Machine Learning RF Tuning for Non-Linear Configuration Search

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing RF apparatus tuning methods are inefficient, time-consuming, and costly due to reliance on manual expertise and lack of effective automation, especially when dealing with non-linear performance variations.

Innovation Solution

Employing machine learning models, particularly Bayesian optimization algorithms, to autonomously search and identify optimal configuration settings for RF apparatuses, leveraging historical performance data and cloud computing for efficient tuning.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If manual tuning by subject matter experts is used, then performance optimization can be achieved, but the process becomes time-consuming and costly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveperformance optimizationVSAvoidtuning time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs machine learning models that autonomously perform tuning operations without requiring manual intervention by subject matter experts. The ML model self-learns optimal configuration settings through training on performance data and automatically applies these settings to optimize RF apparatus performance, eliminating the need for time-consuming manual tuning processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the mechanical/manual tuning process with an automated machine learning-based system. Instead of human experts manually adjusting parameters, the system uses ML algorithms to automatically search, evaluate, and determine optimal configuration settings, substituting human expertise with computational intelligence.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Manufacturing precision

If manual tuning by subject matter experts is used, then performance optimization can be achieved, but the cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveperformance optimizationVSAvoidtuning cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs tuning operations autonomously using machine learning models, eliminating the need to pay subject matter experts for their time and expertise. The automated ML-based tuning reduces costs by replacing expensive human labor with computational algorithms that can be executed repeatedly without additional per-operation costs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the approach from human-dependent tuning to algorithm-driven tuning by modifying the fundamental parameter of who/what performs the tuning. This parameter change from human experts to ML models fundamentally alters the cost structure, making the process more scalable and cost-effective.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Extent of automation

If linear search automation is used, then some automation is achieved, but effectiveness decreases for non-linear performance results

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetuning automationVSAvoidtuning effectiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces simple linear search automation with sophisticated machine learning-based automation. Instead of using basic automated scanning methods, the system employs ML models that can understand and navigate non-linear performance landscapes, significantly improving tuning effectiveness while maintaining high automation levels.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the search methodology from linear to intelligent non-linear exploration by implementing ML-based optimization algorithms. This parameter change in the search strategy enables the system to effectively handle non-linear performance relationships that simple linear searches cannot address.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Ease of operation

If traditional tuning approaches are used, then initial configuration can be achieved, but response to variations over time is slow

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinitial configurationVSAvoidresponse speed to variations
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The system continuously monitors performance and autonomously adjusts configuration settings in response to variations over time. The ML model self-adapts to changing conditions by detecting performance degradations and automatically applying corrective configuration changes, enabling rapid response to temporal variations without manual intervention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where performance metrics are monitored, compared against targets, and used to trigger automatic re-tuning when deviations occur. This feedback mechanism enables the system to rapidly detect and respond to variations over time, maintaining optimal performance dynamically.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS12517159B2Machine learning based tuning of radio frequency apparatuses
Publication Date: 2026.01.06 VIASAT INC
  • US12517159B2 patent drawing
  • US12517159B2 patent drawing
  • US12517159B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Methods, systems, and/or devices for tuning the configuration settings of one or more RF apparatuses are provided. Various embodiments described herein regard a system that includes a radio frequency apparatus configured to operate based on a plurality of possible configuration settings to generate an output signal that is characterized by a performance metric. The system can also include a tuner that employs a machine learning engine having a training stage and an inference stage. The inference stage can be configured to, based on a machine learning model, search the possible configuration settings for a target configuration setting that results in the performance metric meeting defined bounds of an optimization threshold value.