 Research Article
 Open Access
Efficient Lookup TableBased Adaptive Baseband Predistortion Architecture for Memoryless Nonlinearity
 Seydou N. Ba^{1}Email author,
 Khurram Waheed^{2} and
 G. Tong Zhou^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/379249
© Seydou N. Ba et al. 2010
 Received: 24 November 2009
 Accepted: 14 May 2010
 Published: 13 June 2010
Abstract
Digital predistortion is an effective means to compensate for the nonlinear effects of a memoryless system. In case of a cellular transmitter, a digital baseband predistorter can mitigate the undesirable nonlinear effects along the signal chain, particularly the nonlinear impairments in the radiofrequency (RF) amplifiers. To be practically feasible, the implementation complexity of the predistorter must be minimized so that it becomes a costeffective solution for the resourcelimited wireless handset. This paper proposes optimizations that facilitate the design of a lowcost highperformance adaptive digital baseband predistorter for memoryless systems. A comparative performance analysis of the amplitude and power lookup table (LUT) indexing schemes is presented. An optimized lowcomplexity amplitude approximation and its hardware synthesis results are also studied. An efficient LUT predistorter training algorithm that combines the fast convergence speed of the normalized least mean squares (NLMSs) with a small hardware footprint is proposed. Results of fixedpoint simulations based on the measured nonlinear characteristics of an RF amplifier are presented.
Keywords
 Less Mean Square
 Error Vector Magnitude
 Less Mean Square Algorithm
 Angular Interval
 Amplitude Approximation
1. Introduction
Highefficiency RF amplifiers have nonlinear amplitude and phase transfer characteristics, which distort the transmitted signals, causing undesired outofband spectral regrowth and an increase in error vector magnitude (EVM) and bit error rate (BER). Digital baseband predistortion is an effective means to reconcile the conflicting requirements of linearity and power efficiency. For resourcelimited lowcost handsets, the implementation complexity of the predistorter must be minimized. This paper proposes optimizations that facilitate the design of a costeffective and highperformance adaptive digital baseband predistorter, while minimizing expensive factory calibration requirements. These attributes render this work highly desirable to meet the stringent linearity requirements of the modern third and fourth generation (3G/4G) wireless systems, which employ complex amplitude and phase domain modulations to achieve superior spectral efficiency [1].
While 2.5G EDGE and 3G WCDMA voice waveforms used simpler modulation schemes that exhibited less than dB of peaktoaverage power ratio (PAPR), advanced WCDMA (or HSPA) waveforms exhibit PAPRs in excess of dB and modern 4G (LTE, WiMax) use more complex signal constellations resulting in PAPRs of up to 12 dB [1]. Such a high PAPR mandates higher linearity requirements from the RF physical layer, which is in sharp contrast to the stronger demand for increased power efficiency and maximization of the handset battery life. These conflicting requirements can be tamed by resorting to the use of RF frontend amplifiers in their most powerefficient regime, while using signal predistortion schemes to achieve the desired linearity.
The nonlinear gain and phase distortions of RF amplifiers are a strong function of the envelope fluctuations in an RF signal [2, 3]. Consequently, most digital baseband predistorters are implemented as a function of the amplitude of the baseband input. In the case of the complexgain lookup table (LUT) predistorter [4, 5], the most significant bits (MSBs) of the signal magnitude can be directly used to address the physical memory containing the LUT entries. For example, the first seven MSBs can be used to address an LUT with entries [6]. The precise amplitude computation requires a squareroot operation, which is not directly amenable to efficient hardware implementation, especially at very high processing rates. A squareroot approximation proposed in [7] has a performance close to the ideal amplitude calculation. But in addition to the squared magnitude computation, the squareroot approximation requires additional LUTs and a linear interpolation calculation. Other practical digital baseband predistorters [4] have been implemented as a function of the instantaneous envelope power , where is the inphase, is the quadrature component of the complex baseband signal. The resulting, but often unintended effect, is a concentration of the LUT entries around the higher amplitude region [7, 8]. This power indexing scheme is suitable for classA and mild classAB amplifiers since their characteristics are mostly linear until close to saturation. However, this is not well suited to amplifiers with higher power efficiency, such as deep classAB, classB, C, and E [9], which exhibit significant nonlinear amplitude and phase distortions across the entire amplitude range. A comparative performance analysis of the amplitude and powerindexing schemes will be presented in this paper. A suitable lowcomplexity amplitude approximation for digital baseband predistorters is then applied. The proposed amplitude approximation has lower complexity than the squared magnitude computation and a performance that is close to the ideal amplitudeindexed LUT predistorter.
Furthermore, the nonlinear characteristics of power amplifiers can display significant variations when the operating temperature fluctuates and as the device ages. To maintain effectiveness of the predistorter and minimize residual distortions as well as calibration requirements, an adaptive predistorter [2, 10] must be used. This problem is further exacerbated by the high PAPR of the modern 3G/4G modulation waveforms. In this paper, an efficient least mean squares (LMS)based [11] adaptation technique for LUT predistorters is presented as well as its optimization for low complexity hardware implementation.
Section 2 presents a comparative performance analysis between amplitude and power LUT indexing schemes and studies the design and implementation of a suitable amplitude approximation for digital baseband predistorters. Section 3 presents a lowcomplexity training approach for LUTbased complexgain predistorters.
2. Performance of Amplitude and Power LUT Indexing
The indexing of a predistorter LUT with the squared signal magnitude is an attractive approach because of the relative ease of computation of . But it is reported in [7] that the magnitude indexing generally results in significantly better performance for a given LUT size. The performance gap is further exacerbated when the source signal is scaled for the purpose of power control. An LUTbased squareroot approximation proposed in [7] has a performance that is close to the ideal amplitude calculation. In this section, we show that an accurate magnitude approximation for digital baseband predistorters, with lower hardware footprint, can be obtained directly from the inphase and quadrature components of the input signal.
Simple amplitude approximation techniques have been used for radar detection applications [12–15]. Most of the methods presented result in relatively coarse approximations, even though their precision is within the tolerance of the target applications. But since the digital baseband predistorter is located in the direct transmit path, such large amplitude approximation errors would severely limit the performance of the predistorter, resulting in both residual EVM degradation and spectral distortions.
In [13], the approximation accuracy is improved by further dividing the angular interval into two intervals, and using two different sets of coefficients , that are optimized for their corresponding angular intervals.
These results show that the use of three angular intervals is sufficient to decrease the mean square of the relative amplitude error below dB. This ensures that there is negligible transmit EVM and ACLR contribution due to the predistorter implementation. As shown by these results, an arbitrary amplitude approximation accuracy can be achieved by selecting a large enough number of angular intervals. But a larger number of angular intervals will result in a more complex decision process and the approximation is useful only if it is amenable to efficient implementation. It should be noted that the optimal coefficients obtained here are based on the assumption that the phase of the input signal is uniformly distributed. This assumption applies very well to most signal modulations. In the special case of a skewed phase probability density, the true optimal coefficients can be better approached using unequal angular intervals.
Amplitude approximation over three angular intervals: amplitude approximation coefficients and resulting relative amplitude errors for floatingpoint and fixedpoint implementations.
Quantities  Floatingpoint  Fixedpoint 













(%) 


(%) 


(%) 


EVM and ACLR performances of an LUT predistorter with amplitude versus power indexing; the input is WCDMA.
DPD Status  Indexing Scheme  EVM (dB)  ACLR1 (dBc/Hz)  ACLR2 (dBc/Hz) 

DPD OFF  —  21.71  32.18  49.81 
DPD ON  Power  44.71  53.60  53.86 
DPD ON  Amplitude approx  61.57  67.86  69.95 
DPD ON  Amplitude ideal  63.60  68.99  71.68 
Nand2equivalent gate count for power index computation and amplitude approximation.
I/Q resolution (bits)  Gate count  

Power indexing  Amplitude approx  
8 


10 


12 


14 


It is clear from these results that the amplitude approximation design results in lower gate count for the input signal resolutions of interest ( 10 bits). The gap between the amplitudeindexing and powerindexing schemes increases rapidly as the resolution is increased from 8 to 14 bits. For input resolutions lower than 8 bits, the power computation results in a slightly lower gate count. But at such low resolutions, the performance is primarily limited by the I/Q signal quantization error. In this case, the resolution of the coefficients can be reduced down to 5 or 4 bits to further reduce the gate count of the amplitude approximation block. Typically, a baseband signal resolution of more than 10 bits is required to meet the closein spectrum and waveform quality specifications over the entire power control dynamic range as per the standard's requirements. Therefore, the proposed amplitude approximation design has a clear advantage over the power indexing, both in terms of total design area and performance.
3. Adaptation of ComplexGain LUT Predistorters
In [4], Cavers proposed the secant update for fast adaptation of complexgain LUT predistorters. But its high computational complexity makes it unsuitable for hardware implementation.
The gradient definition in (18) is equivalent to separately deriving the LMS algorithm for the real and imaginary parts of the complexgain predistorter, respectively [20]. Considering one single interval at a time allows to simplify the problem by reducing it to finding an approximate inverse of the average amplifier complex gain within the considered interval. For each incoming feedback sample, only the corresponding entry that is addressed by its magnitude is updated. This process is similar to the partial update LMS [21, 22]. The update operation requires two complex multiplies (one to compute the error and one to evaluate the gradient), two additions and the scaling by , which can be simplified if it is restricted to powers of two. The update system is stable provided that [23], with being equal to for all falling in the th interval. If the LUT size is large, the samples can be assumed to have a uniform distribution across the interval. In this case, the expectation can be approximated by the square of the average magnitude, which is the point located at the center of the interval: .
 (i)
For very low values of the system becomes susceptible to noise in the feedback path, with a potential to drive the update system into instability.
 (ii)
The scaling by the magnitude is an expensive operation that is not directly amenable to efficient hardware implementation.
The phase is therefore quantized to four possible values, that is, , thus effectively eliminating one complex multiplier (or four real multipliers).
It should be noted that this low complexity update is even simpler to realize in hardware than the regular LMS, which requires two complex multipliers and has a much slower convergence speed.
This lowcomplexity update method (LCNLMS) was simulated and compared to the LMS and the NLMS. The previously described classE amplifier is used in this experiment and a 10 MHz LTE signal with a composite PAPR of 8.5 dB is used to train the feedback LUT in the indirect learning setup. The size of the complexgain LUTs is set to entries. The complexgain LUT entries are initially set to unity, which is functionally equivalent to bypassing the predistorter. The resolution of the inphase and quadrature (I/Q) signal components is set to 13 bits. To measure the sensitivity of the adaptation to noise, the feedback signal is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and has an SNR of 33 dB. The LUT is updated at a rate of 30.76 MHz and the overall simulation was run at a sampling rate of 61.52 MHz. The update coefficient for LMS and NMLS is set to . Comparing (21) and (24) shows that the LCNLMS intrinsically increases the update rate by a factor of . On the other hand, the biased quantization of in (26) approximately compensates for this factor. Therefore, setting for the LCNLMS ensures a fair comparison.
3.1. Updating a LinearlyInterpolated LUT
Therefore, even when the feedforward predistorter is chosen to be linearly interpolated, the nearest neighbor adaptation can be used in the update branch of the indirect learning architecture, without much performance penalty. Note that ZOH requires only one memory read and write for each data sample. On the other hand, the linearly interpolated adaptation requires two memory reads and writes per data sample, placing more stringent timing requirements on the adaptation hardware.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, an efficient LUTbased adaptive memoryless predistorter configuration, with minimized chip area, has been presented. An amplitude approximation scheme suitable for digital baseband predistorters is proposed. A closedform solution is derived to determine the optimal parameters for the amplitude approximation using any arbitrary angular interval size. A quantized amplitude approximation with three angular intervals is implemented in VHDL and synthesized with the SYNOPSYS DESIGN COMPILER. The predistorter performance using the proposed areaefficient scheme is shown to be within dB of the ideal amplitude performance, while it outperforms the powerindexing in both design area and rejection of residual distortions by a wide margin.
An adaptation algorithm for complexgain LUT predistorters based on the indirect learning architecture is also presented. The proposed adaptation algorithm has been optimized for efficient hardware implementation. It has a convergence speed that is comparable to the normalized LMS and lends itself to very efficient hardware implementation. The proposed optimized adaptive predistorter can be extended to mitigate memory effects by adding a linear timeinvariant filter in cascade with the memoryless complexgain predistorter [5, 30].
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), March 2010, http://www.3gpp.org/
 de Figueiredo RJP, Fang L, Lee BM: Design of an adaptivepredistorter for solid state power amplifier in wireless OFDM systems. Research Letters in Signal Processing 2009, 2009:5.Google Scholar
 Waheed K, Ba SN: Adaptive digital linearization of a DRP based EDGE transmitter for cellular handsets. Proceedings of the 50th IEEE International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWCSAS '07), August 2007 706709.Google Scholar
 Cavers JK: Amplifier linearization using a digital predistorter with fast adaptation and low memory requirements. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 1990, 39(4):374382. 10.1109/25.61359View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jardin P, Baudoin G: Filter lookup table method for power amplifier linearization. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 2007, 56(3):10761087.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ba SN, Waheed K, Zhou GT: Efficient spacing scheme for a linearly interpolated lookup table predistorter. Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS '08), May 2008 15121515.Google Scholar
 Sundström L, Faulkner M, Johansson M: Quantization analysis and design of a digital predistortion linearizer for RF power amplifiers. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 1996, 45(4):707719. 10.1109/25.543741View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cavers JK: Optimum table spacing in predistorting amplifier linearizers. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 1999, 48(5):16991705. 10.1109/25.790551View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kenington PB: High Linearity RF Amplifier Design. Artech House Publishers, Norwood, Mass, USA; 2000.Google Scholar
 Lee KC, Gardner P: Comparison of different adaptation algorithms for adaptive digital predistortion based on EDGE standard. Proceedings of IEEE MTTS International Microwave Symposium Digest, May 2001 2: 13531356.Google Scholar
 Widrow B, Stearns S: Adaptive Signal Processing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Onoe M: Fast amplitude approximation yielding either exact meanor minimum deviation for quadrature pairs. Proceedings of the IEEE 1972, 60(7):921922.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Filip AE: A baker's dozen magnitude approximations and their detection statistics. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 1976, 12(1):8689.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Braun F, Blaser H: Digital hardware for approximating the amplitude of quadrature pairs. Electronics Letters 1974, 10(13):255256. 10.1049/el:19740201View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Filip AE:Linear approximations to having equiripple error characteristics. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 1973, AU21(6):554556.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tsou WA, Wuen WS, Yang TY, Wen KA: Analysis and compensation of the AMAM and AMPM distortion for CMOS cascode classE power amplifier. International Journal of Microwave Science and Technology 2009, 2009:9.Google Scholar
 Cruise P, Hung CM, Staszewski RB, Eliezer O, Rezeq S, Maggio K, Leipold D: A digitaltoRFamplitude converter for GSM/GPRS/EDGE in 90nm digital CMOS. Proceedings of IEEE Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits Symposium (RFIC '05), June 2005 RMO1A4: 2124.Google Scholar
 Eun C, Powers EJ: A new volterra predistorter based on the indirect learning architecture. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1997, 45(1):223227. 10.1109/78.552219View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Brandwood DH: A complex gradient operator and its application in adaptive array theory. IEE Proceedings F 1983, 130(1):1116. 10.1049/ipf1.1983.0003MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Widrow B, McCool J, Ball M: The complex LMS algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE 1975, 63(4):719720.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Douglas SC: Adaptive filters employing partial updates. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II 1997, 44(3):209216. 10.1109/82.558455View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ramos P, Torrubia R, López A, Salinas A, Masgrau E: Step size bound of the sequential partial update LMS algorithm with periodic input signals. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing 2007, 2007:15.Google Scholar
 Widrow B, Walach E: On the statistical efficiency of the LMS algorithm with nonstationary inputs. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 1984, 30(2):211221. 10.1109/TIT.1984.1056892View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Goodwin GC, Sin KS: Adaptive Filtering Prediction and Control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1984.MATHGoogle Scholar
 Aboulnasr T, Mayyas K: Complexity reduction of the NLMS algorithm via selective coefficient update. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1999, 47(5):14211424. 10.1109/78.757235View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Moschner JL: Adaptive filtering with clipped input data, Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif, USA; June 1970.Google Scholar
 Lotfizad M, Yazdi HS: Modified clipped LMS algorithm. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2005, 2005(8):12291234. 10.1155/ASP.2005.1229View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Crum L, Wu S: Convergence of the quantizing learning method forsystem identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1968, 13(3):297298.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ba SN, Waheed K, Zhou GT: Optimal spacing of a linearlyinterpolated complexgain LUT predistorter. IEEE Transactions onVehicular Technology 2010, 59(2):673681.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ding L, Raich R, Zhou GT: A hammerstein predistortion linearization design based on the indirect learning architecture. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP '02), May 2002 3:Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.