The present invention is directed generally to calibrating systems for linear behavior, and more particularly to characterizing nonlinear behavior of systems using non-ideal test equipment.
All analog electronic devices have some component of nonlinear behavior. A system's accuracy is often limited by the nonlinearities of its constituent components. For example, signal generators and signal analyzers today are limited in dynamic range due to the nonlinear behavior of their analog and mixed signal components. Digital signal processing is sometimes used to linearize such a system.
Several techniques for linearizing a system exhibiting nonlinear behavior involve building a mathematical model for that nonlinear behavior. If the system exhibits a “weak” nonlinearity, it is possible to use the nonlinear model and the output or input of the system to predict the nonlinear behavior of the system. With an appropriate model, one may either pre-distort or post-distort the data and linearize the system. It is common to characterize a nonlinear model for a particular system, and then apply it to several related systems. In this case, the model structure does not change between applications. However, the coefficients of that model may require re-adjustment. This calibration process fits a generic model structure to a specific system.
The process of calibration is typically time consuming and requires specialized equipment. The typical calibration approach applies a stimulus signal to the nonlinear device and then measures the device's response. The nonlinear component of the difference between the stimulus and response provides the necessary information to calibrate the nonlinear model. An underlying assumption to this approach is that the stimulus and response are known. For many situations, this is not an unreasonable assumption. Typical methods of calibration also rely on a signal source or receiver that is significantly more linear than the system to be calibrated. Unfortunately, if the device under test is extremely linear, it is often difficult or impossible to find test equipment to either generate or capture waveforms without introducing errors comparable to the nonlinear behavior of the device under test (DUT). Even if such test instruments are available, they are often prohibitively expensive to build into the system to be linearized for the sole purpose of calibration.
Representative embodiments of the present invention provide for a method of calibrating a nonlinear model with an imperfect (nonlinear) signal source or an imperfect (nonlinear) signal receiver, or both an imperfect (nonlinear) signal source and an imperfect (nonlinear) signal receiver simultaneously. Representative embodiments of the invention also provide for a blind approach to nonlinear equalization, an approach which can use a stimulus signal that is unknown. These features are in contrast to typical calibration approaches described previously, which require a priori knowledge of the calibration signal, a highly linear signal source and a highly linear signal receiver.
Representative embodiments of the present invention will compare a response to an original stimulus with a response to an attenuated stimulus. Generally, an attenuated stimulus will generate lower levels of nonlinear behavior in a DUT relative to the original stimulus. Since an attenuator will be highly linear, nonlinear differences can be attributed to the DUT. Attenuation may be used for both input and output signals, such that nonlinearities in a signal source and a signal receiver do not introduce nonlinearities in the measurements. That is, a signal source may generate identical signals for two or more stimulus levels, but the difference in stimulus levels will be due to linear attenuators, rather than changes in the signal source output. Thus, signal source behavior will be reproduced exactly, and nonlinearities in the signal source will not appear in measurement results. Similarly, signals output from a DUT may be attenuated by various levels of attenuation, such that the signals appearing at a signal receiver are approximately the same magnitude. Thus, the signal receiver may be assumed to be linear over the range of received signals. Any observed nonlinear behavior, therefore, can be attributed to the DUT.
Representative embodiments of the present invention will compare responses to multiple stimuli both individually and in linear combination, where each signal source produces a consistent signal for measurements of both individual and combination responses. That is, a first signal source may generate a first signal, and the response is measured. Then a second source may generate a second signal, and that response is measured. Finally, with the first signal source generating the same first signal, and the second source generating the same second signal, the first and second signals may be combined linearly to produce a third signal. The response of the third signal may be measured, and any nonlinearities in the response can be attributed to nonlinearities in the device. Representative embodiments using linear combinations of stimuli may also use attenuation of the device output as described above, in order to minimize the effect of nonlinearities in the receiver.
Representative embodiments of the present invention enable calibration without specialized equipment and are applicable with arbitrary waveforms. Since scaling and additive properties of linear systems are not obeyed in nonlinear systems, linearly scaling or adding signals outside a device to be calibrated highlights the difference between linear and nonlinear system behavior. Such differences may be used to build and calibrate nonlinear models of the behavior. While sources and receivers may not replicate or measure a known signal perfectly, their behavior for an arbitrary signal is often suitably repeatable. This repeatability can be used to coherently average signals, which recovers dynamic range that may be lost by attenuation.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technical advantages of the present invention in order that the detailed description of the invention that follows may be better understood. Additional features and advantages of the invention will be described hereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the invention. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The novel features which are believed to be characteristic of the invention, both as to its organization and method of operation, together with further objects and advantages will be better understood from the following description when considered in connection with the accompanying figures. It is to be expressly understood, however, that each of the figures is provided for the purpose of illustration and description only and is not intended as a definition of the limits of the present invention.
For a more complete understanding of the present invention, reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
It will be understood that the inventive concepts described herein may be adapted for use to calibrate nonlinear models using attenuation or linear combinations of stimuli and/or attenuation of responses from a device under test (DUT). What follows will be understood to be specific embodiments, and the present invention need not be limited to only the embodiments described.
Attenuator 204 may have frequency-dependent behavior, which may drive the requirement for multiple attenuators, each providing the function of attenuator 204 for specific frequency bands. Additionally, although calibration configuration 20 is described above as having two levels of attenuation, 0 and N dB, it could use multiple levels of attenuation or two levels of attenuation, N1 dB and N2 dB, where neither level is 0.
Attenuator 404 may have frequency-dependent behavior, which may drive the requirement for multiple attenuators, each providing the function of attenuator 404 for specific frequency bands. Although calibration configuration 40 is described above as having two levels of attenuation, 0 and M dB, it could use multiple levels of attenuation or two levels of attenuation, M1 dB and M2 dB, where neither level is 0. Additionally, the description above gives an attenuation value of 0 when s1(t) is applied and M dB when s2(t) is applied. There is no requirement to use a lower attenuation value first, nor is the M dB value shown in
With non-ideal source 601 generating s(t), attenuator 604 is set to a value of N dB. Generated stimulus s(t) becomes applied stimulus s2(t), which is applied to DUT 603. DUT 603 outputs response r2(t). Attenuator 605 is switched to an appropriate attenuation value, either 0 dB or M dB, to attenuate response r2(t) to measured response r′2(t), which is measured by non-ideal receiver 602. The attenuation value is chosen such that r′2(t) is approximately the same amplitude as r′1(t). In this way, any nonlinearities in the measured, attenuated responses r′1(t) and r′2(t) can be attributed to DUT 603, rather than non-ideal source 601 or non-ideal receiver 602.
It should be noted that in certain embodiments of the invention, multiple attenuation values may be used, in excess of two. These multiple attenuation values may or may not include an attenuation value of 0 dB. Additionally, multiple generated stimulus signals may be used in order to characterize nonlinearities in DUT 603, including signals in multiple frequency bands. Attenuator 604 may have frequency-dependent behavior, which may drive the requirement for multiple attenuators, each providing the function of attenuator 604 for specific frequency bands.
The stimulus attenuation is selected and applied during process 707, possibly including an attenuation value of 0. A set of C response attenuations is selected during process 708, based on the current stimulus signal and the current stimulus attenuation. The set of C response attenuations may include compensating values, such that multiple DUT response levels can be brought into similar amplitude levels for measurement. In 709, c is set to 0, and then incremented 710. In process 711, response attenuation #c of C is applied, and a receiver collects a set of measurements 712 . In decision 713, if another response attenuation is desired for the current stimulus signal and stimulus attenuation, the procedure is returned to 710, incrementing c. In decision 714, if another stimulus attenuation is desired for the current stimulus signal, the procedure is returned to 706, incrementing b. . In decision 715, if another stimulus is desired, the procedure is returned to 702, incrementing a. A new stimulus signal could be a signal from a different generator, or a combination of signals from multiple generators. During process 716, nonlinear model terms are generated using knowledge of the stimuli, attenuations, and measurements. Measurements may be coherently averaged in order to reduce the noise floor.
It is readily apparent to one skilled in the art that
40 It is also readily apparent to one skilled in the art that
Since scaling and additive properties of linear systems are not obeyed in nonlinear systems, linearly scaling or adding signals outside a device to be calibrated highlights the difference between linear and nonlinear system behavior. Such differences may be used to build and calibrate nonlinear models of the behavior. While sources and receivers may not replicate or measure a known signal perfectly, their behavior for an arbitrary signal is often suitably repeatable. This repeatability can be used to coherently average signals, which recovers dynamic range that may be lost by attenuation. Once the nonlinear characteristics of a DUT, signal source or receiver have been determined using the configurations, methods, or concepts provided above, generation of a mathematical model is possible.
One method is to use the discrete Volterra series representation for a nonlinear system to describe nonlinear behavior. In the following representation, nonlinear terms are shown as the second and subsequent summations. Notice that nonlinear distortion terms are represented as higher order products of arbitrarily delayed versions of the stimulus. This representation and measured data demonstrate that as the stimulus decreases in amplitude, contributions from nonlinear terms diminish faster than linear terms.
One may substitute the measured response as a reasonable estimate of the stimulus when modeling nonlinear behavior for an ultralinear system. In such a system, the higher order distortion coefficients (ci,j, Ci,j,k, . . . ) are much smaller than the linear coefficients. As a result, the higher order products formed by the substitution will be much smaller than dominant nonlinear terms modeled.
A first calibration approach describes the responses, r1(t) and r2(t), to stimuli s1(t) and s2(t) in terms of their Volterra series representations.
where
models the both the attenuation and frequency dependence of the switched-in attenuator.
Since s2 is attenuated, then r2 (the system response of the attenuated stimulus) is more linear than r1. If we treat r2 as perfectly linear, then we may write the error as a function of the nonlinear behavior of r1.
Substituting for s2(t),
A simple least squares fit to the nonlinear model may be used to determine the coefficients. For example, to fit a model of the form:
with an ideal attenuator factor α=0.5, and N sample length stimulus and response waveforms, we compose the following matrices:
The formal solution to y=A·xis is given by xis=(ATA)−ATy, where
There may be additional methods employed to correct for the linear differences between the first and second stimulus. Various techniques are available to estimate the time delay between r1 and r2. These techniques will not be discussed here. Actual time alignment is achieved by interpolation of the stimulus waveform by the detected delay value. A more complete equalization may take the form of a filter, with a separate interpolation to remove time offsets.
The concepts described herein describe an alternate approach to the Volterra series, using a linear least squares fit on a weakly nonlinear system. In this example, the response r2 to attenuated stimulus s2 remains weakly nonlinear. Assume we are attempting to model an ultra linear system that exhibits weak nonlinear behavior. We excite that system with some stimulus s, and measure a response r, that is a nonlinear function of s.
where the linear coefficients di are chosen to invert the linear response.
Alternately, one may re-write the above expression to reverse the relationship between s[n] and r[n].
If we make a measurement (r1) and assume that our system doesn't introduce much amplitude or phase distortion, (di→0 for i≠0 and di→1 for i =0 ) then we may simplify the above as:
We make a second measurement (r2) of an attenuated stimulus (s2), where
models both the attenuation and frequency dependence of the attenuator. Note that α is our estimate of the attenuation factor while ε represents the error in our estimate.
We assert that the time delay terms (ci) and distortion terms (ci,j . . . ) are small. We expect ε is small with respect to the stimulus. Notice that we may write an expression for the response of an attenuated stimulus by using exactly the same distortion function used in the first stimulus response pair. If we substitute for s1 and recognize that the attenuator frequency response terms are likely small, and drop higher order terms, we find:
We alternately write the response to the second stimulus using (1).
Substituting the expression for s2 into the above, asserting that both higher order terms and again the time delay terms (ci), distortion terms (ci,j . . . ) and estimation error (E) are small, yields:
Finally, to cast this in a form suitable for least squares, we subtract r1 from both sides:
Given the known response vectors r1 [n] and r2[n], we may form above an over determined system of equations. Just as in the first example, this system is readily solvable using least squares techniques. Keep in mind that α is known and ε may be determined from the solution. One may then update the attenuation estimate a and find a new solution with a reduced estimation error ε. This procedure may be iterated until a suitable level of estimation error is attained.
The attenuated stimulus calibration (ASCal) technique may also be used for continuous adaptive nonlinear equalization. In this circumstance, the designer must have additional hardware resources available. Such a system must contain an identical (attenuated) signal path that is sufficiently similar in distortion behavior to merit this approach. The designer must also contend with the necessity for coherent signal averaging to lower the noise floor in the attenuated stimulus case. ASCal relies on trading off measurement time with dynamic range. This trade may be useful for infrequent calibration, but may be less practical for continuous measurement.
Although the present invention and its advantages have been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can be made herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Moreover, the scope of the present application is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiments of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, means, methods and steps described in the specification. As one of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate from the disclosure of the present invention, processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps, presently existing or later to be developed that perform substantially the same function or achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding embodiments described herein may be utilized according to the present invention. Accordingly, the appended claims are intended to include within their scope such processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps.