Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

DOI 10.1007/s00034-016-0332-5

Design and Analysis of Cascaded LMS Adaptive Filters

for Noise Cancellation

Shubhra Dixit1 · Deepak Nagaria2

Received: 13 July 2014 / Revised: 1 May 2016 / Accepted: 3 May 2016 /

Published online: 23 May 2016
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Adaptive filters have become active research area in the field of commu-
nication system. This paper investigates the innovative concept of adaptive noise
cancellation (ANC) using cascaded form of least-mean-square (LMS) adaptive fil-
ters. The concept of cascading and its algorithm for real-time LMS-ANC are also
described in detail. The model of the cascaded LMS-ANC is designed and simulated
on MATLAB Simulink. The simulation model gives variation in the distinct signals
of LMS-ANC like error, output and weights at various LMS filter parameters. The
proposed algorithm utilizes two adaptive filters to estimate gradients accurately and
results in good adaptation and performance. The objective of the present investiga-
tion is to provide solution in order to improve the performance of noise canceller in
terms of filter parameters. The results are obtained with the help of adaptive algo-
rithm with variable step size and different initial weight of filters which provides high
convergence speed of error signal. This paper also includes the derivation for the con-
vergence rate at different conditions and concludes that cascaded LMS-ANC results
in higher convergence rate and better output signal as compared to single LMS-ANC.
Higher signal-to-noise ratio for cascaded system is obtained for cascaded LMS-ANC
as compared to that of single LMS-ANC system.

Keywords Adaptive noise cancellation · LMS filter · Step size · Error signal ·
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) · Mean square error (MSE)

B Shubhra Dixit
ershubhradixit@gmail.com

1 Amity University, Uttar Pradesh 201301, India

2 Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284128, India
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 743

1 Introduction

Adaptive filters are used for stationary and non-stationary environments [15,31] or in
applications where a sample-by-sample adaptation of a process or a low processing
delay is required. The characteristics of digital filters can easily be changed by modi-
fying the filter coefficients. Due to this reason digital filters are used in communication
applications such as echo cancellation, noise reduction, adaptive equalization, speech
analysis. The block diagram of an adaptive filter is shown in Fig. 1.
The basic function of a filter is to remove unwanted signals [19,30]. The prime
objective of researchers is to filter the input signal, x(n), with the help of adaptive
filter in such a manner that it matches the desired signal, d(n). The filtered signal
y(n) is subtracted from the desired signal, d(n), to generate an error signal. Adaptive
algorithm is derived by the error signal that generates the filter coefficients in a manner
that minimizes the error signal. The two popular adaptive filters generally used are
LMS and RLS [1,6,22,45,46] unlike fixed filters. Unlike other adaptive algorithms,
it does not require complex computation like measurements of correlation functions.
Obtaining the best design usually requires a priori knowledge of certain statistical
parameters within the useful signal. One popular measure involves the minimization
of the mean square of the error signal [8,36] where the error is defined as the difference
between the desired response and the actual response of the filter. The minimization
of mean square error leads to a cost function uniquely defined optimum design for
stationary inputs, known as a Wiener filter [23]. The RLS and LMS filters [3,28,32]
provide a suitable alternative to the Wiener filter for many practical applications.
The RLS filter is a recursive implementation of the Wiener filter, and for stationary
processes, it must converge to the same solution as the Wiener filter. The simplicity of
the LMS algorithm over other adaptive filtering algorithm is benchmarked. The LMS
adaptive algorithm first proposed in 1960 by Bernord Window and Ted Hoff is the
most widely used adaptive algorithm [10,39].
Figure 1 shows a two-stage process where initially the filter first estimates the
statistical parameters of the relevant signals and then plugs the results into a non-
recursive formula for computing the filter’s parameters. For a real-time operation,
this procedure has the disadvantage of high hardware cost. An adaptive filter [40,43]
which is more efficient is a self-designing device, i.e., it relies on a recursive algorithm
for its operation which makes it possible for the filter to perform satisfactorily in an
environment where complete knowledge of the relevant signal characteristics is not
available. In a non-stationary environment, the algorithm offers a tracking capability

y(n)
Adapve
x(n) d(n)
Filter

Adapve
algorithm e(n)

Fig. 1 Adaptive filter

744 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

d(n) = s(n) + n1(n) e(n)

y(n)
Adapve
n2(n) = x(n)
Filter

Fig. 2 Adaptive noise cancellation

where it can track the time variations in the statistics of the input data. However, in case
of large eigenvalue spread RLS proves to be much more effective than LMS [9,13,25]
due to its better convergence rate and its less sensitivity to the eigenvalue spread.
Adaptive noise cancellation [11,12,27,44] shown in Fig. 2 has been used for several
applications. When collecting measurements of certain signals or processes, physical
constraints often limit our ability to cleanly measure the quantities of interest. A signal
of interest is linearly mixed with other extraneous noises [5,26,33] in the measurement
process, and these extraneous noises introduce unacceptable errors in the measure-
ments. If a linearly related reference version of any one of the extraneous noises can be
cleanly sensed at some other physical location in the system, the relationship between
the noise reference x(n) and the component of this noise that is contained in the
measured signal d(n) is determined by an adaptive filter [4,7,38]. After adaptively
subtracting out this component, only the significant signal remains in e(n). If several
extraneous noises corrupt the signal, several adaptive filters can be used in parallel
configuration if suitable noise reference signals are available within the system.
The LMS algorithm provides a practical frame [16,42] of reference for assessing
any further improvement that may be attained through the use of more sophisticated
adaptive filtering algorithms. Finally, the study must include tests with real-life data,
for which there is no substitute. There is much diversity in practical applications of
adaptive filtering, with each application having peculiarities of its own.
This paper presents the new configuration of cascaded LMS-ANC which elimi-
nates more noise as compared to single LMS-ANC. Here information and noise are
in the form of sinusoidal with different frequencies for the simulation of cascaded
LMS-ANC, and it was observed that signal-to-noise ratio for cascaded LMS-ANC is
sufficiently higher as compared to single LMS-ANC. The present work also includes
series of derivations of error signal; output signal and weight update equation for
cascaded LMS adaptive noise canceller as well as convergence rate for single and
cascaded LMS-ANC, respectively.

2 Methodology

There are many adaptive algorithms like RLS, Kalman filter, but the most commonly
used is the LMS algorithm [20,34,35]. This algorithm uses a gradient descent to
estimate a time-varying signal. The gradient is the del operator and is applied to find
the divergence of a function which is the error with respect to the nth coefficient in
this case [17,21,24]. The LMS algorithm approaches the minimum of a function to
minimize error by taking the negative gradient of the function. In adaptive filtering
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 745

Fig. 3 Cascaded LMS-ANC structure

the LMS adaptive filter [18,29,41] is used in numerous scientific and commercial
applications.
Some concept of cascading on adaptive filters is presented [2,14,37] in which var-
ious types of cascading is done using LMS adaptive filter. The principle of cascaded
LMS-ANC implemented in the present investigation is represented in the form of
block diagram as shown in Fig. 3. The output signal of the first LMS filter which is
the part of noise is eliminated from the first LMS filter, whereas the noise in the error
signal is the difference of the input and output signal of first LMS filter going into
second LMS filter as an input. The error signal of first LMS filter is used as a desired
signal for second LMS filter.

3 Convergence Rate of LMS Adaptive Noise Cancellation

The wide spectrum application of the LMS algorithm can be attributed to its robust-
ness to signal statistics and simplicity, i.e., low computational complexity. The LMS
adaptive filter algorithm is described as follows:

y(n) = W T (n)X (n) (1)

e(n) = d(n) − y(n) (2)
W (n + 1) = W (n) + X (n)μe(n) (3)

where W (n) = [w0(n) w1(n) . . . wL − 1(n)]T is the coefficient vector, X (n) =

[x(n) x(n − 1) . . . x(n − L + 1)]T is the input signal vector, d(n) is the desired signal,
e(n) is the error signal, y(n) is the output of an adaptive filter, μ is the step size, and
L is the filter length. A detailed performance analysis of the LMS adaptive filter [6]
depends on the choice of μ and L.
Using Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), if filter length L = 1 and x(n) & (n) both are constants:
Let x(n) = x and d(n) = d,

y(n) = w0 (n) ∗ x (4)

e(n) = d − y(n) (5)
w0 (n + 1) = w0 (n) + µxe(n) (6)
746 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

With the help of Eq. (5):

e(n + 1) = d − y(n + 1) (7)

After the simplification of Eq. (7) using Eqs. (4)–(6):

e(n + 1) = (1 − µx2 )e(n) (8)

With the help of Eq. (8), if (1 − µx2) is high and filter length is 1 then convergence
rate of error signal e(n) will be small.
Using Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), if filter length L = 2 and x(n) & (n) both are constants
and again x(n) = x(n − 1) = x and d(n) = d,

y(n) = [w0 (n) + w1 (n)] ∗ x (9)

e(n) = d − y(n) (10)
w0 (n + 1) = w0 (n) + µxe(n) (11)
w1 (n + 1) = w1 (n) + µxe(n) (12)

With the help of Eq. (10):

e(n + 1) = d − y(n + 1) (13)

After the simplification of Eq. (13) using Eqs. (9)–(12):

 
e(n + 1) = 1 − 2µx2 e(n) (14)

With the help of Eq. (15), if (1−2µx2) is high and filter length is 1 then convergence
rate of error signal e(n) will be small. But on the comparison of Eqs. (8) and (14), it
is found that convergence rate of error signal is higher at higher filter length (L = 2)
w.r.t. L = 1. Similarly, we can say that if filter length is L then:
 
e(n + 1) = 1 − Lµx2 e(n) (15)

The generalized form of Eqs. (8), (14) and (15) is shown in Eq. (15a) as below:
 
e(n + 1) = 1 − µX(n)T X(n) e(n) (15a)

Using Eq. (15a), we get Eqs. (8), (14) and (15) for filter length 1, 2 and L, respectively.
Figure 4 depicts the 3D image of rate of convergence of error signal for complete
range of step size. According to LMS algorithm for constant source for L = 1, d(n) =
10, x(n) = 1, with initial weight w0(n) = 0 the error signal is reduced step by step in
successive iterations. Figure 5 represents three curves at their different value of step
size μ as shown. More the value of μ, higher the rate of convergence of error signal
is observed.
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 747

Fig. 4 Rate of convergence of error signal at w.r.t. step size of LMS-ANC

Fig. 5 Rate of convergence of error signal at different step size of LMS-ANC

The rate of convergence of error signal of LMS-ANC w.r.t. initial weight of LMS
filter and the updated weight of LMS-ANC w.r.t. initial weight of LMS filter are shown
in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively, with μ = 0.05, x(n) = 1, d(n) = 10, and N = 100.

4 Analysis, Structure and Algorithm of Cascaded LMS–ANC

The analysis of cascaded LMS-ANC is described in this section whose structure is

shown in Fig. 3. The algorithm for the first LMS filter is described in (16)–(18), where
748 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Fig. 6 Rate of convergence of error signal at w.r.t. initial weight of LMS-ANC

d(n) is the desired signal, e(n) is the error signal, y(n) is the output of an adaptive
filter, µ is the step size, W (n) is the filter weight vector, X (n) is the input signal vector,
and L is the filter length used as parameters of first LMS filter.

y(n) = W T (n)X (n) (16)

where
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
w0 (n) x(n)
⎢ w1 (n) ⎥ ⎢ x(n − 1) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ w2 (n) ⎥ ⎢ x(n − 2) ⎥
W (n) = ⎢ ⎥ & X (n) = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ··· ⎥ ⎢ ··· ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ w L−2 (n) ⎦ ⎣ x(n − L) ⎦
w L−1 (n) x(n − L + 1)
e(n) = d(n) − y(n)
= d(n) − W T (n)X (n) (17)
W (n + 1) = W (n) + X (n)μe(n)
= W (n) + X (n)μ[d(n) − W T (n)X (n)]
= W (n) + X (n)μd(n) − X (n)W T (n)X (n)μ (18)

Equations (16), (17) and (18) represent the output signal, error signal and weight
updating equation for first LMS filter as shown in Fig. 7. From cascaded structure of
LMS-ANC as shown in Fig. 7, the parameters cascaded input signal xc (n), cascaded
input signal vector xc (n) and cascaded desired signal dc (n) are defined:
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 749

Fig. 7 Updated weight of LMS filter w.r.t. initial weight of LMS-ANC

xc (n) = x(n) − y(n) (19a)

X c (n) = X (n) − Y (n) (19b)

dc (n) = e(n) (20)

The parameters used for simulation of second LMS filter are described in Eqs. (21)–
(23). Here dc (n) is the cascaded desired signal, ec (n) is the cascaded error signal, yc (n)
is the cascaded output of an adaptive filter, µc is the step size of cascaded LMS filter,
Wc (n) is the filter weight vector of cascaded LMS filter, X c (n) is the cascaded input
signal vector, and L is the cascaded LMS filter length.

yc (n) = WcT (n)X c (n)

where
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
w0,c (n) xc (n)
⎢ w1,c (n) ⎥ ⎢ xc (n − 1) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ w2,c (n) ⎥ ⎢ xc (n − 2) ⎥
Wc (n) = ⎢
⎢···
⎥ & X c (n) = ⎢
⎥ ⎢···
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ w L−2,c (n) ⎦ ⎣ xc (n − L) ⎦
w L−1,c (n) xc (n − L + 1)
yc (n) = WcT (n)[X (n) − Y (n)]
= WcT (n)X (n) − WcT (n)Y (n) (21)
ec (n) = dc (n) − yc (n)
= e(n) − [WcT (n)X (n) − WcT (n)Y (n)]


= d(n) − WT (n) + WcT (n) X(n) + WT (n)Y(n) (22)
750 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Wc (n + 1) = Wc (n) + X c (n)μc ec (n)

= Wc (n) + [X (n) − Y (n)]μc [d(n) − {W T (n) + WcT (n)}X (n)
+ WcT (n)Y (n)] (23)

Equations (21), (22) and (23) represent the output signal, error signal and weight
updating equation for second LMS filter as shown in Fig. 7. Using Eq. (22) on taking
the limiting value of ec (n) at X (n) − Y (n) → 0:

lim ec (n) = lim [d(n) − W T (n)X (n) − WcT (n){X (n) − Y (n)}]
X (n)−Y (n)→0 X (n)−Y (n)→0

= lim [d(n) − lim W T (n)X (n)

X (n)−Y (n)→0 X (n)−Y (n)→0

− lim WcT (n){X (n) − Y (n)}]

X (n)−Y (n)→0

= lim [d(n) − W T (n)X (n)] − 0

X (n)−Y (n)→0

Therefore,

ec (n) = d(n) − W T (n)X (n) (24)

Equation (24) represents the error signal of cascaded LMS filter for ideal condition.
Using Eq. (17) if X (n) = n1(n), d(n) = I (n) + n1(n) and y(n) = n2(n), the error
signal e(n) will be:

e(n) = d(n) − y(n) = I (n) + n 1 (n) − n 2 (n) (25)

If n3(n) is the remaining noise in error signal;

e(n) = I (n) + n 1 (n) − n 2 (n) = I (n) + n 3 (n) (26)

n 3 (n) = n 1 (n) − n 2 (n) (27)

At the input stage the noise n1(n) and n3(n) are present in the information signal
I (n). Consequently for the elimination of noise n3(n) from the information signal the
assumption has been made for the second LMS filters as input signal equal to n3(n)
and desired signal equal to error signal of the first LMS filter. Equation (27) verifies
the structure of cascaded LMS-ANC shown in Fig. 7.
Therefore, cascaded structure reduces more noise than single LMS-ANC. The dif-
ferent step size in combination for single LMS (μ1) cascaded LMS (μ1 and μ2)
is used. The complete variation of convergence of error signal for the conditions
μ1 = μ2, μ1 = Variable & μ2 = Constant and μ1 = Constant & μ2 = Variable
for 100 iterations is shown respectively in Figs. 8, 9 and 10. The convergence rate of
error signal of single and cascaded LMS is compared in Figs. 3 and 8, and it is found
that the cascaded LMS is having higher convergence rate of error signal. For Figs. 8,
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 751

Fig. 8 Rate of convergence of error signal of cascaded LMS-ANC for complete range of equal step size

Fig. 9 Rate of convergence of error signal of cascaded LMS-ANC at complete range of unequal step size
with µ1 = variable and µ = constant

9 and 10 x(n) = 0.1, d(n) = 1, and N = 100, and it shows the convergence rate w.r.t.
step size and number of iterations, so error signal is having better response.
Figure 11 shows the response of convergence of error signal for various values of μ1
and μ2. Slow rate of convergence of error signal is observed when μ1 ≥ μ2. However,
the rate of convergence is fast when μ1 ≤ μ2. The response of cascaded LMS filters
is slightly better in terms of convergence rate of error signal than single LMS filter
when μ1 = μ2 because in cascaded LMS filters the error signal is converging slightly
faster than the single LMS filter for same values of step size as shown in Fig. 12.
Figures 11 and 12 respectively corresponds with x(n) = 1, d(n) = 10, N = 50 and
x(n) = 1, d(n) = 10, N = 100.
752 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Fig. 10 Rate of convergence of error signal of cascaded LMS-ANC at complete range of unequal step size
with µ1 = constant and µ2 = variable

Fig. 11 Rate of convergence of error signal at different step size of cascaded LMS–ANC

The cascading of two LMS filters each with filter L = 1 is shown in Fig. 7. Equations
(4)–(8) represent the first LMS filter, and condition for the second (cascaded) filter
will be as follows:

yc (n) = wc0 (n) ∗ xc (n) (28)

ec (n) = dc (n) − yc (n) (29)
wc0 (n + 1) = wc0 (n) + µc xcec (n) (30)
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 753

Fig. 12 Comparative rate of convergence of error signal for different step size of single and cascaded
LMS–ANC

where

xc (n) = x − y(n) and dc (n) = e(n) (31)

and c is used for cascaded filter parameters.

Using Eqs. (4) to (8) and (28) to (31):


ec (n + 1) = 1 − (µ + µµc ) x2 e(n) + µc x3 e2 (n) (32)

We know that μ and µc are step sizes of LMS filters, and if both step sizes are very
small then last term of Eq. (32) will be negligible. Therefore,


ec (n + 1) ∼
= 1 − (µ + µc ) x2 e(n) (33)

The general form of Eq. (33) for convergence rate of error signal will be as follows:


ec (n + 1) ∼
= 1 − (µ + µc ) X(n)T X(n) e(n) (33a)

If μ = µc then this condition for error signal will be same as single LMS filter with
filter length L = 2. If µc = N μ and N > 1 then equation (33) can be represented as,


ec (n + 1) ∼
= 1 − (N + 1)µx2 e(n) (34)

The general form of Eq. (34) for convergence rate of error signal according to above
conditions will be as follows:
754 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766


ec (n + 1) ∼
= 1 − (N + 1)µX(n)T X(n) e(n) (34a)

Using the equation (43)—we can say that the convergence rate of cascaded LMS filter
with filter length L = 1 will be greater than the single LMS filter with L = 2 under
the condition N > 1. Therefore, cascaded LMS-ANC according to Fig. 7 with L = 1
of each LMS will be better than single LMS-ANC with L = 2 under the condition
µc = N µ and N > 1.

5 Implementation and Simulation of Cascaded LMS-ANC

In the cascaded LMS-ANC algorithm, the error signal e(n) of first LMS filter is used
as a desired signal d  (n) of second LMS filter. Also the output y(n) of first LMS filter
is subtracted from the noise x(n) of the first LMS filter, this signal is x  (n) and is used
as a noise of second LMS filter. Therefore, the cascaded LMS algorithm is generated
and simulation is performed by MATALB Simulink model shown in Fig. 13b for
non-stationary environment. Figure 13b is simplified block diagrams of Fig. 13a.
Desired signal d(n) = ASin[ω (n)] + α  (n) is a noisy signal including sinusoidal
information signal and high-frequency sinusoidal noise α  (n) = B Sin[ω(n)] with dif-
ferent frequencies, and x(n) = BSin[ω(n)] is sinusoidal noise signal with amplitude
B as shown in Fig. 13a. Frequencies of information signal and noise are ω (n) and
ω(n), respectively. α  (n) is noise present in information signal with magnitude B , and
x(n) is reference noise signal. Simulation is done for the extraction of information
signal from desired signal. The parameters used in the simulation for both LMS filters
are filter length L = 1, 2, 4 and leakage factor λ = 1, further amplitude of the input
signal is considered as 0.1 at frequency of 1000 Hz. The information signal which is
sinusoidal in nature is of amplitude 1 and frequency 10 Hz. The initial filter weight for
both the filters is zero, however; the noise signal α  (n) = 1 can be a non-sinusoidal
signal. The above parameters are used only for the simulation of cascaded LMS-ANC,
and it may be different from above.
Here, μ1 used for the step size of first LMS filter and μ2 used for the step size
of second (cascaded) LMS filter. The effect on different values of step size is shown
from Fig. 14 & 15 at w(0) = w  (0) = 0. For parameters step size μ and initial weight
w(0), the noise in error signal e(n) decreases but output signal y(n) increases.

6 Results and Discussion

In the simulation of model shown in Fig. 13, the signal-to-noise ratio and mean square
error are calculated at different combination of step size of LMS filters. The variations
of mean square error with step size for single and cascaded LMS are compared in
Figs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, and it is found that in cascaded LMS mean square
error is minimized with increase in the step-size positions. Here, step-size positions
are the combination of step sizes of both filters (“Appendix”). However, the minimum
mean square error is observed between step size positions in the range of 80–120.
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 755

Fig. 13 a Detailed model of cascaded LMS–ANC. b MATLAB Simulink model of cascaded LMS–ANC

In Figs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, the signal-to-noise ratio of single and cascaded
LMS has been compared and it is found that signal-to-noise ratio of single LMS is
constant while in cascaded LMS it is increasing up to certain position of step size and
then decreasing. However, the maximum signal-to-noise ratio is observed between
step size positions in the range of 80–120. Table 1 shows result of cascaded LMS-
ANC and represents that if filter length L increases then the mean square error of
single and cascaded both LMS filters are almost constant. The incremental value of
signal-to-noise ratio for various filters of cascaded LMS-ANC with respect to single
LMS-ANC is compared and depicted in Table 2 and concluded that signal-to-noise
ratio for cascaded system is significantly higher than single LMS-ANC system.

7 Conclusions

This paper presents the narrowband noise cancellation using cascaded LMS adaptive
filters. The algorithm is same as the traditional methods using gradient descent tech-
756 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

x 10
-3
Comparision of mean square error
2
Single LMS
1.8 Cascaded LMS

1.6
Mean-square error
1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 14 Mean square error w.r.t. μ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 0) for L = 1

Comparision of signal to noise ratio

90
Single LMS
Cascaded LMS
Signal to noise ratio

85

80

75
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 15 Signal-to-noise ratio w.r.t. µ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 0) for L = 1

nique with single LMS adaptive filter. However, the proposed model can potentially
be a new implementation form of ANC algorithm. Cascaded LMS algorithm guar-
antees a more stable conversion in response to variations in input signal power. The
mathematical analysis of cascaded LMS-ANC algorithm is carried out, and its simu-
lation is performed successfully using MATLAB software. The derived convergence
rate of error signal is plotted w.r.t. error step size and number iterations. In order to
study the effect of rate of convergence on the performance of system, a comparison
has been made between single and cascaded LMS-ANC. Finally, a Simulink model of
cascaded LMS-ANC is build using noise and information signal as input parameters
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 757

x 10
-4
Comparision of mean square error

Single LMS
Cascaded LMS

Mean-square error
2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 16 Mean square error w.r.t. µ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 1) for L = 2

Comparision of signal to noise ratio

170
Single LMS
160 Cascaded LMS

150
Signal to noise ratio

140

130

120

110

100

90

80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 17 Signal-to-noise ratio w.r.t. µ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 1) for L = 2

and output signal, error signal and filter weights as output parameters. The parameters
of single LMS–ANC and cascaded LMS-ANC are compared on the basis of output
signal, error signal, filter weights, mean square error and signal-to-noise ratio. The
following conclusions were drawn from the above-said mathematical and its simulink
model:
The simulation model gives the variation in the error signal on different step sizes
and proved that the cascaded LMS-ANC has higher convergence rate and better output
758 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Comparision of mean square error

0.09
Single LMS
0.08 Cascaded LMS

0.07

0.06
Mean-square error

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 18 Mean square error w.r.t. µ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 1) for L = 4

Comparision of signal to noise ratio

85

80
Signal to noise ratio

75

70

65

60
Single LMS
Cascaded LMS
55
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Step-size position

Fig. 19 Signal-to-noise ratio w.r.t. µ for single and cascaded LMS-ANC (w(0) = 1) for L = 4

signals than single LMS-ANC and has optimum result at w(0) = 0 and µ1 < µ2
such that the difference between µ1 and µ2 is not much.
The derivation for the convergence rate is also described in this paper. The conver-
gence rate of cascaded LMS filter with filter length L = 1 will be greater than the
single LMS filter with L = 2 under the condition µc = Nµ and N > 1. Therefore,
cascaded LMS-ANC according to Fig. 7 with L = 1 of each LMS will be better than
single LMS-ANC with L = 2 under the above condition. This ANC system acts as
both narrowband (L = 1) and wideband (L ≥ 2) noise canceller.
Table 1 Results of mean square error and signal-to-noise ratio

Filter Quantity Parameters value

Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

w(0) = 0 & L = 1 w(0) = 1 & L = 1 w(0) = 0 & L = 2 w(0) = 1 & L = 2 w(0) = 1 & L = 4

Single Mean square error 1.1998e−004 4.8754e−008 1.5649e−004 1.5670e−004 0.0849

Single Signal-to-noise ratio 87.3397 dB 121.2507 dB 86.1860 dB 86.1802 dB 82.5217 dB
Cascaded Mean square error 8.4747e−005 3.9547e−012 1.1150e−004 1.1864e−004 0.0058
Cascaded Signal-to-noise ratio 88.8496 dB 162.1596 dB 87.6581dB 87.3885 dB 84.8717 dB
759
 760

Table 2 Incremental value of signal-to-noise ratio for cascaded LMS-ANC with respect to single LMS-ANC

Particular Parameters value

w(0) = 0 & L = 1 w(0) = 1 & L = 1 w(0) = 0 & L = 2 w(0) = 1 & L = 2 w(0) = 1 & L = 4

Incremental value of signal-to-noise 1.5099 dB 40.9089 dB 1.4721 dB 1.2083 dB 2.3500 dB

ratio for cascaded LMS-ANC w.r.t
single LMS-ANC
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 761

The better response of cascaded LMS-ANC is noticed at fewer values of step sizes.
As the step size is decreased the error signal converges to the information signal which
is the basic principle of noise cancellation.
The two parameters, i.e., mean square error and signal-to-noise ratios were found
to be crucial for effective performance of single LMS-ANC and cascaded LMS-ANC.
However, comparatively cascaded was found to be much better than single LMS-ANC
when considering optimum result (Table 1).
The cascaded LMS filter is much efficient in terms of noise cancellation w.r.t. single
LMS filter. The performance of present algorithm shows fine responses toward noise
cancellation. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves good
adaptation and performance in communication fields.
The signal-to-noise ratio for various filter of cascaded LMS–ANC was found to be
higher than single LMS–ANC system. The above analysis finds its wide application
in communication industries in the field of noise and echo cancellation, adaptive
equalization, speech analysis and synthesis.

Appendix: Step-size positions

Step-size Step size of first Step size of second

position LMS filter (µ1 ) LMS filter (µ2 )

1 1 1
2 0.9 1
3 0.8 1
4 0.7 1
5 0.6 1
6 0.5 1
7 0.4 1
8 0.3 1
9 0.2 1
10 0.1 1
11 0.05 1
12 1 0.9
13 0.9 0.9
14 0.8 0.9
15 0.7 0.9
16 0.6 0.9
17 0.5 0.9
18 0.4 0.9
19 0.3 0.9
20 0.2 0.9
21 0.1 0.9
22 0.05 0.9
762 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Step-size Step size of first Step size of second

position LMS filter (µ1 ) LMS filter (µ2 )

23 1 0.8
24 0.9 0.8
25 0.8 0.8
26 0.7 0.8
27 0.6 0.8
28 0.5 0.8
29 0.4 0.8
30 0.3 0.8
31 0.2 0.8
32 0.1 0.8
33 0.05 0.8
34 1 0.7
35 0.9 0.7
36 0.8 0.7
37 0.7 0.7
38 0.6 0.7
39 0.5 0.7
40 0.4 0.7
41 0.3 0.7
42 0.2 0.7
43 0.1 0.7
44 0.05 0.7
45 1 0.6
46 0.9 0.6
47 0.8 0.6
48 0.7 0.6
49 0.6 0.6
50 0.5 0.6
51 0.4 0.6
52 0.3 0.6
53 0.2 0.6
54 0.1 0.6
55 0.05 0.6
56 1 0.5
57 0.9 0.5
58 0.8 0.5
59 0.7 0.5
60 0.6 0.5
61 0.5 0.5
62 0.4 0.5
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 763

Step-size Step size of first Step size of second

position LMS filter (µ1 ) LMS filter (µ2 )

63 0.3 0.5
64 0.2 0.5
65 0.1 0.5
66 0.05 0.5
67 1 0.4
68 0.9 0.4
69 0.8 0.4
70 0.7 0.4
71 0.6 0.4
72 0.5 0.4
73 0.4 0.4
74 0.3 0.4
75 0.2 0.4
76 0.1 0.4
77 0.05 0.4
78 1 0.3
79 0.9 0.3
80 0.8 0.3
81 0.7 0.3
82 0.6 0.3
83 0.5 0.3
84 0.4 0.3
85 0.3 0.3
86 0.2 0.3
87 0.1 0.3
88 0.05 0.3
89 1 0.2
90 0.9 0.2
91 0.8 0.2
92 0.7 0.2
93 0.6 0.2
94 0.5 0.2
95 0.4 0.2
96 0.3 0.2
97 0.2 0.2
98 0.1 0.2
99 0.05 0.2
100 1 0.1
101 0.9 0.1
102 0.8 0.1
764 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

Step-size Step size of first Step size of second

position LMS filter (µ1 ) LMS filter (µ2 )

103 0.7 0.1

104 0.6 0.1
105 0.5 0.1
106 0.4 0.1
107 0.3 0.1
108 0.2 0.1
109 0.1 0.1
110 0.05 0.1
111 1 0.05
112 0.9 0.05
113 0.8 0.05
114 0.7 0.05
115 0.6 0.05
116 0.5 0.05
117 0.4 0.05
118 0.3 0.05
119 0.2 0.05
120 0.1 0.05
121 0.05 0.05

References
1. M.S.E. Abadi, J. Husoy, Mean-square performance of adaptive filter algorithms in non-stationary
environments. Int. J. Signal Process. 2, 182–188 (2008)
2. N. Ahmed, D. Hush, G.R. Elliot, R.J. Fogler, Detection of multiple sinusoids using an adaptive cascaded
structure. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 9, 199–202 (1984)
3. D.J. Allred, H. Yoo, V. Krishnan, W. Huang, D.V. Anderson, LMS adaptive filters using distributed
arithmetic for high throughput. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I 52(7), 1327–1337 (2005)
4. M. Baes, Digital Signal Processing with Field Programmable Gate Arrays (Springer, Berlin, 2007)
5. J. Brocker, U. Parlitz, M. Ogorzałek, Nonlinear noise reduction. Proc. IEEE 90(5), 898–918 (2002)
6. S.G. Chen, Y.A. Kao, K.Y. Tsai, A new efficient LMS adaptive filtering algorithm. IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. II Analog Digit. Signal Process. 43(5), 372–378 (1996)
7. M.R. Cowper, B. Mulgrew, in The application of a nonlinear inverse noise cancellation technique to
maritime surveillance radar, 10th IEEE Workshop on Statistical Signal and Array Processing, (2000),
pp. 267–271
8. G.M. Davis, Noise Reduction in Speech Applications (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2002)
9. S.C. Douglas, Performance comparison of two implementations of the leaky LMS adaptive filter. IEEE
Trans. Signal Process. 45(8), 2125–2129 (1997)
10. S.C. Douglas, W. Pan, Exact expectation analysis of the LMS adaptive filter. IEEE Trans. Signal
Process. 43(12), 2863–2871 (1995)
11. A.J. Efron, L.C. Han, Wide-area adaptive active noise cancellation. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Analog
Digit. Signal Process. 41(6), 405–409 (1994)
12. B.J. Farahani, M. Ismail, Adaptive noise cancellation techniques in sigma–delta analog-to-digital
converters. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I 54(9), 1891–1899 (2007)
13. S.S. Godbole, P.M. Palsodkar, V.P. Raut, in FPGA implementation of adaptive LMS filter, Proceedings
of SPIT-IEEE Colloquium and International Conference, India, (2), pp. 2226–2229
Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766 765

14. D.Y. Huang, S. Rahardja, in The misadjustment of the cascaded LMS prediction filter, IEEE Interna-
tional Symposium on Circuits and Systems, (2009), pp. 2565–2568
15. J.H. Husoy, M.S.E. Abadi, Unified approach to adaptive filters and their performance. IET Signal Proc.
2(2), 97–109 (2008)
16. M.N.S. Jahromi, A. Hocanin, O. Kukrer, M.S. Salman, in Two dimensional zero-attracting variable
step-size LMS algorithm for sparse system identification, 21st Signal Processing and Communications
Applications Conference, Haspolat, (2013), pp. 1–3
17. N. Kalyanasundaram, P. Palanisamy, Target detection by adaptive noise cancellation. Electron. Lett.
44, 1–2 (2008)
18. W. Kester, Mixed Signal and DSP Design Techniques (Newnes, 2003)
19. J. Krolik, N. Joy, S. Pasupathy, M. Eizenman, A comparative study of the adaptive filter versus gener-
alized correlation methods for time delay estimation. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech Signal Process.
9, 652–655 (1984)
20. S.M. Kuo, B.H. Lee, Real Time Digital Signal Processing (Wiley, New York, 2001)
21. T. Lan, J. Zhang, in FPGA implementation of an adaptive noise canceller, IEEE International Sympo-
siums on Information Processing, (2008), pp. 553–558
22. W.B. Lopes, C.G. Lopes, in Incremental combination of RLS and LMS adaptive filters in nonstationary
scenarios, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Canada, (2013),
pp. 5676–5680
23. Z. Lu, G. Hu, X. Wang, L. Yang, in An improved adaptive Wiener filtering algorithm, International
Conference on Signal Processing, (2006), pp. 1–4
24. V.K. Madisetti, D.B. Williams, Digital Signal Processing Handbook (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999)
25. K. Matsubara, K. Nishikawa, H. Kiya, Pipelined LMS adaptive filter using a new look-ahead transfor-
mation. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Analog Digit. Signal Process. 46(1), 51–55 (1999)
26. H. Modares, A. Ahmadyfard, M. Hadadzarif, in A PSO approach for non-linear active noise cancella-
tion, Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Simulation, Modeling & Optimization,
Lisbon, Portugal, (2006), pp. 492–497
27. B. Mulgrewt, P. Strauchtt, in Nonlinear Dynamics and Noise Cancellation, The Institution of Electrical
Engineers, 2/1-2/6 (1997)
28. A.O. Ogunfunmi, in Performance analysis of a new implementation for the frequency-domain LMS
adaptive filter, 34th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, (1991), pp. 501–504
29. T.O. Onur, R. Hacioglu, in Adaptive echo and noise cancellation for car hands-free voice communi-
cation, 21st Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference, (2013), pp. 1–4
30. L. Rugini, G. Leus, in Basis expansion adaptive filters for time-varying system identification, 2nd IEEE
International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing, (2007), pp.
153–156
31. G.K. Sang, D. Yoo Chang, Q. Nguyen Truong, Alias-free subband adaptive filtering with critical
sampling. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 56(5), 1894–1904 (2008)
32. G.J. Saulniert, P. Das., in Antijam spread spectrum receiver using LMS adaptive filtering techniques,
IEEE Military Communications Conference, (1984), pp. 482–487
33. G. Saxena, S. Ganesan, M. Das, in Real time implementation of adaptive noise cancellation, IEEE
International Conference on Electro/Information Technology, (2008), pp. 431–436
34. S.W. Smith, Digital Signal Processing (California Technical publishing, Poway, 1999)
35. S. Stergiopoulos, Advanced Digital Signal Processing Handbook (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2001)
36. P. Strobach, Low rank adaptive filters. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 44(12), 2832–2947 (1996)
37. X. Sun, S.M. Kuo, Active narrowband noise control systems using cascading adaptive filters. IEEE
Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 15(2), 586–592 (2007)
38. L. Tao, H.K. Kwan, in A neural network method for adaptive noise cancellation, IEEE International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems, (1999), pp. 567–570
39. J. Tapia, S.M. Kuo, in An optimized automatic gain controller for real-time recursive LMS adaptive
filters, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, (1990), pp. 3154–3157
40. R.J. Tony, RF and Digital Signal Processing for Software-Defined Radio, 1st edn. (Newnes, 2008)
41. Z. Udo, Digital Audio Signal Processing (Wiley, New York, 2008)
42. E. Ugur, M. Secmen, N. Ozkurt, in The comparison of LMS based algorithms for active cancellation of
motor noise, 21st Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference, Haspolat, (2013),
pp. 1–4
43. S.V. Vaseghi, Advanced Digital Signal Processing and Noise Reduction (Wiely, New York, 2000)
766 Circuits Syst Signal Process (2017) 36:742–766

44. B. Widrow, J.R. Glover, J.M. Mccool, J. Kaunitz, C.S. Williams, R.H. Hean, J.R. Zeidler, E. Dong,
R.C. Goodlin, Adaptive noise cancelling: principles and applications. Proc. IEEE 63(12), 1692–1716
(1975)
45. Y. Xia, L. Jianchang, L. Hongru, in Performance analysis of adaptive filters for time-varying systems,
32nd Chinese Control Conference, Xi’an, (2013), pp. 8572–8575
46. J. Yuzhong, R.Y.P. Cheung, W.W.Y. Chow, M.P.C. Mok, in A novel gradient adaptive step size LMS
algorithm with dual adaptive filters, 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering
in Medicine and Biology Society, Osaka, (2013), pp. 4803–4806