on a sample-by-sample basis, the trapping
phenomenon does not occur.
results conrm the ability of the proposed techniques as the
aforementioned desirable characteristics are retained.
In contrast, the step sizes of the FBFSS NLMS algorithm
for all subbands remain large during the initial transient
5.2 Transient characteristics of the period. Besides, a smoother step size decreasing trend in
step size and block length
The transient characteristics of the step size of the FSS and
FBFSS NLMS algorithms are shown in Fig. 8. Because of

Figure 6 Illustration of individual subbands MSE

Figure 4 MSE performance of the xed step size, FSS, FBFSS performance for the xed step size and FBFSS NLMS
and ABFSS NLMS algorithms algorithms

IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32 29

doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
www.ietdl.org
Figure 7 MSE tracking performance of the xed step size,
FSS, FBFSS and ABFSS NLMS algorithms
all subbands is evident. However, the FBFSS NLMS
algorithm is still affected by the random disturbance
caused by the instantaneous squared error during the early
training stage.
From the simulations, it is found that the maximum and
minimum step sizes for all FSS-based NLMS algorithms
are identical, which are 1.267 and 0.4, respectively. Because
of space constraint, the step-size transient characteristics of
the ABFSS algorithm are not shown. As the converged
step size values are identical for all algorithms, similar
modelling capability could be achieved by both the overall
and individual subbands, as illustrated in Figs. 4 7.
Fig. 9 depicts the block length transient characteristic of
the ABFSS NLMS algorithm. The markers indicate the
Figure 8 Step-size transient characteristic for b 0 and 1
using the FSS and FBFSS
30
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
Figure 9 Block length transient characteristic for the ABFSS
NLMS algorithm
subband iteration number where the step size and block
length adaptation take place. It is observed that the block
length of the ABFSS NLMS algorithm converges after
200 subband iterations.
5.3 Computational complexity
comparison
As shown in Section 5.1, the convergence speed of the
proposed algorithms and the FSS NLMS algorithm are
comparable and they converge approximately after 4000
iterations. AABFSS can be interpreted from Fig. 9 by
counting the number of step-size adaptations within the
period AFSS . Fig. 10 shows the computational complexities
of different NLMS algorithms. The complexities of the
FSS-based NLMS algorithms are expressed in terms of
Figure 10 Computational complexity comparison for
different NLMS algorithms
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222

percentage with respect to that of the xed step size NLMS
algorithm.
The maximum value of q for a 16-bit processor is around
4000. For a conservative comparison, q 200 is considered.
With respect to the xed step-size technique, the FSS
NLMS algorithm requires approximately an extra 37%
computational complexity whereas only minor increases in
computational complexity (0.0826 0.7435%) are incurred
by the BFSS strategies.
6 Conclusion
We proposed two novel BFSS strategies for the NLMS
algorithm, namely the FBFSS and ABFSS. Simulation
results show that their convergence speed are similar to that
of the FSS NLMS algorithm but are signicantly faster
than that of the xed step-size NLMS algorithm.
Furthermore, all techniques attain almost identical steady-
state performance. The transient characteristics of the step
size and block length were also analysed. From the
complexity analysis, the proposed techniques can greatly
reduce the computational burden of the FSS NLMS
algorithm. The proposed techniques can also be employed
for other adaptive ltering problems such as noise
cancellation and system identication. These intriguing
concepts have implications for all forms of VSS adaptive
algorithms, whether they are based on fuzzy technique or
otherwise.
7 Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the editor and anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments that helped in
improving the quality of this paper.
8 References
[1] HAYKIN S.: Adaptive lter theory (Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 2001)
[2] HARRIS R.W., CHABRIES D.M., BISHOP F.A.: A variable step (VS)
adaptive lter algorithm, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal
Process., 1986, 34, pp. 309 316
[3] KWONG R.H. , JOHNSTON E.W.: A variable step size LMS
algorithm, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 1992, 40,
pp. 1633 1642
[4] ABOULNASR T., MAYYAS K.: A robust variable step-size LMS-
type algorithm: analysis and simulations, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., 1997, 45, pp. 631 639
[5] PAZAITIS D.I., CONSTANTINIDES A.G.: A novel kurtosis driven
variable step-size adaptive algorithm, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., 1999, 47, pp. 864 872
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222
www.ietdl.org
[6] SHIN H.-C., SAYED A.H., SONG W.-J.: Variable step-size NLMS
and afne projection algorithms, IEEE Signal Process.
Lett., 2004, 11, pp. 132 135
[7] GAN W.S.: Designing a fuzzy step size LMS algorithm,
IEE Proc. Vis. Image Signal Process., 1997, 144,
pp. 261 266
[8] MOHAMAD H., WEISS S., RUPP M., HANZO L.: Fast adaptation of
fractionally spaced equalizers, Electron. Lett., 2002, 38,
pp. 96 98
[9] MOHAMAD H., WEISS S., ARIF N.A.M. , ALIAS M.Y.: Subband
decomposition techniques for adaptive channel
equalisation. Proc. IEEE 13th Int. Conf. on Network,
Malaysia, 2005, vol. 2, pp. 617 621
[10] LIN H.-Y., HU C.-C., CHEN Y.-F., WEN J.-H.: An adaptive robust
LMS employing fuzzy step size and partial update, IEEE
Signal Process. Lett., 2005, 12, pp. 545 548
[11] LIN H.-Y., HU C.-C.: Asynchronous multiple-access
interference suppression using variable block adaptive
ltering in time-varying multipath channels. Proc. IEEE
6th Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless
Communications, New York, 2005, pp. 17 21
[12] LOPES P.A.C. , TAVARES G. , GERALD J.B. : A new type
of normalized LMS algorithm based on the kalman lter.
Proc. IEEE 32nd Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech,
and Signal Processing, Hawaii, 2007, vol. 3, pp. III-1345
III-1348
[13] BENESTY J., REY H., VEGA L.R., TRESSENS S.: A nonparametric
VSS NLMS algorithm, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., 2006, 13,
pp. 581 584
[14] TUMMARELLO G., NARDINI F., PIAZZA F.: Step size control
in NLMS acoustic echo cancellation using a neural
network approach. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits
and Systems, Bangkok, Thailand, 2003, vol. 5, pp. V-705
V-708
[15] MOHAMAD H., WEISS S., RUPP M.: MMSE limitations for
subband adaptive equalisers. Proc. 36th Asilomar Conf.
on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Monterey, California,
2002, vol. 2, pp. 1233 1237
[16] WEISS S., STENGER A., STEWART R.W., RABENSTEIN R. :
Steady-state performance limitations of subband
adaptive lters, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2001, 49,
pp. 1982 1991
[17] ZADEH L.A.: Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control., 1965, 8,
pp. 338 353
[18] ROSS T.J.: Fuzzy logic with engineering applications
(McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1997)
31
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
www.ietdl.org
[19] ALTROCK C.: Fuzzy logic & neurofuzzy applications
explained (Prentice Hall, 1995)
[20] WEISS S., STEWART R.W.: On adaptive ltering in
oversampled subbands (Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany,
1998)
32
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2008
[21] MOHAMAD H., WEISS S., RUPP M., HANZO L.: Performance
limitation of subband adaptive equalisers, Electron. Lett.,
2006, 42, pp. 1009 1010
[22] WIDROW B. , STEARNS S.D.: Adaptive signal processing
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985)
IET Signal Process., 2009, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23 32
doi: 10.1049/iet-spr:20070222