Nonlinear symbols combining for Power Amplifier-distorted OFDM signal reception

Hanna Bogucka; Pawel Kryszkiewicz

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Nonlinear symbols combining for Power Amplifier-distorted OFDM signal reception

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A non-decision-aided receiver that combines 1st-, 3rd-, and 5th-order products of received OFDM subcarriers, with weights learned by pseudoinverse regression, recovers frequency diversity lost to power-amplifier distortion.

desk verdict A genuinely new non-decision-aided receiver idea with a real, if narrow, simulation gain; the load-bearing sparsity assumption is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05943 v1 pith:UPFC3TK4 submitted 2025-06-06 cs.NI

Pawel Kryszkiewicz , Hanna Bogucka This is my paper

classification cs.NI

keywords OFDMpoweramplifiernonlinearityhigher-ordercombiningintermodulationdistortionnon-decision-aidedreceptionmachinelearningreceiverclippingnoisecancellationbiterrorrate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a receiver for OFDM signals that have been severely distorted by a nonlinear transmitter power amplifier. Instead of treating the distortion as noise, the receiver combines each received subcarrier symbol with selected third- and fifth-order products of the received symbols, using weights learned from training data by pseudoinverse regression. The authors' claim is that this Higher-Order Combining (HOC) recovers some of the frequency diversity that the amplifier's intermodulation spreads across subcarriers, without requiring symbol decisions. In the high bit-error-rate region where systems using Forward Error Correction operate (around 0.15), HOC with fifth-order terms gains about 1.5 dB over the decision-aided Clipping Noise Cancellation receiver, and also beats zero-forcing reception. A low-complexity variant whose coefficients are precomputed at the amplifier output, independent of channel and noise, dominates at high signal-to-noise ratio.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sparse Higher-Order Combining estimator \[\hat $d_k^{{\mathrm{IMD5}}$} = $c_k^{{(1)}}$ r_k + \sum_{\{(k_1,k_2,k_3):I_{k_1}+I_{k_2}-I_{k_3}-I_k=0\}} $c^{{(2)}}$_{k,k_1,k_2,k_3} r_{k_1}r_{k_2}r_{k_3}^* + \sum_{\{(k_1,\ldots,k_5):I_{k_1}+I_{k_2}+I_{k_3}-I_{k_4}-I_{k_5}-I_k=0\}} $c^{{(3)}}$_{k,k_1,\ldots,k_5} r_{k_1}r_{k_2}r_{k_3}r_{k_4}^*r_{k_5}^*,\] where the sums run only over monomials whose subcarrier indices obey the same frequency-coupling condition as the amplifier's intermodulation products. This restriction is what converts nonlinear distortion from a noise-like impairment into a usable source of diversity. The coefficients are learned by Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse regression on random OFDM training symbols, minimizing the mean squared error per subcarrier; in the low-complexity variant the regression is run on the amplifier output before the channel, so the coefficients are channel- and noise-independent and can be precomputed.

What would settle it

Train both the full third-order combiner of Eq. (14) and the sparse combiner of Eq. (18) on the same amplifier and channel with more than six occupied subcarriers, or with an amplifier model that has memory; if the full combiner achieves materially lower bit-error rate than the sparse one in the 0.1 to 0.2 region, the structural sparsity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a sparse, non-decision-aided combiner can harvest the frequency diversity that a nonlinear power amplifier spreads across subcarriers. In the frequency domain, the amplifier's third-order intermodulation term at subcarrier $k$ consists of products $d_{k_1}d_{k_2}d_{k_3}^*$ with $I_{k_1}+I_{k_2}-I_{k_3}-I_k=0$, which means each transmitted symbol contributes to several received subcarriers. The HOC estimator applies the same monomial structure to the received symbols $r_k$: a linear term plus third-order products, plus analogous fifth-order products, and it obtains the combining weights by solving the least-squares problem with the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse. The authors report that initial learning shows only these frequency-coupling-matched monomials matter, so the general full combiner can be simplified to this sparse form. Simulations with six occupied subcarriers, 64-QAM, a Rapp amplifier at an IBO of $-4$ dB, and Rayleigh fading show HOC outperforming both zero-forcing and CNC reception in the FEC-relevant BER region, with about 1.5 dB gain over CNC at BER 0.15; the channel-independent LC-HOC variant wins at high $E_b/N_0$.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that a receiver only needs the combinations of subcarrier symbols whose frequencies line up the same way the amplifier's distortion lines up, and can ignore every other combination; the paper says tests showed this but does not show the analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a bit-error rate around 0.15, the operating point relevant to systems protected by Forward Error Correction, HOC with 1st, 3rd, and 5th order terms gains about 1.5 dB over the decision-aided Clipping Noise Cancellation receiver.
For severe clipping at an IBO below 0 dB and $E_b/N_0 = 14$ dB, HOC outperforms CNC, and at $E_b/N_0 = 34$ dB it outperforms CNC across the whole tested IBO range.
The low-complexity LC-HOC variant, with coefficients precomputed at the amplifier output, outperforms all other receivers at high $E_b/N_0$, though it lags at low $E_b/N_0$ because its training ignores white noise.
Training and test BER curves are close, indicating that the learned coefficients generalize without overfitting across the simulated channel instances.
Extending from 3rd to 5th order raises the number of monomials sharply, from roughly 14 to 100 per symbol for six subcarriers and to about 1300 for 12 subcarriers, so computational complexity is the main barrier to wideband use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the observed sparsity is exact rather than heuristic, the combining coefficients might be derivable semi-analytically from the amplifier model and the statistics of the OFDM symbols, replacing the training set and potentially making the scheme practical for wideband systems; the paper only flags semi-analytical solutions as future work.
The same monomial-combining idea could be tested on other nonlinear front-end elements, such as cascades with digital predistortion or amplifiers with memory, as long as the frequency-coupling condition is derived from their polynomial models; the paper only simulates a memoryless Rapp amplifier.
Because the frequency-coupling condition follows from the discrete Fourier transform, the sparse structure may hold for any contiguous subcarrier allocation, but the paper's tests use only six occupied subcarriers, so scaling behavior on realistic wideband allocations remains an open, testable question.
Using distortion that falls on unoccupied, out-of-band subcarriers could add further diversity, but this would require channel estimation on those subcarriers, which the paper leaves unexplored.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the paper reports a legitimate, well-scoped simulation study of a genuinely new receiver idea, but the main mechanism—why only frequency-matched higher-order monomials are needed—is asserted, not demonstrated. The headline gain of around 1.5 dB over CNC at BER 0.15 is supported for the tested six-subcarrier setup, and the separate training and test sets rule out circularity in the BER numbers.

What is new and good: a fixed, non-decision-aided nonlinear combiner whose monomial set mirrors the PA intermodulation frequency-coupling rule, with coefficients obtained by simple pseudoinverse regression. That is a real departure from decision-directed CNC and from black-box neural receivers. The paper is appropriately cautious: it flags the complexity explosion and says more studies are needed for wideband systems. The simulation setup is standard and reproducible in principle, though no code or data are shipped.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The sparse combiner structure in Eqs. (18)–(19) is load-bearing; the paper justifies it with 'initial learning' and 'multiple tested use cases' but gives no ablation, no derivation, and no argument for why the channel and noise dependence of the received symbols r_k does not break the PA-motivated monomial structure. A reviewer should ask to see a sparse-versus-full combiner comparison and tests over other subcarrier allocations and PA models. Second, the unexplained crossover where LC-HOC, trained without noise, beats the full HOC at high Eb/N0 suggests something about the coefficient training is not fully understood. That should be explored, not just noted. Third, error bars are absent, and all results are for six subcarriers, so the generalization claim is inherently narrow.

None of these sink the paper. The authors report exactly what they ran, they compare against a fair baseline, and the claimed FEC-relevant improvement is meaningful if it holds up. Who should read it: researchers working on PA-aware receivers, nonlinear distortion cancellation, or energy-efficient OFDM front-ends. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review and ask for the ablation and an explanation of the LC-HOC crossover.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Higher-Order Combining (HOC), a non-decision-aided receiver for OFDM under severe power-amplifier nonlinearity. The receiver estimates each transmitted symbol as a weighted sum of the received symbol and selected third- and fifth-order monomials of received subcarrier symbols, where the monomials satisfy the same intermodulation-frequency-coupling conditions as the PA distortion. The weights are obtained by pseudoinverse regression on a training set, and inference uses a separate test set. Monte Carlo simulations with 6 active 64-QAM subcarriers, a Rapp PA with p=10, and per-subcarrier Rayleigh fading show BER gains over ZF reception and over a 10-iteration clipping-noise-cancellation receiver in the high-BER region around 0.15, with about 1.5 dB gain over CNC. A low-complexity variant (LC-HOC) precomputes coefficients without noise or channel knowledge and performs best at high SNR.

Significance. The claimed result is relevant to FEC-coded OFDM systems, where the uncoded BER operating point is high and decision-aided receivers suffer from decision-error propagation. The paper is honest about complexity limitations. Strengths: separate training and test data, 1000 Monte Carlo channel realizations, and a precomputed LC-HOC variant that avoids per-channel retraining. The central limitation is that the sparse monomial set in Eqs. (18)-(19) is asserted without an ablation against the full combiner (14) or against higher-order terms, so the generality of the reported gains is not established. If the sparsity is confirmed, the method would be a useful new tool; as presented, the contribution is primarily an empirically motivated architecture.

major comments (4)

[III, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The reduction of the general third-order combiner (14) to the sparse form (18) is the load-bearing step of the paper, but it is supported only by the statements 'initial learning ... revealed that only a limited set of combining coefficients has any influence' and 'based on multiple tested use cases.' No ablation, coefficient-magnitude analysis, or theoretical derivation is provided. Because the pseudoinverse solutions (17) and (20) can only exploit the selected monomials, an incomplete feature set would directly bias the reported BER gains. Please add a comparison of the sparse combiner against the full combiner (14) (or a regularized version) and against alternative pruning criteria, for several subcarrier allocations and PA models.
[IV, Fig. 2] In Figure 2, the LC-HOC scheme, whose coefficients are designed without noise and without channel knowledge, outperforms the full HOC scheme at high E_b/N_0. The paper states this 'needs further investigation,' but this is not a minor issue: it suggests that the full HOC training is suboptimal (e.g., overfitting to the training noise or ill-conditioned pseudoinverse) and leaves the advantage of the proposed learning-based design unclear. Please provide a diagnosis, for example, coefficient norms versus E_b/N_0, a regularized least-squares variant, or a comparison using the same training SNR as the operating SNR.
[III, after Eq. (19)] The decision to truncate combining at fifth order is not justified. For the Rapp model with p=10 used in the simulations, higher-order intermodulation products are known to be significant, and the paper does not test whether 7th-order monomials further improve BER. Without such an ablation, the reported 1.5 dB gain may be specific to the chosen truncation. Please add a test with extended orders or an analysis of the residual distortion power.
[IV, simulation setup] The training procedure for the full HOC receiver is under-specified. It is unclear whether the coefficients are retrained for each of the 1000 Rayleigh channel realizations, or trained once and applied to all realizations. If they are retrained per realization, the reported BER is conditional on training on the exact channel and noise statistics, and the complexity of doing so for every channel change should be quantified; if they are trained once, the channel dependence of the monomials r_{k1} r_{k2} r*_{k3} is not addressed. Please clarify and, if applicable, report the training data size and pseudoinverse dimensions.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. IV] The phrase '5rd order' should be '5th order.'
[Eq. (14)] The summation-index notation 'k2=k1' is ambiguous; please use explicit ranges, e.g., k2 from k1 to N_U-1 for symmetric monomials.
[V, Conclusions] The statement that 'a completely new branch for advanced distortion-aware receivers has been created' is overbroad and should be tempered.
[IV, simulation setup] The use of independent Rayleigh fading per subcarrier is not representative of a physical frequency-selective channel; with correlated subcarrier gains the performance may differ. Please discuss or simulate a standard channel model.
[II, Eq. (12d)] The frequency-coupling condition is stated as an exact equality, but for subcarrier indices near the band edges the modulo-N condition for the DFT should be specified to avoid wrap-around ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HOC coefficients are fitted on training data and evaluated on independent test data, and the sparse combiner structure is an empirically motivated design choice rather than a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised-learning pipeline rather than a circular one. The physical PA polynomial model (Eq. 12d) motivates monomial features, the general combiner (14) is reduced to the sparse set in (18)-(19) based on observed coefficient magnitudes during training, and the weights are fitted by pseudoinverse (17)/(20). The headline BER comparison against REF and CNC is evaluated on a separate set of 10^4 OFDM symbols with independently generated noise under 1000 Rayleigh channel instances, so the reported gain around BER 0.15 is an empirical test-set result, not a recomputation of training targets. The sparse-form restriction and the truncation at 5th order are model-selection assumptions whose generality is not demonstrated, but that is a correctness/generalization risk rather than circularity: the method stands or falls by its test performance. The self-citations present in the paper ([3], [5], [7], [11], [18]) are contextual references to PA operating-point optimization, PAPR reduction, and frequency-domain echo cancellation; none is load-bearing for the central claim, and the CNC baseline itself is externally defined in [10] with [11] serving only as a further reference. No definitional identity between fitted parameters and reported predictions, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on a small set of fitted combining coefficients plus domain assumptions about the PA, channel, and combiner structure. The key unproven item is the sparse structure of the combiner, which is justified only by an unshown empirical observation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

HOC combining coefficients (b_k, c_k, and c_tilde_k for LC-HOC) = Learned from 10^4 training OFDM symbols via pseudoinverse (Eqs. 17, 20, 23)
These weights are the core of the method; no analytical formula is given, and the reported BER gains depend on these fitted values for the simulated PA, channel, and SNR conditions.
Truncation set: which monomials are retained (1st+3rd, or 1st+3rd+5th) = Variants with 1st+3rd and 1st+3rd+5th terms
The decision to drop all other monomials is based on the empirical observation after learning, not on a derivation; this model choice is itself a fitted component of the method.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The PA output is memoryless and can be described by a polynomial with only odd-order monomials (Eq. 5), or by the Rapp model (Eq. 3).
This is the basis for the IMD3/IMD5 frequency-coupling structure in Eq. (12); real PAs with memory or predistortion may not match this exactly.
standard math For integer subcarrier indices, the DFT summation is nonzero only when I_k1+I_k2-I_k3-I_k=0 (geometric progression property).
Used in Eq. (12d) to reduce the intermodulation sum to frequency-matching terms.
domain assumption OFDM time-domain samples are complex-Gaussian for a sufficiently high number of subcarriers, justifying the Bussgang decomposition in Eq. (6).
Invoked in Sec. II to split PA output into linear and uncorrelated distortion parts.
domain assumption Perfect channel state information is available at the receiver for ZF equalization and HOC combining.
The receiver divides by h_k and uses learned R matrices; no channel estimation error is simulated.
ad hoc to paper The sparse combiner structure in Eqs. (18) and (19) is sufficient; all other monomials from Eq. (14) can be dropped.
This is the paper's key modeling leap, justified by an unshown empirical observation rather than a proof or exhaustive search.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear symbols combining for Power Amplifier-distorted OFDM signal reception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPFC3TK4

@misc{pith2026250605943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear symbols combining for Power Amplifier-distorted OFDM signal reception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPFC3TK4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05943}
}

read the original abstract

Nonlinear distortion of a multicarrier signal by a transmitter Power Amplifier (PA) can be a serious problem when designing new highly energy-efficient wireless systems. Although the performance of standard reception algorithms is seriously deteriorated by the nonlinear distortion, the more advanced solutions allow the utilization of additional frequency diversity caused by nonlinear PA. However, while most of the advanced receivers are decision-aided, their gains are observed mostly in a relatively low Bit Error Rate (BER) region, not targeted by adaptive Modulation Coding Schemes utilizing Forward Error Correction (FEC). In this paper, a non-decision-aided Higher-Order Combining (HOC) reception scheme is proposed. While the analytical formulas for finding symbols combining coefficients are not known, machine learning is used for deriving them. The simulation results show an improved BER performance with respect to a standard reception and one of the established decision-aided receivers. However, as HOC has computational complexity that increases rapidly with the number of subcarriers utilized, more studies are needed to apply it in a wideband system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05943 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** System model on the proposed physics-based model. Most interestingly, the initial analysis reveals that only specific higher-order combining coefficients are required for the reception. While the computational complexity of both learning and inference increases rapidly with the number of subcarriers, a reduced complexity solution is also proposed. Computer simulations under the fading channel confirmed the superiori… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** BER vs. Eb/N0 for IBO equal to −4 dB. -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 IBO (dB) 10-3 10-2 10-1BER -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 IBO (dB) 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 BER REF CNC HOC, 1st+3rd+5th HOC, 1st+3rd LC-HOC, 1st+3rd+5th LC-HOC, 1st+3rd A) EB/N0=14 dB B) EB/N0=34 dB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** BER vs IBO for Eb/N0=14 dB and 34 dB. basic HOC is outperformed. In the most important BER region of the FEC-protected system, around 0.15, HOC using 5rd order terms gains around 1.5 dB with respect to the decisionaided CNC RX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Massive MIMO has unlimited capacity,

E. Bj ¨ornson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, “Massive MIMO has unlimited capacity,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 574–590, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Dirty RF: a new paradigm,

G. Fettweis, M. Lohning, D. Petrovic, M. Windisch, P. Zillmann, and W. Rave, “Dirty RF: a new paradigm,” inIEEE Int. Symp. Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Comm., vol. 4, 2005, pp. 2347–2355 V ol. 4

work page 2005
[3]

Efficiency maximization for battery-powered OFDM transmitter via amplifier operating point adjustment,

P. Kryszkiewicz, “Efficiency maximization for battery-powered OFDM transmitter via amplifier operating point adjustment,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 1/474, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Convergence of the complex envelope of bandlimited OFDM signals,

S. Wei, D. L. Goeckel, and P. A. Kelly, “Convergence of the complex envelope of bandlimited OFDM signals,”IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4893–4904, 2010

work page 2010
[5]

Amplifier-coupled tone reservation for minimization of OFDM nonlinear distortion,

P. Kryszkiewicz, “Amplifier-coupled tone reservation for minimization of OFDM nonlinear distortion,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Tech- nology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 4316–4324, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Tone reservation to minimize nonlinearity impact on OFDM signals,

M. Hu, Y . Li, X. Lu, and H. Zhang, “Tone reservation to minimize nonlinearity impact on OFDM signals,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 4310–4314, Sept 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Directions and recent advances in PAPR reduction meth- ods,

H. Bogucka, “Directions and recent advances in PAPR reduction meth- ods,” inIEEE Int. Symp. Sig. Proc. and Inf. Techn., 2006, pp. 821–827

work page 2006
[8]

Input back-off optimization in OFDM systems under ideal pre-distorters,

C. H. Azolini Tavares, J. C. Marinello Filho, C. M. Panazio, and T. Abr ˜ao, “Input back-off optimization in OFDM systems under ideal pre-distorters,”IEEE W. Comm. Lett., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 464–467, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 19 references

[9]

Optimum and sub-optimum receivers for OFDM signals with strong nonlinear distortion effects,

J. Guerreiro, R. Dinis, and P. Montezuma, “Optimum and sub-optimum receivers for OFDM signals with strong nonlinear distortion effects,” IEEE Trans. on Communications, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 3830–3840, 2013

2013
[10]

Performance analysis and comparison of clipped and filtered OFDM systems with iterative distortion recovery techniques,

Y . Sun and H. Ochiai, “Performance analysis and comparison of clipped and filtered OFDM systems with iterative distortion recovery techniques,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 7389–7403, 2021

2021
[11]

Clipping noise cancellation re- ceiver for the downlink of massive MIMO OFDM system,

M. Wachowiak and P. Kryszkiewicz, “Clipping noise cancellation re- ceiver for the downlink of massive MIMO OFDM system,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 6061–6073, 2023

2023
[12]

Belief propagation receivers for near- optimal detection of nonlinearly distorted OFDM signals,

S. V . Zhidkov and R. Dinis, “Belief propagation receivers for near- optimal detection of nonlinearly distorted OFDM signals,” in2019 IEEE V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring), 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[13]

Robust deep learning-based end-to-end receiver for OFDM system with non-linear distortion,

Y . Xie, X. Liu, K. C. Teh, and Y . L. Guan, “Robust deep learning-based end-to-end receiver for OFDM system with non-linear distortion,”IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 340–344, 2022

2022
[14]

Hybrid- deeprx: Deep learning receiver for high-EVM signals,

J. Pihlajasalo, D. Korpi, M. Honkala, J. M. Huttunen, T. Riihonen, J. Talvitie, A. Brihuega, M. A. Uusitalo, and M. Valkama, “Hybrid- deeprx: Deep learning receiver for high-EVM signals,” in2021 IEEE PIMRC. IEEE, 2021, pp. 622–627

2021
[15]

K. M. Gharaibeh,Nonlinear Distortion in Wireless Systems: Modeling and Simulation with MATLAB. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011

2011
[16]

An analysis of band-limited communication systems from amplifier efficiency and distortion perspective,

H. Ochiai, “An analysis of band-limited communication systems from amplifier efficiency and distortion perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1460–1472, 2013

2013
[17]

Digital predistortion for mitigating spurious emissions in spectrally agile radios,

M. Abdelaziz, Z. Fu, L. Anttila, A. M. Wyglinski, and M. Valkama, “Digital predistortion for mitigating spurious emissions in spectrally agile radios,”IEEE Comm. Magazine, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 60–69, 2016

2016
[18]

Frequency-domain echo cancellation in digital multicarrier modulation systems,

H. Bogucka and K. Wesolowski, “Frequency-domain echo cancellation in digital multicarrier modulation systems,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 333–342, 2000

2000
[19]

Characterization of power spectral density for nonlinearly amplified OFDM signals based on cross-correlation coefficient,

T. Lee and H. Ochiai, “Characterization of power spectral density for nonlinearly amplified OFDM signals based on cross-correlation coefficient,”EURASIP Journ. W. Comm. Net., vol. 2014, pp. 1–15, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Massive MIMO has unlimited capacity,

E. Bj ¨ornson, J. Hoydis, and L. Sanguinetti, “Massive MIMO has unlimited capacity,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 574–590, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Dirty RF: a new paradigm,

G. Fettweis, M. Lohning, D. Petrovic, M. Windisch, P. Zillmann, and W. Rave, “Dirty RF: a new paradigm,” inIEEE Int. Symp. Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Comm., vol. 4, 2005, pp. 2347–2355 V ol. 4

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Efficiency maximization for battery-powered OFDM transmitter via amplifier operating point adjustment,

P. Kryszkiewicz, “Efficiency maximization for battery-powered OFDM transmitter via amplifier operating point adjustment,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 1/474, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Convergence of the complex envelope of bandlimited OFDM signals,

S. Wei, D. L. Goeckel, and P. A. Kelly, “Convergence of the complex envelope of bandlimited OFDM signals,”IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4893–4904, 2010

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Amplifier-coupled tone reservation for minimization of OFDM nonlinear distortion,

P. Kryszkiewicz, “Amplifier-coupled tone reservation for minimization of OFDM nonlinear distortion,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Tech- nology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 4316–4324, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Tone reservation to minimize nonlinearity impact on OFDM signals,

M. Hu, Y . Li, X. Lu, and H. Zhang, “Tone reservation to minimize nonlinearity impact on OFDM signals,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 4310–4314, Sept 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Directions and recent advances in PAPR reduction meth- ods,

H. Bogucka, “Directions and recent advances in PAPR reduction meth- ods,” inIEEE Int. Symp. Sig. Proc. and Inf. Techn., 2006, pp. 821–827

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Input back-off optimization in OFDM systems under ideal pre-distorters,

C. H. Azolini Tavares, J. C. Marinello Filho, C. M. Panazio, and T. Abr ˜ao, “Input back-off optimization in OFDM systems under ideal pre-distorters,”IEEE W. Comm. Lett., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 464–467, 2016

work page 2016