MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143248015 · doi:10.1109/lpt.2007.902164

Experimental Study of MLSE Receivers in the Presence of Narrowband and Vestigial Sideband Optical Filtering

2007· article· en· W2143248015 on OpenAlexaff
Joan M. Gené, Peter J. Winzer, René-Jean Essiambre, S. Chandrasekhar, Y. Painchaud, M. Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Photonics Technology Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsTeraXion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrowbandSidebandOptical filterMaximum likelihood sequence estimationKeyingCompatible sideband transmissionPhysicsBit error rateFilter (signal processing)Electronic engineeringOpticsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsAlgorithmEstimation theoryEngineeringRadio frequency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on experimental investigations of real-time maximum-likelihood sequence estimation (MLSE) in the presence of narrowband optical filtering, using 10.7-Gb/s nonreturn-to-zero ON-OFF keying and a fiber grating filter with 6.25-GHz bandwidth. Compared to standard threshold detection, the MLSE eliminates a 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> error floor due to narrowband optical filtering and results in DFB a <2-dB optical signal-to-noise ratio penalty at a 10 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-3</sup> bit-error ratio. Furthermore, we demonstrate the ability of the MLSE to simultaneously compensate for narrowband optical filtering and chromatic dispersion. Finally, we investigate the influence of narrowband filter frequency detuning and show that the well-known effect of increased filtering tolerance given by the vestigial sideband effect observed in standard threshold detection, disappears in the presence of the MLSE.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Photonics Technology LettersSame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207