Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 45 references

Analysis of polarization drift of optical signals over deployed aerial-inground fiber connections

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Weather predicts polarization drift on hybrid fiber links

desk verdict Solid empirical characterization of polarization drift on hybrid fiber; ML claims need scrutiny read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07629 v1 pith:SLGP7IUD submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph physics.data-anphysics.optics

Aneesh Ramaswamy , Nageswara S. V. Rao , Joseph C. Chapman , Muneer Alshowkan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.data-anphysics.optics
keywords polarizationdriftopticalfiberaerialquantumnetworkingrandomforestSOPbirefringenceStokesvector
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 argues that the sub-Hertz polarization drift of a 1550-nm optical signal traveling over a 15-km hybrid aerial-inground fiber connection is structured — not purely random — and can be partially estimated from routine weather measurements. Over 11 months of continuous Stokes-vector measurements, the authors compute FFT spectral features (spectral area, spectral centroid, spectral variance, spectral entropy, and a noise exponent β) and show that these features obey strong diurnal and seasonal cycles: drift peaks during daytime temperature maxima and wind-speed peaks, drops at night, and shows higher mean and variance in summer than winter. A physical model casts polarization drift as a product of SO(3) rotations along fiber segments, where temperature and humidity modulate the deterministic birefringence while mechanical stresses from wind and thermal gradients introduce multiplicative noise. This model predicts that the slow-axis birefringence suppresses stochastic drift, and that temperature changes — not absolute temperature — drive the drift amplitude, which the data confirm. The authors then train random forest regressors on weather variables (temperature, humidity, wind speed, hour of day, and their 45-minute changes) plus lagged histories to estimate the FFT features, achieving a test RMSLE of 0.888 for the spectral area with 24-hour lagged inputs, with less than 2% relative gap between training and test errors. The estimator captures diurnal cycles and seasonal trends but not individual peak amplitudes, consistent with the high multiplicative noise the physical model predicts.

What carries the argument

Theoretical model: polarization drift as a product of SO(3) rotation operators along discrete fiber segments, derived from a stochastic differential equation for the Stokes vector. The deterministic birefringence term depends on temperature and humidity through thermo-optic and photoelastic coefficients; the stochastic term captures mechanical perturbations (wind, bending, twisting) and produces multiplicative noise. The Magnus expansion and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula are used to compose segment rotations into a total drift operator. The model motivates the use of lagged weather inputs via Duhamel's principle, which gives the fiber's internal temperature as a linear functional of past

What would settle it

If the spectral area of the polarization drift FFT showed no diurnal structure, no seasonal variation, and no improvement over a time-of-day-only baseline when weather variables are added, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the spectral area of the polarization-drift FFT — the low-frequency power in the first 40 FFT bins of the normalized Stokes ratio — and the paper's core claim is that this quantity carries extractable environmental structure. The spectral area tracks diurnal and seasonal temperature cycles, with daytime maxima aligning with temperature peaks and nighttime minima during cooling. The noise spectrum follows an f^{-β} profile with β ≈ 1.0 ± 0.2, indicating flicker noise, and the signal energy concentrates within 5.1% of the 0.76 Hz FFT window. A random forest estimator trained on weather measurements and their lagged histories can estimate the spectral area with a test RMSL

Load-bearing premise

The estimator assumes that weather readings from a single station at 15-meter altitude adequately represent the local environmental conditions experienced by each segment of a 15-km fiber that alternates between aerial and buried sections, traversing areas with potentially different microclimates. The paper itself acknowledges that local weather differences across the fiber route could be nontrivial and that climate patterns are not accounted for.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If weather-driven polarization drift is partially predictable, quantum network operators could proactively schedule entanglement distribution during low-drift periods (nighttime, winter) and pre-tune polarization compensation systems based on weather forecasts rather than reactive feedback alone.
  • The finding that temperature changes (ΔT) correlate more strongly with drift than absolute temperature suggests that polarization stabilization systems should incorporate rate-of-change sensors or thermal-gradient measurements rather than point temperature readings.
  • The physical model's prediction that slow-axis birefringence suppresses stochastic drift implies that fibers engineered with higher intrinsic birefringence (e.g., polarization-maintaining fibers) would show reduced weather sensitivity in deployed links, quantifying the tradeoff between fiber cost and drift resilience.
  • Extension to higher-frequency FFT components (kHz, MHz) could reveal wind-gust-specific signatures distinct from the thermal-driven sub-Hz drift studied here, enabling frequency-segmented environmental attribution of polarization noise.
  • The <2% train-test gap suggests the random forest has learned generalizable environmental structure rather than overfitting, but the absolute RMSLE of 0.888 indicates substantial unexplained variance — likely from fiber-segment-specific microclimate effects and intrinsic stochastic perturbations that no single-station weather model can capture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-station weather proxy limitation could be directly tested by deploying distributed temperature sensors along the fiber route and comparing estimator performance; if local measurements substantially reduce RMSLE, the current model is learning coarse regional correlations rather than fiber-specific physics.
  • The model's Duhamel-principle justification for lagged inputs predicts a characteristic fiber thermal time constant; systematically varying the lag spacing (dτ) and history length (τ) in the grid search should reveal this time constant, which would be a fiber-specific physical parameter independent of the ML model.
  • The heteroskedasticity observed in spectral area — variance increasing with temperature — is a direct prediction of the model's birefringence-suppression mechanism, and could be tested by measuring whether fibers with deliberately engineered high birefringence show flatter variance-temperature curves in controlled incubator experiments.
  • The winter-specific wind-drift correlation (galloping of ice-coated fibers) suggests that seasonal fiber coating conditions (ice, dirt accumulation) change the effective thermal time constant, which would manifest as seasonally varying optimal lag parameters in the ML estimator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an 11-month study of polarization drift on a 15-km hybrid aerial-inground fiber link at ORNL's QNET testbed. The authors compute sub-Hz FFT spectral features (spectral area, centroid, variance, entropy, and beta-exponent) from Stokes-parameter measurements and correlate them with environmental variables (temperature, humidity, wind speed, hour of day). A theoretical model based on SO(3) rotation products and stochastic birefringence is developed to motivate the analysis qualitatively. A random forest regressor is then trained on weather data to estimate FFT spectral features, with the headline result being a <2% relative gap between training CV RMSLE (0.887) and test RMSLE (0.888) for the spectral area estimator using lagged inputs. The work targets applications in quantum networking, specifically weather-aware link-state estimation for polarization stabilization.

Significance. The dataset—11 months of continuous polarization measurements on a hybrid aerial-inground link spanning multiple seasons—is a valuable contribution to a literature where most studies cover shorter periods or single fiber types. The correlation analysis (Spearman, mutual information) is well-executed and the seasonal/diurnal structure is clearly documented. The theoretical model (Section 2.4, Appendix B), while not directly solved, provides physically grounded motivation for the lagged-input approach via Duhamel's principle. The baseline comparisons (Fig. 8) are a commendable design choice. However, the central ML generalization claim requires qualification: the <2% train-test gap is reported on a configuration whose lag parameters were selected using test-set performance, and the absolute RMSLE values (~0.89, corresponding to ~140% multiplicative error) indicate substantial underfitting, which the authors themselves acknowledge. These issues affect how the ML results should be interpreted but do not invalidate the correlation findings or the dataset contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2: The lag parameters (τ=24, dτ=4) were selected by minimizing test RMSLE, as the text states: 'we determined that (τ, dτ) = (24,4) hours yielded a 5.4% relative reduction in the test RMSLE.' This constitutes test-set hyperparameter selection, making the reported test RMSLE of 0.888 optimistically biased. The <2% train-test gap—the headline ML claim—is thus not an unbiased measure of generalization. The authors should either (a) re-select lag parameters using only training/CV data and re-report test performance, or (b) explicitly acknowledge this as a limitation and reframe the <2% gap claim accordingly.
  2. §3.2, Table 1, §4: Both train and test RMSLE for the spectral area are ~0.89, corresponding to multiplicative errors of e^0.89 ≈ 2.4 (~140% relative error). The paper acknowledges 'a strong possibility of underfitting contributing to increased bias' (§4) and that the estimator captures diurnal cycles but 'not the amplitudes of the peaks and troughs' (Fig. 9). A small train-test gap in an underfit model is weak evidence of generalization—a trivial constant predictor would also show a small gap. The authors should add a baseline comparison reporting the train-test gap for a naive estimator (e.g., hour-of-day mean) to contextualize whether the <2% gap is meaningful or merely a consequence of underfitting. Fig. 8 partially addresses this but does not report the train-test gap for the trivial baseline's gap.
  3. §2.5, §3.2: The test dataset spans only September–November 2025 (one season, fall). The <2% gap therefore does not demonstrate cross-season generalization; it shows performance within a single held-out season. The paper notes that fall test RMSLE is higher than other seasons even when fall is included in training (§3.2), suggesting distributional shift. The claim in the abstract and §4 that estimators showed 'small overall gap (<2% relative error) between test and train datasets' should be qualified to note that the test set covers only fall, and cross-season generalization to unseen seasons is not demonstrated.
minor comments (8)
  1. §2.3: The spectral area is defined as the sum of the first 40 FFT bins, and the beta-fit uses bins 5–100. The rationale for these specific bin ranges is not provided. A brief justification (e.g., excluding white-noise floor, capturing dominant drift frequencies) would strengthen this choice.
  2. §2.5: The random forest hyperparameters are reported as ranges (e.g., 'minimum leaf size of 10-15; maximum tree depth of 10-15'). The final selected values should be reported for reproducibility.
  3. Fig. 8: The figure caption does not specify what 'CV' and 'test (fall)' labels refer to in the context of the seasonal folds. Clarifying whether 'winter,' 'spring,' 'summer' folds are from cross-validation on the training set or from the test set would help.
  4. §3.1: The mutual information scores (0.57 in summer, 0.28 in winter) are described as 'less reliable' than Spearman's correlation, yet they are still used to draw conclusions about the predictive value of hour-of-day. A brief note on why they are included despite this caveat, or removal of the quantitative claims, would help.
  5. Eq. (4): The symbol K_O (outermost layer) is introduced but the subscript notation is inconsistent with the later K_j notation in Eq. (5). Consistent notation would improve readability.
  6. §2.4.3: The Duhamel's principle argument motivating lagged inputs is concise but could benefit from one sentence clarifying that the response kernel G_j(τ) is not estimated from data but motivates the use of lagged features in the ML model.
  7. Fig. 9: The y-axis label and units for the spectral area are not clearly specified. Adding units or noting that the quantity is dimensionless (as stated in §2.3) would aid interpretation.
  8. The abstract mentions 'spectral moments9' with a stray numeral, likely a formatting artifact.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The referee correctly identifies that the lag parameter selection used test-set performance, that the absolute RMSLE values indicate underfitting, and that the test set covers only one season. We agree with all three major comments and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will (a) re-select lag parameters using only training/CV data and re-report, (b) add a naive baseline train-test gap comparison, and (c) qualify the generalization claim to note single-season test coverage. These are honest limitations that do not affect the correlation findings or the dataset contribution.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2: The lag parameters (τ=24, dτ=4) were selected by minimizing test RMSLE, constituting test-set hyperparameter selection. The <2% train-test gap is optimistically biased. Authors should either (a) re-select using only training/CV data and re-report, or (b) acknowledge as limitation and reframe.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The text in §3.2 states that (τ, dτ) = (24, 4) was chosen based on test RMSLE, which is test-set hyperparameter selection and makes the reported <2% gap optimistically biased. We will adopt option (a): re-select lag parameters using only training/CV data (ten-fold shuffled cross-validation on the December 2024–August 2025 dataset) and then report the resulting test RMSLE on the held-out fall period. We will also add option (b) as an explicit limitation in §4, noting that even after CV-based selection, the small number of lag configurations searched means some residual optimistic bias may remain. The headline claim in the abstract and §4 will be reframed accordingly—we will describe the train-test gap as a consistency check rather than an unbiased generalization measure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2, Table 1, §4: Both train and test RMSLE ~0.89 (~140% multiplicative error), indicating underfitting. A small train-test gap in an underfit model is weak evidence—a trivial constant predictor would also show a small gap. Authors should add a baseline comparison reporting the train-test gap for a naive estimator (e.g., hour-of-day mean).

    Authors: We agree that a small train-test gap in an underfit model is not strong evidence of generalization on its own. Fig. 8 already compares RMSLE values for the random forest against two baselines (hour-of-day-only random forest and a product estimator), but it does not report the train-test gap for those baselines. We will add this: for each baseline, we will report both CV RMSLE and test RMSLE so the reader can see whether the trivial baseline also exhibits a small gap. Our expectation is that the hour-of-day baseline will show a comparable or smaller gap (since it has even less capacity to overfit), which would confirm the referee's point that the gap alone is not meaningful without considering absolute error and relative performance. We will revise §3.2 and §4 to explicitly state that the <2% gap should be interpreted alongside the baseline comparisons and absolute error levels, not as standalone evidence of generalization. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2.5, §3.2: Test dataset spans only September–November 2025 (one season, fall). The <2% gap does not demonstrate cross-season generalization. The claim in the abstract and §4 should be qualified.

    Authors: This is correct. The test set covers only fall 2025, so the <2% gap demonstrates within-season consistency, not cross-season generalization. The paper already notes that fall RMSLE is higher than other seasons even when fall is included in training (§3.2), which suggests distributional shift. We will revise the abstract, §3.2, and §4 to explicitly state that (i) the test set covers only the fall season, (ii) cross-season generalization to unseen seasons is not demonstrated, and (iii) the higher fall RMSLE relative to other seasonal folds suggests distributional shift that would need to be addressed in future work with multi-season test data. We will also note in §4.1 (Ongoing work) that additional data collection is needed to enable cross-season validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theoretical model is qualitative motivation only, and the ML estimator is trained and evaluated on independent held-out data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: (1) polarization drift FFT spectral features show diurnal/seasonal structure correlated with environmental variables, and (2) a random forest estimator trained on weather data achieves <2% train-test RMSLE gap. The theoretical model (Section 2.4) is explicitly stated to be qualitative motivation only — the paper says 'A direct implementation of the model is not carried out due to the complexity' and 'direct estimation with the model is beyond the scope of this paper.' The model is never solved, fitted, or used to produce numerical predictions. The ML estimator is trained on December 2024–August 2025 data and tested on September–November 2025 held-out data, with cross-validation on the training set. No target quantity appears in the input features by definition. The spectral features (Y) are computed from polarization measurements; the inputs (X) are weather measurements — these are independent data streams. The lagged-input configuration (τ=24, dτ=4) was selected by grid search minimizing test RMSLE (Section 3.2), which is a methodological concern about test-set contamination (the skeptic's point about optimistic bias), but this is a correctness/generalization issue, not circularity — the test RMSLE is not forced to equal the train RMSLE by construction, and the paper transparently reports both values. The <2% gap is a genuine empirical observation, not a definitional identity. Self-citations (refs [4,15,17]) are to prior infrastructure and methods work, not to load-bearing theoretical claims that would make the present derivation circular. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks (baseline estimators, held-out test period). No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. The theoretical model uses standard fiber optics constructs (Stokes vector, birefringence vector, SO(3) rotations, Magnus expansion). The free parameters are ML hyperparameters and data processing choices, not new physical constants. The axioms are standard domain assumptions from fiber optics, with two (single-station weather representativeness, negligible emissivity) being specific to this paper's setup and not independently verified.

free parameters (5)
  • Random forest hyperparameters (n_trees, max_depth, min_leaf_size, max_samples) = 1000-2000 trees, depth 10-15, leaf 10-15, samples 0.15-0.25
    Selected via 10-fold cross-validation on training data; standard ML practice but these are fitted to the dataset.
  • History parameters (τ, dτ) = (24, 4) hours = τ=24, dτ=4
    Selected by grid search minimizing test RMSLE (Section 3.2); this is a post-hoc choice that introduces mild optimistic bias on the test set.
  • FFT bin count for spectral area (first 40 bins) = 40
    Chosen to exclude white noise; stated but not justified by a sensitivity analysis.
  • β-fit bin range (bins 5–100) = 5–100
    Chosen for least-squares log-log fitting of FFT magnitudes; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • PCA variance threshold (95%) = 95%
    Standard choice but affects the dimensionality of the ML target space.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Negligible polarization-dependent loss (PDL) in the fiber
    Stated in Section 2.4.1 to justify the Stokes vector formalism and SO(3) rotation model. Standard assumption for single-mode fiber but may not hold perfectly for deployed aerial cable with bends and stress.
  • domain assumption Weather station measurements at 15 m altitude adequately represent fiber-local environmental conditions
    Implicit in the correlation and ML analysis; the paper acknowledges (Section 4) that local weather differences could be nontrivial across the 15-km link.
  • standard math The birefringence vector decomposes into slow-varying deterministic + stochastic components (Eq. 1)
    Follows Poole et al. 1991 (ref [8]); standard decomposition in fiber optics.
  • domain assumption Solar intensity I_sol can be approximated as a function of measured weather variables X
    Stated in Section 2.4.3 to justify the Duhamel principle and linear dynamical system approximation. Not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Emissivity term in Eq. (4) contributes negligibly and can be neglected
    Stated in Section 2.4.3 to simplify the heat transfer equation. Not justified quantitatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of polarization drift of optical signals over deployed aerial-inground fiber connections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLGP7IUD

@misc{pith2026260707629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of polarization drift of optical signals over deployed aerial-inground fiber connections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLGP7IUD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07629}
}
read the original abstract

Polarization measurements of a classical 1550-nm signal are collected and analyzed on 15-km hybrid aerial-inground fiber connections over 11 months. The spectral area and spectral moments9 of mHz-resolution Fast-Fourier-Transform (FFT) of these measurements are extracted, and related to temperature, humidity, wind speed, and time of day. Spectral area correlations show a strong11 diurnal structure: daytime maxima align with temperatures/wind speed peaks and humidity dips, with lower levels during the night. These diurnal patterns also show seasonality, with higher13 mean and variance in summer than winter. A random forest regressor is used to estimate FFT features from environmental measurements, informed by a theoretical model

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07629 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Polarized signal measurement and data collection setup (Top left inset). Map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Seasonal trends of polarization drift FFT variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A week of polarization drift in winter (a) and summer (b) showing the FFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Log plot of the exponentially weighted means of temperature, relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Seasonal trends of weather variables 𝑋 ∈ {𝑇𝑟 , 𝐻𝑟 , 𝑊𝑟 , Hr} shown using calculations of Pearson’s correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The spectral area, 𝑌 = 𝑌Area, shows clear signs of heteroskedasticity in the semilog plots versus time. (b) The positive temperature dependence is also made clear by the positive linear trend in semilog space. The moving average 𝐸[𝑌] and rolling standard deviation …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Seasonal correlations of drift variables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We compare the RMSLE scores for the different estimators for the spectral area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots of the spectral area showing the empirical data, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plots of the raw data, 𝑌, moving average, 𝐸[𝑌], and rolling standard deviation, 𝜎[𝑌], for (a) the noise exponent 𝛽 of the 𝑓 −𝛽 fit, (b) the spectral centroid, (c) the spectral variance, and (d) the spectral entropy. B. Theoretical model derivation In the main text, we…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Plots of the log residuals log 1 + 𝑌ˆArea − log(1 + 𝑌Area) vs the estimated values 𝑌ˆArea on the training dataset. Residuals show a constant additive factor with mean 0.28, showing the estimator has a strong multiplicative bias. Daytime peaks are underestimated to a …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We compare the RMSLE scores for the different estimators for the spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Long-term measurement of pmd and polarization drift in installed fibers,

    O. Karlsson, J. Brentel, and P. Andrekson, “Long-term measurement of pmd and polarization drift in installed fibers,” Light. Technol. J.18, 941–951 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Long-term observation of pmd and sop on installed fiber routes,

    S. Woodward, L. Nelson, C. Schneider,et al., “Long-term observation of pmd and sop on installed fiber routes,” Photonics Technol. Lett. IEEE26, 213–216 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Polarization mode dispersion of installed fibers,

    M. Brodsky, N. J. Frigo, M. Boroditsky, and M. Tur, “Polarization mode dispersion of installed fibers,” J. Light. Technol.24, 4584–4599 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Forecastingofweather-inducedstateofpolarizationchangesinaerialfibers,

    K.Abdelli, M.Lonardi, J.Gripp,et al., “Forecastingofweather-inducedstateofpolarizationchangesinaerialfibers,” J. Light. Technol.PP, 1–12 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Outdoor atmospheric influence on polarization mode dispersion in optical cables,

    J. Bohata, S. Zvanovec, and M. Pisarik, “Outdoor atmospheric influence on polarization mode dispersion in optical cables,” (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Dynamics of polarization fluctuations in aerial and buried links,

    C. Tremblay, A. Michel, M. J. Tanoh,et al., “Dynamics of polarization fluctuations in aerial and buried links,” in 2017 19th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON),(2017), pp. 1–1

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Polarizationsensingofnetworkhealthandseismicactivityoveraliveterrestrialfiber-optic cable,

    C.J.CarverandX.Zhou,“Polarizationsensingofnetworkhealthandseismicactivityoveraliveterrestrialfiber-optic cable,” Commun. Eng.3, 1–10 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Dynamical equation for polarization dispersion,

    C. D. Poole, J. H. Winters, and J. A. Nagel, “Dynamical equation for polarization dispersion,” Opt. Lett.16, 372–374 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Polarization decorrelation in optical fibers with randomly varying birefringence,

    P. K. A. Wai and C. R. Menyuk, “Polarization decorrelation in optical fibers with randomly varying birefringence,” Opt. Lett.19, 1517–1519 (1994)

    1994

  2. [10]

    Polarization drift channel model for coherent fibre-optic systems,

    C. B. Czegledi, M. Karlsson, E. Agrell, and P. Johannisson, “Polarization drift channel model for coherent fibre-optic systems,” Sci. reports6, 21217 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    bifrost: A first-principles model of polarization mode dispersion in optical fiber,

    P. R. Banner, S. L. Rolston, and J. W. Britton, “bifrost: A first-principles model of polarization mode dispersion in optical fiber,” Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 034054 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Recent advances in dsp techniques for mode division multiplexing optical networks with mimo equalization: A review,

    Y. Weng, J. Wang, and Z. Pan, “Recent advances in dsp techniques for mode division multiplexing optical networks with mimo equalization: A review,” Appl. Sci.9(2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Polarization stabilization on single-mode fiber,

    R. Ulrich, “Polarization stabilization on single-mode fiber,” Appl. Phys. Lett.35, 840–842 (1979)

    1979

  6. [14]

    Polarization stabilization in optical communications systems,

    M. Martinelli, P. Martelli, and S. M. Pietralunga, “Polarization stabilization in optical communications systems,” J. Light. Technol.24, 4172–4183 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Entanglement throughput over fiber connections: Measurements and capacity estimates,

    N. Rao, M. Alshowkan, A. Ramaswamy,et al., “Entanglement throughput over fiber connections: Measurements and capacity estimates,” (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Automated distribution of polarization-entangled photons using deployed new york city fibers,

    A. N. Craddock, A. Lazenby, G. B. Portmann,et al., “Automated distribution of polarization-entangled photons using deployed new york city fibers,” PRX Quantum5, 030330 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Continuous automatic polarization channel stabilization from heterodyne detection of coexisting dim reference signals,

    J. C. Chapman, M. Alshowkan, K. Reaz,et al., “Continuous automatic polarization channel stabilization from heterodyne detection of coexisting dim reference signals,” Opt. Express32, 47589–47619 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Measurementofslowandfastpolarizationtransientsonafiber-optictestbed,

    P.BarcikandP.Munster,“Measurementofslowandfastpolarizationtransientsonafiber-optictestbed,”Opt.Express 28, 15250–15257 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Thermal sensitivity of birefringence in polarization-maintaining hollow-core photonic bandgap fibers,

    L. Wang, M. Liao, F. Yu,et al., “Thermal sensitivity of birefringence in polarization-maintaining hollow-core photonic bandgap fibers,” Photonics10(2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Directtrackingofstate-of-polarizationfluctuationsinfiberduetopolarization mode dispersion using machine learning,

    E.Eastman,H.Liu,A.Ramesh,et al.,“Directtrackingofstate-of-polarizationfluctuationsinfiberduetopolarization mode dispersion using machine learning,” (2025), p. JW5A.9

    2025

  13. [21]

    High-fidelity quantum entanglement distribution in metropolitan fiber networks with co-propagating classical traffic,

    M. Sena, M. Flament, S. Andrewski,et al., “High-fidelity quantum entanglement distribution in metropolitan fiber networks with co-propagating classical traffic,” (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for random forest,

    P. Probst, M. N. Wright, and A.-L. Boulesteix, “Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for random forest,” WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov.9, e1301 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    A random forest guided tour,

    G. Biau and E. Scornet, “A random forest guided tour,” TEST25, 197 – 227 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Reconfigurable quantum local area network over deployed fiber,

    M. Alshowkan, B. P. Williams, P. G. Evans,et al., “Reconfigurable quantum local area network over deployed fiber,” PRX Quantum2, 040304 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient,

    J. L. Rodgers and W. A. Nicewander, “Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient,” The Am. Stat.42, 59–66 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments,

    I. T. Jolliffe and J. Cadima, “Principal component analysis: a review and recent developments,” Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.374, 20150202 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort,et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Analytic solution for the birefringence produced by thermal stress in polarization-maintaining optical fibers,

    M. Varnham, D. Payne, A. Barlow, and R. Birch, “Analytic solution for the birefringence produced by thermal stress in polarization-maintaining optical fibers,” J. Light. Technol.1, 332–339 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    Impact of wind gust on high-speed characteristics of polarization mode dispersion in optical power ground wire cables,

    J. Dubovan, J. Litvik, D. Benedikovic,et al., “Impact of wind gust on high-speed characteristics of polarization mode dispersion in optical power ground wire cables,” Sensors20(2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Measurement of temperature-induced polarization drift and correlation in a 7-core fiber,

    J. Schröder, T. A. Eriksson, G. Rademacher,et al., “Measurement of temperature-induced polarization drift and correlation in a 7-core fiber,” in2016 42nd European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC),(IEEE, 2016), pp. 1–3

    2016

  23. [31]

    M. N. Özişik,Radiative Transfer and Interactions with Conduction and Convection(Wiley, New York, NY, 1973)

    1973

  24. [32]

    Thermomechanics and thermophysics of optical fiber polymer coating,

    A. N. Trufanov, A. A. Kamenskikh, and Y. I. Lesnikova, “Thermomechanics and thermophysics of optical fiber polymer coating,” Polymers18, 271 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    Polarization behavior in multiply perturbed single-mode fibers,

    J. Sakai and T. Kimura, “Polarization behavior in multiply perturbed single-mode fibers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 18, 59–65 (1982)

    1982

  26. [34]

    The importance of choosing a proper validation strategy in predictive models. part 2: Recipes for (avoiding) overfitting-a tutorial,

    E. Lopez, G. Gorla, J. Etxebarria-Elezgarai,et al., “The importance of choosing a proper validation strategy in predictive models. part 2: Recipes for (avoiding) overfitting-a tutorial,” Anal. Chimica Acta1384, 344838 (2026)

    2026

  27. [35]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman,The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction(Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 2009), 2nd ed

    2009

  28. [36]

    Sop and pmd measurements on aerial fiber under wind-induced oscillations and vibrations,

    EXFO, “Sop and pmd measurements on aerial fiber under wind-induced oscillations and vibrations,” Technical Note TN040, EXFO. Case Study TN040

  29. [37]

    The disagreement problem in explainable machine learning: A practitioner’s perspective,

    S. Krishna, T. Han, A. Gu,et al., “The disagreement problem in explainable machine learning: A practitioner’s perspective,” Trans. on Mach. Learn. Res. (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Analysis of polarization fluctuation in long-distance aerial fiber for qkd system design,

    R. Liu, H. Yu, J. Zan,et al., “Analysis of polarization fluctuation in long-distance aerial fiber for qkd system design,” Opt. Fiber Technol.48, 28–33 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    V. N. Vapnik,The nature of statistical learning theory(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    Coexistent quantum channel characterization using spectrally resolved bayesian quantum process tomography,

    J. C. Chapman, J. M. Lukens, M. Alshowkan,et al., “Coexistent quantum channel characterization using spectrally resolved bayesian quantum process tomography,” Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044026 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Machine learning opportunities for integrated polarization sensing and communication in optical fibers,

    A. Rode, M. Farsi, V. Lauinger,et al., “Machine learning opportunities for integrated polarization sensing and communication in optical fibers,” Opt. Fiber Technol.90, 104047 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Field measurements of sop transients in opgw, with time and location correlation to lightning strikes,

    D. Charlton, S. Clarke, D. Doucet,et al., “Field measurements of sop transients in opgw, with time and location correlation to lightning strikes,” Opt. Express25, 9689–9696 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    The magnus expansion and some of its applications,

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, “The magnus expansion and some of its applications,” Phys. Reports470, 151–238 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Explicit solution of the continuous baker-campbell-hausdorff problem and a new expression for the phase operator,

    I. Bialynicki-Birula, B. Mielnik, and J. Plebański, “Explicit solution of the continuous baker-campbell-hausdorff problem and a new expression for the phase operator,” Ann. Phys.51, 187–200 (1969)

    1969

  37. [45]

    On the BCH-formula in𝔰𝔬(3),

    K. Engø, “On the BCH-formula in𝔰𝔬(3),” BIT Numer. Math.41, 629–632 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.