 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Geometricalgebra affine projection adaptive filter
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing volume 2021, Article number: 82 (2021)
Abstract
Geometric algebra (GA) is an efficient tool to deal with hypercomplex processes due to its special data structure. In this article, we introduce the affine projection algorithm (APA) in the GA domain to provide fast convergence against hypercomplex colored signals. Following the principle of minimal disturbance and the orthogonal affine subspace theory, we formulate the criterion of designing the GAAPA as a constrained optimization problem, which can be solved by the method of Lagrange Multipliers. Then, the differentiation of the cost function is calculated using geometric calculus (the extension of GA to include differentiation) to get the update formula of the GAAPA. The stability of the algorithm is analyzed based on the meansquare deviation. To avoid illposed problems, the regularized GAAPA is also given in the following. The simulation results show that the proposed adaptive filters, in comparison with existing methods, achieve a better convergence performance under the condition of colored input signals.
1 Introduction
With the development of sensor technology, there are more and more data sources for recording the same process. For example, 3D wind speed, dynamic pressure, aircraft rotation axis (roll, pitch, yaw), and angle of attack are used to predict the attitude of the aircraft [1]. The electromagnetic vectorsensor consists of 6 spatially arranged antennas, which measure the electric and magnetic field signals in the three directions of the incident wave [2]. These signals derive from observations of different dimensions. However, they are constructed into vectors and processed as multichannel signals in most existing literature. In geometric algebra (GA)based algorithms, the hypercomplex signals are transformed into multivectors, such as complex entries, quaternion entries, and higher dimensional entries [3], and handled holistically [4]. The product operation of GA, namely geometric product, allows a set of vectors to be mapped to scalars and hypersurfaces. Besides, geometric calculus (GC) [5, 6] can perform calculus with hypercomplex numbers clearly and compactly. Owing to the convenience of GAbased models, GA has been studied in many applications, such as classification, direction of arrival estimation, and image processing [7,8,9].
Adaptive filters (AF) have been extensively applied in many areas such as system identification, active noise control, and echo cancellation during the past decades [10]. The least mean square (LMS) and normalized LMS (NLMS) are widely used owing to their simplicity and ease of implementation. However, they show a slow convergence speed with highly colored input signals. The affine projection algorithm (APA), suggested by Ozeki and Umeda [11], is one method to overcome this problem. The APA and its variants [12,13,14] were found to be attractive choices with faster convergence than the NLMS and lower computational complexity than the recursive least squares (RLS).
However, standard AFs treat different dimensions as multichannel signals, which may lose the structural information between different dimensions [15]. The GAbased adaptive filters (GAAF) have been used for simultaneous filtering of multidimensional signals for its faster convergence speed and suitability of multivector for multidimensional signal modeling. For example, quaternion adaptive filters were used to forecast Saito’s Chaotic Signal and wind speed with superior performance [16]. GAbased beamformer of electromagnetic vectorsensor arrays has a better convergence performance than the standard beamformer [17, 18]. GAAF algorithms have great advantages in processing multidimensional signals.
Hitzer extended the quaternion AF to the GAbased nonlinear AF for hypercomplex signals of high dimensions [19]. Afterward, the authors in [1] proposed the GALMS to estimate the rotor in a threedimensional pointclouds registration problem and analyzed its performance. The GALMS was later used to recover the 6degreesoffreedom alignment of two point clouds [20]. The authors in [21] developed a robust adaptive filter based on maximum GA correntropy criteria against nonGaussian noise. The GAbased Normalized Least Mean Fourth (GANLMF) and GANLMS derived in [22] have a certain improvement in the convergence speed compared with NLMS. However, their convergence speed is reduced considerably by the colored input signals, commonly encountered in real applications.
Based on the principle of minimal disturbance and the orthogonal affine subspace theory, this article introduces the APA in the GA domain to deal with the hypercomplex system with colored signals. Firstly, the fundamentals of geometric algebra are presented in Sect. 2. We then propose the algorithm and analyse its stability in Sect. 3. Finally, several simulations are conducted to analyse the performance and the stability of the proposed algorithm.
2 Fundamentals of geometric algebra
The GA \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) was introduced by William K. Clifford, also called Clifford algebra. The GA enables the algebraic representation of magnitude and orientations and provides a coordinatefree framework to make the calculations efficiently.
The GA can be viewed as a geometric extension of the linear algebra \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). Vectors in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) are also vectors in \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Take a, b vectors in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), the geometric product of a and b is defined as \(ab = a \cdot b +a \wedge b\), on the basis of the inner \((\cdot )\) and outer \((\wedge )\) product. Since the outer product doesn’t satisfy the commutative law, namely \(a\wedge b =  ( b \wedge a)\), the geometric product is also noncommutative in general. Unless otherwise specified, all products in this article are geometric products.
Take \({\mathbb {R}}^3\) for example, \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\) has \(2^3 = 8\) dimensions, with basis \(\{1, e_1, e_2, e_3, e_{12},\) \(e_{23}, e_{31}, I\}\). All bases can be divided into four parts, namely one scalar, three unit orthogonal vectors \(e_i\) (basis for \({\mathbb {R}}^3\)), three bivectors \(e_{ij} \triangleq e_ie_j = e_i \wedge e_j, i \ne j \; (e_i \cdot e_j = 0, i \ne j)\), and one trivector \(I \triangleq e_{123} = e_1e_2e_3 = e_1 \wedge e_2 \wedge e_3\). To illustrate, take \(a = e_1\) and \(b = 3e_1 + 2e_2\). Then, \(ab = e_1(3e_1 + 2e_2) = e_1 \cdot (3e_1 + 2e_2) +e_1 \wedge (3e_1 +2e_2) = 3 + 2(e_1 \wedge e_2) = 3 + 2e_{12}\) (a scalar plus a bivector).
Multivector is the fundamental element of GA. The multivector A consists of its rvectors \({\langle \cdot \rangle }_r\) as follows:
in which \({\langle A \rangle }_0\), \({\langle A \rangle }_1\) , and \({\langle A \rangle }_2\) are scalar, vector, and bivector, respectively. The foundation of GA theory is the ability to fuse scalar, vector, and hyperplanes into a unique element, namely multivector.
Analogous to the conjugation of complex numbers and quaternion, the reverse of the multivector A is defined as
Taking the bivector \(A = {\langle A \rangle }_0 + {\langle A \rangle }_1 + {\langle A \rangle }_2\) for an example, its reverse is \({\widetilde{A}} = \widetilde{{\langle A \rangle }_0} + \widetilde{{\langle A \rangle }_1} + \widetilde{{\langle A \rangle }_2} = {\langle A \rangle }_0 + {\langle A \rangle }_1  {\langle A \rangle }_2\).
The scalar product \((*)\) is defined as \(A*B = {\langle AB \rangle }\), in which \({\langle \cdot \rangle } \equiv {\langle \cdot \rangle }_0\). In addition, the magnitude of a multivector is defined as \(A^2 = {\widetilde{A}}*A = \langle {\widetilde{A}}A \rangle\).
3 Methods
An array of multivector consists of a collection of multivectors. Give M multivectors \(\{ U_1, U_2, \ldots , U_M \}\) in \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\), the \(M \times 1\) array collects them as follows:
The reverse transpose operation, denoted by \((\cdot )^*\), is the extension of the reverse operation of multivector to arrays of multivectors. For example, the reverse transpose of the array (3) is \(\varvec{u}^* = \left[ {\widetilde{U}}_1 \; {\widetilde{U}}_2 \; \ldots \; {\widetilde{U}}_M \right]\).
Consider reference data D(k), which is a multivector, observed at time k that comes from the linear model
where \(\varvec{w}^o=[ W_1^o\; W_2^o\; \ldots \; W_M^o]^{{\text{T}}}\) is an unknown \(M \times 1\) array of multivector to be estimated with \((\cdot )^{{\text{T}}}\) denotes transpose, V(k) accounts for measurement noise, U(k) denotes input signal observed at time k, and \(\varvec{u}(k) = [ U(k)\; U(k1)\; \ldots \; U(k+1M)]^{{\text{T}}}\). The model allows one to assign heterogeneous signals from different sources \(s_i(k)\), \(i=0,1,\ldots ,2^n1\), to each entries of the multivector, e.g., \(U(k)=s_0(k) + s_1(k)e_1 +s_2(k)e_2 + s_3(k)e3+ s_4(k)e_{12}+s_5(k)e_{23}+ s_6(k)e_{31} + s_7(k)I\). For example, fusion and linear prediction of aircraft parameters can be assigned as follows: \(s_0(k)\) is angle of attack, \(s_1(k)\) is EastWest wind, \(s_2(k)\) is NorthSouth wind, \(s_3(k)\) is vertical wind, \(s_4(k)\) is roll, \(s_5(k)\) is yaw, \(s_6(k)\) is pitch, \(s_7(k)\) is dynamic pressure.
The squared Euclidean norm providing a measure of distance in LA is represented by the array product \(\varvec{u}^2 \triangleq \varvec{u}^*\varvec{u}\), which is a scalar. However, the result of the array product in GA is a multivector rather than a scalar. Therefore, we take the scalar part of the array product \(\langle \varvec{u}^*\varvec{u} \rangle\) as the distance measure of the array of multivectors.
3.1 GA affine projection algorithm
The GAAPA also follows the principle of minimal disturbance and the orthogonal affine subspace theory as the standard APA. In mathematical terms, the criterion for designing the affine projection filter can be formulated as an optimization problem subject to multiple constraints. We will minimize the scalar product of the change of the estimated weight array and its reverse transpose (the distance measure of the array space of \(\varvec{w}^o\)), which is defined as
subject to the set of N constraints
where N is smaller than or equal to the length M of the weight array. The number of constraints N can be viewed as the order of the affine projection algorithm.
We apply the method of Lagrange multipliers to solve this optimization problem. Combining formulas (5) and (6), then we get the following cost function
where \(E(n) = D(kn)\varvec{u}^*(kn)\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k+1)\) and \(\lambda _n\) is a multivector. For convenience of presentation, we introduce the following definitions:

An \(M \times N\) matrix \(\varvec{U}(k)\) defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{U}(k) = [\varvec{u}(k)\;\varvec{u}(k1) \cdots \varvec{u}(kN+1)]. \end{aligned}$$(8) 
An \(N \times 1\) array \(\varvec{d}(k)\) defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{d}(k) = [D(k)\;D(k1)\; \cdots \;D(kN+1)]^{{\text{T}}}. \end{aligned}$$(9) 
An \(N \times 1\) array \(\varvec{\lambda }\) defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \varvec{\lambda } = [\lambda _0 \;\lambda _1 \; \cdots \;\lambda _{N1}]^{{\text{T}}}. \end{aligned}$$(10)
Then, the second term of the cost function (7) can be represent as
Now, we will get the derivative of the cost function J(k) with respect to the weight array \(\varvec{w}(k+1)\) following the rules of GC. In GA, the differential operator \(\partial _{w}= \partial _{\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k+1)}\) has the algebra properties of a multivector in \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). In other words, the gradient \(\partial _{w}J(k)\) can be calculated by the geometric product of the multivectorvalued quantities \(\partial _{w}\) and J(k).
Any multivector \(A\in G({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) can be decomposed into blades [5, Eq. (3.20)] via
in which \(A^i\) is a scalar valued, and \(\{e_i\}\) and \(\{e^i\},\; i=0,\ldots , 2^n1\) are two different bases of \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). \(\{e^i\}\) is the reciprocal blade basis, which is an important analytical tool for differentiation in GA. The reciprocal blade basis can convert nonorthogonal to orthogonal vectors, vice versa. Since orthogonal elements cancel out mutually, the analytical procedure is simplified. Suffice to know that the following relation holds for reciprocal bases \(e_i \cdot e^j = \delta _i^j\), where \(\delta _i^j = 1\) for \(i=j\) and \(\delta _i^j = 0\) for \(i\ne j\) (Kronecker delta). In particular, applying (12) to \(\partial _w\) results in
The gradient \(\partial _wJ(k)\) is obtained by multiplying (13) and (7), yielding
in which \(\partial _{w,l}^1 = \partial _{w,l}\langle \delta _{\varvec{w}}^*\delta _{\varvec{w}} \rangle\) and \(\partial _{w,l}^2 = \partial _{w,l}\langle \widehat{\varvec{w}}^*(k+1)\varvec{U}(k)\varvec{\lambda }\rangle\). As a matter of fact, arrays of multivectors can be decomposed into blades. Thus, employing (12) once again, we can rewrite \(\delta _w\) and \(\delta _w^*\) in term of their \(2^n\) blades as follows:
Plugging (15) into \(\partial _{w,l}^1\), we have
Thus, the first term of the gradient (14) can be obtained by
Then, we calculate the second term of the formula (14) and get
Taking the results of (17) and (18), and setting the gradient (14) equal to zero, we get \(2{\widetilde{\delta }}_w = \widetilde{(\varvec{U}(k)\varvec{\lambda })}\). Taking the reverse of both sides of the equation yields
Next, we will eliminate the Lagrange vector \(\lambda\) from (19). Firstly, we use the definitions of (8) and (9) to rewrite (6) in the equivalent form
Premultiplying both sides of (19) by \(\varvec{U}^*\) and then using (20) to eliminate the updated weight array \(\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k+1)\) yields
Based on the data available, the difference \(\varvec{e}(k)\) between \(\varvec{d}(k)\) and \(\varvec{U}^*(k)\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k)\) at the adaptation cycle k is a \(N \times 1\) error array denoted
Assuming the array product \(\varvec{U}^*(k)\varvec{U}(k)\) to be invertible [23] allows us to solve (21) for \(\varvec{\lambda }\), yielding
Substituting this solution into (19), we obtain the optimum change of the weight array
Finally, we introduce the stepsize parameter \(\mu\) into (24), yielding
which is the desired update formula of the GAAPA.
The algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 1. We can notice that GAAPA has the same format as standard APA adaptive filters. Since quaternion, complex numbers, and real numbers are subalgebras of geometric algebra, the Quaternion APA [24], the Complex APA [12], and the realentries APA can be recovered by the GAAPA. In other words, GAAPA is a unified expression of the above algorithms.
Remark
APA is the same as NLMS in the LA domain when the order \(N=1\). But, the update equation of the first order GAAPA is different from GANLMS proposed in [22]. Specially, the update term of the first order GAAPA is \(\mu u(k)(u(k)^*u(k))^{1}e(k)\) which is similar to the update term of the GANLMS \(\mu u(k)\langle u(k)^*u(k)\rangle ^{1}e(k)\). We will compare them in the simulation section.
3.2 Stability of the GAAPA
The mismatch between \(w^o\) and \(\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k)\) is measured by weighterror array
Thus, subtracting (25) from \(w^o\), we get
We base the stability analysis of the GAAPA on the meansquare deviation \(y(k) = {\mathbb {E}} [\langle \varvec{\epsilon }(k)^2 \rangle ]\), where \({\mathbb {E}}[\cdot ]\) accounts for expectation. Taking the distance measure of both sides of (27), rearranging terms, and taking expectations, then we get
From the equation above, we see that the GAAPA algorithm is stable in the meansquareerror sense provided the meansquare deviation y(k) decreases with the increasing number of adaptation cycles k. Therefore, the stepsize parameter \(\mu\) is bounded as follows:
3.3 Computational complexity analysis
As we can see from Algorithm 1, the main calculations are in Step 2 and Step 3. The number of real multiplications in Step 2 is \(NM\alpha ^2\), where \(\alpha =2^n\) represents the number of basis, N and M are the order of GAAPA and the length of \(\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k)\), respectively. The computational complexity of multivector matrix inversion is \(N^3\alpha ^2\beta\), where \(\beta\) represents the computational complexity of the inverse of a multivector. Therefore, the computation in Step 3 requires approximately \(\alpha ^2(N^3\beta +N^2(M+1)+NM)\) real multiplications. The total number of multiplications in GAAPA is \(\alpha ^2(N^3\beta +N^2(M+1)+2NM)\) per adaptation cycle.
3.4 Regularized GAAPA
Since a matrix inversion \((\varvec{u}^*\varvec{u})^{1}\) is required within the GAAPA, illposed problems usually occur, especially under the condition of noisy observation data. To avoid this problem, we regularize the matrix that needs to be inverted. Then we get the update equation of the regularized GAAPA (RGAAPA)
where \(\gamma\) is the regularization parameter, and \(\varvec{I}\) is the \(N \times N\) identity matrix of real number.
4 Results and discussion
The proposed algorithm’s performance is evaluated and analyzed in this section. We compare the proposed algorithm with the GALMS and GANLMS in Sect. 4.1. The impact of order N and step size \(\mu\) on algorithm performance is analyzed in Sect. 4.2.
For the sake of generality, the underlying GA in all cases is \(\varvec{G}({\mathbb {R}}^3)\). The regularization parameter of the RGAAPA is \(\gamma = 10^{3}\). The measurement noise is zeromean uniform distributed sequences. The blades coefficients of the colored signal U(k) are obtained by filtering \(2^3=8\) white zeromean Gaussian random sequences through a firstorder system \(G(z) = 1/(10.9z^{1})\), respectively. All simulation results are obtained by averaging 100 independent trials.
4.1 Performance comparison
The variance of measurement noise is \(\sigma _V^2 = {\mathbb {E}} [V(k)^2] = 10^{3}\). The variance of U(k) is 0.1 for both white and colored signals. In this subsection, the step size value is \(\mu =0.2\) for all algorithms. The length M of the optimal weight is 10, namely \(\varvec{w}^o = [ W_1^o \;W_2^o \cdots W_{10}^o]^{{\text{T}}}\).
Figure 1 shows several meansquare error (MSE) \({\mathbb {E}}[D(k)\varvec{u}^*(k)\widehat{\varvec{w}}(k)^2]\) learning curves for the GALMS [3], GANLMS, GAAPA with \(N = 1\) and RGAAPA with \(N = 1\) with both white and colored input signals. All the multivectors entries \(W_i^o\) are the same, namely \(W_i^o=W_1=0.25e_01.5e_10.5e2+0.75e_{12}0.4e{23}+0.3e{31}0.25I, i=1,\ldots ,10\). The coefficients of \(W_1\) are selected in an aleatory manner. As we can see, all algorithms can converge at the same speed with white signals under some given parameters. These experiments show that the GAAPA and RGAAPA, the same as the GALMS, are capable of identifying multivectorvalued linear systems. But the GALMS and GANLMS suffer from slow convergence with colored input. The GAAPA and RGAAPA achieve better performance with the colored signal with the same parameter. Comparing the GAAPA and the RGAAPA, we conclude that their performance is roughly the same when the regularization parameter \(\gamma\) is small. We will focus our simulations on the RGAAPA since it reaches the same performance as the GAAPA and avoids illposed problems. Additionally, the first order GAAPA reaches a much faster convergence than the GANLMS. We think it’s because GANLMS doesn’t follow the principle of minimal disturbance. Although the GANLMS introduces the normalization comparing with the GALMS, it suffers from slow convergence with colored signals.
Figure 2 shows the convergence performance under colored input signals when filter weights \(\varvec{w}^o\) change after 1190 iterations. The filter weights change from the weights \(W_1\) in the above experiments to \(W_i^o=W_2=0.5e_0+1.8e_12e2+0.86e_3+0.31e_{12}0.9e{23}0.4e{31}+0.34I, i=1,\ldots ,10\). We can see from Fig. 2 that the proposed RGAAPA can track the changes of weights faster than the GALMS and GANLMS after the filter weights change suddenly.
The time required for each iteration of different algorithms is given in Table 1. The results are obtained using Python on an Inter Core i7 CPU running at 3.6GHz and 16 GB of RAM. We can see that the proposed algorithm requires more calculation time. As the order of the algorithm N increases, the calculation time also increases.
4.2 Parameters analysis
The comparison results of different orders of the RGAAPA under colored input signals are shown in Fig. 3. The filter weights are \(\varvec{w}^o=[W_1^o,W_2^o,\ldots ,W_{30}^o]\), where \(W^o_i=W_1\) (given in Sect. 4.1), \(i= 1,2, \ldots , 30\). The variance of V(k) and colored U(k) are \(\{10^{2},10^{4}\}\) and \(10^{1}\), respectively. The step size \(\mu\) is set to 0.2. As we can see, the convergence rate speeds up with the order N increases. The misadjustment of APA increases when the order N increases. As expected, this is also the case with the RGAAPA, as supported in Fig. 3. Despite the speed of convergence, the steadystate error and the computational complexity of matrix inversion limit the choice of higher orders.
Finally, we evaluate the impact of the step size on convergence rate and steadystate error under colored input signals. The order of the RGAAPA is set to 1. The \(\sigma _V^2\) and \(\sigma _U^2\) is set to \(10^{3}\) and \(10^{1}\), respectively. The length of the filter weight is set to 10, and each multivector entries \(W_i^o\) is the same as \(W_1\) in Sect. 4.1. Figure 4 shows the MSE learning curves of the RGAAPA with step size \(\mu =\{0.05,0.2,0.6,1.2\}\). We can see that the algorithm will have a faster convergence rate with a larger step size. However, the steadystate error goes higher with the step size increases. Therefore, it’s important to choose an appropriate step size. We then examine the steadystate errors at different step sizes. Figure 5 depicts the steadystate errors at different step sizes for \(\sigma _V^2 = \{10^{2}, 10^{3}, 10^{5}\}\). According to the stability analysis in Sect. 3.2, the step size is roughly limited to the interval \(0< \mu < 2\) when \(\sigma _U^2=10^{1}\). The simulation shows a good agreement with the theoretical analysis.
5 Conclusions
The GAAPA and the RGAAPA proposed in this article have improved estimation capabilities with highly colored input signals for hypercomplex processes. The structure of multivectors, allowing us to deal with the hypercomplex processes as a “package”, seems to be naturally suited for fusing different dimensional signals. With the increase of application scenarios, new types of GAbased AFs, i.e., the RLS and other variants, are the main subjects to be studied in the future.
Availability of data and materials
There is no additional data to be made available.
Abbreviations
 GA:

Geometric algebra
 APA:

Affine projection algorithm
 AF:

Adaptive filters
 LMS:

Least mean square
 NLMS:

Normalized Least mean square
 RLS:

Recursive least squares
 GAAF:

Geometricalgebrabased adaptive filter
 LA:

Linear algebra
 GC:

Geometric calculus
 GALMS:

Geometricalgebra least mean square
 GANLMF:

Geometricalgebrabased Normalized Least Mean Fourth
 GANLMS:

Geometricalgebra Normalized Least mean square
 GAAPA:

Geometricalgebra affine projection algorithm
References
W.B. Lopes, A. AlNuaimi, C.G. Lopes, Geometricalgebra LMS adaptive filter and its application to rotation estimation. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 23(6), 858–862 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2016.2558461
J.F. Jiang, J.Q. Zhang, Geometric algebra of Euclidean 3space for electromagnetic vectorsensor array processing, part i: modeling. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 58(12), 3961–3973 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2010.2078468
W.B. Lopes, C.G. Lopes, Geometricalgebra adaptive filters. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 67(14), 3649–3662 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2019.2916028
E. Hitzer, Introduction to Clifford’s Geometric Algebra. arxiv:1306.1660
D. Hestenes, G. Sobczyk, Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus: a Unified Language for Mathematics and Physics, Reprint edn. Fundamental theories of physics, vol. 5. Reidel. OCLC: 552321534
E.M.S. Hitzer, Multivector differential calculus. Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras 12(2), 135–182 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161244
T. Meng, M. Wu, N. Yuan, DOA estimation for conformal vectorsensor array using geometric algebra. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2017(1), 64 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s136340170503y
X. Gong, Z. Liu, Y. Xu, Quadquaternion MUSIC for DOA estimation using electromagnetic vector sensors. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/213293
E. Hitzer, T. Nitta, Y. Kuroe, Applications of Clifford’s geometric algebra. Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebras 23(2), 377–404 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s0000601303784. arXiv: 1305.5663
S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, 5th edn. Pearson
K. Ozeki, T. Umeda, An adaptive filtering algorithm using an orthogonal projection to an affine subspace and its properties. Electron. Commun. Jpn. Part I: Commun. 67(5), 19–27 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecja.4400670503
Y. Xia, C.C. Took, D.P. Mandic, An augmented affine projection algorithm for the filtering of noncircular complex signals. Signal Process. 90(6), 1788–1799 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.11.026
J. Benesty, P. Duhamel, Y. Grenier, A multichannel affine projection algorithm with applications to multichannel acoustic echo cancellation. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 3(2), 35–37 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1109/97.484209
Y.F. Zhi, F.F. Shang, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, Optimal stepsize of pseudo affine projection algorithm. Appl. Math. Comput. 273, 82–88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.09.059
K.J. Sangston, Geometry of complex data. IEEE Aerospace Electron. Syst. Mag. 31(3), 32–69 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2016.150029
B.C. Ujang, C.C. Took, D.P. Mandic, Split quaternion nonlinear adaptive filtering. Neural Netw. 23(3), 426–434 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.10.006
X. Zhang, W. Liu, Y. Xu, Z. Liu, Quaternionvalued robust adaptive beamformer for electromagnetic vectorsensor arrays with worstcase constraint. Signal Process. 104, 274–283 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2014.04.006
X. Gou, Y. Xu, Z. Liu, X. Gong, Quaternioncapon beamformer using crosseddipole arrays, in 2011 4th IEEE International Symposium on Microwave, Antenna, Propagation and EMC Technologies for Wireless Communications (2011), pp. 34–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAPE.2011.6156140
E. Hitzer, Algebraic foundations of split hypercomplex nonlinear adaptive filtering. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 36(9), 1042–1055 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.2660
A. AlNuaimi, E. Steinbach, W.B. Lopes, C.G. Lopes, 6dof point cloud alignment using geometric algebrabased adaptive filtering, in 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV.2016.7477642
W. Wang, H. Zhao, X. Zeng, Geometric algebra correntropy: definition and application to robust adaptive filtering. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs 67(6), 1164–1168 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2019.2931507
R. Wang, M. Liang, Y. He, X. Wang, W. Cao, A normalized adaptive filtering algorithm based on geometric algebra. IEEE Access 8, 92861–92874 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2994230
E. Hitzer, S. Sangwine, Multivector and multivector matrix inverses in real Clifford algebras. Appl. Math. Comput. 311, 375–389 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.05.027
C. Jahanchahi, C. Cheong Took, D.P. Mandic, A class of quaternion valued affine projection algorithms. Signal Process. 93(7), 1712–1723 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2012.12.019
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge all the participants for their contributions to this research study.
Funding
This work is supported by the Science and Technology on Electromechanical Dynamic Control Laboratory of China (No. 6142601200605), the Science, Technology and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality (No. JCYJ20170815161351983), and the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Nos. U20B2040 and 61671379).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Yuetao Ren contributed to developments of the theory and the experiments; Yongfeng Zhi and Jun Zhang contributed to the problem formulation, and overall project guidance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ren, Y., Zhi, Y. & Zhang, J. Geometricalgebra affine projection adaptive filter. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2021, 82 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363402100790y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363402100790y