MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909012309 · doi:10.1109/tcomm.2019.2892756

Interplay of Bit Rate, Linewidth, Bandwidth, and Reach on Optical DMT and PAM With IMDD

2019· article· en· W2909012309 on OpenAlex
Amin Yekani, Leslie A. Rusch

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBit error ratePulse-amplitude modulationLaser linewidthBandwidth (computing)Electronic engineeringComputer scienceModulation (music)OpticsIntensity modulationLaserPhysicsPhase modulationChannel (broadcasting)TelecommunicationsPhase noisePulse (music)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We theoretically compare the performance of optical discrete multi-tone (DMT) and pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) using intensity modulated and direct detection. PAM is a lower cost, lower complexity solution than DMT, however, it is more vulnerable to chromatic dispersion on the C-band. We compare DMT and PAM taking into consideration the interplay of laser linewidth, fiber length, transmission rate, and channel bandwidth. We use a semi-analytical model to examine bit error rates. We study how system parameters shift the performance advantages between DMT and PAM. Our model can also be used to find the best hardware solution and frequency band for a target modulation format and bit error rate.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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