Robust UOWC systems against bubble-induced impairments via transmit/receive diversities

Lian-Kuan Chen; Rui Deng; Yingjie Shao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Robust UOWC systems against bubble-induced impairments via transmit/receive diversities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2×2 MIMO underwater optical link with repetition coding and maximum ratio combining cuts bubble-induced outage from 34.6% to under 1%.

desk verdict Useful experimental study of diversity against bubble blockage in UOWC, but the abstract's '<1%' outage claim is statistically overreported. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01486 v1 pith:JDB54FOF submitted 2019-08-05 eess.SP

Lian-Kuan Chen , Yingjie Shao , Rui Deng This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords underwaterwirelessopticalcommunicationspatialdiversityMIMObubble-inducedfadingmaximumratiocombiningrepetitioncodingOFDMoutageprobability

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 reports an experimental underwater wireless optical communication (UOWC) system in which a 2 by 2 MIMO link with repetition coding at the transmitter and maximum ratio combining at the receiver keeps a 780-Mbit/s OFDM link operational when air bubbles pass through the water channel. The authors systematically vary bubble size (roughly 2 to 15 square millimeters) and position along an 80-centimeter tank, and they show that the single-link version suffers packet loss up to 34.6 percent, while the MIMO version keeps outage below 1 percent in every tested scenario. They also show that intermediate diversity schemes—one transmitter with two receivers or two transmitters with one receiver—reduce but do not eliminate outage. The point of the study is that spatial diversity, not more optical power or more complex modulation, is what makes an underwater optical link robust to bubble-induced blockage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is spatial diversity realized as a two-by-two MIMO link: two transmitters send the same signal (repetition coding), and two receivers combine the two detected signals by maximum ratio combining. In MRC, each received signal is weighted by the complex conjugate of its channel coefficient, so the combined SNR is proportional to the sum of the per-path SNRs, $S\sum_i |h_i|^2/N_0$, which is optimal among linear combiners when the noise on each branch is independent and equal-power. The physical setup matters too: the transmitters are spaced 10 cm apart and the receivers 8 cm apart in an approximately 80-cm water tank, giving four partially distinct light paths through the bubble field. Repetition coding is chosen over Alamouti-style space-time coding because intensity-modulated direct-detection systems add optical powers constructively, and the paper cites this as a low-complexity effective transmit-diversity format.

What would settle it

Put a single bubble cluster wide enough to cover both transmitter apertures at the position nearest the transmitter, and measure the packet loss rate of the 2×2 MIMO link; if the outage rises above roughly 1% while the single-link outage is high, the spatial-independence assumption, not the combining scheme, is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that transmit and receive spatial diversity can make an underwater optical link robust against the dynamic, partial blocking caused by air bubbles. Concretely, the paper demonstrates a 780-Mbit/s 16-QAM OFDM link over roughly 80 cm of tank water in which two 450-nm laser diodes transmit the same signal (repetition coding) and two photoreceivers combine the received signals with maximum ratio combining. Across nine scenarios—three bubble sizes at three positions—the two-by-two link keeps the packet loss rate below 1 percent, whereas the no-diversity single link reaches 34.6 percent in the worst case (small bubbles near the receiver). The paper also reports that diversity shrinks BER variance by about three orders of magnitude and lowers the average BER from 1.31×10⁻² to 1.42×10⁻³ in the no-bubble reference. The explanation offered is that MIMO provides multiple light paths that are blocked independently, so when one path is obscured another still carries signal.

Load-bearing premise

The whole diversity gain depends on the four light paths being blocked independently enough by the bubbles; if one bubble cluster can obscure both transmitters or both receivers at the same time, the claimed under-1% outage will not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 2×2 MIMO with repetition coding and maximum ratio combining holds outage below 1% for all nine bubble size and position scenarios tested, making link reliability essentially independent of bubble condition within this range.
SIMO and MISO reduce outage but not everywhere: packet loss rates of 1.2% to 9.6% remain in several scenarios, showing that two diversity branches are not always enough but four are.
BER variance drops by roughly three orders of magnitude with the 2×2 link, meaning real-time stability improves, not just average throughput.
Because the 780-Mbit/s link uses standard 16-QAM OFDM and no lenses, the robustness gain is attributable to diversity rather than to extra link margin or higher transmit power.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors do not measure the spatial correlation of the two links; if a bubble cluster is wide enough to block both transmitter beams or both receiver apertures simultaneously, the under-1% outage claim would not generalize, so varying TX/RX spacing and bubble-cluster width is the natural next experiment.
Treating bubble blockage as spatially selective fading suggests standard diversity-outage scaling should apply; if so, a 3×3 or 4×4 system could tolerate denser bubble fields or reach even lower outage, but the paper does not test this.
Because MRC relies on channel estimates from the received OFDM symbols, the results implicitly assume the bubble field is quasi-static over an OFDM symbol; faster-moving bubbles or stronger turbulence would stress the channel-estimation update rate, an untested regime.
The testbed uses a short 80-cm tank without lenses, so the link has a large optical spot at the receiver; in a longer, lensed link the bubble-induced fading statistics and the diversity gain may differ, so field validation in open water remains an open step.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this paper is worth reading if you care about underwater optical wireless links, but the headline number in the abstract is statistically overclaimed. The '<1%' outage probability is not actually supported by the table as reported.

What's new: prior work on bubble effects ([6], [7]) looked at received power statistics and fading models. This paper is the first (as far as I can tell) to experimentally compare SISO/SIMO/MISO/MIMO under controlled bubble sizes and positions at link level, with BER, BER variance, PDFs, and packet-loss rates. The testbed is clean: 780-Mbit/s OFDM over 80 cm, two transmitters separated by 10 cm, two receivers separated by 8 cm, three bubble size regimes, three bubble positions. The qualitative result is unmistakable: MIMO is dramatically more robust than SISO. The worst SISO packet-loss rate is 34.6%; every MIMO entry in Table 2 is below 1% as reported. The variance and PDF comparisons support the same story.

The soft spots are real, and the stress-test note hits the main one. Table 2 censors every MIMO value as '<1%' whenever fewer than five packets out of 500 are lost. With n=500, that means the reported number is anywhere from 0% to 0.8%, and the exact count is not given. The stress-test is correct that this does not establish the true outage probability is below 1%: four losses out of 500 has a Clopper-Pearson upper bound near 1.8%, and even two losses has an upper bound above 1%. So the abstract's 'outage probability ... less than 1%' is an overstatement. The sample PLR might be below 1%, but the paper doesn't report enough to know, and it never gives confidence intervals. This is fixable by reporting exact packet-loss counts, running more packets, and using the word 'sample PLR' instead of 'outage probability.' I'd treat the qualitative claim—MIMO essentially eliminates the bubble-induced outage in this testbed—as credible; the precise numerical claim is not.

The other soft spot is the path-independence assumption. The diversity gain depends on the two links fading independently. The geometry (10 cm TX spacing, 8 cm RX spacing) makes independence plausible, but it's not measured, and the paper doesn't report any correlation statistic. That limits generalization but doesn't undermine the observed results for this testbed. Minor notes: only one batch of 500 packets per scenario, no repeated trials; bubble sizes are rough area estimates from photos; some copyediting issues. The citation pattern looks fine; [6] and [7] are the right comparison points, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

Who is this for: researchers working on UOWC or optical diversity who want an experimental data point on bubble impairment and MIMO mitigation. It's not a breakthrough, but it's a solid, useful study.

Recommendation: it deserves a serious referee. The experimental work is genuine, and the main issue is statistical reporting, not the physics. I'd send it to review with a clear request: either report exact counts and intervals, or soften the abstract claim. No desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper experimentally investigates the effect of air bubbles on underwater wireless optical communication (UOWC) links and evaluates the mitigation provided by spatial diversity. A testbed with two laser-diode transmitters and two photodiode receivers is used to compare SISO, SIMO, MISO, and 2x2 MIMO with repetition coding and maximum ratio combining, at a data rate of 780 Mbit/s over 16-QAM OFDM. Bubble-induced impairment is varied by three bubble sizes and three positions along an 80-cm water channel. The central claim is that the 2x2 MIMO scheme reduces outage probability from 34.6% (worst-case SISO) to less than 1% in all tested scenarios, while also improving average BER from 1.31e-2 to 1.42e-3. The paper reports BER distributions, BER variances, and packet loss rates for the four schemes.

Significance. If the core claims hold, the paper provides a practically useful result: a relatively simple 2x2 spatial-diversity configuration can make an OFDM UOWC link robust against bubble-induced blockage, a problem that is identified as a key challenge in underwater optical communications. The experimental methodology is a strength: the testbed is real-time, the bubble size and position are varied systematically, and a direct comparison across SISO, SIMO, MISO, and MIMO is provided. The paper also offers a clear demonstration that MRC-based receive diversity combined with RC-based transmit diversity improves both BER and packet-level reliability. However, the headline quantitative claim ('outage < 1%') currently rests on censored packet-loss data, and the independence of the two diversity paths is asserted from geometry rather than measured, so the statistical and physical support for the headline is incomplete.

major comments (3)

[Table 2] The central quantitative claim that 2x2 MIMO reduces outage probability below 1% is not supported by the reported statistics. The text states 'for the loss packet number less than five, the PLR is denoted as <1%', so with n=500 packets each MIMO entry only indicates an observed count between 0 and 4. Under a binomial model, 4 losses out of 500 give a 95% Clopper-Pearson upper bound near 1.8%, and even 2 losses give an upper bound near 1.1%. The data therefore do not establish that the true outage probability is below 1% at conventional confidence unless every MIMO scenario had at most one lost packet. Please report the exact packet-loss counts for each MIMO scenario, or increase the sample size, or reframe the claim as a qualitative robustness result. The qualitative conclusion that diversity reduces packet loss is likely unaffected, but the specific '<1%' claim is load-bearing in the abstract and needs proper statistical support.
[Fig. 2 and 'At last' (diversity mechanism)] The diversity gain is attributed to 'multiple independent light paths', but the manuscript provides no measurement of the spatial correlation between the two transmitter-receiver links. The only evidence is the geometric separation of transmitters (10 cm) and receivers (8 cm). If a bubble cluster blocks both paths simultaneously, or if the optical beams are not actually separated at the bubble location, maximum ratio combining cannot reduce the outage to below 1% in general. Please provide simultaneous per-link SNR or BER time series, or a fading correlation coefficient across the two links, and discuss the bubble cluster size relative to the TX/RX separation to justify the independence assumption.
[Section 'At last' (outage definition)] The term 'outage probability' is used as a synonym for packet loss rate, but the exact criterion is not specified. Is a packet counted as lost when its BER exceeds the SD-FEC limit of 2e-2? Does the BER variance in Table 1 include or exclude lost packets? How are partial packet losses handled? These definitions matter because the main numerical claim (34.6% to <1%) is expressed in terms of outage probability, yet the manuscript never defines the mapping from BER to outage. Please state the outage criterion explicitly and clarify whether the average BER in Fig. 7 is computed over all packets or only over successfully received packets.

minor comments (5)

[General] There are several typographical errors: 'Almouti-coded' should be 'Alamouti-coded', 'Hamutuas' should be 'Hamamatsu', 'vairance' should be 'variance', 'flcution' should be 'fluctuation', 'repsectivley' should be 'respectively', and 'cruve' should be 'curve'. These should be corrected in revision.
[Fig. 5] The red MIMO curve is described in the text but may be difficult to distinguish in grayscale print; consider using different line styles or adding a legend in addition to color.
[Fig. 6] The PDF analysis is presented qualitatively; the claim that distributions 'remain relatively constant' with diversity would be strengthened by a quantitative distance or variance measure across the PDFs, rather than only visual inspection.
[References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., [2], [3] lack full page ranges and publisher information), and the manuscript still contains placeholder text such as 'Received Month X, XXXX'. Please complete the reference list and remove placeholders.
[Fig. 2 (received power)] The description of received optical power ('with one LD' vs. 'two-LD case') is confusing; clarify whether the MISO case transmits the same signal from both LDs and how the received power is measured in each configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 2x2 MIMO outage reduction is a directly measured result, not a value recovered from a fitted model.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation: with 2x2 MIMO using RC and MRC, the measured packet loss rate over 500 packets per scenario drops from up to 34.6% (SISO) to <1%. Equations (1) and (2) are standard MRC combining formulas and are not used to predict or reconstruct the measured PLR; no parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then called a prediction. The self-citations (refs [4], [9], [16]) provide background on OFDM and MIMO/VLC implementations and are not load-bearing for the bubble experiment. The assertion that separated TX/RX paths provide multiple independent light paths is a geometric assumption, but the robustness conclusion rests on the direct PLR/BER measurements rather than on that assumption alone. The censoring of MIMO losses as '<1%' in Table 2 is a statistical reporting limitation (exact counts and confidence intervals are not given), not a circular derivation; it does not turn the measurement into an identity with the paper's inputs.

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

No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced. The paper's conclusions rest on standard MRC theory, the unmeasured spatial independence of the two links, the controlled bubble tank as a stand-in for real underwater channels, and the chosen SD-FEC outage definition.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption MRC assumes independent receiver noises with equal power and accurate channel state information (Eq. 1 and Eq. 2).
The paper uses Eq. (2) to claim optimal SNR for MRC, but it does not report measured noise correlation, noise power balance, or channel estimation error.
domain assumption The two optical paths fade independently enough for diversity combining.
The summary attributes the gain to 'multiple independent light paths'; no spatial correlation measurement is provided.
domain assumption The 80 cm tank bubble generation reproduces representative and stationary bubble conditions.
All outage numbers come from one air pump setting, three bubble dispensers, and 500 packets per scenario, with no repeated runs or open-water validation.
domain assumption Packet loss above the SD-FEC limit of 2e-2 defines outage and maps to a reliable 780 Mbit/s link.
The paper equates outage probability with packet loss rate using the SD-FEC threshold; actual coding overhead or a different threshold would change the outage claim.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust UOWC systems against bubble-induced impairments via transmit/receive diversities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDB54FOF

@misc{pith2026190801486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust UOWC systems against bubble-induced impairments via transmit/receive diversities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDB54FOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01486}
}

read the original abstract

We systematically investigate the bubble-induced performance degradation for underwater wireless optical communication (UOWC) with different bubble sizes and positions. By using different transmit and receive diversities, we investigate the effectiveness of transmit/receive diversity on the mitigation of the bubble-induced impairment to the UOWC link. With the help of a 2 by 2 MIMO using repetition coding (RC) and maximum ratio combining (MRC), a robust 780-Mbit/s UOWC transmission is achieved. The corresponding outage probability can be significantly reduced from 34.6% for the system without diversity to less than 1%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[6]

Performance Evaluation of Underwater Wireless Optical Communications Links in the Presence of Different Air Bu bble Populations

H. M. Oubei, R. T. ElAfandy, K. Park, T. K. Ng, M. Alouini and B. S. Ooi, “Performance Evaluation of Underwater Wireless Optical Communications Links in the Presence of Different Air Bu bble Populations ”, IEEE Photon. J. 9, 7903009, (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Statistical Studies of Fading in Underwater Wireless Optical Channels in the Presence of Air Bubble, Temperature, and Salinity Random Variations

M. V. Jamali , A. Mirani, A. Parsay, B. Abolhassani, P. Nabavi et al., “Statistical Studies of Fading in Underwater Wireless Optical Channels in the Presence of Air Bubble, Temperature, and Salinity Random Variations ”, IEEE Trans. Commun. 66, 4706, (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

From space robotics to underwater mining

P. Jasiobedzki and R. Jakola , “From space robotics to underwater mining ”, Proc. Underwater Mining Institute, (2007)

work page 2007
[2]

26 m/5.5 Gbps air-water optical wireless communication based on an OFDM-modulated 520-nm laser diode

Y. Chen, M. Kong, T. Ali, J. Wang, R. Sarwar et al., “26 m/5.5 Gbps air-water optical wireless communication based on an OFDM-modulated 520-nm laser diode”, Opt. Express 25, 14760 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

20- meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps data rate

C. Shen, Y. Guo, H. M. Oubei, T. K. Ng, G. Liu et al., “20- meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps data rate”, Opt. Express 24, 25502 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Digital 4K Video Transmission over water-air OWC-OFDM System with Low -complexity Transmitter -side DSP

Y. Shao, R. Deng, J. He, K. Wu, and L.K. Chen, “Digital 4K Video Transmission over water-air OWC-OFDM System with Low -complexity Transmitter -side DSP”, in Proceedings of ECOC, (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

D. K. Woolf, “Bubbles” , Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 352, (2001)

work page 2001
[8]

On the Performance of Adaptive MIMO -OFDM Indoor Visible Light Communications

Y. Hong, T. Wu and L. K. Chen, “On the Performance of Adaptive MIMO -OFDM Indoor Visible Light Communications”, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 28, 907, (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 17 references

[9]

Performance-enhanced gigabit/s MIMO-OFDM visible light communications using CSI-free/dependent precoding techniques

Y. Hong, L. K. Chen, and J. Zhao, “Performance-enhanced gigabit/s MIMO-OFDM visible light communications using CSI-free/dependent precoding techniques”, Opt. Express 27, 12806, (2019)

2019
[10]

Joint Optimization of Precoder and Equalizer in MIMO VLC Systems

K. Ying, H. Qian, R. J. Baxley and S. Yao, “Joint Optimization of Precoder and Equalizer in MIMO VLC Systems”, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 33, 1949, (2015)

2015
[11]

Toward user mobility for OFDM-based visible light communications

Y. Hong, and L. K. Chen, “Toward user mobility for OFDM-based visible light communications ”, Opt. Lett. 41, 3763 (2016)

2016
[12]

Software Defined Adaptive MIMO Visible Light Communications after an Obstruction

P. Deng and M. Kavehrad, “Software Defined Adaptive MIMO Visible Light Communications after an Obstruction”, in Proceedings of OFC, paper Th1E.5, (2017)

2017
[13]

D Tse, P Viswanath , Fundamentals of wireless communication, (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

2005
[14]

A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless communication

S.M. Alamouti, “A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless communication”, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. 16, 1451, (1998)

1998
[15]

Do We Really Need OSTBCs for Free -Space Optical Communication with Direct Detection?

M. Safari, and M. Uysal, “Do We Really Need OSTBCs for Free -Space Optical Communication with Direct Detection?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 7, 4445, (2008)

2008
[16]

Performance Enhancement by Spatial Diversity for Robust VLC systems with Fast -moving Term inals

Y. Shao, Y. Hong, R. Deng, and L. K. Chen, “Performance Enhancement by Spatial Diversity for Robust VLC systems with Fast -moving Term inals”, in Proceedings of OECC , (2019)

2019
[17]

Linear diversity combining techniques

D. Brennan, “Linear diversity combining techniques”, in Proc. IRE 47, 1075, (1959). Fig. 7. The average BER of packets below SD-FEC. (The grey lines show the reference BER of each scheme without bubbles.) SISO SIMO MISO MIMO

1959

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Performance Evaluation of Underwater Wireless Optical Communications Links in the Presence of Different Air Bu bble Populations

H. M. Oubei, R. T. ElAfandy, K. Park, T. K. Ng, M. Alouini and B. S. Ooi, “Performance Evaluation of Underwater Wireless Optical Communications Links in the Presence of Different Air Bu bble Populations ”, IEEE Photon. J. 9, 7903009, (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [7]

Statistical Studies of Fading in Underwater Wireless Optical Channels in the Presence of Air Bubble, Temperature, and Salinity Random Variations

M. V. Jamali , A. Mirani, A. Parsay, B. Abolhassani, P. Nabavi et al., “Statistical Studies of Fading in Underwater Wireless Optical Channels in the Presence of Air Bubble, Temperature, and Salinity Random Variations ”, IEEE Trans. Commun. 66, 4706, (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [1]

From space robotics to underwater mining

P. Jasiobedzki and R. Jakola , “From space robotics to underwater mining ”, Proc. Underwater Mining Institute, (2007)

work page 2007

[4] [2]

26 m/5.5 Gbps air-water optical wireless communication based on an OFDM-modulated 520-nm laser diode

Y. Chen, M. Kong, T. Ali, J. Wang, R. Sarwar et al., “26 m/5.5 Gbps air-water optical wireless communication based on an OFDM-modulated 520-nm laser diode”, Opt. Express 25, 14760 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [3]

20- meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps data rate

C. Shen, Y. Guo, H. M. Oubei, T. K. Ng, G. Liu et al., “20- meter underwater wireless optical communication link with 1.5 Gbps data rate”, Opt. Express 24, 25502 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [4]

Digital 4K Video Transmission over water-air OWC-OFDM System with Low -complexity Transmitter -side DSP

Y. Shao, R. Deng, J. He, K. Wu, and L.K. Chen, “Digital 4K Video Transmission over water-air OWC-OFDM System with Low -complexity Transmitter -side DSP”, in Proceedings of ECOC, (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [5]

D. K. Woolf, “Bubbles” , Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 352, (2001)

work page 2001

[8] [8]

On the Performance of Adaptive MIMO -OFDM Indoor Visible Light Communications

Y. Hong, T. Wu and L. K. Chen, “On the Performance of Adaptive MIMO -OFDM Indoor Visible Light Communications”, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 28, 907, (2016)

work page 2016