MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392348176 · doi:10.18280/ts.410139

A New Proposed Model for Dispersion Compensation via Linear Chirped Fiber Bragg Grating

2024· article· en· W4392348176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faris Keti

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Fiber Optic Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiber Bragg gratingDispersion (optics)PHOSFOSCompensation (psychology)OpticsMaterials scienceFiberDispersion-shifted fiberPhysicsOptical fiberFiber optic sensorComposite materialPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the technology of fiber optics communication has experienced immense evolution due to the huge data rates and transmission capacity requirements of emerging communication systems.However, nonlinear effects and dispersion which are challenging impairments are among the main issues that have an impact on the optical fiber systems performance.As a result, to solve this challenging issue, the utilization of a dispersion compensating technique such as Dispersion Compensating Fiber (DCF) or Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) is an urgent necessity.In this paper, a new model for dispersion compensation utilizing Fiber Bragg Grating is proposed.Tanh apodization and linear chirp functions are added to the proposed model to provide a Linear Chirped FBG.In addition, it has been used with a Gaussian filter of low pass type to enhance the proposed system in terms of performance parameters such as: BER, Q-factor, and eye-diagram.These parameters are the most significant performance measurements that impact any optical communication system.The proposed model is simulated via Optisystem and analyzed via Python.Simulation results for different lengths of fiber show that the BER, Q-factor, and eye diagrams of the proposed model have a better performance compared to that of the other systems where either no FBG is applied or a traditional uniform FBG is used.The Q-factor values and BER values for 40km fiber length were 29.5524 and 9.3407*10 -182 for the system model proposed in this study, 13.9969 and 6.5823*10 -45 for the system with uniform FBG, and 5.0736 and 1.1792*10 -7 for the system without FBG.Finally, the eye diagrams of the proposed model also show a better opening compared to other systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicAdvanced Fiber Optic SensorsFrench-language works237,207