IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 24, NO.
2, FEBRUARY 2017
Second-Order Statistics Driven LMS Blind
Fractionally Spaced Channel Equalization
Gaetano Scarano, Andrea Petroni, Mauro Biagi, and Roberto Cusani
AbstractA novel cooperative least mean square adaptation rule
is proposed with application to fractionally spaced blind channel
equalization schemes used in quadrature amplitude modulation
data links. A novel cost function based on second-order statistics
only of the received signal is defined and jointly used with an-
other chosen among classical blind cost functions such as decision
directed and other Bussgang-type ones. Numerical results show
that severe misconvergence observed in classical blind equaliza-
tion algorithms is drastically mitigated using the here described
technique.
Index TermsBussgang equalization, cross relations (CR),
decision directed equalization, fractionally spaced equalization,
least mean square (LMS).
I. INTRODUCTION
NTERSYMBOL interference (ISI) is the main impairment
I in quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) data links and
its reduction is usually performed by digital filtering aimed at
obtaining the channel equalization condition, in which the
symbol detection error probability is kept below the desired
level. The filter is adaptively implemented and trained by us-
ing a finite sequence of transmitted symbols known at receiver;
moreover, to mitigate noise amplification effects as well as to
reduce timing sensitivity, filtering is carried out after sampling
the received signal at rates greater than the nominal one, typ-
ically twice the transmitted symbol rate. This is referred to as
fractionally spaced channel equalization [1], and the filter is
so-called fractionally spaced equalizer (FSE).
During frame synchronization acquisition training symbols
cannot be used and, hence, self-trained or blind channel
equalization techniques are often employed, among which the
most popular is the constant modulus algorithm (CMA) [2][4],
and its variations like that recently described in [5]. This class of
blind channel equalization techniques exploits the information
contained in the higher order statistics of the non-Gaussian re-
ceived signal. On the other hand, a certain number of other blind
channel estimation techniques exploits the remarkable property
of ciclostationarity of fractionally sampled data signals, which
allows, in certain conditions, for blind channel estimation car-
ried out using second-order statistics (SOS) only (see for in-
stance [6] and its references).
Very often, the FSE is adaptively implemented using a simple
least mean square (LMS) rule [1][3], where the received signal
Manuscript received October 7, 2016; revised November 11, 2016; accepted
November 27, 2016. Date of publication December 1, 2016; date of current
version January 12, 2017. The associate editor coordinating the review of this
manuscript and approving it for publication was Dr. Arash Amini.
The authors are with the DIET, Universita La Sapienza di Roma, Roma
00184, Italy (e-mail: gaetano.scarano@uniroma1.it; andrea.petroni@uniroma1.
it; mauro.biagi@uniroma1.it; roberto.cusani@uniroma1.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LSP.2016.2635034
1070-9908 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
161
Fig. 1. IIR-MMSE-FSE.
is sampled at rate P Ts1
before entering the equalizer, P being
the fractional sampling factor. Naturally, the filter output rate is
equal to the symbol rate Ts1 and filter coefficients are updated
at the same rate.
Referring to the common case of P = 2, a novel blind adap-
tive cooperative scheme is here described, in which the FSE
coefficients are updated at rate 2Ts1 , i.e., twice the rate of
classical implementations. More in detail, two different cost
functions (CFs) are employed and jointly minimized. The first
CF can be anyone of those employed in present blind receivers
and works in correspondence of even time instants. The second
CF works instead in correspondence of odd instants and here
appears for the first time; it is derived from a here rediscov-
ered property of the IIR minimum mean square error (MMSE)
FSE [7]. Joint minimization of these two CFs is feasible since
both are minimized by the same filter even though they refer
to different instants. We show that the proposed adaptive fil-
tering scheme drastically mitigates the severe misconvergence
phenomenon that affects certain blind equalization algorithms,
especially for large symbol constellation order and frequency
selective channels.
II. FRACTIONALLY SPACED EQUALIZATION
For P = 2, the discrete-time models of fractionally sampled
received signals in a QAM data link is

+
x[n] = a[l]g[n 2l] + w[n] ,
l=
where g[n] = (gT hc )(nTs /2) takes into account the channel
hc (t) and the transmitting shaping filter gT (t), w[n] are samples
of white additive noise, and Ts1 is the rate at which the QAM
symbols a[l] are transmitted. The FSE operation is shown in
Fig. 1, where G(ej ) is the Fourier transform of g[n].
Due to the excess bandwidth of the shaping filter gT (t),
e.g., a root-raised cosine (RRC) filter with roll-off > 0, the
fractionally sampled data signal s[n] results in a cyclostationary
process, an useful property exploited in channel estimation as
well as in determining optimal FSEs [6][10]. In particular, the
IIR-MMSE-FSE frequency response is [9], [10]:
2G(ej )
FMMSE
(IIR)
(ej ) = (1)
|G(ej )| + |G(ej +j )|2 + 2Pw Pa1
2
162
Fig. 2. IIR-MMSE-FSE-CR.
where Pw is the power of the stationary white additive noise
w[n], statistically independent of the stationary white symbols
a[l] of power Pa , and () denotes complex conjugation.
III. IIR-MMSE-FSE CROSS RELATIONS (CR)
k Rx f(FIR)  Pw f(FIR) = (f(FIR) )H Rx f(FIR)  Pw Ef (FIR) (5)
Let us denote by fMMSE( IIR)
, [k] = fMMSE [k](1) the sequence
(IIR)
j +j
having Fourier transform FMMSE (e (IIR)
), which we will refer to
as the coefficients of the -modulated IIR-MMSE-FSE.
Interestingly enough, fMMSE ( IIR)
, [k] satisfies the following prop-
erty, presented for the ideal noise-free case in [7]

+
fMMSE
( IIR)
, [k] (x[2n + 1 + k] w[2n + 1 + k]) = 0.
k =
As shown in Fig. 2, the proof of (2) considers that expanded-by-2
sequences passing through filters having a periodic modulo
frequency response remain expanded-by-2 sequences.
It is worth noting that (2) constitutes the IIR-MMSE-FSE
counterpart of the well-known CR property, which instead re-
gards the channel coefficients g[n] [11]. For this reason, we will
refer to (2) as IIR-MMSE-FSE-CR. It is also worth noting that
(2) is entirely due to the excess bandwidth of the transmitting
filter, measured by the roll-off factor in the case of RRC filter.
Since the noise is white, expectations of both sides of (2)
multiplied by x[2n + 1 + m] yields

+
fMMSE
( IIR)
, [k] Rx [m k; k mod 2] = Pw fMMSE, [m] (3)
( IIR)
k =
where Rx [mk; k mod 2] = E{x[2n+1 + m] x[2n+1+k]}
denotes the biargumental autocorrelation function of the
cyclostationary random series x[n]. The following property,
which definitively characterizes the IIR-MMSE-FSE, stems
from (3).
Property 1: (IIR-MMSE-FSE-CR) The coefficients
fMMSE
( IIR)
, [k] of the -modulated IIR-MMSE-FSE form an
eigensequence of the kernel Rx [mk; k mod 2], precisely that
corresponding to the minimum eigenvalue, this latter given by
the noise power Pw .
Proof: The noise power Pw is the minimum eigenvalue
since.
1) Due to noise w[n] and symbols a[l] uncorrelation, after
denoting by [] the unit sample sequence, it results
Rx [mk; k mod 2] = Rs [mk; k mod 2] + Pw [m
k], which, after substitution in (3), shows that the coef-
ficients fMMSE
( IIR)
, [k] form the eigensequence of the kernel
Rs [mk; k mod 2] corresponding to the null eigenvalue.
2) The kernel Rs [mk; k mod 2] is non-negative def-
inite, i.e., for every sequence a[k] it results in
+ +
a[m]a[k] Rs [mk; k mod 2] 0, so
m = k =
that all its eigenvalues are non-negative.
 Jo (f (FIR) ) = E |o[(n + 1)/2]|2
IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 24, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2017
IV. FIR-FSE-CR
Let us now consider a FIR-FSE f (FIR) [k], and its -modulated
version f(FIR) [k] = f (FIR) [k](1)k , both defined on a finite support
Sf = {k1 , . . . , kL 1 } with L large enough to still consider valid
the IIR-MMSE-FSE-CR property (3)

f(FIR) [k] Rx [m k; k mod 2]  Pw f(FIR) [m]. (4)
k S f
Since, the cardinality of Sf is finite, we can write (4) only for
m Sf , so that, after collecting the FSE coefficients f(FIR) [k] in
the vector f(FIR) , we have
where (Rx )m ,k = Rx [m
k; k mod 2], for m Sf , k Sf , and
Ef (FIR) = (f(FIR) )H f(FIR) = |f (FIR) [k]|2 is the energy of the
k S f
sequence f (FIR) [k]. Stemming from (5), we restate Property 1
as follows, thus definitively characterizing any FIR-FSE suffi-
ciently close to the IIR-MMSE-FSE.
(2)
Property 2: (FIR-FSE-CR) The coefficients of any FIR-FSE
defined on a sufficiently large support Sf form a quasi-
eigenvector of the autocorrelation matrix Rx , precisely that
corresponding to the minimum quasi-eigenvalue, this latter
given by the noise power Pw .
It is worth noting that (5) obtains the FIR-FSE coefficients
exclusively using SOS of the received signal x[n]; for a long
enough support Sf , a unique solution would ideally be obtained
only when: i) the channel is a purely FIR one, of length Lg +
1; ii) the support is connected with L = Lg : Sf = {0, . . . ,
Lg 1}
In practice, a sufficiently accurate FIR-FSE cannot be ob-
tained from the eigenvector associated to the minimum eigen-
value of Rx , especially when this matrix is estimated from
observed data and the excess bandwidth of the transmit filter
is relatively small. For supports Sf longer than the channel,
one shall resort to techniques that aim at identifying the sub-
space associated to the smallest eigenvalues of Rx , where, in
principle, the vector f(FIR) lies; unfortunately, since eigenvectors
associated with nearby eigenvalues are wobbly [12][13], the
subspace spanned by the subset of eigenvectors associated to the
smallest eigenvalues merges with its orthogonal complementary
subspace and, hence, even those techniques do not obtain a suf-
ficiently accurate estimation [14].
V. FIR-FSE-CR DRIVEN LMS ADAPTATION
Here, we show how the FIR-FSE-CR property can be usefully
employed to drive the convergence of blind FIR-FSE synthesis
techniques adaptively implemented using LMS. In particular,
bearing in mind Figs. 1 and 2, we present a novel, coopera-
tive adaptation rule that jointly minimizes two different CFs,
one concerning with the error samples e[n/2] available on even
time indexes n, the other concerning with the error samples
o[(n + 1)/2] available on odd time indexes. Specifically, col-
lecting the FIR-FSE coefficients in the vector f (FIR) , the even and
the odd CFs are, respectively, defined as
 
Je (f (FIR) ) = E |e[n/2]|2 (even n) (6)
 
(odd n) (7)
SCARANO et al.: SECOND-ORDER STATISTICS DRIVEN LMS BLIND FRACTIONALLY SPACED CHANNEL EQUALIZATION
TABLE I
DECISION DIRECTED AND MMSE ZMNL DEFINED ON THE CONSTELLATION
CM = {c0 , . . . , cM 1 }
where the even and the odd errors are (see also Figs. 1 and 2)

e [n/2] = f (FIR) [k] x[n k] a[l] (even n) (8)
k S f
 f (FIR) Jo (f (FIR) ) = E{o[(n + 1)/2] xo, [(n + 1)/2]} (odd n).
o[(n + 1)/2] = f (FIR) [k] (1)k x[n + k] (odd n). (9)
k S f
The CF Jo () descends from Property 2 and is minimized by
FIR-FSEs sufficiently close to the IIR-MMSE-FSE; on the other
hand, the CF Je () is minimized by the unique FIR-MMSE-FSE
so that we can argue that jointly minimization of (6) and (7) will
lead to a FIR-FSE close enough to both the IIR-MMSE and
FIR-MMSE ones. It is also worth noting that the CFs (6) and (7)
consider errors computed at different times; precisely, samples
e[n/2] in Je () are available for even values of n while samples
o[(n + 1)/2] in Jo () are available for odd values of n.
A. Blind Equalization
The error computation (8) requires the knowledge of the trans-
mitted symbols a[l], available in trained equalization. Blind er-
ror computation is carried out using a suitably defined symbol
estimate a[n] in lieu of a[n], usually obtained through a zero
memory nonlinearity (ZMNL) () of the FSE output
 that two CFs, each capturing a different aspect of blind equaliza-
(filtering) a [n/2] = f (FIR) [k] x[n k](even n) (10)
k S f
(estimation) a [n/2] = (a [n/2]) (even n).
1
The class known as Bussgang equalizers collect blind equaliz-
ers obtained by different optimization criteria, each correspond-
ing to a different ZMNL () [16]. Table I reports two remark-
able incoherent ZMNLs.2 In particular, the incoherent MMSE
ZMNL has been presented in [17], and its parameter 2 mea-
sures the amount of residual ISI plus additive noise. It is worth
noting that the incoherent decision directed (IDD) ZMNL of
1 The name is due to the circumstance that convergence is reached when
a[n/2] becomes a Bussgang process satisfying the cross-correlation invari-
ance E{a[n/2] x e } E{a[n/2] x e }; generalization of Bussgang invariance
are found in [21] and [22]. Bussgang blind equalizers have been successfully
employed also in image deblurring [23][24].
2 Coherent ZMNLs, as that derived in [16], are able to recover also a constant
channel phase factor and are not employed if phase recovery is concurrently
carried out by other dedicated tasks. On the other hand, incoherent ZMNLs
yield equalized symbols within a residual phase factor, without destructively
interfering with any concurrent phase recovery tasks.
163
Table I is obtained from the MMSE one in the limit 2 +,
and thus it can be correctly considered as a proper MMSE
ZMNL characterizing a Bussgang blind channel equalization
scheme. In this respect, it is also worth noting that the IDD
ZMNL is completely different of ZMNLs that characterize
the so-called Multiple Modulus based blind equalization
algorithms such as those in [18][20].
B. Cooperative Adaptation
Before proceeding, let us first collect the received signal sam-
ples in the following pair of vectors:
xe [l] = [ x[2lk] ]T , k Sf (11)
xo, [l] = [ (1)k x[2l + 1 + k] ]T k Sf . (12)
Hence, following the indication of [15], the complex gradients
of the two CFs in (6) and (7) are readily evaluated
f (FIR) Je (f (FIR) ) = E{e[n/2] xe [n/2]} (even n)
(13)
Considering sample estimates of the complex gradients (13), we
end up with the following novel incremental LMS adaptation
rule, whose adaptive implementation is shown in Fig. 3:
       
fo(FIR) n2 +1 = fe(FIR) n2 + e e n2 xe n2 (even n) (14)
 n+1   n+1   n+1   n+1 
fe(FIR) = fo(FIR) +o o
2 2 2 xo, 2 (odd n). (15)
In (14) and (15), e and o are the learning factors and the LMS
adaptation starts after suitably choosing fe(FIR) [0].
Remark: Attention must be paid to not confuse the incremen-
tal adaption rules (14) and (15) with the adaptive filtering scheme
illustrated in [25] or the incremental cooperative-strategy pre-
sented in [26]; both these schemes rely on a single input that
drives two different filters, which cooperate to minimize a sin-
gle, common, CF. What makes unique our incremental adaptive
filtering scheme is that it exploits the fractionally spaced nature
of a single filter, whose input is cyclically alternated between
two different sets of samples, namely xe [ n2 ] and xo, [ n +1
2 ], so
tion, can be simultaneously minimized. We remark again that at
odd time indexes it is carried out the minimization of the novel
CF Jo (), here derived from Property 2 and exclusively based
on SOS of the received signal.
VI. NUMERICAL RESULTS
We performed a numerical study of the convergence success
of the here described novel FIR-FSE-CR cooperative LMS rule
applied to blind equalization of the 128QAM microwave urban
data link channel with impulse response h[n] found in [20];
in our numerical simulations the channel impulse response was
set to hC [n] = ej h[n], being a uniformly distributed random
phase. The equalizer support Sf is a connected one with L = 33
and the LMS adaptation has been initialized with a square-root
raised-cosine filter with roll-off = 0.35; the signal-to-noise
(SNR) is measured at the channel output, i.e., SNR = Ps /Pw ,
being Ps the power of s[n].
Fig. 4 reports the percentage of good MonteCarlo runs
(MCR) for which the symbol error rate (SER) achieved by
the IDD blind equalizers, operated with learning factors e =
164
Fig. 3. Incremental adaption rule: x[n] = [x[n K ], . . . , x[n + K ]]T , being K = max{|k 1 |, . . . |k L |} the maximum absolute index in the support S f .
Fig. 4. Good runs percentage observed in 1000 MCR (SNR = 24 dB/bit).
Fig. 5. MSE learning curves averaged over 1000 MCR (SNR = 24 dB/bit).
o = 102 , is less than 102 ; ideal phase compensation was
applied before evaluating SER on frames of 512 symbols as
long as the adaptation proceeds, the phase was redrawn, and
the adaptation restarted in each and every of 1000 MCR.
Convergence failure was declared if SER still remains above
102 after 100 frames, and this never occurred in our novel IDD
FIR-FSE-CR, while 115 convergence failures occurred using
the classical IDD FIR-FSE, this latter operated using the usual
fractionally spaced LMS rule with e = 102
 n +1  n  n  n 
fe(FIR) 2 = fe(FIR) 2 + e e 2 xe 2 (even n).
For comparison purposes, Fig. 4 reports also the results obtained
using a CMA-FSE [3], which shall be operated with smaller
learning factors, here set to e = 3.16 104 and o = 3
103 , to guarantee convergence. It is worth noting that CMA
FIR-FSE-CR is not able to outperform our novel IDD FIR-FSE-
CR, since this latter can be operated with a learning factor much
higher, namely 102 versus 3.16104 . Moreover, we observe
that IDD FIR-FSE-CR saves a time equivalent to about 8200
samples since it is able to obtain 97.5% of good runs in about
74 512 = 38 400 samples, while CMA FIR-FSE-CR obtains
the same result in 90 512 = 46 080 samples.
To discuss the speed of convergence we present learning
curves of the mean square error (MSE) in Fig. 5, while Fig. 6
IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, VOL. 24, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2017
Fig. 6. fMSE learning curves averaged over 1000 MCR (SNR = 24 dB/bit).
reports learning curves of the following quadratic distance:
  1/2
 2
 2
fMSE = |f [k] fMMSE [k]|
(FIR) (IIR)
|fMMSE [k]|
(IIR)
k S f k S f
Fig. 6 clearly shows the improvement in speed of convergence
achieved by CR driven LMS blind channel equalization. It also
gives evidence that the CF Jo () helps the other CF Je () to
adaptively drive the equalizer toward the IIR-MMSE-FSE; we
can argue that this is the main reason of the drastic misconver-
gence reduction achieved by the here described CR driven LMS
blind channel equalization technique.
VII. CONCLUSION
A novel cooperative LMS adaptation scheme suitable for
fractionally spaced blind channel equalization has been pro-
posed and computer simulation results have been presented to
assess its merits. Compared to the classical LMS adaptation, a
supplementary step has been added, in which it is exploited a
remarkable property of the FIR-FSE equalizer. This property,
here called FIR-FSE-CR, constitutes the equalizer counterpart
of the well-known CR, a second-order statistical property used
for blind channel estimation [6].
The significant reduction of convergence failures obtained
by driving LMS adaptation using FIR-FSE-CR makes the pro-
posed solution a serious candidate for cold start equalization,
especially when phase recovery is concurrently carried out and
the equalization task is limited to recover transmitted symbols
within a phase rotation. This incoherent scenario is the most
interesting one, even because coherent blind equalization tech-
niques, which attempt to jointly estimate both channel phase and
transmitted symbols, in general presents a convergence failure
rate too high for practical applications.
Finally, we outline that the novel CR based cooperative LMS
rule can be jointly used with any blind equalization CF.
SCARANO et al.: SECOND-ORDER STATISTICS DRIVEN LMS BLIND FRACTIONALLY SPACED CHANNEL EQUALIZATION
REFERENCES
[1] G. Ungerboeck, Fractional tap-spacing equalizer and consequences for
clock recovery in data modems, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 24, no. 8,
pp. 856864, Aug. 1976.
[2] D. N. Godard, Self-recovering equalization and carrier tracking in
two-dimensional data communication systems, IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 18671875, Nov. 1980.
[3] C. R. Johnson et al., The core of FSE-CMA behavior theory, in Unsu-
pervised Adaptive Filtering, vol. 2, S. Haykin, Ed. New York, NY, USA:
Wiley, 2000, pp. 13112.
[4] R. Cusani and A. Laurenti, Convergence analysis of the CMA blind
equalizer, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43, no. 24, pp. 13041307, Apr.
1995.
[5] S. Abrar and A. K. Nandi, Blind equalization of square-QAM sig-
nals: A multimodulus approach, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 158, no. 6,
pp. 16741685, Jun. 2010.
[6] Special issue on blind systems identification and estimation, Proc. IEEE,
vol. 86, Oct. 1998.
[7] S. Colonnese, G. Panci, and G. Scarano, Using SOS in blind Buss-
gang equalization for QAM systems, in Proc. IEEE 5th Workshop Signal
Process. Adv. Wireless Commun., Lisbon, Portugal, Jul. 2004, pp. 415
418.
[8] G. Jacovitti, G. Panci, and G. Scarano, Bussgang-zero crossing equal-
ization: An integrated HOS-SOS approach, IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 27982812, Dec. 2001.
[9] G. B. Giannakis and S. D. Haldford, Blind fractionally spaced
equalization of noisy FIR channels: Direct and adaptive solutions,
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 22772292, Sep.
1997.
[10] C. B. Papadias and D. T. M. Slock, Fractionally spaced equalization of
linear polyphase channels and related blind techniques based on multi-
channel linear prediction, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 47, no. 3,
pp. 641654, Mar. 1999.
[11] L. A. Baccala and S. Roy, A new blind time-domain channel identification
method based on cyclostationarity, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 1,
no. 6, pp. 8991, Jun. 1994.
[12] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computation, 3rd ed. Baltimore,
MD, USA: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1996.
[13] G. H. Wilkinson, The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem. London, U.K.: Ox-
ford Univ. Press, 1978.
165
[14] T. J. Endres, S. D. Halford, C. R. Johnson, Jr, and G. B. Giannakis,
Simulated comparison of blind equalization algorithms for cold start-
up applications, Int. J. Adaptive Control Signal Process., vol. 12,
pp. 283301, 1998.
[15] B. Widrow, J. McCool, and M. Ball, The complex LMS algorithm, Proc.
IEEE, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 719720, Apr. 1975.
[16] S. Bellini, Bussgang techniques for blind deconvolution and equaliza-
tion, in Blind Deconvolution, S. Haykin, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice Hall, 1994, pp. 859.
[17] G. Panci, S. Colonnese, P. Campisi, and G. Scarano, Fractionally spaced
Bussgang equalization for correlated input symbols: A Bussgang ap-
proach, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 18601869,
May 2005.
[18] W. Sethares, G. A. Rey, and C. R. Johnson, Approaches to blind equal-
ization of signals with multiple modulus, in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoustics,
Speech, Signal Process., Glasgow, U.K., May 1989, pp. 972975.
[19] M. J. Ready and R. P. Gooch, Blind equalization based on radius di-
rected adaptation, in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process.,
Albuquerque, NM, USA, Apr. 1990, pp. 16881702.
[20] J. J. Shynk, R. P. Gooch, G. Krishnamurthy, and C. K. Chan, A compar-
ative performance study of several blind equalization algorithms, Proc.
SPIE Adaptive Signal Process., vol. 102, pp. 102117, Dec. 1991.
[21] G. Scarano, Cumulant series expansion of hybrid non-linear moment of
complex random variables, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 39, no. 4,
pp. 291297, Apr. 1991.
[22] G. Scarano, D. Caggiati, and G. Jacovitti, Cumulant series expansion of
hybrid nonlinear moments of n variates, IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 486489, Jan. 1993.
[23] G. Panci, S. Colonnese, P. Campisi, and G. Scarano, Multichannel blind
image deconvolution using the Bussgang algorithm: Spatial and mul-
tiresolution approaches, IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 12, no. 11,
pp. 13241337, Nov. 2003.
[24] S. Colonnese, P. Campisi, G. Panci, and G. Scarano, Blind image de-
blurring driver by nonlinear processing in the edge domain, EURASIP J.
Appl. Signal Process., vol. 2004, no. 1, pp. 24622475, Jan. 2004.
[25] J. Arenas-Garca, L. A. Azpicueta-Ruiz, M. T. M. Silva, V. H. Nascimento,
and A. H. Sayed, Combinations of adaptive filters, IEEE Signal Process.
Mag., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 120140, Jan. 2016.
[26] W. B. Lopes and C. G. Lopes, Incremental-cooperative strategies in
combination of adaptive filters, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech
Signal Process., Prague, Czech Republic, May 2011, pp. 41324135.