Coherent crosstalk noise analyses in ring-based optical interconnects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, optical interconnects have been proposed for ultra-high bandwidth and low latency inter/intra-chip communication in multiprocessor systems-on-chip (MPSoCs). These optical interconnects employ the microresonators (MRs) to direct/detect the optical signal. However, utilized MRs suffer from intrinsic crosstalk noise and power loss, degrading the network efficiency via the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). In this paper, both coherent and incoherent crosstalk in wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) networks are discussed and systematically analyzed. We carefully develop our analytical models at the optical-circuit level, and apply them to two ring-based networks: SUOR and Corona ONoCs. The quantitative results have demonstrated that the architectural design of the ONoCs determines the impact of crosstalk on the SNR. Even though SUOR and Corona are both ring-based ONoCs, the worst-case SNR can be differed up to 50dB. Our analyses of the worst-case SNR can be utilized as a platform to compare the realistic performance among different optical interconnection networks via the degradation of BER and data bandwidth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it