Introduction to Adaptive Filtering

Adaptive filtering involves the changing of filter parameters (coefficients) over time, to adapt to
changing signal characteristics. Over the past three decades, digital signal processors have made
great advances in increasing speed and complexity, and reducing power consumption. As a
result, real-time adaptive filtering algorithms are quickly becoming practical and essential for the
future of communications, both wired and wireless.
Adaptive Filtering Methodology
This section presents a brief description of how adaptive filters work and some of the
applications where they can be useful.
Adaptive filters self learn. As the signal into the filter continues, the adaptive filter coefficients
adjust themselves to achieve the desired result, such as identifying an unknown filter or
canceling noise in the input signal. In the figure below, the shaded box represents the adaptive
filter, comprising the adaptive filter and the adaptive recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm.
Block Diagram That Defines the Inputs and Output of a Generic RLS Adaptive Filter

The next figure provides the general adaptive filter setup with inputs and outputs.
Block Diagram Defining General Adaptive Filter Algorithm Inputs and Outputs
In electronics, crosstalk is any phenomenon by which a signal transmitted on one circuit or channel
of a transmission system creates an undesired effect in another circuit or channel. Crosstalk is
usually caused by undesired capacitive, inductive, or conductive coupling from one circuit, part of a
circuit, or channel, to another.

Near end crosstalk (NEXT)

NEXT is a measure of the ability of cabling to reject crosstalk. Interference between two pairs
in a cable is measured at the same end of the cable as the interfering transmitter. Crosstalk
is undesirable. In crosstalk, the signals traveling through adjacent pairs of wire in twisted-pair
cabling interfere with each other. The pair causing the interference is called the disturbing
pair, while the pair experiencing the interference is the disturbed pair. Channel NEXT is the
NEXT value measured between one wire pair and another in the same cable; NEXT is
measured at both ends of the wire. The NEXT value for a given cable type is generally
expressed in decibels per feet or decibels per 1000 feet. NEXT value varies with the
frequency of transmission. The higher the NEXT value, the greater the cables ability to reject
crosstalk at its local connection. Generally specifications for cabling (such as CAT 5) include
the minimum NEXT values.[1]
Power sum near end crosstalk (PSNEXT)
PSNEXT is a NEXT measurement which includes the sum of crosstalk contributions of all
adjacent pairs.[1] It is the algebraic sum of near-end crosstalk (NEXT) of three wire pairs as
they affect the fourth pair in a four-pair cable (e.g., Category 6 cable). The specification was
developed to directly address the effect of transmissions on multiple adjacent pairs on the
pair being tested and is relevant to all connecting hardware and associated communications
cables. [2]

Cabling bandwidths in excess of 100 MHz (Category 5 cable bandwidth) make consideration
of PSNEXT more important. Gigabit Ethernet through Cat-6 uses all four wire pairs
simultaneously and bidirectionally. The additional wire pair usage and growing bandwidth
increase the need to keep NEXT in check.
PSNEXT is a way of measuring NEXT in the ends of cables due to their close proximity. The
(cited) SMP white paper states that the testing process for PSNEXT consists of measuring
all pair-to-pair crosstalk combinations and then summing all of the values for each pair.
Far end crosstalk (FEXT)
Interference between two pairs of a cable measured at the other end of the cable with
respect to the interfering transmitter.[1]

The least mean squares (LMS) algorithms adjust the filter coefficients to minimize the cost function.
Compared to recursive least squares (RLS) algorithms, the LMS algorithms do not involve any matrix
operations. Therefore, the LMS algorithms require fewer computational resources and memory than the RLS
algorithms. The implementation of the LMS algorithms also is less complicated than the RLS algorithms.
However, the eigenvalue spread of the input correlation matrix, or the correlation matrix of the input signal,
might affect the convergence speed of the resulting adaptive filter.