Noise parameter determination of scalable devices

Abstract

A method to determine noise parameters of a scalable device, is presented in which the determination of the noise parameters of the scalable device is independent of the model adopted for the device. The scalable device is connected as part of a test circuit including a noise source, a recirculator, a first power detector and a second power detector. The first power detector is connected to the recirculator and between the noise source and the scalable device and the second detector is connected to the device under test.

Claims

1. A method for determining noise parameters of a scalable device, wherein the determination of the noise parameters of the scalable device is independent of model adopted for the device, the method comprising: taking a measurement, wherein taking the measurement comprises: detecting, using a first power detector, a first noise power, wherein the first noise power is generated by a device under test (DUT) and is directed, by a recirculator, to the first power detector, and detecting, using a second power detector, a second noise power, wherein the second noise power is generated by the DUT and is directed, by the DUT, to the second power detector; changing a size of the DUT and repeating the measurement; and determining the noise parameters based on the first noise power, the second noise power, wherein the noise parameters include a noise figure from the noise source to the first power detector, and wherein determining the noise parameters comprises determining the noise figure based on a correlation matrix of noise parameters for the DUT.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the noise figure is a first noise figure F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1, and wherein determining the noise parameters comprises: determining the first noise figure F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1 from a noise source, coupled to the recirculator, to the first power detector; and determining a second noise figure F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2 from the noise source to the second power detector.

3. The method of claim 2, further comprising simultaneously determining F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1 and F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2.

4. The method of claim 2, further comprising determining F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1 based on the equation: $F_{S.fwdarw.PD1}\left(W\right)=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}.$

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising determining F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2 based on the equation: $F_{S.fwdarw.PD2}\left(W\right)=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}.$

6. The method of claim 5, wherein C.sub.dev is the correlation matrix of 4 noise parameters, wherein y.sub.s represents source admittance of the noise source, wherein + represents a Hermitian conjugate matrix operation, and wherein N.sub.i represents the first noise power.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the noise parameters comprises determining 4 noise parameters.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the scalable device is configured to measure noise parameters for DUTs of different sizes W, and wherein the correlation matrix is a function of sizes W.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the noise figure is a function of sizes W.

10. A device for detecting noise parameters, the device comprising: a noise source; a recirculator coupled to the noise source; a device under test (DUT) coupled to the recirculator, wherein the DUT is configured to generate a first noise power and a second noise power, wherein the DUT is configured to be replaceable; a first power detector coupled to the recirculator and further coupled between the noise source and the DUT, wherein the recirculator is configured to direct the first noise power to the first power detector; and a second power detector coupled to the DUT, wherein the DUT is configured to direct the second noise power to the second power detector, wherein the device is configured to determine a noise figure from the noise source to the first power detector based on a correlation matrix of noise parameters for the DUT.

11. The device of claim 10, wherein the noise figure is a first noise figure F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1, and wherein the device is further configured to determine a second noise figure F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2 from the noise source to the second power detector.

12. The device of claim 11, wherein the device is configured to simultaneously determine F.sub.D.fwdarw.PD1 and F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2.

13. The device of claim 11, wherein the device is configured to determine F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1 based on the equation: $F_{S.fwdarw.PD1}\left(W\right)=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}.$

14. The device of claim 13, wherein the device is configured to determine F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2 based on the equation: $F_{S.fwdarw.PD2}\left(W\right)=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}.$

15. The device of claim 14, wherein C.sub.dev is the correlation matrix of 4 noise parameters, wherein y.sub.s represents source admittance of the noise source, wherein + represents a Hermitian conjugate matrix operation, and wherein N.sub.i represents the first noise power.

16. The device of claim 10, wherein the device is configured to determine 4 noise parameters of the DUT based on the first noise power and the second noise power.

17. The device of claim 10, wherein the device is configured to measure noise parameters for DUTs of different sizes W, and wherein the correlation matrix is a function of sizes W.

18. The device of claim 17, wherein the noise figure is a function of sizes W.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

(1) FIG. 1 is a fairly general representation of a noise measurement setup aiming at the experimental determination of the DUT's noise figure F.sub.m or its equivalent noise temperature T.sub.e,m at each size W.sub.m. The noise measurement does not include the contribution of the load, which is accounted for during calibration and subtracted out of the noise quantity measured by the receiver. This analysis will consider a noiseless load (i.e., receiver) by setting the load's normalized equivalent noise temperature t.sub.L=0 to obtain I.sub.L=0.

(2) FIG. 2 shows simulation results of a scalable passive network. The table in (a) corresponds to five arbitrary sizes selected with the sole purpose of implementing DUT scalability. (a) Passive, scalable DUT schematic used as verification example. (b) Noise parameters in normalized admittance Y (top row) and scattering S (bottom row) representations.

(3) FIG. 3 shows a circuit generalization of the DUT measurement for verification purpose. (a) Extrinsic and intrinsic circuits; (b) DUT's extrinsic (network A) and intrinsic (network B) representation in a commercial simulator.

(4) FIG. 4 shows a graph providing verification that det(A.sup.†A)=0 for the intrinsic circuit of FIG. 3.

(5) FIG. 5 shows an exemplary test circuit.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

(6) A noisy linear two-port network can be described and analyzed in any representation of choice because they are equivalent in carrying the same information. However, some representations are more favorable than others when applied to particular cases or applications. For example, a scattering parameter representation is the standard choice for microwave DUT characterization; a transmission parameter representation, on the other hand, facilitates the analysis of cascaded networks.

(7) The analysis herein will be developed in admittance parameter representation because of the direct proportionality of the Y parameters with size.

(8) However, we are conscious that measurement equipment relies on scattering parameters, and for that reason, the characteristic impedance of the scattering parameter measurement system may also be considered in our discussion. Finally, as it is customary with microwave measurement systems, the characteristic impedance Z.sub.0=1/Y.sub.0 is assumed to be real.

(9) FIG. 1 represents an idealized noise measurement setup consisting of a noisy source, a noisy scalable DUT, and a noisy receiver or load. The source T.sub.S and load T.sub.L temperatures are normalized to the standard T.sub.0=290K and equal to t.sub.S and t.sub.L, respectively. M instances with a different size W.sub.m(m=1, . . . ,M) of the same noisy DUT are measured over frequency to determine its noise and signal performance—for example, scattering parameters and its equivalent noise temperature T.sub.e,m=T.sub.e(W.sub.m). Source, receiver, and DUT are, respectively, described by their Norton equivalent circuits and its admittance matrix Y at the angular frequency ω=2πf
I.sub.1=I.sub.S−Y.sub.SV.sub.1  (5a)
I=YV+I.sub.n  (5b)
I.sub.2=I.sub.L−Y.sub.LV.sub.2  (5c)
where

(10) $\begin{array}{cc}\{\begin{array}{c}I=\left[\begin{array}{c}{I}_1\\ I_2\end{array}\right],\\ Y=\left[\begin{array}{c}{Y}_{11}\\ Y_{21}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}{Y}_{12}\\ Y_{22}\end{array}\right],\\ Y_S=G_S{+}_j{B}_S,\\ {.Math.I_S.Math.}^2=4N_0{T}_S{G}_S,\\ t_s=\frac{T_s}{T_0},\end{array}\begin{array}{c}V=\left[\begin{array}{c}{V}_1\\ V_2\end{array}\right]\\ I_n=\left[\begin{array}{c}{I}_{n_1}\\ I_{n_2}\end{array}\right]\\ Y_L=G_L{+}_j{B}_L\\ {.Math.I_L.Math.}^2=4N_0{t}_L{G}_L\\ t_L=\frac{T_L}{T_0}\end{array},& \left(6\right)\end{array}$

(11) Furthermore, with reference to FIG. 1, the following standard assumptions are made. 1. The noise source is fully characterized, and its equivalent noise temperature t.sub.S=T.sub.S/T.sub.0 is known. 2. The DUT's admittance matrix Y=Y(W.sub.m) in (5b) is known at each available size W.sub.m(m=1, . . . ,M). 3. The receiver is noiseless (T.sub.L=0.Math.I.sub.L=0).

(12) The goal of the measurement setup is to determine the DUT's correlation matrix c.sup.Y.sub.n=C.sup.Y.sub.n/W normalized by size W and defined in (3).

(13) FIG. 1 is a fairly general representation of a noise measurement setup aiming at the experimental determination of the DUT's noise figure F.sub.m or its equivalent noise temperature T.sub.e,m at each size W.sub.m. The noise measurement does not include the contribution of the load, which is accounted for during calibration and subtracted out of the noise quantity measured by the receiver. This analysis will consider a noiseless load (i.e., receiver) by setting the load's normalized equivalent noise temperature t.sub.L=0 to obtain I.sub.L=0.

(14) An admittance matrix representation may not be used in very limited cases—the canonical example is a series impedance. Other representations may be used to deal with those special cases of academic interest—for example, the scattering parameters—once the analysis of this article, whose primary interest focuses on two-port linear scalable devices, is understood. Additional passive networks may be present in a practical noise characterization setup, such as input tuner or output circulators. The noise contribution of these known networks can be easily accounted for and deembedded in our analysis to effectively obtain the setup of FIG. 1. Finally, neither the noisy source admittance Ys nor the noiseless load admittance Y.sub.L is assumed to perfectly matched to the corresponding system admittance Y.sub.0 adopted by standard measurement equipment, such as vector network analyzers.

(15) Herein is developed a procedure that allows the experimental determination of the four real-valued parameters of the correlation matrix c.sup.Y.sub.n=C.sup.Y.sub.n/W normalized by size W with the measurement setup shown in FIG. 1. The procedure to be developed leverages the DUT's noise performance dependence on its size W.

(16) The expression noise performance is used to allow for the many equivalent results that can be obtained from the measurement setup of FIG. 1 at each given size W.sub.m: noise figure F.sub.m, equivalent noise temperature T.sub.e,m, and noise power P.sub.n,m. However, the primary quantity that the receiver measures is the average noise power in a bandwidth B, and we will develop our analysis in terms of noise powers.

(17) As FIG. 1 is a linear system whose source and DUT generate uncorrelated noise of each other, the power detected by the noiseless receiver is a superposition of the following: 1. power P.sub.S.sub.L delivered by the noise source I.sub.S to the load Y.sub.L=1/Z.sub.L; 2. power P.sub.D.sub.L delivered by the noisy network to the same load Y.sub.L.

(18) It will become clear in the next steps that developing the analysis in terms of the DUT's power contribution P.sub.S.sub.L to the receiver is sufficient to formally explain the limitation of the size-based procedure in the determination of the DUT's four noise parameters.

(19) The power P.sub.S.sub.L detected by the receiver with the assumptions above is easily found by considering the power absorbed by load Y.sub.L when the DUT is the only active generator of noise power because the external noise sources I.sub.S and I.sub.L in (5a) and (5c) are

(20) $\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{D\mapsto L}=\mathrm{.Math.ϵ}\left\{V_2{I}_2^{†}\right\}{.Math.}_{\{\begin{array}{c}{I}_S=0\\ I_L=0\end{array}}=\frac{G_L}{{.Math.Y_L.Math.}^2}{I}_2{I}_2^{†}& \left(7\right)\end{array}$
which can be expanded with (5) to obtain

(21) $\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{D\mapsto L}=\frac{G_L}{{.Math.Y_L.Math.}^2}{U}_{01}^{†}{\mathrm{QI}}_n{I}_n^{†}{Q}^{†}{U}_{01}& \left(8\right)\end{array}$
where

(22) $\begin{array}{cc}Q={Y_{\mathrm{SL}}\left(Y+Y_{\mathrm{SL}}\right)}^{-1}& \left(9a\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{Y}_{\mathrm{SL}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{Y}_S\\ 0\end{array}\begin{array}{c}0\\ Y_L\end{array}\right]& \left(9b\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{U}_{01}^{†}-\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\end{array}\right]& \left(9c\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{I}_n{I}_n^{†}=i_n{i}_n^{†}W.& \left(9d\right)\end{array}$

(23) The correlation matrix i.sub.ni.sup.†.sub.n in (9d) is equivalent to (3) and defines the unknown normalized noise parameters c.sub.n.sub.ij.sup.Y that are to be determined by measuring P.sub.S.sub.L as a function of DUT's size W. The DUT's matrix Y is defined in (1) versus size Was well.

(24) The next steps are as follows: 1. to expand (8) for each available DUT of size W.sub.m(m=1, . . . ,M); 2. to determine the DUT's noise parameters c.sub.n.sub.ij.sup.Y from the expansion of (8) through an LSM optimization.

(25) The determination of the four real-valued noise parameters in Y representation defined as

(26) $\begin{array}{cc}X=\left[\begin{array}{c}{c}_{n_{11}}^Y\\ \mathrm{.Math.ϵ}\left\{c_{n_{12}}^Y\right\}\\ \mathrm{\Im m}\left\{c_{n_{12}}^Y\right\}\\ c_{n_{22}}^Y\end{array}\right]& \left(10\right)\end{array}$
would logically suggest that M=4 is the minimum number of distinct DUT sizes required for the solution of (8). Hence, the following holds. 1. Equation (8) is fully expanded as a linear combination of the unknown noise parameters (10). 2. Four coefficients, one for each noise parameter, are identified and collected. 3. For each coefficient defined in the previous step, the size parameter W.sub.m is identified and collected.

(27) The outcome of this procedure is to rewrite (8) as

(28) $\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{D\mapsto L}=\frac{G_L}{{\Theta }_m{\Theta }_m^{†}}{R}_m^{†}{D}_{y}X& \left(11\right)\end{array}$
where

(29) $\begin{array}{cc}{R}_m=\left[\begin{array}{c}{P}_2\left(W_m\right)\\ P_2\left(W_m\right)\\ \begin{array}{c}{P}_2\left(W_m\right)\\ P_2\left(W_m\right)\end{array}\end{array}\right]& \left(12a\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{D}_y\left(\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\hat{y}}_{11}\\ \varnothing \\ \varnothing \\ \varnothing \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\varnothing \\ {\hat{y}}_{22}\\ \varnothing \\ \varnothing \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\varnothing \\ \varnothing \\ {\hat{y}}_{33}\\ \varnothing \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\varnothing \\ \varnothing \\ \varnothing \\ {\hat{y}}_{44}\end{array}\right]& \left(12b\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{y}}_{11}\left(\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{.Math.y_{21}.Math.}^2\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]& \left(12c\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{y}}_{22}\left(\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}-2\mathrm{.Math.ϵ}\left\{y_{21}{y}_{11}^{†}\right\}\\ -2\mathrm{.Math.ϵ}\left\{y_{21}{Y}_S^{†}\right\}\\ 0\end{array}\right]& \left(12d\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{y}}_{33}\left(\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}2\mathrm{\Im m}\left\{y_{21}{y}_{11}^{†}\right\}\\ 2\mathrm{\Im m}\left\{y_{21}{Y}_S^{†}\right\}\\ 0\end{array}\right]& \left(12e\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{y}}_{44}\left(\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{.Math.y_{11}.Math.}^2\\ 2\mathrm{.Math.ϵ}\left\{Y_S{y}_{11}^{†}\right\}\\ {.Math.Y_S.Math.}^2\end{array}\right]& \left(12f\right)\end{array}$
the quantity Ø in (12b) is a 3×1 vector of zeros; P.sub.2(W.sub.m) is an instantiation of

(30) 0$\begin{array}{cc}{P}_N\left(W\right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{W}^N\\ W^{N-1}\\ .Math.\\ W^0\end{array}\right]& \left(13\right)\end{array}$
with N=2 at size W.sub.m

(31) $\begin{array}{cc}{\Theta }_m=P_2^{†}\left(W_n\right).Math.\theta \left(Y_S,Y_L,\omega \right)& \left(14a\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}\theta \left(Y_S,Y_L,\omega \right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\Delta }_y\\ Y_L{y}_{11}+Y_S{y}_{22}\\ Y_L{Y}_S\end{array}\right]& \left(14b\right)\end{array}$
and Δy is the determinant of the normalized admittance matrix (1). The denominator in (11) expresses the determinant of (Y+Y.sub.SL) stemming from its inversion defined in (9a).

(32) Note that the following holds. 1. Expression (12) shows how frequency and size interact by clearly separating frequency and size dependence in each term. 2. Only Θ.sub.m in (12) depends on the load Y.sub.L. As a consequence, it becomes intuitively understandable that the noise power (11) at constant frequency is a ratio of a quadratic polynomial P.sub.N=2(W) at numerator to its dyadic product P.sub.N=2P.sup.†.sub.N=2 at denominator, stemming from Θ.sub.mΘ.sup.†.sub.m and mapping into a P.sub.N=4(W) vector—a fact that implies ∂P.sub.D.sub.L/∂W to be zero for some W value at constant frequency.

(33) Finally, all the quantities in (11) are comprised of real numbers and each factor carriers the proper dimension to accommodate for the various products: it would be straightforward to assume at this stage that measuring P.sub.D.sub.L,m for each available device with size W.sub.m(m=1, . . . ,M≥4) will allow a least-squares fit to determine the noise parameters X from (11), but this is not the case, as described below.

(34) A collection of power measurements P.sub.D.sub.L,m for m=1, . . . ,M≥4 devices with distinct size W.sub.m, generates an overdetermined system that can be solved with an LSM procedure

(35) $\begin{array}{cc}\left[\begin{array}{c}{R}_1^{†}\\ .Math.\\ R_M^{†}\end{array}\right]D_{y}X=\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{.Math.{\Theta }_1^{†}.Math.}{G_L}{P}_{D.fwdarw.L,1}\\ .Math.\\ \frac{{.Math.{\Theta }_M.Math.}^2}{G_L}{P}_{D.fwdarw.L,M}\end{array}\right]& \left(15a\right)\end{array}$$\Updownarrow$$\begin{array}{cc}AX=b& \left(15b\right)\end{array}$
from which
X=(A.sup.†A).sup.−1A.sup.†b  (16)
is obtained. However, the noise parameters in X can be determined by (16) only if the square matrix A.sup.†A is invertible—which implies that its determinant is not zero.

(36) The A matrix is the product of two matrices, as shown in (15a). 1. [D.sub.y].sub.12×4 defined in (12b) is a 12×4 matrix that only depends on the angular frequency co through the normalized admittance parameters y.sub.ij of the DUT and the source admittance Y.sub.S. Hence, M measurements over size at the frequency of interest change neither size nor values of this matrix. 2. A matrix [R.sup.†.sub.m].sub.M×12 with as many rows as the number M of measurements and 12 columns is shown by

(37) $\begin{array}{cc}\{\begin{array}{c}{\left[R_m^{†}\right]}_{M\times 12}=[\begin{array}{cccc}{P}_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)& P_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)& P_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)& P_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)]\end{array}\\ {\left[P_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)\right]}_{M\times 3}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}{W}_1^2& W_1& 1\\ W_2^2& W_2& 1\\ .Math.& .Math.& .Math.\\ W_M^2& W_M& 1\end{array}\right].\end{array}& \left(17\right)\end{array}$
Hence, the matrix A in (15b) consists of M rows and four columns. It is now possible to examine the product A.sup.†A in (16) in order to investigate its determinant

(38) The product A.sup.†A can be expanded explicitly in the product of its terms [see (19)]. A singular value decomposition (SVD) procedure could be applied to each matrix in (19) to determine their respective rank. A closer look at [R.sub.mR.sup.†.sub.m].sub.12×12 with the help of (17) reveals that it can be written as a set of 4×4 elements, each element being a 3×3 matrix E

(39) $\begin{array}{cc}\{\begin{array}{c}{\left[R_m{R}_m^{†}\right]}_{12\times 12}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}E& E& E& E\\ E& E& E& E\\ E& E& E& E\\ E& E& E& E\end{array}\right]\\ {\left[E\right]}_{3\times 3}={{\left[P_2\left(W_m\right)\right]}_{3\times M}\left[P_2^{†}\left(W_m\right)\right]}_{M\times 3}.\end{array}& \left(18\right)\end{array}$

(40) It appears evident that the rank of [R.sub.mR.sup.†.sub.m].sub.12×12 is 3 because only one out of four columns of matrices [E].sub.3×3 in (18) is clearly independent; and only first row of that column is independent—which makes the rank of [R.sub.mR.sup.†.sub.m].sub.12×12 the same as the rank of [E].sub.3×3. After expressing the matrix A, as shown in the following equation:

(41) $\begin{array}{cc}{{\left[A^{†}\right]}_{4\times M}\left[A\right]}_{M\times 4}={{{{\left[D_y^{†}\right]}_{4\times 12}\left[R_m\right]}_{12\times M}\left[R_m^{†}\right]}_{M\times 12}\left[D_y\right]}_{12\times 4}& \left(19a\right)\end{array}$$\Downarrow$$\begin{array}{cc}{\left[A^{†}A\right]}_{4\times 4}={{{\left[D_y^{†}\right]}_{4\times 12}\left[R_m{R}_m^{†}\right]}_{12\times 12}\left[D_y\right]}_{12\times 4}.& \left(19b\right)\end{array}$

(42) It follows that the rank of (19b) is also 3, which implies that A.sup.†A, being a 4×4 matrix, is not invertible. In other words, against simple logic and intuition, the LSM determination of the four noise parameters through (16) will fail because det(A.sup.†A)=0 even if M≥4 DUTs are characterized.

(43) Before providing a numerical verification of the abovementioned concepts by using recent published results obtained from the independent signal and noise characterization of active devices over frequency and size, some initial considerations on passive networks are presented, because the results above are applicable to either passive or active networks as long as they are scalable.

(44) Regarding passive networks, the noise parameters of a passive scalable network can be calculated directly from its signal matrix. In admittance representation, the noise correlation matrix at temperature t=T/T.sub.0 can be calculated as

(45) $\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}\frac{C_n^Y}{W}=c_n^Y\\ =4N_{0}t\frac{y+y^{†}}{2}\end{array}& \left(20\right)\end{array}$
which shows that the noise parameters in C.sup.Y.sub.n are proportional to the size W because the admittance matrix Y is proportional to size as previously expressed in (1).

(46) It is also interesting to note from (20) that reciprocal passive networks can be grouped into a set characterized by a real correlation coefficient

(47) $\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}{\rho }_n^Y=\frac{C_{n_{12}}^Y}{\sqrt{C_{n_{11}}^Y{C}_{n_{12}}^Y}}\\ =\frac{c_{n_{12}}^Y}{\sqrt{c_{n_{11}}^Y{c}_{n_{22}}^Y}}\end{array}& \left(21\right)\end{array}$
because ℑm{c.sup.Y.sub.n12}=0. Hence, passive scalable two port reciprocal networks allow the determination of their noise parameters through (16) because their noise correlation matrix (20) is real with a total of three independent real elements.

(48) Passive nonreciprocal networks are characterized by an asymmetrical matrix (y.sub.12∂y.sub.21), which will cause (20) to yield a complex correlation coefficient. For example, a scalable circulator or a passive scalable network with controlled sources (similarly to the linear model of an active device) will have a complex correlation coefficient because the off-diagonal elements of its noise correlation matrix (20) are not the same.

(49) It addition, it should also be pointed out that the correlation coefficient, (21) being either complex or real, also depends on the representation in use. For example, the same scalable DUT in FIG. 2 has a complex correlation coefficient in scattering parameter representation because S.sub.12=S.sub.21 is complex, and
C.sub.n.sup.S=N.sub.0t(I−SS.sup.†)  (22)
will generate a complex C.sup.S.sub.n12. Furthermore, C.sup.S.sub.n would also be size-dependent unless the characteristic impedance in use was size-dependent as well—then, the bilinear transformation at the basis of the definition of S.sub.ij will be size-independent.

(50) FIG. 3 shows the active DUT's equivalent circuit as the combination of a five-port network A [extrinsic circuit in FIG. 3(a)], embedding a three-port network B [intrinsic circuit in FIG. 3(a)]. The intrinsic model is based on the well-known two temperature noise models. FIG. 3(b) highlights the standard approach of considering the intrinsic circuit [network B in FIG. 3(b)] surrounded by parasitic components [network A in FIG. 3(b)]. The intrinsic circuit is the scalable network whose noise temperatures T.sub.gs and T.sub.ds must be extracted from measurement in order for the model to mimic the DUT's noise performance. It is customary to consider T.sub.gd=290 K and expect T.sub.gs≈300 K.

(51) To confirm the results of this analysis, attention is focused on the intrinsic circuit of FIG. 3 after de-embedding it from the extrinsic circuit, and the results are used to support a numerical example: the component values of the intrinsic circuit are collected in Table I, and the noise temperatures were found to be T.sub.ds=4958.101K and T.sub.gs=328.255K. The signal and noise performance of the intrinsic circuit over size W at 20 GHz is also reported in Table II. The values from both Table I and Table II allow the calculation outlined above and the verification that the matrix (A.sup.†A) is not invertible: indeed, its determinant is also shown in Table II at 20 GHz and over frequency in FIG. 4, and it is equal to 0 within the numerical error of the simulator calculation.

(52) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE I Intrinsic Elements of the Scalable Model of FIG. 3 Component Value Dimension g.sub.m 602.761 (mS/mm) τ   1.006 (ps) c.sub.gs   1.151 (pF/mm) c.sub.ds   0.257 (pF/mm) c.sub.gd   0.138 (pF/mm) r.sub.gs   0.490 (Ω .Math. mm) r.sub.ds  34.449 (Ω .Math. mm) r.sub.gd   1.196 (Ω .Math. mm)

(53) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE II Real and Imaginary Values of the Admittance Matrix Elements and Corresponding Noise Temperature Measured at 20 GHz for the Intrinsic Circuit of FIG. 3. Calculation of |det(A.sup.†A)| Executed With MATLAB Based on Corresponding Y/W Normalized Values W Y.sub.11 Y.sub.12 Y.sub.21 Y.sub.22 T.sub.eq/T.sub.0 |det(A.sup.†A)| (μm) (mS) (mS) (mS) (mS) (−) (mS).sup.4  50 0.5283 + −0.0179 − 29.4621 − 1.4694 + 0.879 9.17 .Math. 10.sup.−32 j 8.0641 j 0.8657 j 6.7331 j 2.4819 100 1.0566 + −0.0359 − 58.9242 2.9387 + 0.587 2.96 .Math. 10.sup.−32 j 16.1282 j 1.7318 j 13.5103 j 4.9637 200 2.1132 + −0.0717 − 117.8484 − 5.8775 + 0.576 3.50 .Math. 10.sup.−33 j 32.2565 j 3.4629 j 27.0206 j 9.9274 300 3.1697 + −0.1076 176.7726 − 8.8152 + 0.693 4.91 .Math. 10.sup.−32 j 48.3847 j 5.1944 j 40.3308 j 14.8911 400 4.2263 + −0.1434 − 235.6967 − 11.7550 + 0.841 1.55 .Math. 10.sup.−32 j 64.5129 j 6.9259 j 54.0411 j 19.8349 600 6.3395 + −0.2152 − 353.5450 − 17.6324 + 1.169 8.37 .Math. 10.sup.−32 j 96.7693 j 10.3888 j 81.0617 j 29.7823

(54) The results above are general and applicable to any passive or active, scalable DUT independently of the representation. Stating that it is not possible to extract four real-valued noise parameters from measurements over size independently of the representation of choice in use is correct because any two representations V and K are connected by a matrix transformation of the type
C.sub.n.sup.K=C.sub.V.fwdarw.KC.sub.n.sup.VC.sub.V.fwdarw.K.sup.†  (23)

(55) where C.sub.V.sub.K is a matrix that transform the noise correlation matrix C.sup.V.sub.n in V representation to the noise correlation matrix C.sup.K.sub.n in K representation, and it only depends on the elements of the signal matrix in V representation. Therefore, if the extraction over size fails in one representation, it will fail in any other representation. This is not to say that (16) may not be applicable in particular cases.

(56) It has been pointed out earlier that a passive, reciprocal network will generate a real correlation coefficient based on (20). If the network is also scalable, then the analysis of this article can be tailored to account for ℑm{c.sup.Y.sub.n12}=0 by appropriately reducing the size of A. This reduction in size affects only the matrix D.sub.y (12b), not the matrix R.sub.m (12a) that contains size information only. As a consequence, the number of unknowns decreases from four to three, and (16) can support the extraction of the three remaining real-valued noise parameters. It is easy to set this case up in a circuit simulator and verify this conclusion. Deceivingly, if our analysis had been conducted in the scattering parameter domain, (22) would not easily lead to matrix size reduction as easily as in the c.sup.Y.sub.n case because its off-diagonal elements are complex and nonzero, as shown in FIG. 2.

(57) It is also noticeable from the procedure outlined to obtain (11) that the noise power P.sub.D.sub.L absorbed by the load depends on the load Y.sub.L. Indeed, we have made no statement when determining P.sub.D.sub.L—for example, we have not claimed that P.sub.D.sub.L is defined as the available power; to the contrary, a generic Y.sub.L is loading the DUT's output port, as shown in FIG. 1. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that the noise performance of a device in terms of noise figure or equivalent noise temperature is not dependent on the load because of the selection of the load as the conjugate value of the output impedance value. As a consequence, the noise power P.sub.S.sub.L delivered by the source to the load through the DUT will have the same G.sub.L/|Θ.sub.m|.sup.2 dependence shown by P.sub.D.sub.L in (11) in order to guarantee that the ratio P.sub.D.sub.L/P.sub.S.sub.L at the basis of the definition of noise figure or equivalent noise temperature is independent of the load, independently of the choice of Y.sub.L value.

(58) The LSM procedure (16) for the determination of X obtains P.sub.D.sub.L,m from the measurement of the DUT's noise figure F.sub.m and the determination of P.sub.S.sub.L,m at size W.sub.m. This latter quantity, P.sub.S.sub.L,m, will be the product of the following: 1. a load termination term G.sub.L/|Θ.sub.m|.sup.2 that depends on the terminations Y.sub.S and Y.sub.L, size W.sub.m, and frequency because of (14); 2. a term Y.sub.m(W.sub.my) dependent on the DUT's size W.sub.m and its normalized admittance matrix y; 3. the noise source |I.sub.S|.sup.2.
Hence

(59) $\begin{array}{cc}{P}_{S.fwdarw.L,m}=\frac{G_L}{.Math.{\Theta }_m{.Math.}^2}{\Upsilon }_m\left(W_m,y\right){.Math.I_S.Math.}^2& \left(24\right)\end{array}$
and the load termination term cancels out with the corresponding term of (15) to yield
(F.sub.m−1).sub.m|I.sub.S|.sup.2=R.sub.m.sup.†D.sub.yX.  (25)

(60) The noise figure measurement allows (25) to be employed and the dependence on the load termination completely removed. However, the considerations on the inversion of A.sup.†A still apply because A=R.sup.†.sub.mD.sub.y in (25) as well as (15) in terms of power P.sub.D.sub.L.

(61) The results described herein fits with the experimental determination of the noise parameters versus size demonstrated and discussed by those skilled in the art. The reason lays in two facts described by the following statements. 1. The DUT's intrinsic (noise) model in use, shown in FIG. 3(a), is based on and relies on two uncorrelated noise sources represented in transmission (chain or ABCD) representation by T.sub.gs and T.sub.ds associated with the input and output resistors. 2. The topology of the model is known.

(62) It is, therefore, possible based on statement 1 to obtain the correlation matrix in admittance representation starting from the hybrid representation, whereas the off-diagonal element in the correlation matrix C.sup.H.sub.n is zero. Furthermore, statement 2 allows expressing the hybrid matrix H in terms of its components that constitute the scalable intrinsic model. The final result stemming from applying (23) is

(63) $\begin{array}{cc}{c}_n^Y=\frac{4N_0}{.Math.H_{11}{.Math.}^2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}{t}_{\mathrm{gs}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{gs}}}{W^2}& t_{\mathrm{gs}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{gs}}}{W^2}{H}_{21}^{†}\\ t_{\mathrm{gs}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{gs}}}{W^2}{H}_{21}& \left\{\begin{array}{c}{t}_{\mathrm{gs}}\frac{r_{\mathrm{gs}}}{W^2}{.Math.H_{21}.Math.}^2+\\ t_{\mathrm{ds}}{g}_{\mathrm{ds}}{.Math.H_{11}.Math.}^2\end{array}\right\}\end{array}\right]& \left(26\right)\end{array}$
where

(64) 0$\begin{array}{cc}\{\begin{array}{cc}{H}_{11}\propto \frac{1}{W};& \frac{\partial H_{21}}{\partial W}=0\\ r_{\mathrm{gs}}=R_{\mathrm{gs}}W;& t_{\mathrm{gs}}=\frac{T_{\mathrm{gs}}}{T_0}\\ g_{\mathrm{ds}}=\frac{G_{\mathrm{ds}}}{W};& t_{\mathrm{ds}}=\frac{T_{\mathrm{ds}}}{T_0}\end{array}& \left(27\right)\end{array}$

(65) and the dependence of the H parameters of interest on the size W is also indicated in (27). If (26) is used in the analysis above, the unknown vector X (10) will consist of two elements, t.sub.gs and t.sub.ds, and an LSM solution (16) can be obtained as demonstrated in prior publications because the dimensions of the matrix D.sub.y (12b) will be reduced to a 12×2 dimension.

(66) Turning now to FIG. 5, shown is an exemplary test circuit 500 including a noise source 510, a device under test 520, a recirculator 530, a first power detector 540 and a second power detector 550. The first power detector is connected to the recirculator and between the noise source and the device under test. The second detector is connected to the device under test in a conventional manner. The device under test 520 generates noise powers b.sub.n1, b.sub.n2 outwards. The DUT's 520 noise power b.sub.n1 is directed to power detector 1 by the circulator for independent detection. The power b.sub.n2 is directed to power detector 2 as in standard setup for independent detection. Measurement is repeated changing DUT size. The setup allows the direct measurement of both noise powers b.sub.n1 and b.sub.n2 at the same time.

(67) This setup solves a system of two equations:

(68) $\begin{array}{cc}{F}_{\mathrm{Source}\mathrm{toPower}\mathrm{Dectector}1}=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}& \left(28\right)\end{array}$$F_{\mathrm{Source}\mathrm{to}\mathrm{Power}\mathrm{Dectector}2}=1+\frac{y_S^{+}\left(W.Math.C_{\mathrm{dev}}\right)y_S}{4N_i{G}_S}$

(69) This setup has been demonstrated in a system simulator to determine the F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD1 and F.sub.S.fwdarw.PD2 values for each size W, the de-embedding (elimination) of the noise contribution of the circulator, and the solution of the equations for the correlation matrix C.sub.dev elements.

(70) This disclosure has discussed the basis for the characterization of the noise performance of a scalable linear network as a function of size, and it has proved that it is not possible to extract the four noise parameters of a scalable network as a general procedure. A practical example is offered with data obtained from a measurement of a set of active devices. Nevertheless, this disclosure has also discussed particular cases that support the determination of the elements of the noise correlation matrix versus size and explained the reasons why prior work is valid. In particular, the determination of the equivalent noise temperatures T.sub.gs and T.sub.ds at the basis of a widely used noise model is confirmed when a number of different size DUTs are available.

(71) A novel solution to overcome the limitations to the determination of the noise parameters discussed earlier has been devised and described. The solution requires only standard measurement equipment and commercially available hardware. Simulations have been executed to confirm that a model-agnostic approach to the determination of the four real-valued noise parameters of a scalable two-port device is indeed achievable. The new approach has valuable applications of great interest in the semiconductor arena because it allows the noise characterization of any active device to be automated over frequency, bias, and temperature.

(72) Although the invention has been shown and described with respect to a certain embodiment or embodiments, it is obvious that equivalent alterations and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art upon the reading and understanding of this specification and the annexed drawings. In particular regard to the various functions performed by the above described elements (components, assemblies, devices, compositions, etc.), the terms (including a reference to a “means”) used to describe such elements are intended to correspond, unless otherwise indicated, to any element which performs the specified function of the described element (i.e., that is functionally equivalent), even though not structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure which performs the function in the herein illustrated exemplary embodiment or embodiments of the invention. In addition, while a particular feature of the invention may have been described above with respect to only one or more of several illustrated embodiments, such feature may be combined with one or more other features of the other embodiments, as may be desired and advantageous for any given or particular application.