Advertisement

Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 228–234 | Cite as

Simplified p-norm-like constraint LMS algorithm for efficient estimation of underwater acoustic channels

  • F. Y. Wu
  • Y. H. Zhou
  • F. Tong
  • R. Kastner
Article

Abstract

Underwater acoustic channels are recognized for being one of the most difficult propagation media due to considerable difficulties such as: multipath, ambient noise, time-frequency selective fading. The exploitation of sparsity contained in underwater acoustic channels provides a potential solution to improve the performance of underwater acoustic channel estimation. Compared with the classic l 0 and l 1 norm constraint LMS algorithms, the p-norm-like (l p ) constraint LMS algorithm proposed in our previous investigation exhibits better sparsity exploitation performance at the presence of channel variations, as it enables the adaptability to the sparseness by tuning of p parameter. However, the decimal exponential calculation associated with the p-norm-like constraint LMS algorithm poses considerable limitations in practical application. In this paper, a simplified variant of the p-norm-like constraint LMS was proposed with the employment of Newton iteration method to approximate the decimal exponential calculation. Numerical simulations and the experimental results obtained in physical shallow water channels demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method compared to traditional norm constraint LMS algorithms.

Keywords

p-norm-like constraint underwater acoustic channels LMS algorithm sparsity exploitation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akyildiz I, Pompili D, Melodia T (2005). Underwater acoustic sensor networks: Research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks, 3(3), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelosante D, Bazerque JA, Giannakis GB (2010). Online adaptive estimation of sparse signals: where RLS meets the l1-norm. IEEE Trans. Signal Process, 58(7), 3436–3447.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chitre MS, Shahabodeen S, Stojanovic M (2008). Underwater acoustic communications and networking: Recent advances and future challenges. Marine Technology Society, 42(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotter SF, Rao BD (2002). Sparse channel estimation via matching pursuit with application to equalization. IEEE Trans. Commun., 50(3), 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gu Y, Jin J, Mei J (2009). l0 norm constraint LMS algorithm for sparse system identification. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 16(9), 774–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hosein M, Massoud BZ, Christian J (2009). A fast approach for over complete sparse decomposition based on smoothed l0 norm. IEEE Trans Signal Process, 57(1), 289–301.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jin J, Gu Y, Mei S (2010). A stochastic gradient approach on compressive sensing signal reconstruction based on adaptive filtering framework. IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process, 4(2), 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kalouptsidis N, Mileounis G, Babadi B, Tarokh T (2011). Adaptive algorithms for sparse system identification. Signal Processing, 91(8), 1910–1919.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li W, Preisig JC (2007). Estimation of rapidly time-varying sparse channels. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 32(4), 927–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Naylor PA, Cui J, Brookes M (2006). Adaptive algorithms for sparse echo cancellation. Signal Processing, 86(6), 1182–1192.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rao BD, Delgado KK (1999). An affine scaling methodology for best basis selection. IEEE Trans. Signal Process, 47(1), 187–200.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard FK (1971). Improved Newton iteration for integral roots. Math. Comput. 25(114), 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shi K, Shi P (2010). Convergence analysis of sparse LMS algorithms with l1-norm penalty based on white input signal. Signal Processing, 90(12), 3289–3293.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shi K, Shi P (2011). Adaptive sparse Volterra system identification with l0-norm penalty. Signal Processing, 91(10), 2432–2436.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Singer AC, Nelson JK, Kozat SS (2009). Signal processing for underwater acoustic communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47(1), 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stojanovic M (2005). Retrofocusing techniques for high rate acoustic communications. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 117(3), 1173–1185.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stojanovic M (2008). Efficient processing of acoustic signals for high-rate information transmission over sparse underwater channels. Physical Communication, 1(2), 146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor GD (1970). Optimal starting approximations for Newton’s method. J. Approximation Theory, 3(2), 156–163.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wu FY, Tong F (2013). Gradient optimization p-norm-like constraint LMS algorithm for sparse system estimation. Signal Processing, 93, 967–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zeng WJ, XU W (2012). Fast estimation of sparse doubly spread acoustic channels. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang YB, Zhao JW, GIO YC, LI JM(2011). Blind adaptive MMSE equalization of underwater acoustic channels based on the linear prediction method. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 10, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Underwater Acoustic Communication and Marine Information Technology of the Minister of EducationXiamen UniversityXiamenChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations