Diagonally Loaded LMS Beamforming for Underwater Acoustic Arrays: Steady-State Limits and Robustness in Anisotropic, Impulsive, and Non-Stationary Noise

Sehrish Umer; Athar Rasool; Dr. Syed Irfan Hussian; Hanan Ahmad Saeed

Diagonally Loaded LMS Beamforming for Underwater Acoustic Arrays: Steady-State Limits and Robustness in Anisotropic, Impulsive, and Non-Stationary Noise

Sehrish, Athar Rasool, Dr. Syed Irfan Hussain, Hanan Ahmad Saeed

Vol. 13, Issue 10, PP. 72-83 October 2026

Keywords: Underwater acoustic communications, adaptive beamforming, LMS algorithm, diagonal loading, misadjustment, ambient-noise coherence, symmetric α-stable noise, interference suppression, underwater acoustic networks

Download PDF

Adaptive array processing is a key enabler of interference-resilient underwater acoustic (UWA) links, yet the noise seen by UWA receivers is spatially anisotropic, impulsive, and non-stationary, conditions under which low-complexity stochastic-gradient beamformers are poorly characterized. This paper analyzes the Griffiths-type least-mean-squares beamformer with diagonal loading and a power-normalized step size (LMS-DL) on a ten-element half-wavelength line array, and benchmarks it against sample-matrix-inversion (SMI-DL), normalized LMS (NLMS-DL), and exponentially weighted recursive-least-squares (EW-RLS-DL) beamformers. A closed-form approximation of the steady-state output signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of LMS-DL is derived. It shows that the misadjustment is driven by the total output power, so the SINR saturates at 10log₁₀(2/γ) dB for step-size parameter γ; Monte Carlo simulations show the prediction is conservative and accurate to within 0.75 dB at SNR ≤ 10 dB. For a 10 dB signal and interferers at 20 and 40 dB, LMS-DL settles 3.3 dB below the optimum after about 10⁴ snapshots, whereas SMI-DL comes within 1 dB in 681 snapshots. In Cron–Sherman surface-generated noise the optimum gains 7.4 dB over white noise; SMI-DL recovers 6.4 dB of this gain but LMS-DL only 2.5 dB. Symmetric α-stable noise with α = 1.2 costs LMS-DL 5.6 dB, a loss that per-snapshot normalization (NLMS-DL) reduces to 0.3 dB. LMS-DL tracks a moving 40 dB interferer (worst-case loss 4.1 dB) but not a moving 20 dB interferer (13.3 dB). A link budget with Thorp absorption and Wenz noise shows that converged LMS-DL extends the QPSK range at a bit-error rate (BER) of 10⁻³ from 3.4 km to 15.2 km (optimum 16.0 km), but leaves an error floor of 2–5×10⁻⁵ at short range. The analysis yields design rules for the step size and for SNR-dependent loading in UWA array receivers.

Sehrish Umer, , University of Engineering & Technology Lahore, Pakistan.
Athar Rasool, , Department of Nuclear Engineering Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences , Pakistan.
Dr. Syed Irfan Hussian, , Department of Nuclear Engineering Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences , Pakistan.
Hanan Ahmad Saeed, , Department of Nuclear Engineering Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences , .

Sehrish Athar Rasool Dr. Syed Irfan Hussain Hanan Ahmad Saeed “Recent Advantages of Chemiluminescence-Based Fully Automated Microfluidic Devi Vol. 13 Issue 10 PP. 72-83 October 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23322183.

I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, and T. Melodia, “Underwater acoustic sensor networks: Research challenges,” Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257–279, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2005.01.004.

[2] J. Heidemann, M. Stojanovic, and M. Zorzi, “Underwater sensor networks: Applications, advances and challenges,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 370, no. 1958, pp. 158–175, 2012, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0214.

[3] D. Pompili and I. F. Akyildiz, “Overview of networking protocols for underwater wireless communications,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 97–102, 2009, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2009.4752684.

[4] M. Stojanovic, “On the relationship between capacity and distance in an underwater acoustic communication channel,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 34–43, 2007, doi: 10.1145/1347364.1347373.

[5] D. B. Kilfoyle and A. B. Baggeroer, “The state of the art in underwater acoustic telemetry,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 4–27, 2000, doi: 10.1109/48.820733.

[6] M. Stojanovic and J. Preisig, “Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 84–89, 2009, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2009.4752682.

[7] P. van Walree, “Propagation and scattering effects in underwater acoustic communication channels,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 614–631, 2013, doi: 10.1109/JOE.2013.2278913.

[8] P. Qarabaqi and M. Stojanovic, “Statistical characterization and computationally efficient modeling of a class of underwater acoustic communication channels,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 701–717, 2013, doi: 10.1109/JOE.2013.2278787.

[9] M. Chitre, S. Shahabudeen, and M. Stojanovic, “Underwater acoustic communications and networking: Recent advances and future challenges,” Mar. Technol. Soc. J., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 103–116, 2008, doi: 10.4031/002533208786861263.

[10] Z. Li, M. Chitre, and M. Stojanovic, “Underwater acoustic communications,” Nat. Rev. Electr. Eng., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 83–95, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s44287-024-00122-w.