EGN model of non-linear fiber propagation.

By Andrea Carena, Gabriella Bosco, Vittorio Curri, Yanchao Jiang, Pierluigi Poggiolini, Fabrizio Forghieri. Optics Express, 2014

443 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The GN-model has been proposed as an approximate but sufficiently accurate tool for predicting uncompensated optical coherent transmission system performance, in realistic scenarios. For this specific use, the GN-model has enjoyed substantial validation, both simulative and experimental. Recently, however, it has been pointed out that its predictions, when used to obtain a detailed picture of non-linear interference (NLI) noise accumulation along a link, may be affected by a substantial NLI overestimation error, especially in the first spans of the link. In this paper we analyze in detail the GN-model errors. We discuss recently proposed formulas for correcting such errors and show that they neglect several contributions to NLI, so that they may substantially underestimate NLI in specific situations, especially over low-dispersion fibers. We derive a complete set of formulas accounting for all single, cross, and multi-channel effects, This set constitutes what we have called the enhanced GN-model (EGN-model). We extensively validate the EGN model by comparison with accurate simulations in several different system scenarios. The overall EGN model accuracy is found to be very good when assessing detailed span-by-span NLI accumulation and excellent when estimating realistic system maximum reach. The computational complexity vs. accuracy trade-offs of the various versions of the GN and EGN models are extensively discussed.

Subfields: Electrical and Electronic Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e0b1773c27740cc35fa92729310821ffefa0573f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  1. Pontus Johannisson
  2. Erik Agrell
  3. Mark Shtaif
  4. Meir Feder
  5. Ronen Dar
  6. Antonio Mecozzi
  7. Peter J. Winzer
  8. Pierluigi Poggiolini

Citations in the corpus