World Applied Sciences Journal 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

ISSN 1818-4952
© IDOSI Publications, 2010

Performance Comparison of Adaptive Beamforming Algorithms

for Smart Antenna Systems

Muhammad Salman Razzaq and Noor M. Khan

Department of Electronic Engineering, Muhammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Abstract: Smart Antenna systems have become a practical reality after the advent of powerful, low-cost and
digital signal processing components. Smart Antenna applications range from RADAR (Radio Detection and
Ranging), SONAR (Sound Navigation and Ranging) and wireless communications to geophysical and
astrophysical explorations and medical ultrasound imaging. Since early 1950's, many adaptive beam forming
algorithms have been proposed. These algorithms use different criterion to adapt the system for better
performance and steer the beam towards signal of interest. An algorithm with less complexity, low computation
costs, good convergence rate, robust to signal and steering vector errors is usually preferred. This research
work investigates the performance of adaptive beamforming algorithms for different channel models which
include Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN), Rician and Rayleigh Channels. The comparison is made on
the performance of beam steering ability and nullifying capability of the algorithms. Sidelobe levels,
computational complexity and cost of online implementation of adaptive beamforming algorithms have also
been considered for the comparison. Robust Kalman beamformer has better performance and steers deep nulls
towards interferers than other adaptive algorithms like Recursive Least Square (RLS), constrained Kalman and
Matrix Inversion Normalized Least Mean Square (MI-NLMS).

Key words: Adaptive beamforming % MI-NLMS % RLS % CMA % Least Square CMA % Kalman Beamformer

INTRODUCTION phenomenon basically uses the idea that, though the

The smart antenna is a promising technology. It has
been applied in many mobile communication systems i.e.
Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) [1, 2]. The
application of smart antenna may also turn out to be an
important step in the system evolution process of current
radio network technology. A smart antenna consists of
number of elements (antenna array), whose signals are
processed adaptively in order to exploit the spatial
dimension of the mobile radio channel. All elements of the
antenna array have to be weighted in order to adapt to the
current channel and desired user characteristics [2, 3].
This weight adaptation is the "smart" part of the smart
antenna, hence which should be called "adaptive
antenna". The term smart implies the use of signal
processing in order to shape the beam pattern according
to certain conditions.
Adaptive Beamforming [3, 4, 5] is a technique in
which an array of antennas is exploited to achieve
maximum reception in a specified direction by estimating
the signal arrival from a desired direction while jammer
signals from other directions are rejected. This
signals emanating from different transmitters occupy the
same frequency channel, they still arrive from different
directions. This spatial separation is exploited to separate
the desired signal from the interfering signals. Smart
antenna patterns are controlled via algorithms based upon
certain criteria. These criteria could be maximizing the
signal-to interference ratio (SIR), minimum variance (MV),
minimizing the mean square error (MSE), steering more
power towards the desired signal (beam steering) and
minimum power towards the interfering signals (nulling).
A comparison of LMS (Least Mean Square) and RLS
(Recursive Least Square) algorithms for Wideband-
CDMA has been presented in [6]. S.F. Shaukat et al. [7]
presents a performance comparison of two non blind
algorithms least mean square (LMS) and recursive least
square (RLS) and one blind algorithm constant modulus
algorithm (CMA) for Smart Antenna system. Susmita Das
in [8] discusses and compares these algorithms for
CDMA systems. In [9], authors compare LMS and CMA
in their proposed novel hybrid Smart Antenna system.
A performance comparison of RLS and Conjugate
Gradient algorithm has been presented for Universal
Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) in [10].

Corresponding Author: Dr. Noor Muhammad Khan, Department of Electronic Engineering, Muhammad Ali Jinnah University,
Islamabad Campus, 44000, Pakistan E-mail: noor@ieee.org.
775
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

Fig. 1: A Typical Adaptive Beamformer  i1 (k ) 

 i (k ) 
 2 
In this research work a systematic comparison of the x( k ) = a0s(k ) + [a1a 2 ....a N ]  .  + n (k )
performance of different adaptive beamforming algorithms  
 . 
ranging from LMS to Robust Kalman filter has been i (k ) 
extensively studied to prove the worth of the proposed N 
work. The comparison is on the basis of beam width, less
complexity, side lobe levels and ability to steer nulls = xs(k) + xi (k) + n(k) (2)
towards the strong interferers.
The remainder of the paper is organized as With
follows. Necessary background on adaptive
beamforming is presented in section II. Adaptive w = [w1 w2... wM]T
algorithms are described in section III along with their xs(k) = Desired signal vector
mathematical formulation. Section IV describes xi(k) = Interferer signal vector
comparative analysis and results and finally conclusions n(k) = Zero mean gaussian noise vector
are drawn in section V. ai = M-element array steering vector for the 2i
direction of arrival
Background: Consider an adaptive array system as
shown in Figure 1. One desired signal arriving The desired signal and interfering signals are
from the angle 2 0 and N interferers arriving from angles assumed uncorrelated and stationary. The error signal is
21,..., 2N. The signal and the interferers are received by an defined as
array of M elements with M complex weights. Each
received signal at Mth element also includes additive e(k) = d(k) – wH x(k) (3)
Gaussian noise. Time is represented by the kth time
sample. The output of adaptive beamformer can be written Where d(k) is desired signal. The weights w are
as calculated by minimizing mean square error (MMSE) of
the system shown in Figure 1. Taking the square and
y(k) = wHx(k) (1) expectation of both sides of (4)

E  e(k )  = E[| d(k ) − w H x(k ) |]2

Where 2 (4)
 
upon simplifying and ignoring time index

776
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

E[|e|2] = E[|d|2] – 2wHr + wHRxxw (5) using these estimates, we can calculate optimum weights
for SMI beamformer according to MMSE criteria.
In general, we can find the minimum value by taking
the gradient of the MSE with respect to the weight w smi = R −xx1r (12)
vectors and equating it to zero. Thus the Wiener-Hopf
equation is given as Recursive Least Squares (RLS): The basic approach
taken by RLS is to recursively perform the matrix inversion
Lw(E[|e|2] = 2Rxx w – 2r = 0 (6) as required by the direct calculation approach so that at
no time direct matrix inversion computation is required
w MSE = R −xx1r (7) [11, 4]. We can find µ −1 recursively using standard RLS
R xx
algorithm and array weights using equation
Where
w(k) = w(k – 1) + g(k)[d*(k) – xH(k)w(k – 1)] (13)
Rxx = E[x xH]
r = E[d*. x] Where g(k) is gain vector of standard RLS algorithm.

Adaptive Beamforming Algorithms: This section Constant Modulus Algorithm (CMA) & Least Square
presents the adaptive algorithms and their CMA: The constant modulus algorithm (CMA) is a blind
mathematical analysis for weight update procedure of adaptive algorithm proposed by Goddard et al. [12]. The
beam steering. weight update vector for CMA is

Least Mean Square (LMS): The least mean squares w(k + 1) = w(k) – µe*(k)x(k) (14)
algorithm is a gradient based approach. Monzingo [3]
and Godara [5] gives an excellent fundamental treatment Where e(k) is defined according to CMA algorithm
of this approach. The steepest descent iterative
1
approximation is given as e(k ) = [1 − 2
]y (k )
y (k ) (15)
1
w ( k + 1) = w ( k ) − µ∇ w ( J (w)) (8)
2 When the CMA algorithm converges, it converges to
Where, µ is the step-size parameter, J(w) is the cost the optimal solution, but convergence of this algorithm is
function and L( w ) is the gradient of the performance not guaranteed. The slow convergence of CMA limits
surface. Upon simplifying, we have the final LMS solution the usefulness of the algorithm in dynamic environments
for weight update vector. where the signal must be captured quickly. The least-
squares CMA (LSCMA) [13] is a variation of CMA that
W(k + 1) = w(k) – µe*(k) x (k) (9) uses a direct matrix inversion to overcome slow
convergence. The weights are calculated using equation.
Where e(k) is defined in (3).
w LSCMA = R −xx1rxd (16)
Sample Matrix Inversion (SMI): The Sample Matrix
Inversion Algorithm estimates the array weights by With only difference that here desired signal is
replacing the array correlation matrix (Rxx) with its estimate calculated as d = y .
[4, 5]. we can estimate Rxx and r as y

K
Matrix Inversion-Least Mean Square (MI-NLMS):
µ xx = 1
R
K ∑x(k )x H
(k ) (10) In Matrix Inversion-Normalized Least Mean Square
algorithm [14], the SMI algorithm is utilized to
k =1

K
determine the optimum weight vectors assigned to each
∑d∗ (k )x(k )
1 (11)
r=
K k =1

777
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010
Fig. 2: Flow Chart for MI-NLMS Beamforming
of the antenna elements of the array instead of
arbitrary value before calculating the final weight vector.
The weight is calculated only for the first few samples
or for a small block of incoming data. The weight
coefficients derived by SMI algorithm are set as initial
coefficients and are updated by introducing NLMS
algorithm. The flowchart of the MI-NLMS algorithm is
shown in Figure 2.
Kalman Filtering: The adaptive control problems
presented by small communications and data collection
arrays are relatively simple and are often adequately
handled by means of adaptive control algorithms based
on gradient methods. For more complex problems such as
command and control of remote vehicles or rapid angular
tracking in radar systems, however, more sophisticated
processing is often required. For such demanding
applications adaptive processing methods based on
Kalman filtering have been proposed which is a state
space approach [3]. Here we have discussed three
variants of kalman filtering in our comparison.
778
Unconstrained Kalman Beamforming: Baird [15]
presented a technique for applying a Kalman filtering
method to estimate the weight vector of an adaptive
antenna system in a stationary environment. He
calculated the optimal weight vector W0 by the Wiener-
Hopf equation and set the process equation as
w(k) = w(k – 1), w(0) = w0 (17)
and the measurement equation as
d(k) = xH(k)w0 + v(k) (18)
Where d(k) is the desired output and v(k) is a zero
mean, white noise sequence having variance given by
E{v(k)v(j)} = F2(k)*kj (19)
Then the Kalman filter was used to estimate the
optimal weight vector for a given desired output d(k). For
the dynamical model (22) having state vector w(k) and
measurement from (23), a minimum MSE estimator for the
array weights can be obtained by straightforward
application of Kalman filter theory.
µ ( k/ k ) = w
w µ ( k/k − 1) + G ( k )[d ( k ) − x H ( k ) w ( k/k − 1)]
(20)
K ( k/k − 1) x (k )
G(k ) = (21)
x H ( k )K ( k/k − 1) x ( k ) + σ 2 ( k )
K (k/k − 1)x(k )x H (k )K (k/k − 1)
K (k/k ) = K (k/k − 1) −
σ 2 (k ) + x H (k )K (k/k − 1) x(k ) (22)
Constrained Kalman Beamforming: Y.H. Chen and C.T.
Chiang [16] provided an improved version of kalman type
beamforming. They presented a constraint on the array
response along the look direction to the Kalman filter.
The weight vector of the constrained Kalman beamformer
was derived and shown to converge to that of the
minimum-variance distortionless-response (MVDR)
beam-former Their proposed algorithm had better
convergence rate and nulling capability than Baird
kalman beamforming. They constrained the gain of the
system as unity on the desired signal from look direction
2 and minimize the system output power subject to
constraint,
Chw(k) = 1 (23)
Where the steering vector is defined as
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

− jπ d1 cosθ − jπ d M cosθ T (24)

C = [1, e ,....., e ] h2 (w(k)) = ε 2wH (k)w(k) − w H (k)aaH w(k) + wH (k )a + aH w(k)
(33)
Array weights are updated according to constrained
kalman beamforming using following equations. The truth The process equation of the optimal weight vector w
model measurement equation of the constrained kalman is given by
algorithm is written as
w(k + 1) = (w(k) + vs(k) (34)
Y = BH(k)w(k) + v(k) (25)
Where ( is a fixed parameter of the model, vs(k) is
Where Y = [0 1]T, input vector is the process noise vector, which is assumed to be
 x H (k )  white Gaussian with zero mean and the covariance
B(k ) =   matrix Q = σ 2I. The measurement equation is
 C 
H s
(26)

and the measurement noise vector 0   x H (k ) w (k )   v1 (k ) 

1  =  + 
 v (k )     h2 (w (k ))  v2 (k )  (35)
v( k ) =  1 
v2 (k )  (27)
Which can be written in matrix notation as
Further, the correlation matrix of v(k) is
z= h(w(k)) + vm(k) (36)
σ 2 0 
Q= 1 
 0 σ 22  (28) The recursion for the estimated weight vector starts
with an initial weight vector estimate wµ (0) with the
Process equation is same as in Baird algorithm and associated covariance matrix P(0 0) and updates the
weight update vector equation is given as weight vector estimate as

µ (k ) = w
w µ ( k − 1) − G ( k )[ Y − B H ( k ) w
µ ( k − 1)] (29) µ (k ) = w
w µ ( k − 1) + G ( k )[ z − z$ ( k | k − 1)] (37)

Where Where

G(k) = K(k – 1)B(k)[BH(k)K(k – 1)B(k) + Q]G1 (30)

G(k ) = P(k | k − 1)H w
H µ ( k − 1))S( k ) −1
(k , γ w (38)

Here the filtered weight-error correlation matrix K(k) is and

 µ (k − 1)
γ x H (k ) w 
K(k) = [I – G(k)BH(k)]K(k – 1) (31) $z (k , k − 1) =  

Robust Kalman Beamforming: El-Keyi et al. proposed a

 2 2
{
µ (k − 1)) + 1 tr H (2) P(k k − 1)
 h (γ w
ww } 
 (39)

novel adaptive beamformer based on extended kalman

filtering [17]. The proposed algorithm converges to
and predicted weight vector covariance
robust minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR)
with low computational cost than other proposed
P(kk – 1) = (2P(k – 1) + Q (40)
techniques like second order cone programming (SOCP)
based beamforming. Kalman filter based implementation
for robust MVDR is as follows. and innovation covariance is given by

The robust beamforming problem can be written as µ ( k − 1))P(k k − 1)H H (k , γ w

S(k ) = Hw (k , γ w µ ( k − 1))
w

min MSE subject to h2 ( w(k )) = 1 (32)

w 1 0 0 
+  {
 tr H wwP (k k − 1)H wwP (k k − 1) + R
2 0 1 
(2) (2)
} (41)
Where

779
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

Where R is noise covariance matrix represented as spaced half a wavelength apart stationary, Rayleigh and
Rician. The desired signal is assumed to impinge from
σ 2 0 
R= 1  (42) 2 = 3° with SNR = 0 dB and two interferers are assumed to
 0 σ 22  impinge from 30° and 50°. The kalman algorithms are
initialized as in [16, 17]. We have considered four cases
and finally the updated weight vector covariance can be for interferers. In case-1, we have assumed that both
expressed as interferers have INR = -20 dB, in case-2 both interferers
have INR = 30 dB and in 3rd and 4th case rayleigh and
P(k k) = P(k k – 1) – G(k)S(k)GH(k) (43) rician fading has been introduced respectively with
INR = -20 dB. For interferers having INR = -20 dB, beam
Hw(k,w(k)) and H (2) are Jacobian and Hessian matrices pattern and ampliude pattern of all beamforming
ww
of h(w(k)) are given as algorithms are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4
respectively. It can be seen that all algorithms steer the
main beam towards desired signal accurately but a
 x H (k ) 
H w ( k , w (k )) =   (44) difference can be seen in steering the nulls toward the
ε 2 w H ( k ) − (aa H w ( k )) H + a H  interferers. LMS has one null at 30° and one sidelobe at
50° towards the interferers with powers -22.5 dB and -
(45) 19.88 dB respectively. The closest null towards the
ww = ε I − aa
H(2) 2 H
second interferer is at 58°. SMI has the null depth of -
Simualtions: In this section, we present the comparison 48.75 dB towards first interferer and -17 dB towards the
of the adaptive beamforming algorithms discussed in second interferer. The closest null towards the second
this paper. The performance of beamforming algorithms interferer is at 56°. RLS steers -22.50 dB towards the 1st
depends upon ability to steer beam in desired direction, interferer and -22.00 dB towards the other interferer.
level of sidelobes and ability to steer minimum power The closest nulls towards the both interferers are at
towards interferers. Three type of environments are 33° and 54°. CMA has the closest nulls at 22° and 40° and
assumed with a uniform linear array (ULA) of ten sensors side lobes of -8 dB and -7 dB towards the interferers.

Fig. 3: Case-1: Beam pattern of beamforming algorithms with SNR 0 dB and INR -20 dB

780
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

Fig. 4: Case-1: Amplitude pattern of beamforming algorithms with SNR 0 dB and INR -20 dB

Fig. 5: Case-2: Beam pattern of beamforming algorithms with SNR 0 dB and INR 30 dB

LSCMA successfully steers one null towards one
interferer having depth of -48.26dB and one side
lobe of -20.5dB towards other interferer. MI-NLMS
has null depth of -46.9 dB at 30° and of -20dB towards 50°.
Kalman beamformer has closest nulls at 27° and 58°
and side lobes of -21 dB and -19 dB towards interferers,
respectively. Constrained Kalman beamformer has
closest nulls at 28° and 56° and side lobes of -22 dB
and -20 dB towards interferers respectively. Finally
robust kalman beamformer steers both null successfully
towards the both interferers having null depth of -43 dB
and -52 dB.

781
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

Fig. 6: Case-2: Amplitude pattern of beamforming algorithms with SNR 0 dB and INR 30 dB

Fig. 7: Case-3: Amplitude pattern of beamforming algorithms in Rayleigh Fading

For case-2 with INR = 30 dB for both interferers, we
have the beam pattern and amplitude pattern of all
algorithms as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. We have
increased the number of iterations in some of the
algorithms to accommodate the strong interferers. In
case-2, LMS has been performed for 1000 iterations as
compared to 100 iterations in case-1. Similarly RLS has
been simulated for 200 iterations as compared to the
50 iterations in case-1, CMA has used 100 iterations in
case-2 as compared to 50 iterations in case-1 and LS-CMA

782
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

Fig. 8: Case-4: Amplitude pattern of beamforming algorithms in Rician Fading

Table 1: Quantitative comparison of Adaptive Beamforming Algorithms

Techniques Type Side lobe level (dB) Null Depth (dB) Computational Complexity Remarks
LMS Training Based -12 to -22 -18 to -23.5 O(M) Slow convergence
SMI Training Based -15 to -30 -17 to -50 O(M3) High Computations
CMA Training Based -8 to -18 0 to -10 O(M) Unstable in nature
LS-CMA Blind -12 to -24 -12 to -48 O(M3) Lower Null depth
RLS Training Based -12 to -40 -22 to -54 O(M2) Poor in non statinary evvironment
Ml-NLMS Training Based -10 to -30 -20 to -47 O(M) Slow as compared to kalman
KALMAN Training Based -10 to -20 -18 to -22 O(M2) Lower Null depth
CONSTRAINED Training Based -10 to -20 -19 to -23 O(M2) Aplies to Narrow band case only
KALMAN
ROBUST Training Based -15 to -40 -40 to -52 O(M2) Robust in nature
KALMAN

uses 100 iterations in case-2 as compared to 3 iterations in
case-1. Rest of algorithms are independent of number of
iterations as they converge with in iterations used in case-
1. MI-NLMS is computed using 200 iterations, while
kalman, constrained kalman and robust kalman
beamformer has computed using 100 iterations. Table 1
provides a quantitative comparison of the adaptive
beamforming algorithms discussed in this work.
Comparing the curves in Figure 5 and 6, it is clear that,
Constant Modulus Algorithm (CMA) is not only
unstable algorithm but also unable to converge to its
optimum solution due to the presence of strong
interferers and its dependence upon the theory of
constant modulus no matter what the number of
iterations is kept. Being unstable and diverged, it
sometimes takes interferers as the desired signal and
steer the beam towards them. The main advantage of a
variant of CMA, the LS-CMA is that it can converge up
to 100 times faster than the conventional CMA algorithm
as observed in both cases. RLS shows a better
performance using 200 samples and successfully steers
nulls towards interferers. RLS shows a better performance
using 200 samples and successfully steers nulls towards
interferers. All variants of the kalman filtering show a
consistent performance in first two cases. Figure 7 and
Figure 8 shows the amplitude pattern of algorithms over
Rayleigh and Rician fading channel. It is obvious from the
figures that in both cases, the performance of all
algorithms suffer degradation except robust kalman
algorithm. The convergence rate and side lobe level of the
robust kalman beamformer are better than the other
beamformers discussed. Moreover, the computational
complexity of the Robust Kalman is lower as compared to
other robust algorithms available in the text such as
Second Order Cone Programming (SOCP) based robust
beamformer [18].

783
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010
CONCLUSION
In a comprehensive comparison among adaptive
beamforming algorithms, the parameters of beam pattern,
amplitude response and side lobe level have been studied.
The system has been analyzed for different channel
fading models. Some of the presented adaptive
beamforming algorithms in this research thesis offer
optimal solution to improve target signal reception and to
minimize interference. LMS successfully steers the main
lobe of antenna array towards the desired signal but its
performance is very unsatisfactory to nullify the
interferers. Also its slow convergence does not make it
feasible for tracking in cellular systems. The SMI and
MI-NLMS algorithm has been validated because
of its fast convergence ability. However, it has high
computational complexity. CMA is found to be having
slow convergence time and unstable in nature. Slow
convergence limits the applications of the CMA
beamformer in the fast fading environment. LS-CMA
algorithm does better job of nullifying the interferers than
CMA algorithm and converges faster. The convergence
rate of RLS algorithm is typically faster than that of the
LS-CMA. However, this improvement has a cost of an
increase in computational complexity. Also its forgetting
factor is greatly dependent upon channel fading
conditions. MI-NLMS shows better performance than
LMS by steering deep nulls towards interferers and its
convergence rate is faster as well. MI-NLMS, RLS, Robust
Kalman are more efficient than other in computational
domain. Robust Kalman algorithm has been designed to
cater to any change in environment and considers all the
other key parameters. . It is thus obvious from the figures
that the performance of all algorithms except robust
kalman filter suffered degradation. The convergence rate
and the sidelobe level of the robust kalman beamformer
were better than those of the other beamformers
discussed. Since, the computational complexity of the
Robust Kalman filter is lower as compared to other robust
algorithms available in literature. It is thus recommend that
robust kalman filter is a good choice in beamforming
applications among robust algorithms.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, S., B. Hagerman and H. Dam, 1999.
Adaptive Antennas for GSM and TDMA Systems.
IEEE Personal Communications.
784
2. Chryssomallis, M., 2000. Smart Antennas. IEEE
Antennas and Propogation Magazine, 42(3): 129-136.
3. Monzingo, R. and T. Miller, 2004. Introduction to
Adaptive Arrays. Scitech Publishing, Inc.
4. Gross, F., 2005. Smart Antenna For Wireless
Communication. Mcgraw-hill.
5. Godara, L.C., 1997. Applications of antenna arrays to
mobile communications, Part II: Beam-forming and
direction-of-arrival considerations. IEEE Proc.,
85: 1195-1245.
6. Rani, C.S., P.V. Subbaiah, K.C. Reddy and S.S. Rani,
2009. LMS AND RLS Algorithm For Smart Antennas
In a W-CDMA Mobile Communication Environment.
ARPN J. Engineering and Appl. Sci., 4(6): 78-88.
7. Shaukat, S.F., Mukhtar ul Hassan, R. Farooq,
H.U. Saeed and Z. Saleem, 2009. Sequential Studies
of Beamforming Algorithms for Smart Antenna
Systems. World Appl. Sci. J., 6(6): 754-758.
8. Das, S., 2008. Smart Antenna Design for Wireless
Communication using Adaptive Beam-forming
Approach. IEEE Int. Conf. TENCON.
9. Rezk, M., W. Kim, Z. Yun and M.F. Iskander, 2005.
Performance comparison of a novel hybrid smart
antenna system versus the fully adaptive and
switched beam antenna arrays. IEEE Antennas and
Wireless Propagation Letters.
10. Gil, J.M., J.L. Méndez and L.M. Correia, 2001.
Comparison of Recursive Least Squares and
Conjugate Gradient Applied to Adaptive
Beamforming in UMTS. IST Mobile Communications
Summit, Spain.
11. Haykin, S., 2002. Adaptive Filter Theory. 4th ed.
Prentice Hall, New York.
12. Godard, D.N., 1980. Self-Recovering Equalization
and Carrier Tracking in Two-Dimensional Data
Communication Systems. IEEE Trans. on Commun.,
28(11): 1867-1875.
13. Rong, Z., 1996. Simulation of Adaptive Array
Algorithms for CDMA Systems. Master's Thesis
MPRG-TR-96-31, Mobile & Portable Radio Research
Group, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
14. Islam, M.T. and Z. Abidin, 2006. MI-NLMS adaptive
beamforming algorithm for smart antenna system
applications. J. Zhejiang Univ. SCIENCE A.,
10: 1709-1716.
15. Baird, C.A., 1974. Kalman-type processing for
adaptive antenna arrays. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.
(Minneapolis), pp: 10G-1-10G-4
 World Appl. Sci. J., 11 (7): 775-785, 2010

16. Chen, Y.H. and C.T. Chiang, 1993. Adaptive
beamforming using the constrained Kalman filter.
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 41(11): 1576-1580.
17. El-Keyi, A., T. Kirubarajan and A.B. Gershman, 2005.
Robust Adaptive Beamforming Based on the Kalman
Filter. IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 53(8): 3032-3041.
18. Vorobyov, S.A., A. Gershman and Z.Q. Luo, 2003.
Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case
performance optimization: A solution to the signal
mismatch problem. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
51(2): 313-324.

785