Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Nonlinearity Compensation for Coherent Optical Satellite Communications

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single parameter describes how high-power amplifiers distort satellite uplinks, and two low-complexity DSP tricks recover up to 6 dB of link loss.

desk verdict A credible, practically useful study with a clean analytical kernel and a low-complexity DSP scheme; the single-parameter P_NL model is well validated inside the simulation, but the ASE-neglect assumption is under-quantified and the headline claims should be tempered. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.08422 v3 pith:6XS7E7S7 submitted 2026-03-09 cs.IT math.IT

Stella Civelli , Luca Potì , Enrico Forestieri , Marco Secondini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT
keywords opticalsatellitecommunicationhigh-poweramplifierKerrnonlinearityself-phasemodulationnonlinearphasecompensationprobabilisticconstellationshapingspherelook-uptable
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 aims to show that the dominant nonlinear impairment in a coherent optical satellite uplink is not a complicated distributed effect but a simple, memoryless phase rotation. Because the high-power optical amplifier (HPOA) stage is only a few tens of meters long, chromatic dispersion is negligible and the Kerr nonlinearity acts on each symbol independently; the whole amplifier can therefore be collapsed into one number, the characteristic nonlinear power P_NL. On top of that model, the paper proposes two nearly-free digital techniques — a 32-entry look-up-table shaping of short blocks and a nonlinear phase compensation split between the ground transmitter and the satellite receiver — and demonstrates by simulation that together they raise the maximum acceptable link loss by up to 6 dB. A sympathetic reader would care because this directly translates into higher launch power, longer link margins, or simpler system design for future optical satellite links.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simplified channel model of Eq. (4): under negligible dispersion, HPOA propagation reduces to a memoryless phase rotation u(L,t) = u(0,t) exp(−j φ̄ |u(0,t)|^2), with φ̄ = P/P_NL. The single parameter P_NL (Eq. 6) captures all the fiber details (length, gain profile, Kerr coefficient) and is the only thing needed to predict performance. The paper's compensation machinery consists of (i) sphere shaping with block length N=4, implementable as a 32-entry look-up table, which reduces spectral broadening because it correlates the four quadratures within each 4D symbol; and (ii) NLPC, a phase rotation split between transmitter and receiver with optimal splitting ratio

What would settle it

Measure the output power spectral density after the HPOA and compare with Eq. (8) at launch powers around and above P_NL (for the example, about 42.7 dBm, i.e., φ̄≈1). If the measured broadening deviates from the analytical prediction in a way that grows with the ASE noise level, or if using a longer fiber (L comparable to L_D) changes the GMI-versus-power curve, the model is falsified. Alternatively, repeat at a higher symbol rate so L/L_D is no longer small: the predicted linear scaling of maximum acceptable link loss with P_NL (Fig. 13) would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in a coherent ground-to-satellite uplink, the nonlinear distortion introduced by the high-power optical amplifier (HPOA) stage is, to a good approximation, a memoryless self-phase modulation: each received symbol suffers a phase rotation proportional to its instantaneous power. Because the fiber section is short enough that chromatic dispersion is negligible, the entire amplifier stage is equivalent to a zero-dispersion noiseless fiber link and can be described by a single parameter, the characteristic nonlinear power P_NL = (∫ γ g(z) dz)^{-1}. On top of this model, the paper proposes two low-complexity DSP techniques — short-block (N=4) sphere shaping implemented

Load-bearing premise

The model rests on two claims: that chromatic dispersion is negligible over the amplifier's length at the chosen symbol rate and bandwidth, and that the ASE generated inside the amplifier does not noticeably interact with the signal; if either fails, propagation is no longer a memoryless phase rotation and the single-parameter description breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uplink power budgets can be increased by up to 6 dB without changing the HPOA hardware, directly enabling higher throughput or more margin against atmospheric attenuation.
  • The single-parameter P_NL lets designers compare different HPOA implementations purely by a number, without full propagation simulation.
  • The optimal shaping block length is very short (N=4), making LUT-based shaping with negligible complexity and fine rate granularity the natural choice for this channel, unlike long-haul fiber systems.
  • Because the nonlinearity is memoryless, conventional carrier phase recovery cannot mitigate it; split NLPC with κ≈0.6 provides about 1 dB over TX-only NLPC, and the total NLPC gain is roughly 4–5 dB.
  • The simplified dispersionless model can replace the full physical model for performance estimation in the considered scenario, which is validated by the collapse of all simulated HPOA configurations onto a single P_NL curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-parameter model holds, the same low-complexity NLPC scheme should apply to any short high-power fiber stage, such as booster amplifiers in other free-space optical terminals or high-power laser delivery systems — a transfer the paper does not discuss.
  • The combination of LUT shaping and split NLPC could be turned into a rate-adaptive scheme: the LUT's rate granularity and the phase-compensation strength could be tuned on the fly in response to channel loss fluctuations, a practical robustness feature the paper only hints at.
  • The M-mode extension of the spectral-broadening formula (Eq. 26) suggests a testable path to few-mode or multi-mode HPOAs, where the same P_NL characterization might still apply — though the paper does not simulate that case.
  • Because the distortion is memoryless, advanced sequence-based equalizers that exploit inter-symbol correlations are unlikely to beat the simple phase rotation; this also means the nonlinearity cannot be averaged out by temporal filtering, so compensation must be symbol-level.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies nonlinear propagation in the high-power optical amplifier (HPOA) stage of a coherent ground-to-satellite uplink. It argues that, because the fiber length is much shorter than the dispersion length and because signal–ASE interaction inside the HPOA is negligible, propagation can be modeled as a memoryless Kerr phase rotation, Eq. (4), fully characterized by a single parameter P_NL defined in Eq. (6). On this basis the authors propose two low-complexity DSP techniques: LUT-based short-block probabilistic amplitude shaping and TX/RX/split nonlinear phase compensation (NLPC). Simulations with a split-step Fourier solver are used to show that these techniques increase the maximum acceptable link loss by up to 6 dB, and that different HPOA configurations collapse onto the simplified dispersionless model when plotted against P_NL.

Significance. If the simplified model is valid, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it identifies a genuinely different operating regime from long-haul fiber, gives a clean single-parameter description of the HPOA nonlinearity, and demonstrates that very simple DSP can recover several dB of link budget. The analytical derivation of the SPM-modified autocorrelation function in the Appendix is a solid and useful result, and the numerical validation across several amplifier configurations is a good check. The paper also clearly explains why standard carrier-phase recovery is ineffective in this dispersionless regime. The main uncertainties are quantitative rather than conceptual: the neglect of signal–ASE interaction is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the simulation results lack error bars or Monte Carlo sample counts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II-B3c and Eq. (10)] The reduction to the memoryless phase rotation (4) requires that signal–ASE interaction inside the HPOA be negligible. The only support is the statement that ASE is 'typically negligible' and the SNR approximation in Eq. (10), which assumes L >> G_HPOA. The paper does not report F_HPOA or the ASE profile used in the SSFM, so the regime of validity cannot be checked. If ASE co-propagating with the signal is not negligible, it produces signal-dependent phase noise that is not represented by the AWGN in Fig. 4, and the exact-inversion logic of Eqs. (11)–(12) breaks down. Please provide a quantitative estimate or, preferably, a numerical comparison of GMI with and without the distributed ASE term in Eq. (2). This is load-bearing for the central 'single-parameter P_NL' claim.
  2. [Figs. 7–13 and Sec. IV-B] No number of Monte Carlo realizations or error bars is reported. Several quantitative conclusions rely on differences of about 0.5–1 dB: the short-block shaping advantage in Figs. 7–8, the superiority of κ≈0.6 over κ=1 in Fig. 9, and the baud-rate trade-off in Fig. 12. Without confidence intervals, these differences could be simulation noise. Please quantify the uncertainty (e.g., bootstrap intervals on GMI, or at least the number of symbols/realizations) and confirm that the claimed gains exceed it.
  3. [Fig. 13, Sec. IV-B] The claim that performance is 'fully characterized by P_NL' is validated with only four configurations. These differ mostly in the effective γL product and do not independently vary the ASE noise figure or the shape of the longitudinal gain profile g(z). In the zero-dispersion noiseless limit the integral in Eq. (6) is indeed the only parameter, but the numerical validation should show that the conclusion is robust when F_HPOA and the g(z) profile are varied at fixed P_NL; otherwise the claim remains restricted to the particular amplifier design simulated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II-B2] Equation (2) uses +jβ2/2, but standard SMF has a negative β2; the listed values β2=21.7 ps²/km and D=17 ps/nm/km are inconsistent in sign unless a different convention is intended. Please clarify.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The SNR expression omits the factor 2 associated with per-polarization ASE PSD. Define the exact SNR convention used so the formula can be reproduced.
  3. [Fig. 7 and Sec. IV-B] The legend 'ideal linear (MB)' is ambiguous: the curve is the linear-regime benchmark, not an ideal linear channel model. Rename to 'ideal MB (linear regime)' or similar.
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Figs. 9–13] The launch power and link loss are swept in 1 dB steps. The reported gains and the optimal κ may be affected by this discretization; state the step size clearly or refine the sweep near the optimum.
  5. [Fig. 9] The 'unlimited bandwidth' case is still limited by the oversampling factor n=8. The caption should note that this is a DSP-sampling limit, not a true continuous-time unlimited-bandwidth case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: P_NL is derived from fiber integrals, not fitted; the HPOA phase-rotation model is validated against full Manakov simulations, and self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The simplified channel (Eq. 4) follows from the Manakov equation (2) after dropping dispersion and signal–ASE interaction, with L << L_D quantified in Section II-B2 and ASE negligibility stated (though not fully quantified) in Section II-B3c. The characteristic nonlinear power is not a fitted parameter: Eq. (6) defines it from the fiber parameters, and the NLPC rotations in Eqs. (11)-(12) use that same independently defined P_NL. The key validation, Fig. 13, compares full split-step Manakov simulations of four different amplifier configurations with the predicted P_NL-only dispersionless theory line; agreement between the symbols and the line is a falsifiable check rather than an identity forced by construction. The self-citations ([19], [21], [26], [29]) support background claims on PAS/CPR and describe the relation to prior work; they are not used to establish the HPOA phase-rotation result. The main caveat is the unquantified neglect of signal–ASE interaction, but that is an assumption about physical validity, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard fiber-optics modeling assumptions. The most fragile are the dispersionless limit, the negligible signal-ASE interaction, and the static atmosphere. P_NL is a derived parameter from fiber integrals, not an invented entity; κ and shaping rate are optimized design choices rather than physical postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • NLPC splitting ratio κ = 0.6
    Chosen by maximizing simulated acceptable link loss; the reported gains depend on this optimized split between TX and RX.
  • PAS shaping rate = 4.5 bits/2D (GMI=3) and 6.5 bits/2D (GMI=5)
    Stated as 'optimized offline'; affects the linear-regime baseline and the absolute gain values, though it is a standard design parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Manakov equation (2) governs propagation in both active and passive fiber sections, with the polarization-dependent nonlinear term and Raman/Brillouin effects neglected.
    Invoked at the start of Section II-B with a footnote justifying neglect of birefringence-induced nonlinearity; standard for telecom fibers but not experimentally verified for this HPOA regime.
  • domain assumption Chromatic dispersion is negligible because L ≪ L_D, allowing the closed-form SPM solution Eq. (4).
    Stated in Section II-B2 with a 100 GBd/SMF example; this is load-bearing for the memoryless NLPC design.
  • domain assumption Signal-ASE interaction inside the HPOA is negligible because ASE is small compared with receiver noise.
    Stated in Section II-B3c and used in Eq. (10); if false, nonlinear phase noise would limit compensation.
  • domain assumption The FSO channel is a static, lumped attenuation L, ignoring atmospheric turbulence dynamics.
    Explicitly stated in Section II-C; appropriate for a tractable first study but limits the paper's claims about link variations.
  • domain assumption The input field is modeled as circularly symmetric complex Gaussian for the analytical PSD derivation (Eq. 8).
    Used in the Appendix and justified by the MB distribution approximating Gaussian; sphere-shaping N=4 visibly deviates from this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinearity Compensation for Coherent Optical Satellite Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6XS7E7S7

@misc{pith2026260308422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinearity Compensation for Coherent Optical Satellite Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6XS7E7S7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.08422}
}
read the original abstract

Optical satellite uplinks rely on high-power optical amplifiers (HPOAs) to overcome free-space attenuation and enable long-distance transmission. However, at high power levels, fiber Kerr nonlinearity becomes significant and degrades system performance. In this work, we develop a realistic model for optical uplinks that accounts for nonlinear effects and analyze their impact, highlighting key differences from conventional longhaul fiber systems. We then introduce low-complexity digital signal processing techniques for nonlinearity compensation, based on constellation shaping via a look-up table (LUT) and a simple nonlinear phase rotation applied at the transmitter and/or receiver. The LUT also enables adaptive rate tuning according to channel conditions, enhancing robustness against link variations. Simulation results show that the proposed techniques increase the maximum acceptable link loss by up to 6 dB with negligible complexity. Finally, we show that, at the system level, propagation in the HPOA can be modeled as a simple nonlinear phase rotation, equivalent to propagation in a zero-dispersion noiseless fiber link, and fully characterized by a single parameter - the characteristic nonlinear power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.08422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ground-to-satellite optical link Recently, an Er-based HPOA with power up to 50dBm was proposed, specifically designed to mitigate nonlinear effects; the proposed HPOA combines an EDFA to increase the power up to 27dBm and a large-mode-area EDFA to further amplify the signal (short fiber with low nonlinear Kerr parameter) [17]. However, the large-mode-area approach lacks commercially available and reliable component… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System model 1) Amplification and Noise: The HPOA is modeled as a distributed-gain active fiber generating ASE along the propa￾gation coordinate z. The longitudinal power profile g(z) and the power spectral density (PSD) of the ASE noise term nASE(z, t) are obtained from the standard coupled propagation and population equations governing doped-fiber amplifiers, evaluated under the assumption of a continuous-wave inp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PSD of the normalized transmitted (left) and received (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simplified model E. Simplified Model Based on the above considerations, the baseband model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transmitter and receiver DSP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximum acceptable link loss versus NLPC splitting ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maximum acceptable link loss versus DM block length for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fig. 9 compares the results without NLPC (labeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Maximum acceptable link loss versus Baud rate for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Acceptable link loss versus launch power for different DSP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Maximum acceptable link loss as a function of the HPOA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: V. CONCLUSION This work has presented a systematic analysis of coherent optical satellite uplink systems employing high-power optical amplifiers (HPOAs). To the best of our knowledge, this repre￾sents the first comprehensive investigation of nonlinear effects arising i…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [16]

    Nonlinear fiber effects in ultra-high power 10×10 gbit/s WDM-IM free-space systems for satellite links,

    E. Ciaramella and G. Cossu, “Nonlinear fiber effects in ultra-high power 10×10 gbit/s WDM-IM free-space systems for satellite links,”Optics Express, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 7959–7968, 2024

    2024

  2. [17]

    10 gbps transmission from a high power edfa for free space communications,

    A. Grimes, B. Zhu, C. Jin, and J. W. Nicholson, “10 gbps transmission from a high power edfa for free space communications,” in2024 IEEE Photonics Society Summer Topicals Meeting Series (SUM), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2024. 12

    2024

  3. [19]

    Nonlinearity mitigation for coher- ent ground-to-satellite optical links,

    S. Civelli, M. Secondini, and L. Potì, “Nonlinearity mitigation for coher- ent ground-to-satellite optical links,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05655, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  4. [1]

    Optical communication in space: Chal- lenges and mitigation techniques,

    H. Kaushal and G. Kaddoum, “Optical communication in space: Chal- lenges and mitigation techniques,”IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 57–96, 2016

    2016

  5. [2]

    A survey on laser space network: terminals, links, and architectures,

    R. Li, B. Lin, Y . Liu, M. Dong, and S. Zhao, “A survey on laser space network: terminals, links, and architectures,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 34815–34834, 2022

    2022

  6. [3]

    Achievable capacity of geostationary-ground optical links,

    R. Boddeda, D. R. Arrieta, S. Almonacil, J. Renaudier, and S. Bigo, “Achievable capacity of geostationary-ground optical links,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3717–3725, 2023

    2023

  7. [4]

    Current state, prospects, and opportunities for reaching beyond 100 gbps per carrier using coherent optics in satellite communications,

    R. Boddeda, D. R. Arrieta, S. Bigo, S. Rabeh, S. Almonacil, A. Ghazisaeidi, E. Dutisseuil, H. Mardoyan, and J. Renaudier, “Current state, prospects, and opportunities for reaching beyond 100 gbps per carrier using coherent optics in satellite communications,” inECOC 2024; 50th European Conference on Optical Communication, pp. 406– 409, VDE, 2024

    2024

  8. [5]

    Link budget assessment for geo feeder links based on optical technology,

    R. Barrios, S. Dimitrov, R. Mata-Calvo, and D. Giggenbach, “Link budget assessment for geo feeder links based on optical technology,” International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 160–177, 2021

    2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [6]

    Atmospheric absorption and scatter- ing impact on optical satellite-ground links,

    D. Giggenbach and A. Shrestha, “Atmospheric absorption and scatter- ing impact on optical satellite-ground links,”International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 157–176, 2022

    2022

  2. [7]

    Cloud free line of sight prediction modeling for low earth orbit optical satellite networks,

    N. K. Lyras, C. I. Kourogiorgas, and A. D. Panagopoulos, “Cloud free line of sight prediction modeling for low earth orbit optical satellite networks,” inInternational Conference on Space Optics ICSO 2018, vol. 11180, pp. 555–563, SPIE, 2019

    2018

  3. [8]

    Performance of the adaptive optics system for laser communications relay demonstration’s ground station 1,

    L. C. Roberts Jr, S. R. Meeker, J. Tesch, J. C. Shelton, J. E. Roberts, S. F. Fregoso, T. Troung, M. Peng, K. Matthews, H. Herzog,et al., “Performance of the adaptive optics system for laser communications relay demonstration’s ground station 1,”Applied Optics, vol. 62, no. 23...

    2023

  4. [9]

    Experimental investigation of the influence of the relative position of the scattering layer on image quality: the shower curtain effect,

    I. Dror, A. Sandrov, and N. S. Kopeika, “Experimental investigation of the influence of the relative position of the scattering layer on image quality: the shower curtain effect,”Applied optics, vol. 37, no. 27, pp. 6495–6499, 1998

    1998

  5. [10]

    Aviv,Laser space communications

    D. Aviv,Laser space communications. Artech, 2006

    2006

  6. [11]

    High-energy single-frequency core-pumped Er-doped fiber amplifiers,

    L. V . Kotov, V . Temyanko, M. M. Bubnov, D. S. Lipatov, A. S. Lobanov, A. Abramov, S. S. Aleshkina, A. N. Guryanov, and M. E. Likhachev, “High-energy single-frequency core-pumped Er-doped fiber amplifiers,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1526–1532, 2022

    2022

  7. [12]

    Yb- free Er-doped all-fiber amplifier cladding-pumped at 976 nm with output power in excess of 100 W,

    L. V . Kotov, M. E. Likhachev, M. M. Bubnov, O. I. Medvedkov, M. V . Yashkov, A. N. Guryanov, S. Février, J. Lhermite, and E. Cormier, “Yb- free Er-doped all-fiber amplifier cladding-pumped at 976 nm with output power in excess of 100 W,” inFiber Lasers XI: Technology, Systems...

    2014

  8. [13]

    302 W single-mode power from an Er/Yb fiber MOPA,

    T. Matniyaz, F. Kong, M. T. Kalichevsky-Dong, and L. Dong, “302 W single-mode power from an Er/Yb fiber MOPA,”Optics Letters, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2910–2913, 2020

    2020

  9. [14]

    High-power fiber lasers for free- space optical communication uplinks,

    J. W. Nicholson, A. Grimes, B. Zhu, C. Jin, V . S. Sudarshanam, A. Hariharan, and D. J. DiGiovanni, “High-power fiber lasers for free- space optical communication uplinks,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 2025

    2025

  10. [15]

    Optical coherent combining of high-power optical amplifiers for free-space optical communications,

    V . Billault, S. Leveque, A. Maho, M. Welch, J. Bourderionnet, E. Lallier, M. Sotom, A. L. Kernec, and A. Brignon, “Optical coherent combining of high-power optical amplifiers for free-space optical communications,” Optics Letters, vol. 48, no. 14, pp. 3649–3652, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Coherent free-space optical communications: Opportu- nities and challenges,

    F. P. Guiomar, M. A. Fernandes, J. L. Nascimento, V . Rodrigues, and P. P. Monteiro, “Coherent free-space optical communications: Opportu- nities and challenges,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 3173–3186, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    G. P. Agrawal,Nonlinear fiber optics. Academic Press, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    On the nonlinear shaping gain with probabilistic shaping and carrier phase recovery,

    S. Civelli, E. Forestieri, and M. Secondini, “On the nonlinear shaping gain with probabilistic shaping and carrier phase recovery,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 10, no. 41, pp. 3046–3056, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Bandwidth efficient and rate- matched low-density parity-check coded modulation,

    G. Böcherer, F. Steiner, and P. Schulte, “Bandwidth efficient and rate- matched low-density parity-check coded modulation,”IEEE Transac- tions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4651–4665, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Constant composition distribution match- ing,

    P. Schulte and G. Böcherer, “Constant composition distribution match- ing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 430– 434, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    On constellation shaping for short block lengths,

    Y . Gültekin, W. van Houtum, and F. Willems, “On constellation shaping for short block lengths,” in2018 Symposium on Information Theory and Signal Processing in the Benelux (SITB 2018), pp. 86–96, University of Twente, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Hierarchical distribution matching for probabilistically shaped coded modulation,

    T. Yoshida, M. Karlsson, and E. Agrell, “Hierarchical distribution matching for probabilistically shaped coded modulation,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1579–1589, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Hierarchical distribution matching for probabilistic amplitude shaping,

    S. Civelli and M. Secondini, “Hierarchical distribution matching for probabilistic amplitude shaping,”Entropy, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 958, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Rate adaptation and reach increase by probabilistically shaped 64-qam: An experimental demonstration,

    F. Buchali, F. Steiner, G. Böcherer, L. Schmalen, P. Schulte, and W. Idler, “Rate adaptation and reach increase by probabilistically shaped 64-qam: An experimental demonstration,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1599–1609, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    On probabilis- tic shaping of quadrature amplitude modulation for the nonlinear fiber channel,

    T. Fehenberger, A. Alvarado, G. Böcherer, and N. Hanik, “On probabilis- tic shaping of quadrature amplitude modulation for the nonlinear fiber channel,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 5063– 5073, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Sequence-selection-based constellation shaping for nonlinear channels,

    S. Civelli, E. Forestieri, and M. Secondini, “Sequence-selection-based constellation shaping for nonlinear channels,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1031–1043, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    New structures for complex multipliers and their noise analysis,

    A. Wenzler and E. Luder, “New structures for complex multipliers and their noise analysis,” in1995 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), vol. 2, pp. 1432–1435, IEEE, 1995

    1995

  23. [31]

    Achievable information rates for fiber optics: Applications and computations,

    A. Alvarado, T. Fehenberger, B. Chen, and F. M. Willems, “Achievable information rates for fiber optics: Applications and computations,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 424–439, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Multiset-partition distribution matching,

    T. Fehenberger, D. S. Millar, T. Koike-Akino, K. Kojima, and K. Par- sons, “Multiset-partition distribution matching,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1885–1893, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Hardware-efficient coherent digital receiver concept with feedforward carrier recovery form-qam constel- lations,

    T. Pfau, S. Hoffmann, and R. Noé, “Hardware-efficient coherent digital receiver concept with feedforward carrier recovery form-qam constel- lations,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 989–999, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Normalized generalized mutual information as a forward error correction threshold for probabilistically shaped QAM,

    J. Cho, L. Schmalen, and P. J. Winzer, “Normalized generalized mutual information as a forward error correction threshold for probabilistically shaped QAM,” in2017 European Conference on Optical Communica- tion (ECOC), pp. 1–3, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Analysis of nonlinear fiber interactions for finite-length constant-composition sequences,

    T. Fehenberger, D. S. Millar, T. Koike-Akino, K. Kojima, K. Parsons, and H. Griesser, “Analysis of nonlinear fiber interactions for finite-length constant-composition sequences,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 457–465, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Mitigating fiber nonlin- earities by short-length probabilistic shaping,

    T. Fehenberger, H. Griesser, and J.-P. Elbers, “Mitigating fiber nonlin- earities by short-length probabilistic shaping,” inOptical Fiber Commu- nication Conference, pp. Th1I–2, Optical Society of America, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Accounting for temporal energy correlations in the enhanced gaussian noise model,

    K. Wu, G. Liga, M. Secondini, and A. Alvarado, “Accounting for temporal energy correlations in the enhanced gaussian noise model,” in 2025 Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), pp. 1–3, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Nonlinear propagation in multi-mode fibers in the strong coupling regime,

    A. Mecozzi, C. Antonelli, and M. Shtaif, “Nonlinear propagation in multi-mode fibers in the strong coupling regime,”Optics express, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 11673–11678, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Self-phase modulation of incoherent light revisited,

    J. T. Manassah, “Self-phase modulation of incoherent light revisited,” Optics letters, vol. 16, no. 21, pp. 1638–1640, 1991

    1991

  32. [40]

    G. P. Agrawal,Fiber-optic communication systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.