Error Probability of DPSK Signals With Cross-Phase
Modulation Induced Nonlinear Phase Noise
Keang-Po Ho, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The error probability is derived analytically for
dif-ferential phase-shift keying (DPSK) signals contaminated by both self- and cross-phase modulation (SPM and XPM)-induced non-linear phase noise. XPM-induced nonnon-linear phase noise is mod-eled as Gaussian distributed phase noise. When fiber dispersion is compensated perfectly in each fiber span, XPM-induced nonlinear phase is summed coherently span after span and is the dominant nonlinear phase noise for typical wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM) DPSK systems. For systems without or with XPM-sup-pressed dispersion compensation, SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is usually the dominant nonlinear phase noise. With longer walkoff length, for the same mean nonlinear phase shift, 10-Gb/s systems are more sensitive to XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise than 40-Gb/s systems.
Index Terms—Cross-phase modulation, differential phase-shift
keying (DPSK), fiber nonlinearities, nonlinear phase noise, phase modulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
N
ONLINEAR phase noise is induced by the interaction of fiber Kerr effect and optical amplifier noises when optical amplifiers are used periodically to compensate for fiber loss. Self-phase modulation (SPM)-induced nonlinear phase noise, often called the Gordon–Mollenauer effect [1], is the major degradation of single-channel differential phase-shift keying (DPSK) signals [1]–[9]. Recently, there has been renewed interest in using wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM) DPSK systems for long-haul transmission systems [9]–[14] and WDM differential quadrature phase-shift keying (DQPSK) systems for spectrally efficient transmission [15]–[19]. While the impact of Gordon–Mollenauer effect on single-channel DPSK systems is well known [7], [8], [20], to our knowledge, other than the studies of [21] and [22] on phase noise variance or frequency response, the impact of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise on the error probability of DPSK signals has not been studied.Added directly to the signal phase, SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is non-Gaussian-distributed [5], [23], [24] but XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is Gaussian-distributed. Induced by many other adjacent WDM channels, the Gaussian convergence of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise comes directly from the central limit theorem [25]. Independent of both SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise and the additive
Manuscript received October 3, 2003; revised January 16, 2004. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan under Grant NSC-92-2218-E-002-034.
The author is with the Institute of Communication Engineering and Depart-ment of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, 106 Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. (e-mail: [email protected]).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSTQE.2004.826574
amplifier noises, XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise has the same mathematical model as laser phase noise for performance analysis [26].
When many additive phase noise components are assumed to be independent of each other, the Fourier coefficients of the overall phase noise are the product of the Fourier coefficients of each individual component. This paper combines the models of [8] and [26] after the variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is evaluated, mostly using the methods of [27] and [28].
This paper are organized as follows. Section II derives the nonlinear phase noise variance due to XPM for multispan WDM DPSK systems and compares it with that due to SPM. Section III calculates the error probability of a DPSK signal with both SPM- and XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise. Sections IV and V are the discussion and conclusion for this paper, respectively.
II. NONLINEARPHASE NOISEVARIANCEDUE TO
CROSS-PHASEMODULATION
This section derives the ratio of the variance of nonlinear phase noise induced by XPM to that by SPM. The variance is first derived for the two-channel pump-probe model and later extended to multichannel and multispan WDM systems. A. Pump-Probe Model
Based on the pump-probe model of [21] and [27]–[29], the phase modulation of channel 1 (probe) induced by channel 2 (pump) is
(1)
where is the power of channel 2 as a function of position and time , is the launched signal at the transmitter, is the nonlinear coupling coefficient, is the fiber attenuation coefficient, is the fiber length, is the relative walkoff between two channels with wavelength separation of
, and is the dispersion coefficient.
By taking the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation func-tion, when the power spectral density of is , the power spectral density of is
(2)
where or [27], [28]
(3)
At the DPSK receiver, after the asymmetric Mach–Zehnder interferometer [10], [11], [20], the differential nonlinear phase noise of
adds to the differential phase of the signal, where is the symbol interval. Similar to [22], the power spectral density of
is
(4) When the pump (channel 2) has amplifier noises,
, where and are the electric fields for signal and noise, respectively. In the power of
, the dc term of gives no nonlinear phase noise but a constant phase shift, the signal-noise beating
of gives a noise spectral density of ,
and the noise-noise beating of gives a noise spectral den-sity of , where is the spectral density of the am-plifier noise and is the optical bandwidth of the ampli-fier noise. The optical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) over an
op-tical bandwidth of is . For a launched
power of and a single optical amplifier with a noise variance
of , we get . The
phase variance as a function of frequency separation is
(5)
where the integration is reduced from to 1 by taking into account only the phase noise over a bandwidth confined within the bit rate. The dependence of the variance of (5) on is originated from the dependence of of (3) on .
For SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise, using (5), we get , where
is the effective length per span. The factor of 1/4 is because phase shift induced by XPM is twice as large as that induced by SPM for the same intensity. For a long fiber span with and large walkoff coefficient of , using [30, §3.824], we get
(6) where is the walkoff length that is the distance for two aligned pump and probe pulses of length becomes completely walkoff [31]. Like that for stimulated Raman scat-tering [31], even without approximation, the variances of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise depend on the walkoff length of
only.
B. Multi-Span WDM Systems
For a (2 1)-channel WDM system, for the worst case of the center channel, in the first span, the nonlinear phase noise variance per span is equal to
(7) where, using the same symbol as the above pump-probe model, is the wavelength separation between adjacent channels. For a short walkoff length of per channel separation of , a wavelength separation of gives a XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise variance of about a factor of 1 smaller than that for a wavelength separation of . For a large number of
channels, using the relationship of [30,
§0.233], we get
(8) For a system with fiber spans, the variance of the overall XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise depends on the method of dispersion compensation. Similar to (4), the power spectrum density of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise after fiber spans is [28]
(9) where is the fraction of dispersion compensation, i.e., and for perfect and without dispersion compensation, respectively.
In the worst case of perfect dispersion compensation with such that all channels are well aligned when launched to each fiber span, the variance of (5) is increased by a factor of after fiber spans. With perfect dispersion compensation, the variance of the overall XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise for an -span fiber system is
(10) where the first term of is the nonlinear phase noise in-duced from the amplifier noise from the first span, the second term is the nonlinear phase noise induced from the amplifier noise from the second span, and so on. Because of perfect dis-persion compensation, the same noise from the first span is per-fectly (or coherently) added times into the overall nonlinear phase noise. The noise from the second span adds into the overall nonlinear phase noise times. With the as-sumption that all spans have the same configuration,
. The maximum nonlinear phase noise of (10) is
(11) For SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise, the amplifier noise from the first span is also perfectly aligned in all fiber spans af-terward. The relationship between single- and multispan phase
noise variance is the same as that of (11). With perfect disper-sion compensation, the ratio of the variance of XPM- to SPM-in-duced nonlinear phase noise is independent of the number of fiber spans in WDM systems. The ratio of (8) can be used to ap-proximate the ratio of XPM- to SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise in the worst case of perfect dispersion compensation.
When dispersion compensation is conducted channel-by-channel with XPM suppression [32], [33], the factor of is the offset of pump and probe at the output of a fiber span with respect to the fiber walkoff. If such that the nonlinear phase noise induced to every fiber span is independent of each other, we get
(12) or
(13) and the ratio of
(14) In (12), the amplifier noise from the first span induces non-linear phase noise in each fiber span. However, the nonnon-linear phase noises induced to the first and second span are from the amplifier noise in completely nonoverlapped time interval and independent of each other. In an -span system, the overall non-linear phase noise is generated from (1/2) 1) “pieces” of independent amplifier noise. The variance of (12) is also valid
when and .
The last term of (9) due to multispan effect of
has peak values of or when , where is a positive or negative integer. The last term of (4) due to differential operation of has notches at . If the notches of match to the
peaks of ,
XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is approximately minimized. If , the dispersion compensation factor of
(15) approximately gives minimum XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise. With resonance effect [34], certain combinations of walkoff length and dispersion compensation factor minimize the variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise. Numerical results show that the compensation factor of (15) approximately minimizes the variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise. Fig. 1 shows the ratio of the standard deviation of XPM-to SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise as a function of the walkoff length per channel separation . The ratio of is calculated numerically and uses the disper-sion compensation factor of (15) for and for . The fiber attenuation coefficient is . The fiber span length is . For the pump-probe model (labeled as “2” WDM channels), the approximation of (6) is valid for less than 50 km.
Fig. 1. The ratio of = as a function of walkoff length per channel separation. The dashed curves are the approximation of (6) and (8). The ratio for the worst case of is independent of the number of spans. The ratios for the typical cases of and the minimum case of are for N = 32 fiber spans and are shown as dotted and solid lines, respectively. The label of each curve is the number of WDM channels.
For multichannel WDM systems, in both the worst and independent cases, the approximation of (8) is valid for less than 100 km and a number of channels larger than 17. The approximation of (8) can be used to model typical WDM systems. For example, a typical 10-Gb/s 50-GHz spacing system using nonzero dispersion-shifted fiber (NZDSF) with has a walkoff length of 62.5 km. Typical 40-Gb/s systems have a walkoff length of 7.8 km (100-GHz
spacing and ).
When the walkoff effect is weak with long walkoff length ( ), from the pump-probe model, the nonlinear phase noise standard deviation due to XPM approaches twice that due to SPM. With long walkoff length, nonlinear phase noise induced by XPM is much larger than that induced by SPM. For a multispan system, the variance of the SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is equal to [1]
(16) with the exact results given in [35], where is the SNR defined for optical matched filter and a single polarization [7], [8]. The variance of (16) is twice that of [1], [35] for differential signal. Combining (16) with the ratio in Fig. 1, the variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise can be calculated.
III. ERRORPROBABILITY
From [8], with only SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise, the error probability of a DPSK signal is
(17) where is a summation index, is a th-order modified Bessel function of the first kind, and is the
character-Fig. 2. Error probability as a function of SNR for WDM DPSK systems with various dispersion compensation schemes, corresponding to (a) maximum, (b) independent, and (c) minimum variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise.
istic function of SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise given by [23]. Simulation by error counting confirms the validity of the error probability of (17) [8].
When independent phase noises from different sources are summed together, the coefficients of the Fourier series of the overall probability density function are the product of the corre-sponding Fourier coefficients of each individual component. If the XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is Gaussian distributed, the error probability of the DPSK signal is
(18)
The formulas of (17) and (18) are similar to that with noisy reference [36], laser phase noise [26], phase error [37], or laser phase noise together with phase error [38]. The terms within the summation of (18) are the product of that due to SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise [8] and laser phase noise [26].
Because XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is generated by the interaction of many bits or WDM channels, the Gaussian approximation is valid from the central limit theorem [25]. If the walkoff length of is small, the nonlinear phase noise is induced by at least about independent bits from two adjacent channels [31], [39]. If the walkoff length is large, many adjacent channels induce more or less the same amount of nonlinear phase noise [31], [39], [40]. In both cases, the central limit theorem leads to Gaussian distribution.
Fig. 2 shows the error probability of DPSK signal as a func-tion of SNR . The error probability is calculated by (17) and (18) for a system with and without XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise, respectively. The system in Fig. 2 has iden-tical fiber spans, mean nonlinear phase shift of , and 65 WDM channels. The mean nonlinear phase shift of 1 rad is the same as the estimation from [1] and close to the optimal
operating point from [8]. Taking into account only SPM-in-duced nonlinear phase shift, the mean nonlinear phase shift can be calculated approximately from [1] and accurately from [35]. Fig. 2 also plots the error probability of (1/2) without non-linear phase noise [7], [8], [36], [37].
The walkoff length of Fig. 2 forms a geometric series and corresponds to typical 10- and 40-Gb/s systems in NZDSF and standard single-mode fiber (SSMF) with dispersion coefficients of and ps/km/nm, respectively. For example, the walkoff length km is that of a 10-Gb/s 100-GHz spacing system in SSMF and 40-Gb/s 100-GHz spacing system in NZDSF.
Fig. 2(a)–(c) is calculated using the XPM-induced nonlinear
phase noise variances of , , and
in (18), respectively, corresponding to the worst, independent, and best case dispersion compensation, respectively. Comparing Fig. 2(b) and (c) with Fig. 2(a), the DPSK system requires the reduction of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise using, for ex-ample, XPM suppressor [32], [33] or optimal dispersion com-pensation factor of (15). With perfect dispersion comcom-pensation, XPM-induced cross-phase modulation is negligible if
km. Without dispersion compensation or with XPM sup-pressor, XPM-induced cross-phase modulation is negligible if
km.
Fig. 3 shows the SNR penalty for an error probability of 10 as a function of mean nonlinear phase shift of for the same system as Fig. 2. Fig. 3(a)–(c) is calculated using the XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise variances of , , and in (18), respectively, corresponding to the worst, independent, and best case dispersion compensation, respectively.
For the systems in Fig. 3(a), with perfect dispersion compen-sation such that XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise adds coher-ently, XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise gives the same SNR penalty as SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise when the walkoff length is about km for less than 1 rad. For a 10-Gb/s WDM system in SSMF, the channel spacing must be
Fig. 3. SNR penalty as a function of mean nonlinear phase shifth8 i for WDM DPSK systems with various dispersion compensation schemes, corresponding to (a) maximum, (b) independent, and (c) minimum variance of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise.
larger than or equal to 100 GHz (or 0.8 nm). For a 10-Gb/s WDM system in NZDSF, the channel spacing must be larger than or equal to 400 GHz (or 3.2 nm). For a 10-Gb/s WDM system with typical channel spacing of 50 or 100 GHz, with perfect dispersion compensation, the effect of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is larger than that induced by SPM. For a 40-Gb/s WDM system in NZDSF, the channel spacing must be larger than or equal to 100 GHz. With channel spacing larger than 100 GHz, typical 40-Gb/s WDM systems have an SNR penalty from XPM-in-duced nonlinear phase noise about that from SPM.
For the systems in Fig. 3(b) and (c), with dispersion com-pensation factor of (15) or with XPM suppressor, XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise gives the same SNR penalty as SPM-in-duced nonlinear phase noise when the walkoff length is about km. For a 10-Gb/s WDM system in SSMF, the channel spacing must be larger than or equal to 12.5 GHz (or 0.1 nm). For a 10-Gb/s WDM system in NZDSF, the channel spacing must be larger than or equal to 50 GHz (or 0.4 nm). For a 10-Gb/s WDM system with typical channel spacing of 50 or 100 GHz, the effect of XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is much smaller than that induced by SPM. Typical 40-Gb/s WDM systems have an SNR penalty from XPM-induced non-linear phase noise far less than that from SPM.
IV. DISCUSSION
In the derivation of (5), the term of is ignored. For a non-return-to-zero (NRZ) DPSK signal, is a dc term and can be ignored. For the more popular return-to-zero (RZ) DPSK signal [10], [13], is a periodic function with a period of and its power spectral density is tones at , where is an integer. The differential transfer function of 2 has notches at and cancels all nonlinear phase noise due to even for an RZ signal. For an RZ-DPSK signal with pulse broadening due to fiber dispersion, if the dipersion is assumed to be a linear effect, for a system without pulse overlapping, the differential transfer function can also completely eliminate XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise. Due to interferometer phase error [41]–[43], small residual nonlinear phase noise may be induced by those tones. The numerical results of this paper are also valid for flattop RZ-DPSK signals by increasing the mean nonlinear phase shift by a factor equal to the inverse of the RZ pulse duty cycle.
For the same channel spacing and fiber type, 10-Gb/s sys-tems have a walkoff length four times that of 40-Gb/s syssys-tems. From Fig. 3, with the same mean nonlinear phase shift, the non-linear phase-noise-induced SNR penalty of 10-Gb/s systems is smaller than that for the corresponding 40-Gb/s systems. How-ever, 40-Gb/s systems have four times the bandwidth and
re-quire four times the power of the corresponding 10-Gb/s sys-tems having the same SNR defined in [7] and [8]. Because the mean nonlinear phase shift is proportional to the launched power, for the same SNR and system configuration, the mean nonlinear phase shift of 40-Gb/s systems is four times larger than that for 10-Gb/s systems.
When the dependence between nonlinear phase noise and am-plifier noise is taken into account, we derive the exact error prob-ability of DPSK signals with nonlinear phase noise when the number of fiber spans approaches infinity [20]. With the dis-tributed assumption, the difference between exact and approx-imate error probability is less than 0.23 dB in terms of SNR penalty. Currently, the exact error probability of DPSK signals with finite number of fiber spans is not known. From the simu-lation of [8], the model of (17) is very accurate.
SPM-induced nonlinear phase noise correlates with the re-ceived intensity and can be compensated using the correlation properties [8], [20], [35], [44], [45]. Other than using simul-taneous multichannel detection, XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise cannot be compensated.
Due to fiber dispersion, phase modulation (PM) converts to amplitude-modulation (AM) noise. Combined with XPM, AM noise gives nonlinear phase noise to other channels [46]. When phase modulation converts to amplitude modulation, only high-frequency AM noise is induced by a transfer function of , where is a constant depending on fiber length and dispersion [47]. With the low-pass characteristic of of (3), the combined effects of AM–PM conversion with XPM should be small.
V. CONCLUSION
Closed-form formulas are derived for the error probability of WDM DPSK signals contaminated by both SPM- and XPM-in-duced nonlinear phase noise. The error probability is derived based on the assumption that the phase of amplifier noise is in-dependent of nonlinear phase noise. While SPM-induced non-linear phase noise is not Gaussian-distributed, XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise is assumed to be Gaussian distributed when either the walkoff length is small or the number of WDM channels is large.
When fiber dispersion is compensated perfectly in each fiber span, XPM-induced nonlinear phase is summed coherently span after span and is the dominant nonlinear phase noise for typical multispan WDM DPSK systems. For a system without disper-sion compensation or with XPM suppressor, the dominant non-linear phase noise is typically induced by SPM. In general, with longer walkoff length, 10-Gb/s systems are more likely to be dominated by XPM-induced nonlinear phase noise than 40-Gb/s systems.
REFERENCES
[1] J. P. Gordon and L. F. Mollenauer, “Phase noise in photonic communi-cations systems using linear amplifiers,” Opt. Lett., vol. 15, no. 23, pp. 1351–1353, 1990.
[2] S. Ryu, “Signal linewidth broadening due to nonlinear Kerr effect in long-haul coherent systems using cascaded optical amplifiers,” J.
Light-wave Technol., vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1450–1457, 1992.
[3] S. Saito, M. Aiki, and T. Ito, “System performance of coherent transmis-sion over cascaded in-line fiber amplifiers,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 331–342, 1993.
[4] A. Mecozzi, “Limits to long-haul coherent transmission set by the Kerr nonlinearity and noise of the in-line amplifiers,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1993–2000, 1994.
[5] H. Kim and A. H. Gnauck, “Experimental investigation of the perfor-mance limitation of DPSK systems due to nonlinear phase noise,” IEEE
Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 320–322, 2003.
[6] C. Xu, X. Liu, L. F. Mollenauer, and X. Wei, “Comparison of re-turn-to-zero differential phase-shift keying and on-off keying long-haul dispersion managed transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 617–619, 2003.
[7] K.-P. Ho, “Performance degradation of phase-modulated systems with nonlinear phase noise,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1213–1215, 2003.
[8] , “Compensation improvement of DPSK signal with nonlinear phase noise,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1216–1218, 2003.
[9] T. Mizuochi, K. Ishida, T. Kobayashi, J. Abe, K. Kinjo, K. Motoshima, and K. Kasahara, “A comparative study of DPSK and OOK WDM trans-mission over transoceanic distances and their performance degradations due to nonlinear phase noise,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1933–1943, 2003.
[10] A. H. Gnauck, G. Raybon, S. Chandrasekhar, J. Leuthold, C. Doerr, L. Stulz, A. Agrawal, S. Banerjee, D. Grosz, S. Hunsche, A. Kung, A. Marhelyuk, D. Maymar, M. Movassaghi, X. Liu, C. Xu, X. Wei, and D. M. Gill, “2.5 Tb/s (642 42.7 Gb/s) transmission over 40 2 100 km NZDSF using RZ-DPSK format and all-Raman-amplified spans,” in Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC ’02), postdeadline paper FC2.
[11] A. H. Gnauck, G. Raybon, S. Chandrasekhar, J. Leuthold, C. Doerr, L. Stulz, and E. Burrows, “25 40-Gb/s copolarized DPSK transmission over 12 100-km NZDF with 50-GHz channel spacing,” IEEE Photon.
Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 467–469, 2003.
[12] C. Rasmussen, T. Fjelde, J. Bennike, F. Liu, S. Dey, B. Mikkelsen, P. Mamyshev, P. Serbe, P. van de Wagt, Y. Akasaka, D. Harris, D. Gapontsev, V. Ivshin, and P. Reeves-Hall, “DWDM 40G transmission over trans-Pacific distance (10,000 km) using CSRZ-DPSK, enhanced FEC and all-Raman amplified 100 km Ultra-Wave fiber spans,” in
Optical Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC ’03), postdeadline paper PD18.
[13] B. Zhu, L. E. Nelson, S. Stulz, A. H. Gnauck, C. Doerr, J. Leuthold, L. Grüner-Nielsen, M. O. Pederson, J. Kim, R. Lingle, Y. Emori, Y. Ohki, N. Tsukiji, A. Oguri, and S. Namiki, “6.4-Tb/s (1602 42.7 Gb/s) transmission with 0.8 bit/s/Hz spectral efficiency over 322 100 km of fiber using CSRZ-DPSK format,” in Optical Fiber Commun. Conf.
(OFC ’03), postdeadline paper PD19.
[14] J.-X. Cai, D. G. Foursa, C. R. Davidson, Y. Cai, G. Domagala, H. Li, L. Liu, W. W. Patterson, A. N. Pilipetskii, M. Nissov, and N. S. Bergano, “A DWDM demonstration of 3.73 Tb/s over 11 000 km using 373 RZ-DPSK channels at 10 Gb/s,” in Optical Fiber Commun. Conf.
(OFC ’03), postdeadline paper PD22.
[15] R. A. Griffin, R. I. Johnstone, R. G. Walker, J. Hall, S. D. Wadsworth, K. Berry, A. C. Carter, M. J. Wale, P. A. Jerram, and N. J. Parsons, “10 Gb/s optical differential quadrature phase shift key (DQPSK) transmis-sion using GaAs/AlGaAs integration,” in Optical Fiber Commun. Conf.
(OFC ’02), postdeadline paper FD6.
[16] R. A. Griffin and A. C. Carter, “Optical differential quadrature phase-shift key (oDQPSK) for high capacity optical transmission,” in Optical
Fiber Commun. Conf. (OFC ’02), paper WX6.
[17] P. S. Cho, V. S. Grigoryan, Y. A. Godin, A. Salamon, and Y. Achiam, “Transmission of 25-Gb/s RZ-DQPSK signals with 25-GHz channel spacing over 1000 km of SMF-28 fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 473–475, 2003.
[18] H. Kim and R.-J. Essiambre, “Transmission of 82 20 Gb/s DQPSK signals over 310-km SMF with 0.8 b/s/Hz spectral efficiency,” IEEE
Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 769–771, 2003.
[19] C. Wree, N. Hecker-Denschlag, E. Gottwald, P. Krummrich, J. Leibrich, E.-D. Schmidt, and B. L. W. Rosenkranz, “High spectral efficiency 1.6-b/s/Hz transmission (8 2 40 Gb/s with a 25-GHz grid) over 200-km SSMF using RZ-DQPSK and polarization multi-plexing,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1303–1305, 2003.
[20] K.-P. Ho, “Statistical properties of nonlinear phase noise,” in Advances
in Optics and Laser Research, W. T. Arkin, Ed. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, 2003, vol. 3.
[21] J. Leibrich, C. Wree, and W. Rosenkranz, “CF-RZ-DPSK for suppres-sion of XPM on dispersuppres-sion-managed long-haul optical WDM transmis-sion on standard single-mode fiber,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 215–217, 2002.
[22] H. Kim, “Cross-phase-modulation-induced nonlinear phase noise in WDM direct-detection DPSK systems,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1770–1774, 2003.
[23] K.-P. Ho, “Probability density of nonlinear phase noise,” J. Opt. Soc.
Amer. B, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1875–1879, 2003.
[24] , “Asymptotic probability density of nonlinear phase noise,” Opt.
Lett., vol. 28, no. 15, pp. 1350–1352, 2003.
[25] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
[26] G. Nicholson, “Probability of error for optical heterodyne DPSK system with quantum phase noise,” Electron. Lett., vol. 20, no. 24, pp. 1005–1007, 1984.
[27] T.-K. Chiang, N. Kagi, T. K. Fong, M. E. Marhic, and L. G. Kazovsky, “Cross-phase modulation in dispersive fibers: theoretical and exper-imental investigation of the impact of modulation frequency,” IEEE
Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 733–736, 1994.
[28] T.-K. Chiang, N. Kagi, M. E. Marhic, and L. G. Kazovsky, “Cross-phase modulation in fiber links with multiple optical amplifiers and dispersion compensators,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 249–260, 1996. [29] K.-P. Ho, E. T.-P. Kong, L. Y. Chan, L.-K. Chan, and F. Tong, “Analysis and measurement of root-mean-squared bandwidth of cross-phase-mod-ulation-induced spectral broadening,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1126–1128, 1999.
[30] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and
Prod-ucts. San Diego, CA: Academic, 1980.
[31] K.-P. Ho, “Statistical properties of simulated Raman crosstalk in WDM systems,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 915–921, 2000. [32] G. Bellotti and S. Bigo, “Cross-phase modulation suppressor for
multi-span dispersion-managed WDM transmissions,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 726–728, 2000.
[33] G. Bellotti, S. Bigo, P.-Y. Cortes, S. Gauchard, and S. LaRochelle, “102 10 Gb/s cross-phase modulation suppressor for multispan transmissions using WDM narrow-band fiber Bragg gratings,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1403–1405, 2000.
[34] L. E. Nelson, R. M. Jopson, A. H. Gnauck, and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Res-onances in cross-phase modulation impairment in wavelength-division-multiplexed lightwave transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 907–909, 1999.
[35] K.-P. Ho and J. M. Kahn, “Electronic compensation technique to miti-gate nonlinear phase noise,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 779–783, 2004.
[36] P. C. Jain, “Error probabilities in binary angle modulation,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. IT-20, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 1974.
[37] N. M. Blachman, “The effect of phase error on DPSK error probability,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-29, no. 3, pp. 364–465, 1981.
[38] G. Jacobsen and I. Garrett, “Theory for optical heterodyne DPSK re-ceivers with post-detection filtering,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. LT-5, no. 4, pp. 478–484, 1987.
[39] F. Forghieri, R. W. Tkach, and A. R. Chraplyvy, “Fiber nonlinearities and their impact on transmission systems,” in Optical Fiber
Telecommunica-tions, I. P. Kaminow and T. L. Koch, Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic, 1997, vol. IIIA, pp. 196–264.
[40] , “Effect of modulation statistics on Raman crosstalk in WDM sys-tems,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 101–103, 1995. [41] H. Kim and P. J. Winzer, “Robustness to laser frequency offset in
direct-detection DPSK and DQPSK systems,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1887–1891, 2003.
[42] P. J. Winzer and H. Kim, “Degradations in balanced DPSK receivers,”
IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1282–1284, 2003.
[43] K.-P. Ho, “The effect of interferometer phase error on direct-detection DPSK and DQPSK signals,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 308–310, 2004.
[44] X. Liu, X. Wei, R. E. Slusher, and C. J. McKinstrie, “Improving trans-mission performance in differential phase-shift-keyed systems by use of lumped nonlinear phase-shift compensation,” Opt. Lett., vol. 27, no. 18, pp. 1616–1618, 2002.
[45] C. Xu and X. Liu, “Postnonlinearity compensation with data-driven phase modulators in phase-shift keying transmission,” Opt. Lett., vol. 27, no. 18, pp. 1619–1621, 2002.
[46] S. Norimatsu and K. Iwashita, “The influence of cross-phase modulation on optical FDM PSK homodyne transmission systems,” J. Lightwave
Technol., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 795–804, 1993.
[47] J. Wang and K. Petermann, “Small signal analysis for dispersive optical fiber communication systems,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 96–100, 1992.
Keang-Po Ho (S’91–M’95–SM’03) received the
B.S. degree from National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C., in 1991 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California at Berkeley in 1993 and 1995, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
He was with the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NJ, in summer 1994, where he conducted research on all-optical networks. He was a Research Scientist with Bellcore (currently Telcordia Technologies), Red Bank, NJ, from 1995 to 1997, where he conducted research on optical networking, high-speed lightwave systems, and broadband access. He taught in the Department of Information Engineering, Chinese University of Hong Kong, from 1997 to 2001. He was Chief Technology Officer of StrataLight Communications, Campbell, CA, from 2000 to 2003, where he developed spectral efficiency 40-Gb/s lightwave transmission systems. He has been with the Institute of Communication Engineering and Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, since 2003. His research interests include optical communication systems, multimedia communication systems, combined source-channel coding, and communication theory. He was among the pioneers for research on hybrid WDM systems, combined source-channel coding using multicarrier modulation or turbo codes, and performance evaluation of PSK and DPSK signals with nonlinear phase noise. He has published more than 130 journal and conference papers on those fields.
