This application is related to copending application titled EQUALIZER FOR HEAVILY CLIPPED OR COMPRESSED COMMUNICATIONS SIGNALS, Ser. No. 12/359,046, filed on Jan. 23, 2009, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety herein.
1. Field of the Invention
Embodiments of the invention generally relate to electronics, and in particular, to adaptive equalization of communications signals.
2. Description of the Related Art
Physical impairments can limit the effective transmission of data signals over communications channels. For example, channels can be frequency selective and can attenuate and phase shift the various frequency components of an input signal in a non-uniform manner, resulting in channel distortion. The corresponding impulse response of the channel can span several symbol intervals, which results in time-smearing and intersymbol interference (ISI). The ISI resulting from channel distortion, if left uncompensated, can cause high error rates.
One approach to handling ISI is to compensate for or reduce the ISI in the received signal with an equalizer. Various equalization techniques exist. For channels with relatively mild ISI impairments, a linear equalizer (LE) can be used. The linear equalizer is a sub-optimal equalizer structure implemented with a relatively simple finite impulse response (FIR) filter. It is popular because it has relatively low computational complexity compared to other equalizers, such as an equalizer based on optimal maximum likelihood sequence estimation (MLSE). The filter coefficients of a linear equalizer can be fixed and based on a known channel impulse response, or can be adaptively adjusted in response to channel characteristics, which can vary and can change over time. These linear equalizers are typically implemented digitally.
Many adaptive algorithms exist for finding relatively good or optimal equalizer tap coefficients depending on criteria, a-priori knowledge of channel characteristics, and the like. Adaptive algorithms include statistical methods for feature and model adaptation, which can be complex to implement. However, when the communication environment can be approximated with a Gaussian channel, the optimal equalizer taps can be determined by a relatively simple minimum mean-squared-error (MMSE) criterion. A linear MMSE receiver should minimize the error variance encountered at the slicer and consequently bit-error-rate (BER).
Minimum mean-squared-error (MMSE) is usually implemented with least-mean-square (LMS) algorithm, which is computationally efficient. Different variants of LMS such as block-LMS, leaky-LMS, sign (or clipped) LMS algorithms, normalized LMS, and the like, can alternatively be used. In this disclosure, reference to LMS adaptation includes all these variants.
Clipping is an example of a non-linear distortion that can severely impact linear equalizer performance. For example, an LMS algorithm is typically sensitive to a harsh non-linear distortion of the received signal. Unless clipping occurs rarely, such as less than 1% of the time, clipping will significantly reduce the performance of an LMS algorithm. Conventional techniques exist to avoid or ameliorate the effects of clipping.
For example, interpolation can be used. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,606,047 to Borjesson, et al. When dealing with the problem of equalizing clipped signals in OFDM systems that achieve reduced peak-to-average ratio by clipping and filtering the transmit signal, the effect of clipping noise at the receiver can be recreated to remove it from the incoming signal as presented in Bittner, S. et al. in Iterative Correction of Clipped and Filtered Spatially Multiplexed OFDM Signals, Proceedings of the 67th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Spring 2008, pp. 953-957, May 2008.
Other systems attempt to avoid equalizer operation in a non-linear region. See U.S. Pat. No. 7,336,729 to Agazzi and U.S. Pat. No. 7,346,119 to Gorecki, et al.
These equalizers are commonly used in serializer-deserializer (SERDES) applications. One application of SERDES is to transfer data over a backplane channel at a relatively high data rate.
Under the conditions of no correlations among the transmitted data, a Gaussian noise environment, and no non-linear distortions, the distortion from a channel having characteristics illustrated in
The 2-tap adaptive equalizer illustrated in
Assuming a Gaussian channel and an uncorrelated input sequence, the adaptation of the equalizer of
c0(k+1)=c0(k)+μ·e(k)·x(k) (Eq. 1A)
c1(k+1)=c1(k)+μ·e(k)·x(k−1) (Eq. 1B)
In Equations 1A and 1B, the symbol μ represents the adaptation step, and k is the time index. The LMS adaptation of equalizer taps [c0, c1] is driven by the input samples [x(k), x(k−1)] and the error signal e(k). The input samples x(k) are soft, such as, quantized to 3 bits or more by an analog-to-digital converter, but can be clipped or compressed as will be explained later. Soft information carried by those signals and a low bit error rate (BER) at the slicer output (hard) permit proper convergence of the algorithm.
For the adaptive equalizer illustrated in
e(k)=d(k)−y(k) (Eq. 2A)
y(k)=c0(k)·x(k)+c1(k)·x(k−1) (Eq. 2B)
Under ideal and near ideal conditions, an adaptive LMS algorithm will typically converge to a solution for the linear equalizer with optimal MMSE tap values (filter coefficients). For example, with the example channel illustrated in
However, when the received signal x(k) is severely distorted by harsh compression or clipping, the soft information relied upon for correct convergence will typically not be available. Under clipped conditions, the normally “soft” received signal x(k) can be modeled by x_clip(k), which can have a “hard” characteristic, as illustrated in Equation 3.
k×clip(k)=sign[x(k)]·nl_level (Eq 3)
The variable nl_level of Equation 3 depends on the communications channel input/output transfer. When the non-linearity is described by a limiter, the variable nl_level is equal to the clip level. Depending on the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) clipping level and the channel characteristics, various clipping rates, that is, the rate at which samples are clipped, can be encountered. In addition, a 2-tap equalizer can have 4 possible combinations of clipped/not-clipped symbol samples for [x(k) x(k−1)] that drive the adaptation algorithm. These combinations are: both samples clipped, both samples not clipped, and only one or the other sample clipped.
When the equalizer adaptation is driven by clipped samples, the resulting tap values generated by adaptation can vary significantly from the values for an optimal MMSE receiver. For example, with the example channel of
In a high-speed receiver such as a serializer-deserializer (SERDES), received symbols can be subject to inter-symbol-interference (ISI). An equalizer can compensate for ISI and improve a bit error rate (BER). However, traditional adaptive techniques to generate coefficients for equalization can generate corrupted coefficients when equalized samples used for adaptation are based on clipped or heavily compressed signals. In certain situations, the clipping rate can be relatively high, such as over 20%. Equalizer performance is improved when the equalized symbols used directly or indirectly for adaptation are selected such that equalized symbols based on clipped input samples are not used for adaptation.
While disclosed techniques can be used with high-speed SERDES devices, the techniques are not limited to SERDES. Disclosed techniques can be used in any communications or other system that encounters signal clipping and uses adaptive filtering. Advantageously, disclosed techniques can be implemented by relatively low-cost digital signal processing (DSP) techniques, which can be implemented in integrated circuits.
These drawings and the associated description herein are provided to illustrate specific embodiments of the invention and are not intended to be limiting.
Although particular embodiments are described herein, other embodiments of the invention, including embodiments that do not provide all of the benefits and features set forth herein, will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, while illustrated in the context of a post-cursor equalizer with 2 taps and heavily clipped signals, the principles and advantages described herein are applicable to more complex equalizers and also to other types of non-linearities.
When a received signal x(k) is heavily clipped at relatively high clipping rates, such as 20% or more, much of the soft information that is normally relied upon for equalizer application and adaptation becomes corrupted. Embodiments of the invention advantageously identify whether input samples have been clipped, and if so, then equalizer adaptation is not based on those samples. Even when equalizer adaptation is not based on clipped samples, the coefficient(s) generated are sensitive to the clipping rate because of the correlations introduced in selecting samples for adaptation.
As indicated in
In the illustrated example, the clipping rate would be 1 or 100% when the clipping level is set to 250 mV or below. At 100% clipping, it is impractical to compute coefficient values for equalizer taps because the soft information relied upon for adaptation will not be present. Note also that for clipping rates between about 0.2 and about 0.45, the adapted value for the coefficient c1(k) will typically be under equalized relative to the value calculated when there is no clipping. This knowledge can be used for modifying a calculated equalizer tap coefficient to improve system performance. While illustrated with one particular channel, adaptation for other channels that have dominant post-cursor behavior can be expected to be corrupted by clipping in a similar manner.
In one embodiment, equalizer adaptation is performed based only on samples determined not to be clipped. A subset of input symbols is selected and used for adaptive adjustment of filter tap coefficients. The selection of input symbols is equivalent to introducing correlations into the input bit sequence, which results in equalizer tap sensitivity to the clipping level (or clipping rate).
In another embodiment, the selective equalizer adaptation techniques described above are combined with selective equalization techniques described in copending and commonly-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/359,046. For example, in the context of a normalized single-tap equalizer, the equalization is decreased or eliminated when clipping and/or harsh compression is detected for the current samples x(k) or previous samples x(k−1). For example, one embodiment of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/359,046 provides: (1) no equalization when the current samples x(k) are clipped; (2) normal linear equalization, when neither the current x(k) nor previous samples x(k−1) is clipped; and (3) equalization with a weighted previously clipped sample (which is equivalent to tap weighting) when the current sample x(k) is not clipped.
An adaptation block 405, which can be implemented in firmware/software or hardware or by a combination of both firmware and hardware, is programmed or configured not to rely on clipped samples of the input samples x(k) for generating coefficients for an equalizer 406. The adaptation block 405 does not have to operate in real time. For example, the adaptation block 405 can generate coefficients for the linear equalizer based on stored data. When implemented in firmware, the adaptation block 405 can discard input samples x that are clipped from analysis. Otherwise, for non-clipped samples, the equalizer 406 is adapted to reduce the error signal e via, for example, minimum mean-squared-error (MMSE) techniques. The equalizer 406 has transfer function h.
An output of the equalizer 406 corresponds to equalized samples y which are then converted to hard symbols d by a slicer 408. The hard symbols d correspond to the output of the receiver and are also used to generate the error signal e and for timing recover TR 410. Various components illustrated in
One embodiment of the NLT processing block 404 uses states NLT_indicator0 and NLT_indicator−1, corresponding to the presence of clipping in the present samples x(k) or in the previous samples x(k−1), respectively, to enable or disable adaptation as described in Table 1.
In Table I, a ‘0’ indicates no clipping, while a ‘1’ indicates a clip or more generally, a sample x(k) or x(k−1) above the non-linear threshold (NLT). While illustrated in the context of a two tap equalizer (or normalized single tap equalizer), the principles and advantages of the disclosed techniques are extendable to equalizers with greater numbers of taps.
As described earlier in connection with
In
The equalizer 406 illustrated in
The weight w can be applied either to the coefficient c1(k) or to the previous samples x(k−1) as multiplication has an associative property. In addition, while illustrated as a multiplication within the equalizer in the embodiments of
In this example with under-equalization, by effectively decreasing the equalization applied at the second tap via the weight w, the adaptation logic 405 then generates a value for coefficient c1(k) that is higher than otherwise would be generated without the influence of the weight w, thereby effectively modifying the coefficient c1(k). While illustrated in the context of under-equalization, as illustrated in
The equalized symbols y(k) are based on the effectively modified coefficient c1(k), which is then sliced by the slicer 604 to generate hard symbols d(k) representing the data output. An alternative to adding the weight w within the feedback loop will be described later in connection with
When the channel characteristics are not known, the tap weighting can be determined heuristically by adjusting the weight values between 0.8 and 1, based on a predetermined fixed offset or automatically through a clipping rate monitor 602 that is adaptive.
An NLT processor 702 operates as described for the NLT processor 404 of
If it is desired to use weightN (wN) from the NLT processor 702 without the optional clipping rate monitor, then the equalized samples ya(k) are not generated, the slicer 408 is not needed, and rather, the error signal e(k) is based on a difference between the hard symbols d(k) and the equalized soft symbols y(k).
Returning to
In an alternative embodiment to the embodiments illustrated in
When the equalizer adaptation is performed as disclosed in the present application and the application of equalization to input samples x(k) equalizer application is selectively performed as described in copending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/359,046, the clipped equalizer performance is close to that of an equivalent linear MMSE receiver that operates in the same Gaussian environment without clipping. The results can be confirmed by determining the noise variance at the sampling instant in simulation, or by inspecting the data eye diagrams of the received signal and soft equalizer output sample y as discussed below.
As illustrated
The foregoing description and claims may refer to elements or features as being “connected” or “coupled” together. As used herein, unless expressly stated otherwise, “connected” means that one element/feature is directly or indirectly connected to another element/feature, and not necessarily mechanically. Likewise, unless expressly stated otherwise, “coupled” means that one element/feature is directly or indirectly coupled to another element/feature, and not necessarily mechanically. Thus, although the various schematics shown in the figures depict example arrangements of elements and components, additional intervening elements, devices, features, or components may be present in an actual embodiment (assuming that the functionality of the depicted circuits is not adversely affected).
As used herein, a “node” means any internal or external reference point, connection point, junction, signal line, conductive element, or the like at which a given signal, logic level, voltage, data pattern, current, or quantity is present. Furthermore, two or more nodes may be realized by one physical element (and two or more signals can be multiplexed, modulated, or otherwise distinguished even though received or provided as an output at a common node).
Various embodiments have been described above. Although described with reference to these specific embodiments, the descriptions are intended to be illustrative and are not intended to be limiting. Various modifications and applications may occur to those skilled in the art.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3792356 | Kobayashi et al. | Feb 1974 | A |
4170758 | Tamburelli | Oct 1979 | A |
4283788 | Tamburelli | Aug 1981 | A |
4789994 | Randall et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
5020078 | Crespo | May 1991 | A |
5058130 | Park | Oct 1991 | A |
5396519 | Betts | Mar 1995 | A |
5434884 | Rushing et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5524124 | Koenig | Jun 1996 | A |
5539774 | Nobakht et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5581585 | Takatori et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5594756 | Sakurai et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5608757 | Smith et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617450 | Kakuishi et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5675612 | Solve et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5748674 | Lim | May 1998 | A |
5903605 | Crittenden | May 1999 | A |
5991339 | Bazes et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6055269 | Drost et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6167082 | Ling et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6192072 | Azadet et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6307884 | Du et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6337878 | Endres et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6363112 | Azadet et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6384858 | Limberg | May 2002 | B1 |
6414990 | Jonsson et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418164 | Endres et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6426972 | Endres et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6452975 | Hannah | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6501792 | Webster | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6606047 | Borjesson et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6668014 | Endres et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6697423 | Jin et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6850563 | Hulyalkar et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
7136440 | Brianti et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7154946 | Katic | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7177352 | Plasterer et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7242712 | Katic | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7254198 | Manickam et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7266145 | Balasubramonian et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7336729 | Agazzi | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7339989 | McAdam et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7340006 | Yun et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7346119 | Gorecki | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7469003 | Papasakellariou | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7912151 | McAdam | Mar 2011 | B1 |
8428113 | Katic | Apr 2013 | B1 |
20020186916 | Bessios | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030063680 | Nedic et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20040001540 | Jones | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040234002 | Yang et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050243955 | Mondragon-Torres et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20080049825 | Chen et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2355639 | Apr 2001 | GB |
Entry |
---|
Bittner, et al.; Iterative Correction of Clipped and Filtered Spatially Multiplexed OFDM Signals; Proceedings of the 67th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC'08); May 2008; pp. 953-957, Singapore. |
Katic, et al; Equalizer For Heavily Clipped or Compressed Communications Signals; Specification and Drawings of related U.S. Appl. No. 12/359,046, filed Jan. 23, 2009. |
M.E. Austin; Decision Feedback Equalization for Digital Communication over Dispersive Channels; M.I.T./R.L.E. Tech. Rep. 461; Aug. 11, 1967. |
George, et al.; An Adaptive Decision Feedback Equalizer; IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology, vol. Com-19, No. 3, Jun. 1971. |
G. Ungerboeck; Fractional Tap-Spacing Equalizer and Consequences for Clock Recovery in Data Modems; IEEE Transactions on Communication s; vol. 24, Issue 8; pp. 856-864; Aug. 1976. |
Woo, et al; Advance Dual Decision Feedback Equalizer for Perpendicular Magnetic Recording Channel, Magnetic Conference; 2002; INTERMAG Europe 2002; IEEE; pp. GP4. |
J. Brown, P. Hurst, Bret Rothenberg, and S. Lewis, “A CMOS Adaptive Continuous-Time Forward Equalizer, LPF, and RAM-DFE for Magnetic Recording,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 34, No. 2, Feb. 1999, pp. 162-169. |
Y. Kim and H. Lee, “A Decision-Feedback Equalizer with Pattern-Dependent Feedback for Magnetic Recording Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 49, No. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 9-13. |
J. P. Leblanc and S. W. McLaughlin, “Enhanced RAM-Based Equalizers for Nonlinear Channels,” Conference Record of the Thirty-Second Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (Nov. 1-4, 1997, Pacific Grove, California). |
J. Bergmans, J. O. Voorman, and H. W. Wong-Lam, “Dual Decision Feedback Equalizer,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 45, No. 5, May 1997, pp. 514-518. |
Ming Jin, K. C. Indukumar, B. Farhang-Boroujeny, and G. Mathew, “Dual FDTS/DF: A Unified Approach to Dual-Detection and Modification for MTR Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 37 No. 3, May 2001, pp. 1175-1186. |
M. Chiani, “Introducing Erasures in Decision-Feedback Equalization to Reduce Error Propagation,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 45, No. 7, Jul. 1997, pp. 757-760. |
H. Yoo, S. Ong, C. Kang, and D. Hong, “Prediction Based Direct Blind Decision Feedback Equalization,” 2002 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Procession (27th), vol. 3, pp. 2481-2484. |
D. Raphaeli and A. Stark, “Partial Imaginary Precursor Cancelling in DFE for BPSK and GMSK Modulations,” European Transactions on Telecommunications, vol. 12-6, pp. 461-469, 2001. |
Qureshi, Shahid U. H.; Adaptive Equalization; Proceedings of the IEEE; vol. 73, No. 9; Sep. 1985; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; pp. 1349-1381. |
USPTO; Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2012, from related U.S. Appl. No. 12/359,046, filed Jan. 23, 2009. |