MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767209875 · doi:10.1109/jlt.2017.2771719

Channel Power Optimization of WDM Systems Following Gaussian Noise Nonlinearity Model in Presence of Stimulated Raman Scattering

2017· article· en· W2767209875 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Roberts, Joseph M. Kahn, James Harley, David Boertjes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsCiena (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvex optimizationControl theory (sociology)Nonlinear systemOptimization problemWavelength-division multiplexingNoise (video)OpticsPhysicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer scienceRegular polygon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of interchannel stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) on optimization of channel powers to maximize the minimum channel margin is examined using a discrete Gaussian noise model for the Kerr nonlinearity. The simultaneous consideration of these two nonlinear effects is found to be incompatible with the goal of a convex SNR expression that can be optimized globally. A sequence of convex optimizations is employed to obtain a locally optimal solution, along with a bound on the degree of suboptimality. Optimization results obtained are most accurate for Gaussian-distributed signals, such as probabilistically shaped high-order-modulated signals. In a dispersion-uncompensated 4000-km fiber system utilizing the full C-band with perfect per-span SRS gain compensation, power optimization yields benefits of 0.25 to 2 dB over optimal spectrally flat power allocations. In systems including both C- and L-band, an optimization method that accounts for both SRS and Kerr nonlinearity effects provides a 0.23 to 0.60 dB margin benefit over a method compensating for SRS gain alone. In a system spanning only the C-band, per-span SRS gain compensation is not critical, as the maximum benefit is a 0.14 dB gain in minimum margin for optimized power allocations. By contrast, in a system spanning both C- and L-band, per-span SRS gain compensation provides a gain of up to 1.23 dB with optimized power allocations and larger gains with suboptimal power allocations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations134
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lightwave TechnologySame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207