International Journal of Behavioral modeling and digital pre-distortion
Microwave and Wireless
Technologies
cambridge.org/mrf
Research Paper
Cite this article: Alizadeh M, Händel P,
Rönnow D (2019). Behavioral modeling and
digital pre-distortion techniques for RF PAs in
a 3 × 3 MIMO system. International Journal of
Microwave and Wireless Technologies 11,
989–999. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1759078719000862
Received: 7 December 2018
Revised: 12 May 2019
Accepted: 18 May 2019
First published online: 20 June 2019
Keywords:
Radio frequency power amplifier;
non-linearity; memory effects; multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO); behavioral modelling;
digital pre-distortion
Author for correspondence:
Mahmoud Alizadeh, E-mail: mahali@kth.se
© Cambridge University Press and the
European Microwave Association 2019
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press
techniques for RF PAs in a 3 × 3 MIMO system
Mahmoud Alizadeh1,2, Peter Händel2 and Daniel Rönnow1
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Science, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden and 2Division
of Information Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Modern telecommunications are moving towards (massive) multi-input multi-output
(MIMO) systems in 5th generation (5G) technology, increasing the dimensionality of the sys-
tems dramatically. In this paper, the impairments of radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers
(PAs) in a 3 × 3 MIMO system are compensated in both the time and the frequency domains.
A three-dimensional (3D) time-domain memory polynomial-type model is proposed as an
extension of conventional 2D models. Furthermore, a 3D frequency-domain technique is for-
mulated based on the proposed time-domain model to reduce the dimensionality of the
model, while preserving the performance in terms of model errors. In the 3D frequency-
domain technique, the bandwidth of the system is split into several narrow sub-bands, and
the parameters of the model are estimated for each sub-band. This approach requires less
computational complexity, and also the procedure of the parameters estimation for each
sub-band can be implemented independently. The device-under-test consists of three RF
PAs including input and output cross-talk channels. The proposed techniques are evaluated
in both behavioral modeling and digital pre-distortion (DPD) perspectives. The experimental
results show that the proposed DPD technique can compensate the errors of non-linearity and
memory effects in the both time and frequency domains.
Introduction
In modern telecommunications technology, the studies of radio frequency (RF) power ampli-
fiers (PAs) have become more attractive for RF engineers, since the performance of wireless
systems strongly depends on the quality of RF PAs in terms of power efficiency and linearity
[1]. These criteria are more significant in (massive) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
systems [2,3]. Hence, most attempts are dedicated to reducing the consequences of major
impairments of RF PAs.
An amplifier can be driven to operate close to its saturation region to increase its power effi-
ciency, but it consequently causes a non-linearity effect, and spectral deficiency dissipating spec-
tral powers in out-of-band regions; power efficiency and spectral efficiency cannot be achieved
simultaneously [1]. The memory effect is the other major shortcoming of RF PAs excited by
wideband signals, e.g. orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and wideband
code division multiple access (WCDMA), degrading the performance of PAs [4,5]. The effects
of input and output cross-talks in MIMO transmitters cause additional impairments [6].
Volterra theory is mathematically a powerful tool to describe the behavior of weakly non-
linear dynamic systems with fading memory [7]. In practice, polynomial-type and black-box
models, which are reduced forms of the Volterra model, are preferred [1,8] to improve the per-
formance in terms of computational complexity and accuracy for modeling strong non-linear
systems with long-memory effects [9].
Several techniques have been proposed in the time domain to mitigate the impairments of
RF PAs in MIMO systems. In [6], a cross-over digital pre-distortion technique consisting of
two parallel Hammerstein (PH) models was investigated to compensate the effects of the
input cross-talk and non-linearity of RF PAs in a MIMO system. A two-dimensional (2D) gen-
eralized memory polynomial (GMP) model was studied in [10] for modeling and linearizing
RF PAs in a MIMO system including input and output cross-talks. However, in a K × K
MIMO system where K>2, a 2D model will not be efficient for modeling or linearising the
distortion of PAs, since the effect of cross-talks are caused by two or more neighborhood chan-
nels. In [11], the 3rd-order Volterra self- and cross-kernels of PAs were analyzed in the fre-
quency domain using a three-tone test and their main block structures were determined in
a 3 × 3 MIMO system including input cross-talk channels. Furthermore, in [12] the frequency-
domain analyses of the 3rd-order Volterra kernels of PAs were investigated using multi-tones
signals in a 3 × 3 MIMO system including input and output cross-talks. Using multi-tones
excitation signal is more practical to analyze the behavior of PAs within the whole signal band-
width. Although the analyses and experimental performances of the works in [11,12] are
 990
cumbersome and limited to the 3rd-order kernels, they could be
useful to formulate the structure of MIMO models for PAs [13]. A
higher dimensional model was also investigated in [14] that pro-
posed a simplified 4D dual-input memory polynomial DPD to
consider the linear effects of antenna cross-talk and impedance
mismatch for non-linear RF PAs in a MIMO system. However,
the input cross-talk effects were not examined and the excitation
signals were relatively narrowband, which may affect the perform-
ance and computational complexity of the model. Recent studies
have investigated massive MIMO systems. A PH model was used
in [3] to compensate the simulated impairments of RF PAs for a
massive MIMO application, whereas the output cross-talk effects
were not considered.
Frequency-domain modeling techniques have also been inves-
tigated for decades. In [15], a frequency-domain pre-distorter was
proposed for identifying the parameters of a non-linear static
single-input single-output (SISO) model using the zero-forcing
(ZF) and adaptive least squares (LS) techniques, whereas it is
not suitable for dynamic system. The frequency-domain piece-
wise fitting approach was also used to estimate poles and zeros
of the transfer function of a SISO system within several sub-bands
[16] in an LS sense. However, it was also assumed that the transfer
function of the system is directly measurable.
Contributions
In this paper, firstly, a time-domain 3D GMP model is proposed
for RF PAs in a 3 × 3 MIMO system including both input and
output cross-talk channels. The model is an extension of the
2D GMP model in [10]. A 2D model cannot be directly used
for modeling the cross-talk effects of neighborhood channels
coming from different sides in higher dimensional systems.
Depending on the system configuration and topology, each chan-
nel is surrounded by two or more neighborhood channels. Since,
the significance of cross-talk effects are limited in the vicinity of
each channel, a higher dimensional (i.e. massive MIMO) model
can be reduced to a lower dimension, e.g. 3D or 4D. The major
drawbacks of the conventional time-domain modeling technique
for MIMO systems are the large dimensionality of the model and
the increased computational complexity. Hence, secondly, a 3D
frequency-domain technique is also proposed for RF PAs in
MIMO systems based on the 3D time-domain modeling tech-
nique. In this technique, the bandwidth of the system is divided
into several sub-bands, and a curve fitting approach [16,17] is
used to estimate the parameters for each sub-band. However,
the transfer function is unknown in this technique and is esti-
mated by incorporating the frequency-domain input and output
samples into the curve fitting approach. The sub-band estimation
technique has some advantages compared to conventional
frequency-domain modeling techniques [15]. Since the band-
width of a sub-band is much narrower than the entire bandwidth
of the system, the number of parameters for each sub-band is
reduced, and hence the total computational complexity. The
bandwidth of sub-bands can be searched to find an optimal per-
formance in terms of the minimum normalized mean square
error (NMSE), adjacent channel error power ratio (ACEPR) and
adjacent channel leakage ratio (ACLR) criteria. The proposed
frequency-domain technique could be useful to reduce the com-
plexity of digital pre-distorters in massive MIMO systems, and
in very wideband, e.g. millimetre-wave, applications [18,19].
The structure of this paper is organized as follows. The section
“Model description” describes the theory of time- and frequency-
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Mahmoud Alizadeh et al.
domain behavioral modeling techniques for RF PAs in MIMO
systems. The identification and evaluation techniques are ex-
plained in the section “Model identification”. The section
“Experimental setup” explains the experimental setup. The meas-
urement results of two techniques are presented and discussed
for behavioral modeling and DPD techniques in the section
“Results”. The discussion and conclusion are given in the section
“Discussion”, and the section “Conclusion”, respectively.
Model description
Model prerequisites
Figure 1 shows a 3 × 3 MIMO system consisting of input cross-
talk channels, RF PAs, and output cross-talk channels. The
input cross-talk effects are caused by a common oscillator for
up-converting baseband signals, and transmission lines, e.g.
cables and microstrip lines before PAs. The RF PAs are usually
operating close to their saturation regions to achieve a higher
power efficiency, and consequently, cause distortions and non-
linearity effects. Furthermore, RF PAs show memory effects that
degrade the performance. The output cross-talk effects are caused
by coupled microstrip lines, and antennas. Both input and output
cross-talk channels may show some memory effects. The effects of
input cross-talk will contribute to non-linearity effects of PAs,
whereas the output cross-talks have linear effects under an output
impedance matched condition [6], but in the case of an imped-
ance mismatch condition, the non-linear effects of output cross-
talks should be considered [14, 20].
System model
The relations between the input and output signals at the RF fre-
quency region in the presence of the input and output cross-talks
in a 3 × 3 MIMO system are given as


yℓ (t) = bℓ1 (t) ∗ f1 (a11 ∗ x1 )(t) + (a12 ∗ x2 )(t) + (a13 ∗ x3 )(t)


+ bℓ2 (t) ∗ f2 (a21 ∗ x1 )(t) + (a22 ∗ x2 )(t) + (a23 ∗ x3 )(t)


+ bℓ3 (t) ∗ f3 (a31 ∗ x1 )(t) + (a32 ∗ x2 )(t) + (a33 ∗ x3 )(t) ,
(1)
where xℓ; ℓ = 1, 2, 3 and yℓ indicate the ℓth input and output
signals, respectively, and fℓ( · ) is the non-linear dynamic operator
of the ℓth PA. In general, αℓm(t) and βℓm(t) are impulse responses
describing the dynamic models of the input and output cross-talk
effects from the mth channel on the ℓth channel, respectively, and
“*" indicates a convolution operator. In the case of symmetric and
static cross-talk channels, the structures of the model can be
simplified [21].
In this work, a 3D GMP model is proposed for a 3 × 3 MIMO
system including input and output cross-talk channels (shown in
Fig. 1). First, the discrete time-domain complex baseband model
is established, and then the discrete frequency-domain complex
baseband model is defined based on the time-domain model.
Time-domain modeling via 3D GMP
When there are no input and output cross-talk effects, a 3 × 3
MIMO system can be modeled by three independent SISO models,
e.g. a generalized memory polynomial (GMP) model [22] of a non-
linear SISO system including lagging cross-terms is given by
 International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 991

p,q,r
Xu,v,w (n, m2 ) = xu (n)|xu (n − m2 )| p |xv (n − m2 )|q |xw (n − m2 )|r ,
(5)

where u, v, w = 1, 2, 3, and p, q, r = 0, 2, …, P − 1; p + q + r <

P. To avoid redundancies, if u = v, or u = w, or v = w, the repeated
elements should be discarded, e.g. Xu,u,v, Xu,v,u, and Xu,v,v include
the same elements, and hence only Xu,u,v can be considered. Then
⎛ ⎞
hℓ,1,1,1
⎜h ⎟
⎜ ℓ,1,1,2 ⎟
Fig. 1. A 3 × 3 MIMO system including input and output cross-talk channels. ⎜
yℓ = X ⎜ . ⎟ ⎟,
⎝ .. ⎠ (6)

P−1 
M1 
M2 hℓ,3,1,2
yℓ (n) =
p
hℓ (m1 , m2 ) 
hℓ
p=0 m1 =0 m2 =0
even
(2)
or, in short form, yℓ = X hℓ; ℓ = 1, 2, 3, where the unknown hℓ
× xℓ (n − m1 ) |xℓ (n − m1 − m2 )| p ,
can be obtained by a least-squares fit. X is the regression matrix
in (5) including all Xu,v,w.
where xℓ(n) and yℓ(n); ℓ = 1, 2, 3 are the input and output of the
ℓth channel of the system, respectively. Furthermore, P is the
highest order of non-linearity in the model, M1 is the memory Frequency-domain modeling via 3D GMP
length along diagonal terms, M2 is a deviation from diagonal
p The frequency-domain 3D GMP model is proposed based on the
terms representing memories along cross-terms, and hℓ (m1 , m2 )
time-domain model defined in (4). The time-domain 3D GMP
is the parameter of the (1 + p)th-order system. In total, there are
model in (4) can be rewritten as
(1 + P) (1 + M1) (1 + M2)/2 parameters in the model. In the spe-
cial case when M2 = 0, the model in (2) reduces to a memory 
M1 M2 P−1 
p,0,0 p,0,0
polynomial (MP) [23] model, which only characterizes the mem- yℓ (n) = hℓ,1,1,1,m2 (m1 ) x1,1,1,m2 (n − m1 )
ory effects of the system along diagonal terms. m1 =0 m2 =0 p=0
even
With (2) as a starting point, a matrix formulation reads as

P−p
p,q,0 p,q,0
y ℓ = X ℓ hℓ , (3) + hℓ,1,1,2,m2 (m1 ) x1,1,2,m2 (n − m1 ) + . . . (7)
q=0
even
where yℓ denotes the vector of N samples of yℓ(n). 
hℓ = [h0ℓ (0, 0) . . . hℓP−1 (M1 , M2 )]T is the vector of parameters  
P−p P−p−q
p,q,r p,q,r
in (3). Xℓ denotes the regression matrix for the ℓth input signal. + hℓ,3,1,2,m2 (m1 ) x3,1,2,m2 (n − m1 ) ,
q=0 r=0
Generalizing, the equation above provides us with the 3D GMP even even
model, and the output signal at the ℓth channel is given as p,q,r
where xu,v,w,m2 (n) = xu (n) |xu (n − m2 )|p ×|xv(n − m2)|q |xw(n −
P−1 
p,q,r

M1 
M2  m2)|r. The term xu,v,w,m2 (n − m1 ) in (7) is dispersive with respect
p,0,0
yℓ (n) = hℓ,1,1,1 (m1 , m2 ) x1 (n−m1 ) |x1 (n−m1 −m2 ) to m1. Thus, the frequency-domain representation of the model in
m1 =0 m2 =0 p=0 (7) is given by
P−1 
even

M1  M2 

P−p
p,q,0 Yℓ (k)= hℓ,1,1,1,m2 (m1 )X1,1,1,m2 (k)e−j2pkm1 /N
p,0,0 p,0,0
|p + hℓ,1,1,2 (m1 , m2 )x1 (n − m1 )|x1 (n − m1 − m2 ) m1 =0 m2 =0 p=0
q=0 even
even

P−p
  p,q,r
P−p P−p−q
+ hℓ,1,1,2,m2 (m1 )X1,1,2,m2 (k)e−j2pkm1 /N
p,q,0 p,q,0
| p |x2 (n − m1 − m2 )|q + . . . + hℓ,3,1,2 (m1 , m2 ) q=0
q=0 r=0 even
even even
  p,q,r
P−p P−p−q 
x3 (n − m1 )|x3 (n − m1 − m2 )| p |x1 (n − m1 − m2 ) +...+ hℓ,3,1,2,m2 (m1 )X3,1,2,m2 (k)e−j2pkm1 /N
p,q,r

 q=0 r=0
even even
|q |x2 (n − m1 − m2 )|r = X1,1,1 hℓ,1,1,1 + X1,1,2 hℓ,1,1,2 (8)
 P−1 
M2 
p,0,0 p,0,0
= Hℓ,1,1,1,m2 (k)X1,1,1,m2 (k)
+ . . . + X3,1,2 hℓ,3,1,2 , m2 =0 p=0
even
(4)

P−p
p,q,0 p,q,0
where hℓ,1,1,1, hℓ,2,2,2 and hℓ,3,3,3 correspond to self-kernels, other- + Hℓ,1,1,2,m2 (k)X1,1,2,m2 (k)+ ...
wise hℓ,u,v,w corresponds to a cross-kernel. The regression matrix q=0
even
Xu,v,w includes the products of the uth, vth and wth inputs, and 
the nth element of Xu,v,w corresponding to the indexes of non-  
P−p P−p−q
p,q,r p,q,r
+ Hℓ,3,1,2,m2 (k)X3,1,2,m2 (k) ,
linearities ( p, q, r) in a 3D GMP, which is an extension of 2D q=0 r=0
[6,10] given by even even

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 992 Mahmoud Alizadeh et al.

where Yℓ is the output of the ℓth channel in the frequency parameter ĥℓ is
p,q,r
domain, Xu,v,w,m2 (k); k = 0, . . . , N − 1 is the discrete Fourier
p,q,r
transform (DFT) of xu,v,w,m2 (n). The transfer function ĥℓ = (XH X)−1 XH y ℓ , (11)
p,q,r
Hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (k) is defined as
where X H is the Hermitian conjugate matrix of X.
p,q,r p,q,r p,q,r
Hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (k) = hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (0) + hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (1) In a similar manner, the parameters of the time-domain DPD
p,q,r are identified using the indirect learning architecture (ILA)
× Wk1 + . . . + hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (M1 ) WkM1 approach and are a copy of the parameters of the post-distorter
(9)

M1 [29, 30]:
p,q,r
= hℓ,u,v,w,m2 (m1 ) Wkm1 ,
m1 =0 x ℓ = Y uℓ , (12)

where Wkm = e−j2pkm/N . It is worth noting that the product of the where xℓ is the vector of input signals, θℓ is the vector of inverse
discrete Fourier transform of x(n) and h(n) corresponds to the parameters, and Y is the regression matrix of output signals.
circular convolution of them, which in general, is not the same The estimated parameter ûℓ is
as the linear convolution of x(n) and h(n). However, in a special
case the equality between them is held if x(n) is an OFDM signal ûℓ = (YH Y)−1 YH xℓ , (13)
with a cyclic prefix (CP) ≥ M1, whereas for non-OFDM signals,
the zero-padding approach can be used [24].
As seen in (9), H(k) is a polynomial form of Wk and is a
complex coefficient (constant) representing a phase rotation Frequency domain
and attenuation in magnitude at the frequency point k. The matrix form of (8) is given as
However, H( · ) varies versus frequency in a system that is
frequency-selective (including memory effects). In a linear system, ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ X 0,0,0 (k ) W 0 ...
p,q,r
Xs,3,1,2,M2 (k0 ) WkO0s
⎞
Ys,ℓ (k0 ) s,1,1,1,0 0 k0
the straightforward approach to determine H( · ) results from
⎜ .. ⎟ ⎜ . .. .. ⎟
H(k) = Y(k)/X(k); k = 0, . . . , N − 1 over the entire bandwidth ⎝ . ⎠=⎜
⎝ .. . .
⎟
⎠
of the system [25]. In [15], the ZF technique was used to identify
the parameters of a non-linear static model in the frequency Ys,ℓ (kL ) Xs,1,1,1,0 (kL ) Wk0L
0,0,0
...
p,q,r
Xs,3,1,2,M2 (kL ) WkOLs
domain. However, the straightforward frequency-domain identifi- ⎛ 0,0,0 ⎞
ĥs,ℓ,1,1,1,0 (0)
cation is not efficient in a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) condi- ⎜ ⎟
tion and enhances the noise in the inverse modeling or ZF ⎜ .. ⎟,
⎝ . ⎠
equalizing technique [26]. An alternative solution is to determine p,q,r
H( · ) using the LS technique [27] within frequency sub-bands. If ĥs,ℓ,3,1,2,M2 (Os )
the bandwidths of the sub-bands are much narrower than the (14)
coherence bandwidth (BC) of the system, the sub-bands can be
considered flat [28] and are modeled by the zero-order polyno- where k0 , . . . , kL ; L = N/NS − 1 (N is the number of DFT points
mial in (9). Nevertheless, if the frequency response of a system and NS is the number of sub-bands) are indexes of DFT in the sth
cannot be considered flat within sub-bands, each sub-band is sub-band, and Ys,ℓ is the frequency-domain output of the ℓth
modeled by higher-orders of the polynomial in (9). In this channel in the sth sub-band. The LS method is used to identify
method, multiple input and output samples contribute in the the parameters of the frequency-domain model in (14) in each
LS estimation technique, usually much more than in the straight- frequency sub-band.
forward approach, within each sub-band. Since a system is less For a narrow sub-band Os ≤ M1 and L ≤ N, hence the size of
frequency-selective within each sub-band compared to the entire the model in (14) is smaller than in (6). The bandwidth of sub-
bandwidth, the transfer function in (9) can be approximated by bands is chosen due to the frequency selectivity of a system for
fewer parameters within each sub-band: achieving the best model performance in terms of NMSE,
ACEPR, and ACLR criteria. The optimum bandwidth of sub-
p,q,r p,q,r p,q,r bands might be different for each criterion, since the NMSE
Ĥs,ℓ,u,v,w,m2 (k) = ĥs,ℓ,u,v,w,m2 (0) + ĥs,ℓ,u,v,w,m2 (1)
criterion mostly refers to the in-band error, to which the funda-
p,q,r
× Wk1 + . . . + ĥs,ℓ,u,v,w,m2 (Os ) WkOs mental and lower-order components make major contributions,
(10) whereas the ACEPR and ACLR criteria refer to the out-of-band

Os
p,q,r errors, which only non-linear components are contributing and
= ĥs,ℓ,u,v,w,m2 (o) Wko ,
o=0
have less frequency selectivity.
The number of DFT points can be interpreted as the number
where Ĥs (k) is an approximation of the transfer function in the of samples within each frequency sub-bands. If the number of
sth sub-band, and Os; Os ≤ M1 is the number of parameters. DFT points increases, more samples in frequency domain are
incorporated in the LS method to estimate the parameters for
each sub-band. Therefore, the error will decrease as long as
Model identification increasing the number of DFT points provides more information
of statistical properties of the signal in the frequency domain.
Time domain
However, the bandwidth of sub-bands mostly depends on the fre-
Polynomial-type models are linear in parameters, hence the para- quency selectivity of the system, but not explicitly on the number
meters in (6) are identified by the LS method [27]. The estimated of DFT points. Hence, the number of parameters for each sub-

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 993

Fig. 2. The experimental setup.

band will not directly change by increasing or decreasing the signal generators (VSGs). The maximum RF bandwidth of
number of DFT points. the VSGs is 120 MHz. The VSGs are synchronized in a 10 MHz
reference clock, digital baseband clock, and LO clock. The
device-under-test (DUT) consisted of three Mini-Circuits
Evaluation metrics
ZHL-42 RF amplifiers, which are classified as medium-high
The NMSE, ACEPR, and ACLR criteria were used to evaluate the PAs, with nominal linear gains of 31.5 dB and 1-dB compression
performance of time- and frequency-domain models and DPD points at outputs of 30 dBm. Two types of couplers were used to
techniques. The NMSE [1] of a 3D model is averaged and given as resemble the cross-talk effects at the inputs and outputs in a 3 × 3
MIMO system. The couplers were 50 Ω microstrip transmission
3 
1 |ye,ℓ (n)|2 line fabricated on FR4 substrate. For the first type of
NMSE = n , (15) couplers, the couplings between the outer and inner channels
3 ℓ=1 n |yd,ℓ (n)|2
were measured using a vector network analyzer (VNA) to be −
13.5 dB, and between the two outer channels were − 21.5 dB:
where the numerator is the power of the output error and the they are termed as “(− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB” type of couplers. The
denominator is the power of the desired output signal. second type of couplers have − 20 dB couplings between two
The ACEPR [31] of a 3D model is defined as adjacent channels and − 35 dB between two outer channels:
 they are termed as “(− 20, − 35)-dB” type couplers. Three
1 3 F ( f ) df
adj.ch. e,ℓ 40 dB attenuators were used to protect the components in
ACEPR =  , (16)
3 ℓ=1 ch. Fd,ℓ ( f ) df the next stages and also to minimize the non-linear effects of
the mixers.
where Φe,ℓ( f) is the power spectral density (PSD) of the model The identification and validation were done in the baseband
errors over the adjacent channels, Φd,ℓ( f) is the PSD of the region. The complex baseband signals were OFDM signals with
desired output signal over the signal channel. The ACEPR is suit- 30 MHz bandwidth including 512 sub-carriers and the length of
able for evaluating the performance of behavioral models. CP was 32. The baseband signals were sampled at 100 MHz
The ACLR [1] of a 3D model is and up-converted to the carrier frequency fc = 2.14 GHz with
the average power of − 7.5 dBm and PAPR ∼ 7.5 dB, which the
 excitation signals drive the amplifiers into above their 1-dB com-
1 3 F ( f ) df
adj.ch. y,ℓ
ACLR =  , (17) pression points. The output RF signals were down-converted to
3 ℓ=1 ch. Fd,ℓ ( f ) df an intermediate frequency (IF) using mixers, Mini-Circuits
ZX05-42MH-S, and thereafter filtered by bandpass filters. The
where Φy,ℓ( f) is the PSD of the output signal over the adjacent IF signals were digitized by an analogue-to-digital converter
channels. The ACLR is often used for evaluating the performance (ADC) 14-bit SP-Device ADQ214 at a 400 MHz sampling rate.
in DPD applications. An RF coaxial switch was used to capture the signals of the
three outputs by the dual-channel ADC. The insertion loss of
the switch is < 0.1 dB in the frequency range DC - 4 GHz. The
Experimental setup
digitized IF signals were converted to the complex baseband
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The baseband signals region in the post-processing part. To improve the performance
were uploaded to three Rohde & Schwarz SMBV100A vector of the measurement system, 100 coherent averages were

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 994 Mahmoud Alizadeh et al.

Table 1. The number of parameters versus memory length for the 3D MP

time-domain model and pruned model in a 3 × 3 MIMO systems. The
maximum order of the models is 7.

Memory 3D-MP model Pruned 3D-MP model

0 60 60
1 120 63
2 180 75
3 240 105
4 300 165

Fig. 4. The performance in terms of ACEPR versus the bandwidth of sub-bands for
the frequency-domain model estimated by the zero-order (Os = 0) polynomial in
(10). The system was tested in two scenarios using two different couplers: (− 13.5,
− 21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks.

Fig. 3. The performance in terms of NMSE versus the bandwidth of sub-bands for the
frequency-domain model estimated by the zero-order (Os = 0) polynomial in (10). The
system was tested in two scenarios using two different couplers: (− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB
and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks.

performed and then time-aligned with the input signal [32]. An

RF synthesizer Holzworth HS9003A was used to cohere the
phases between the VSG, down-converter and ADC.
Results
In this section, the performances of the proposed techniques in
the time and frequency domains are analyzed in a 3 × 3 MIMO
system including input and output cross-talks. The first analyses
are for the behavioral models, and the second for the DPD tech-
niques. The performances are evaluated by the standard metrics
NMSE, ACEPR, ACLR, and by the error spectrum. The order
of non-linearity of the models is chosen as 7 due to the perfor-
mances of the models. The proposed models have been tested
for the available RF PAs. The amplifiers only show major
dynamic behaviors along diagonal terms using MP-type models,
whereas the memory effects along cross-terms are not significant
[13]. Thus, the models used for both behavioral modeling and
DPD techniques are based on the MP model where M2 = 0 in
(4) and (8).
The higher-order Volterra kernels of a PA show fewer memory
effects than the fundamental and lower-order kernels [33].
Therefore, a basic pruning technique is applied to reduce the
number of parameters of the model in the time domain by
incorporating fewer memory samples for modeling the higher-
order kernels. This approach is referred to as a non-uniform
memory polynomial model [1]. The same approach is also
Fig. 5. The performances in terms of NMSE for the time-domain (TD) and frequency-
domain (FD) models versus the memory length (M) and order of polynomial (Os) in
(10), respectively. The bandwidths of sub-bands are 1.4 and 1.2 MHz for (− 13.5, −
21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks, respectively.
applied for the model in the frequency domain. Table 1 shows
the number of parameters of the models without and with prun-
ing with respect to the different memory samples.
Behavioral model
Figure 3 depicts the performance of the frequency-domain
model in terms of NMSE versus the bandwidth of the sub-bands.
The parameters of the model are estimated by the zero-order
polynomial in (10). The best performance in NMSE is achieved
when the bandwidth of the sub-bands is ∼ 1.4 MHz and
1.2 MHz for (− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB cross-talks,
respectively, but the performance degrades dramatically with dis-
tances from the optimal bandwidth of the sub-bands, denoting that
the system is frequency-selective for fundamental components. The
curve corresponding to the (− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB type of cross-talks is
smoother and less frequency-selective near the optimal bandwidth
of sub-bands than the (− 20, − 35)-dB type of cross-talks. The
behavior of the PAs in terms of ACEPR is different from that in
NMSE, as shown in Fig. 4. The performance in ACEPR versus
the bandwidth of the sub-bands is smoother (< 0.2 dB) for a

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 995

Fig. 6. The performance in terms of ACEPR for the time-domain (TD) and frequency-
domain (FD) models versus the memory length (M) and order of polynomial (Os) in
(10), respectively. The bandwidths of sub-bands are 6.4 and 4.8 MHz for (− 13.5, −
21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks, respectively.

wide range (∼ 9 MHz), indicating that the system is not signifi-

cantly frequency-selective for non-linear components.
The optimal bandwidth of the sub-bands depends on the fre-
quency selectivity of a system due to the bandwidth of the excita-
tion signal. On the one hand, by increasing the bandwidth of the
sub-bands, the number of DFT points incorporating into the
parameters estimation increases in (14), and hence the model
error decreases. On the other hand, sub-bands with wider band-
widths are more frequency-selective, and hence the model error
increases. Therefore, there is a trade-off between the bandwidth
of the sub-bands and the number of samples for LS estimation
(for a fixed number of DFT points N).
The performances of both the time- and frequency-domain
models in terms of NMSE are depicted in Fig. 5. The NMSE in
the time-domain modeling shows that the system is dynamic in
the in-band frequency region; the model detects three memories
of the system. The performance of the frequency-domain model
estimated by the zero-order of polynomial in (10) gives more
than 12 dB gain compared to the memory-less time-domain
model. However, the performance of the frequency-domain
model estimated by the second-order polynomial will improve
by ∼ 1 dB, which implies that the sub-bands are slightly
frequency-selective.
Figure 6 illustrates the performance of both models in terms of
ACEPR. The time-domain model detects three memories of the Fig. 7. The PSD of the input and outputs of the DUT, the error spectrum of the time-
domain model (TD-Er) for M = 0, 1, 2 and the frequency-domain model (FD-Er) for Os
dynamic system, but the memory effect is less significant com-
= 0. xℓ and yℓ are the ℓth input and output signals in a 3 × 3 MIMO system. The type of
pared to what the NMSE criterion detects, meaning the system cross-talk (− 20, − 35)-dB was used. The bandwidths of sub-bands are 1.2 and
is less dispersive in non-linear components. The performance of 4.8 MHz for estimating the parameters within the input signal channel and adjacent
the frequency-domain model shows that each sub-band could channels.
be estimated by the zero-order polynomial model in (10),
which indicates that the sub-bands are not frequency-selective
Digital pre-distortion
for non-linear components. These are consistent with the analyses
of the NMSE and ACEPR versus the bandwidth of the sub-bands The 3D time- and frequency-domain pre-distortion techniques
as shown in Figs 3 and 4. are proposed in ILA architecture to compensate the impairments
Figure 7 depicts the PSD of the input and output signals of the of the DUT by considering two assumptions: first, the impair-
PAs, the spectrum of the errors of the time-domain model for M ments of the in-phase and quadrature (IQ) imbalances in VSGs
= 0, 1, 2 and of the frequency-domain model for Os = 0 in a 3 × 3 are minor and negligible; second, the non-linearity and memory
MIMO system. As expected, the frequency-domain model (Os = effects of the VSGs are included in those of the DUT. An
0) outperforms the time-domain model in both NMSE and MP-type model is chosen for the DPD technique, since the
ACEPR for M<2. This superiority is more significant in NMSE GMP model does not detect the memory effect of the DUT
than ACEPR, since the system is less frequency-selective in the along cross-terms [13]. The block diagram of the 3D digital
out-of-band frequency regions. pre-distorter is shown in Fig. 8.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 996
Fig. 8. The block diagram of the 3D DPD structure.
Fig. 9. The performances in terms of NMSE for the time-domain (TD) and frequency-
domain (FD) DPDs versus the memory length (M) and order of polynomial (Os) in (10),
respectively. The NMSE without DPDs are − 11.25 and − 13.17 dB in the case of (−
13.5, − 21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks, respectively.
The performance of the 3D DPD in terms of NMSE is
depicted in Fig. 9. The time-domain DPD detects three memory
samples of the system, which is the same as in the modeling.
Nevertheless, the memory effects in the DPD are less pronounced
than in the modeling (cf. Fig. 5). The NMSEs of the signals with-
out using DPD technique are − 11.25 and − 13.17 dB for the
(− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks,
respectively. However, the NMSEs after using 3D DPD improve
by ∼ 27.5 and ∼ 29.6 dB for M=2, whereas three SISO DPDs
improve the NMSEs by 2.81 and 0.49 dB for the (− 13.5, −
21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks, respectively.
The performance of the frequency-domain 3D DPD estimated by
the zero-order polynomial in (10) outperforms the memory-less
time-domain’s by ∼ 9.9 dB in terms of NMSE. However, the sub-
bands are slightly frequency-selective, as is modeled by the
second-order polynomial in (10), giving about 1 dB improvement.
The performance of the DPDs in terms of ACLR is shown in
Fig. 10, whereas the ACLRs without DPD are − 38.85 and
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Mahmoud Alizadeh et al.
Fig. 10. The performances in terms of ACLR for the time-domain (TD) and frequency-
domain (FD) DPDs versus the memory length (M) and order of polynomial (Os) in (10),
respectively. The NMSE without DPDs are − 38.85 and − 39.82 dB in the case of (−
13.5, − 21.5)-dB and (− 20, − 35)-dB types of cross-talks, respectively.
− 39.82 dB. Three SISO DPDs improve the ACLRs by 3 and
3.33 dB for the (− 13.5, − 21.5)-dB and and (− 20, − 35)-dB types
of cross-talks, respectively. The time- and frequency-domain
DPDs merely detect the static behavior of the system. Hence, both
techniques approximately give the same performance in ACLR.
Figure 11 illustrates the PSD of the input and output signals of
the PAs, the spectrum of the errors of the time-domain DPD for
M = 0, 1, 2 and of the frequency-domain DPD for Os = 0 in a 3 ×
3 MIMO system. As shown, the frequency-domain DPD (Os = 0)
outperforms the time-domain model in NMSE for M < 2.
Computational complexity
The size of the regression matrix for a time-domain MP model is
N K0 (1 + M), (18)
where N is the number of samples, M is the memory length, and
 International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 997

Table 2. The relative computational complexity of the frequency-domain

technique compared to the time-domain technique for 1D, 2D, and 3D
techniques where it is assumed that MP models are used, M = 2, Os = 0,
Ns = 38, N = 25 000 and P = 7 in all cases. The number of parameters of the
time-domain model for each case is mentioned in the parenthesis.

Model Without pruning With pruning

1D 36.37%, (12) 103.93%, (7)

2D 16.01%, (60) 72.23%, (28)
3D 13.16%, (180) 75.01%, (75)

K0 is the total number of parameters in a static model, which is 60

for P = 7 in a 3 × 3 MIMO system. The computational complexity
of the parameter estimation in (11) using a Gaussian elimination
method [34] is

3NK0 (1 + M) + 2NK02 (1 + M)2

(19)
+ K03 (1 + M)3 ,

where only the computational complexity of multiplications is

considered [35], since the number of floating points operations
(FLOPs) for a complex multiplication is 6, whereas for a complex
addition it is 2 [36]. If the entire bandwidth of the system is
divided into Ns sub-bands, the size of the regression matrix in a
sub-model is

N
K0 (1 + Os ). (20)
Ns

The total computational complexity of the parameter estimation

for all sub-models, including the fast Fourier transform (FFT)
and inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT), is

K0 N log2 (N) + 3N log2 (N) + 3NK0 (1 + Os )

+ 2NK02 (1 + Os )2 + Ns K03 (1 + Os )3 (21)
+ NK0 Os .

A sub-band is much narrower than the entire bandwidth of the

system, Os ≤ M. Also, the size of the frequency-domain sub-model
in (20) is smaller than the time-domain model in (18) by a factor
of (1 + Os)/(Ns (1 + M)). Therefore, the total computational com-
plexity of the sub-band modelling in the frequency domain is less Fig. 11. The PSD of the input and outputs of the DUT, the error spectrum of the time-
than the time-domain’s. Table 2 shows the relative computational domain DPD (TD-Er) for M = 0, 1, 2 and the frequency-domain DPD (FD-Er) for Os = 0.
xℓ and yℓ are the ℓth input and output signals in a 3 × 3 MIMO system. The type of
complexity of the frequency-domain technique compared to the cross-talk (− 20, − 35)-dB was used.
time-domain technique for 1D, 2D, and 3D techniques where it
is assumed that MP models are used, M = 2, Os = 0, Ns = 38,
N = 25 000, and P=7 in all cases. As shown, the computational
efficiency of the frequency-domain technique is low for small advantage for parallel processing applications. Furthermore, the
size of models. However, its efficiency increases for models with frequency-domain approach is more feasible for economic proces-
large number of parameters, e.g. for the 3D model: the computa- sors and embedded systems.
tional complexity of the frequency-domain model reduces by
∼ 87% and 25% compared to the time-domain model’s in the
case of without (180 parameters) and with pruning (75 para-
Discussion
meters), respectively
In addition, the frequency-domain parameters identification The method presented above, where analytical expressions in the
can be done independently for each sub-band, which is an frequency domain are fitted to experimental data and then

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 998
transformed to the time domain, does not enforce causality of the
final time-domain model. If the bandwidth of the frequency-
domain sub-band model is narrower than the bandwidth of a
DUT or excitation signals, the output of the model could be
noticeably affected by the non-causality of the model. Also,
these effects happen for the excitation signals with abrupt
changes, e.g. impulse-like signals, which it is necessary to filter.
Thus, the model shows some non-causality effects in cases of nar-
row sub-band bandwidths, low SNR, a high maximum order of
non-linearity and limited memory length of the DUT. In some
applications in which DUTs are excited by burst signals, the
effects of non-causality might be a concern. However, these effects
are negligible if they are below the noise level. Nonetheless, the
proposed frequency-domain sub-band modeling technique pro-
cesses a (non-burst) sequence or block of time-domain data trans-
formed in the frequency domain. Hence, the effects of non-causal
processing can be neglected for a sequence that can be considered
as an off-line data.
In this paper, the behavioral modeling and DPD methods are
investigated for RF PAs under output impedance matched condi-
tions, for which it is assumed that the effects of non-linearity
caused by reflected signals from antennas are negligible.
Otherwise, the model requires different strategies to tackle the
problem [14]. However, the linear effects of the output cross-talk
are considered in this work. Besides that, the structure of the pro-
posed DPD model is suitable to compensate for the effects of both
input and output cross-talk channels. Nevertheless, it might be
modified for other types of cross-talks, e.g. if the DUT only
includes input (or output) cross-talk channels [10, 30]. The
method for the proposed frequency-domain modelling technique
in this paper would be suitable for gallium nitride (GaN) RF PAs
and millimetre-wave applications, in which it is required to
include long-term memory effects in time-domain modeling tech-
niques [37, 38].
Conclusion
In this paper, 3D behavioral models and DPD techniques are pro-
posed in both the time and frequency domains for RF PAs in a
3 × 3 MIMO system including input and output cross-talks. The
performances of the proposed techniques in both domains are
evaluated giving improvements in minimizing the errors in
terms of NMSE, ACEPR, and ACLR. The proposed frequency-
domain technique has the advantage of reducing the computa-
tional complexity, which makes it suitable for higher-dimensional
MIMO systems, and also for strong dynamic systems. Moreover,
the frequency-domain technique has a higher efficiency compared
to the time-domain technique for a system that is dispersive along
diagonal terms. Hence, future research can be focused on the
extension of the work for massive MIMO and millimetre-wave
systems.
Author ORCIDs. Mahmoud Alizadeh, 0000-0003-2061-6366
References
1. Ghannouchi FM, Hammi O and Helaoui M (2015) Behavioral Modeling
and Predistortion of Wideband Wireless Transmitters. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
2. Larsson EG, Edfors O, Tufvesson F and Marzetta TL (2014) Massive
MIMO for next generation wireless systems. IEEE Communications
Magazine 52, 186–195.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Mahmoud Alizadeh et al.
3. Abdelaziz M, Anttila L and Valkama M (2017) Reduced-complexity
digital predistortion for massive MIMO. IEEE International Conference
Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process. (ICASSP), New Orleans, LA, USA.
4. Vuolevi J and Rahkonen T (2003) Distortion in RF Power Amplifiers.
Boston, MA, USA: Artech House.
5. Pedro JC and Mass SA (2005) A comparative overview of microwave and
wireless power amplifier behavioral modeling approaches. IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 53, 1150–1163.
6. Bassam S, Helaoui M and Ghannouchi FM (2009) Crossover digital pre-
distorter for the compensation of crosstalk and nonlinearity in MIMO
transmitters. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
57, 1119–1128.
7. Schetzen M (1980) The Volterra and Wiener Theory of Nonlinear System.
New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Wood J (2014) Behavioral Modeling and Linearization of RF Power
Amplifiers. Norwood, MA, USA: Artech House.
9. Mathews CJ and Sicuranza GL (2000) Polynomial Signal Processing.
New York, USA: Wiley.
10. Amin S, Landin PN, Händel P and Rönnow D (2014) Behavioral mod-
elling and linearization of crosstalk and memory effects in RF MIMO
transmitters. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
62, 1–14.
11. Alizadeh M, Amin S and Rönnow D (2017) Measurement and analysis of
frequency-domain Volterra kernels of nonlinear dynamic 3 × 33 MIMO
systems. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 66,
1893–1905.
12. Khan ZA, Zenteno E, Händel P and Isaksson M (2018) Extraction of
the third-Order 3 × 3 MIMO Volterra kernel outputs using multitone
signals. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 66,
4985–4999.
13. Alizadeh M, Rönnow D, Händel P and Isaksson M (2017) A new block-
structure modeling technique for RF power amplifiers in a 2 × 2 MIMO
system. IEEE International ConferenceAdvanced Technologies, Systems
and Services in Telecommunications (TELSIKS), Niš, Serbia.
14. Hausmair K, Landin PN, Gustavsson U, Fager C and Eriksson T (2018)
Digital predistortion for multi-antenna transmitters affected by antenna
crosstalk. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 66,
1524–1535.
15. Chiu M, Zeng C and Liu M (2008) Predistorter based on frequency
domain estimation for compensation of nonlinear distortion in OFDM
systems. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 57, 882–892.
16. Zhang W and Xie S (2016) Piece-wise vector fitting method with binary
frequency domain partitioning algorithm for automatic modeling. IEEE
International Conference Microwave Millimeter Wave Technology
(ICMMT), Beijing, China.
17. Zhao Y, Hao Y, Alomainy A and Parini C (2006) UWB on-body radio
channel modeling using ray theory and subband FDTD method. IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 54, 1827–1835.
18. Zhang Q and Chen W (2017) Digital predistortion for 5G wideband
power amplifiers using multiple band-limited feedback signals.
Microwave Measurement Conference (ARFTG), Honololu, HI.
19. Liu Y, Pan W and Shao S (2013) A new digital predistortion for wideband
power amplifiers with constrained feedback bandwidth. IEEE Microwave
Components Letters 23, 683–685.
20. Zargar H, Banai A and Pedro JC (2015) A new double input-double out-
put complex envelope amplifier behavioral model taking into account
source and load mismatch effects. IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques 63, 766–774.
21. Vejdani Amiri M, Helaoui M and Ghannouchi FM (2014) Streamlined
MIMO cross-over digital predistortion. IEEE Radio Wireless Symposium
(RWS), Newport Beach, CA, USA.
22. Morgan DR, Ma Z, Kim J, Zierdt MG and Pastalan J (2006) A
generalized memory polynomial model for digital predistortion of
RF power amplifiers. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 54,
3852–3860.
23. Kim J and Konstantinou K (2001) Digital predistortion of wideband
signals based on power amplifier model with memory. Electron Letters
37, 1417–1418.
 International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies
24. Haykin S (1996) Digital Communication Systems. New York, USA: Wiley.
25. Oppenheim AV and Verghese GC (2015) Signal Systems and Inference,
1st Edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
26. Arokiamary VJ (2009) Mobile Communications, 1st Edn. Pune, India:
Technical Publications Pune.
27. Kay SM (1998) Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Detection
Theory, vol. II. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
28. Molisch AF (2011) Wireless Communications, 2nd Edn. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
29. Eun C and Powers JE (1997) A new Volterra predistorter based on the
indirect learning architecture. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 45,
223–227.
30. Rönnow D (2018) Pth-order inverse of the Volterra series for
multiple-input multiple-output non-linear dynamic systems. IET Circuits
and Devices Systems 12, 403–412.
31. Isaksson M, Wisell D and Händel P (2005) Nonlinear behavioral model-
ing of power amplifiers using radial-basis function neural networks. IEEE
MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, Long Beach, CA,
USA.
32. Isaksson M, Wisell D and Rönnow D (2006) A comparative analysis of
behavioral models for RF power amplifiers. IEEE Transactions on
Microwave Theory and Techniques 54, 348–359.
33. Zhu A, Dooley J and Brazil TJ (2006) Simplified Volterra series based
behavioral modeling of RF power amplifiers using deviation-reduction.
IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest,
San Francisco, CA, USA.
34. Strang G (2006) Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 4th ed. Belmont, CA,
USA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
35. Guan L and Zhu A (2012) Optimized low-complexity implementation of
least squares based model extraction for digital predistortion of RF power
amplifiers. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 60,
594–603.
36. Tehrani AS, Haiying C, Afsardoost S, Eriksson T, Isaksson M and
Fager C (2010) A comparative analysis of the complexity/accuracy tradeoff
in power amplifier behavioral models. IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques 58, 1510–1520.
37. Barradas FM, Cunha TR and Pedro JC (2017) Digital predistortion of RF
PAs for MIMO transmitters based on the equivalent load. Integer
Nonlinear Microwave Millimetre-wave Circuits Workshop (INMMiC),
Graz, Austria.
38. Amin S, Händel P and Rönnow D (2017) Digital predistortion of single
and concurrent dual-band radio frequency GaN amplifiers with strong
nonlinear memory effects. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and
Techniques 65, 2453–2464.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1759078719000862 Published online by Cambridge University Press
999
Mahmoud Alizadeh received the M.Sc. degree in
wireless communication from the Electrical and
Information Technology Department, Lund
University, Lund, Sweden, in 2013, and received
the Ph.D. degree with the School of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science, Royal
Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm,
Sweden in 2019, focusing on digital signal pro-
cessing for communication systems, linearisa-
tion and characterisation techniques for non-linear RF power amplifiers. He
was also with the Department of Electronical Engineering, Mathematics and
Natural Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Peter Händel received the M.Sc. degree in
Engineering Physics and Ph.D. degree in
Automatic Control from the Department of
Information Technology, Uppsala University,
Uppsala, Sweden, in 1987 and 1993, respect-
ively. During 1993–1997, he was with the
Research and Development Division, Ericsson
Radio Systems AB, Kista, Sweden. Since
August 1997, he has been in the School of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology
(KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, where he currently is Professor of the Division
of Information Science and Engineering.
Daniel Rönnow received the M.Sc. degree in
Engineering Physics and Ph.D. degree in Solid-
state Physics from Uppsala University, Uppsala,
Sweden, in 1991 and 1996, respectively. He was
involved with semiconductor physics at
Max-Planck-Institut für Festkörperforschung,
Stuttgart, Germany, from 1996 to 1998 and with
infrared sensors and systems at Acreo AB,
Stockholm, Sweden, from 1998 to 2000. From
2000 to 2004, he was a Technical Consultant and Head of Research with
Racomna AB, Uppsala, Sweden. From 2004 to 2006 he was a university lecturer
at University of Gävle, Sweden. During 2006–2011 he was a senior sensor engin-
eer at Westerngeco, Oslo Norway, where he worked with signal processing and
seismic sensors. In 2011, he became a professor in electronics at University of
Gävle. He has been an Associate Professor with Uppsala University since 2000.
He has authored or coauthored over 45 peer-reviewed papers and holds eight
patents. His current research interests are RF measurement techniques, and
linearization of non-linear RF circuits and systems.