SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LINEARIZING FREQUENCY MULTIPLIERS WITH CONSTRAINED TRANSMITTER BANDWIDTH

Abstract

Systems and methods are disclosed for utilizing frequency multiplier (FX) based transmitters to generate wideband, substantially distortion-free signals, when a transmitter operates under bandwidth constraints. A receiver is configured to acquire the feedback signal at the multiplier output. The systems and methods alleviate the bandwidth constraints of the receiver. Additionally, the invention includes a training methodology for estimating predistortion coefficients configured to operate under constrained transmitter and receiver bandwidth conditions.

Claims

1. A radio frequency (RF) transmitter for generating modulated signals at millimeter-wave (mm-wave) and sub-terahertz (sub-THz) frequencies comprising: a baseband processor configured and operable to generate one or more modulated signals; one or more digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules for processing the one or more modulated signals; one or more baseband digital-to-analog converters (DAC) coupled to the baseband processor configured and operable to produce one or more RF signals; one or more transmitter RF frontends coupled to the one or more baseband digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to produce one or more intermediate frequency (IF) modulated signals; one or more frequency multipliers (FX) coupled to the one or more transmitter RF frontends configured and operable to generate one or more one or more linearized, substantially distortion free FX output radio frequency (RF) signals; and a transmitter observation receiver (TOR) configured and operable to provide a feedback path for the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals to the baseband processor, wherein the one or more transmitter RF frontends operate under bandwidth constraints.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein processing the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals includes a direct learning function.

3. The system of claim 1, wherein processing the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals includes an indirect learning function.

4. The system of claim 1, further comprising a one or more transmitter RF frontends coupled to a beamforming array antenna.

5. The system of claim 4, further comprising a network block configured and operable to provide a feedback path for the FX output radio frequency (RF) signals to the transmitter observation receiver (TOR), wherein the network block includes one or more of an equal power combiner, a configurable weighted combiner and a switch for selecting one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals.

6. The system of claim 4, further comprising a transmitter observation receiver (TOR) coupled to the one or more frequency multipliers (FX), wherein the number of the one or more digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules are matched with the number of one or more digital-to-analog converters (DAC) to produce the one or more intermediate frequency (IF) modulated signals.

7. The system of claim 4, further comprising a transmitter observation receiver (TOR) coupled to the one or more frequency multipliers (FX), wherein the number of one or the more digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules are matched with the number of one or more beamforming array antenna elements to produce the one or more intermediate frequency (IF) modulated signals.

8. A method for generating radio frequency (RF) modulated signals at millimeter-wave (mm-wave) and sub-terahertz (sub-THz) frequencies, the method comprising: generating one or more modulated signals using a baseband processor; processing the one or more modulated signals using one or more digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules; generating one or more RF signals using one or more baseband digital-to-analog converters (DAC); generating one or more intermediate frequency (IF) modulated signals using one or more transmitter RF frontends; generating one or more one or more linearized, substantially distortion free FX output radio frequency (RF) signals using one or more frequency multipliers (FX); and providing a feedback path for the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals to the baseband processor using a transmitter observation receiver (TOR), wherein the one or more transmitter RF frontends operate under bandwidth constraints.

9. The method of claim 8, further comprising processing the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals using a direct learning function.

10. The method of claim 8, further comprising processing the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals using an indirect learning function.

11. The method of claim 8, further comprising the one or more transmitter RF frontends controlling a beamforming array antenna.

12. The method of claim 11, further comprising a network block providing a feedback path for the FX output radio frequency (RF) signals to the transmitter observation receiver (TOR), wherein the network block includes one or more of an equal power combiner, a configurable weighted combiner and a switch for selecting the one or more FX output radio frequency (RF) signals.

13. The method of claim 11, wherein processing using a number of one or more digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules is matched to a number of one or more baseband digital-to-analog converters (DAC) generating the one or more RF signals.

14. The method of claim 11, wherein processing using a number of more the digital pre-distortion (DPD) modules is matched to a number of one or more beamforming array antenna elements generating the one or more intermediate frequency (IF) modulated signals.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014] The present invention will become more fully understood from the detailed description given hereinbelow and the accompanying drawings which are given by way of illustration only, and thus, are not limitive of the present invention, and wherein:

[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system for linearizing frequency multipliers configured according to embodiments of the present invention.

[0016] FIG. 2 illustrates the block diagram of a direct learning (DL) DPD module.

[0017] FIG. 3 illustrates the block diagram of an indirect learning (IL) DPD module.

[0018] FIG. 4 illustrates a first embodiment of the present disclosure, depicting system using one or more frequency multipliers. The transmitter observation receiver (TOR) provides a feedback path for the RF output signal using a Network block to capture one or more frequency multiplier output signal y.sub.p(t) and/or the far-field signal.

[0019] FIG. 5 illustrates a second embodiment of the present disclosure, depicting a hybrid beamforming system using DPD augmented FX arrays. One or more frequency multipliers produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector modulated signal/s coupled to a beamforming array antenna.

[0020] FIG. 6 illustrates a third embodiment of the present disclosure, depicting an all-digital beamforming system. An FX-based digital beamforming array includes per-antenna element DACs and DPD modules. One or more frequency multipliers produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector-modulated signal/s and coupled to a beamforming array antenna.

[0021] FIG. 7: Illustration of the resulting error due to constraining the D.sub.th root function bandwidth on the output of an ideal doubler.

[0022] FIG. 8: Simulated ideal doubler output spectrum with different constrained square-root function bandwidth input signals.

[0023] FIG. 9: Effects of limiting the square root function's bandwidth on the output spectrum of an ideal frequency-doubler.

[0024] FIG. 10: NMSE between the ideal signal and the output of the FX for different multiplication orders.

[0025] FIG. 11: Simulated power spectral density (PSD) at the doubler output.

[0026] FIG. 12: PSD at the doubler output where the D.sub.th root function output bandwidth is limited to BW.sub.TX=5BW.

[0027] FIG. 13: A system using a DPD module to linearize FXs with constrained transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth.

[0028] FIG. 14: PSD at a SpaceK frequency-doubler output when driven with a 200-MHz signal.

[0029] FIG. 15: Output spectra of a SpaceK frequency-doubler driven with a 400-MHz OFDM signal.

[0030] FIG. 16: Linearization results for a SpaceK frequency-doubler with output frequency centered around 25 GHz.

[0031] FIG. 17: Measured gain distortion (left) and phase distortion (right) of a SpaceK frequency-doubler driven with a 400 MHz OFDM signal.

[0032] FIG. 18: PSD at the HMC578 frequency-doubler output when driven with a 400-MHz signal.

[0033] FIG. 19: Linearization results for the HMC578 frequency-doubler with output frequency centered around 28 GHz.

[0034] FIG. 20: PSD at the HMC578 frequency-doubler output when driven with a 800-MHz signal.

[0035] FIG. 21: Constellation at the HMC578 frequency-doubler output driven with an 800 MHz OFDM signal.

[0036] FIG. 22: Gain distortion (left) and phase distortion (right) of HMC578 frequency-doubler driven with an 800 MHz OFDM signal.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0037] Embodiments are illustrated by way of example in the drawings and are herein described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

[0038] Disclosed is a system and method for linearizing FXs with constrained transmitter and feedback receiver bandwidths. Various embodiments of the disclosed PD method for frequency multipliers under constrained transmitter and feedback receiver bandwidths are applicable in a variety of settings, such as baseband system modelling, baseband predistortion, RF digital predistortion and other applications. Alternative embodiments may be applied to analog as well as digital signal predistortion. Other embodiments are readily evident to such skilled persons having the benefit of this disclosure. Reference will now be made in detail to implementations of the example embodiment as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The same reference indicators will be used to the extent possible throughout the drawings and the following description to refer to the same or like items. In the interest of clarity, not all routine features of the implementations of the nonlinear system model described herein are shown and described. It will, of course, be appreciated that in actual deployment, numerous application-specific implementations are made to achieve specific goals, such as compliance with system-related constraints, and that these specific goals will vary from one implementation to another.

[0039] In accordance with this disclosure the constrained transmitter and feedback receiver DPD based training method for linearizing frequency multipliers described herein may be implemented in various types of nonlinear communication systems, such as radio frequency, optical and other types of communication systems.

[0040] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system 100 for linearizing FXs configured according to embodiments of the present invention. System 100 includes a baseband processor 110 configured and operable to generate a modulated signal coupled to a baseband digital-to-analog converter (DAC) 102 to produce a desired RF signal. DAC 102 is subsequently coupled to the transmitter RF frontend 120 to produce an IF modulated signal. The IF modulated signal is subsequently coupled to FX 121 to produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector-modulated signal. FX 121 is subsequently coupled to an antenna 140. Transmitter observation receiver (TOR) 130 provides a feedback path for the FX output signal y(t). TOR 130 includes an RF input block 132 and an Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) 131. An equivalent representation of RF input block 132 is shown as block 132.

[0041] In an embodiment, baseband processor 101 comprises a processing unit configured and operable to process a DPD module 111. Baseband processor 101 may include a storage device, such as a random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically programmable ROM (EPROM), solid-state drive (SSD), and the like. Where a method comprising a series of process steps is implemented by the processing unit 101 and those process steps may be stored in said storage device as a series of instructions. Baseband processor 101 may also comprise an field programmable gate array (FPGA) configured and operable to drive the baseband DAC 102 to generate the desired RF signal. In addition, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that devices such as FPGAs, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSP) or the like, may also be used without departing from the scope and spirit of the inventive concepts disclosed herein.

[0042] FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 illustrate an exemplary system 200 and 300 implementing direct and indirect learning DPD modules respectively; used to estimate the predistortion function coefficients under constrained transmitter and feedback receiver bandwidths. Direct and indirect learning DPD modules are further described in later paragraphs.

[0043] FIG. 4 illustrates a first embodiment of the present disclosure depicting a system 400 using one or more FXs 421. System 400 includes a baseband processor 410 configured and operable to generate a modulated signal coupled to a baseband digital-to-analog converters (DAC) 402 to produce a desired RF signal. Baseband processor 410 comprises a processing unit configured and operable to process a DPD module 411. DAC 402 is subsequently coupled to the transmitter RF frontend 420 to produce an IF modulated signal. The IF modulated signal is subsequently coupled to FX 421 to produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector-modulated signal. FX 421 is subsequently coupled to an antenna 440. TOR 430 includes an RF input block 432 and an ADC 431. TOR 430 provides a feedback path for the RF output signal using a Network block 450 to capture all or a subset of the FX 421 output signal y.sub.p(t). The network block 450 is implemented using one or more of an equal power combiner, a configurable weighted combiner and a switch for selecting among different output signal y.sub.p(t) observation paths.

[0044] FIG. 5 illustrates a second embodiment of the present disclosure, depicting a hybrid beamforming system 500 using DPD augmented FX arrays. System 500 limits the distortions introduced by the nonlinear FXs 521. One or more frequency multipliers 521 produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector-modulated signal/s coupled to a beamforming array antenna 540. TOR 530 provides a feedback path for the RF output signal using one or more ADCs 531 to capture the frequency multiplier 521 output signal y.sub.p(t). The parameter P represents the number of antenna elements 541, and parameter Q represents the number of DAC 502 signal paths. DPD module 511 processes one or more baseband signals and generates the PD waveforms to linearize the desired radiated directions. DPD modules 511 are optimized for constrained transmitter RF frontend 520 and TOR 530 bandwidths. DPD training is performed using one or more of the FX 521 outputs and received far-field radiated signals within the constraints of the observation bandwidth.

[0045] FIG. 6 illustrates a third embodiment of the present disclosure, depicting an all-digital beamforming system 600 using an FX-based digital beamforming array including per-element DACs 602 and DPD modules 611. One or more frequency multipliers 621 produce a high frequency modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) or vector-modulated signal/s are coupled to a beamforming array antenna 640. TOR 630 provides a feedback path for the RF output signal using one or more ADCs 631 to capture the frequency multiplier 621 output signal y.sub.p(t). Parameter P represents the number of antenna elements 641. The number of antenna elements 641 (P) matches the number of digital inputs, reflecting an all digital configuration. DPD modules 611 operate under the same constraints as in the hybrid case, compensating for nonlinearities in view of the limited bandwidth of both the transmitter RF frontend 620 and the TOR 630. Modules 611 are trained using one or more FX 621 outputs, radiated antenna elements 641 output signal and received radiated far-field signals within the constraints of the observation bandwidth.

[0046] In a further embodiment, variations of the aforementioned embodiments use FXs configured within the RF front-end before a power amplifier.

[0047] In a further embodiment, variations of the aforementioned embodiments use FXs configured at an input of the antenna array.

[0048] In a further embodiment, variations of the aforementioned embodiments use FXs a configured at an intermediate stage of the RF frontend transmitter.

[0049] In describing the present invention, it will be understood that several techniques and steps are disclosed. Each of these has individual benefits and each can also be used in conjunction with one or more, or in some cases all, of the other disclosed techniques. Accordingly, for the sake of clarity, this description will refrain from repeating every possible combination of the individual steps in an unnecessary fashion. Nevertheless, the specification and claims should be read with the understanding that such combinations are entirely within the scope of the invention and the claims.

[0050] The following paragraphs describe the details of the DPD module 111, 211 and 311 for linearizing FX-based transmitters with constrained bandwidths as shown in FIGS. 1,2 and 3.

[0051] Let {tilde over (h)}.sub.TX=({tilde over (h)}.sub.TX[0], . . . , {tilde over (h)}.sub.TX[P]) be the impulse response of the transmitter bandwidth limiting filter, with length P+1, and let the cascade of the D.sub.th root function, {tilde over (h)}.sub.TX, and the non-ideal FX be the nonlinear system to be linearized by a predistortion (PD) function. In the following, the expression of the PD function needed to linearize said cascade is described.

[0052] Let [n] be the output of the PD, {tilde over (x)}[n] be the output of the D.sub.th root function, {tilde over (x)}.sub.c[n] be the output of the transmitter bandwidth limiting filter, {tilde over (h)}.sub.TX [n], and {tilde over (y)}[n] be the output of the FX. The bandwidth of the constrained input signal to the multiplier, {tilde over (x)}.sub.c[n], is expressed as follows;

[00001]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{x}}_c\left[n\right]=\underset{m=0}{\overset{P^{}}{.Math.}}\stackrel{}{x}\left[n-m\right]{\stackrel{}{h}}_{TX}\left[m\right],\mathrm{where}\stackrel{}{x}\left[n\right]=\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left[n\right]}.& \left(1\right)\end{array}$

Alternatively, using a block of N+1 samples, (1) is expressed in matrix form as,

[00002]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{x}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^0\stackrel{}{x}\left(n\right)& \left(2\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}={\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}^0\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left[n\right]},& \left(3\right)\end{array}$

where {tilde over (x)}(n)=({tilde over (x)}[n], . . . , {tilde over (x)}[nN]).sup.T,

[00003]${\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^i$

is a row vector defined as,

[00004]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(0_i,{\tilde{h}}_{\mathrm{TX}},0_{N-P-i}\right)& 0iN-P^{}\\ \left(0_i,{\tilde{h}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\left(0:N-i\right)\right))& N-P<iN\end{array}& \left(4\right)\end{array}$$\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left[n\right]}={\left(\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left[n\right]},.Math.,\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left[n-N\right]}\right)}^T,$

and 0.sub.i is a 1i zero vector.

[0053] Using an additive error model, the frequency multiplier output {tilde over (y)}[n] is expressed as follows,

[00005]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{y}\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{x}}_c^D\left[n\right]+\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{x}}_c\left(n\right)\right),& \left(5\right)\end{array}$

where the nonlinear error term, {tilde over (e)}({tilde over (x)}.sub.c((n)), takes the form of the frequency multiplier forward model given by,

[00006]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{x}}_c\left(n\right)\right)=& \left(6\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N_L}{.Math.}}{}_m^{p_1,p_2,}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_1}{.Math.}}{\stackrel{}{x}}_c\left[n-m_i\right]\underset{j=1}{\overset{p_2}{.Math.}}{\stackrel{}{x}}_c^{*}\left[n-{\stackrel{}{m}}_j\right],& \left(7\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$$\left(p\right)=\{\left(p_1,p_2\right){}^2|p_{1}0,p_{2}0$$p_1+p_2=p,p_1-p_2=D\}$

is the set of tuples (p.sub.1, p.sub.2) that results in a nonlinearity order of p, the set ={0, 1, 2, . . . , M}, M is the maximum memory depth, N.sub.L is the maximum nonlinearity order and are the model coefficients. {tilde over (y)}[n] is expressed as a function of the PD output, [n], as,

[00007]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{y}\left[n\right]={\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}^0\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}^D+\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right),& \left(9\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^0\\ {\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^1\\ .Math.\\ {\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}^N\end{array}\right],& \left(10\right)\end{array}$

is an upper triangular matrix with nonzero diagonal elements. Alternatively, (9) is rewritten as follows,

[00008]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{y}\left[n\right]=\tilde{u}\left[n\right]+{\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}^0\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}^D+{\stackrel{}{e}}^{}({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right))}& \left(11\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{e}}^{\left({\tilde{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}={\left({\tilde{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}^D-\tilde{u}\left[n\right],& \left(12\right)\end{array}$

is the error due to the constrained bandwidth D.sub.th root function. Note, the error

[00009]${\stackrel{}{e}}^{}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)$

cannot be corrected by the PD and is mainly dominant in the out-of-band away from the signal bandwidth shown in FIG. 7. Let the sampled complex envelop of the FX output signal after receiver bandwidth limiting be, {tilde over (y)}.sub.c[n], where

[00010]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{y}}_c\left[n\right]=\underset{m=0}{\overset{P^{}}{.Math.}}\stackrel{}{y}\left[n-m\right]{\stackrel{}{h}}_{RX}\left[m\right],& \left(13\right)\end{array}$

and {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX=({tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[0], . . . , {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[P]) is the impulse response of the TOR RF input (FIG. 1 132) filtering at the frequency multiplier output with length equal P+1. The bandwidth of {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[n], denoted as BW.sub.RX, is used to reduce the required sampling speed for the TOR ADC 131 and is assumed to filter out the out-of-band distortions that result from limiting the D.sub.th root function bandwidth. Results on the choice of BW.sub.RX that satisfy the aforementioned assumption are presented in the simulation section described in later paragraphs. Alternatively, (13) is expressed in matrix form as follows,

[00011]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{y}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{y}\left(n\right),& \left(14\right)\end{array}$

where {tilde over (y)}(n)=([n], . . . , {tilde over (y)}[nN]).sup.T, and

[00012]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(0_i,{\tilde{h}}_{\mathrm{RX}},0_{N-P^{}-i}\right)& 0iN-P^{}\\ \left(0_i,{\tilde{h}}_{\mathrm{RX}}\left(0:N-i\right)\right)& N-P^{}<iN\end{array}& \left(15\right)\end{array}$

[0054] Substituting (11) in (14) we have,

[00013]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{y}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\left(\tilde{u}\left(n\right)+\tilde{e}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)+{\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)\right)& \left(16\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$$\begin{array}{cc}\tilde{e}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}\tilde{e}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)\\ \tilde{e}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n-1\right)}\right)\\ .Math.\\ \tilde{e}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n-N\right)}\right)\end{array}\right]& \left(17\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{and},$$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)\\ {\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{T}D\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n-1\right)}\right)\\ .Math.\\ {\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n-N\right)}\right)\end{array}\right]& \left(18\right)\end{array}$

[0055] Assuming that the out-of-band error due to limiting the D.sub.th root function bandwidth is filtered by the receive filter, {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[n], and is negligible within the passband of {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[n], i.e,

[00014]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0{\stackrel{}{e}}^{}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)0& \left(19\right)\end{array}$

the following approximation is made,

[00015]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{y}}_c\left[n\right]{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]+{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)& \left(20\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$${\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\tilde{u}\left(n\right).$

[0056] Further, if the PD compensates for the frequency multiplier nonlinearity, {tilde over (y)}.sub.c[n] in (20) will be equal to the desired input signal, {tilde over (d)}[n], convolved with the impulse response of the receiver filter, {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[n], i.e.,

[00016]$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{y}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right).& \left(22\right)\end{array}$

Consequently, from (20), the constrained bandwidth predistortion signal, .sub.c[n], is expressed as a function of the desired and error signals as follows,

[00017]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)& \left(23\right)\end{array}$

[0057] Alternatively, (23) is expressed in vector form as follows,

[00018]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left(n\right)={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}\stackrel{}{e}{\stackrel{}{(H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)})& \left(24\right)\end{array}$$\mathrm{where},$$\begin{array}{cc}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}=\left[\begin{array}{c}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\\ {\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^1\\ .Math.\\ {\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^N\end{array}\right].& \left(25\right)\end{array}$

is an upper triangular matrix with nonzero diagonal elements and thus invertible, i.e.,

[00019]${\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^{-1}=I.$

Using (21) and the fact that {tilde over (H)}.sub.RX is invertible we have,

[00020]$\begin{array}{cc}\tilde{u}\left(n\right)={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^{-1}{\tilde{u}}_c\left(n\right)& \left(26\right)\end{array}$$\begin{array}{cc}=\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-\stackrel{}{e}{\stackrel{}{(H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)})& \left(27\right)\end{array}$

Substituting (27) in (23), we get,

[00021]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}\right)& \left(28\right)\end{array}$

[0058] Assuming that the contribution of the error of the error in (28) is negligible, the following approximation is made,

[00022]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}\left(n\right)}\right)}\right)\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)}\right)& \left(29\right)\end{array}$

Hence, (28) is rewritten such that,

[00023]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)-{\stackrel{}{H}}_{RX}^0\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{TX}\sqrt[D]{\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)}\right)& \left(30\right)\end{array}$

[0059] Let denote the set of all forward model basis functions in (7) and enumerate the basis functions in . Then the error term,

[00024]$\stackrel{}{e}\left({\stackrel{}{H}}_{Tx}\sqrt[D]{\stackrel{}{d}\left(n\right)}\right),$

in (30) is rewritten compactly as,

[00025]$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{}{e}\left(\stackrel{}{z}\left(n\right)\right)=w_{}{\stackrel{}{}}_{}\left(\stackrel{}{z}\left(n\right)\right)& \left(31\right)\end{array}$

where w is the model coefficient corresponding to the th model basis, , {tilde over (z)} (n)=({tilde over (z)}[n], {tilde over (z)}[n1], . . . , {tilde over (z)}[nN]).sup.T, and

[00026]$\tilde{z}\left[n\right]={\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{d}\left(n\right)}.$

Alternatively, (31) is expressed in matrix form as,

[00027]$\begin{array}{cc}\tilde{e}\left(\tilde{z}\left(n\right)\right)={\stackrel{~}{}}_{n}w& \left(32\right)\end{array}$

where, w=(w.sub.0, . . . , w.sub.L).sup.T, {tilde over ()}.sub.n is the basis matrix with i th column and j th row entry given by {tilde over ()}.sub.i({tilde over (z)}(nj)), and,

[00028]$\begin{array}{cc}\tilde{e}\left(\tilde{z}\left(n\right)\right)=\left[\begin{array}{c}\tilde{e}\left(\tilde{z}\left(n\right)\right)\\ \tilde{e}\left(\tilde{z}\left(n-1\right)\right)\\ .Math.\\ \tilde{e}\left(\tilde{z}\left(n-N\right)\right)\end{array}\right].& \left(33\right)\end{array}$

[0060] Substituting (32) in (30), we have,

[00029]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0\tilde{d}\left(n\right)-{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n}w& \left(34\right)\end{array}$

[0061] Finally, using (12) and the approximation in (19), i.e.,

[00030]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0\tilde{d}\left(n\right){\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{d}\left(n\right)}\right)& \left(35\right)\end{array}$

then (34) is rewritten more compactly as,

[00031]$\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde{u}}_c\left[n\right]={\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n}a& \left(36\right)\end{array}$

where a=(1w.sub.0, . . . , .sub.L) are the predistorter coefficients and without loss of generality, it is assumed that {tilde over ()}.sub.1 ({tilde over (z)}(n))=({tilde over (z)}(n)).sup.D.

[0062] The objective of the DPD module is to minimize the error between the DPD module input signal {tilde over (d)}[n] and the FX multiplier output {tilde over (y)}[n]. For this, the error between the DPD module input signal {tilde over (d)}[n] convoluted with {tilde over (h)}.sub.RX[n] and the multiplier constrained output {tilde over (y)}.sub.c[n] is minimized;

[00032]$\begin{array}{cc}J\left(a\right)=\underset{n=M+1}{\overset{L}{.Math.}}\left({\tilde{y}}_c\left[n\right]-{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0\tilde{d}\left(n\right)\right){\left({\tilde{y}}_c\left[n\right]-{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}^0\tilde{d}\left(n\right)\right)}^H& \left(37\right)\end{array}$

where L is the length of the training data, and a is the vector of DPD coefficients that are to be optimized to minimize the cost function J. Using (36), and the direct learning DPD module 211, the optimal choice of a is iteratively calculated and the coefficients are obtained by the update equation,

[00033]$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{a}}_{k+1}={\hat{a}}_k-{\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_k}\right)}^{}\left({\tilde{y}}_c\left(n_k\right)-{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}\tilde{d}\left(n_k\right)\right)& \left(38\right)\end{array}$

where .sub.k are the estimated DPD coefficients at the k.sup.th iteration, >0 is the update step size, and (.Math.).sup. is the pseudo inverse operator such that,

[00034]$\begin{array}{cc}{\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_k}\right)}^{}={\left({\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_k}\right)}^H\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_k}\right)\right)}^{-1}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_k}\right)& \left(39\right)\end{array}$

[0063] Alternatively, it is possible to use the indirect leaning DPD module 311 to find the optimal choice of a iteratively using the following update equation,

[00035]$\begin{array}{cc}{\hat{a}}_{k+1}={\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\stackrel{~}{}}_k\right)}^{}{\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{RX}}{\tilde{x}}_c^D\left(n_k\right)& \left(40\right)\end{array}$

where {tilde over ()}.sub.k is the basis matrix with i th column and j th row entry given by

[00036]${\stackrel{~}{}}_i\left({\tilde{H}}_T\sqrt[D]{{\tilde{y}}_c\left[n_k+j\right]}\right).$

The diagrams of the described constrained transmitted and receiver feedback bandwidths using the indirect learning DPD module is shown in FIG. 7. The updated predistorter output signal, [n.sub.k+1], at time index n and in the k+1 iteration is then given as follows,

[00037]$\begin{array}{cc}\tilde{u}\left[n_{k+1}\right]={\stackrel{~}{}}_{n_{k+1}}{a}_{k+1}& \left(41\right)\end{array}$

Hence, together (36), (39), (40), and (41) comprise the iterative training process that identifies the predistortion coefficients.

[0064] Simulation results are presented as follows. The simulation results demonstrate how limiting the bandwidth of the D.sub.th root function impacts the output spectrum of an ideal FX system. The linearization performance of the described DPD module on an EM-simulated frequency-doubler is also described.

[0065] The bandwidth of the transmitter filter, {tilde over (h)}.sub.TX[n], used for constraining the D.sub.th root function, is represented as BW.sub.TX, while the ideal signal bandwidth (i.e., the bandwidth of the signal input to the D.sub.th root function is represented as BW. FIG. 8 illustrates the simulated output spectra of an ideal doubler: (a) with ideal square-root function input signal and (b)-(i) with constrained bandwidth square-root function where the bandwidth is swept from 9BW down to 2BW, with a step on 1BW. FIG. 8, illustrates that constraining the D.sub.th root function bandwidth results in spectrum regrowth in the signal adjacent bands. Furthermore, the maximum magnitude of the generated distortions is inversely proportional to the constrained D.sub.th root function bandwidth, B.sub.WTX. These distortions are the result of the time-domain power function characteristic of FXs, which manifest as a convolution in the frequency domain and is illustrated in FIG. 7.

[0066] FIG. 9 illustrates the effects of limiting the square root function's bandwidth on the output spectrum of an ideal frequency-doubler; (a) spectrum of the ideal square-root function, (b) spectrum of the square-root function constrained to 5BW, and (c) output spectrum of an ideal multiplier when driven by the 5BW constrained square-root function. As shown in FIG. 9, the most substantial distortions resulting from constraining the square-root function bandwidth appear at (BW.sub.TX/2). In order to filter out the out-of-band error,

[00038]${\tilde{e}}^{}\left({\tilde{H}}_{\mathrm{TX}}\sqrt[D]{\tilde{u}}\left(n\right)\right)$

a filter with bandwidth BW.sub.RX is used to diminish the constraints on the receiver ADC sampling rate and satisfy the assumption in (18). The value of BW.sub.RX used is represented as follows:

[00039]$\begin{array}{cc}{\mathrm{BW}}_{\mathrm{RX}}={\mathrm{BW}}_{\mathrm{TX}}-\mathrm{BW}.& \left(42\right)\end{array}$

[0067] FIG. 9 (d), illustrates the output spectra of an ideal doubler when driven with a square-root function constrained to a bandwidth of 5BW shown in (b) after applying the receive filter with bandwidth, BW.sub.RX=4BW. This filtering operation significantly reduces the out-of-band error due to the constrained square-root function bandwidth. Comparing the filtered spectrum with the unfiltered case, the residual error, quantified in terms of normalized mean square error (NMSE), is greatly reduced from 40.4 to 69.1 dB. This result provides robust support for the assumption made in (19), affirming that distortions originating from transmitter bandwidth constraints predominantly manifest in the out-of-band spectrum, specifically around (BW.sub.TX/2), with negligible impact on the in-band portion of the signal. It is noteworthy that these conclusions also apply to FXs when D>2.

[0068] FIG. 10 illustrates, for different multiplication orders (D), the NMSE between the ideal signal and the output of the FX; (a) before and (b) after applying receiver filtering (BW.sub.RX=4BW). For this, the D.sub.th root output signal bandwidth is limited to BW.sub.TX=5BW. Here it is evident that the application of the filter significantly reduces the NMSE, highlighting that the distortions attributed to limiting the bandwidth at the output of the D.sub.th root function are predominantly in the out-of-band spectrum. This validates the assumption made in (20) across different multiplication orders (D).

[0069] The following simulation results illustrate linearization of the disclosed DPD module on an EM 60 GHz output frequency-doubler in a stacked push-push configuration. The doubler is uses 45 nm CMOS SOI technology and simulated using Advanced Design System (ADS) software. The simulated AM-AM and AM-PM are used to generate a look-up-table (LUT)-based forward model for the doubler which is then used to train the DPD module. The test signal used in the simulation is a 200 MHz orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signal with subcarriers modulated using 256-quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and a peak-to average power ratio (PAPR) of 9 dB.

[0070] FIG. 11 illustrates the simulated power spectral density (PSD) at the doubler output; (a) before DPD with ideal square-root function applied and (b)-(j) after the described DPD module with constrained square-root function and observation receiver bandwidth swept from BW.sub.TX=10BW and BW.sub.RX=9BW in (b), down to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW in (j), respectively, with a step of 1BW. Using the disclosed DPD module, the error vector magnitude (EVM) improved from 20.7% before DPD in (a) to 0.4% in (b)-(i), and to 0.6% in (j). Similarly, the adjacent channel power ratio (ACPR) after DPD improved from 21.3/21.5 dBc in (a), to better than 60 dBc in (b)-(g), 58.2/58.2 dBc in (h), 36.9/37.4 dBc in (i), and 25.8/25.9 dBc in (j). The DPD coefficients used in the simulation were obtained using the direct learning DPD module in (38) and a total of 30 coefficients were used. Note, the deterioration in the ACPR results reported in (i) and (j) are attributed to the out-of-band error, {tilde over (e)}[n], caused by the constrained bandwidth square-root function, leading to peak distortion at (3/2)BW in (i) and BW in (j). Note that this error does not significantly impact the in-band signal quality, as evidenced by the EVM after DPD remaining at 0.4% in (i) and slightly increasing to 0.6% in (j).

[0071] The linearization efficacy of the disclosed DPD module is described as follows. The DPD parameters, including nonlinearity order, memory depth, and the number of coefficients, are kept the same for the simulations. In addition, the number of DPD iterations is fixed to 10. FIG. 12 shows the PSD at the doubler output where the D.sub.th root function output bandwidth is limited to BW_TX=5BW (a) before DPD with the D.sub.th root function applied, (b) after DPD to adapt it to FXs and the TOR bandwidth constrained to BW.sub.RX=5BW and (c) after application the disclosed DPD module with TOR bandwidth set according to (40), i.e., BW.sub.RX=4BW. Here it is evident that the disclosed method significantly outperforms alternatives by achieving approximately 6-8-dB improvement in the adjacent channel power leakage ratio.

[0072] FIG. 13 illustrates a system using the disclosed DPD module to linearize FXs with constrained transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth. Two different frequency-doublers (D=2) are used: 1) a frequency-doubler with output centered at 25 GHz from SpaceK Labs (A2510-2x-20), and 2) a frequency-doubler with output centered at 28 GHz from Analog Devices (HMC-578). The vector-modulated test signals were generated using a 12-bit, 12-GS/s arbitrary waveform generator (M8121A from Keysight Technologies), with output centered at an IF of 1.75 GHz. A custom upconverter consisting of a variable attenuator (HMC-624), a driver amplifier (HMC788A), a hybrid-90 (IPP-4120), and an IQ-mixer (MMIQ 1037 H from Marki Microwave) is used to up-convert the IF signal to a center frequency of 12.5 GHz for the first frequency-doubler and 14 GHz for the second frequency-doubler case. The signal was then amplified using a driver amplifier (MAAM-011109 from MACOM). Afterward, a lowpass filter (LPF) (FLP-1250 from Marki Microwave) for the first frequency-doubler and a custom filter for the second frequency-doubler are used to reject the residual image and local oscillator (LO) leakage before being fed to the doubler under test. The output of the frequency-doubler is then fed to a directional coupler, followed by a receiver (N9040B from Keysight) connected to its coupled port. The through signal from the directional coupler is then down-converted to an IF frequency of 3.025 GHz using an IF-mixer (MM-11140H) and captured using a 10-bit, 20-Gs/s, 8-GHz analog bandwidth oscilloscope (MSOS804A from Keysight Technologies). LO sources (MXG-N5183B from Keysight Technologies) are used to drive the up conversion and down conversion mixers used in the system.

[0073] Measurements are performed using 200, 400, and 800 MHz modulation bandwidth OFDM signals conforming to 3GPP 5G NR downlink specifications, with subcarriers modulated using 256-QAM, subcarrier spacing of 120 kHz, total data subcarriers K.sub.D of 1584, 3168, and 6336, and fast Fourier transform sizes K.sub.FFT of 2048, 4096, and 8192, for the 200, 400, and 800-MHz signals, respectively. The test signals are characterized by a PAPR (after crest factor reduction using clipping and filtering) of 9 dB. The 200, 400, and 800 MHz test signals are complex sampled at 2 and 4 G/ps, respectively. For the DPD, the nonlinearity order, nonlinear memory depth, linear memory depth, memory step, and pruning parameters were set to 20, 5, 5, 8, and 2, respectively, resulting in a total of 30 coefficients. The number of iterations used to train the DPD function was fixed to 10, and 1.510.sup.4 samples were used per iteration for DPD training.

[0074] The EVM per OFDM symbol is defined as follows:

[00040]$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{EVM}=\frac{{.Math.}_{k=0}^{K_D}{.Math.{\tilde{y}}_{\mathrm{FFT}}\left(v_k\right)W\left(v_k\right)-{\tilde{d}}_{\mathrm{FFT}}\left(v_k\right).Math.}^2}{{.Math.}_{k=0}^{K_D}{.Math.{\tilde{d}}_{\mathrm{FFT}}\left(v_k\right).Math.}^2}& \left(43\right)\end{array}$

where {tilde over (y)}.sub.FFT and {tilde over (d)}.sub.FFT are the discrete-time Fourier transform of the time-aligned sampled complex envelopes of the received and ideal signals, respectively. Furthermore, K.sub.D is the total number of data subcarriers, v.sub.k is the k th data subcarrier discrete-time Fourier transform index, and W(.Math.) is the transfer function of the linear equalization filter and is obtained from K.sub.D OFDM pilot subcarriers

[0075] FIG. 14 shows the PSD at the SpaceK frequency-doubler output when driven with a 200-MHz signal; (a) before DPD with square-root function applied BW.sub.TX=10BW and BW.sub.RX=10BW, and (b)-(j) after the described DPD with constrained square-root function output and observation receiver bandwidth swept from BW.sub.TX=10BW and BW.sub.RX=9BW in (b), down to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW in (j), respectively, with a step of 1BW. Using the disclosed DPD module, the EVM improved from 13.6% before DPD in (a) to 1% in (d)-(i), and to 1.1% in (j). Similarly, the ACPR after DPD improved from 24.4/24.5 dBc in (a), to better than-50 dBc in (b)-(h), 36.4/37.1 dBc in (i), and 26.0/26.3 dBc in (j).

[0076] Similar linearization results were reported for the 400 MHz case. FIG. 15 shows the PSD at the SpaceK frequency-doubler output when driven with a 256-QAM 400 MHz OFDM signal (a) before DPD with square-root function applied, BW.sub.TX=8BW and BW.sub.RX=8BW and (b)-(h) after the described DPD with constrained square-root function output and receiver bandwidths swept from BW.sub.TX=8BW and BW.sub.RX=7BW in (b), down to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW in (h), respectively, with a step of one. FIG. 17 shows the gain (AM-AM) (left) and phase (AM-PM) (right) distortion characteristics, respectively, at the SpaceK frequency-doubler output corresponding to the measurements presented in FIG. 15, (a) and (h).

[0077] The linearization results for the SpaceK frequency-doubler are summarized in FIG. 16. Using the disclosed DPD module, the EVM improved from 15.9% before DPD in (a) to below 1.4% in (c)-(g) and to 1.46% in (h). Similarly, the ACPR after DPD exhibited substantial enhancement, decreasing from 23.7/23.3 dBc in (a), to as low as 46.7/47.3 dBc in (c). Note that a minor deterioration in EVM and ACPR results are shown in (b), compared with (d)-(h), for both the 200- and 400-MHz test signal cases, respectively. These are attributed to transmitter calibration errors. Specifically, in the 200-MHz test case, when using a BW.sub.TX=10BW and BW.sub.RX=9BW in (b), transmitter calibration at the frequency-doubler input would necessitate ensuring error-free signal over a wider bandwidth, i.e., BW.sub.TX=10BW, compared with when the transmitter bandwidth is constrained to BW.sub.TX<10BW. Achieving such wideband calibration is challenging in practice. Consequently, in addition to reducing the transmitter and observation receiver data converters sampling rates, constraining the bandwidth of D.sub.th root function output has the added benefit of relaxing the transmitter calibration requirements, where the calibration bandwidth needs to match BW.sub.TX. Moreover, the deterioration in the ACPR results when BW.sub.TX and BW.sub.RX were set to less than 3BW and 2BW, respectively, is attributed to the out-of-band error, {tilde over (e)}[n], due to the constrained bandwidth square-root function output, leading to peak distortion at (3/2)BW and BW, respectively. While this error cannot be rectified by the DPD, its impact on in-band signal quality remains negligible. This is exemplified in the EVM after DPD being maintained at 1% in (i) and 1.38% in (g) for the 200 and 400 MHz test signals respective when BW.sub.TX=3BW and BW.sub.RX=2BW. In addition, there is a marginal increase in EVM to 1.1% in (i) and 1.46% in (h) for the 200- and 400 MHz signals respective, when BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW.

[0078] Despite this marginal increase in EVM, the disclosed DPD method was able to mitigate the FX's nonlinear distortion as illustrated by the flat AM-AM and AM-PM curves in FIG. 17(h). Furthermore, for BW.sub.TX>3BW and BW.sub.RX2BW the achieved ACPR and EVM remained compliant with the 3GPP requirements for FR2 frequencies operating in the n257 band for 256-QAM OFDM signals which specify a maximum EVM of 3.5% and a maximum ACPR of 28 dBc for 256-QAM OFDM signals. Moreover, for BW.sub.TX>2BW and BW.sub.RX1BW the achieved ACPR and EVM remained compliant with the 3 GPP requirements for FR2 frequencies operating in the n260 band for 256-QAM OFDM signals which specify a maximum EVM of 3.5% and a maximum ACPR of 26 dBc for 256-QAM OFDM signals. These results align with the previously described simulation results.

[0079] The generality of the disclosed DPD method for linearizing frequency-doublers with contained transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth, a second frequency-doubler (HMC578 from Analog Devices) is driven in higher compression, i.e., using worse starting ACPR and EVM. The measurement results for the HMC578 doubler are summarized in FIG. 20.

[0080] Similar to the first frequency-doubler case, FX linearization is achieved using the disclosed DPD method across different transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth configurations. FIG. 20 shows the PSD at the HMC578 frequency-doubler output when driven with a 400-MHz signal (a) before DPD with square-root function applied BW.sub.TX=8BW and BW.sub.RX=8BW and (b)-(h) after the disclosed DPD method with constrained square-root function output and observation receiver bandwidth ranging from BW.sub.TX=8BW and BW.sub.RX=7BW in (b), down to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW in (h), respectively, with a step size of 1BW. Using the described DPD scheme, the EVM improved significantly, reducing from 17.9% before DPD in (a) to 1.8% in (b) and 1.4% in (c)-(h). Likewise, the ACPR after DPD improved from 21.0/22.0 dBc in (a), to better than 47 dBc in (b)-(f) and as reaching as low as 47.9/47.9 dBc in (d). The measurement results further demonstrate the effectiveness of the described DPD in linearizing FXs with constrained transmitters and observation receivers bandwidths.

[0081] In addition to the capacity of the described DPD to reduce the transmitter and observation receive required bandwidths for linearizing FXs, it also enables the generation of wider bandwidth signals without compromising the ability to linearize the device under test. FIG. 20 shows the PSD at the HMC578 doubler output when driven with a 800-MHz signal (a) before DPD with square-root function applied BW.sub.TX=3.75BW and BW.sub.RX=3.75BW and (b)-(g) after the described DPD with constrained square-root function output and observation receiver bandwidth swept from BW.sub.TX=3.75BW and BW.sub.RX=2.75BW in (b), down to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW in (g), respectively.

[0082] FIG. 22 shows the gain distortion (left) and phase distortion (right) of HMC578 frequency-doubler driven with an 800 MHz OFDM signal, corresponding to the measurements presented in FIG. 20, (a) and (g). Furthermore, the constellation plot corresponding to the results in FIG. 20, (a) and (g), is shown in FIG. 21. Using the described DPD scheme, the EVM significantly improved from 21% before DPD in (a) to 1.4% in (b), (c), (e), and (f), and to 1.5% in (g). Similarly, the ACPR after DPD improved from 22.7/22.1 dBc in (a), to as good as 44.0/40.2 dBc in (b). Furthermore, when the transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth are limited to BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW, respectively, the described DPD is still effective in mitigating the FX's nonlinearity. This is highlighted by the flat AM-AM and AM-PM plots in FIG. 22, (g), and the negligible distortion in the constellation plot in FIG. 22 (blue). Note, when employing transmitter and observation receiver bandwidth as low as BW.sub.TX=2.25BW and BW.sub.RX=1.25BW, respectively, the achieved ACPR and EVM remained compliant with the 3GPP requirements for FR2 frequencies operating in the n257 band for 256-QAM OFDM signals which specify a maximum EVM of 3.5% and a maximum ACPR of 28 dBc for 256-QAM OFDM signals. Moreover, for BW.sub.TX=2BW and BW.sub.RX=1BW the achieved ACPR and EVM remained compliant with the 3GPP requirements for FR2 frequencies operating in the n260 band for 256-QAM OFDM signals which specify a maximum EVM of 3.5% and a maximum ACPR of 26 dBc for 256-QAM OFDM signals.

[0083] The invention being thus described, it will be obvious that the same may be varied in many ways. Such variations are not to be regarded as a departure from the spirit and scope of the invention, and all such modifications as would be obvious to one skilled in the art are to be included within the scope of the following claims.