Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Lifecycle Management of Optical Networks with Dynamic-Updating Digital Twin: A Hybrid Data-Driven and Physics-Informed Approach

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An optical-network digital twin that re-fits its physical parameters from routine power measurements can track lifecycle changes and improve post-replacement performance estimation by up to 1.4 dB.

desk verdict Solid simulation study of a physics-informed DeepONet for fast fiber-channel modeling, but the field-trial updating result is likely in-sample and does not yet establish predictive lifecycle tracking. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19564 v1 pith:D2NCPCXW submitted 2025-04-28 physics.optics cs.NI

Yuchen Song , Min Zhang , Yao Zhang , Yan Shi , Shikui Shen , Xiongyan Tang , Shanguo Huang , Danshi Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscs.NI PACS 42.79.Sz42.65.Dr
keywords digitaltwinlifecyclemanagementopticalnetworksphysics-informedneuralnetworkDeepONetstimulatedRamanscatteringpowerevolutionoperatorqualityoftransmission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that a digital twin of an optical fiber network can be kept accurate over the network's whole lifetime by re-estimating a small set of physical parameters from channel-power measurements already available from optical channel monitors. The twin is built on a physics-informed neural operator that learns power evolution along the fiber, with the stimulated-Raman-scattering equations folded into the training loss, so it predicts channel power and quality of transmission quickly while staying physically consistent. On top of that forward model, the paper adds an inverse updating step that refits connector losses, fiber Raman gain strength, and amplifier gain profiles from input and output power profiles at the two ends of a span. The claimed payoff is lifecycle management without manual parameter lookup: accurate prediction at deployment and automatic re-alignment after ageing, repair, or device replacement. In a field-trial C+L-band link, updating the parameters after a device replacement improved per-channel performance estimation by up to 1.4 dB for the channels under test.

What carries the argument

The central object is the power evolution operator (PEO), a DeepONet composed of a branch net that encodes the launch-power profile and a trunk net that encodes distance, merged as a vector product to output channel power at any distance z. Physics enters through the stimulated-Raman-scattering ODE as a residual loss computed by automatic differentiation, and hybrid training runs in three steps: pure physics guidance, data-driven speedup, then combined refinement. For inverse updating, the parameter set Lambda = (r, delta_in,C(L), delta_out,C(L), g_n) is attached to the model as a physical-parameter layer and fitted by alternating initial-condition loss, final-condition loss, and SRS-ODE loss, using input and output power profiles measured by optical channel monitors at the two ends of a span.

What would settle it

Take the same field link after a device replacement, split the OCM power-profile pairs into an update set and a held-out evaluation set, run the inverse updating on the update set only, and recompute the reported average and maximum power/GSNR improvements on the held-out set; if the improvement vanishes, the result is in-sample fitting. Alternatively, search for two different parameter combinations that produce the same boundary power profiles under the SRS-ODE and show that updating converges to the wrong one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that one hybrid neural operator can do both jobs a living digital twin needs: solve the forward problem fast and solve the inverse problem cheaply. Trained as a DeepONet with branch and trunk networks, the operator maps a launch-power profile to the full distance-resolved power profile of all C+L-band channels; the SRS-ODE residual is part of the loss, so the outputs obey the coupled Raman equations rather than merely fitting labels. The same architecture, with a physical-parameter layer, can then be updated using only a few measured power profiles at the span input and output: the connector losses for C and L bands, the Raman gain strength, and the amplifier gain profile are recovered by alternating between matching the boundary data and satisfying the SRS-ODE. The paper reports normalized RMSE around $10^{-4}$ for forward predictions on unseen loadings in the COST 239 simulation, up to 100 times speedup over split-step Fourier methods, and, on a field link after replacement, average channel-power RMSE dropping from 1.1 to 0.12 dB with a maximum GSNR improvement of 1.4 dB.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the connector losses, Raman gain strength, and amplifier gain profile can be uniquely recovered from just the input and output power profiles of a span, and that the eight field-trial profile pairs used for updating are not also the ones on which the reported accuracy improvement is measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained twin can predict channel power and GSNR about 100 times faster than split-step numerical integration, with accuracy that degrades only mildly with distance and channel count.
  • Operators can re-sync the twin to a changed span using routine OCM measurements, without manual re-characterization of amplifiers or connectors.
  • The same updating procedure simultaneously recovers several parameter types, fiber Raman gain, both end connector losses on C and L bands, and the EDFA gain profile, rather than tuning one parameter at a time.
  • If the field-trial improvement holds, lifecycle management can shift from conservative static margins to a low-margin mode in which performance predictions track device ageing and repair.
  • The approach also works under partial loading, with ASE fill channels removed, so updating does not require full-band traffic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A test the paper leaves implicit is blind evaluation: update the twin on one set of OCM pairs after a replacement and score the improvement on a second, later set of pairs, since the reported 1.4 dB gain may otherwise reflect in-sample fitting.
  • Before deploying the full six-parameter update, one could probe identifiability by using only connector-loss updates with more diverse launch-power profiles, which would separate practical convergence from fundamental parameter ambiguity.
  • The inverse-updating recipe should transfer to other distributed-constant systems governed by coupled ODEs, such as Raman amplifiers or sensing fibers, wherever boundary power spectra are measurable.
  • A fully autonomous loop would add a prediction-error trigger, and the simulation's 0.5 dB threshold suggests such closed-loop control is feasible, though the field-trial section does not demonstrate the trigger in operation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dynamic-updating digital twin (DT) for optical-network lifecycle management. The fiber channel is modeled by a DeepONet trained in a hybrid data-driven and physics-informed manner: the SRS-ODE residual is used as a physics regularizer, and a small set of labeled power profiles supplies the data term. An inverse updating procedure refines a set of physical parameters Λ = {r, δ_in,C(L), δ_out,C(L), g_n} from measured input/output channel-power profiles. The authors demonstrate forward prediction on the COST 239 network with up to 100x speedup over split-step methods and normalized RMSE around 1e-4 on 1,000 unseen profiles, and they show in simulation that the refinement converges to known ground-truth parameters. A field trial on a deployed C+L-band link after an EDFA replacement reports improved channel-power and QoT prediction accuracy, with up to 1.4 dB GSNR improvement.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the work is a valuable step toward low-margin lifecycle management: it couples a fast, physics-consistent forward operator with an inverse scheme that updates several physical parameters from monitoring data. The paper’s strengths are concrete: the forward operator is tested on 1,000 unseen input profiles with normalized RMSE around 1e-4; the simulation study recovers known ground-truth values of connector loss, Raman strength, and gain profile; and the reported 100x speedup relative to split-step is plausible for a closed-form operator. The field-trial demonstration on a real C+L link is a useful differentiator from purely simulation studies. However, the field-trial evaluation protocol as written does not establish that the reported accuracy improvements are predictive rather than in-sample, and the identifiability of Λ from boundary profiles is not examined beyond the controlled simulation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§VI, Fig. 11] The lifecycle-updating claim rests on the field-trial results, but the manuscript does not state that the evaluation loadings were held out from the eight OCM profile pairs used for updating. In §VI, 'Eight pairs of channel powers before and after this span measured by OCM along the regular operations are used as initial and final conditions,' and the subsequent accuracy improvements (power RMSE from 1.1 to 0.12 dB; up to 1.4 dB GSNR improvement) are then reported on full-loading and partial-loading conditions. If any of the Fig. 11 loadings are among those eight pairs, the reported gains are a fitting result: the update procedure has ample capacity (96 per-channel gain values plus per-band connector losses and Raman strength) to match a handful of boundary profiles. Since the abstract and conclusion present this as post-device-replacement prediction, the authors must either (i) explicitly state that the Fig. 11 loadings were excluded from the updating pairs, or (ii) provide a leave-one-out evaluation over the eight pairs showing that the improvement persists out-of-sample.
  2. [§IV.D, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The inverse updating step assumes that Λ = (r, δ_in,C(L), δ_out,C(L), g_n) is identifiable from boundary power profiles at z=0 and z=zmax. The loss in Eq. (8) is minimized over these parameters plus the network parameters θ, and the simulation in §V.C shows convergence to known ground truth in one scenario. However, no argument or experiment establishes uniqueness: different combinations of per-channel gain g_n and per-band connector losses can compensate for each other at the boundary, and the Raman strength r interacts with the power-dependent SRS term. A concrete test would be to generate synthetic boundary profiles from two different Λ combinations that both drive Eq. (8) to the same low value, and show whether the optimizer converges to the true parameters or to a different combination. Without such a test, the claim that the field-trial parameter traces in Fig. 10 represent physical parameter shifts is not fully supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.D, Fig. 3(b)] The notation for the final-condition loss weight is inconsistent: Eq. (8) and the text define λd3, while the Fig. 3(b) caption uses λd2. Please align.
  2. [§V heading] The heading 'Simulations on Large-Sacle Optical Networks' contains a typo; it should read 'Large-Scale'.
  3. [§IV.D] In the sentence 'At start, physical parameters Λ are incorrected,' 'incorrected' should be 'incorrect' or 'not yet corrected.'
  4. [§VI, Fig. 11] The field-trial QoT improvement is reported as a maximum over a small number of CUT channels; it would be helpful to report the per-channel distribution and the number of channels contributing to the 1.4 dB maximum.
  5. [§V.B] The sentence 'the normalized root mean-square-error (RMSE) generally falls in 1x10−4' should read 'falls below 1×10−4' or 'on the order of 1×10−4' for clarity.
  6. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption lists two '(d)' entries ('Updating error...' and 'Convergence of connector loss'); the second should be '(e)'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Field-trial 'accuracy improvement' may be a fitting result: the eight OCM profile pairs used to update Λ are not stated to be held out from the full/partial-loading profiles on which the 1.4 dB gain is reported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, dynamic updating and evaluation (equations (6)-(8), Figs. 10-11)]
    "Eight pairs of channel powers before and after this span measured by OCM along the regular operations are used as initial and final conditions. ... The results for full loading are shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b), and the average accuracy of power prediction is improved from 1.1 to 0.12 (RMSE in dB units) with a per-channel accuracy improvement of 0.8dB in average and 2.4dB in max."

    The updating procedure minimizes Eq. (8), whose data terms are Ld(z=0) and Ld(z=zmax) evaluated on exactly these eight measured pairs (Eqs. (6)-(7)), while adjusting Λ = (r, δin,C(L), δout,C(L), gn). The reported improvement in Fig. 11 is then computed on field-trial full-loading and partial-loading channel-power and GSNR profiles, with no statement that those evaluation profiles were excluded from the eight updating pairs. If the Fig. 11 profiles are among the eight pairs, the RMSE and GSNR gains are in-sample fitting results by construction: the update has 96 per-channel gain parameters plus per-band connector losses and Raman strength, which can closely match a small number of measured boundary profiles.

full rationale

The simulation study in Section V provides genuinely independent content: the forward operator is tested against split-step numerical methods, and the lifecycle simulation injects known parameter shifts and shows convergence to those ground-truth values. That part is not circular, and the 100x speedup claim is a direct runtime comparison. The circularity burden sits on the field-trial demonstration in Section VI, which is the paper's headline lifecycle-updating result. There, the paper states that eight OCM-measured input/output profile pairs are used as initial and final conditions for updating Λ, and then reports improved power-prediction RMSE and up to 1.4 dB GSNR improvement on full and partial loadings, without disclosing any train/test split. Since the update loss is precisely the mean-square error between the model output and these measured boundary profiles, any improvement on those same measured profiles is a fitting result rather than a predicted validation. The paper does not quote a held-out set, so the central field-trial claim is only established as in-sample. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing for the main derivation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Had the paper stated that the eight updating pairs were a separate set from the Fig. 11 evaluation loadings, or performed leave-one-out validation, the score would be 0-2; as written, the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitting physical parameters (Raman gain, connector losses, gain profile) from boundary data, plus hand-chosen loss weights and training heuristics. No new physical entity is introduced. The main scientific contribution is therefore the integration and demonstration of known modeling pieces, and the reliability of the field results depends on identifiability and on the data split between fitting and evaluation.

free parameters (7)
  • Raman gain strength r per span = simulation: 1.2 actual; field: updated to ~1.7
    Updated via the SRS-ODE loss in Eq. (2) and the inverse updating loss in Eq. (8); it is a fitted physical parameter.
  • Input connector losses delta_in,C and delta_in,L = field: ~1.8 dB (C), ~0.9 dB (L); simulation: 1.5 dB actual
    Updated from nominal 1 dB using Eq. (6) in the inverse updating workflow.
  • Output connector losses delta_out,C and delta_out,L = field: ~1.7 dB (C), ~0.5 dB (L); simulation: 0.5 dB actual
    Updated from nominal 1 dB using Eq. (7) in the inverse updating workflow.
  • EDFA per-channel gain profile g_n = linear nominal refined to frequency-dependent; C-band tilt 1 dB in field
    96 gain values per EDFA are updated to satisfy the final-condition loss in Eq. (7).
  • Training loss weights lambda_d, lambda_f, lambda_d1, lambda_d3 = e.g., 1, 0.2, 1, 1 across training steps
    Hand-chosen in Section IV.C and IV.D to balance data and physics losses; no sensitivity study is reported.
  • Update trigger threshold = 0.5 dB
    Chosen by hand as the channel-power error threshold that activates the updating cycle in Section V.C.
  • Neural architecture sizes = BraNet [96,200,200,200,96], TruNet [1,100,100,96]
    Given in Section V.B without a stated hyperparameter search or ablation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SRS coupled ODE, Eq. (1), is the governing physics for C+L-band channel power evolution, with attenuation, Raman gain, and Aeff treated as known or fitted inputs.
    The hybrid loss and the simulation ground truth both depend on this equation; any missing nonlinear or dispersion effects are outside the model.
  • domain assumption GSNR decomposes additively into ASE, NLI, and transceiver noise contributions with a single scalar filtering penalty a, as in Eq. (9).
    Used for QoT estimation; the additive AWGN decomposition is standard but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Randomly generated training profiles with channel powers from -6 to 9 dBm and channel counts from 10 to 96 cover the operating range of deployment and operation.
    The generalization claim depends on this coverage; the paper does not demonstrate behavior outside this input range.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-step gradient-based schedule converges to the true physical parameters rather than to a different parameter combination that also matches the boundary power profiles.
    The inverse updating in Section IV.D is a heuristic alternating schedule with no identifiability or uniqueness proof for the multi-parameter set.
  • domain assumption The split-step method with 100 m step size used to generate simulation labels is an accurate ground truth for Eq. (1).
    Simulation validation compares the neural operator against this numerical method, so any discretization error in the reference is inherited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifecycle Management of Optical Networks with Dynamic-Updating Digital Twin: A Hybrid Data-Driven and Physics-Informed Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2NCPCXW

@misc{pith2026250419564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifecycle Management of Optical Networks with Dynamic-Updating Digital Twin: A Hybrid Data-Driven and Physics-Informed Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2NCPCXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19564}
}
read the original abstract

Digital twin (DT) techniques have been proposed for the autonomous operation and lifecycle management of next-generation optical networks. To fully utilize potential capacity and accommodate dynamic services, the DT must dynamically update in sync with deployed optical networks throughout their lifecycle, ensuring low-margin operation. This paper proposes a dynamic-updating DT for the lifecycle management of optical networks, employing a hybrid approach that integrates data-driven and physics-informed techniques for fiber channel modeling. This integration ensures both rapid calculation speed and high physics consistency in optical performance prediction while enabling the dynamic updating of critical physical parameters for DT. The lifecycle management of optical networks, covering accurate performance prediction at the network deployment and dynamic updating during network operation, is demonstrated through simulation in a large-scale network. Up to 100 times speedup in prediction is observed compared to classical numerical methods. In addition, the fiber Raman gain strength, amplifier frequency-dependent gain profile, and connector loss between fiber and amplifier on C and L bands can be simultaneously updated. Moreover, the dynamic-updating DT is verified on a field-trial C+L-band transmission link, achieving a maximum accuracy improvement of 1.4 dB for performance estimation post-device replacement. Overall, the dynamic-updating DT holds promise for driving the next-generation optical networks towards lifecycle autonomous management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lifecycle management of optical networks using dynamic-updating DT with different types of monitoring data collected from optical networks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of (a) hybrid data-driven and physics-informed DeepONet for fiber channel modeling, (b) trained DT for forward prediction in multi-span [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training workflow of using hybrid data-driven and physics-informed neural operator network in (a) forward channel power prediction, and (b) dynamic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation networks with COST 239 topology. Coupler is used for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training loss of PEO in the forward power prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results of (a) power profiles of three examples of forward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized time for performance estimation with different number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of using dynamic-updating DT on the lifecycle management of optical networks. (a-c) Channel power profiles on different stages. (d) Updating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of field-deployed C+L-band transmission link connecting three cities, and schematic of geographical location of these cities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Parameter updating trace of (a) connector loss, (b) Raman gain strength, and (c) gain profiles in the field-trial transmission link. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Predictions of (a) channel power and (b) OSNR and GSNR on full loading condition, (c) channel power and (d) GSNR on L-band partial loading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Design of low-margin optical networks,

    Y . Pointurier, “Design of low-margin optical networks,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. A9–A17, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Effect of reduced link margins on c+ l band elastic optical networks,

    A. Mitra, D. Semrau, N. Gahlawat, A. Srivastava, P. Bayvel, and A. Lord, “Effect of reduced link margins on c+ l band elastic optical networks,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking , vol. 11, no. 10, pp. C86–C93, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Capacity limits of optical fiber networks,

    R.-J. Essiambre, G. Kramer, P. J. Winzer, G. J. Foschini, and B. Goebel, “Capacity limits of optical fiber networks,” Journal of Lightwave tech- nology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 662–701, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Ultrawideband systems and net- works: Beyond c+ l-band,

    T. Hoshida, V . Curri, L. Galdino, D. T. Neilson, W. Forysiak, J. K. Fischer, T. Kato, and P. Poggiolini, “Ultrawideband systems and net- works: Beyond c+ l-band,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 1725–1741, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A comparative review of mems-based optical cross- connects for all-optical networks from the past to the present day,

    M. Stepanovsky, “A comparative review of mems-based optical cross- connects for all-optical networks from the past to the present day,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2928–2946, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Network planning with actual margins,

    P. Soumplis, K. Christodoulopoulos, M. Quagliotti, A. Pagano, and E. Varvarigos, “Network planning with actual margins,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 35, no. 23, pp. 5105–5120, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Reengineering aircraft structural life prediction using a digital twin,

    E. J. Tuegel, A. R. Ingraffea, T. G. Eason, and S. M. Spottswood, “Reengineering aircraft structural life prediction using a digital twin,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering , vol. 2011, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    How to tell the difference between a model and a digital twin,

    L. Wright and S. Davidson, “How to tell the difference between a model and a digital twin,” Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Measurement informed models and digital twins for optical fiber communication systems,

    M. S. Faruk and S. J. Savory, “Measurement informed models and digital twins for optical fiber communication systems,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1016–1030, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    The role of digital twin in optical communication: fault management, hardware configuration, and transmission simulation,

    D. Wang, Z. Zhang, M. Zhang, M. Fu, J. Li, S. Cai, C. Zhang, and X. Chen, “The role of digital twin in optical communication: fault management, hardware configuration, and transmission simulation,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 133–139, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Applying digital twins to optical networks with cloud-native sdn controllers,

    R. Vilalta, L. Gifre, R. Casellas, R. Mu ˜noz, R. Mart ´ınez, A. Mozo, A. Pastor, D. L ´opez, and J. P. Fern ´andez-Palacios, “Applying digital twins to optical networks with cloud-native sdn controllers,” IEEE Communications Magazine, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Digital-twin of physical-layer as enabler for open and disaggregated optical networks,

    V . Curri, “Digital-twin of physical-layer as enabler for open and disaggregated optical networks,” in 2023 International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM) . IEEE, Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–6

    2023

  5. [13]

    Digital twin for the optical network: Key technologies and enabled automation applications,

    C. Janz, Y . You, M. Hemmati, Z. Jiang, A. Javadtalab, and J. Mitra, “Digital twin for the optical network: Key technologies and enabled automation applications,” in NOMS 2022-2022 IEEE/IFIP Network Op- erations and Management Symposium. IEEE, Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–6

    2022

  6. [14]

    Implementing digital twin in field-deployed optical networks: Uncertain factors, operational guidance, and field-trial demonstration,

    Y . Song, M. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Shi, S. Shen, B. Guo, S. Huang, and D. Wang, “Implementing digital twin in field-deployed optical networks: Uncertain factors, operational guidance, and field-trial demonstration,” IEEE Network, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Assessment on the in-field lightpath qot computation including connector loss uncertainties,

    A. Ferrari, K. Balasubramanian, M. Filer, Y . Yin, E. Le Rouzic, J. Kundr ´at, G. Grammel, G. Galimberti, and V . Curri, “Assessment on the in-field lightpath qot computation including connector loss uncertainties,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking , vol. 13, n...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Impact of margins evolution along ageing in elastic optical networks,

    J. Pesic, N. Rossi, and T. Zami, “Impact of margins evolution along ageing in elastic optical networks,” Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 37, no. 16, pp. 4081–4089, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Physics-informed digital twin with parameter refinement for a field-trial c+ l-band transmission link,

    Y . Song, M. Zhang, Y . Shi, Y . Tang, Y . Hu, S. Shen, and D. Wang, “Physics-informed digital twin with parameter refinement for a field-trial c+ l-band transmission link,” in 49th European Conference on Optical Communications (ECOC 2023) , vol. 2023. IET, 2023, pp. 1190–1193

    2023

  10. [18]

    Digital twin of optical networks: A review of recent advances and future trends,

    D. Wang, Y . Song, Y . Zhang, X. Jiang, J. Dong, F. N. Khan, T. Sasai, S. Huang, A. P. T. Lau, M. Tornatore et al. , “Digital twin of optical networks: A review of recent advances and future trends,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Field learnings of deploying model assisted network feedback systems,

    A. W. MacKay and D. W. Boertjes, “Field learnings of deploying model assisted network feedback systems,” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference. Optica Publishing Group, 2022, pp. W4G–2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Machine learning enhancement of a digital twin for wavelength division mul- tiplexing network performance prediction leveraging quality of trans- mission parameter refinement,

    N. Morette, H. Hafermann, Y . Frignac, and Y . Pointurier, “Machine learning enhancement of a digital twin for wavelength division mul- tiplexing network performance prediction leveraging quality of trans- mission parameter refinement,” Journal of Optical Communications and Ne...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Improving the accuracy of qot estimation with insertion loss distribution evaluation for c + l band transmission systems,

    J. Zhou, J. Lu, and C. Yu, “Improving the accuracy of qot estimation with insertion loss distribution evaluation for c + l band transmission systems,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 12, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Improved qot estimations through refined signal power measurements and data-driven parameter optimizations in a disaggregated and partially loaded live production network,

    Y . He, Z. Zhai, L. Dou, L. Wang, Y . Yan, C. Xie, C. Lu, and A. P. T. Lau, “Improved qot estimations through refined signal power measurements and data-driven parameter optimizations in a disaggregated and partially loaded live production network,” Journal of Optical Communic...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Probabilistic low-margin optical-network design with multiple physical- layer parameter uncertainties,

    O. Karandin, A. Ferrari, F. Musumeci, Y . Pointurier, and M. Tornatore, “Probabilistic low-margin optical-network design with multiple physical- layer parameter uncertainties,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 15, no. 7, p. C129, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Performance limit of fiber- longitudinal power profile estimation methods,

    T. Sasai, E. Yamazaki, and Y . Kisaka, “Performance limit of fiber- longitudinal power profile estimation methods,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Physics-informed machine learning,

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, “Physics-informed machine learning,” Nature Reviews Physics, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations,

    M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations,” Science, vol. 367, no. 6481, pp. 1026–1030, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Physics- informed neural network for nonlinear dynamics in fiber optics,

    X. Jiang, D. Wang, Q. Fan, M. Zhang, C. Lu, and A. P. T. Lau, “Physics- informed neural network for nonlinear dynamics in fiber optics,” Laser Photonics Reviews, vol. 16, no. 9, p. 2100483, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Physics- informed neural operator for fast and scalable optical fiber channel modelling in multi-span transmission,

    Y . Song, D. Wang, Q. Fan, X. Jiang, X. Luo, and M. Zhang, “Physics- informed neural operator for fast and scalable optical fiber channel modelling in multi-span transmission,” in 2022 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4

    2022

  21. [29]

    Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design,

    L. Lu, R. Pestourie, W. Yao, Z. Wang, F. Verdugo, and S. G. Johnson, “Physics-informed neural networks with hard constraints for inverse design,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 43, no. 6, pp. B1105–B1132, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pinn for power evolution prediction and raman gain spectrum identification in c+ l-band transmission system,

    Y . Song, Y . Zhang, C. Zhang, J. Li, M. Zhang, and D. Wang, “Pinn for power evolution prediction and raman gain spectrum identification in c+ l-band transmission system,” in 2023 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC). IEEE, Conference Proceedings, pp. 1–3

    2023

  23. [31]

    Srs-net: a universal framework for solving stimulated raman scattering in nonlinear fiber-optic systems by physics-informed deep learning,

    Y . Song, M. Zhang, X. Jiang, F. Zhang, C. Ju, S. Huang, A. P. T. Lau, and D. Wang, “Srs-net: a universal framework for solving stimulated raman scattering in nonlinear fiber-optic systems by physics-informed deep learning,” Communications Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 109, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Data-driven optical fiber channel modeling: A deep learning approach,

    D. Wang, Y . Song, J. Li, J. Qin, T. Yang, M. Zhang, X. Chen, and A. C. Boucouvalas, “Data-driven optical fiber channel modeling: A deep learning approach,” Journal of Lightwave Technology , vol. 38, no. 17, pp. 4730–4743, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,

    L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, Z. Zhang, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,” Nature machine intelligence , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 218–229, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deep- onets,

    S. Wang, H. Wang, and P. Perdikaris, “Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deep- onets,” Science advances, vol. 7, no. 40, p. eabi8605, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    On the impact of launch power optimization and transceiver noise on the performance of ultra-wideband transmission systems,

    H. Buglia, E. Sillekens, A. Vasylchenkova, P. Bayvel, and L. Galdino, “On the impact of launch power optimization and transceiver noise on the performance of ultra-wideband transmission systems,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. B11–B21, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Experimental demonstration of partially disaggregated optical network control using the physical layer digital twin,

    G. Borraccini, S. Straullu, A. Giorgetti, R. Ambrosone, E. Virgillito, A. D’Amico, R. D’Ingillo, F. Aquilino, A. Nespola, N. Sambo et al. , “Experimental demonstration of partially disaggregated optical network control using the physical layer digital twin,” IEEE Transactions ...

    2023

  29. [37]

    Efficient three- step amplifier configuration algorithm for dynamic c+ l-band links in presence of stimulated raman scattering,

    Y . Song, Q. Fan, C. Lu, D. Wang, and A. P. T. Lau, “Efficient three- step amplifier configuration algorithm for dynamic c+ l-band links in presence of stimulated raman scattering,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1445–1453, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Network teleme- try streaming services in sdn-based disaggregated optical networks,

    F. Paolucci, A. Sgambelluri, F. Cugini, and P. Castoldi, “Network teleme- try streaming services in sdn-based disaggregated optical networks,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 36, no. 15, pp. 3142–3149, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Network innovation using openflow: A survey,

    A. Lara, A. Kolasani, and B. Ramamurthy, “Network innovation using openflow: A survey,” IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 493–512, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.