arXiv:1711.04973v1 [math.OC] 14 Nov 2017

A Robust Variable Step Size Fractional Least Mean
Square (RVSS-FLMS) Algorithm
Shujaat Khana,b , Muhammad Usmanb , Imran Naseemc,d,∗, Roberto Tognerid,
Mohammed Bennamoune
a Department

of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
b Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology (FEST), Iqra University, Defence View,
Karachi-75500, Pakistan.
c College of Engineering, Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology, Korangi Creek,
Karachi 75190, Pakistan.
d School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, The University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia.
e School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Western
Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia.

Abstract
In this paper, we propose an adaptive framework for the variable step size of
the fractional least mean square (FLMS) algorithm. The proposed algorithm
named the robust variable step size-FLMS (RVSS-FLMS), dynamically updates
the step size of the FLMS to achieve high convergence rate with low steady
state error. For the evaluation purpose, the problem of system identification is
considered. The experiments clearly show that the proposed approach achieves
better convergence rate compared to the FLMS and adaptive step-size modified
FLMS (AMFLMS).
Keywords: Least mean square (LMS), fractional calculus, plant identification,
channel equalization, fractional LMS (FLMS), modified fractional LMS
(MFLMS), adaptive step-size modified fractional LMS (AMFLMS), robust
variable step size FLMS (RVSS-FLMS), robust variable step size (RVSS), high
convergence, low steady state error, adaptive filter.
∗ Corresponding

author
Email addresses: shujaat@kaist.ac.kr (Shujaat Khan), musman@iqra.edu.pk
(Muhammad Usman), imran.naseem@uwa.edu.au (Imran Naseem),
roberto.togneri@uwa.edu.au (Roberto Togneri), mohammed.bennamoun@uwa.edu.au
(Mohammed Bennamoun)

Preprint submitted to 13th IEEE Colloquium on Signal Processing & its ApplicationsNovember 15, 2017

1. Introduction
The standard integral and derivative are essential tools of calculus used by
the professionals dealing with the natural or artificial systems. The fractional
order calculus (FOC) however extends the traditional definitions which are limited to integer values. The FOC is as old as classical calculus, however, the
applications of the FOC in the areas of engineering and research have become
more popular in the last decade. New areas are emerging as both theoretical
and practical aspects of the FOC operators are now well established. Fractional
calculus has turned out to be an important tool in various fields [1], [2].
Liouville, Reimann and Leibniz, amongst others, are considered to be the
pioneers of fractional calculus [3]. In the late 19th century Heaviside made the
use of fractional derivatives in transmission lines and gave the solution for the
diffusion equation. In the recent years fractional calculus has been applied to
the problem of path tracking in autonomous vehicles [4]. In [5] the concept
of pulses propagating through porous media is proposed with an experimental
proof for a theoretical model based on fractional derivatives. Fractional calculus is also applied in the theory of viscoelasticity [6]. In the field of image
processing fractional differentiation has been used for a number of tasks such as
edge detection [7]. In the domain of signal processing FOC has found a number
of useful applications. Adaptive filtering for instance, has been the main focus
of research in this context. In [8] an FOC based least mean square algorithm
named the fractional least mean square (FLMS) is proposed. The FLMS is compared with the least mean square (LMS) algorithm for the problem of system
identification.
In the recent past, various modifications have been proposed for the conventional FLMS [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. In this paper a modified FLMS based
algorithm is proposed. The proposed method is named the robust variable step
size fractional least mean square (RVSS-FLMS) and is inspired by the variable
learning rate LMS (RVSS-LMS) [17]. The RVSS-FLMS algorithm dynamically
2

adapts the learning rate of FLMS using the instantaneous error energy to achieve
high convergence rate and low steady state error. The proposed algorithm is
evaluated on the problem of system identification and is compared with the conventional FLMS and adaptive step-size modified fractional least mean square
(AMFLMS) algorithm. The rest of the paper is organized as follows : In section
2 a brief literature review of modified least mean square algorithms is provided.
In section 3 the proposed RVSS-FLMS algorithm is discussed followed by the
experiments in section 4. The paper is concluded in section 5.

2. Least Mean Square
The statistics in the LMS are estimated continuously, therefore it is an adaptive filter belonging to the group of stochastic gradient methods. Extensive
research is done towards optimization of the LMS algorithm by numerous researchers [9, 18, 19, 20, 21]. LMS is applied in diversified applications such as
plant identification [8], noise cancellation [22], echo cancellation [23], ECG signal analysis [24], time series prediction [25] etc. Achieving fast convergence and
low steady state error is a challenge, various researchers have proposed different
solutions for this. One of the disadvantages of the LMS is that it is sensitive
to the scaling of its input [26]. A variant of the LMS algorithm the normalised
least mean squares filter (NLMS) solves this problem through normalization.
In [27], an optimized NLMS filter is proposed to achieve a tradeoff between the
convergence rate and tracking. In [28] q-LMS is proposed which utilizes the
q-gradient from the Jackson’s derivative so that secant of the cost function is
computed instead of the tangent. The algorithm therefore takes larger steps
towards the optimum solution and therefore achieves the higher convergence
rates. For the optimal processing of complex signals, linear modelling in complex numbers is utilized by [29]. For the complex domain adaptive filtering an
augmented complex least mean square (ACLMS) is proposed.
In [21] fractional least mean square (FLMS) is proposed for parameter estimation of input non-linear control autoregressive (INCAR) or Hammerstein

3

non-linear controlled auto regression models based on fractional signal processing approach. Unknown parameters are estimated by applying the FLMS algorithm having different step sizes. The algorithm provides better convergence
results when compared to the volterra least mean square (VLMS) and kernel
least mean square (KLMS). A modified structure of the FLMS, for the prediction of chaotic and non-stationary time series, named the modified fractional
least mean square (MFLMS) is proposed in [10]. The algorithm incorporates
the adjustable gain parameter thereby avoiding some complex calculations and
with reduced computational expense. The MFLMS is tested on stationary and
non-stationary time series with different noise levels and has shown improved
results compared to the LMS and FLMS. In [11] the adaptive weight gain parameters are incorporated by implementing a gradient-based approach on the
variable learning scheme. Implementation of this approach changes the nature
of the order of fractional derivative in MFLMS from fixed to adaptive. The
adaptive nature of the adjustable parameters may help the filters in handling
the problems with non-linear nature. They proposed adaptive step-size modified
fractional least mean square (AMFLMS) and demonstrated the improvements
by comparing their algorithm with the LMS, FLMS and MFLMS.
In this research we propose to utilize the concept of robust variable step size
(RVSS) [17] for the variable learning rate of the FLMS algorithm. The proposed
scheme is robust and computationally less expensive. For the performance evaluation we consider the problem of the system identification and compare our
results with the FLMS and AMFLMS algorithm.
3. Proposed RVSS FLMS
In [8] the weight update equation for the fractional LMS (FLMS) is given
as:
wk (n + 1) = wk (n) − ν

∂J(n)
− νf
∂wk



∂
∂wk

f

J(n)

(1)

where wk (n) is the weight of the k th tap at the nth iteration, f is the fractional power of derivative, and ν and νf are the step sizes.
4

J(n) =

1
1
e(n)2 = (d(n) − y(n))2
2
2

(2)

J(n) is the cost function defined in Eq. (2), where e(n) is the instantaneous
error between the desired output d(n) and the estimated output y(n) at the nth
iteration.
Now, the

∂J(n)
is defined as :
∂wk
∂J(n) ∂e(n) ∂y(n)
∂J(n)
=
∂wk
∂e
∂y ∂wk

(3)

f
∂
J(n), the methods of chain rule
∂wk
can be defined in various ways. The modified Rieman-Lioville based definition of
For the fractional derivative term



the fractional chain rule i.e Dxν f (g(x)) = (Dg1 f (g))g=g(x) Dxν g(x), as suggested
in [30], is one of the well known techniques. This definition has shown good
results in various applications of fractional calculus. For example, in [30] for the
fractional Taylor series of non differentiable functions, [31] for the derivation of
further fractional order derivatives, [32] for system modeling and others [33, 34,
35, 36].


Using the modified Rieman-Lioville chain rule for fractional derivatives, the
f
∂
J(n) term is defined as :
∂wk


∂
∂wk

f

J(n) =

∂J(n) ∂e(n)
∂e
∂y



∂
∂wk

f

y(n)

(4)

solving Eq. (3) results in :
∂J(n)
= −e(n)x(n)
∂wk

(5)

According to the Rieman-Lioville fractional derivative method :
1
D f (t) =
Γ (n − v)
v



d
dt

n Zt
0

5

(t − τ )(n−v−1) f (τ )dτ

(6)

Dv (t − a)α =

Γ (1 + α)
(t − a)(α−v)
Γ (1 + α − v)

(7)

where α−v +1 > 0, D is the differential operator and v is a real number defining
the fractional power of the derivative.
Using Eq. (7), Eq. (4) can be reduced to:



∂
∂wk

f

(1−f )

J(n) = −e(n)x(n)

wk
(n)
Γ (2 − f )

(8)

Using Eq. (5) and (8) the weight update Eq. (1) becomes :

wk (n + 1) = wk (n) + νe(n)x(n) + νf e(n)x(n)

wk1−f (n)
Γ (2 − f )

(9)

Note that the result in Eq. (9) is similar to the FLMS algorithm results [10, 11,
21], obtained from the alternative method of fractional derivatives to avoid the
chain rule.
For simplicity, in Eq. (9), we consider νf = νΓ (2 − f ) and this results in :
wk (n + 1) = wk (n) + νe(n)x(n) + νe(n)x(n)wk1−f (n)

(10)



wk (n + 1) = wk (n) + νe(n)x(n) 1 + wk1−f (n)

(11)

For the time varying step size ν can be replaced by ν(n)


wk (n + 1) = wk (n) + ν(n)e(n)x(n) 1 + wk1−f (n)

(12)

For the adaptation of learning rate, we proposed to use the concept of error energy correlation of RVSS-LMS algorithm [17]. The update rule for the
time varying learning rate ν(n) in the proposed robust variable step size-FLMS
(RVSS-FLMS) is defined as:
ν(n + 1) = βν(n) + γp2 (n)

6

(13)

where (0 < β < 1), (γ > 0), p(n) is the average error energy correlation and
ν(n + 1) is set to νmin or νmax

p(n) = αp(n − 1) + (1 − α)e(n)e(n − 1)

(14)

The positive constant α (0 < α < 1) is a weighting parameter that governs
the averaging time constant. It is referred to as the forgetting factor. The limits
on ν(n + 1) are given by :

ν(n + 1) =

where νmax > νmin > 0.







νmax

if ν(n + 1) > νmax

νmin if ν(n + 1) < νmin



 ν(n + 1)
otherwise

(15)

4. Simulation Setup and Results
For the evaluation of the proposed method the problem of plant identification
is considered. The modeling of a linear system is an interesting problem. Sometimes it is desired to model the system as a linear filter to avoid unnecessary
complexity. The adaptive learning methods like LMS, achieves good performance in this regard [8, 18, 21, 27]. To evaluate the efficacy of the proposed
robust variable step size-FLMS (RVSS-FLMS), we consider a linear system,
shown in Fig. 1:
y(n) = a1 x(n) + a2 x(n − 1) + a3 x(n − 2) + d(n)

(16)

Eq. (16) shows the mathematical model of the system, where x(n) is the
input and y(n) is the output of the system, d(n) is the disturbance model
assumed to be N (0, σd2 ), ai ’s represent the polynomial coefficients depicting the
zeros of the system. For the said experiment, x(n) is a binary shift keying
(BPSK) modulated random sequence comprising 600 samples. In Fig. 1, the
impulse response of the system is defined by h(n) while ŷ(n) is the estimated
output, ĥ(n) is the estimated impulse response and e(n) is the estimation error.
7

Figure 1: System identification using adaptive learning algorithm.

The simulation parameters selected for the experiments are: a1 = 0.9, a2 =
0.3, a3 = −0.1. The experiments are performed on four noise levels with the
following SNR values 10 dB, 20 dB, 30 dB, and 40 dB.
For the model design, the number of taps were chosen to be 3. The weights
were initialized with a small value of 1×10−20 . For the fractional LMS (FLMS),
adaptive step-size modified fractional least mean square (AMFLMS) and RVSSFLMS the initial values of ν(n) and νf (n) for n = 0 set to 1 × 10−4 and the
fractional power f (n) for n = 0 was taken to be 0.5. For the AMFLMS, Ψk , Ψk,f
and Φk,f were initialized with a small value of 1 × 10−15 . The mixing parameter
β of AMFLMS was set to 0.5 and the adaptation rates α, αf and αf r were all
set to 1 × 10−13 . For the proposed RVSS-FLMS the values of α, β and γ were all
set to 0.5. The value of νmax and νmin are chosen to be 3 × 10−4 and 1 × 10−4
respectively.
The experiments were performed on four noise levels and the mean square
error (MSE) curves are depicted in Fig. 2. For the SNR values of 10 dB, 20 dB,
30 dB and 40 dB the RVSS-FLMS produced the best performance, achieving
an MSE of −10.22 dB, −20.26 dB, −29.70 dB and −37.68 dB in around 20,
38, 60 and 65 iterations respectively. The conventional FLMS converged to the
MSE value of −10.21 dB, −20.25 dB, −29.71 dB and −37.58 dB in around 45,
60, 80 and 90 iterations respectively. Whereas the AMFLMS converged to the
MSE value of −10.22 dB, −20.27 dB, −29.71 dB and −37.60 dB in around 80,

8

100, 120 and 140 iterations respectively. The convergence rate of the proposed
RVSS-FLMS algorithm is therefore found to be superior the FLMS and the
AMFLMS algorithms.
For the fair evaluation of the proposed algorithm, another well known performance measurement parameter called the normalized weight difference (NWD),
was used. The NWD is a comparative measure between the actual impulse
response and the identified weights. The experiments were performed on four
noise levels for which the NWD curves are depicted in Fig. 3. For the SNR
value of 10 dB, 20 dB, 30 dB and 40 dB the RVSS-FLMS produced high convergence and low steady state error, achieving an NWD value of −16.21 dB,
−20.00 dB, −25.06 dB and −28.52 dB in approximately 35, 60, 95 and 100
iterations respectively. The FLMS converges to the NWD value of −15.81 dB,
−20.09 dB, −25.06 dB and −28.91 dB in approximately 60, 85, 120 and 105
iterations respectively. Whereas the AMFLMS converges to the NWD value
of −15.67 dB, −20.12 dB, −25.00 dB and −29.02 dB in approximately 120,
175, 200 and 200 iterations respectively. The proposed algorithm has therefore
shown to comprehensively outperform the FLMS and AMFLMS algorithms.
For the purpose of time-complexity comparison of the proposed algorithm
with the FLMS and AFLMS, we investigated the training time of FLMS, AMFLMS and RVSS-FLMS for 200 iterations. The proposed method utilized 2.05
seconds whereas the FLMS and AMFLMS took 1.87 seconds and 11.06 seconds
respectively. All the experiments were conducted using Matlab on an Intel(R)
Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.5GHz machine with 16GB memory. Although the
proposed algorithm took a few milliseconds more than the FLMS but the experiments clearly show that the proposed robust approach dynamically adapts
the learning rate to achieve the minimum steady state error in lesser number of
iterations. The summary results for all simulations is showed in Table 1.

9

0
FLMS (10dB)
AMFLMS (10dB)
RVSS−FLMS (10dB)

−5

−10

FLMS (20dB)
AMFLMS (20dB)
RVSS−FLMS (20dB)

−5
MSE (dB)

MSE (dB)

0

−10
−15
−20

−15
0

50

100
150
Iterations

−25
0

200

100
150
Iterations

200

0
FLMS (30dB)
AMFLMS (30dB)
RVSS−FLMS (30dB)

−10

−20

FLMS (40dB)
AMFLMS (40dB)
RVSS−FLMS (40dB)

−10
MSE (dB)

MSE (dB)

0

50

−20
−30

−30
0

50

100
150
Iterations

−40
0

200

50

100
150
Iterations

200

0
FLMS (10dB)
AMFLMS (10dB)
RVSS−FLMS (10dB)

−5
−10
−15
−20
0

50

100
150
Iterations

200

0
FLMS (30dB)
AMFLMS (30dB)
RVSS−FLMS (30dB)

−10

−20

−30
0

50

100
150
Iterations

200

Normalized weight difference (dB) Normalized weight difference (dB)

Normalized weight difference (dB) Normalized weight difference (dB)

Figure 2: System identification: The MSE curves for various methods.

0
FLMS (20dB)
AMFLMS (20dB)
RVSS−FLMS (20dB)

−5
−10
−15
−20
−25
0

50

100
150
Iterations

200

0
FLMS (40dB)
AMFLMS (40dB)
RVSS−FLMS (40dB)

−10

−20

−30
0

50

100
150
Iterations

200

Figure 3: System identification: The normalized weight difference curves for various methods.

10

Table 1: Results for plant identification problem
(Iterations, MSE) for SNR values

Algorithm
10 dB

20 dB

(Iterations, NWD) for SNR values

30 dB

40 dB

10 dB

Time (seconds)

20 dB

30 dB

40 dB

FLMS

(45, -10.21 dB)

(60, -20.25 dB)

(80, -29.71 dB)

(90, -37.58 dB)

(60, -15.81 dB)

(85, -20.09 dB)

(120, -25.06 dB)

(105, -28.91 dB)

1.87

AMFLMS

(80, -10.22 dB)

(100, -20.27 dB)

(120, -29.71 dB)

(140, -37.6 dB)

(120, -15.67 dB)

(175, -20.12 dB)

(200, -25.00 dB)

(200, -29.02 dB)

11.06

RVSS-FLMS

(20, -10.22 dB)

(38, -20.26 dB)

(60, -29.70 dB)

(65, -37.68 dB)

(35, -16.21 dB)

(60, -20.00 dB)

(95, -25.06 dB)

(100, -28.52 dB)

2.05

5. Conclusion
In this research an adaptive least mean square algorithm based on fractional
derivative is proposed. In particular, the step size of the fractional LMS (FLMS)
is made adaptive using the concept of robust variable step size. For this purpose
the concept of robust variable step size is utilized. The performance evaluation
of the proposed approach is done by implementing it for the problem of system
identification with different noise levels. The results of the proposed algorithm
are compared to the FLMS and adaptive step-size modified fractional least
mean square (AMFLMS) approaches. The proposed algorithm attains better
convergence rate and steady-state error and is therefore found to be superior to
the FLMS and AMFLMS algorithms.
References
References
[1] A. Loverro, Fractional calculus: history, definitions and applications for
the engineer, Rapport technique, Univeristy of Notre Dame: Department
of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering.
[2] R. E. Gutiérrez, J. M. Rosário, J. Tenreiro Machado, Fractional order calculus: basic concepts and engineering applications, Mathematical Problems
in Engineering 2010.
[3] J. Liouville, Mémoire sur le changement de la variable indépendante, dans
le calcul des différentielles a indices quelconques, 1835.
[4] J. I. Suárez, B. M. Vinagre, A. Calderón, C. Monje, Y. Chen, Using fractional calculus for lateral and longitudinal control of autonomous vehicles,
11

in: International Conference on Computer Aided Systems Theory, Springer,
2003, pp. 337–348.
[5] Z. Fellah, C. Depollier, M. Fellah, Application of fractional calculus to the
sound waves propagation in rigid porous materials: validation via ultrasonic
measurements, Acta Acustica united with Acustica 88 (1) (2002) 34–39.
[6] E. Soczkiewicz, Application of fractional calculus in the theory of viscoelasticity, Molecular and Quantum Acoustics 23 (2002) 397–404.
[7] B. Mathieu, P. Melchior, A. Oustaloup, C. Ceyral, Fractional differentiation
for edge detection, Signal Processing 83 (11) (2003) 2421–2432.
[8] R. M. A. Zahoor, I. M. Qureshi, A modified least mean square algorithm
using fractional derivative and its application to system identification, European Journal of Scientific Research 35 (1) (2009) 14–21.
[9] Y. Tan, Z. He, B. Tian, A novel generalization of modified lms algorithm to
fractional order, Signal Processing Letters, IEEE 22 (9) (2015) 1244–1248.
[10] B. Shoaib, I. M. Qureshi, I. , S. , A modified fractional least mean square
algorithm for chaotic and nonstationary time series prediction, Chinese
Physics B 23 (3) (2014) 030502.
[11] B. Shoaib, I. M. Qureshi, S. , I. , Adaptive step-size modified fractional least
mean square algorithm for chaotic time series prediction, Chinese Physics
B 23 (5) (2014) 050503.
[12] S. Zhou, H. Zhao, W. Wang, A fraction normalized subband adaptive filter
algorithm, in: Control Conference (CCC), 2016 35th Chinese, TCCT, 2016,
pp. 3095–3098.
[13] S. Cheng, Y. Wei, Y. Chen, L. Xiaojian, Y. Wang, A novel fractional order
normalized lms algorithm with direction optimization, IFAC-PapersOnLine
49 (9) (2016) 180–185.

12

[14] N. I. Chaudhary, M. A. Z. Raja, M. S. Aslam, N. Ahmed, Novel generalization of volterra lms algorithm to fractional order with application to
system identification, Neural Computing and Applications (2016) 1–18.
[15] M. Geravanchizadeh, S. Ghalami Osgouei, Speech enhancement by modified convex combination of fractional adaptive filtering, Iranian Journal of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering 10 (4) (2014) 256–266.
[16] J. Ahmad, M. Usman, S. Khan, I. Naseem, H. J. Syed, Rvp-flms : A
robust variable power fractional lms algorithm, in: 2016 IEEE International
Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE),
IEEE, 2016.
[17] T. Aboulnasr, K. Mayyas, A robust variable step-size lms-type algorithm:
analysis and simulations, IEEE Transactions on signal processing 45 (3)
(1997) 631–639.
[18] M. A. Z. Raja, N. I. Chaudhary, Two-stage fractional least mean square
identification algorithm for parameter estimation of carma systems, Signal
Processing 107 (2015) 327–339.
[19] A. Khalili, A. Rastegarnia, S. Sanei, Quantized augmented complex leastmean square algorithm: Derivation and performance analysis, Signal Processing 121 (2016) 54–59.
[20] A. Khalili, A. Rastegarnia, W. M. Bazzi, Z. Yang, Derivation and analysis
of incremental augmented complex least mean square algorithm, Signal
Processing, IET 9 (4) (2015) 312–319.
[21] N. I. Chaudhary, M. A. Z. Raja, J. A. Khan, M. S. Aslam, Identification
of input nonlinear control autoregressive systems using fractional signal
processing approach, The Scientific World Journal 2013.
[22] J. M. Górriz, J. Ramı́rez, S. Cruces-Alvarez, C. G. Puntonet, E. W. Lang,
D. Erdogmus, A novel lms algorithm applied to adaptive noise cancellation,
IEEE Signal Processing Letters 16 (1) (2009) 34–37.
13

[23] J. Benesty, S. L. Gay, An improved pnlms algorithm, in: Acoustics, Speech,
and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2002 IEEE International Conference on,
Vol. 2, IEEE, 2002, pp. II–1881.
[24] N. V. Thakor, Y.-S. Zhu, Applications of adaptive filtering to ecg analysis: noise cancellation and arrhythmia detection, IEEE transactions on
biomedical engineering 38 (8) (1991) 785–794.
[25] W. Liu, P. P. Pokharel, J. C. Principe, The kernel least-mean-square algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 56 (2) (2008) 543–554.
[26] S. C. Douglas, A family of normalized lms algorithms, IEEE signal processing letters 1 (3) (1994) 49–51.
[27] S. Ciochin, C. Paleologu, J. Benesty, An optimized {NLMS} algorithm for
system identification, Signal Processing 118 (2016) 115 – 121.
[28] U. M. Al-Saggaf, M. Moinuddin, A. Zerguine, An efficient least mean
squares algorithm based on q-gradient, in: Signals, Systems and Computers, 2014 48th Asilomar Conference on, IEEE, 2014, pp. 891–894.
[29] S. Javidi, M. Pedzisz, S. L. Goh, D. P. Mandic, The augmented complex
least mean square algorithm with application to adaptive prediction problems 1, in: Cognitive Information Processing, 2008 1st IAPR Workshop on,
EURASIP, 2008.
[30] G. Jumarie, Modified riemann-liouville derivative and fractional taylor series of nondifferentiable functions further results, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 51 (9) (2006) 1367–1376.
[31] G. Jumarie, Table of some basic fractional calculus formulae derived from
a modified riemann-liouville derivative for non-differentiable functions, Applied Mathematics Letters 22 (3) (2009) 378–385.
[32] G. Jumarie, On the derivative chain-rules in fractional calculus via fractional difference and their application to systems modelling, Open Physics
11 (6) (2013) 617–633.
14

[33] G. Jumarie, The minkowski’s space-time is consistent with differential geometry of fractional order, Physics Letters A 363 (1) (2007) 5–11.
[34] G. Jumarie, Lagrangian mechanics of fractional order, hamilton-jacobi fractional pde and taylors series of nondifferentiable functions, Chaos, Solitons
& Fractals 32 (3) (2007) 969–987.
[35] G. Jumarie, Probability calculus of fractional order and fractional taylors
series application to fokker-planck equation and information of non-random
functions, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 40 (3) (2009) 1428–1448.
[36] G. Jumarie, An approach via fractional analysis to non-linearity induced
by coarse-graining in space, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications
11 (1) (2010) 535–546.

15

