Adaptive Noise Cancellation by Using

LMS,NLMS and RLS Algorithms

PRESENTER
 Adaptive Filter
An adaptive filter is a computational device
that iteratively models the relationship
between the input and output signals of the
filter. An adaptive filter self-adjusts the filter
coefficients according to an adaptive
algorithm.
Diagram of adaptive filter
 APPLICATIONS OF ADAPTIVE FILTERS

• Identification or Modeling
• Inverse Modeling:
• Prediction
• Noise Cancellation
 Noise cancellation
let d(n) is a desired response which is a primary noisy signal
(Corrupted by a noise n2(n))
Primary signal = s(n) + n2(n)
d(n) is then compared with the output of the adaptive filter
y(n), that has as input a reference signal n1(n) which is the
noise source that creates the noise which corrupts the primary
signal (noise n2(n)). The system output e(n) is the difference
between the filter output y(n) and the desired response d(n). In
best state, this e(n) will be equal to the original signal without
the interference (s(n)).
Noise cancellation
Hierarchy of our Research Work
 LMS algorithm
• In LMS Algorithms we are concerned with
desired filter by finding the filter coefficients
that produce the least mean squares of the error
signal.
• the basic weight update equation
• wn+1 = wn - μΔε[n]
Here, ε is presenting the mean square error.
 LMS algorithm
• (-) sign is showing there is the need to change
the weight opposite to gradient slope, that is if
slope is positive reduce the weight, if negative
increase the weight.
 LMS algorithm
• An upper bound on μ is needed which is given as
• 0 < μ < 2/λmax
• Where λmax is an autocorrelation matrix, its
eigen vales can never be negative. Algorithm’s
stability is dependent on its value, negative value
of λmax will make it unstable. If the value of μ
selected is very small then the algorithm will
converge very slowly. A large value of μ will
result into faster convergence but at the expense
of stability around the minimum value.
 NLMS algorithm
• For NLMS
• 0< μ <2/xH (n)x(n)
• μ (n) = β/ xH (n)x(n) = β / ||x(n)||2
• Where β is the normalized step size with
0< β <2
 RLS algorithm
• In case of LMS algorithm it is necessary to
have knowledge of autocorrelation of input
signal and cross-corelation between the input
and desired output.
• Therefore, we consider error measures that do
not include from expectations and may be
included from the data.
•
 RLS algorithm
• In RLS algorithm we introduces forgetting
factor λ
Output of noise cancellation using LMS algorithm
Mean-squared error of noise cancellation using the LMS
algorithm
Output of noise cancellation using NLMS algorithm
Mean-squared error of noise cancellation
using the NLMS algorithm
Output of noise cancellation using RLS
algorithm
Mean-squared error of noise cancellation using the RLS
algorithm
 Conclusion
• After comparing the result we find that RLS
algorithm has faster conversion and less mean
square than LMS and RLS algorithm but at the
expense of high computational complexity.
• LMS Algorithm is robust and have no stability
issues ,stability issues are present in RLS
Algoritms.
 References
• Diniz, P. S. R. Adaptive Filtering – Algorithams and Practical
Implementation . Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2008.
• Falcão, Rafael Merredin Alves. "ADAPTIVE FILTERING
ALGORITHMS FOR NOISE CANCELLATION." 2012.
• Guan, X., X. Chen, and G. Wu. "QX-LMS Adaptive Filters For
System Identification." 2nd international Congress on Image and
Signal Processing, 17-19 Oct 2009: CISP '09, vol., no., pp.1-5,.
• Haykin, Simon S. Least-Mean-Square Adaptive Filters. Wiley:
Bernard Widrow , ISBN 0-471-21570-8., 2003.
• Haykin:, Simon. Adaptive Filter Theory. Prentice Hall,: ISBN 0-13-
048434-2., 2002.
• Thenua, Raj Kumar, and S.K. Agarwal. "Simulation and
Performance Analyasis of Adaptive Filter in Noise Cancellation”.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2010:
Vol. 2(9),4373-4378.
• Wallace and R.B. Goubran. "Improved tracking adaptive noise
canceler for nonstationary environments" IEEE Transactions on
Signal Processing, mar 1992: vol.40, no.3, pp.700-703.