This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2017.2671521, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
Maximum Versoria Criterion-Based Robust
Adaptive Filtering Algorithm
Fuyi Huang, Jiashu Zhang, and Sheng Zhang
AbstractUsing the generalized Gaussian probability density
function (GPDF) as the kernel, a generalized correntropy has been
proposed. And then a generalized maximum correntropy
criterion (GMCC) algorithm is developed by maximizing the
generalized correntropy. However, the GMCC algorithm has a
high steady-state misalignment and involves a high calculation
cost of the exponential term (generalized Gaussian kernel). In this
letter, we propose a maximum Versoria criterion (MVC)
algorithm, which is derived by maximizing the generalized
Versoria function, to reduce steady-state misalignment and
computational effort as compared to the GMCC algorithm. The
MVC algorithm is then tested in system identification and
acoustic echo cancellation scenarios, which have demonstrated
that the proposed algorithm is robust against non-Gaussian
impulsive noises and performs much better than the LMP and
GMCC algorithms.
Index TermsAdaptive filtering, Gaussian probability density
function, generalized maximum correntropy criterion (GMCC),
maximum Versoria criterion (MVC).
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE minimum mean square error (MMSE) criterion is
widely used in adaptive filtering due to its low
computational complexity and simplicity [1]. Based on the
MMSE criterion, the least mean square (LMS) algorithm as a
method optimized for Gaussian models was developed. The
LMS algorithm is the most popular adaptive filtering algorithm.
To obtain improved performance as compared to the LMS
algorithm, the variable-step-size LMS (VSS-LMS) and
normalized LMS (NLMS) algorithms have been developed in
[2] and [3], respectively. Furthermore, in order to offer
improved convergence performance and reduce computational
complexity relative to the NLMS algorithm, the nonparametric
VSS-NLMS (NPVSS-NLMS) and set-membership NLMS
(SMNLMS) algorithms were proposed in [4] and [5],
respectively. Unfortunately, these algorithms developed under
the MMSE criterion do not perform well in nonlinear and
non-Gaussian interference situations, especially in the presence
of non-Gaussian impulsive noises.
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of P. R. China under Grants 61271341 and 61671392.
F. Huang and J. Zhang are with Sichuan Province Key Laboratory of Signal
and Information Processing, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu
611756, P. R. China (e-mail: fukngaiwong@163.com;
jszhang@home.swjtu.edu.cn).
S. Zhang is with the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2751, Australia (e-mail:
Dr.s.zhang@ieee.org).
1549-7747 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
Non-Gaussian interferences (including heavy-tailed
non-Gaussian interferences and light-tailed non-Gaussian
interferences) often occur in practical applications.
Heavy-tailed (e.g., Laplace, -stable, etc. distributions)
non-Gaussian (impulsive) interferences produce more outliers
than those assumed by Gaussian models. The characterization
of a non-Gaussian signal by its second order moment is no
longer optimal and many studies have shown that lower order
statistic can lead to improved robustness against non-Gaussian
impulsive interferences. In such situations, the sign algorithm
(SA) [6], the affine projection sign algorithms (APSAs) [7][9],
and the continuous mixed p-norm (CMPN) algorithm [10] yield
improved robustness against non-Gaussian impulsive noises.
Using higher order moment algorithms to deal with light-tailed
(e.g., uniform, binary, etc. distributions) non-Gaussian
interferences are more suitable. For this situation, the least
mean fourth (LMF) algorithm yields improved performance in
terms of the convergence rate and steady-state misalignment,
as compared to the LMS algorithm [11].
Recent years, correntropy has been successfully applied in
non-Gaussian signal processing [12], [13]. The correntropy is a
nonlinear similarity measure between two arbitrary scalar
random variables. Meanwhile it has a close relationship with
M-estimation [12]. Thus, the maximum correntropy criterion
(MCC) algorithm is robust against non-Gaussian impulsive
noises. Lately, a generalized correntropy has been proposed in
[14]. Then, an adaptive filtering algorithm, called generalized
maximum correntropy criterion (GMCC) algorithm, was
developed by maximizing the generalized correntropy [14].
The disadvantages of the GMCC algorithm are high
steady-state misalignment, and high calculation cost of the
exponential term (generalized Gaussian kernel) in the update
equation of the weight vector. The Versoria function has been
successfully applied in the particle swarm optimization (PSO)
algorithm for IIR adaptive filtering [15]. The PSO algorithm
uses a modified Versoria function which is employed to
provide an adaptive inertial weight factor instead of the
Sigmoid function for avoiding the exponential computation and
ensuring the low steady-state misalignment. The Versoria
function in the PSO plays a similar role of variable step-size.
Unlike the traditional usage of Versoria, we use the Versoria as
the cost function in this letter. Thus, a maximum Versoria
criterion (MVC) algorithm is developed by maximizing the
generalized Versoria function, which reduces the steady-state
misalignment and the computational effort as compared to the
GMCC algorithm. The performance of the proposed MVC
algorithm is tested in system identification and acoustic echo
cancellation scenarios that include non-Gaussian impulsive
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2017.2671521, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
2

interferences. Simulation results have confirmed that the same steady-state error than do the GPDF-basd algorithm; in
proposed MVC algorithm is robust against non-Gaussian other words, the former yields a reduced steady-state error as
impulsive noises and shows the superior performance as compared to the latter under the same convergence rate.
compared to the LMP and GMCC algorithms. Motivated by the generalized GPDF [14], a generalized
Versoria function can be simply regarded as
1 1 (5)
f ( ek ) 2 a p
2a
1 | ek / 2 a | 1 | ek | p

where p>0 is the shape parameter, and = (2a)p. In this

Fig. 1. Comparison of steepness of the GPDF and the standard Versoria
function.
II. PROPOSED MAXIMUM VERSORIA CRITERION ALGORITHM
Define the input vector of an unknown system as xk=[xk,
representation, as a special case, it includes the original
Versoria function when p=2.
In order to reduce the steady-state misalignment and the
computational effort as compared to the GMCC algorithm, we
here use the generalized Versoria function as cost function
1 (6)
J ( w k 1 ) E p

xk-1,...,xk-L+1]T, where k is the time index, L is the filter length, 1 | ek |

and superscript T denotes vector transpose operation. The
output signal of the unknown system is modelled as
(1)
d k x Tk w o k
where k is the background measurement noise plus impulsive
interferences, and wo is an unknown weight vector that needs to
be estimated. The system output error ek is defined as
ek d k x Tk w k 1 (2)
where wk1 is the estimate of wo at iteration k1.
The cost function of the maximum correntropy criterion
(MCC) algorithm is the Gaussian probability density function
(GPDF), which can be simply written as
ek2 (3)
f ( ek ) exp( )
2 2
where >0 is the kernel width. The GPDF is high calculation
cost when it is used in domains of machine learning and signal
processing, especially in adaptive filtering. For adaptive
filtering, designing a suitable and high-efficiency cost
framework is an important issue. In order to draw forth the
proposed cost function, we first introduce the Versoria function,
which is defined as
8a 3 1 (4)
f ( ek ) 2
2a
4 a ek2
1 ( ek /2 a ) 2
where a>0 is the radius of the generating circle of Versoria. The
centroid of the generating circle is located at (0, a). A larger
value of the radius a leads to a steeper Versoria.
As a comparison, Fig. 1 plots the GPDF (2=0.5) and the
standard Versoria function (a=0.5). From this figure, we can
observe that the Versoria function is less steep than the GPDF
for the large error ek while both the GPDF and the Versoria
function exhibit comparable steepness for the small error ek.
This means that the error along the direction of the gradient
ascent of the Versoria is faster to reach the optimal point (i.e.,
zero error) than do the GPDF. From the perspective of the
adaptive filter, the gradient ascent algorithm based on the
Versoria function has a faster convergence rate to reach the
where E[] denotes the expectation operator. As can be seen
from (6), whenever an impulsive interference-corrupted ek
appears, leads to J(wk1)0 (the gradient of J(wk1) approaches
zero), which plays the role of suppressing impulsive
interferences. When the error ek is small, it is easy to obtain
J(wk1) E[1|ek|p]. In this case, the proposed Versoria cost
function works like the conventional cost function of the LMP
algorithm (note that the proposed algorithm is based on the
stochastic gradient ascent method).
A robust adaptive filtering algorithm, called maximum
Versoria criterion (MVC) algorithm, can be developed by
maximizing the generalized Versoria cost function (6).
Removing the expectation operator and computing the gradient
of (6) with respect to wk1, yields
1
J w k 1 p | e k | p 1 sign( e k ) x k (7)
(1 | e k | p ) 2
Using the stochastic gradient ascent approach, the update
equation of the weight vector of the MVC algorithm can be
obtained as
1
w k w k 1 | e k | p 1 sign( e k ) x k (8)
(1 | e k | p ) 2
where is the step size. The Versoria term in (8) approaches
zero whenever an impulsive interference-corrupted ek appears.
Thus, this eliminates the likelihood of updating the weight
vector based on wrong information caused by the various
outliers including the impulsive interferences. When the system
output error ek is small, the MVC algorithm works like the
conventional LMP algorithm. We can obtain different orders
MVC algorithms for different p values. Particularly, the
generalized MVC algorithm with p=2 becomes
1 (9)
w k w k 1 ek x k
(1 e k2 ) 2
which is standard MVC algorithm. When 0, the generalized
MVC algorithm reverts to the conventional LMP algorithm[16]
w k w k 1 | e k | p 1 sign( e k ) x k (10)

1549-7747 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2017.2671521, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
3

Assume that the impulsive interferences do not appear. The E [|| v k || 2 ] E [|| v k 1 || 2 ]
optimal a ( = (2a)p) can be calculated at each iteration by (19)
maximizing the Versoria term of the error nonlinearity function 2 E [ e a , k F ( e k )] 2 E [|| x k || 2 F 2 ( e k )]
of the MVC algorithm, to make the error with greatest
where ea,k = xkTvk1 is the a priori error, and F(ek) is the error
attenuation along the direction of the gradient ascent, i.e.,
nonlinearity function of the MVC algorithm, i.e.,
1 (11)
max j ( ek ) 1 (20)
ak (1 (2 a k ) p | ek | p ) 2 F ( ek ) | e k | p 1 sign( e k )
(1 | e k | p ) 2
Taking the derivative of (11) with respect to ek, yields
Assuming that ||xk||2 is asymptotically uncorrelated with F2(ek).
4 p (2 a k ) p 1 | e k | p 1 In order to guarantee that the MVC algorithm is stable for
j ( e k ) [ a k | e k | a k sign( e k ) ] (12) convergence, the step size should satisfy
(1 (2 a k ) p | e k | p ) 3
2 E[ea ,k F (ek )] (21)
where j'() and a'k are the first derivative. And then making the inf
E [|| x k || ] a ,k E [ F 2 ( e k )]
2
E [ e 2
]
derivative equal to zero, yields ak = a'kek. After performing
some simple calculation, yields where inf{} denotes infimum, and E [ e a2, k ] : E [ e a2, k ]
a k C | ek | (13) with denoting the Cramer-Rao bound. When the Cramr-Rao
bound is not known, the step size bound is difficult to be
where C is a positive constant. In order to achieve the good obtained. But, one can indirectly study the stability of the MVC
robustness in the presence of impulsive interferences, we adopt algorithm via the probability of divergence (POD) [14], [19].
following method to estimate a robust E[|ek|], instead of |ek| in The divergence means lim || v k || 2 . The POD of the LMF
(13), as k

algorithm is nonzero for any value of the step size when the
e k e k 1 (1 ) min( Ae , k ) (14) input is infinite. According to the simple example presented in
[14], one can verify that the MVC algorithm is very stable and
where 0<<<1 is the smoothing factor, min() denotes the its POD may be zero, no matter what input distribution is.
sample minimum operation which helps to remove the Consider a scalar filter case (wo and xk are both scalars) as in
impulsive interference-corrupted |ek|, and Ae,k = [|ek| |ek1| [19], the update of the weight-error vector is given as
|ekNw+1|] with Nw being the length of the estimation window.
Thus, (13) can be rewritten as 1
v k v k 1 | e k | p 1 sign( e k ) x k
(1 | e k | p ) 2
a k C ek (15)
1 (22)
v k 1 | ek | p 2 ek x k
In addition, the proposed MVC algorithm will lose robustness (1 | e k | p ) 2
when ak is too large. To circumvent this problem, we shall
1
restrict ak to lie inside an interval [0, C0]. (1 | e k | p | v k 1 | 2 ) v k 1
Remark: Motivated by the NLMS algorithm, it is easy to (1 | e k | p ) 2
develop the normalized MVC (NMVC) algorithm via the
Versoria cost function with respect to p power of the 0
p=2, =0.01, a =1
Misalignment (dB)

normalized output error -5 p=2, =0.01, a =2

p=2, =0.01, a =5
1 (16) -10
J ( w k 1 ) E p
p=2, =0.01, a =10

1 (| e k | || x k ||) -15 p=2, =0.01, ak

-20
We can derive the update equation of the NMVC algorithm by
using the stochastic gradient ascent approach, as 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Number of iterations
1 | ek | p 1 (a)
w k w k 1 sign( ek ) x k (17) 0
(1 (| ek | || x k ||) p ) 2 || x k || p
Misalignment (dB)

p=4, =0.0001, a =1
-10 p=4, =0.0001, a =2
When 0, the NMVC algorithm reduces to the NLMP p=4, =0.0001, a =5
algorithm [17] -20 p=4, =0.0001, a =10
p=4, =0.0001, ak
p 1
| ek | (18)
-30
w k w k 1 sign( ek ) x k
|| x k || p 0 2 1 3 4 5
Number of iterations x 10
4

(b)
III. CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF THE MVC ALGORITHM Fig. 2. Misalignment curves of the MVC with different constant a and adaptive
To begin with, we define the weight-error vector as vk = wo ak, respectively. The background measurement noise b is Gaussian noise with
k
wk. Based on the energy conservation relation [18], the zero-mean and unit variance. (a) =0.99, Nw=20, C=C0=10, 0=|d1|, (b) =0.99,
following relation holds: Nw=10, C=C0=10, 0=|d1|.

1549-7747 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2017.2671521, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
4

15
SA (=0.007) 10
10 LMS (=0.002) SA (=0.005)
GMCC ( =1, =0.01, =0.007) 5 LMS (=0.0017)
5 GMCC ( =2, =0.05, =0.007) GMCC ( =1, =0.01, =0.005)
Misalignment (dB)

Misalignment (dB)
GMCC ( =4, =0.03, =0.006) 0 GMCC ( =2, =0.05, =0.005)
0 GMCC ( =6, =0.01, =0.002) GMCC ( =4, =0.005, =0.0013)
MVC (p =1, =0.0025, =0.0065) GMCC ( =6, =0.01, =0.001)
-5
-5 MVC (p =2, =0.0031, =0.002) MVC (p =1, =0.0025, =0.005)
MVC (p =4, =0.0039, =0.001) MVC (p =2, =0.0031, =0.0017)
-10
-10 MVC (p =6, =0.0006, =0.0003) MVC (p =4, =0.0039, =0.0008)
MVC (p =6, =0.0004, =0.00015)
-15 -15

-20 -20

-25 -25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Number of iterations x 10
4 Number of iterations x 10
4

(a) (b)

10
10 SA (=0.005) SA (=0.0035)
LMS (=0.0015) LMS (=0.0012)
GMCC ( =1, =0.01, =0.005) GMCC ( =1, =0.01, =0.0035)
GMCC ( =2, =0.05, =0.005) 0 GMCC ( =2, =0.05, =0.0035)
0
Misalignment (dB)

Misalignment (dB)
GMCC ( =4, =0.005, =0.0013) GMCC ( =4, =0.01, =0.002)
GMCC ( =6, =0.01, =0.001) GMCC ( =6, =0.01, =0.0015)
MVC (p =1, =0.0025, =0.005) MVC (p =1, =0.0025, =0.0035)
-10 MVC (p =2, =0.0031, =0.0012)
-10 MVC (p =2, =0.0031, =0.0015)
MVC (p =4, =0.0039, =0.0008) MVC (p =4, =0.0039, =0.0008)
MVC (p =6, =0.0004, =0.00015) MVC (p =6, =0.0006, =0.0003)
-20
-20

-30
-30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Number of iterations x 10
4 Number of iterations x 10
4

(c) (d)
Fig. 3. Misalignment curves of the SA, LMS, GMCC and MVC algorithms for different background measurement noise bk : (a) Laplace noise with zero-mean and

unit variance; (b) Gaussian noise with zero-mean and unit variance; (c) Uniform noise over 3, 3 ; (d) Binary noise over {1, 1} with probability mass P(x=
1)=P(x=1)=0.5. The impulsive interferences occur with probability Pr=0.1.

where the noise k is assumed to be zero. It is not difficult to get IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
1 1 Monte Carlo simulations are carried out for system
0 | ek | p (23)
p 2
(1 | e k | ) 4 identification and acoustic echo cancellation scenarios. The
performance of the adaptive algorithms is evaluated by the
normalized misalignment defined as:
If | v k 1 | 2 , we have Misalignment(k)=10log10(||w(k)wo||2/||wo||2). The misalignment
8
learning curves are obtained from the ensemble averages of 500
1 (24)
0 | e k | p | v k 1 | 2 2 independent runs.
(1 | e k | p ) 2
A. System Identification Scenario
Then, we obtain In the system identification scenario, the length of the
2
1 unknown system generated randomly and adaptive filters is 128
| v k |2 1 | ek | p | v k 1 | 2 | v k 1 |2 | v k 1 |2 (25) taps (L=128). The input is a white Gaussian random signal with
(1 | ek | p ) 2
zero-mean and unit variance. The system output is
Thus, the limit lim | v k | , if exists, is always bounded. This contaminated by a noise model as k bk k n k , where b k is
k

means that in this case the MVC algorithm will never diverge
(or the MVC has a zero POD), while the POD of the LMF
algorithm will be non-zero [19]. Comparing the convergent
condition of the proposed MVC algorithm with that (|vk1|2
exp(1)/(2) [14]) of the GMCC algorithm, we obtain /(4) =
exp(1)/. As = , yields =4exp(1)>. That is, in this
simple example, the step-size bound of the MVC algorithm for
converging is larger than that of the GMCC algorithm.
the background measurement noise, and k n k models the
strong impulsive interferences, wherein k is an i.i.d. Bernoulli
process with a probability of success P ( k 1) Pr and
P ( k 0 ) 1 Pr (Pr is the probability of the impulsive
interferences occurring), and n k is a white Gaussian random
sequence with zero-mean and variance n2 1000 y2 . For all

1549-7747 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2017.2671521, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
simulations of this subsection, the parameter settings are:
Pr=0.1; other parameters are reported in the figures. As two
examples, Fig. 2 shows the misalignment curves of the
proposed MVC algorithm with different constant a and
adaptive ak, respectively. As we can see, a smaller value of a
results in a lower steady-state misalignment but a slower
convergence rate, and vice versa. In other words, a larger value
of ( = (2a)p) yields a lower steady-state misalignment but a
slower convergence rate, and vice versa. One can also see that
the proposed MVC algorithm with adaptive ak not only
achieves a fast convergence rate, but also achieves a low
steady-state misalignment. In the following simulations, the
performance of the proposed MVC algorithm is compared with
that of the SA, LMS and GMCC algorithms. The computer
simulation results are shown in Fig. 3, where the background
measurement noise b k is (a) Laplace noise; (b) Gaussian noise;
(c) Uniform noise; (d) Binary noise, respectively. As shown in
Fig. 3, it is clearly seen that the proposed MVC (p>1) algorithm
outclasses the SA, LMS and GMCC algorithms in terms of the
convergence rate and/or the steady-state misalignment. Note
that we do not show the misalignment curves of the LMF since
the LMF is not stable for any value of the step-size when the
noises include the strong impulsive interferences.
SA (=0.0005)
10 LMS (=0.00017)
GMCC ( =1, =0.01, =0.0005)
GMCC ( =2, =0.05, =0.0005)
Misalignment (dB)
5 GMCC ( =4, =0.005, =0.00013)
GMCC ( =6, =0.01, =0.0001)
MVC (p =1, =0.0025, =0.0005)
MVC (p =2, =0.0031, =0.00017)
0 Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 811815, Nov. 2013.
MVC (p =4, =0.0039, =0.00008)
MVC (p =6, =0.0004, =0.000015)
-5
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Misalignment curves of the SA, LMS, GMCC and MVC algorithms for
acoustic echo cancellation application.
B. Acoustic Echo Cancellation Scenario
Here, the performance of the SA, LMS, GMCC, and
proposed MVC algorithms is compared in an acoustic echo
cancellation scenario, under the same initial convergence rate.
The length of the impulse response of the acoustic channel is
512. The input signal is speech signal sampled at 8 kHz. The
output signal is contaminated by k bk k nk , where b k is
Gaussian noise with zero-mean and unit variance, and k n k is
the same as that in the system identification scenario. The
impulsive interferences occur with probability Pr=0.1. The
parameter settings are presented in the figure. As can be seen
from Fig. 4, the proposed MVC (p>1) algorithm performs much
better than the SA, LMS and corresponding orders GMCC
algorithms.
V. CONCLUSION
A maximum Versoria criterion (MVC) algorithm, which is
lower steady-state misalignment and less computational effort
1549-7747 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
5
than the GMCC algorithm, has been developed by maximizing
the generalized Versoria cost function. Simulations in system
identification and acoustic echo cancellation scenarios have
confirmed that the proposed MVC algorithm is robust and
performs much better than the LMP and GMCC algorithms in
the presence of non-Gaussian impulsive noises. In the MVC
algorithm, a larger value of the radius of the generating circle of
Versoria yields a faster convergence rate but a higher
steady-state misalignment, and vice versa.
REFERENCES
[1] A. H. Sayed, Fundamentals of Adaptive Filtering. Hoboken, NJ,USA:
Wiley, 2003.
[2] R. H. Kwong and E. W. Johnston, A variable step size LMS
algorithm, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 40, no. 7, pp.
16331642, Jul. 1992.
[3] D. T. M. Slock, On the convergence behavior of the LMS and the
normalized LMS algorithms, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 41,
no. 9, pp. 28112825, Sep. 1993.
[4] J. Benesty, H. Rey, L. R. Vega, and S. Tressens, A nonparametric
VSS NLMS algorithm, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 13, no. 10, pp.
581584, Oct. 2006.
[5] S. Gollamudi, S. Nagaraj, S. Kapoor, and Y.-F. Huang,
Set-membership filtering and a set-membership normalized LMS
algorithm with an adaptive step size, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol.
5, no. 5, pp.111114, May 1998.
[6] S. Zhang, J. Zhang, and H. Han, Robust shrinkage normalized sign
algorithm in an impulsive noise environment, IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 9195, Jan. 2017.
[7] T. Shao, Y. R. Zheng, and J. Benesty, An affine projection sign
algorithm robust against impulsive interference, IEEE Signal Process.
Lett., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 327330, Apr. 2010.
[8] S. Wang, J. Feng, and C. K. Tse, Kernel affine projection sign
algorithms for combating impulse interference, IEEE Trans. Circuits
[9] F. Huang, J. Zhang, and S. Zhang, Combined-step-size affine
projection sign algorithm for robust adaptive filtering in impulsive
interference environments, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs,
vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 493497, May 2016.
[10] H. Zayyani, Continuous mixed p-norm adaptive algorithm for system
identification, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 9, pp.
11081110, Sep. 2014.
[11] E. Walach and B. Widrow, The least mean fourth (LMF) adaptive
algorithm and its family, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 30, no. 2, pp.
275283, Mar. 1984.
[12] W. Liu, P. P. Pokharel, and J. C. Principe, Correntropy: Properties
and applications in non-Gaussian signal processing, IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 52865298, Nov. 2007.
[13] T. Ogunfunmi and T. Paul, The quarternion maximum correntropy
algorithm, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 62, no. 6,
pp. 598602, Jun. 2015.
[14] B. Chen, L. Xing, H. Zhao, N. Zheng, and J. C. Principe, Generalized
correntropy for robust adaptive filtering, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 64, no. 13, pp. 33763387, Jul. 2016.
[15] X. Yu, J. Liu, and H. Li, An adaptive inertia weight particle swarm
optimization algorithm for IIR digital filter, in Proc. Inter. Conf. on
Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, 2009,
pp.114-118.
[16] S.-C. Pei and C.-C. Tseng, Least mean p-power error criterion for
adaptive fir filter, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 12, no. 9, pp.
15401547, Dec. 1994.
[17] O. Arikan, A. Enis Cetin, E. Erzin, Adaptive filtering for
non-Gaussian stable processes, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol.
1, no. 11, pp.163-165, Nov. 1994.
[18] T. Y. Al-Naffouri and A. H. Sayed, Transient analysis of adaptive
filters with error nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51,
no. 3, pp. 653663, Mar. 2003.
[19] V. H. Nascimento and J. C. M. Bermudez, Probability of divergence
for the least-mean fourth algorithm, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol.
54, no. 4, pp. 13761385, 2006.