Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 30 references

Robust End-to-End FSO Transmission with Joint Coding Modulation and BiLSTM-Based Channel Modeling under Atmospheric Turbulence

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the main reason end-to-end learned FSO links fail in the field is that they are trained against a generic Gaussian noise channel; a BiLSTM surrogate of the real channel closes that gap by an average 3.54 dB in MS-SSIM

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of turbulence-robust FSO image transmission, but the causal case that the BiLSTM channel model is the source of the gain is not fully closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03835 v1 pith:DIE7KCOH submitted 2025-09-04 physics.optics

Wei Zhang , Zhenming Yu , Hongyu Huang , Xiangyong Dong , Yan Ma , Yongli Zhao , Shanguo Huang , Kun Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords free-spaceopticalcommunicationend-to-endlearningjointsource-channelcodingBiLSTMchannelmodelatmosphericturbulenceimagetransmissionMS-SSIMSwinTransformer
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

This paper aims to show that the main reason learned end-to-end optical links fail under real atmospheric turbulence is that they are trained against a generic additive Gaussian noise channel. The authors build TRFSO, an image-transmission system whose encoder and decoder are trained end-to-end through a bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM) surrogate of the actual physical FSO channel, learned from symbol pairs measured on a 30 Gbaud intensity-modulation/direct-detection link with controllable turbulence. The surrogate matches the real channel's amplitude statistics to a KL divergence as low as 0.0019, and the system trained through it beats its AWGN-trained twin by an average 3.54 dB in MS-SSIM under strong turbulence while adding no deployment-time cost. If this holds, accurate differentiable channel modeling -- not only network architecture -- is what buys robustness in turbulence-impaired optical links.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the frozen BiLSTM channel surrogate: two stacked bidirectional LSTM layers (hidden size 30, dropout 0.15), a two-layer fully connected projection, and a power-normalization layer, trained by MSE on (transmitted, received) symbol pairs from the physical link. It acts as a differentiable substitute for the real FSO channel during end-to-end training, so gradients from the reconstruction loss flow through realistic non-Gaussian, temporally correlated distortions. Its parameters are fixed in the final training stage, and turbulence robustness is instilled by randomly drawing from the fitted surrogate variants corresponding to different turbulence levels in each trai

What would settle it

Recompute the amplitude-distribution KL divergence between the frozen BiLSTM surrogate and the physical link using symbols from the fine-tuned TRFSO encoder (not the pre-trained one) under the same turbulence levels. If the divergence rises materially above the 0.0019 value quoted for training-time symbols, the surrogate is stale; equivalently, retrain the surrogate on the fine-tuned encoder's symbols and check whether the 3.54 dB MS-SSIM advantage over TRFSO-AWGN persists or shrinks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing the AWGN channel layer with a BiLSTM channel model trained on real FSO measurements makes a joint source-channel coding and modulation (JSCCM) system turbulence-resilient without changing the deployed encoder/decoder. The authors train Swin Transformer-based joint encoding/modulation and decoding/demodulation networks, first pre-train them under AWGN, collect transmitted/received symbol pairs over an IM/DD FSO link with SLM-generated phase screens, train the BiLSTM surrogate on those pairs, then freeze it and fine-tune the whole system end-to-end while randomly sampling turbulence levels. Under strong turbulence (Cn2 = 10^-13 m^-2/3), TRFSO sustains most f

Load-bearing premise

The frozen BiLSTM channel model is trained on symbols emitted by the pre-trained AWGN encoder, and the whole fine-tuning step assumes that same surrogate stays accurate for the different symbol distribution the encoder produces after training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported gain is attributable to the channel model alone: TRFSO and TRFSO-AWGN share identical encoder/decoder architecture and training hyperparameters, so the 3.54 dB improvement isolates the effect of training through the learned surrogate.
  • Training costs increase only at training time; deployment uses the same encoder and decoder, so turbulence robustness comes without extra hardware such as adaptive optics.
  • Because training samples across turbulence levels, a single fixed encoder/decoder maintains graceful degradation across zenith angles and altitudes, with MS-SSIM still 14.88 dB at a 60-degree zenith angle.
  • On turbulence-free links approximated by AWGN, the AWGN-trained system remains the better choice, implying the training channel model should match the deployment scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the surrogate's fidelity is the real driver, the same three-stage recipe should transfer to other channels that are non-differentiable or analytically intractable, such as underwater optical or RF fading with memory.
  • A sharper test would measure the KL divergence of the frozen surrogate on symbols emitted by the fine-tuned encoder: if it climbs well above the 0.0019 training-time value, the reported 3.54 dB gain could be partly an artifact of optimizing against a stale channel.
  • The paper averages MS-SSIM in dB; looking at per-realization distributions, the system-level benefit may be larger than the average because TRFSO avoids total failures that separate schemes suffer under strong turbulence, where the mean alone underweights catastrophic outliers.
  • One testable extension is to iterate the pipeline by re-collecting physical pairs from the fine-tuned encoder and retraining the surrogate, which could either widen the gain or reveal a ceiling imposed by surrogate accuracy.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TRFSO, a turbulence-robust end-to-end FSO image transmission system that combines JSCCM based on Swin Transformer blocks with a BiLSTM-based differentiable channel model. The channel model is trained on input/output symbol pairs collected from a physical 30 Gbaud IM/DD FSO link under SLM-emulated turbulence. The system is trained in three stages: (1) pre-training the JEM/JDD under AWGN, (2) training the BiLSTM channel model on the pre-trained encoder's symbols, and (3) fine-tuning the full system end-to-end with the channel model frozen. The authors report that under strong turbulence TRFSO achieves an average 3.54 dB MS-SSIM improvement over a same-architecture model trained only under AWGN, and they attribute this gain to the accuracy of the BiLSTM channel model, which achieves KL divergence as low as 0.0019 against measured amplitude distributions. They also show favorable results under varying zenith angles and ground-station altitudes.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and practical problem: making JSCCM robust to non-Gaussian, time-varying FSO channels. The experimental setup is a real 30 Gbaud IM/DD FSO link with SLM-emulated turbulence, which is a notable strength compared with simulation-only studies. If the 3.54 dB improvement is genuinely attributable to the learned channel model, it would provide strong evidence for the value of data-driven channel surrogates in end-to-end optical communication. However, the central causal claim rests on an unvalidated assumption about the frozen channel model's accuracy after encoder fine-tuning, and the quantitative metric is reported in dB without a defined conversion. These issue need to be resolved before the result can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.D (three-stage training) and IV.B] The BiLSTM channel model is trained on symbols y' from the AWGN-pre-trained encoder (stage 2) and then held fixed while JEM and JDD are fine-tuned end-to-end (stage 3). As the encoder weights change, the distribution of transmitted symbols shifts, potentially outside the region where the surrogate was trained. The paper neither re-validates the channel model on fine-tuned symbols nor adapts it. Since the conclusion explicitly credits accurate channel modeling for the 3.54 dB gain (Section IV.B), the authors should provide evidence that the frozen surrogate remains accurate during and after stage 3. A concrete test is to compare the BiLSTM output against actually measured received symbols using the fine-tuned encoder; if mismatch is significant, retraining or iterative refinement is needed. Without such a check, the improvement could stem from other components (e.g., the PAPR regularizer,
  2. [IV.B (all MS-SSIM claims)] All quantitative comparisons are reported in dB (e.g., 'MS-SSIM improvement of 3.54 dB', 'MS-SSIM values remain above 21 dB'), but the mapping from the MS-SSIM index to dB is never defined. Without a formula, such as MS-SSIM_dB = -10*log10(1-MS-SSIM) or equivalent, the numerical values are not interpretable or reproducible. This is particularly load-bearing because the main headline improvement is in dB. Please specify the exact conversion and apply it consistently.
  3. [III (experimental setup) and IV] The channel model is trained on data from the same physical FSO testbed used for the final performance evaluation. While the evaluation bypasses the channel model and therefore is not circular, it does limit generalization: the measured improvements may be specific to this link's SLM-emulated turbulence characteristics. Please state whether the evaluation turbulence realizations are disjoint from the training realizations, and discuss how the results would transfer to different links or real atmospheric paths. At minimum, this should be acknowledged as a limitation.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III, Table I] Table I is referenced but not included in the manuscript. Please include it, as the fairness argument (comparable number of transmitted symbols) depends on it.
  2. [II.D vs IV.A] Section II.D says 'six different noise levels' for channel-model training, while Section IV.A says 'seven datasets'. Please make the counts consistent.
  3. [III and IV.B] Section III lists PAM4 and PAM8 as the modulation formats for the traditional baseline, but Section IV.B and Fig. 5 refer to 'PAM4 and OOK'. Clarify which baselines were actually used.
  4. [Abstract and IV.B] The abstract states '3.5 dB improvement', while Section IV.B reports '3.54 dB'. Please use one consistent rounded value.
  5. [II.C] The reshaping of the symbol sequence into a 2D tensor of shape N×M is not fully defined. Specify which dimension is the sequence length and which is the feature dimension, and relate M to the BiLSTM input size.
  6. [II.B, Eq. (1)] The image distortion loss L_d(x, x̂) in Eq. (1) is not defined. Please specify whether it is the MS-SSIM loss, MSE, or a combination.
  7. [V] The conclusion states MS-SSIM levels 'exceeding 21.3 dB' under moderate turbulence, but this value does not appear in the results section. Please reconcile the numbers or cite the specific figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3.54 dB gain is an experimentally measured end-to-end result, not an output of the fitted channel model.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (i) a BiLSTM surrogate is fit with MSE (Eq. 2) to pairs (y', y'') collected from the physical IM/DD FSO link; (ii) the surrogate is frozen and used only as a differentiable channel layer during stage-3 end-to-end training; (iii) the claimed 3.54 dB MS-SSIM improvement over TRFSO-AWGN (Section IV.B) is measured on the real FSO link, where the learned channel model is bypassed. Nothing in this chain equates the fitted channel model to the reported improvement. The KL divergence of 0.0019 is a goodness-of-fit statistic for the surrogate, not a component of the performance comparison. The self-references [4] and [11] motivate prior JSCCM work and a PAPR regularizer but are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renaming is used. The fixed-surrogate/distribution-shift concern is a real validity threat, but it is an assumption about generalization, not a circular reduction: the paper does not use the surrogate's accuracy to compute the 3.54 dB gain. Hence no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the channel model to the real optical link, the validity of the SLM turbulence emulation, and the stability of the channel model under encoder fine-tuning. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_PAPR = 4e-5
    Loss weight for PAPR penalty in Eq. (1), chosen by hand to balance reconstruction quality and PAPR. Section II.B.
  • transmission dimension C = 96
    Number of transmission symbols per image after FC layer, chosen to set compression ratio. Section II.B.
  • BiLSTM hidden size = 30
    Hidden size of each BiLSTM direction in the channel model, chosen by hand. Section II.C.
  • BiLSTM dropout rate = 0.15
    Dropout rate between the two BiLSTM layers, chosen by hand. Section II.C.
  • LeakyReLU slope = 0.01
    Negative slope of LeakyReLU in FC projection of channel model, chosen by hand. Section II.C.
  • training symbols per turbulence level = 120,000
    Number of symbols used to train the channel model per level, chosen by hand. Section II.D.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SLM phase screens emulate atmospheric turbulence
    The experimental channel is generated by phase screens on an SLM, not a real atmospheric path. The paper assumes this emulation is representative of real turbulence for evaluating TRFSO. Section III.
  • domain assumption The BiLSTM channel model remains valid for the fine-tuned encoder's symbol distribution
    Channel model is trained on symbols from the pre-trained AWGN encoder and then fixed while the encoder is fine-tuned; the paper assumes no harmful distribution shift. Section II.D (third stage).
  • domain assumption MS-SSIM in dB is a well-defined and comparable metric
    The paper reports MS-SSIM improvements in dB without defining the conversion; assumes comparability across schemes. Section IV.B.
  • standard math The trained channel model is differentiable and suitable for gradient-based end-to-end optimization
    BiLSTM and FC layers are differentiable, enabling backpropagation. Section II.C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust End-to-End FSO Transmission with Joint Coding Modulation and BiLSTM-Based Channel Modeling under Atmospheric Turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIE7KCOH

@misc{pith2026250903835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust End-to-End FSO Transmission with Joint Coding Modulation and BiLSTM-Based Channel Modeling under Atmospheric Turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIE7KCOH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03835}
}
read the original abstract

Free space optical (FSO) communication is considered a promising solution in next_generation communication networks. However, its performance is significantly influenced by atmospheric turbulence. To enhance system robustness to turbulence, we propose a turbulence_robust end_to_end FSO communication system (TRFSO) that integrates a data-driven channel model with joint source_channel coding modulation (JSCCM). Specifically, a bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM)_based channel model is developed and trained on data collected over a physical FSO link under varying turbulence conditions. This model accurately captures real_world channel distortions, achieving a minimum Kullback_Leibler (KL) divergence of 0.0019 in amplitude distribution matching. Experimental results show that the TRFSO system trained with the BiLSTM_based channel model outperforms the same architecture trained under the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel, achieving an average 3.5 dB improvement in multi-scale structural similarity (MS_SSIM) under strong atmospheric turbulence. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed TRFSO in achieving robust and reliable transmission under dynamic atmospheric turbulence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed structure of the turbulence-robust end-to-end FSO communication system. Tx-DSP: digital signal processing at the transmitter; Rx-DSP: digital signal processing at the receiver. divided into two categories. The first comprises statistical channel models, such as log-normal and gamma-gamma fading distributions [1]. Although these models can approximate the statistical behavior of turbulence-induced fading, th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    End -to-End Learning for Free Space Optical Communication with BiLSTM -based Channel Model,

    T. Zhang et al., “End -to-End Learning for Free Space Optical Communication with BiLSTM -based Channel Model,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), Beijing, China: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 1 –4. doi: 10.1109/bmsb58369.2023.10211249

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Survey on Free Space Optical Communication: A Communication Theory Perspective,

    M. A. Khalighi and M. Uysal, “Survey on Free Space Optical Communication: A Communication Theory Perspective,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2231 –2258, 2014, doi: 10.1109/comst.2014.2329501

    work page arXiv 2014

  3. [2]

    Optical Communication in Space: Challenges and Mitigation Techniques,

    H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical Communication in Space: Challenges and Mitigation Techniques,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–96, 2017, doi: 10.1109/comst.2016.2603518

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    Roadmap to free space optics,

    A. Trichili, M. A. Cox, B. S. Ooi, and M.-S. Alouini, “Roadmap to free space optics,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, vol. 37, no. 11, p. A184, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1364/josab.399168

    work page doi:10.1364/josab.399168 2020

  5. [4]

    Optical Fiber Communication System Based on Intelligent Joint Source - Channel Coded Modulation,

    H. Huang, L. Cheng, Z. Yu, W. Zhang, Y. Mu, and K. Xu, “Optical Fiber Communication System Based on Intelligent Joint Source - Channel Coded Modulation,” J. Light. Technol., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2009–2017, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1109/jlt.2023.3328311

    work page arXiv 2009

  6. [5]

    Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,

    A. Biswas et al., “Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Space Optical Systems and Applications (ICSOS), Naha: IEEE, Nov. 2017, pp. 23–27. doi: 10.1109/icsos.2017.8357206

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    Coherent Free -Space Optical Communications: 9 Opportunities and Challenges,

    F. P. Guiomar, M. A. Fernandes, J. L. Nascimento, V. Rodrigues, and P. P. Monteiro, “Coherent Free -Space Optical Communications: 9 Opportunities and Challenges,” J. Light. Technol., vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3173–3186, May 2022, doi: 10.1109/jlt.2022.3164736

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Automatic mitigation of dynamic atmospheric turbulence using optical phase conjugation for coherent free -space optical communications,

    H. Zhou et al., “Automatic mitigation of dynamic atmospheric turbulence using optical phase conjugation for coherent free -space optical communications,” Optica, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 158, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1364/optica.541823

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.541823 2025

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    A Survey on Acquisition, Tracking, and Pointing Mechanisms for Mobile Free -Space Optical Communications,

    Y. Kaymak, R. Rojas -Cessa, J. Feng, N. Ansari, M. Zhou, and T. Zhang, “A Survey on Acquisition, Tracking, and Pointing Mechanisms for Mobile Free -Space Optical Communications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1104– 1123, 2018, doi: 10.1109/comst.2018.2804323

    2018

  2. [9]

    Adaptive- optics-based simultaneous pre- and post - turbulence compensation of multiple orbital-angular-momentum beams in a bidirectional free -space optical link,

    Y. Ren et al., “Adaptive- optics-based simultaneous pre- and post - turbulence compensation of multiple orbital-angular-momentum beams in a bidirectional free -space optical link,” Optica, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 376, Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1364/optica.1.000376

    2014 doi

  3. [10]

    Experimental Demonstration of Adaptive- Optics-Based Turbulence Mitigation in a Mode-Multiplexed Free-Space Optical Link by Using both Radial and Azimuthal Spatial Indices,

    X. Su et al., “Experimental Demonstration of Adaptive- Optics-Based Turbulence Mitigation in a Mode-Multiplexed Free-Space Optical Link by Using both Radial and Azimuthal Spatial Indices,” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2022, San Diego, California: Optica Publ...

    2022 doi

  4. [11]

    Atmospheric Turbulence-Immune Free Space Optical Communication System based on Discrete -Time Analog Transmission

    Huang, Hongyu, et al. “Atmospheric Turbulence-Immune Free Space Optical Communication System based on Discrete -Time Analog Transmission.” SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences , early access, doi: 10.1007/s11432-024-4415-7

    doi

  5. [12]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379 –423, Jul. 1948, doi: 10.1002/j.1538 - 7305.1948.tb01338.x

    1948

  6. [13]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 2006

    2006

  7. [14]

    Communications, Caching, and Computing for Mobile Virtual Reality: Modeling and Tradeoff,

    Y. Sun, Z. Chen, M. Tao, and H. Liu, “Communications, Caching, and Computing for Mobile Virtual Reality: Modeling and Tradeoff,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 7573 –7586, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1109/tcomm.2019.2920594

    2019

  8. [15]

    Challenges in Implementing Low -Latency Holographic -Type Communication Systems,

    R. Petkova, V. Poulkov, A. Manolova, and K. Tonchev, “Challenges in Implementing Low -Latency Holographic -Type Communication Systems,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 24, p. 9617, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22249617

    2022 doi

  9. [16]

    Joint Source and Channel Coding,

    M. Fresia, F. Perez- Cruz, H. Poor, and S. Verdu, “Joint Source and Channel Coding,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1109/msp.2010.938080

    2010

  10. [17]

    Wireless Image Transmission Using Deep Source Channel Coding With Attention Modules,

    J. Xu, B. Ai, W. Chen, A. Yang, P. Sun, and M. Rodrigues, “Wireless Image Transmission Using Deep Source Channel Coding With Attention Modules,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2315–2328, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1109/tcsvt.2021.3082521

    2022

  11. [18]

    Deep Joint Source- Channel Coding for Wireless Image Transmission,

    E. Bourtsoulatze, D. Burth Kurka, and D. Gunduz, “Deep Joint Source- Channel Coding for Wireless Image Transmission,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567 –579, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1109/tccn.2019.2919300

    2019

  12. [19]

    Adaptive Information Bottleneck Guided Joint Source and Channel Coding for Image Transmission,

    L. Sun, Y. Yang, M. Chen, C. Guo, W. Saad, and H. V. Poor, “Adaptive Information Bottleneck Guided Joint Source and Channel Coding for Image Transmission,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 2628–2644, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1109/jsac.2023.3288238

    2023

  13. [20]

    WITT: A wireless image transmission transformer for semantic communications

    Yang, Ke, et al. “WITT: A wireless image transmission transformer for semantic communications. ” ICASSP 2023 -2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Deep Learning -Based Channel Modeling for Free Space Optical Communications,

    W. Chen et al., “Deep Learning -Based Channel Modeling for Free Space Optical Communications,” J. Light. Technol., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 183–198, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1109/jlt.2022.3213519

    2023

  15. [23]

    Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows,

    Z. Liu et al., “Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windows,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Montreal, QC, Canada: IEEE, Oct. 2021, pp. 9992–10002. doi: 10.1109/iccv48922.2021.00986

    2021

  16. [24]

    PAPR reduction techniques for coherent optical OFDM transmission,

    B. Goebel, S. Hellerbrand, N. Haufe, and N. Hanik, “PAPR reduction techniques for coherent optical OFDM transmission,” in 2009 11th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks, Ponta Delgada, Portugal: IEEE, Jun. 2009, pp. 1 –4. doi: 10.1109/icton.2009.5184979

    2009

  17. [25]

    Simulation of wave propagation in three-dimensional random media,

    Wm. A. Coles, J. P. Filice, R. G. Frehlich, and M. Yadlowsky, “Simulation of wave propagation in three-dimensional random media,” Appl. Opt., vol. 34, no. 12, p. 2089, Apr. 1995, doi: 10.1364/ao.34.002089

    doi

  18. [26]

    The JPEG 2000 still image compression standard,

    A. Skodras, C. Christopoulos, and T. Ebrahimi, “The JPEG 2000 still image compression standard,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 36–58, 2001, doi: 10.1109/79.952804

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    Low-density parity-check codes,

    R. Gallager, “Low-density parity-check codes,” IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–28, Jan. 1962, doi: 10.1109/TIT.1962.1057683

    1962

  20. [28]

    Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,

    Z. Wang, E. P. Simoncelli, and A. C. Bovik, “Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment,” in The Thrity -Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, Pacific Grove, CA, USA: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/acssc.2003.1292216

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    NTIRE 2017 Challenge on Single Image Super -Resolution: Dataset and Study,

    E. Agustsson and R. Timofte, “NTIRE 2017 Challenge on Single Image Super -Resolution: Dataset and Study,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Honolulu, HI, USA: IEEE, Jul. 2017, pp. 1122 –1131. doi: 10.1109/cvprw.2017.150

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Elliptic Fourier transformation- based histograms of oriented gradients for rotationally invariant object detection in remote-sensing images,

    Z. Xiao, Q. Liu, G. Tang, and X. Zhai, “Elliptic Fourier transformation- based histograms of oriented gradients for rotationally invariant object detection in remote-sensing images,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 618–644, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1080/01431161.2014.999881

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.