IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO.

12, DECEMBER 2020 5079

A Pipelined Reduced Complexity

Two-Stages Parallel LMS Structure
for Adaptive Beamforming
Ghattas Akkad , Ali Mansour , Senior Member, IEEE, Bachar A. ElHassan,
Elie Inaty, Member, IEEE, Rafic Ayoubi, Member, IEEE, and Jalal A. Srar

Abstract— In this paper, we propose a reduced complexity

parallel least mean square structure (RC-pLMS) for adap-
tive beamforming and its pipelined hardware implementation.
RC-pLMS is formed by two least mean square (LMS) stages
operating in parallel (pLMS), where the overall error signal is
derived as a combination of individual stage errors. The pLMS
is further simplified to remove the second independent set of
weights resulting in a reduced complexity pLMS (RC-pLMS)
design. In order to obtain a pipelined hardware architecture of
our proposed RC-pLMS algorithm, we applied the delay and
sum relaxation technique (DRC-pLMS). Convergence, stability Fig. 1. Adaptive Beamforming System [3].
and quantization effect analysis are performed to determine
the upper bound of the step size and assess the behavior of
the system. Computer simulations demonstrate the outstanding communication, sonar and radar tracking. It is used for
performance of the proposed RC-pLMS in providing accelerated directional signal transmission or reception [1], [2] to ease
convergence and reduced error floor while preserving a LMS
identical O(N) complexity, for an antenna array of N elements. spectral congestion, increase its capacity and infer frequency
Synthesis and implementation results show that the proposed re-use. ABF can be achieved by applying a spatial filter with
design achieves a significant increase in the maximum operating varying weights to the arrays outputs, modeled as a linear
frequency over other variants with minimal resource usage. combination of the observed noisy signal. The filter weights
Additionally, the resulting beam radiation pattern show that are concurrently computed by an adaptive algorithm focusing
the finite precision DRC-pLMS implementation presents similar
behavior of the infinite precision theoretical results. the main beam towards the direction of the desired signal and
attenuating interfering signals [2] as shown in Fig. 1. Where
Index Terms— LMS, parallel LMS, adaptive beamforming, x = [x1 , x 2 , . . . . . . , x N ]T is the input vector, w is the vector of
field programmable gate array, sensor array.
filter weights, y is the beamformer output, e is the error and d
I. I NTRODUCTION is the desired signal. A linear antenna with N components
points its main beam, with the highest gain, towards the
E VER since its inception, adaptive beamforming (ABF)
have become an inevitable feature of smart antennas.
ABF is employed in various applications such, as: wireless
desired user while directing nulls to interfering devices. Thus,
a requirement for an efficient adaptive beamforming is the
ability to continuously adapt to the ever changing signal
Manuscript received February 27, 2020; revised April 24, 2020; accepted conditions and users mobility. However, modern wireless com-
May 9, 2020. Date of publication May 22, 2020; date of current version munication have imposed challenging constrains on adaptive
December 1, 2020. This work was supported in part by the l’Agence de
l’ Innovation de Defense a la Direction Generale de l’Armement–Ministere algorithms when implemented on hardware devices like Field
des Armees (AID–DGA) and in part by Agence Nationale de la Recherche Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Such constraints include
en France (ANR) for ANR-ASTRID – Project under Grant ANR-19-ASTR- reduced complexity, parallelism, accelerated convergence and
0005-03. This article was recommended by Associate Editor G. J. Dolecek.
(Corresponding author: Ghattas Akkad.) low residual error. In contrast to complex blind algorithms [4],
Ghattas Akkad and Ali Mansour are with the Lab-STICC, UMR non-blind adaptive algorithms such as the least mean square
6285, ENSTA Bretagne, 29200 Brest, France (e-mail: ghattas.akkad@ (LMS) and recursive least square (RLS) iteratively minimizes
ensta-bretagne.org; mansour@ieee.org).
Bachar A. ElHassan is with the Faculty of Engineering, Lebanese University, the mean square error (MSE) between the filtered output signal
Tripoli, Lebanon (e-mail: bachar_elhassan@ul.edu.lb). and a reference signal. Compared to RLS, with an undesirable
Elie Inaty and Rafic Ayoubi are with the Department of Com- O(N 2 ) quadratic complexity, LMS presents a simple yet
puter Engineering, University of Balamand, Koura, Lebanon (e-mail:
elie.inaty@balamand.edu.lb; rafic.ayoubi@balamand.edu.lb). attractive O(N) linear complexity structure [3]. However,
Jalal A. Srar is with the Electrical and Electronic Department, Misurata LMS still suffers from a trade-off between the convergence
University, Misratah, Libya (e-mail: jalal.srar@gmail.com). speed and its residual error floor [5].
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Several variants of the classical LMS algorithm have been
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSI.2020.2994812 proposed in order to accelerate the convergence and improve
1549-8328 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5080 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
the beam pointing accuracy [2], [3], [5]–[7]. Concurrently,
other modifications focused on presenting a high throughput,
pipelined architecture for hardware implementation [8]–[13].
These techniques include the Normalized LMS (NLMS)
[14], [15], the Gauss-Seidel Fast Affine Projection algorithm
(GS-FAP) [16], the a Priori Error-Feedback LSL algorithm
(EF-LSL) using logarithmic arithmetic [17], the least - least
mean square (LLMS) [5], the recursive-least mean square
algorithm (RLMS) [3], [7], the relaxed look ahead pipelined
LMS [8], the time shared LUT-less LMS architecture [9] and
the division free and variable regularized LMS [10]. In the
NLMS, the step size, μ, is adjusted in accordance with the
input signal power through auto-correlation, thus allowing
a faster convergence. However, the NLMS depends highly
on the choice of its initial parameters and show degraded
performance in low signal to noise ratio (SNR) conditions [5].
The GS-FAP achieves superior performance over the NLMS;
However, slightly more complex [16]. The EF-LSL achieves
a major reduction in computation time and look up tables;
However, it is based on the least square algorithm and requires
the use of a logarithmic number system and a dedicated
logarithmic arithmetic logic unit (ALU) [17]. The LLMS [5]
and RLMS [7] variants are achieved by cascading a LMS/RLS
stage with a LMS stage by the use of an estimate of the
steering vector and delayed error feedback. This technique
shows superior performance over previously proposed LMS
and RLS variants at the cost of doubling the computational
requirements. However, presenting a pipelined hardware archi-
tecture is deemed difficult given the cascading nature of the
designs feedback paths and computational complexity. The
previous cascade RLMS algorithm is simplified to present a
parallel input structure as presented in [3]. However, such
simplification does not reduce the O(N 2 ) complexity and
does not provide an easy to pipeline architecture. The relaxed
look-ahead pipelined LMS, and the time shared LUT-less
LMS discussed in [8], [9], present a pipelined architecture
for the classical tapped delay line LMS with no noticeable
improvements in the convergence speed nor in the error floor.
Furthermore, the pipelined division free variable regularized
LMS architecture presented in [10] still presents considerable
complexity and requires a dynamic step size and normalization
stages compared to the classical LMS.
In this context, the main motivation of our research is to
present a low complexity, parallel, pipelined hardware archi-
tecture with accelerated convergence and minimal residual
error on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Thus,
inspired by the delay feedback technique [3], [5], [7], we
propose a two stages, parallel, least mean square structure
(pLMS) for adaptive beamforming. The pLMS is formed of
two parallel LMS stages, where the overall error signal is
derived as a combination of individual stage errors. The error
signal of the second LMS stage (L M S2 ) is subject to a one
sample
√ delay and is multiplied by the imaginary number
j = −1 to combine with the error of the first LMS stage
(L M S1 ). We should mention that recurring samples are caused
by the presence of repeated data in the original message signal,
analog to digital converters (ADC) impurities [18], [19],
quantization errors and low resolution [19]–[22]. Additionally,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 2. Uniform Linear Antenna Array.
it can be formed as a consequence of symbol detection errors
originated from the digital receivers in low SNR environ-
ments [23]. As such, a multiplication by j is proposed for
robustness against resulting error nulls. The proposed architec-
ture was further simplified to obtain the reduced complexity
pLMS design (RC-pLMS). The RC-pLMS is achieved by
adding a one sample delayed version of the inputs, multiplied
by j , to the L M S1 . Consequently, removing the second
independent set of weights, i.e. L M S2 filter. In order to present
a pipelined, parallel, hardware architecture for the RC-pLMS,
we propose the application of the delay and sum relaxed look-
ahead technique (DRC-pLMS).
Convergence and stability analysis are performed to deter-
mine the upper bound of the step size. The quantization effect
analysis is conducted to assess the system performance in finite
precision arithmetic. Finally, a hardware implementation of
the DRC-pLMS design is done in order to study its resource
consumption and behavior in finite precision arithmetic. The
architecture is implemented using Q2.15 format [24], i.e. one
signed bit, two integer bits and fifteen precision bits.
Section II presents a mathematical background of the LMS
and the relaxed look-ahead LMS algorithm. Section III details
the theoretical derivation of RC-pLMS. Section IV discusses
the convergence analysis. Section V handles the quantization
effect analysis. Section VI presents the hardware architecture
for the DRC-pLMS. Section VII shows the simulation results
and discussion. Finally, Section VIII presents the conclusion
and future work.
II. M ATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND
This section presents a brief background review of the LMS
algorithm for complex narrow-band signals incoming from the
far field [25]. The antenna architecture [26] is a uniform linear
array (ULA) of N equally spaced antenna elements [5] as
shown in Fig. 2.
With the first antenna element acting as a reference, θ is
the angle of arrival and B is the distance between consecutive
antenna elements.
Let the input vector, x(k) = [x1 (k), x 2 (k), . . . . . . , x N (k)]T ,
at the discrete time instant, k, to the narrow-band beamformer
be defined by

N−1
x(k) = ad sd (k) + il (k) + n(k) (1)
l=0
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING 5081

with [.]T denotes the matrix transpose, sd (k) and il (k) are the
desired and interfering signals with l < N, ad is the N ×
1 complex array steering vector for the desired signal, and
n(k) is the complex additive white Gaussian noise (CAWGN)
vector. A general form of ad is given by

ad = [1, e− j ψ , e− j 2ψ , . . . . . . ..e− j (N−1)ψ ]T (2)

√
where j = −1 and
Fig. 3. pLMS Flowchart.
B sin(θ )
ψ = 2π (3)
λ
A. Parallel LMS (pLMS)
where λ is the signal wavelength. The output, y(k), of the
beamformer subject to a linear combiner is given by As previously defined, the pLMS is formed of two parallel
LMS and is presented in Fig. 3 where the block j Z −1 repre-
y(k) = wH (k)x(k) (4) sents one sample delay and a multiplication by j . As shown
in Fig. 3, the error signal of L M S2 , e2 (k), is subject to
where [.]H represents the matrix Hermitian transpose and w(k) a sample delay and is multiplied by the imaginary number
is the array weight vector, i.e. the filter coefficients. j to combine with the error of L M S1 . The resulting error,
j e2(k − 1) is then combined with that of L M S1 .
Consequently, this allows a parallel operation of both stages,
hence the notation pLMS. The pLMS algorithm is presented
A. Least Mean Square Algorithm in Algorithm 1, where n t is the total number of input
The least mean square (LMS) algorithm minimizes the mean samples.
square error (MSE), using the steepest descent optimization
method [27]–[29] as follows: Algorithm 1 Parallel LMS (pLMS)
Input: d(k), x(k), n t , μ
e(k) = d(k)−y(k) (5) Output: e p L M S (k), w1 (k)
w(k + 1) = w(k) + μ L M S e∗ (k)x(k) (6) Initialisation: e1 (0) = 0, e2 (−1) = 0, d(−1) = d(0),
x(−1) = x(0), w1 (0) = 0, w2 (0) = 0
where e(k) is the error signal, d(k) is the reference signal,
1: for k = 0 to n t do
∗ is the complex conjugate operator and μ L M S stands for
the gradient descent step or the step size [29]. The optimal 2: y L M S1(k) = w1H (k)x(k)
weight, woplms (k), assuming a wide sense stationary (WSS) 3: e1 (k) = d(k)−y L M S1(k)
process [30] becomes:
4: e p L M S (k) = e1 (k) − j e2 (k − 1)
woplms = R−1 p (7) 5: w1 (k + 1) = w1 (k) + μe∗p L M S (k)x(k)
6: y L M S2(k) = w2H (k)x(k)
Here R = R(0) and R−1 = R−1 (0) are the input signal auto-
correlation matrix and its inverse, respectively, and p = p(0) 7: e2 (k) = d(k)−y L M S2(k)
is the cross correlation vector of the input x(k) and desired 8: w2 (k + 1) = w2 (k) + μe2∗ (k)x(k)
signal d(k). R(0) and p(0) are defined at lag τ = 0 as 9: end for

R(τ ) = E[x(k − τ )xH (k)] (8) 10: return e p L M S (k), w1 (k)

p(τ ) = E[d ∗ (k − τ )x(k)]
where E[.] is the expectation operator and the lag τ = k1 −
k2 . Where, k1 , k2 are different time instances from which an
observation of the random process is taken. While LMS offers
minimal computational complexity, it suffers from a trade off
between its convergence speed and its error floor [5].
III. T HEORETICAL D ERIVATION
This section details the derivation of the proposed pLMS
and RC-pLMS adaptive beamformers.
(9)
The overall error, e p L M S (k), is defined as
e p L M S (k) = e1 (k) − j e2 (k − 1)
= d(k) − j d(k − 1) − w1H (k)x(k)
+ j w2H (k − 1)x(k − 1) (10)
where ei (k) = d(k) − wiH (k)x(k), i represents the stage
identifier, y L M S1(k) and y L M S2(k) are the first and second
stage output, and w2 (k − 1) is the delayed weight vector of
L M S2 .
Proposition-I: The recurring samples in the input and/or
desired signals are usually caused by the nature of the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5082 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
input signal, i.e. presence of repeated samples in the original
message signal, ADC impurities [18], quantization errors
[20]–[22] and low resolution resulting in receivers satura-
tion [19]. Additionally, it can be formed as a consequence of
symbol detection errors originated from the digital receivers
in low SNR environments [23]. Thus, in the proposed delayed
feedback scheme, the use of the present and past errors,
in the case of recurring samples, can severely degrade the
convergence performance of the pLMS. We can prove that
it can be mitigated by multiplying the delayed samples by
j , which in turn protects against nulls and preserves the
accelerated convergence.
Proof: let d(k) = a + j b and d(k −1) = c+ j d. For recur-
ring samples, S(k) = d(k) − d(k − 1) with d(k) ≈ d(k − 1),
we get S(k) ≈ 0. However, for S(k) = d(k) −
j d(k − 1), i.e. left side term of equation (10),
S(k) = a + j b − j c + d = 0.,
where S(k) is the new pLMS reference signal, such as
S(k) = d(k) − j d(k − 1). The MSE ξ p L M S is now defined as
ξ p L M S (k) = E[|e p L M S (k)|2 ]
= E[e1 (k)e1∗ (k) + j e1(k)e2∗ (k − 1)
− j e1∗(k)e2 (k − 1) + e2 (k − 1)e2∗ (k − 1)] (11)
with |.| signifies the complex modulus. Moreover, the first term
of (11) can be expressed as
E[|e1 (k)| ] 2
= E[|d(k)|2 ] − pH w1 (k)−wH
1 (k)p + w1 (k)Rw1 (k) (12)
H
the last term of (11) can be developed as follow
E[|e2 (k − 1)|2 ] = E[|d(k − 1)|2 ]
−E[d1 (k)xH
1 (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
−w2 (k − 1)E[d1∗ (k)x(k − 1)]
H
+w2H (k − 1)E[x1 (k)xH (k − 1)]
×w2 (k − 1)
In addition, the second term of (11) can be detailed as
E[e1 (k)e2∗ (k − 1)] = E[d(k)d ∗ (k − 1)
−d(k)xH (k − 1)w2 (k − 1)
−d ∗ (k − 1)w1H (k)x(k)
+w1H (k)x(k)xH (k − 1)w2 (k − 1)] (14)
and the third term of (11) becomes
E[e1∗ (k)e2 (k ∗
− 1)] = E[d (k)d(k − 1)
−d(k − 1)xH (k)w1 (k)
−d ∗ (k)w2H (k − 1)x(k − 1)
+xH (k)w1 (k)w2H (k − 1)x(k − 1)] (15)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
substituting (12), (13), (14) and (15), in (11) the MSE ξ p L M S
becomes
ξ p L M S (k) = E[|d(k)|2] − pH w1 (k)−w1H (k)p
+w1H (k)Rw1 (k) + E[|d(k − 1)|2 ]
−E[d1(k)xH
1 (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
−w2H (k − 1)E[d1∗(k)x1 (k − 1)]
+w2H (k − 1)E[x1(k)x1H (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
+ j E[d(k)d ∗(k − 1)] − j E[d ∗ (k)d(k − 1)]
− j E[d(k)xH(k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
− j w1H (k)E[d ∗ (k − 1)x(k)]
+ j w1H (k)E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
+ j E[d(k − 1)xH (k)]w1 (k)
+ j w2H (k − 1)E[d ∗ (k)x(k − 1)]
− j E[xH (k)w1 (k)w2H (k − 1)x(k − 1)] (16)
with w1 (k) being the tap weights of interest [3], [5], [7], [31].
The optimal weight vector, wop , of w1 (k) can be obtained by
differentiating (16) with respect to wH 1 (k) [5], [7], [32], and
setting the resulting pLMS gradient, ∇ p L M S , to zero
∂ξ p L M S (k)
= ∇pL M S
∂wH 1 (k)
= −p + Rw1 (k)
− j E[d ∗(k − 1)x(k)]
+ j E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1) (17)
The optimal weight vector, wop , becomes
wop = R−1 p + j R−1 E[d ∗ (k − 1)x(k)]
− j R−1 E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)| (18)
The resulting gradient can be validated by expanding the
steepest descent update equation using the stochastic gradient
as shown in (6)
w1 (k + 1) = w1 (k) − μ∇ p L M S
= w1 (k) − μ[−p + Rw1 (k)
(13) − j E[d ∗(k − 1)x(k)]
+ j E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)]
= w1 (k) + μx(k)[d ∗ (k) − xH (k)w1 (k)
+ j d ∗(k − 1) − j xH (k − 1)w2 (k − 1)] (19)
Proposition-II: At steady-state, assuming convergence, we
can assume w1 (k) ≈ w2 (k − 1) and the pLMS weight update
equation defined by (19) can be written as
w(k + 1) = w(k) + μx(k)[d ∗ (k) − xH (k)w(k)
+ j d ∗(k − 1) − j xH (k − 1)w(k)] (20)
Proof: At a steady-state, as k → ∞, assuming that
both systems converge and the process is WSS, we get
w1 (k) ≈ w1 (k − 1) ≈ wop , w2 (k) ≈ w2 (k − 1) ≈
woplms [5]. Additionally, the filtered outputs y L M S1 and
y L M S2, tend to approach d(k) with both interference and
noise signals being suppressed [5], [7], therefore we assume
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING 5083

Algorithm 2 Reduced Complexity pLMS (RC-pLMS)

Input: d(k), d(k − 1), x(k), x(k − 1), n t , μ
Output: e RC p L M S (k), w(k)
Initialisation: e RC p L M S (k) = 0, d(−1) = d(0),
x(−1) = x(0), w(0) = 0
1: for k = 0 to n t do
2: u(k) = x(k) − j x(k − 1)
3: e RC p L M S (k) = S(k) − wH (k)u(k)
4: w(k + 1) = w(k) + μx(k)e ∗RC p L M S (k)
5: end for
Fig. 4. Reduced Complexity pLMS (RC-pLMS).
6: return e RC p L M S (k), w(k)
d(k − 1) ≈ y L M S1(k − 1) ≈ y L M S2(k − 1) [5], [7]. Thus
using (4), (5) and (7) in (18) we get
TABLE I
wop = woplms + j R−1 E[d ∗ (k − 1)x(k)] T HEORETICAL C OMPLEXITY AND R ESOURCE U SAGE
− j R−1 E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
≈ woplms + j R−1 E[y L∗ M S2(k − 1)x(k)]
− j R−1 E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
≈ woplms + j R−1 E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
− j R−1 E[x(k)xH (k − 1)]w2 (k − 1)
≈ woplms (21)
As such, by simplifying (21), we get wop ≈ woplms and hand, compared to the LLMS and pLMS the RC-pLMS
therefore we assume w1 (k) ≈ w2 (k − 1), hence the use of provides similar LMS resource requirements and complex-
a single set of weights, w(k). We can now simplify (19), ity while preserving a linear computational complexity of
removing any requirement for computing an independent set of order O(N).
filter coefficients, i.e. additional filter. As such, (19) becomes The MSE cost function is now re-defined as ξ RC p L M S (k) =
E[|e RC p L M S (k)|2 ] and evaluated in similar way as (16). The
w(k + 1) = w(k) + μx(k)[d ∗ (k) − xH (k)w(k)
gradient of RC-pLMS becomes
+ j d ∗ (k − 1) − j xH (k − 1)w(k)] (22)
∂ξ RC p L M S (k)
∇ RC p L M S =
∂wH 1 (k)
The reduced complexity pLMS (RC-pLMS) is now defined by = −p + Rw1 (k) − E[ j d ∗(k − 1)x(k)]
its final update equation as +E[ j x(k)xH (k − 1)]w1 (k)
w(k + 1) = w(k) + μx(k)e∗RC p L M S (k) (23) +E[ j d ∗(k)x(k − 1)] − E[ j x(k − 1)
×xH (k)]w1 (k) − E[d ∗ (k − 1)x(k − 1)]
where e∗RC p L M S (k) is the RC-pLMS error signal defined by
+E[x(k − 1)xH (k − 1)]w1 (k) (25)
e∗RC p L M S (k) = d ∗ (k) − xH (k)w(k) + j d ∗ (k − 1)
Assuming WSS then (25) is rewritten as
− j xH (k − 1)w(k) (24)
∇ RC p L M S = −p + Rw1 (k) − z∗ (−1)
Moreover, by eliminating the need to compute an independent +Q(1)w1 (k) + z(1) − Q∗ (−1)w1 (k)
set of coefficients, the system complexity is reduced by 2N +1
−p + Rw1 (k) (26)
complex multiplications and N + 2 complex additions. The
final system architecture is shown in Fig. 4 and The RC-pLMS The auto-correlation matrix Q(1) = jR(1) and the cross-
is summarized and presented in Algorithm 2 correlation vector z(−1) = jp(−1) represent a observation
where u(k) and S(k) are the new system input and reference with lag τ = 1. By definition, for a WSS process a correlation
signal, respectively. As seen in Fig. 4 the L M S2 is now matrix Q(τ ) = Q∗ (−τ ) and z(τ ) = z∗ (−τ ). Therefore,
replaced by a one sample delayed version of the inputs equation (26) can now be simplified to
multiplied by j .
∇ RC p L M S = −2p + 2Rw1 (k) − 2z(−1) + 2Qw1 (k) (27)
Table I, presents a comparison of resource complexity
where cMultiply, cAdd, cDivide and RLMSp denotes com- By setting ∇ RC p L M S , to 0 the RC-pLMS optimal weight
plex multiplication, complex addition, complex division and vector, wop , can be obtained as
parallel RLMS, respectively. From Table I, it is clear that the
2(R + jR(1))wop = 2(p + j p(−1))
RLMS, RLMSp and RLS require an undesirable complexity
of order O(N 2 ). Additionally, the RLMS and RLMSp require Awop = (p + j p(1))
N + 1 and 1 complex division, respectively. On the other wop = A−1 (p + j p(−1)) (28)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5084 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
where A is the final correlation matrix formed as a linear
combination of the auto-correlation matrices at lags 0 and 1,
respectively. A is assumed invertible as a result of the random
added noise [30] and is given by
A = R + j R(1) (29)
Thus, the RC-pLMS presents a low complexity approximation
for the pLMS. The behavior of the RC-pLMS is exam-
ined and verified through various simulations presented in
sub-section VII-A.
IV. S TABILITY A NALYSIS
In order to determine the conditions for RC-pLMS to
become stable and converge to the optimal weight, a first order
convergence and stability analysis is performed. Moreover,
the following analysis determines the optimal learning rate, i.e.
{1, 2, .., N} [30]. Thus, we define a set of N difference
μ. The analysis is performed by studying the mean coefficient
error vector, v(k) [27], [33] which is given by
v(k) = w(k) − wop (30)
where w(k) is the mean weight vector. Thus, from (22), we can
proceed as follows
w(k + 1) = w1 (k) + μp − μRw(k)
+ j μp(−1) − j μR(1)w(k) (31)
At steady-state and convergence, i.e. as k → ∞, we can
assume w(k + 1) ≈ w(k) and w(k) ≈ w(k − 1) for w(k) =
w1 (k) and w(k) = w2 (k − 1). Thus, (31) becomes
w(k + 1) − wop = w(k) − wop + μp + j μR(1)wop
−μRw(k) − μRwop + μRwop
+ j μp(−1) − j μR(1)wop + μR(1)w(k)
(32)
where wop is the optimal weight vector. Using the mean
coefficient error vector notation and equations (28), (32), we
can write
v(k + 1) = (I − μR − j μR(1))v(k) − μRA−1 p
− j μRA−1 p(−1) + μp + j μp(−1)
−μR(1)A−1 p + μR(1)A−1 p(−1) (33)
The previous equation can be simplified to
v(k + 1) = (I − μR − j μR(1))v(k) + μp
−μ(R + j R(1))A−1p + j μp(−1)
−μ( j R − R(1))A−1 p(−1) (34)
Using the equalities ( j R − R(1)) = j (R + j R(1)) and
AA−1 = I, and simplifying opposite terms, we get
v(k + 1) = (I − μR − j μR(1))v(k)
= (I − μA)v(k) (35)
Using the eigenvalue decomposition (EVD), where Λ is a
diagonal matrix with diagonal entries (λi ) equal to the eigen-
values of A, and O is a unitary matrix whose rows represent
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the eigenvectors of A. We can now write A = O−1 ΛO [30],
we can rewrite (35) as
v(k + 1) = (I − μO−1 ΛO)v(k) (36)
Multiplying both sides of (36) by O, we get
Ov(k + 1) = (I − μΛ)Ov(k) (37)
Let u(k) = Ov(k), where u(k) is v(k) in a rotated coordinate,
defined by the eigenvectors in O, thus a convergence in u(k)
means a convergence in v(k) [27], [30], then
u(k + 1) = (I − μΛ)u(k) (38)
Since all elements in (I − μΛ) are diagonal, the stability and
convergence is achieved with respect to the convergence of the
first order difference equation formed by all N eigenvalues λi ,
∀i, i
equations as follows
ui (k + 1) = (1 − μλi )ui (k) (39)
The convergence of the set of N difference equations is
achieved if |1−μλi | < 1 [30], [33]. Thus, for the convergence
in the mean sense, we require
μ< 1
||λ A,max || (40)
where the norm, ||λ A,max ||, is the maximum
 eigenvalue in
A and ||.|| is the Euclidean norm i.e. Re{λ}2 + I m{λ}2 .
Thus, to ensure convergence and stability the step size μ must
satisfy (40).
V. Q UANTIZATION E FFECT
While the previous study targeted an infinite precision
model of the RC-pLMS algorithm, an analysis of the effects
of quantization is of crucial importance when targeting digital
systems with finite precision [30], [34], [35]. Such errors, if not
accounted for, causes the system to diverge as it deviates from
its theoretical continuous value [30], [34]. To simplify the
analysis of the finite precision case, we assume all the input
and reference signals to be Gaussian, zero-mean, uncorrelated
and generated from an independent identically distributed
(i.i.d) sequences. Additionally, the parameters uq (k), wq (k),
Sq (k), eq (k) and yq (k), where the subscript q denotes the
quantization process, are defined as follows
uq (k) = u(k) + ηu (k) (41)
wq (k) = w(k) + ηw (k) (42)
Sq (k) = S(k) + η S (k) (43)
yq (k) = y(k) + η y (k) (44)
eq (k) = Sq (k) − yq (k) (45)
where ηu (k), ηw (k), η S (k) and η y (k) are the input signal,
weight vector, reference signal and output quantization error
respectively. Additionally, ηu (k) and ηw (k) are assumed to
be mutually independent and independent of u(k) and w(k),
respectively. They are also assumed to be zero mean white
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING
sequences with variance θd2 [30], [34]. Thus, from (45) we
proceed as follows
eq (k) = Sq (k) − yq (k)
= S(k) + η S (k) − wH q (k)uq (k) − η y (k)
= S(k) + η S (k) − wH (k)u(k) − wH (k)ηu (k)
−ηw (k)u(k)−ηw ∗
(k)ηu (k) − η y (k) (46)
By ignoring all quantization error terms higher than the first
∗ (k)η (k) = 0, we get
order, i.e. ηw
u
eq (k) = e RC p L M S (k) + η Sy (k) − wH (k)ηu (k) − ηw (k)u(k)
(47)
where η Sy (k) = η S (k) − η y (k). The new MSE is now defined
as ξ RC p L M Sq (k) = [|eq (k)|2 ] and evaluated as presented
in (16) with all quantization error terms higher than the first
order are equated to 0. Consequently, we obtain
2
ξ RC p L M Sq (k) = E[|eq (k)| ]
= ξ RC p L M S (k) + E[e RC p L M S (k)η∗Sy (k)
+e∗RC p L M S (k)η Sy (k) − e RC p L M S (k)
×w(k)ηu∗ (k) − e RC p L M S (k)uH (k)ηw
∗
(k)
−e∗RC p L M S (k)wH (k)ηu (k)
−e∗RC p L M S (k)u(k)ηu (k)]
For simplification, we assume μ to be small. Therefore,
the quantization error terms ηw (k)u(k) and w(k)ηu (k) become
uncorrelated with each other and with the error e RC p L M S (k)
[30]. From [30], (48) can be simplified to
ξ RC p L M Sq (k) = E[|eq (k)|2 ]
= Jmin (1 + ρ) + ξ1 (θw2 , μ) + ξ2 (θd2 )
where Jmin (1 + ρ) is the MSE of the infinite precision algo-
rithm, ρ is the misadjustment, ξ1 (θw2 , μ) is the quantization
error resulting from ηw (k) and ξ2 (θd2 ) is the quantization error
resulting from ηu (k) and η y (k) [30]. Following the derivation
in [35], at steady state (49) can now be written as follows
ξ RC p L M Sq (k) = E[|eq (k)|2 ]
1 Nθa2
= ξmin + μξmin tr (A) +
2 2ηu (k)μ
1 3 −1
+ 2 (|wop |2 + a)θd2 (50)
ηu (k)
where ξmin is the minimum MSE on the infinite precision
LMS, tr (A) is the trace of the correlation matrix A, a is a
random variable dependent on the inner product of wH q (k) and
uq (k) and θa2 is the variance of a. From (50), the second term
describes the misadjustment parameter ρ where a decrease in
μ leads to a decrease in ρ and an improved performance [30].
However, by analyzing the third term in (50), it is clear that
decreasing μ causes the system to deviate from the the infinite
precision performance by increasing the quantization error
effect. On the other hand, the final term in (50) is only affected
by ηu (k) and η y (k) [30], [35]. Thus, it can be concluded that
μ may be decreased to a certain level, where the degradation
effects of the quantization error become significant [30].
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5085
For the RC-pLMS design, a finite precision
implementation was performed on the Intel Stratix V
5SGXMABN3F45I4 FPGA model [36] using complex
arithmetic for a 18bits signed fixed point Q2, 15 format,
i.e. 1 signed bit, 2 integer bits and 15 precision bits [36].
The Q2, 15 format was chosen with respect to the Stratix V
digital signal processing (DSP) embedded blocks standard
18bits mode configuration. While the selected FPGA model
supports 18bits mode and 27bits mode, in which the latter
is suggested for high precision wireless communication
applications [36], the 18bits mode is selected. The use of the
18bits mode provides minimal resource usage and highlights
the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed algorithm against
quantization errors. Synthesis and finite precision hardware
simulation results are presented in sections VI-C and VII-A,
respectively.
VI. H ARDWARE A RCHITECTURE
This section, presents a pipelined RC-pLMS structure
based on the delay and sum relaxed look-ahead technique
(DRC-pLMS). It also compares this new algorithm to the delay
and sum relaxed look-ahead LMS (DLMS) [8].
A. DRC-pLMS
(48) From Algorithm 2, we start with a delay relaxation of D1
samples in the error path and D2 step look-ahead in the weight
update path to obtain
w(k + 1) = w(k − D2 )
2 −1
D
+μ e∗RC p L M S (k − D1 − i )x(k − D1 − i )
i=0
(49) (51)
The previous relaxation is possible assuming the signal is
WSS and the gradient estimate does not change much over D1
samples [8]. While the previous assumption allows presenting
a pipelined architecture, its hardware overhead is N(D2 − 1)
and becomes unacceptable for larger values of N and D2 [8].
Thus, to reduce the resulting overhead, a sum relaxation of D3
terms is applied where 1 ≤ D3 ≤ D2 . Equation (51) becomes
as follows
w(k + 1) = w(k − D2 )
D
+μ e∗RC p L M S (k − D1 − i )x(k − D1 − i )
i=0
(52)
Finally, from the error update equation in Algorithm 2 and (52)
and assuming μ is small enough we obtain
e RC p L M S (k) = S(k) − wH (k − D2 )u(k) (53)
Thus the relaxed look-ahead RC-pLMS can be summarized by
Algorithm 3 .
Unlike the classical look-ahead technique, the delay and
sum relaxed look-ahead presented does not result in a unique
architecture. However, it may be considered as a transforma-
tion in the stochastic sense since the average output profile is
conserved [8].
5086 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020

Fig. 5. 8-Input DRC-pLMS Beamformer Architecture.

Algorithm 3 Delay and Sum Relaxed Look-Ahead RC-pLMS

(DRC-pLMS)

Input: d(k), d(k − 1), D1 , D2 , D3 , x(k), x(k − 1), n t , μ

Output: e RC p L M S (k), w(k)
Conditions: 1 ≤ D3 ≤ D2 , D1 + D2 < N
Initialisation: e RC p L M S (k) = 0, d(−1) = d(0),
x(−1) = x(0), w(0) = 0
1: for k = 0 to n t do
2: S(k) = d(k) − j d(k − 1)
3: u(k) = x(k) − j x(k − 1)
4: e RC p L M S (k) = S(k) − wH (k − D2 )u(k)
5: w(k + 1) = w(k − D2 )
 D3 −1 ∗
+μ i=0 e RC p L M S (k − D1 − i )x(k − D1 − i )
6: end for
7: return e RC p L M S (k), w(k) Fig. 6. DRC-pLMS 4-Input Linear Combiner Architecture.

defined as follows
B. DRC-pLMS Architecture
y1 (k) = w1..4
H (k)u
1..4 (k) (54)
The relaxed look-ahead hardware architecture is imple-
y2 (k) = H (k)u
w5..8 5..8 (k) (55)
mented using complex arithmetic for a 18bits signed fixed
point Q2, 15 format i.e. 1 signed bit, 2 integer bits and 15 From Fig. 5, a 8 input adaptive beamformer is formed by
precision bits with D1 = 4, D2 = 2 and D3 = 1, i.e. six two 4 input linear combiner blocks and two 4 input weight
pipeline stages. The resulting, top level, architecture is shown update blocks. The systems default external inputs x(k) and
in Fig. 5 where u1..4 (k), u5..8 (k), w1..4 (k) and w5..8 (k) are the d(k) remain unchanged and they are updated internally to
DRC-pLMS input and weight vectors formed of first and last form the modified inputs u(k) and S(k). The resulting stage
4 elements, respectively. Z −1 , Z −D1 and Z −D1 −1 represent outputs, y1 and y2 , of each linear combiner are then combined
the digital delay, i.e. registers of 1, D1 , and D1 − 1 samples, to form the final output y and the total error e RC p L M S . The
respectively. The Conj block denotes complex conjugation. In resulting error and the external input signals x1..4 (k) and
addition, y1 and y2 form the intermediate output. They are x5..8 (k) are then used to update the previous filter coefficients.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING
Fig. 7. DRC-pLMS 4-Input Weight Update Architecture.
TABLE II
8-I NPUT RC- P LMS B EAMFORMER S YNTHESIS R ESULTS
From Fig. 5, it becomes clear that by eliminating the input
modification blocks forming u(k) and S(k) the classical LMS,
subject to the delay and sum relaxation, is obtained. The
4-input linear combiner and 4-input weight update blocks are
detailed in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively. From Fig. 6 we can
notice that the multiplication and addition stages requires one
clock cycle, each, for all parallel inputs with a computational
complexity of O(1), respectively. Each complex multiplier is
formed of four real multipliers and one complex adder, i.e.
it is equivalent two real adders. Additionally, from Fig. 7,
the update term is obtained by a right shift of 6 bits i.e.
μ = 2−6 = 0.0156 omitting the need for an additional
multiplier. Both pipeline stages perform parallel operations and
have a computational complexity of order O(1).
C. Synthesis Results
Synthesis results of the DRC-pLMS and DLMS are obtained
for the Intel Stratix V 5SGXMABN3F45I4 model and shown
in Table II. As the VR-SNC-TDNLMS [10] and the LUT-
Less Pipelined LMS [9] are implemented for different config-
urations, i.e. antenna elements and word length, they are only
compared with respect to their operating frequency. The look-
up tables (LUTs) represents logic cells and a digital signal
processing (DSP) block and it is formed of transistor level
multipliers, adders and registers. As presented in Table II,
in contrast to the VR-SNC-TDNLMS [10] and the LUT-
Less Pipelined LMS [9], the DRC-pLMS presents a pipelined
structure operating at a maximum frequency of 208.33MHz.
Additionally, the DRC-pLMS and DLMS both required 32
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5087
Fig. 8. RC-pLMS MSE Convergence Comparison.
Fig. 9. RC-pLMS MSE Convergence for Recurring Samples.
DSP blocks. Thus, compared to the LMS [8], a major increase
in convergence speed is achieved for the DRC-pLMS at the
cost of a negligible increase in the resource usage, i.e. LUTs
and registers. Using the proposed hardware architecture, sim-
ulation results for the DRC-pLMS and DLMS output beam-
pattern are shown in section VII-A.
VII. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
We conducted several Monte Carlo simulations for
N = 8 antenna elements with 500 realizations of 500 samples.
Simulations are conducted for a message signal and two
interferes arriving at an angle (AOA) of 30o , 45o and 80o ,
respectively. The generated inputs are independent random
complex Gaussian sequences [37] of the form v = vp + jvq ,
where v p and v q are taken from a normal (Gaussian) dis-
tribution, N , with mean 0 and variances θ 2 of the form
N (0, θ p2 ) and N (0, θq2 ), respectively. The subscripts p and
q denotes in-phase and quadrature, out of phase, respectively.
Thus, we define v m , v i1 and v i2 as the independent message
5088 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
Fig. 10. RC-pLMS and DRC-pLMS MSE Convergence Behavior for Different SNR.
Fig. 11. RC-pLMS and DRC-pLMS Beam Radiation Pattern for Different SNR.
sd (k), and interfering sequences forming i(k), respectively.
The desired signal d(k) represented by v d , is considered
as an identical copy of the message signal corrupted by
CAWGN noise with a signal to noise ratio S N R = 10d B. The
parameters and initial conditions at k = 0 are given as, μ1 =
μ2 = μ p L M S = μ RC p L M S = μ D RC p L M S = 2−6 = 0.0156,
μ L M S = 0.5, d(−1) = d(0), x(−1) = x(0), θ p2 = 0.01 and
θq2 = 0.04. As for the RLS the initial parameters are the
forgetting factor α = 0.98 and initial matrix P(0) = 0.5I ,
where I is a N × N identity matrix.
A. Simulation Results
The simulation results are displayed as a function of the
MSE convergence, and the beam radiation pattern. As shown
in Fig. 8, for a S N R = 10d B and in contrast to the LMS,
the pLMS and RC-pLMS presented similar LLMS accelerated
convergence behavior with minimal residual error. The system
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
was able to achieve a convergence after just 5 iterations.
Moreover, compared to the LMS with a step size of 0.5, i.e.
maximum suggested step size [30], the RC-pLMS achieved an
accelerated convergence with a minimal step size of 0.0156
in high SNR environments. Moreover, the selected μ RC p L M S
ensures an accelerated convergence and a minimal error floor
in low SNR environments, where the use of a smaller step size
is a mandatory for convergence [30]. Additionally, compared
to the RLS, which is of order O(N 2 ) complexity, our proposed
system presented near similar behavior in convergence and
error floor but with a reduced complexity of order O(N).
To numerically assess the validity of proposition − I, the
MSE convergence behavior is simulated, using recurring
(repeated) samples, for the RC-pLMS as shown in Fig. 9.
From Fig. 9, it is clear that the RC-pLMS, having its delayed
inputs multiplied by j , preserved its accelerated convergence
and low steady-state error. Additionally, the MSE behavior
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING
Fig. 12. Infinite and Finite Precision Beam Radiation Pattern for an Angle
of Arrival 30o .
describes the system similarity in transient (pLMS) and steady-
state (RC-pLMS) behaviors thus validating the approximation
in proposition − II.
To further assess the performance and the stability of the
system for different SNRs, the MSE convergence behav-
ior and beam pattern are simulated for the RC-pLMS and
DRC-pLMS with a SNR ranging from −5d B to 7d B with
a step of 6d B. From Fig. 10a, it is clear that the RC-pLMS
achieved accelerated convergence for a S N R = −5d B at
the cost of a larger residual error. On the other hand, from
Fig. 10b, the DRC-pLMS achieves a satisfactory behavior for
SNR environments up to only 1d B. Such degradation is a
consequence of the sum relaxation adopted in Algorithm 3
and can be omitted for large values of D3 , i.e. a high order
moving average filter. However, the increase in D3 presents
larger hardware overhead. Additionally, From Fig. 11a, the
RC-pLMS is able to achieve an acceptable beam pointing
and interference nulling for −5d B. However, the DRC-pLMS
described in Fig. 11b, shows acceptable results for up to only
1d B thus validating the MSE results.
Furthermore, the resulting finite precision beam pattern is
obtained for the RC-pLMS, DRC-pLMS and DLMS weights,
at 10d B, following a hardware simulation for Q2.15 signed
format. As shown in Fig. 12, the resulting spatial filter weights
steered the main lobe towards the direction of arrival 30o of the
desired signal while nulling interferes coming from the preset
angles of 45o and 80o respectively. Additionally, we observe
that the resulting main lobs achieved for the 18-bits fixed point
format shows near identical results to the theoretical models
denoted by RC-pLMS and DRC-pLMS.
VIII. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this manuscript, we presented, pLMS, a two-stages par-
allel LMS adaptive beamformer with accelerated convergence,
minimal error floor and pipelined architecture most suitable for
a hardware implementation. The pLMS structure was further
simplified by adding a delayed version of the input, eliminating
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5089
the need for computing an independent set of weights. Thus,
the reduced complexity pLMS design (RC-pLMS) is obtained.
In order to design a pipelined hardware architecture of our
proposed RC-pLMS algorithm, we applied the delay and sum
relaxation technique (DRC-pLMS). Stability and quantization
effect analysis were performed to determine the upper bound
of the step size. Experimental results demonstrated the out-
standing performance of the proposed RC-pLMS compared
to different adaptive algorithms. Mean square error behavior
shows that the proposed RC-pLMS achieves convergence after
just few iterations. In contrast to the classical RLS with a
computational complexity of order O(N 2 ), the RC-pLMS
achieved major performance improvement while preserving
a LMS like complexity of order O(N). The beam radiation
pattern obtained through hardware simulation results show that
the finite precision DRC-pLMS presented similar behavior
of the infinite precision theoretical results. Finally, synthe-
sis results show that the DRC-pLMS achieved a significant
increase in the maximum operating frequency compared to
other LMS variants. Moreover, the presented implementation
is obtained at the cost of a marginal increase in resource usage
compared to the delayed LMS. Thus, the proposed RC-pLMS
overcomes the preset constraints of modern beamformers by
presenting a high performance low computational complexity
structure. Future work includes the analysis of the performance
of the system for non-stationary processes and wide-band
signals.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Mansour, R. Mesleh, and M. Abaza, “New challenges in wireless
and free space optical communications,” Opt. Lasers Eng., vol. 89,
pp. 95–108, Feb. 2017.
[2] D. Burgos, J. Kunzler, R. Lemos, and H. Silva, “Adaptive beamforming
for moving targets using genetic algorithms,” in Proc. Workshop Eng.
Appl. Int. Congr. Eng. (WEA), Bogota, Colombia, Oct. 2015, pp. 1–5.
[3] G. Akkad, A. Mansour, B. A. ElHassan, J. Srar, M. Najem, and
F. L. Roy, “Low complexity robust adaptive beamformer based on
parallel RLMS and Kalman RLMS,” in Proc. 27th Eur. Signal Process.
Conf. (EUSIPCO), Coruna, Spain, Sep. 2019, pp. 1–5.
[4] A. Mansour, C. Jutten, and P. Loubaton, “Adaptive subspace algorithm
for blind separation of independent sources in convolutive mixture,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 583–586, Feb. 2000.
[5] J. A. Srar, K.-S. Chung, and A. Mansour, “Adaptive array beamforming
using a combined LMS-LMS algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 3545–3557, Nov. 2010.
[6] F. Shen, F. Chen, and J. Song, “Robust adaptive beamforming based on
steering vector estimation and covariance matrix reconstruction,” IEEE
Commun. Lett., vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1636–1639, Sep. 2015.
[7] J. A. Srar, K.-S. Chung, and A. Mansour, “Adaptive array beamforming
using a combined LMS-LMS algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Aerosp. Conf.,
Tokyo, Japan, Mar. 2010, pp. 1–5.
[8] N. R. Shanbhag and K. K. Parhi, “Relaxed look-ahead pipelined LMS
adaptive filters and their application to ADPCM coder,” IEEE Trans. Cir-
cuits Syst. II. Analog Digit. Signal Process, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 753–766,
Dec. 1993.
[9] R. K. Sarma, M. T. Khan, R. A. Shaik, and J. Hazarika, “A novel time-
shared and LUT-less pipelined architecture for LMS adaptive filter,”
IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale Integr. (VLSI) Syst., vol. 28, no. 1,
pp. 188–197, Jan. 2020.
[10] W. Zhao, J. Q. Lin, S. C. Chan, and H. K.-H. So, “A division-free
and variable-regularized LMS-based generalized sidelobe canceller for
adaptive beamforming and its efficient hardware realization,” IEEE
Access, vol. 6, pp. 64470–64485, 2018.
[11] J. Ma, K. K. Parhi, and E. F. Deprettere, “Annihilation-reordering
look-ahead pipelined CORDIC-based RLS adaptive filters and their
application to adaptive beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2414–2431, Aug. 2000.
5090 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 67, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2020
[12] L.-D. Van and W.-S. Feng, “An efficient systolic architecture for the
DLMS adaptive filter and its applications,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.
II. Analog Digit. Signal Process, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 359–366, Apr. 2001.
[13] P. K. Meher and S. Y. Park, “Critical-path analysis and low-complexity
implementation of the LMS adaptive algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 778–788, Mar. 2014.
[14] B. D. Van Veen and K. M. Buckley, “Beamforming: A versatile approach
to spatial filtering,” IEEE ASSP Mag., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 4–24, Apr. 1988.
[15] V. H. Nascimento, “The normalized LMS algorithm with dependent
noise,” in Proc. Anais Simpòsio Brasileiro, 2001, pp. 1–10.
[16] F. Albu, J. Kadlec, N. Coleman, and A. Fagan, “The Gauss-Seidel fast
affine projection algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop Signal Process.
Syst., San Diego, CA, USA, Oct. 2002, pp. 109–114.
[17] Albu, Kadlec, Coleman, and Fagan, “Pipelined implementations of the
a priori error-feedback LSL algorithm using logarithmic arithmetic,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., Orlando, FL,
USA, May 2002, pp. 2681–2684.
[18] A. Zoubir, M. Viberg, R. Chellappa, and S. Theodoridis, Academic Press
Library in Signal Processing, Array and Statistical Signal Processing,
vol. 3. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2013.
[19] A. Farina and L. Ortenzi, “Effect of ADC and receiver saturation on
adaptive spatial filtering of directional interference,” Signal Process.,
vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1065–1078, May 2003.
[20] Q. Jing, Y. Li, and J. Tong, “Performance analysis of multi-rate signal
processing digital filters on FPGA,” EURASIP J. Wireless Commun.
Netw., vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 31, Dec. 2019.
[21] W. Shang, Z. Dou, W. Xue, and Y. Li, “Digital beamforming based on
FPGA for phased array radar,” in Proc. Prog. Electromagn. Res. Symp.
Spring (PIERS), St. Petersburg, Russia, May 2017, pp. 437–440.
[22] V. Seneviratne, A. Madanayake, and L. Bruton, “Multidimensional-DSP
beamformers using the ROACH-2 FPGA platform,” Electronics, vol. 6,
no. 3, p. 49, 2017.
[23] S. R. Theodore et al., Wireless Communications: Principles and Prac-
tice. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2002, p. 69.
[24] U. Meyer-Baese, Digital Signal Processing with Field Program-
mable Gate Arrays (Signals and Communication Technology). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
[25] P. S. Yedavalli, T. Riihonen, X. Wang, and J. M. Rabaey, “Far-field RF
wireless power transfer with blind adaptive beamforming for Internet of
Things devices,” IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 1743–1752, 2017.
[26] L. Xing, J. Zhu, Q. Xu, D. Yan, and Y. Zhao, “A circular beam-steering
antenna with parasitic water reflectors,” IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag.
Lett., vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 2140–2144, Oct. 2019.
[27] B. Widrow, J. McCool, and M. Ball, “The complex LMS algorithm,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 719–720, Apr. 1975.
[28] J. Kim and A. D. Poularikas, “Performance analysis of the adjusted step
size NLMS algorithm,” in Proc. 36th Southeastern Symp. Syst. Theory,
Atlanta, GA, USA, 2004, pp. 467–471.
[29] D. P. Mandic, S. Kanna, and A. G. Constantinides, “On the intrinsic
relationship between the least mean square and Kalman filters [Lecture
Notes],” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 117–122,
Nov. 2015.
[30] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory. London, U.K.: Pearson, 2013.
[31] G. Akkad, A. Mansour, B. Elhassan, J. Srar, M. Najem, and F. Leroy,
“An efficient non-blind steering vector estimation technique for robust
adaptive beamforming with multistage error feedback,” in Intelligent
Decision Technologies, vol. 2, pp. 13–23, Jun. 2019.
[32] P. Bouboulis and S. Theodoridis, “Extension of Wirtinger’s calcu-
lus to reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces and the complex kernel
LMS,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 964–978,
Mar. 2011.
[33] O. Macchi and E. Eweda, “Second-order convergence analysis of
stochastic adaptive linear filtering,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 76–85, Jan. 1983.
[34] J. A. Srar, K.-S. Chung, and A. Mansour, “LLMS adaptive beam-
forming algorithm implemented with finite precision,” in Proc.
20th Telecommun. Forum (TELFOR), Belgrade, Serbia, Nov. 2012,
pp. 303–306.
[35] C. Caraiscos and B. Liu, “A roundoff error analysis of the LMS adaptive
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 32, no. 1,
pp. 34–41, Feb. 1984.
[36] Altera. (Oct. 2019). Stratix V Device Handbook Volume 1: Device
Interfaces and Integration. Accessed: Apr. 19, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/programmable/us/en/pdfs/
literature/hb/stratix-v/stx5_core.pdf
Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[37] P. Clarkson and P. White, “Simplified analysis of the LMS adaptive filter
using a transfer function approximation,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech,
Signal Process., vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 987–993, Jul. 1987.
Ghattas Akkad received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees in computer engineering from the University
of Balamand in 2012 and 2014, respectively. He is
currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in adaptive
beamforming with the Ecole Nationale Superieure
de Techniques Avancees Bretagne (ENSTA Bre-
tagne), Brest, France, under the supervision of Pro-
fessor Mansour He is currently a Certified Labview
Developer with the Ecole Nationale Superieure de
Techniques Avancees Bretagne (ENSTA Bretagne)
and expected to graduate in October 2020. He has
published under IEEE, Springer, and EUSIPCO conferences. His research
interests are signal processing, adaptive beamforming, signal estimation and
detection, neural networks, computer architecture and hardware design, and
SoC hardware acceleration.
Ali Mansour (Senior Member, IEEE) received
the M.S. degree in electronic electric engineer-
ing from Lebanese University in September 1992,
the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in signal, image and
speech processing from INPG, Grenoble-France,
in July 1993 and January 1997, respectively,
and the HDR degree (Habilitation a Diriger des
Recherches, this is the highest of the higher degrees
in the French system) from UBO, Brest, France,
in November 2006. He held many positions such
as postdoctoral at LTIRF-INPG, Grenoble-France; a
Researcher with BMC–RIKEN, Nagoya, Japan; a teacher–researcher position
with ENSIETA, Brest, France; a Senior Lecturer with the Department of ECE,
Curtin University, Perth, Australia; an Invited Professor with ULCO, Calais,
France; and a Professor with Tabuk University, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. He is
currently a Professor with ENSTA-Bretagne. He published numerous refereed
publications. He has authored or coauthored several books or book chapters.
During his career, he had successfully supervised several research associates
and Ph.D. and M.Sc. students. He is interested in blind source separation, high
order statistics, signal processing, robotics, telecommunication, biomedical
engineering, electronic warfare, and cognitive radio. He had also been the
Lead Guest Editor of the EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing.
He was the Vice President of the IEEE Signal Processing Society in Western
Australia for two years.
Bachar A. ElHassan received the Diploma degree
in engineering from the Faculty of Engineering,
Lebanese University, Tripoli, Lebanon, in 1991,
the M.S. degree in signal and image processing from
the National Polytechnic Institute (INPG), Grenoble,
France, in 1992, and the Ph.D. degree in elec-
tronics from INPG, France, in 1995, in collabo-
ration with France Telecom. Since 1996, he has
been with the Faculty of Engineering, Lebanese
University, Tripoli, Lebanon, where he is currently
a Full Professor. He served as a Chairman for the
Electrical Engineering Department for more than six years. He is also the
Founder and the Director of the laboratory of Telecommunication, Networking
and Microwaves (LTRM), Doctoral School of Sciences and Technologies
(EDST), Lebanese University. His research interests are as follows: image
processing, digital communications, intelligence in wireless sensor networks,
and Internet of Things. He was the Chair of the IEEE ComSoc Lebanon
chapter from January 2013 to December 2016 and the Vice Chair of the
IEEE Lebanon Section form January 2017 to December 2018. He has
been the Chair of the IEEE Lebanon Section Elected since January 2019.
He founded and was the Director of the Development and Training Center,
the Order of Engineers and Architects Tripoli, Lebanon, from July 2009 to
December 2013. He was the Head of the Employed Engineers Branch,
Order of Engineers and Architects, Tripoli, Lebanon, from April 2016 to
April 2019. He has also been the member of the ICT Arab Committee
since March 2017.
AKKAD et al.: PIPELINED REDUCED COMPLEXITY TWO-STAGES PARALLEL LMS STRUCTURE FOR ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING 5091

Elie Inaty (Member, IEEE) was born in El-Koura, Jalal A. Srar was born in Libya, 1970. He received
Lebanon, in June 1975. He received the B.S. and the B.Sc. degree in electronics engineering from
M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni- Garunis University, Libya, in 1993, the M.Sc. degree
versity of Balamand, El-Koura, in 1996 and 1998, in industrial engineering and the M.Sc. degree in
respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from Universite communication engineering from the College of
Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada, in 2001. He was an Industrial Technology, Libya, in 2001 and 2006,
Adjunct Professor with Universite Laval. He is cur- respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in adaptive
rently an Associate Professor with the University antenna arrays from Curtin University, Australia,
of Balamand. His research interests include code in 2011. From 2001 to 2006, he worked with
division multiple access and wavelength-division- the Adaptive Antenna Research Group, Hill, Libya.
multiplexing fiber optic communications, network He has been a Lecturer with the Electrical Engineer-
control and resource management issues in optical communication networks, ing Department, Misurata University, since 2003. His research interests are
and radio multiple-access techniques. beamforming algorithms, adaptive antenna, signal processing for communi-
cations, signal processing for early detection of cancer diseases, and finally
Rafic Ayoubi (Member, IEEE) received the B.S. wideband signal generation for Civil and Military applications.
degree in electrical engineering and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in computer engineering from
the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana,
in 1988, 1990, and 1995, respectively. He joined the
University of Balamand, Koura, Lebanon, in 1996,
where he is currently an Associate Professor. His
current research interests are in the areas of paral-
lel architectures, parallel algorithms, fault tolerance,
artificial neural networks, and FPGA technology.
In these areas, he published several research articles
in several journals and conferences. He has received the first prize in the
Second Annual exhibition for Industrial Research Achievements in Lebanon.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Kongu Engineering College. Downloaded on December 20,2021 at 09:57:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.