This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2534718, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS — II: EXPRESS BRIEFS
Digital Predistortion for Power Amplifier Based on
Sparse Bayesian Learning
Jun Peng, Songbai He, Member, IEEE, Bingwen Wang, Zhijiang Dai, and Jingzhou Pang
Abstract—In this paper, a sparse Bayesian learning (SBL)
algorithm is applied to estimate the coefficients of the power
amplifier (PA) behavioral models and inverse models from the
view of probability. With this sparse learning method, the needed
number of samplings can be reduced significantly. In addition,
it also provides researchers with ideas that obtain the needed
subspace of pre-selected model. The performance of the algorithm
is validated experimentally on a gallium nitride (GaN) PA,
and signal used to test the proposed approach is LTE signal.
A comparison with the state-of-the-art estimation algorithm in
open-loop digital predistortion (DPD) system is also presented,
and the vast majority of tests show that the number of model
coefficients is reduced at least 50 percent.
Index Terms—Digital predistortion, power amplifier, sparse
Bayesian learning, memory polynomial, parameter pruning, LTE.
I. I NTRODUCTION
S a key component of the mobile communication system,
A power amplifiers are expected to achieve the highest
possible power efficiency under stringent linearity require-
ments. In order to improve the PA’s efficiency, some highly
efficient amplifier structures such as Doherty, linear amplifi-
cation using nonlinear components (LINC), envelope tracking
(ET) are widely used. However, all of these technologies
are inevitably bringing about strong nonlinearity. Among the
existing linearization techniques, DPD has become the most
popular linearization technology for its good performance.
DPD has been proved to be one of the most effective
linearization techniques in dealing with the mildly nonlinear
system. To compensate for the strong nonlinearity, higher poly-
nomial order, longer memory depth and more samplings are
required. Thus, the condition number of data matrix tends to
be particularly bad. With the growth of the condition number,
the computational complexity increases, and the accuracy of
estimation result is more sensitive to the feedback noise. Thus
identification algorithms with higher performance need to be
put forward.
Volterra series (VS) model especially its simplified variants
such as memory polynomial (MP) model and generalized
Manuscript received June 26, 2015; revised September 15, 2015; accepted
January 5, 2016. This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant 61271036 and 61571080. This brief was
recommended by Associate Editor C. Li.
The authors are with the School of Electronic Engineering, U-
niversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu
611731, China (e-mail: junpeng554@foxmail.com; sbhe@uestc.edu.cn; bing-
wen.wang@hotmail.com; daizj ok@126.com; jingzhou.pang@foxmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this brief are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Copyright (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending an email to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
1549-7747 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
memory polynomial (GMP) model have shown high per-
formance in the previous researches [1], [2]. However, one
drawback of such models is the case that the number of model
coefficients and condition number of the data matrix grow
rapidly with the increase of polynomial order and memory
depth. Orthogonal polynomials used in some literatures is
very effective to reduce the condition number [3]. However, it
brings additional computation in the process of constructing
basis functions. Moreover, it requires the input signal to be s-
mooth and ergodic. Consequently, researchers are motivated to
reduce the model dimension without sacrificing performance.
Recently, researchers have proposed some methods to prune
the models [4]–[6], however, their flexibilities are poor for
the particular structures they need. In other works [7], [8],
pruning methods based on compressed-sensing theory have
been utilized and shown good performance.
The feasibility of pruning PA behavioral models is analyzed
in this paper and herein SBL algorithm which estimates the
sparse model coefficients from the view of probability is
also presented. By employing this proposed approach, the
needed number of samplings can be reduced significantly.
More importantly, on the basis of sparse assumptions, the
needed subspace of pre-selected model can be obtained with-
out sacrificing performance. The performance of the proposed
method is verified by simulations first, and then it is assessed
on GaN amplifier that is driven by LTE signal.
This paper is organized as follows. First, details of SBL
are introduced in section II. In section III, advantages of the
Bayesian method and comparison between SBL and the exit-
ing pruning algorithms are presented. Then the experimental
results are shown in section IV. The conclusions are presented
in section V.
II. S PARSE BAYESIAN L EARNING FOR D IGITAL
P REDISTORTION
A. PA/DPD Behavioral Modeling as Linear Regression with
Sparse Assumption
In the current DPD systems, the vast majority behavioral
models are derived from the approximations of an implicit
nonlinear dynamic equation [9]. These models can be roughly
divided into two categories—VS-based models and orthogonal
polynomial models. In VS-based models, it may happen that
some bases are linearly dependent, that means the improve-
ment of modeling performance that offered by one basis can be
substituted by some others. Hence, some terms in these models
can be pruned. Again, in orthogonal polynomial models, each
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2534718, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS — II: EXPRESS BRIEFS

term of the series makes independent contributions, but there
is no further information provided to determine the accurate
nonlinear order and memory depth. That is to say, some
of the terms can be pruned because their contributions are
small enough to be ignored. From another perspective, some
experiments have shown that there are redundant terms in PA
behavioral models [4]–[6]. To wrap up, the sparse assumption
of the model parameters before estimation is reasonable.
In this research, The indirect learning architecture is used to
design digital predistorter. The output signal and input signal
are used to generate the predistorter directly. Considering a
MP model, the procedure can be expressed as follows:
K−1
X L−1
X 2σ
x(n) = wk,l y(n − l)|y(n − l)|k
k=0 l=0
Denote in matrix form as:
x = Y · w = (Yr + Yn ) · w
M ×1 N ×1
Where x ∈ C and w ∈ C are the vector of input
signal and parameters that need to be estimated, respectively.
K and L are refer to the nonlinear order and memory depth
respectively. M is the length of samplings, N is the length of
model parameters that equal to K ×L. Y ∈ CM ×N is the data
matrix of output signal which divides into two parts, the pure
output signal Yr and feedback loop noise Yn . Then rewrite it
in a more widely used form.
x = Yr · w + ne
where ne is random noise.
During the characterization step, it is assumed that the
samplings are independent, and the noise which is generated
in the sampling process is further assumed to be mean-zero
Gaussian with variance σ 2 . By now the parameter identifica-
tion problem is converted to a linear regression problem with
sparse assumption.
and the subscript ’2’ is often been omitted. Because of the
discontinuity at zero and local minimal problem, it is a difficult
optimization challenge to solve this equation directly. While,
an alternative strategy to the sparse approximation problem is
a Bayesian approach which encourages the sparsity by placing
a sparseness-promoting prior on θ.
1) Consider the PA/DPD Modeling Problem from Bayesian
Perspective: As mentioned above, samplings and noises are
all independent, hence the likelihood of the complete sampling
sets can be written as:
1
p(t|θ, σ 2 ) = (2πσ 2 )−M exp (− 2 kt − Φθk2 ) (7)
(1)
Estimating θ and σ 2 by looking for the maximum value of the
likelihood function can lead to severe over-fitting. To avoid
this, a useful way is Bayesian approach which is to seek a
(2) full posterior density function for θ and σ 2 by imposing some
additional constraint on the parameters.
The Bayesian approach is typically divided into two cat-
egories: (i) maximum a posterior (MAP) estimation using a
fixed prior distribution. (ii) empirical Bayesian approaches that
employ a flexible, parameterized prior that is learned from the
samplings [10]. For the first method, how to choose a sparse
prior distribution on θ is very critical, and the prior is always
determined by the degree of sparsity and the characteristic of
(3) distribution. In PA linearization systems, the sparsity level of
PA/DPD model coefficients is closely related to the nonlinear
behavior of PA and pre-selected model. Namely, the sparsity
level is hard to be determined before estimation. In view of
this, a flexible and parameterized prior distribution is chose
in this work, particularly, with the relevance vector machine
(RVM) [11]. A hierarchical prior has been involved in RVM,
which has high efficient computation for it allows convenient
conjugate-exponential analysis.

B. Sparse Bayesian Learning Algorithm To begin, A simple prior probability distribution constraints
As signals discussed before are plural form, (3) is trans- on θ is set under the Bayesian framework. On the popular and
formed into real domain here to simplify analysis and calcu- practical side, a zero-mean Gaussian prior distribution over
lation. each element of θ is set.
t = Φθ +  (4) 2N
Y
p(θ|α) = N (θi |0, αi−1 ) (8)
where t,  ∈ R2M ×1 , θ ∈ R2N ×1 , Φ ∈ R2M ×2N . The i=1
transformation relationship between (4) and (3) is shown
below. where αi−1 is the variance of a Gaussian density function.
Further, to complete the specification of this hierarchical prior,
a Gamma prior is considered over α and σ −2 .
   
real(x) real(ne )
t= =
imag(x) imag(ne ) 2N
Y
    (5) p(α) = Γ(αi |a, b) (9)
real(w) real(Yr ) −imag(Yr ) i=1
θ= Φ=
imag(w) imag(Yr ) real(Yr )
p(σ −2 ) = Γ(σ −2 |c, d) (10)
then estimating θ is tantamount to solving
In the following calculations, these parameters (a, b, c, d) are
min kθk0 s.t. kΦθ − tk2 ≤ ε (6) set to zero to obtain uniform hyperpriors (over a logarithmic
scale) [11]. Then the posterior distribution over θ is given by
Where ε is the acceptable estimation error. k · k0 is commonly
referred to as the l0 -norm, which counts the number of p(t|θ, σ 2 )p(θ|α)
p(θ|t, α, σ 2 ) = (11)
elements that are nonzero. k · k2 is referred to as the l2 -norm, p(t|α, σ 2 )

1549-7747 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2534718, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs

SINGH ET AL.: DIGITAL PREDISTORTION FOR POWER AMPLIFIER BASED ON SPARSE BAYESIAN LEARNING 3

Where p(t|α, σ 2 ) can be calculated by a normalising integral: Algorithm 1 sparse Bayesian learning
Z input: t, Φ, halting criterion output: θ
p(t|α, σ 2 ) = p(t|θ, σ 2 )p(θ|α)dθ (12)
initialize:
Then the posterior can be expressed as a Gaussian distribution, σ 2 = 1e−6 initialise σ 2 to a sensible value.
2
where the covariance and mean are: αm = kΦT tkkΦ mk
2 kΦ
mk
−2 −σ 2 initialise with one basis
m

Σ = (σ −2 ΦT Φ + A)−1 (13) vector. all other α are set to infinity.

−2 T
µ=σ ΣΦ t
Where A = diag(α1 , α2 , · · · , α2N ). The mean value is used
as the estimation of θ, and then searching the value of σ 2 and
α are the last problem that needs to be addressed.
2) estimating the parameters: In the RVM, the “learn-
ing” task corresponds to the search for α and σ 2 . These
hyperparameters are estimated by maximizing the posterior
distribution p(α, σ 2 |t). As p(t) does not contain these hy-
perparameters, the maximisation of p(α, σ 2 |t) is equal to the
maximisation of p(t|α, σ 2 )p(α)(σ 2 ). At the same time, taking
into account the case of uniform hyperpriors, we only need to
maximize the term p(t|α, σ 2 ).
A type-II maximum-likelihood (ML) approximation which
can be implemented by the expectation-maximisation (EM) it-
eration algorithm is usually employed to maximize p(t|α, σ 2 ).
While a shortcoming of this method is its large amount of
computation. Fortunately, a fast RVM algorithm has been
proposed in literature [12]. Using the fast RVM algorithm,
the hyperparameters can be obtained without a large number
of matrix inversion operation. SBL algorithm that used in this
work is the fusion of Bayesian theory and fast RVM algorithm.
Algorithm 1 presents the pseudo code of the SBL algorithm.
It is necessary to point out that there are several methods to
select the basis function Φi that in the first step of iteration.
The index i can be generated from ordered list, random list or
some other ways. In the pseudo code, S and Q are defined as
’sparsity factor’ and ’quality factor’, respectively. Indices of
these basis that are currently included in the model are stored
in m, and in the initialize step, m has only one basis. k is
the iteration times, and ml(k) return the value of marginal
likelihood function after k iterations, the value is calculated
with the follow equation.
Q2i
ml = log αi − log(αi + Si ) +
αi + Si
III. SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
A. Reducing the Number of Samplings
Considering the estimation problem that expressed by (3),
the goal is to estimate w given the value of x and Yr . In
open-loop predistortion system, least square (LS) is the most
frequently used algorithm. From the perspective of adaptive
filtering, LS-filter is the best filter of a finite length data.
It replaces the statistical averaging with the time averaging,
So the estimation result relies heavily on the length of used
samplings. When the dimensionality of w is much smaller than
the signal matrix dimension (i.e., NM), the LS solution is
very effective. However, when the nonlinearity is very strong,
Yr will have a large size, and the number of needed samplings
Σ = (ΦTm Φm σ −2 + Am )−1 .
(14)
µ = ΣΦTm σ −2 t.
while abs(ml(k) − ml(k − 1)) > halting criterion
• Select a basis function Φi for updating.
• Si = ΦTi Φi σ −2 − ΦTi σ −2 Φm ΣΦTm σ −2 Φi .
• Qi = ΦTi tσ −2 − ΦTi σ −2 Φm ΣΦTm σ −2 t.
• if Q2i > Si && αi < ∞,
re-estimate αi .
• if Q2i > Si && αi = ∞,
add Φi to the model with updated αi .
• if Q2i ≤ Si && αi < ∞,
delete Φi from the model, set αi = ∞.
• Update ml.
• Re-estimate Σ, µ.
end while
θm = µ, all other θ are set to zero.
will become a big challenge for our data preprocessing module
that includes ADC conversion and data alignment. A Bayesian
approach allows us to narrow the space of candidate solutions
through assuming some prior distribution over w, and in
this way, the number of needed samplings could be reduced
significantly.
To better illustrate the influence of sampling size on estima-
tion result, SBL and LS are used to identify the parameters of
a same PA model. The simulation is completed in MATLAB
2013.a, signals used to extract behavioral characteristics are
got from a saleh model. In this simulation, the length of
validation data sets is 12288. And the test behavioral model
is MP model with nonlinear order 13 and memory depth 3.
With the increase of sampling size, the changing trends of
(15)
modeling accuracy are shown in Fig.1. The normalized mean-
square error (NMSE) is calculated by the original output and
modeling output. As we can see, in order to achieve the same
modeling accuracy, the number of samplings that LS required
is 3.8 times of SBL. More importantly, when the number of
samplings is especial small, as taking 350 samplings in this
simulation, the estimation result of SBL is also acceptable,
while the estimation result of LS is extremely poor.
B. Comparison of SBL and Exiting Pruning Algorithms
It has proved that the exiting algorithms such as PCA
and CS-based methods (OMP, CoSaMP) are very effective
sparse parameter estimation ways [4], [7], [8]. Different from
CS-based method and the proposed method, PCA and its
similar method are need eigenvalue decomposition in their

1549-7747 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2534718, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS — II: EXPRESS BRIEFS

80 TABLE I
SBL
LS
RUNNING TIME COMPARISON OF SBL AND CS- BASED ALGORITHMS
60

40
Running time
X: 350
NMSE(dB)

20 Y: 4.682 Method M=1000 M=10000

0
General
N=39,S=15 N=119,S=25
-20
X: 3250
OMP O(M N S) 0.018s 0.196s
Y: -42.83
-40
X: 350
Y: -37.86
X: 850
Y: -42.48
CoSaMP O(M N K) 0.041s 0.524s
-60 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
SBL O(N S ) 0.202s 0.369s
Number Of Samplings
S: sparsity K: iteration times of CoSaMP
Fig. 1. The relationship between modeling accuracy and the number of
samplings.
PC with MATLAB

-28 X(n) VSG Y(n)

DPD R&S
OMP
-30 CoSaMP SMJ100A
SBL
-32 1e(n)
-34 SBL VSA Attenuator
NMSE(dB)

-36
-38
-40
-42
-44 5 10 15
sparsity of the model coefficients
Fig. 2. Modeling performance comparison of SBL and CS-based algorithms.
processing procedure. however this decomposition may be
complicated and inaccurate, especially when the models have
high nonlinear order and long memory depth. This weakness
limits their scope of use.
In the literature [8], the authors have mentioned that CS-
based PA behavioral model estimation algorithm do not require
the columns of the data matrix (here is Φ) are orthogonal, but
this requires a sufficient number of samplings as a guarantee.
And in this proposed method there is no similar restrictions on
the data matrix. Another advantage of the proposed SBL is that
it does not need to input the pre-selected sparsity level. SBL
can obtain the sparse solution automatically. At the same time,
the sparsity level also can be adjusted by changing the value
of halting criterion. When the training set is large enough,
the performance of SBL and CS-based algorithms are nearly
the same. But when the training set is very small, as 1000
samplings here, the performance of SBL is still very good,
while the results of CS-based algorithms are not stable and
sensitive to the input sparsity level. In this condition, the
results of SBL, OMP and CoSaMP are plotted in Fig.2.
It is clear that choosing a suitable sparsity level is very
critical in CS-based methods. An alternative solution is to
estimate the coefficient multiple times with different input
sparsity level, and then choose the optimal sparsity level by
comparing the results. But that means in the process of CS-
based method the parameters of DPD will be updated many
times and the output signal will be sampled repeatedly. This
is not convenient and requires a lot of processing time. In
addition, when the input sparsity is fixed, the needed running
time of these algorithms are presented in the second column
of Table I. The running time of SBL algorithm is dominated
R&S FSP7
1copy coefficients
Fig. 3. VSG-VSA test bed and the PA works at 3.5 GHz.
20 25 30
by equation (13), and it is solved by a fast RVM algorithm
in this work, Detailed analysis of this algorithm shows that
it has complexity O(N S 2 ). The running time of OMP and
CoSaMP derive from literature [13]. Be mindful that there are
some mathematical techniques could be employed to reduce
the calculation cost of OMP and CoSaMP, yet the general,
the running time in this table is concluded in standard way.
Meanwhile, time consumption on two concrete identification
task are also listed in Table I. From these results we can
see that when the size of data matrix is small, the SBL
algorithm is not as efficient as CS-based algorithm. However,
the computation cost of SBL is comparable to that of CS-based
algorithms when the size of the data matrix is large enough.
IV. E XPERIMENT
In this section, open-loop DPD with SBL estimation algo-
rithm is used to compensate a GaN PA which works at 3.5
GHz. The detail of this PA can be found in [14]. In addition,
linearization performance comparisons between SBL-DPD and
LS-DPD are also presented with this PA. Peak output power
and gain of this PA are 43 dBm and 40 dB, respectively.
The input of this PA is LTE signal, which is a 16-QAM
OFDM signal with 1200 occupied subcarriers within 18 MHz
occupied bandwidth and 20 MHz channel bandwidth. PAPR
of this signal is 10.93 dB. The test bed and DPD structure
are shown in Fig.3 with the PA under test jointly. At first,
original signal that generated in MATLAB is fed to PA through
SMJ100A, and FSP7 provides the output samplings to PC.
Then, processing the output signal and generating predistorted
signal in MATLAB. ACPR and EVM are used to evaluate the
nonlinearity of PA from the point of frequency domain and
time domain, respectively.
Changes of PA characteristic between characterization and
linearization steps have a negative impact on the performance
of DPD. To overcome this problem, Multiple-Step Iterative

1549-7747 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 -60
3.44 3.46 3.48 3.5 3.52 3.54 3.56
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information:
Frequency (GHz) DOI 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2534718,
x 10 IEEE 9

Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs

SINGH ET AL.: DIGITAL PREDISTORTION FOR POWER AMPLIFIER BASED ON SPARSE BAYESIAN LEARNING 5

2.4 10
1 Original input
LS LS
-46 2 Original output
SBL SBL 0

Power Spectrum Density (dBm/Hz)

3 With LS-DPD
2.2 4 With SBL-DPD
-10
-47
2
2.0 -20
ACPR (dB)

EVM (%)
-48 3
-30

1.8
-40
-49
4
1.6 -50

-50 1
-60
3.44 3.46 3.48 3.5 3.52 3.54 3.56
1.4 Frequency (GHz) x 10
9

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40

Number of coefficients Number of coefficients

Fig. 5. Spectra plots of the output signal with LS-DPD and SBL-DPD.
Fig. 4. Linearization result of LS-DPD and SBL-DPD.

TABLE II Comparing with the traditional method, the number of model

T HE NUMBER OF USED COEFFICIENTS
The number of used coefficients
Algorithm MP MP MP
5×2 7×2 7×3
LS 10 14 21
SBL 8 9 10
approach [15] is used in this work. And according to our
design experience, the iteration times is set to 2. As the ACPR
of upper band and lower band are very close, only the the
lower band results are presented in this section. The average
output power is 33dBm before and after the linearization.
Without DPD, ACPR and EVM of this state are -32.5dB and
8.62%, respectively.
MP models with different nonlinear order and memory
depth are employed in this experiment, the value of halting
criterion in SBL is set to 1e−8 . The linearization results
are shown in Fig.4. From this figure we can see that SBL-
DPD and LS-DPD have very similar performance for different
identification task. Furthermore, with the increase of model
complexity, the linearization results reach a stable value grad-
ually. While, an advantage of SBL-DPD is that the number of
used coefficients are reduced significantly, and the details of
this advantage are shown in Table II. The majority of tests
show that the number of model coefficients is reduced at
least 50 percent. Especially for the MP model which has 27
parameters, with SBL-DPD the number of parameters has been
reduced by 63%, ACPR reduces to -49.8 dB, EVM decreases
from 8.62% to 1.57%. In this condition, the power spectrum
density of the output signal with SBL-DPD and LS-DPD are
shown in Fig.5.
V. C ONCLUSION
Simplifying the behavioral model of PA is of crucial sig-
nificance in DPD system, especially for the PAs working in
strong nonlinear region. Under this background, SBL estima-
tion algorithm is suggested to deal with this problem. The
experiment shows that with the proposed DPD, ACPR and
EVM can reach the requirement of communication standard.
parameters and samplings can be reduced significantly.
R EFERENCES
MP MP MP
[1] Y. Ma, Y. Yamao, Y. Akaiwa, and K. Ishibashi, “Wideband digital pre-
9×3 11×3 13×3 distortion using spectral extrapolation of band-limited feedback signal,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I: Reg. Papers, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 2088–2097,
27 33 39 July 2014.
[2] Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, J. Zhou, S. Jin, W. Chen, and S. Zhang, “A band-
10 12 15 divided memory polynomial for wideband digital predistortion with
limited bandwidth feedback,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II: Exp. Briefs,
vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 922–926, Oct. 2015.
[3] R. Raich and G. Zhou, “Orthogonal polynomials for complex gaussian
processes,” IEEE. Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 2788–2797,
Oct. 2004.
[4] P. Gilabert, G. Montoro, D. Lopez, N. Bartzoudis, E. Bertran, M. Payaro,
and A. Hourtane, “Order reduction of wideband digital predistorters using
principal component analysis,” in IEEE MTT-S Int. Micro. Symp. Dig.,
June 2013, pp. 1–7.
[5] X. Yu and H. Jiang, “Digital predistortion using adaptive basis functions,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I: Reg. Papers, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 3317–3327,
Dec. 2013.
[6] R. N. Braithwaite, “Wide bandwidth adaptive digital predistortion of
power amplifiers using reduced order memory correction,” in IEEE MTT-
S Int. Micro. Symp. Dig., June 2008, pp. 1517–1520.
[7] J. Reina-Tosina, M. Allegue-Martinez, C. Crespo-Cadenas, C. Yu, and
S. Cruces, “Behavioral modeling and predistortion of power amplifiers
under sparsity hypothesis,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 63,
no. 2, pp. 745–753, Feb. 2015.
[8] A. Abdelhafiz, A. Kwan, O. Hammi, and F. Ghannouchi, “Digital
predistortion of lte-a power amplifiers using compressed-sampling-based
unstructured pruning of volterra series,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory
Techn., vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 2583–2593, Nov 2014.
[9] E. Ngoya and S. Mons, “Progress for behavioral challenges: A summary
of time-domain behavioral modeling of rf and microwave subsystems,”
IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 91–105, Sept. 2014.
[10] D. P. Wipf, Bayesian methods for finding sparse representations. Pro-
Quest, 2006.
[11] M. E. Tipping, “Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector
machine,” The journal of machine learning research, vol. 1, pp. 211–
244, 2001.
[12] M. E. Tipping, A. C. Faul et al., “Fast marginal likelihood maximisation
for sparse bayesian models,” in Proc. of the 9th int. workshop on artificial
intelligence and statistics, vol. 1, no. 3, 2003.
[13] D. Needell and J. A. Tropp, “Cosamp: Iterative signal recovery from in-
complete and inaccurate samples,” Applied and Computational Harmonic
Analysis, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 301–321, 2009.
[14] Z. Dai, S. He, J. Pang, and C. Huang, “Semi-analytic design method for
dual-band power amplifiers,” Electron. Lett., vol. 51, no. 17, pp. 1336–
1337, 2015.
[15] C. Nader, P. Landin, W. Van Moer, N. Bjorsell, and P. Handel, “Perfor-
mance evaluation of peak-to-average power ratio reduction and digital
pre-distortion for ofdm based systems,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory
Techn., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3504–3511, Dec. 2011.

1549-7747 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.