1
$\begingroup$

Can any one help me in deriving the matrix inversion lemma rule for RLS algorithm?

I don't know how to start with. Many books have just stated but they haven't derived it.

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Peter K. Oct 28 '16 at 11:56

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Because, as you know, customarily its the result what you need in RLS (or any other engineering application of it) and not the derivation of matrix inversion Lemma. (You can of course check its validity by comparing its output to a usual matrix inversion). So then what's your purpose in deriving that? May be math.se is a more proper place for purely mathematical concerns, at least for the inversion lemma. Of course its derivation is given in some papers, but just for those who are curious about it :) $\endgroup$ – Fat32 Oct 28 '16 at 0:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Matrix inversion Lemma rule which are given in RLS equations(in most books eg Adaptive Filter Theory,Advance Digital Signal Processing and Noise reduction) are some what different from the standard rule given below. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_matrix_identity I am not able to relate them.Can you please help me what assumptions are being taken. $\endgroup$ – Abhishek Vazrekar Oct 28 '16 at 1:37
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest that you follow your book. The more general mathematical treatment shall not concern you from the applications point of view. There's no mystery about the proof. What is interesting is that historically this lemma was originally related to another lost, forgotton theorem, which the theorem is forgetten but its lemma stays useful. That's why people call it a funny thing :) nothing special but quite useful. $\endgroup$ – Fat32 Oct 28 '16 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ Please update your question with a) the MIL given for RLS equations vs the Woodbury derivation that you cannot reconcile it with. I'll reopen once I can read everything on this page. Also, the actual question may be off-topic for SE.SP... if so, I'll migrate it to somewhere better. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Oct 28 '16 at 11:56