OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 20, Iss. 19 — Sep. 10, 2012
  • pp: 21413–21433
« Show journal navigation

A self-coherent receiver for detection of
PolMUX coherent signals

Jingshi Li, Rene Schmogrow, David Hillerkuss, Philipp C. Schindler, Moshe Nazarathy, Carsten Schmidt-Langhorst, Shalva-Ben Ezra, Igor Tselniker, Christian Koos, Wolfgang Freude, and Juerg Leuthold  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 20, Issue 19, pp. 21413-21433 (2012)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.20.021413


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1357 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

A self-coherent receiver capable of demultiplexing PolMUX-signals without an external polarization controller is presented. Training sequences are introduced to estimate the polarization rotation, and a decision feedback recursive algorithm mitigates the random walk of the recovered field. The concept is tested for a PolMUX-DQPSK modulation format where one polarization carries a normal DQPSK signal while the other polarization is encoded as a progressive phase-shift DQPSK signal. An experimental demonstration of the scheme for a 112 Gbit/s PolMUX-DQPSK signal is presented.

© 2012 OSA

1. Introduction

Recently, self-coherent detection (SCD) using delay interferometers (DI) has been suggested as a substitute for coherent reception [2

2. X. Liu, S. Chandrasekhar, and A. Leven, “Digital self-coherent detection,” Opt. Express 16(2), 792–803 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8

8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The concept extends self-homodyne differential detection of signals such as the differential phase-shift keying (DPSK) modulation format, where phase differences of zero or 180° are conveyed. SCD schemes do not need an additional laser as a LO, instead the delayed copy of the signal is used for detection. Compared to a coherent receiver that requires digital signal processing (DSP) for carrier phase and frequency estimation, SCD requires advanced DSPs to reconstruct both the phase and the amplitude of the optical field by comparing an actually received complex sample with a previously reconstructed sample. While self-coherent receivers are advantageous with respect to hardware complexity, they mainly suffer from two issues. Firstly, SCD usually shows an optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR) penalty compared to coherent receiver. Secondly, SCD has not yet been able to receive a PolMUX signal.

The optical signal-to-noise ratio (OSNR) penalty of SCD compared to coherent receiver is about 2.3 dB [9

9. J. M. Kahn and K.-P. Ho, “Spectral efficiency limits and modulation/detection techniques for DWDM systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 10(2), 259–272 (2004). [CrossRef]

], due to the fact that the reconstruction process refers to previously estimated symbols which are also noisy. Especially the quantization noise of analog-to-digital converters (ADC) at the receiver is a degrading factor [8

8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. This OSNR penalty may be reduced with proper DSP algorithms [2

2. X. Liu, S. Chandrasekhar, and A. Leven, “Digital self-coherent detection,” Opt. Express 16(2), 792–803 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 8

8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 10

10. D. van den Borne, S. Jansen, G. Khoe, H. de Wardt, S. Calabro, and E. Gottwald, “Differential quadrature phase shift keying with close to homodyne performance based on multi-symbol phase estimation,” IEE Seminar on Optical Fiber Comm. and Electronic Signal Processing, ref. No. 2005–11310 (2005).

]. These algorithms, which were developed for single polarization, are not directly applicable to self-coherent receivers for PolMUX signals, since the unknown crosstalk between the two polarizations at the receiver strongly distorts the signal constellations. In addition, the fields in the two orthogonal polarizations may destructively interfere at the receiver polarizer yielding zero samples for the reference, causing outages in the reconstruction algorithm operation.

Three principal methods of polarization demultiplexing (PolDEMUX) were mostly developed for differential detection, which can in principle be also applied to SCD. The first method resorts to an external polarization controller for manually [11

11. D. van den Borne, S. L. Jansen, E. Gottwald, P. M. Krummrich, G. D. Khoe, and H. de Waardt, “1.6-b/s/Hz spectrally efficient transmission over 1700 km of SSMF using 40 × 85.6-Gb/s POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK,” J. Lightwave Technol. 25(1), 222–232 (2007). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. A. Gnauck, G. Charlet, P. Tran, P. Winzer, C. Doerr, J. Centanni, E. Burrows, T. Kawanishi, T. Sakamoto, and K. Higuma, “25.6-Tb/s WDM transmission of polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK signals,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 79–84 (2008). [CrossRef]

] or automatically aligning the signal to the receiver polarization axis [13

13. M. Yagi, S. Satomi, and S. Ryu, “Field trial of 160-Gb/s, polarization-division multiplexed RZ-DQPSK transmission system using automatic polarization control,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), Feb. 2008, paper OTuT7 (2008).

15

15. C. R. Doerr and L. Chen, “Monolithic PDM-DQPSK receiver in silicon,” in Proc. of Eur. Conf. Optical Communication (ECOC 2010), Paper PD3.6 (2010).

]. No special signal format is needed. While automatic alignment does not require fast DSP circuits, it relies on high-speed endless polarization controllers. The second method, suitable for return-to-zero (RZ) signals, consists of interleaving the RZ signals propagating in two orthogonal polarizations by introducing a time offset of half symbol duration. At the receiver, the signals are detected using polarization-insensitive decision circuitry operating at twice the symbol rate [16

16. S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, A. Konczykowska, F. Jorge, J. Dupuy, and J. Godin, “Direct detection of 107-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK without optical polarization demultiplexing,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 20(22), 1878–1880 (2008). [CrossRef]

], requiring high-speed photo-detectors and electronics. The third method uses multiple DIs with a variant of the least mean square (LMS) algorithm [17

17. R. Nagarajan, J. Rahn, M. Kato, J. Pleumeekers, D. Lambert, V. Lal, H.-S. Tsai, A. Nilsson, A. Dentai, M. Kuntz, R. Malendevich, J. Tang, J. Zhang, T. Butrie, M. Raburn, B. Little, W. Chen, G. Goldfarb, V. Dominic, B. Taylor, M. Reffle, F. Kish, and D. Welch, “10 Channel, 45.6 Gb/s per Channel, polarization-multiplexed DQPSK, InP receiver photonic integrated circuit,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(4), 386–395 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. In this scheme the authors not only differentially detect the signals in two orthogonal polarizations, but they also cross-couple the two polarizations optically so that the cross product between the two orthogonally polarized signals can be formed by DSP. The advantage is that PolDEMUX occurs at the symbol rate. The disadvantage is the more complex optical circuitry, and the cost for twice as many photodiodes and ADCs, relative to the first SCD method and to a coherent receiver.

Unfortunately, in SCD, post-detection noise accumulates in the field reconstruction recursion, leading to a random-walk process of the complex recovered signal [7

7. J. Li, C. Schmidt-Langhorst, R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, M. Lauermann, M. Winter, K. Worms, C. Schubert, C. Koos, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent receiver for PolMUX coherent signals,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), paper OWV5 (2011).

, 8

8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] if no preventive measures are taken. Due to the independent noise random walks in the two polarizations, the PolDEMUX algorithms [18

18. S. J. Savory, “Digital filters for coherent optical receivers,” Opt. Express 16(2), 804–817 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] commonly used in coherent detection system are not directly applicable for SCD system.

In this paper, we present a SCD receiver based on the principle that is different from the above methods. It does not require polarization controller, time interleaving, and a doubled set of detectors. We estimate the change of the state of polarization with training sequences, then use decision feedback to reconstruct the field and to mitigate the noise-induced random walk that affects the usual PolDEMUX methods. To address “zero-reference” outages in one polarization, we use the signal in the other polarization to estimate the “lost” reference. To this end, a variation of the PolMUX-DQPSK format is introduced, whereby the constellations in both polarizations are rotated by 45° relative to each other. An experimental demonstration of the SCD dual polarization scheme is presented for 112 Gbit/s PolMUX-DQPSK reception.

2. PolMUX transmission and self-coherent reception

A polarization multiplexed transmission system with a self-coherent receiver is presented in Fig. 1(a)
Fig. 1 Polarization multiplexed transmission system with self-coherent receiver (SCD Rx). (a) System schematic with SCD Rx and its DSP modules. Transmitters Txx and Txy generate two signals Ex and Ey carrying data Sx and Sy, which are then combined in a PBC to form a PolMUX signal. In the fiber the signal experiences a random change of the state of polarization described by a matrix (C) which consists of arbitrary polarization rotations (R)n, arbitrary order of PMDn, and arbitrary phase offset (P). The signal is then detected in a SCD Rx. There are two options for realizing the optical front-end (OFE) for detecting the in-phase (I) and quadrature phase (Q) signal: (b) OFE with two quadrature phase-offset DIs (IQ-DI) (c) OFE with optical hybrid.
. Two equivalent configurations of the self-coherent receiver optical front-end (OFE) are considered: An OFE with two phase-offset delay interferometers (DI) as in Fig. 1(b), and an OFE with an optical hybrid, Fig. 1(c).

Delay interferometer front-end. In Fig. 1(b) two DIs with balanced detectors are shown. The input of each DI is either Ex(t) or Ey(t), denoted by Ex,y(t) for short. Within each DI, the complex signal Ex,y(t) is mixed with its delayed copyEx,y(tτ). By carefully choosing the excess phase difference between the two arms, either an in-phase component Re{ux,y(t)}=Re{Ex,y(t)Ex,y*(tτ)} (I, zero phase difference, upper arm in Fig. 1(b)) or a quadrature phase signal Im{ux,y(t)}=Im{Ex,y(t)Ex,y*(tτ)} (Q, π/2 phase difference, lower arm in Fig. 1(b)) is detected by the balanced photodiode pair. We write the operation performed by the DI together with the balanced detector mathematically as
ux,y(t)=Ex,y(t)Ex,y*(tτ).
(1)
The derivation of the equation can be found in Appendix A.

Optical hybrid front-end. An equivalent alternative scheme is shown in Fig. 1(c) where a 2 × 4 optical hybrid is used similarly to a coherent receiver. In lieu of the local oscillator, the incoming signal is delayed by τ, and this copy is fed into the 2 × 4 optical hybrid in order to interfere with the original signal. Multiple variations of 2 × 4 optical hybrids exist, implemented by discrete couplers, by star-couplers [19

19. C. R. Doerr, D. M. Gill, A. H. Gnauck, L. L. Buhl, P. J. Winzer, M. A. Cappuzzo, A. Wong-Foy, E. Y. Chen, and L. T. Gomez, “Monolithic demodulator for 40-Gbs DQPSK using a star coupler,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24(1), 171–174 (2006). [CrossRef]

] or by multimode interference couplers [20

20. L. Zimmermann, K. Voigt, G. Winzer, K. Petermann, and C. M. Weinert, “C-band optical 90° hybrids based on Silicon-on insulator 4×4 waveguide coupler,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 21(3), 143–145 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. The outputs are identical to the ones of the DI front end.

After the balanced detection in either of the front-ends, the complex quantities ux and uy are converted into the digital domain using analog to digital converters (ADCs). Digital signal processing (DSP) algorithms are then applied to recover the transmitted signals. At the outputs of the DSP, the demodulated signalsS^x and S^y are available for further evaluation, for instance for a BER measurement. The DSP algorithms include clock recovery, resampling, phase error correction, normalization, polarization and field recovery. These last two functions are the subject of a new algorithm, which is our focus in this paper.

In the remainder of this section we will present a model of the fiber channel, with which we analyze the interference between the Txx and Txy signals and summarize the challenges that need to solve. At the end, the principle of our transmitter and receiver will be presented.

2.1. Channel model

A polarization multiplexed transmitter with a fiber channel and a polarization diverse SCD receiver is shown in Fig. 1(a). The fiber channel introduces some arbitrary SOP changes so that the detected polarization consists of a mixture between the two transmitted signals.

A possible scenario as of how the SOP may vary when passing from transmitter to receiver is depicted in the upper part of the figure. The quantities Ex and Ey represent the linearly polarized electric field components at the transmitter Txx and Txy. The two signals are combined at a PBC whose linear eigenstates are aligned with the polarization axes of Ex and Ey (blue and red coordinate systems). After the PBC, a fiber is attached. The fiber is modeled by numerous birefringent slices all of which have a different orientation of the fast and the slow axes and a different PMD. The first slice of the fiber model has linear eigenstates p (parallel) and s (senkrecht, perpendicular), which are rotated by an angle of θ 1 with respect to Ex and Ey. The signals have to be remapped to a new coordinate system. This operation can be described by a Jones matrix R1. The last slice of the fiber model has linear eigenstates p′ and s′. At the end of the fiber a PBS with linear polarization eigenstates Ex and Ey projects this electric field on its eigenstates (green and magenta coordinate system), and in addition introduces a phase offset δϕPBS between the two signals. This phase offset is modeled by a matrix P as shown in Eq. (2). The rotation angle between the eigenstates of PBS and last fiber slice is θn. The coordinate system transformation is described by matrix Rn.

Neglecting the propagator and any loss common to both polarizations, the channel is then described by a unitary Jones matrix C [2

2. X. Liu, S. Chandrasekhar, and A. Leven, “Digital self-coherent detection,” Opt. Express 16(2), 792–803 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], which including arbitrary polarization rotations Rn, and arbitrary order of PMDn, and phase offset P,
[ExEy]=[C11C12C21C22][ExEy],C=PRnPMDnRn1R2PMD1R1,Rn=[cos(θn)sin(θn)sin(θn)cos(θn)],PMDn(Δω)=[100ej(ΔωτDGDn+δϕPMDn)],P=[100ejδϕPBS].
(2)
Here, PMDn represents the first-order PMD within the fiber. Assuming a time dependency exp(jω t) with optical angular frequency ω, the differential phase shift between the two principal states of polarizations in a signal bandwidth Δω / (2π) is ΔωτDGDn+δϕPMDn, and the differential group delay is τDGDn. Additional effects could have been also included.

2.2. Challenges for signal recovery

The original Txx and Txy signals are undergoing SOP change in the channel. As a consequence the signals from Txx and Txy are mixed in the receiver. The SCD receiver needs to recover S^x and S^y from ux and uy. This can be done in three steps. The first step is the field recovery that Ex and Ey are reconstructed from ux and uy. The second step is the polarization recovery to recover Ex and Ey from Ex and Ey. At the end, it’s the demodulation that S^x and S^y are retrieved from Ex and Ey. There are several challenges that need to be solved for such a SCD receiver.

The first challenge is that the mixing of the two signals could lead to destructive interference to the extent that the signal at the receiver becomes zero. To illustrate this issue we give an example using a PolMUX QPSK signal transmitted in a very simple channel consisting only one fiber slice. In our simple channel illustration we neglect PMD and assume a zero phase offset after the PBS. In this case, the matrices R1, PMD1, and P are all identity matrices. The eigenstates of PBS with matrix R2 are rotated with respect to the eigenstates of PBC, so that the transmitted field components Ex and Ey are combined to new electric field components Ex and Ey along the PBS eigenstates. Here we assume a rotation by θ 2 = −45°, see Fig. 2(a)
Fig. 2 (a) Illustration of Tx and Rx polarization states. (b) Constellation diagram as sent off by the Txx (× ) and Txy (× ) and constellation diagrams as received by the Rx in the two polarizations x’ (•) and y’ (•) when being sent over the channel in Eq. (2). The two QPSK (× , × ) are mixed and form new constellations Ex=(ExEy)/2 (•) and Ey=(Ex+Ey)/2 (•). Zeros in the center of the constellations result from destructive interference.
. We find
[ExEy]=12[Ix+jQxIy+jQy]exp(jωt)=12[1111][ExEy]=12[ExEyEx+Ey].
(3)
As an example, we assume QPSK where Ex,y12{1+j,1+j,1j,1j}exp(jωt). By substituting into Eq. (3), we arrive at the constellation diagrams in terms of the real (I, in-phase) and imaginary part (Q, quadrature phase) of the complex envelope of the carrier exp(jω t), Fig. 2(b). As an issue with the reception scheme one may notice the zeros in the Rx constellation diagrams. The zeros result from a destructive interference between Ex and Ey when carrying identical symbols. These zeros result in outages of the field reconstruction for Ex and Ey. Special care need to be taken to overcome this issue (details in Section 2.5).

2.3. Transmitter with differential encoding and training sequence for channel estimation

The data in the transmitter are differentially precoded (DP) in order to avoid error propagation as outlined in Section 2.2. We start with the complex data sequence S(n) belonging to a certain constellation. By differentially precoding, S(n) is processed into a complex symbols A(n) at discrete times tn = nτ at multiples n of the symbol period τ [21

21. N. Sigron, I. Tselniker, and M. Nazarathy, “Carrier phase estimation for optically coherent QPSK based on Wiener-optimal and adaptive Multi-Symbol Delay Detection (MSDD),” Opt. Express 20(3), 1981–2003 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

],
A(n)=S(n)A(n1),
(4)
where A(n1) retains the same phase as A(n1), but its magnitude is normalized to one, i. e., A(n1)=A(n1)/|A(n1)|. If we take standard DQPSK as an example, we have S(n){±1,±j}. Given the sequence S(n) = [1, j, −1, 1, −j…] and A(0) = 1, we get A(n) = [1, j, −j, −j, −1…].

The differentially precoded signal A(n) is then modulated on an optical carrier. In a polarization multiplexed system we convey two signal streams Ax(n) and Ay(n) on the two orthogonal SOP, say, linear polarizations in x and y-direction. The optical signals after the modulation are denoted Ex=Ax(n)exp(jωt) and Ey=Ay(n)exp(jωt). The data flow is shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of the transmitter. S(n) is differentially encoded into a A(n) by adding A(n1)=A(n1)/|A(n1)|. The symbol z−1 (representing the z-transform) stands for a time delay by one bit. Then the A(n) is modulated on an optical carrier with angular frequency ω. The mixer output is the time sequence E(n).
. In practice, the oscillator is a laser and the mixer is implemented by an optical IQ-modulator.

In the fiber channel, the signals experience an SOP change. Because in our case the optical fields Ex,y(t) cannot be measured directly, but rather ux,y(t)=Ex,y(t)Ex,y*(tτ) after the balanced detectors in Fig. 1(b), conventional polarization demultiplexing does not work, and we need a sequence of training symbols for estimating the channel matrix C which is determined by 4 complex quantities Cij (8 real numbers). With known electric field components Ex=Axexp(jωt) and Ey=Ayexp(jωt) and measured fields Ex and Ey, four values of Ax,y in each polarization would suffice for uniquely calculating C. However, we measure only the quantities ux,y(t)=Ex,y(t)Ex,y*(tτ), and therefore only phase differences can be determined. As a consequence, the estimated complex channel matrix coefficients C^11 and C^12 share a common undetermined phase factor so that only their phase difference is known. The same is true for C^21 and C^22. This does not affect the channel estimation (see Appendix B), but the number of determinable real quantities is reduced to 6. Therefore a minimum of three transitions per polarization has to be evaluated, leading to a minimum symbol number of 4. Longer symbol sequences could be employed to estimate C by minimizing the least-mean-square error for the matrix coefficients. For demonstrating the concept, we use the minimum training symbol length consisting of a preamble (0, 1, 1) and two groups of 4 complex symbols with three valid transitions for each polarization,
Ax(1...8):0111100Ax(8)Ay(1...8):0110011Ay(8).
(5)
Any symbol from the transmitted constellation can be chosen for the symbols Ax(8) and Ay(8), which are used to start the field recovery algorithm. The preamble starting with the two zeros in the two polarizations serves as a uniquely identifiable symbol sequence which must not be part of the transmitted constellation. Appendix B provides details of the channel estimation.

2.4. Self-coherent receiver with decision feedback

The receiver recovers the transmitted information Sx,y(n). The OFE of the self-coherent receiver processes the transmitted signal Ex,y(n) in polarization x' or y' by interfering them with their delayed copy as shown in Fig. 1. For simplicity, we replaced the SCD Rx, i.e. the mixed analog-digital circuit of the Rx (in Fig. 1) by an equivalent digital circuit (see Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Equivalent digital representation of the self-coherent detection receiver (SCD Rx). The received signal Ex,y(n) is combined with its conjugated delayed copy that generates ux,y(n). The symbol z−1 (representing the z-transform) stands for a time delay by one bit.
). In Fig. 4, we take it for granted that a DSP unit transforms the analog inputs Ex,y(t) at sampling times t = tn = nτ into digital quantities Ex,y(n).

If the SOP does not change, it is Ex,y(n)=Ex,y(n) and ux,y(n)=ux,y(n). After differential decoding we find
ux,y(n)=ux,y(n)=Ex,y*(n1)Ex,y(n)=Ax,y*(n1)Ax,y(n)=Ax,y*(n1)Sx,y(n)Ax,y(n1)=|Ax,y(n1)|Sx,y(n),
(6)
where x* denotes the complex conjugate of quantity x. It should be noted that |Ax,y(n − 1)| = 1 can be chosen for signals Sx,y(n) with constant modulus such as for DQPSK. Looking at Eq. (6) we see that with this normalization ux,y(n) = Sx,y(n), which means an ideal DQPSK detection. No polarization and field recovery algorithm is needed.

When the signal is transmitted through a non-ideal channel, polarization crosstalk may occur. Instead of ux,y(n)=ux,y(n) we receive
ux(n)=Ex*(n1)Ex(n),uy(n)=Ey*(n1)Ey(n),
(7)
where Ex and Ey are the received fields for polarizations x and y, as described by the channel model of Eq. (2). The overall system is represented by the equivalent digital scheme in Fig. 5
Fig. 5 Equivalent digital representation of the PolMUX signal transmission system. A PolMUX signal Ex and Ey carries encoded symbols of Sx and Sy. After the channel transmission, the receiver projects the signals on new polarization axes which results in Ex and Ey. In the SCD Rx, the signal interferes with its delayed copy generating quantities ux and uy. After polarization and field recovery the transmitted symbols Sx and Sy are recovered and sent for further evaluation.
.

At the receiver we measure ux and uy from which we want to recover the transmitted symbols Sx and Sy. However, these symbols are no longer simply obtained at the two DI outputs, due to polarization mixing. The challenge is to recover the fields Ex(n),Ey(n) and to perform polarization demultiplexing.

In the second step a CMA (constant modulus algorithm) or decision directed LMS equalizer [18

18. S. J. Savory, “Digital filters for coherent optical receivers,” Opt. Express 16(2), 804–817 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] can be applied for polarization demultiplexing same as in a coherent receiver. Once we know E^x,y(n), the symbols S^x and S^y are retrieved by differential detection, similarly to Eq. (6). The only change against Eq. (6) is that E^x,y(n1) can now be normalized to one, because we are in the digital domain. Thus we directly obtain Sx and Sy,
S^x(n)=E^x*(n1)E^x(n)=Ax*(n1)Sx(n)Ax(n1)=Sx(n),S^y(n)=E^y*(n1)E^y(n)=Ay*(n1)Sy(n)Ay(n1)=Sy(n).
(9)
This equation indicates that Sx(n) and Sy(n) may be derived for any differentially encoding modulation format including QAM, and not only for constant-modulus signals.

Another issue of the recursive algorithm in Eq. (8) is that because the initial estimate E^x,y(0) is randomly chosen, the estimation can be wrong by a factor of g=E^x,y(0)/Ex,y(0). As a result, the odd sub-sequence would be scaled by 1/g*, E^x,y(1,3,5)=Ex,y(1,3,5)/g*, and the even sub-sequence would be scaled by g, E^x,y(2,4,6)=gEx,y(2,4,6). The even and odd sub-sequences of the reconstructed signal would experience different scaling that need be rescaled afterwards [8

8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

2.5. Field outages caused by polarization crosstalk

In extreme cases, when the signals experience strong polarization crosstalk during transmission, one of the two signal polarization states at the receiver could fade due to destructive interference, so that E^x(n1) or E^y(n1) become zero. Applying Eq. (8) to recover E^x,y(n) will then lead to an infinite output in one of the polarizations, and eventually generate an outage of the field reconstruction process. A non-zero very small value could either be quantized to zero or an inaccurate value could leads to wrong E^x,y(n).

To mitigate this problem we modify the field recovery method. We consider a transmitted DQPSK constellation in both polarizations, each constellation may be represented by four phasors Ex,y in the x and y-direction, respectively. After transmission, the fields Ex and Ey comprise elements with contributions from Ex and Ey. Using Eq. (2) we can express Ex and Eyas sum of the respective phasors, i.e. as Ex/C11=Ex+(C12/C11)Ey and Ey/C22=Ey+(C21/C22)Ex. For DQPSK where each Ex and Ey has four possible states we get a total of 16 constellation points for Ex and Ey, see Fig. 7
Fig. 7 Examples of PolMUX-DQPSK signal constellation diagrams wherein there is polarization mixing between the two signals. (a), the constellations of Ex/C11 (•) or Ey/C22 (•) have more weight from Ex (×) or Ey (×). (b), Ex/C11 or Ey/C22 have more weight from sub-constellation(C12/C11)Ey or (C21/C22)Ex. Symbol combinations close to zero are detected that might cause outages in the field reconstruction.
. If the sub-constellations given by (C12/C11)Ey or (C21/C22)Ex in Fig. 7(a) and (b) are separated so that different sub-constellations points do not coincide, knowledge of C and one polarization state only (i. e. Ex or Ey) suffices to identify Ey and Ex due to the finite amount of possible states Ex,y.

A third special case needs consideration. If two values Ey(n)=0 and Ey(n+1)=0 follow each other, i. e., if no transition takes place, then also Ey(n+12)=0 is true. As a consequence, Ey(n+112) cannot be recovered so that the oversampling method fails. Therefore such sequences of zeros have to be avoided from the very beginning. To this end, we transmit one of the polarizations, say the y-polarization, with a DQPSK modulation and a progressive 45° phase shift being added for consecutive symbols Ey, Fig. 9
Fig. 9 PolMUX DQPSK signal constellation diagrams. Top row shows the phasor of the signals (Ex and Ey) and their transition lines, the bottom row shows the phasors of the encoded symbols (Sx and Sy) which are also the transitions of the signals (Ex and Ey).
right column. This could be done with an additional clocked phase modulator. The resulting DQPSK phases for the symbols Sy are 45°, 135°, −135° and −45° [22

22. X. Wei, A. H. Gnauck, D. M. Gill, X. Liu, U.-V. Koc, S. Chandrasekhar, G. Raybon, and J. Leuthold, “Optical pi/2-DPSK and its tolerance to filtering and polarization-mode dispersion,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 15(11), 1639–1641 (2003). [CrossRef]

]. The other polarization transmits a normal DQPSK signal with phases 0°, 90°, 180° and −90° for the symbols Sx, Fig. 9 left column. Looking at Fig. 9 and assuming that Ex(1)=(1+j)/2 destructively interferes with Ey(1)=(1+j)/2, none of the 4 possibly following values Ey(2)=±1,±j could destructively interfere with any of the constellation points Ex(2)=(±1±j)/2. Thus, series of consecutive zeros for Ex,y cannot occur.

3. Experimental setup and results

The signal is then amplified with a polarization maintaining (PM) EDFA and filtered with a 1 nm filter. Then we use a 3dB PM coupler to split the signal onto two arms, where one arm is delayed by 128 symbols with respect to the other one. Both arms are then combined. This yields a 112 Gbit/s bit-aligned PolMUX signal with training sequences for the two polarizations with alternating NRZ-DQPSK and progressive-phase NRZ-DQPSK signal frames. To mimic signals with different OSNR, an amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise source has been added. The signal is then filtered with a 3 nm filter and re-amplified before being sent to the self-coherent receiver. At the receiver input we use a 2 nm filter to further suppress the out-of-band noise. A polarization controller emulates polarization rotation in the fiber link. The receiver comprises two pairs of IQ delay interferometers as in Fig. 1(b). The DI delay times equal one symbol duration. After the balanced photo-detectors, the signal is captured by the real-time scope of an Agilent optical modulation analyzer (80 GS/s, 32 GHz bandwidth), which samples the waveforms for off-line processing.

The off-line processing consists of various steps. First, squaring clock recovery algorithm [24

24. M. Oerder and H. Meyr, “Digital filter and square timing recovery,” IEEE Trans. Commun. 36(5), 605–612 (1988). [CrossRef]

] is applied to down-sample the signal to two samples for each in-phase and quadrature phase components of ux,y(n). Then the signals are normalized and combined to form the complex representations ux,y(n). After digitally removing the static phase errors in the delay interferometers, we apply our field and polarization recovery algorithm described in Section 2.4. The channel estimation is performed on the first 128 symbols, and afterwards is discontinued, unless it becomes necessary to re-estimate the channel.

We first test the algorithms with low ASE noise. In Fig. 11
Fig. 11 Constellation diagrams of detected signals ux,yin x and y polarizations together with the recovered symbolsE^x,yfor 6 different polarization states. All measurements were performed at low ASE noise, and 3072 symbols were evaluated.
, we present signal reception under 6 different polarization rotations. Constellation diagrams of the signals ux,y(n) before performing the polarization recovery algorithms are presented on the left side of each set. Because the signal is repeated with a normal NRZ-DQPSK and a 45° offset NRZ-DQPSK, the constellation resembles an 8PSK format. The zeros in the center are part of the training sequence. During field and polarization recovery, the training sequence is removed from the data and the 45° offset is also canceled. The estimated E^x,y-constellations after field and polarization recovery are shown on the right side of each set. The recovered signals’ error vector magnitude (EVM) are all below 16%, corresponding to BER less than 10−9 [25

25. R. Schmogrow, B. Nebendahl, M. Winter, A. Josten, D. Hillerkuss, S. Koenig, J. Meyer, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Error vector magnitude as a performance measure for advanced modulation formats,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24(1), 61–63 (2012). [CrossRef]

].

We then tested the algorithms for different OSNR values and polarization states with and without field and polarization recovery algorithm, Fig. 12
Fig. 12 BER versus OSNR plots of self-coherent receiver for 6 different polarization states with polarization and field recovery (PFR) algorithm (solid symbols) and without PFR algorithm (empty symbols). The black curve shows the OSNR versus BER for a coherent receiver.
. A maximal recording time of 350 µs (98 × 105 symbols) has been used for the BER evaluation. For polarization states ‘D’ and ‘E’, the BER at OSNR 16dB is anomalously high. This could be due to the failure of the clock recovery algorithm at low OSNR.

For comparison, we detected the polarization-aligned signal with both a homodyne coherent receiver (black symbols) and with the self-coherent receiver (red symbols). For the signals detected with the homodyne receiver we applied a Viterbi-Viterbi algorithm [26

26. A. J. Viterbi and A. N. Viterbi, “Nonlinear estimation of PSK-modulated carrier phase with application to burst digital transmission,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 29(4), 543–551 (1983). [CrossRef]

] to correct the phase drift of the local oscillator.

To test the SCD receiver with increasing ASE the same 6 different polarization rotations have been tested as above. When the polarization is aligned, we get the best performance – with and without polarization recovery. The result is virtually same to the one from the coherent receiver. Theoretically, the coherent receiver should provide a result that is about 2.3 dB better than with the differential detection scheme [9

9. J. M. Kahn and K.-P. Ho, “Spectral efficiency limits and modulation/detection techniques for DWDM systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 10(2), 259–272 (2004). [CrossRef]

]. However, our coherent receiver is not ideal, and other researchers reported similar performance at almost the same symbol rate [1

1. C. R. S. Fludger, T. Duthel, D. Van den Borne, C. Schulien, E. D. Schmidt, T. Wuth, J. Geyer, E. De Man, Khoe Giok-Djan, and H. de Waardt, “Coherent equalization and POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK for robust 100-GE transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 64–72 (2008). [CrossRef]

].

It can be seen that our novel algorithm substantially improves the self-coherent detection scheme. While the signal cannot be recovered for a 45° polarization rotation ((F) in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12) without our algorithm, the signal can be recovered with the recovery algorithm in any polarization state.

When the polarization crosstalk is strong we observe an OSNR penalty. This could be due to the fact that the recovered signal is calculated with the signal on two polarizations therefore noise from two sources contributes to the signal: The larger the polarization crosstalk, the higher the noise penalty. When there are (close) zeros at one polarization, the demodulation is then based on the other polarization which comprises 16 symbol constellation points. This also introduces a higher OSNR penalty to the signal. We should also consider the limitation of the equipment used in the experiment, i.e. the sampling rate and bandwidth of the real-time scope is not sufficient to fully track the transitions of the signal. Therefore the method described in Section 2.5 can only operate with limited efficiency.

4. Conclusion

We presented a self-coherent receiver operating without an external polarization controller. The self-coherent front-end consists of a pair IQ delay interferometers, or it uses a conventional optical hybrid with the LO replaced by a delayed version of the received light for each of the two polarizations. The DSP features a new algorithm based on training sequences to estimate the change of the state of polarization, and a decision feedback to mitigate the noise-driven random walk of the recovered field. The concept was tested for a PolMUX-DQPSK modulation wherein one polarization transmits a normal DQPSK signal, while the other one transmits a progressive-phase DPQSK signal. We experimentally demonstrated that this self-coherent receiver is capable of demultiplexing signals with arbitrary polarizations. In particular, we successfully tested the scheme on an 112Gbit/s PolMUX-DQPSK signal under different polarization states at different OSNR levels.

Appendix A: Signal processing of E(t) by delay interferometers

In this section we derive the mathematical operation performed by two DIs (Fig. 1(b)) onto a signal sequence E(t).

The self-coherent receiver basically comprises two DIs with photo detectors at the constructive and destructive output ports. The operations performed by a single DI onto a signal E(t) therefore given at the constructive and destructive ports are
Eout1(t)=E(t)+E(tτ),Eout2(t)=E(t)E(tτ).
(10)
In the photodiodes the fields are converted into photo currents that are proportional to the square of the field magnitude,
Iout1(t)|E(t)+E(tτ)|2|E(t)|2+|E(tτ)|2+2|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ)),Iout2(t)|E(t)E(tτ)|2|E(t)|2+|E(tτ)|22|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ)),
(11)
where x denotes the phase of a complex quantity x. After the balanced photodiode receiver, the differential output current is
IBR(t)=Iout1(t)Iout2(t)|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ)).
(12)
This operation is performed for the in-phase (I in Fig. 1(b)) as well as for the quadrature phase DI (Q in Fig. 1(b)). Because of the π/2 phase offset, the photocurrents IBR(I) and IBR(Q) are
IBR(I)(t)|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ)),IBR(Q)(t)|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ)+π2)|E(t)||E(tτ)|sin(E(t)E(tτ)).
(13)
After digital acquisition we combine the in-phase and quadrature channels in form of a complex signal,
u(t)=IBR(I)(t)jIBR(Q)(t)|E(t)||E(tτ)|cos(E(t)E(tτ))+j|E(t)||E(tτ)|sin(E(t)E(tτ))|E(t)||E(tτ)|exp[j(E(t)E(tτ))]=E(t)E*(tτ).
(14)
As the in-phase and quadrature phase signals are normalized in the DSP section, we simplify the notation by writing u(t)=E(t)E*(tτ). Given the signal is sampled at discrete times tn = nτ, we can also write this equation as u(n)=E(n)E*(n1).

Appendix B: Channel estimation with training sequences

The training sequence for the two polarizations is chosen to be
Ax(1...8):0111100Ax(8)Ay(1...8):0110011Ay(8)
(15)
where Ax(8) and Ay(8) can be any symbol from the transmitted constellation. The preamble with a starting zero serves as a uniquely identifiable symbol sequence. For convenience we set Ex,y = Ax,y, i. e., we omit encoding the symbols onto an optical carrier which does not change our channel estimation process. At the receiver, we have
[Ex(n)Ey(n)]n=1...8=[C11C12C21C22][Ex(n)Ey(n)]n=1...8={[00],[C11+C12C21+C22],[C11+C12C21+C22],[C11C21],[C11C21],[C12C22],[C12C22],[C11Ex(8)+C12Ey(8)C21Ex(8)+C22Ey(8)]}.
(16)
After reception with the DI and digital acquisition we measure
[ux(n)uy(n)]n=1...8=[Ex*(n1)Ex(n)Ey*(n1)Ey(n)]n=1...8={[00],[00],[(C11+C12)*(C11+C12)(C21+C22)*(C21+C22)],[(C11+C12)*C11(C21+C22)*C21],[C11*C11C21*C21],[C11*C12C21*C22],[C12*C12C22*C22],[C12*(C11Ex(8)+C12Ey(8))C22*(C21Ex(8)+C22Ey(8))]}.
(17)
From the elements in Eq. (17) we use the first four elements as starting delimiter. Also we do not use ux,y(8) for channel estimation. This reduces the number of equations to 6. This should be sufficient equations to derive the complex channel elements if the absolute value and the absolute phase are not needed
ux(5)=C11*C11=|C11|2,ux(6)=C11*C12,ux(7)=C12*C12=|C12|2,uy(5)=C21*C21=|C21|2,uy(6)=C21*C22,uy(7)=C22*C22=|C22|2.
(18)
We employ the same notation as in Eq. (4) for the phase factor C of a complex quantity C, and the estimation C^ of the channel matrix C results from Eq. (18),
C^11=|ux(5)|12exp(jux(6))=C11exp[j(C12)]=C11C12*,C^12=|ux(7)|12=C12exp[j(C12)]=C12C12*,C^21=|uy(5)|12exp(juy(6))=C21exp[j(C22)]=C21C22*,C^22=|uy(7)|12=C22exp[j(C22)]=C22C22*.
(19)
Compared to the channel matrix C, its estimation C^ has common phase factors C12* and C22* for its upper and lower rows, respectively.

There are two extreme cases that cannot be treated with Eq. (19), namely if either of the ux,y(57) is close to zero, i. e., if there is no polarization crosstalk C12, C21 → 0, or if the polarization states are interchanged C11, C22 → 0,
[C11C12C21C22]=[1001]or[C11C12C21C22]=[0110].
(25)
In this case, ux,y(6) in Eq. (18) becomes very small, and its argument needed in Eq. (19) for calculating C^ is very inaccurate. Depending on ux,y(57), the starting fields Ex(8)andEy(8) are equal to the transmitted fields Ex(8) and Ey(8), or they are equal to the cross-polarized transmitted fields Ey(8) and Ex(8). The subsequent fields Ex,y(9), Ex,y(10), can then be recovered as described previously.

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by the European Commission’s Network of Excellence EuroFOS and Karlsruhe School of Optics and Photonics (KSOP). This work was further supported in part by the OTONES trans-national Piano + EU program and by the Israeli Science Foundation (ISF). We further acknowledge the Open Access Publishing Fund of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). The authors would also like to thank S. Koenig, A. Ludwig, Z. Wang, L. Zhou from KIT, and Dr. B. Nebendahl from Agilent Technology for their support and for helpful discussions.

References and links

1.

C. R. S. Fludger, T. Duthel, D. Van den Borne, C. Schulien, E. D. Schmidt, T. Wuth, J. Geyer, E. De Man, Khoe Giok-Djan, and H. de Waardt, “Coherent equalization and POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK for robust 100-GE transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 64–72 (2008). [CrossRef]

2.

X. Liu, S. Chandrasekhar, and A. Leven, “Digital self-coherent detection,” Opt. Express 16(2), 792–803 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

N. Kikuchi, K. Mandai, K. Sekine, and S. Sasaki, “Incoherent 32-level optical multilevel signaling technologies,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 150–157 (2008). [CrossRef]

4.

J. Zhao, M. E. McCarthy, and A. D. Ellis, “Electronic dispersion compensation using full optical-field reconstruction in 10Gbit/s OOK based systems,” Opt. Express 16(20), 15353–15365 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

J. Li, K. Worms, P. Vorreau, D. Hillerkuss, A. Ludwig, R. Maestle, S. Schuele, U. Hollenbach, J. Mohr, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Optical vector signal analyzer based on differential direct detection,” in Proc. of IEEE Photonics Society (LEOS Annual Meeting) 2009 (Belek-Antalya, Turkey), Paper TuA4 (2009).

6.

J. Li, K. Worms, R. Maestle, D. Hillerkuss, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Free-space optical delay interferometer with tunable delay and phase,” Opt. Express 19(12), 11654–11666 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

J. Li, C. Schmidt-Langhorst, R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, M. Lauermann, M. Winter, K. Worms, C. Schubert, C. Koos, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent receiver for PolMUX coherent signals,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), paper OWV5 (2011).

8.

I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

J. M. Kahn and K.-P. Ho, “Spectral efficiency limits and modulation/detection techniques for DWDM systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 10(2), 259–272 (2004). [CrossRef]

10.

D. van den Borne, S. Jansen, G. Khoe, H. de Wardt, S. Calabro, and E. Gottwald, “Differential quadrature phase shift keying with close to homodyne performance based on multi-symbol phase estimation,” IEE Seminar on Optical Fiber Comm. and Electronic Signal Processing, ref. No. 2005–11310 (2005).

11.

D. van den Borne, S. L. Jansen, E. Gottwald, P. M. Krummrich, G. D. Khoe, and H. de Waardt, “1.6-b/s/Hz spectrally efficient transmission over 1700 km of SSMF using 40 × 85.6-Gb/s POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK,” J. Lightwave Technol. 25(1), 222–232 (2007). [CrossRef]

12.

A. Gnauck, G. Charlet, P. Tran, P. Winzer, C. Doerr, J. Centanni, E. Burrows, T. Kawanishi, T. Sakamoto, and K. Higuma, “25.6-Tb/s WDM transmission of polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK signals,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26(1), 79–84 (2008). [CrossRef]

13.

M. Yagi, S. Satomi, and S. Ryu, “Field trial of 160-Gb/s, polarization-division multiplexed RZ-DQPSK transmission system using automatic polarization control,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), Feb. 2008, paper OTuT7 (2008).

14.

B. Koch, R. Noé, V. Mirvoda, D. Sandel, V. Filsinger, and K. Puntsri, “40-krad/s polarization tracking in 200-Gb/s PDM-RZ-DQPSK transmission over 430 km,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 22(9), 613–615 (2010). [CrossRef]

15.

C. R. Doerr and L. Chen, “Monolithic PDM-DQPSK receiver in silicon,” in Proc. of Eur. Conf. Optical Communication (ECOC 2010), Paper PD3.6 (2010).

16.

S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, A. Konczykowska, F. Jorge, J. Dupuy, and J. Godin, “Direct detection of 107-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK without optical polarization demultiplexing,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 20(22), 1878–1880 (2008). [CrossRef]

17.

R. Nagarajan, J. Rahn, M. Kato, J. Pleumeekers, D. Lambert, V. Lal, H.-S. Tsai, A. Nilsson, A. Dentai, M. Kuntz, R. Malendevich, J. Tang, J. Zhang, T. Butrie, M. Raburn, B. Little, W. Chen, G. Goldfarb, V. Dominic, B. Taylor, M. Reffle, F. Kish, and D. Welch, “10 Channel, 45.6 Gb/s per Channel, polarization-multiplexed DQPSK, InP receiver photonic integrated circuit,” J. Lightwave Technol. 29(4), 386–395 (2011). [CrossRef]

18.

S. J. Savory, “Digital filters for coherent optical receivers,” Opt. Express 16(2), 804–817 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19.

C. R. Doerr, D. M. Gill, A. H. Gnauck, L. L. Buhl, P. J. Winzer, M. A. Cappuzzo, A. Wong-Foy, E. Y. Chen, and L. T. Gomez, “Monolithic demodulator for 40-Gbs DQPSK using a star coupler,” J. Lightwave Technol. 24(1), 171–174 (2006). [CrossRef]

20.

L. Zimmermann, K. Voigt, G. Winzer, K. Petermann, and C. M. Weinert, “C-band optical 90° hybrids based on Silicon-on insulator 4×4 waveguide coupler,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 21(3), 143–145 (2009). [CrossRef]

21.

N. Sigron, I. Tselniker, and M. Nazarathy, “Carrier phase estimation for optically coherent QPSK based on Wiener-optimal and adaptive Multi-Symbol Delay Detection (MSDD),” Opt. Express 20(3), 1981–2003 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

22.

X. Wei, A. H. Gnauck, D. M. Gill, X. Liu, U.-V. Koc, S. Chandrasekhar, G. Raybon, and J. Leuthold, “Optical pi/2-DPSK and its tolerance to filtering and polarization-mode dispersion,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 15(11), 1639–1641 (2003). [CrossRef]

23.

R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, M. Winter, J. Meyer, B. Nebendahl, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Real-time software-defined multiformat transmitter generating 64QAM at 28 GBd,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 22(21), 1601–1603 (2010). [CrossRef]

24.

M. Oerder and H. Meyr, “Digital filter and square timing recovery,” IEEE Trans. Commun. 36(5), 605–612 (1988). [CrossRef]

25.

R. Schmogrow, B. Nebendahl, M. Winter, A. Josten, D. Hillerkuss, S. Koenig, J. Meyer, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Error vector magnitude as a performance measure for advanced modulation formats,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24(1), 61–63 (2012). [CrossRef]

26.

A. J. Viterbi and A. N. Viterbi, “Nonlinear estimation of PSK-modulated carrier phase with application to burst digital transmission,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 29(4), 543–551 (1983). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(060.1660) Fiber optics and optical communications : Coherent communications
(060.2330) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics communications
(060.5060) Fiber optics and optical communications : Phase modulation

ToC Category:
Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

History
Original Manuscript: July 17, 2012
Revised Manuscript: August 20, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: August 21, 2012
Published: September 4, 2012

Citation
Jingshi Li, Rene Schmogrow, David Hillerkuss, Philipp C. Schindler, Moshe Nazarathy, Carsten Schmidt-Langhorst, Shalva-Ben Ezra, Igor Tselniker, Christian Koos, Wolfgang Freude, and Juerg Leuthold, "A self-coherent receiver for detection of
PolMUX coherent signals," Opt. Express 20, 21413-21433 (2012)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-20-19-21413


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. C. R. S. Fludger, T. Duthel, D. Van den Borne, C. Schulien, E. D. Schmidt, T. Wuth, J. Geyer, E. De Man, Khoe Giok-Djan, and H. de Waardt, “Coherent equalization and POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK for robust 100-GE transmission,” J. Lightwave Technol.26(1), 64–72 (2008). [CrossRef]
  2. X. Liu, S. Chandrasekhar, and A. Leven, “Digital self-coherent detection,” Opt. Express16(2), 792–803 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. N. Kikuchi, K. Mandai, K. Sekine, and S. Sasaki, “Incoherent 32-level optical multilevel signaling technologies,” J. Lightwave Technol.26(1), 150–157 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. J. Zhao, M. E. McCarthy, and A. D. Ellis, “Electronic dispersion compensation using full optical-field reconstruction in 10Gbit/s OOK based systems,” Opt. Express16(20), 15353–15365 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. J. Li, K. Worms, P. Vorreau, D. Hillerkuss, A. Ludwig, R. Maestle, S. Schuele, U. Hollenbach, J. Mohr, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Optical vector signal analyzer based on differential direct detection,” in Proc. of IEEE Photonics Society (LEOS Annual Meeting) 2009 (Belek-Antalya, Turkey), Paper TuA4 (2009).
  6. J. Li, K. Worms, R. Maestle, D. Hillerkuss, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Free-space optical delay interferometer with tunable delay and phase,” Opt. Express19(12), 11654–11666 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. J. Li, C. Schmidt-Langhorst, R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, M. Lauermann, M. Winter, K. Worms, C. Schubert, C. Koos, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent receiver for PolMUX coherent signals,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), paper OWV5 (2011).
  8. I. Tselniker, M. Nazarathy, S.-B. Ezra, J. Li, and J. Leuthold, “Self-coherent complex field reconstruction with in-phase and quadrature delay detection without a direct-detection branch,” Opt. Express20(14), 15452–15473 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. J. M. Kahn and K.-P. Ho, “Spectral efficiency limits and modulation/detection techniques for DWDM systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.10(2), 259–272 (2004). [CrossRef]
  10. D. van den Borne, S. Jansen, G. Khoe, H. de Wardt, S. Calabro, and E. Gottwald, “Differential quadrature phase shift keying with close to homodyne performance based on multi-symbol phase estimation,” IEE Seminar on Optical Fiber Comm. and Electronic Signal Processing, ref. No. 2005–11310 (2005).
  11. D. van den Borne, S. L. Jansen, E. Gottwald, P. M. Krummrich, G. D. Khoe, and H. de Waardt, “1.6-b/s/Hz spectrally efficient transmission over 1700 km of SSMF using 40 × 85.6-Gb/s POLMUX-RZ-DQPSK,” J. Lightwave Technol.25(1), 222–232 (2007). [CrossRef]
  12. A. Gnauck, G. Charlet, P. Tran, P. Winzer, C. Doerr, J. Centanni, E. Burrows, T. Kawanishi, T. Sakamoto, and K. Higuma, “25.6-Tb/s WDM transmission of polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK signals,” J. Lightwave Technol.26(1), 79–84 (2008). [CrossRef]
  13. M. Yagi, S. Satomi, and S. Ryu, “Field trial of 160-Gb/s, polarization-division multiplexed RZ-DQPSK transmission system using automatic polarization control,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC)/Natl. Fiber Optic Eng. Conf. (NFOEC), Feb. 2008, paper OTuT7 (2008).
  14. B. Koch, R. Noé, V. Mirvoda, D. Sandel, V. Filsinger, and K. Puntsri, “40-krad/s polarization tracking in 200-Gb/s PDM-RZ-DQPSK transmission over 430 km,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.22(9), 613–615 (2010). [CrossRef]
  15. C. R. Doerr and L. Chen, “Monolithic PDM-DQPSK receiver in silicon,” in Proc. of Eur. Conf. Optical Communication (ECOC 2010), Paper PD3.6 (2010).
  16. S. Chandrasekhar, X. Liu, A. Konczykowska, F. Jorge, J. Dupuy, and J. Godin, “Direct detection of 107-Gb/s polarization-multiplexed RZ-DQPSK without optical polarization demultiplexing,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.20(22), 1878–1880 (2008). [CrossRef]
  17. R. Nagarajan, J. Rahn, M. Kato, J. Pleumeekers, D. Lambert, V. Lal, H.-S. Tsai, A. Nilsson, A. Dentai, M. Kuntz, R. Malendevich, J. Tang, J. Zhang, T. Butrie, M. Raburn, B. Little, W. Chen, G. Goldfarb, V. Dominic, B. Taylor, M. Reffle, F. Kish, and D. Welch, “10 Channel, 45.6 Gb/s per Channel, polarization-multiplexed DQPSK, InP receiver photonic integrated circuit,” J. Lightwave Technol.29(4), 386–395 (2011). [CrossRef]
  18. S. J. Savory, “Digital filters for coherent optical receivers,” Opt. Express16(2), 804–817 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. C. R. Doerr, D. M. Gill, A. H. Gnauck, L. L. Buhl, P. J. Winzer, M. A. Cappuzzo, A. Wong-Foy, E. Y. Chen, and L. T. Gomez, “Monolithic demodulator for 40-Gbs DQPSK using a star coupler,” J. Lightwave Technol.24(1), 171–174 (2006). [CrossRef]
  20. L. Zimmermann, K. Voigt, G. Winzer, K. Petermann, and C. M. Weinert, “C-band optical 90° hybrids based on Silicon-on insulator 4×4 waveguide coupler,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.21(3), 143–145 (2009). [CrossRef]
  21. N. Sigron, I. Tselniker, and M. Nazarathy, “Carrier phase estimation for optically coherent QPSK based on Wiener-optimal and adaptive Multi-Symbol Delay Detection (MSDD),” Opt. Express20(3), 1981–2003 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. X. Wei, A. H. Gnauck, D. M. Gill, X. Liu, U.-V. Koc, S. Chandrasekhar, G. Raybon, and J. Leuthold, “Optical pi/2-DPSK and its tolerance to filtering and polarization-mode dispersion,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.15(11), 1639–1641 (2003). [CrossRef]
  23. R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, M. Winter, J. Meyer, B. Nebendahl, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Real-time software-defined multiformat transmitter generating 64QAM at 28 GBd,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.22(21), 1601–1603 (2010). [CrossRef]
  24. M. Oerder and H. Meyr, “Digital filter and square timing recovery,” IEEE Trans. Commun.36(5), 605–612 (1988). [CrossRef]
  25. R. Schmogrow, B. Nebendahl, M. Winter, A. Josten, D. Hillerkuss, S. Koenig, J. Meyer, M. Dreschmann, M. Huebner, C. Koos, J. Becker, W. Freude, and J. Leuthold, “Error vector magnitude as a performance measure for advanced modulation formats,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.24(1), 61–63 (2012). [CrossRef]
  26. A. J. Viterbi and A. N. Viterbi, “Nonlinear estimation of PSK-modulated carrier phase with application to burst digital transmission,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory29(4), 543–551 (1983). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited