OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 21, Iss. 22 — Nov. 4, 2013
  • pp: 25685–25699
« Show journal navigation

Properties of nonlinear noise in long, dispersion-uncompensated fiber links

Ronen Dar, Meir Feder, Antonio Mecozzi, and Mark Shtaif  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 21, Issue 22, pp. 25685-25699 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.025685


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (2111 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We study the properties of nonlinear interference noise (NLIN) in fiber-optic communications systems with large accumulated dispersion. Our focus is on settling the discrepancy between the results of the Gaussian noise (GN) model (according to which NLIN is additive Gaussian) and a recently published time-domain analysis, which attributes drastically different properties to the NLIN. Upon reviewing the two approaches we identify several unjustified assumptions that are key in the derivation of the GN model, and that are responsible for the discrepancy. We derive the true NLIN power and verify that the NLIN is not additive Gaussian, but rather it depends strongly on the data transmitted in the channel of interest. In addition we validate the time-domain model numerically and demonstrate the strong dependence of the NLIN on the interfering channels’ modulation format.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

The modeling of nonlinear propagation in optical fibers is a key component in the efficient design of fiber-optic communications. Although computer simulations have long reached a state of maturity allowing very accurate prediction of system performance, their use is prohibitively complex in many cases of relevance, where approximate analytical models become invaluable. In a wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) environment, nonlinear propagation phenomena can be classified as either intra-channel [1

1. A. Mecozzi, C. B. Clausen, and M. Shtaif, “Analysis of intrachannel nonlinear effects in highly dispersed optical pulse transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 12, 392–394(2000). [CrossRef]

] , or inter-channel [2

2. F. Forghieri, R.W. Tkack, and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Fiber nonlinearities and their impact on transmission systems,” Ch. 8 in Optical Fiber Telecommunications IIIA, P. Kaminow and T. L. Koch, eds. (Academic Press, 1997).

] effects. Intra-channel effects manifest themselves as nonlinear inter-symbol interference, which can in principle be eliminated by means of post-processing (such as back-propagation [3

3. E. Ip and J. M. Kahn, “Compensation of dispersion and nonlinear impairments using digital backpropagation,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26, 3416–3425 (2008). [CrossRef]

] ), or pre-distortion [4

4. R. I. Killey, P. M. Watts, V. Mikhailov, M. Glick, and P. Bayvel, “Electronic dispersion compensation by signal predistortion using digital processing and a dual-drive Mach-Zehnder modulator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 17, 714–716(2005). [CrossRef]

] . Inter-channel effects consist of cross-phase-modulation (XPM) and four-wave-mixing (FWM) between WDM channels, and in a complex network environment, where joint processing is prohibitively complex, distortions due to inter-channel effects are random and it is customary to treat them as noise. The chief goal of analytical models of fiber propagation is to accurately characterize this noise in terms of its statistical properties.

In this paper we review the essential parts of the time-domain theory of [17

17. A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

], as well as those of the frequency domain GN approach. We argue that the difference between the two models results from three subtle, but very important shortcomings of the frequency domain analysis. The first is the implicit assumption that NLIN can be treated as additive noise, while ignoring its statistical dependence on the data in the channel of interest. While it is true that within the framework of a perturbation analysis NLIN can always be expressed as an additive noise term, its dependence on the channel of interest is critical. In the case of phase noise, for example, the signal of interest s(t) changes into s(t)exp(iΔ θ), and the noise s(t)exp(iΔ θ) − s(t) ≃ is(tθ may be uncorrelated with s(t), but it is certainly not statistically independent of it. The second shortcoming of the frequency domain approach is the assumption that in the limit of large chromatic dispersion the electric field of the signal and the NLIN that accompanies it can be treated as a Gaussian processes whose distribution is uniquely characterized in terms of its power density spectrum. The third shortcoming that we find in the GN analysis, is the claim that non overlapping frequency components of the propagating electric field are statistically independent of each other. We show here that these components are statistically dependent in general and it is the assumption of independence that is responsible for the fact that the NLIN in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

13

13. A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

] appears to be independent of modulation format. We supplement the NLIN variance obtained in the frequency domain analysis of [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] with an extra term that follows from fourth-order frequency correlations and which, as we believe, settles the discrepancy with respect to the time-domain theory of [17

17. A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

] .

The study contained in this paper was performed only for the case of single carrier transmission, where XPM constitutes the predominant contribution to NLIN, a fact which is confirmed by our simulations. For this reason the analytical parts of this paper focus exclusively on XPM. Moreover, in order to isolate only the NLIN caused by inter-channel nonlinear interference, we back propagate the channel of interest so as to eliminate the distortions that are induced by SPM and chromatic dispersion.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the main analytical steps of [17

17. A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

], occasionally recasting them in a form that emphasizes the aspects of most relevance to this paper, and supplement them by the calculation of the autocorrelation function of the nonlinear phase-noise [19

19. R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “New bounds on the capacity of fiber-optics communications,” arXiv:1305.1762v1 [physics.optics].

] . We then review the spectral approach in Section 3 and explain the consequences of the assumptions on Gaussianity and statistical independence that were made in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. P. Johannisson and M. Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

] . In Sec. 4 we describe a numerical study that validates the analytical prediction of Secs. 2 and 3. Section 5 is devoted to a summary and discussion.

2. Time-domain analysis

We consider a channel of interest, whose central frequency is arbitrarily set to zero, and a single interfering channel whose central frequency is set to Ω. Since XPM only involves two-channel interactions, the NLIN contributions of multiple WDM channels add up independently, and there is no need to conduct the initial analysis with more than a single pair. We also ignore nonlinear interactions that involve amplified spontaneous emission noise, which are negligible within the framework of a perturbation analysis such as we are conducting here. While a second-order analysis such as in [21

21. S. Kumar and D. Yang, “Second-order theory for self-phase modulation andcross-phase modulation in optical fibers,” J. of Lightwave Technol. 23, 2073–2080, (2005) [CrossRef]

] is possible in principle, we find the first-order approach sufficiently accurate in the context of the study conducted here. As a starting point we express the zeroth order (i.e. linear) solution for the electric field as
u(0)(z,t)=kakg(0)(z,tkT)+kbkeiΩt+iβΩ22zg(0)(z,tkTβΩz),
(1)
where the superscript (0)throughout the equation signifies “zeroth order”. The first sum on the right-hand-side of (1) represents the channel of interest, and the second sum represents the interfering channel. The symbols a kand b krepresent the data that is carried by the k-th symbol of the two channels, respectively, zand tare the space and time coordinates, β″is the dispersion coefficient and T is the symbol duration. For simplicity of notation, and without loss of generality we will assume throughout this section that β″is negative and Ω positive. The fundamental pulse representing an individual symbol is g (0)(z, t) = U( z) g(0, t), where g (0, t) is the input waveform and U(z)=exp(i12βzt2)(with tdenoting the time derivative operator) [22

22. We have assumed a fixed position independent dispersion parameter β″. The generalization to position dependent dispersion is straightforward, but we avoid it as it considerably complicates the notation.

] is the propagation operator in the presence of chromatic dispersion. We assume that the waveform g(0, t) is normalized to unit energy, whereas the actual energy of the transmitted symbols is accounted for by the coefficients a kand b k. In addition it is assumed that the input waveform g(0, t) is orthogonal with respect to time shifts by an integer number of symbol durations, namely g*(0,tkT)g(0,tkT)dt=δk,k. Owing to the unitarity of U(z) this property of orthogonality is also preserved in the linearly propagated waveform g (0)(z, t).

Fig. 1 Received constellations (after compensating for the average nonlinear phase-rotation) of the channel of interest after 500 km of fiber. The per-channel power was −2dBm. The channel of interest is QPSK-modulated in the left column and 16-QAM modulated in the right column. In the top panel (Figs. (a) and (b)) the modulation of the interfering channels is QPSK. In the middle panel (Figs. (c) and (d)) the modulation of the interfering channels is 16-QAM, and in the bottom panel (Figs. (e) and (f)) the modulation of the interfering channel is Gaussian. The dominance of phase noise is evident in the middle and bottom panels, whereas in the top panel phase-noise is negligible.
Fig. 2 The electric field intensities of a single channel operating with Nyquist sinc-shaped pulses at a baud-rate of 100 GHz after being dispersed by 8500 ps/nm/km (equivalent to 500 km in standard fiber). The solid (black), dashed (blue), and dash-dotted (red) curves correspond to QPSK, 16-QAM and Gaussian modulation, respectively. In spite of the apparent similarity between the dispersed waveforms as demonstrated in this figure, the NLIN strongly depends on the modulation format.

Apart from the pure phase-noise that follows from XPM between WDM channels there are additional noise contributions involving a single pulse from the channel of interest with a pair of pulses from the interfering channel. We refer to the NLIN due to these contributions as residual NLIN, so as to distinguish it from the phase NLIN that was described earlier. In general, since residual NLIN occurs in the process of temporal overlap between three or four distinct waveforms (see Eq. (7)) its magnitude in the presence of amplitude modulation (as in 16QAM or larger QAM constellations) is expected to be notably smaller than that of phase noise, as we demonstrate numerically in section 4.

3. Frequency domain analysis

In this section we review the approach adopted in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

13

13. A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

] of analyzing in the frequency domain the interaction leading to NLIN and relate it to the analysis in Sec. 2.

Following [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

], we assume that the transmitted symbols a nand b nare periodic with period M, so that a n + M= a n, b n + M= b nand the propagating field u (0)(z, t), which is defined in Eq. (1)is periodic in time with a period MT. As pointed out in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] , for large enough M, the assumption of periodicity is immaterial from the physical standpoint, but facilitates calculations by allowing the representation of the signal by means of discrete frequency tones,
u(0)(z,t)=1MT[nνn(z)ei2πMTnt+eiΩtnξn(z)ei2πMTnt].
(16)
The coefficients ν nrepresent the spectrum of the channel of interest at frequency ω=2πnMT, whereas ξ nrepresent the spectrum of the interfering channel at ω=Ω+2πnMT. Both ν nand ξ nare zero mean random variables whose statistics depends on the transmitted symbols in a way on which we elaborate in what follows. The complex amplitude of the NLIN that the interfering channel imposes on the channel of interest is the sum of all the nonlinear interactions between triplets of individual frequency tones,
Δu(t)=2lmn,mnρlmnνlξmξn*,
(17)
where consistently with [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

], the terms m= nthat only contribute to a time independent phase-shift, where excluded from the summation. The factor of 2 in front of the sum in Eq. (17)is characteristic of XPM when the nonlinearly interacting channels are co-polarized. The coefficients ρ lmnare given by [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

]
ρlmn=γ(MT)3/2ei2πMT(l+mn)t×1ei(2πMT)2βNLs(mn)(lqMn)1ei(2πMT)2βLs(mn)(lqMn)1eαLsei(2πMT)2βLs(mn)(lqMn)αi(2πMT)2β(mn)(lqMn),
(18)
where the WDM channel spacing is assumed to be Ω=q2πT, L sis the length of a single amplified span and Nis the overall number of amplified spans in the system. The NLIN power is given by the square average of Δ u(t)
|Δu(t)|2=4lmnlmnρlmnρlmn*νlνl*ξmξn*ξm*ξn,
(19)
where mnand m′n′and where we have made use of the fact that ν land ξ mare statistically independent for all land m since they correspond to different WDM channels that transmit statistically independent data. Lack of correlation between different frequency tones implies that νlνl*=|νl|2δll, and the assumption of true statistical independence (which is key in obtaining the results of [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] ) implies that ξmξn*ξm*ξn=|ξm|2|ξn|2δmmδnn(1δmn)(where the irrelevant cases with m= n , or m′= n′were ignored for simplicity). Equation (19)then simplifies to
|Δu|2=4lmn,mn|ρlmn|2|νl|2|ξm|2|ξn|2,
(20)
an expression that onlydepends on the mean power spectrum of the interacting channels and is totally independent of modulation format. As we now show for the case of single carrier modulation, the above assumption of statistical independence is unjustified (even as an approximation) with most of the relevant modulation formats.

We consider a generic interfering channel as in (1) x(t ) = ∑ k b kg(tkT), which is periodic as in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] with b k+ M= b k. The Fourier coefficients of x(t) are
ξn=1MT0MTx(t)ei2πMTntdt=g˜(ωn)1MTk=0M1bkei2πMkn,
(21)
where (ω) = ∫ g(t)exp(iωt)d tis the Fourier transform of g(t), ωn=n2πMT, and the final expression on the right-hand-side follows from a straight-forward, albeit slightly cumbersome algebraic manipulation. The correlation relations between the various ξ nare obtained by averaging the product ξnξn*with respect to the transmitted data. In order to simplify the algebra we will assume Nyquist, sinc-shaped pulses g(t) = sinc( πt/T) in which case [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

]
ξnξn*=|g˜(ωn)|2T|b0|2δnn.
(22)
The restriction to Nyquist pulses ensured wide-sense stationarity for x (t) and allowed avoiding the appearance of correlations between frequency tones ξ nand ξ n′that are separated by an integer multiple of M[6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] . Assuming circularly symmetric complex modulation, the central limit theorem can be applied to Eq. (21), implying (as argued in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] ) that in the limit of large M , the coefficients ξ nare Gaussian distributed random variables. Yet, unlike the claim made in [ 6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] , the fact that the coefficients ξ nare Gaussian and uncorrelated does not imply their statistical independence. That is because the coefficients ξ nare Gaussian individually, but not jointly and hence their lack of correlation does not imply anything regarding the statistical dependence between them. In order to see the lack of joint Gaussianity note that if all ξ nwere jointly Gaussian then x(t) (which can be expressed as their linear combination) would have to be Gaussian as well. Therefore, unless the data-carrying symbols b nare themselves Gaussian distributed, the Fourier coefficients ξ ncannot obey a jointly Gaussian distribution. We now write the fourth order correlation, which is obtained from Eq. (21) (again, after some algebra and for the case of Nyquist pulses)
ξmξn*ξm*ξn=|b0|22T2|g˜(ωm)|2|g˜(ωn)|2(δmnδmn+δmmδnn)+|b0|42|b0|22MT2𝒫mnmn
(23)
where
𝒫mnmn=g˜(ωm)g˜*(ωn)g˜*(ωm)g˜(ωn)×(δnn+mmM+δnn+mm+δnn+mm+M).
(24)
The first term on the right-hand-side of (23)is what would follow if the coefficients ξ nwhere indeed statistically independent, as assumed in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

], whereas the second term reflects the deviation from this assumption. Upon substitution into Eq. (19)we find that the noise variance can be written as
|Δu|2=|a0|2|b0|22χ1+|a0|2(|b0|42|b0|22)χ2
(25)
where
χ1=4T3lmn,mn|g˜(ωl)|2|g˜(ωm)|2|g˜(ωn)|2|ρlmn|2,
(26)
χ2=4MT3lmnmn|g˜(ωl)|2𝒫mnmnρlmnρlmn*
(27)
where terms with m= nor m′= n′are excluded from the summation. The first term on the right-hand-side of (25) is due to second-order correlations between the frequency tones and we will refer to it as the second-order noise (SON). This term coincides with the result of [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. P. Johannisson and M. Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]

] (and can be obtained by substituting Eq. (22)in Eq. (20)). The second term is absent in the calculations of [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. P. Johannisson and M. Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]

] and since it results from fourth order correlations between the frequency tones we will refer to it as fourth-order noise (FON). Consistently, we will refer to χ 1and χ 2as the SON and FON coefficients, respectively. Due to the delta functions in the definition of 𝒫 mnm′n′in Eq. (24), the number of free indices in the summation in Eq. (27)is four (e.g. l, m, n, m′ , in which case n′is determined by the other four and given by n′= n+ n′mM, n′= n+ n′m, or n′= n + n′m+ M ). Since every free index runs over O(M) values, the factor of 1/ Min the expression for the FON coefficient χ 2is countered by Mmore summations than in Eq. (26)and hence χ 1and χ 2are of similar order of magnitude. Moreover, as we demonstrate numerically in Sec. 4, in the limit of distributed amplification the coefficients χ 2is almost identical to χ 1and they become practically indistinguishable when the frequency separation between the interfering channels grows (see Fig. 5). Interestingly, in the special case of purely Gaussian modulation, when the symbols b kare circularly symmetric complex Gaussian variables, 〈| b 0| 4〉 − 2〈| b 0| 22= 0 and the FON vanishes, in which case the NLIN spectrum found in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

] is exact. Consistently, we remind that this is also the only case in which x (t) is truly Gaussian distributed and the lack of correlation between different frequency tones indeed implies their statistical independence.

The last point that we address in this section is the assumption of Gaussianity in the context of NLIN in the limit of high chromatic dispersion. The argument against this assumption is similar to the argument made in the context of Gaussianity in the frequency domain. That is because in the limit of large dispersion, the signal frequency spectrum is simply mapped to the time domain. Therefore, the field becomes Gaussian point-wise, but it does not form a Gaussian process. It is in fact a general principle that a linear unitary time independent operation, such as chromatic dispersion, cannot transform a non-Gaussian process into a Gaussian one. In the absence of joint Gaussianity between all of the field samples, the power density spectrum does not sufficiently characterize the nature of NLIN.

4. Numerical validation

4.1. Modulation format dependence

In order to demonstrate the dependence of NLIN on the modulation format we plot in Fig. 1the received signal constellations in six different cases. The figures in the left column represent the case in which the channel of interestundergoes QPSK modulation, whereas the right column refers to the case in which the modulation of the channel of interest is 16-QAM. The figures in the top panel correspond to the case in which the interfering channelsare QPSK modulated, whereas the figures in the middle panel were produced with 16-QAM modulated interferers. The bottom two figures were produced in the case where the symbols of the interfering channels where Gaussian modulated. In the top panel, where the interfering channels undergo pure phase modulation, the NLIN is almost circular, albeit a small amount of phase-noise can still be observed. This small phase-noise is due to coefficients X 0, k,m(km) that were neglected in Sec. 2 [23

23. Although terms involving X0,k,mwith m≠ k also contribute to phase noise, they are much smaller than the terms proportional to X0,m,m(particularly in the limit of large dispersion) and we omit them from the analysis presented in this paper.

] . In the center and bottom panels, where the intensity of the interfering channels is modulated, the phase-noise nature of NLIN is very evident, and it is largest in the case of Gaussian modulation.

The modulation format dependence that is predicted in [17

17. A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

] and summarized in Sec. 2 is of somewhat subtle origin and is fairly counter-intuitive. As was argued correctly in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. P. Johannisson and M. Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

] the electric field of the strongly dispersed signal appears fairly random independently of the modulation format as can be seen in Fig. 2. Moreover, as noted earlier, the point-wise distribution of the field is indeed Gaussian. Nonetheless the types of NLIN produced by the various modulations are very different as can be clearly seen in Fig. 1.

We note that the phase-noise nature of NLIN was not evident in the simulation results reported in [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] . While the difference between the results cannot be determined unambiguously based on the simulation details provided in [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

], it may result from certain differences in the simulated system. Most importantly, the simulations in [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] do not eliminate intra-channel effects through back-propagation, as we do here, but use adaptive equalization, which may leave some of the intra-channel interference uncompensated. Furthermore, it is possible that the phase-noise that we report (which is characterized by a very long temporal correlation) is inadvertently eliminated in the process of adaptive equalization. Additionally, some of the discrepancy could result from the fact that the system simulated in [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] assumed lumped amplification, as opposed to distributed amplification that we assumed here. It is possible that these differences explain the agreement between the simulations reported in [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] and the analytical results of the GN model.

4.2. The variance of phase-noise and assessment of the residual NLIN

In this section we validate the analytical expression for the phase-noise variance in Eq. (13), and assess the residual noise. We remind that the residual noise is the part of the NLIN that does not manifest itself as phase-noise and hence remains after phase-noise cancelation. To this end, we define a procedure for extracting the phase noise from the results of the simulations. Denoting by r n the n-th sample of the received signal (in the channel of interest and after back propagation and matched filtering) we have r n= a nexp(n) + Δ a n,r, where Δ a n,ris the residual noise. We extract θ nthrough a least-squares procedure by performing a sliding average of the quantity an*rnover a moving window of N= 50 adjacent symbols. We then normalize the absolute value of the averaged quantity to 1, so as to ensure that we are only extracting phase noise. The residual noise Δ a n,ris evaluated by subtracting a nexp(iθ̂ n) (with θ̂ nbeing the estimated phase) from the received sample r n. The width of the sliding window needs to be narrow enough relative to the correlation time of θ n, but broad enough to ensure meaningful statistics. Using this procedure we computed the autocorrelation function of the nonlinear phase θ, which is plotted in Fig. 3together with the analytical expression (15). The agreement between the analytical and numerical autocorrelation functions is self evident. Notice that over a block of 50 symbols the autocorrelation of θ ndrops only by 6% relative to its maximal value, thereby justifying the choice of N= 50 for the moving average window. Further considerations in optimizing the window-size can be found in [19

19. R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “New bounds on the capacity of fiber-optics communications,” arXiv:1305.1762v1 [physics.optics].

] .

Fig. 3 The phase-noise autocorrelation function R θ(l) of the phase-noise Eq. (15)(dashed-red) and as obtained from the simulations (solid blue) for −6dBm per-channel average power [29 ].

Figure 4shows the normalized overall NLIN variance Δa02/PT, the phase-noise variance Δ θ 2, and the normalized variance of the residual noise Δa0,r2/PT, where Pis the average power in each of the interfering channels. The analytical expression for the phase-noise variance Eq. (13)is also plotted by the dashed red curve. All the curves in Fig. 4were obtained in the case of Gaussian modulation of the data-symbols. The accuracy of the analytical result is self evident, as is the clear dominance (that was predicted in [17

17. A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

] ) of the phase-noise component of NLIN.

Fig. 4 The complete NLIN variance Δa02normalized to the average symbol energy (top solid curve), the phase noise Δ θ 2as obtained from the simulations (center solid curve) and the variance of the residual noise Δar2normalized to the average symbol energy [29]. The dashed curve (red) shows the analytical result for Δ θ 2, Eq. (13). It is within 20% of the numerically obtained Δ θ 2.
Fig. 5 (a) The SON coefficient χ 1(blue diamonds) and the FON coefficient χ 2(red circles) as a function of the spacing between channels. The coefficients in the figure are normalized by γ 2 L 2/ T 3and hence they are unit-less. The green squares show χ 1χ 2. (b) The NLIN power versus the average power per-channel for QPSK, 16-QAM and Gaussian modulation. The symbols show the results of a split-step-simulation performed with the same parameters as in Fig. 1. The solid lines represent Eq. (29), whereas the dashed green line shows the prediction of the GN model Eq. (28) . It is correct only with Gaussian modulation, but severely overestimates the actual noise in other formats.

4.3. The difference with respect to the NLIN power predicted by the GN model

In order to assess the error in the estimation of the NLIN power by the GN model, we compute the NLIN power, as it is predicted by the GN model and as it is predicted by the theory in Sec. 3. In the case where Pis the average power used in each of the channels, these quantities are specified by Eq. (25)and given by
|Δu|2GN=P3sχ1(Ωs)
(28)
|Δu|2Full=P3s[χ1(Ωs)χ2(Ωs)]+P3(|b0|4|b0|221)sχ2(Ωs),
(29)
where the summation index sruns over all neighboring channels (which are spectrally separated by Ω sfrom the channel of interest). The SON coefficient χ 1and the FON coefficient χ 2are plotted in Fig. 5(a)as a function of the frequency separation between the interacting channels, where the blue diamonds are used to represent χ 1and the red circles represent χ 2. The two coefficients are seen to be very similar to each other so that the difference between them, which is illustrated by the green squares, is significantly smaller than the coefficients themselves. The Monte-Carlo integration method [28

28. S. Asmussen and P.W. Glynn, Stochastic Simulation, Algorithms and Analysis (Springer, 2007).

] was deployed in order to compute the sums in Eqs. (26)and (27)in the limit of M→ ∞ with the estimation error being always lower than 3%.

In Fig. 5(b)we show the NLIN power in our simulated 5-channel system in the cases of QPSK, 16-QAM, and Gaussian modulation. The this solid curves show the theoretical result 〈|Δ u| 2 Fullof Eq. (29) and the circles represent the variance obtained in the full split-step simulation. The dashed green line represents the prediction of the GN model 〈|Δ u| 2GN, Eq. (28) , which is correct only for Gaussian modulation. In the case of QPSK the actual NLIN power is lower by approximately 6.5dB than the prediction of the GN model. Since the NLIN powers in Fig. 5(b)include the contribution of phase-noise, the relation to the error-rate is not straightforward.

5. Discussion

Having reviewed the essential parts of the time domain model and the frequency domain GN model, we have pointed out that the difference between the models results from three unjustified assumptions in the frequency domain approach. The assumption that NLIN can be described as an additive noise term that is statistically independent on the signal, the assumption that in the large dispersion limit the electric field of the signal and the noise forms a Gaussian process that is uniquely characterized in terms of its spectrum, and the claim of statistical independence between non-overlapping tones in the spectrum of the interfering signal. We have shown that by correctly accounting for fourth-order correlations in the signals’ spectrum an extra term —the FON — arises. The FON (which can be positive, or negative depending on the modulation format) needs to be added to the noise power obtained in the GN model (the SON) in order to obtain the correct overall NLIN. The inclusion of the FON recovers the dependence of the NLIN power on modulation format, a property that is absent from the existing GN model and reconciles between the frequency domain and the time domain theories. We stress that the current GN model of [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

13

13. A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

] which does not contain the FON term, cannot be considered a valid approximation, since with standard modulation formats (e.g QPSK, 16-QAM), the magnitude of the FON is comparable to that of the SON, which is the quantity calculated in [6

6. P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

, 7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

] . The numerical validation of the theoretical results has been performed in the case of a five-channel WDM system with idealized distributed amplification. In this case the FON term was almost identical to the SON term, implying that the error in the NLIN power predicted by the GN model is very significant.

While the study presented in this paper focused on the single polarization case, the effect of polarization multiplexing can be be anticipated by considering the relevant factors. The SON part of the NLIN variance changes in the presence of polarization multiplexing by a factor of 16/27 [7

7. A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

], whereas it can be shown that the FON part changes by 40/81. The small difference between these factors has practically no effect on the conclusions made in this paper regarding the importance of accounting for FON. The numerical study of polarization multiplexed transmission, as well as the effects of lumped amplifications and the many other practical system parameters, is beyond the scope of this work and will be addressed in the future.

Finally, we note that when treating the NLIN as an additive, signal-independent noise process, its bandwidth appears to be comparable to that of the signal itself. Thus, one cannot take advantage of the fact that phase noise that dominates the variance of NLIN in many cases of interest is very narrow-band as we have shown here (see Eq. (15)and Fig. 3). The importance of this property of NLIN is immense as it allows cancelation of the phase-noise part of NLIN by means of available equalization technology [24

24. X. Zhou, “Hardware efficient carrier recovery algorithms for single-carrier QAM systems,” in Advanced Photonics Congress, OSA Technical Digest (online)(Optical Society of America, 2012), paper SpTu3A.1. [CrossRef]

, 25

25. A. Tolmachev, I. Tselniker, M. Meltsin, I. Sigron, and M. Nazarathy, “Efficient multiplier-free fpga demonstration of polar-domain multi-symbol-delay-detector (MSDD) for high performance phase recovery of 16-QAM,” Proceedings of Optical Fiber Comm. Conf. OFC 2012, Paper OMC8

], such that the residual NLIN (whose variance is much smaller than that of the NLIN as a whole) determines system performance. The system consequences of this reality have been addressed in [ 20

20. R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “Improved bounds on the nonlinear fiber-channel capacity,” in Proc. ECOC, 2013, paper P.4.16.

] .

Acknowledgment

Financial support from the Israel Science Foundation(grant 737/12) is gratefully acknowledged. Ronen Dar would like to acknowledge the support of the Adams Fellowship Program of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and the Yitzhak and Chaya Weinstein Research Institute for Signal Processing. The authors acknowledge useful comments by P.J Winzer and A. Bononi.

References and links

1.

A. Mecozzi, C. B. Clausen, and M. Shtaif, “Analysis of intrachannel nonlinear effects in highly dispersed optical pulse transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 12, 392–394(2000). [CrossRef]

2.

F. Forghieri, R.W. Tkack, and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Fiber nonlinearities and their impact on transmission systems,” Ch. 8 in Optical Fiber Telecommunications IIIA, P. Kaminow and T. L. Koch, eds. (Academic Press, 1997).

3.

E. Ip and J. M. Kahn, “Compensation of dispersion and nonlinear impairments using digital backpropagation,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26, 3416–3425 (2008). [CrossRef]

4.

R. I. Killey, P. M. Watts, V. Mikhailov, M. Glick, and P. Bayvel, “Electronic dispersion compensation by signal predistortion using digital processing and a dual-drive Mach-Zehnder modulator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 17, 714–716(2005). [CrossRef]

5.

A. Splett, C. Kurtzke, and K. Petermann, “Ultimate transmission capacity of amplified fiber communication systems taking into account fiber nonlinearities,” in 19th European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), ECOC Technical Digest, (1993), Paper MoC2.4.

6.

P. Poggiolini, A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, and F. Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]

7.

A. Carena, V. Curri, G. Bosco, P. Poggiolini, and F. Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]

8.

P. Poggiolini, G. Bosco, A. Carena, V. Curri, and F. Forghieri, “A detailed analytical derivation of the GN model of non-linear interference in coherent optical transmission systems,” July2, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1209.0394v12 [physics.optics].

9.

P. Poggiolini, “The GN model of non-linear propagation in uncompensated coherent optical systems,” J. of Light-wave Technol. 30, 3857–3879, (2012). [CrossRef]

10.

A. Carena, G. Bosco, V. Curri, P. Poggiolini, M. Tapia Taiba, and F. Forghieri, “Statistical characterization of PM-QPSK signals after propagation in uncompensated fiber links,” in Proc. ECOC, 2010, Paper P4.07.

11.

E. Torrengo, R. Cigliutti, G. Bosco, A. Carena, V. Curri, P. Poggiolini, A. Nespola, D. Zeolla, and F. Forghieri, “Experimental validation of an analytical model for nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical links,” in Proc. ECOC, 2011, Paper We.7.B.2.

12.

P. Johannisson and M. Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]

13.

A. Bononi and P. Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].

14.

G. Bosco, R. Cigliutti, A. Nespola, A. Carena, V. Curri, F. Forghieri, Y. Yamamoto, T. Sasaki, Y. Jiang, and P. Poggiolini, “Experimental investigation of nonlinear interference accumulation in uncompensated links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24, 1230–1232, (2012) [CrossRef]

15.

A. Bononi, N. Rossi, and P. Serena, “Nonlinear threshold decrease with distance in 112 Gb/s PDM-QPSK coherent systems,” Proceeding of the European Conf. on Opt. Comm. (ECOC), Paper We.2.C.4, Amsterdam (2012)

16.

S. J. Savory, “Approximations for the nonlinear self-channel interference of channels with rectangular spectra,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 25, 961–964, (2013) [CrossRef]

17.

A. Mecozzi and R. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]

18.

X. Liu, A. R. Chraplyvy, P. J. Winzer, R. W. Tkach, and S. Chandrasekhar, “Phase-conjugated twin waves for communication beyond the Kerr nonlinearity limit,” Nature Photonics 7, 560–568(2013). [CrossRef]

19.

R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “New bounds on the capacity of fiber-optics communications,” arXiv:1305.1762v1 [physics.optics].

20.

R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “Improved bounds on the nonlinear fiber-channel capacity,” in Proc. ECOC, 2013, paper P.4.16.

21.

S. Kumar and D. Yang, “Second-order theory for self-phase modulation andcross-phase modulation in optical fibers,” J. of Lightwave Technol. 23, 2073–2080, (2005) [CrossRef]

22.

We have assumed a fixed position independent dispersion parameter β″. The generalization to position dependent dispersion is straightforward, but we avoid it as it considerably complicates the notation.

23.

Although terms involving X0,k,mwith m≠ k also contribute to phase noise, they are much smaller than the terms proportional to X0,m,m(particularly in the limit of large dispersion) and we omit them from the analysis presented in this paper.

24.

X. Zhou, “Hardware efficient carrier recovery algorithms for single-carrier QAM systems,” in Advanced Photonics Congress, OSA Technical Digest (online)(Optical Society of America, 2012), paper SpTu3A.1. [CrossRef]

25.

A. Tolmachev, I. Tselniker, M. Meltsin, I. Sigron, and M. Nazarathy, “Efficient multiplier-free fpga demonstration of polar-domain multi-symbol-delay-detector (MSDD) for high performance phase recovery of 16-QAM,” Proceedings of Optical Fiber Comm. Conf. OFC 2012, Paper OMC8

26.

A. Papoulis, “Pulse compression, fiber communications, and diffraction: a unified approach,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 3–13(1994). [CrossRef]

27.

R.-J. Essiambre, G. Kramer, P.J. Winzer, G.J. Foschini, and B. Goebel, “Capacity limits of optical fiber networks,” J. Lightwave Technol. 28, 662–701, (2010). [CrossRef]

28.

S. Asmussen and P.W. Glynn, Stochastic Simulation, Algorithms and Analysis (Springer, 2007).

29.

The numerical curves in Figs. 3 and 4 reproduce the plots reported in [20], but with larger statsitics.

OCIS Codes
(060.2330) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics communications
(060.2360) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics links and subsystems

ToC Category:
Fiber Optics and Optical Communications

History
Original Manuscript: July 29, 2013
Revised Manuscript: September 7, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: September 16, 2013
Published: October 21, 2013

Citation
Ronen Dar, Meir Feder, Antonio Mecozzi, and Mark Shtaif, "Properties of nonlinear noise in long, dispersion-uncompensated fiber links," Opt. Express 21, 25685-25699 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-21-22-25685


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. A.  Mecozzi, C. B.  Clausen, M.  Shtaif, “Analysis of intrachannel nonlinear effects in highly dispersed optical pulse transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 12, 392–394(2000). [CrossRef]
  2. F.  Forghieri, R.W.  Tkack, A. R.  Chraplyvy, “Fiber nonlinearities and their impact on transmission systems,” Ch. 8 in Optical Fiber Telecommunications IIIA, P.  Kaminow, T. L.  Koch, eds. (Academic Press, 1997).
  3. E.  Ip, J. M.  Kahn, “Compensation of dispersion and nonlinear impairments using digital backpropagation,” J. Lightwave Technol. 26, 3416–3425 (2008). [CrossRef]
  4. R. I.  Killey, P. M.  Watts, V.  Mikhailov, M.  Glick, P.  Bayvel, “Electronic dispersion compensation by signal predistortion using digital processing and a dual-drive Mach-Zehnder modulator,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., 17, 714–716(2005). [CrossRef]
  5. A.  Splett, C.  Kurtzke, K.  Petermann, “Ultimate transmission capacity of amplified fiber communication systems taking into account fiber nonlinearities,” in 19th European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC), ECOC Technical Digest, (1993), Paper MoC2.4.
  6. P.  Poggiolini, A.  Carena, V.  Curri, G.  Bosco, F.  Forghieri, “Analytical modeling of nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical transmission links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., 23, 742–744, (2011). [CrossRef]
  7. A.  Carena, V.  Curri, G.  Bosco, P.  Poggiolini, F.  Forghieri, “Modeling of the impact of nonlinear propagation effects in uncompensated optical coherent transmission links,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 1524–1539 (2012). [CrossRef]
  8. P.  Poggiolini, G.  Bosco, A.  Carena, V.  Curri, F.  Forghieri, “A detailed analytical derivation of the GN model of non-linear interference in coherent optical transmission systems,” July2, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1209.0394v12 [physics.optics].
  9. P.  Poggiolini, “The GN model of non-linear propagation in uncompensated coherent optical systems,” J. of Light-wave Technol. 30, 3857–3879, (2012). [CrossRef]
  10. A.  Carena, G.  Bosco, V.  Curri, P.  Poggiolini, M.  Tapia Taiba, F.  Forghieri, “Statistical characterization of PM-QPSK signals after propagation in uncompensated fiber links,” in Proc. ECOC, 2010, Paper P4.07.
  11. E.  Torrengo, R.  Cigliutti, G.  Bosco, A.  Carena, V.  Curri, P.  Poggiolini, A.  Nespola, D.  Zeolla, F.  Forghieri, “Experimental validation of an analytical model for nonlinear propagation in uncompensated optical links,” in Proc. ECOC, 2011, Paper We.7.B.2.
  12. P.  Johannisson, M.  Karlsson, “Perturbation analysis of nonlinear propagation in a strongly dispersive optical communication system,” IEEE J. of Lightwave Technol. 31, 1273–1282 (2013). [CrossRef]
  13. A.  Bononi, P.  Serena, “An alternative derivation of Johannissons regular perturbation model,” July19, 2012[Online]. Available: arXiv:1207.4729v1 [physics.optics].
  14. G.  Bosco, R.  Cigliutti, A.  Nespola, A.  Carena, V.  Curri, F.  Forghieri, Y.  Yamamoto, T.  Sasaki, Y.  Jiang, P.  Poggiolini, “Experimental investigation of nonlinear interference accumulation in uncompensated links,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 24, 1230–1232, (2012) [CrossRef]
  15. A.  Bononi, N.  Rossi, P.  Serena, “Nonlinear threshold decrease with distance in 112 Gb/s PDM-QPSK coherent systems,” Proceeding of the European Conf. on Opt. Comm. (ECOC), Paper We.2.C.4, Amsterdam (2012)
  16. S. J.  Savory, “Approximations for the nonlinear self-channel interference of channels with rectangular spectra,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 25, 961–964, (2013) [CrossRef]
  17. A.  Mecozzi, R.  Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightwave Technol. 30, 2011–2024 (2012). [CrossRef]
  18. X.  Liu, A. R.  Chraplyvy, P. J.  Winzer, R. W.  Tkach, S.  Chandrasekhar, “Phase-conjugated twin waves for communication beyond the Kerr nonlinearity limit,” Nature Photonics 7, 560–568(2013). [CrossRef]
  19. R.  Dar, M.  Shtaif, M.  Feder, “New bounds on the capacity of fiber-optics communications,” arXiv:1305.1762v1 [physics.optics].
  20. R.  Dar, M.  Shtaif, M.  Feder, “Improved bounds on the nonlinear fiber-channel capacity,” in Proc. ECOC, 2013, paper P.4.16.
  21. S.  Kumar, D.  Yang, “Second-order theory for self-phase modulation andcross-phase modulation in optical fibers,” J. of Lightwave Technol. 23, 2073–2080, (2005) [CrossRef]
  22. We have assumed a fixed position independent dispersion parameter β″. The generalization to position dependent dispersion is straightforward, but we avoid it as it considerably complicates the notation.
  23. Although terms involving X0,k,mwith m≠ k also contribute to phase noise, they are much smaller than the terms proportional to X0,m,m(particularly in the limit of large dispersion) and we omit them from the analysis presented in this paper.
  24. X.  Zhou, “Hardware efficient carrier recovery algorithms for single-carrier QAM systems,” in Advanced Photonics Congress, OSA Technical Digest (online)(Optical Society of America, 2012), paper SpTu3A.1. [CrossRef]
  25. A.  Tolmachev, I.  Tselniker, M.  Meltsin, I.  Sigron, M.  Nazarathy, “Efficient multiplier-free fpga demonstration of polar-domain multi-symbol-delay-detector (MSDD) for high performance phase recovery of 16-QAM,” Proceedings of Optical Fiber Comm. Conf. OFC 2012, Paper OMC8
  26. A.  Papoulis, “Pulse compression, fiber communications, and diffraction: a unified approach,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 3–13(1994). [CrossRef]
  27. R.-J.  Essiambre, G.  Kramer, P.J.  Winzer, G.J.  Foschini, B.  Goebel, “Capacity limits of optical fiber networks,” J. Lightwave Technol. 28, 662–701, (2010). [CrossRef]
  28. S.  Asmussen, P.W.  Glynn, Stochastic Simulation, Algorithms and Analysis (Springer, 2007).
  29. The numerical curves in Figs. 3 and 4 reproduce the plots reported in [20], but with larger statsitics.

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.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4 Fig. 5
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited