MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389076550 · doi:10.1109/lpt.2023.3336211

Generalized Probability Density Function of Polarization-Dependent Loss in Optical Links

2023· article· en· W4389076550 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Lin, Zhiping Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Photonics Technology Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplexerProbability density functionRandomnessComputer sciencePolarization (electrochemistry)Optical communicationOptical fiberProbability distributionElectronic engineeringOptical add-drop multiplexerOptical performance monitoringTopology (electrical circuits)OpticsStatistical physicsPhysicsWavelengthWavelength-division multiplexingMultiplexingTelecommunicationsMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern optical networks, reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers consisting of wavelength selective switches are widely adopted, and they are the major cause of polarization dependent loss (PDL). Link PDL evolves with time due to the time-varying polarization state of propagating light in the optical fiber, and this randomness needs to be considered in the design and operation of optical networks. Therefore, characterizing link PDL using statistical methods is important. It is well known that link PDL in ultra long-haul systems containing a large number of PDL elements is Maxwellian-distributed. However, it is not appropriate when links include a reduced number of PDL elements, or there exist a few dominant PDL elements. In this letter, statistics of link PDL is studied, and a generalized probability density function (PDF) is derived for links including a variety of number of elements. Simulations and experiments are performed, and results show that the generalized PDF fits in a wide scope of realistic scenarios. On the other hand, the conventional Maxwellian distribution exhibits significant discrepancy with the actual one in the studied cases.

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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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