Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

2248 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO.

5, MAY 2006

Analytical Evaluation of Bit Error Rates for Hard


Detection of Optical Differential Phase
Amplitude Shift Keying (DPASK)
Moshe Nazarathy, Senior Member, IEEE, Member, OSA, Erez Simony, and Yoav Yadin

Abstract—Recently introduced extensions of differential amplitude levels for each chip (chips are defined as the regularly
phase-shift keying (DPSK), referred to here as optical differential spaced time slots over which the amplitude/phase stays con-
phase amplitude shift keying (DPASK), explore an increase in the stant). The received optical signal is split to feed two parallel
data throughput for a given bandwidth by effectively multiplexing
differential phase encoding and amplitude modulation onto the DPSK and ASK detection branches. The intuitive argument was
same fiber link. The DPASK systems proposed and demonstrated advanced that the phase and amplitude modulations are able to
so far apply phase and amplitude modulation in tandem, jumping coexist. On one hand, the differential phase decoder estimates
between either two or four equispaced phase values as well as the phase difference between the two adjacent chips while
independently selecting between two amplitude levels. In this ignoring the amplitude variations, albeit somewhat degraded by
paper, closed-form expressions for the quantum limits of bit error
rate (BER) for such DPASK optical transmission systems are the intentionally induced extinction. On the other hand, the PSK
derived for the first time, verifying the analytic expressions by does not interfere with the operation of the ASK branch.
numerical multicanonical Monte Carlo simulations. The resulting Another recently proposed variant of MDP is the so-called
quantum-limit sensitivities indicate that the two-level binary phase intensity modulation (PhIM) format [12], aiming to
phase DPASK incurs a considerable photonic sensitivity penalty improve upon the DPASK performance in a different way,
in return for its improved spectral efficiency. On the positive side,
the more complex quaternary phase DPASK format exceeds the by essentially time-division multiplexing of ASK and DPSK,
performance of its 8-ary DPSK scheme counterpart. rather than modulating the amplitude of the DPSK chips, as
practiced in DPASK.
Index Terms—Amplitude shift keying (ASK), differential phase
amplitude shift keying (DPASK), differential phase-shift keying While experiments were conducted to demonstrate the per-
(DPSK), maximum-likelihood (ML) decoding, multilevel modu- formance of DPASK systems [3]–[10], the BER versus power
lation formats, optical communication, optimal detection, phase performance was numerically rather than analytically esti-
modulation. mated, the emphasis not having been on the sensitivity evalua-
tion but rather on the impressive spectral-efficiency (SE) gains:
I. I NTRODUCTION For a two-level binary and quaternary phase, the respective bit
rates are 20 and 30 Gb/s for a 10-Gchips/s system, which would

D IFFERENTIAL phase-shift keying (DPSK) (as summa-


rized in [1] and references therein) has emerged as a
leading contender to the title of the most robust transmission
conventionally transmit just 10 (20) Gb/s were it to be used in
either the ASK or the binary (quaternary) DPSK mode.
Apparently, the emergence of MDP advanced modulation
format for long-haul optical transmission. Recently introduced schemes is in line with a recent trend exploring the simul-
extensions of DPSK [2]–[11], which are collectively referred taneous modulation of multiple optical degrees of freedom:
to here as multilevel differential phase (MDP) formats, explore phase, amplitude, and polarization [2]–[15], seeking improved
an increase in the data throughput for a given bandwidth by tradeoffs between spectral and power efficiencies. In fact, var-
effectively multiplexing differential phase encoding and ampli- ious forms of MDP are well known in the domain of wireless
tude modulation onto the same fiber link. The main family of communication, e.g., transmission constellations consisting of
MDP systems consists of optical differential phase amplitude multiple concentric rings in conjunction with differential phase
shift keying (DPASK), proposed and demonstrated for spec- encoding [16], [17].
trally efficient optical communication [2]–[5] as well as for Back to the optical context, while the SE gains of the
optical label switching in packet networks [6]–[11], applying MPD formats are well understood, the impact on sensitivity,
DPSK and ASK modulation in tandem, jumping every chip as manifested in the quantum performance limits, has yet to be
interval between either two or four equispaced phase values, elucidated. It is the objective of this paper to accurately evaluate
and independently selecting between several (typically two) the bit error rate (BER) and the ultimate quantum sensitivity
limits (photons per bit) for beat-limited (optical amplifier (OA)
amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) dominated) detection
Manuscript received February 4, 2005; revised September 19, 2005.
M. Nazarathy and Y. Yadin are with the Department of Electrical Engi- of the two main DPASK variants treated in the literature
neering, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel (e-mail: [2]–[10], here called quaternary DPASK (QDPASK) and binary
nazarat@ee.technion.ac.il; yadin@techunix.technion.ac.il). DPASK (BDPASK), both combining two-level amplitude mod-
E. Simony is with the Department of Neurobioloy, Weizmann Institute of
Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel (e-mail: erez.simony@weizmann.ac.il). ulation with binary or quaternary differential phase modulation,
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JLT.2006.872260 respectively.

0733-8724/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2249

Fig. 1. DPASK optical transmission link. The transmitter consists of a DPSK


modulator in tandem with an ASK one. The hard-detection receiver consists
of DPSK and ASK branches in parallel. A 10-Gchips/s system is shown with
two-level ASK modulation and either binary or quaternary differential phase
modulation.

A core outcome is the derivation of a new closed-form


analytic expression of the form BER[Kb , χ] for the bit error
probability of QDPASK (in addition to the analytic expression
tersely derived in [18] for the BDPASK case, for which an
alternative approach is outlined in this paper). Our BER for- Fig. 2. Optical DPASK receivers with integrated-optic front ends for hard
detection of two-level ASK and binary/quaternary DPSK in two separate
mulas are parameterized by the average received number of branches. (a) QDPASK receiver (quaternary phase). (b) BDPASK receiver
photons per bit Kb  and by the extinction ratio χ between the (binary phase). The ASK branch compares the photocurrent against a threshold.
low and high power levels, enabling refined optimization of the The key integrated-optic element recurring in the DPSK branch is the DI
with balanced photodetection (subtraction of the photocurrents generated at the
parameter χ, leading to the best tradeoff between the contradic- constructive/destructive DI ports) followed by sign decision. Case (a) requires
tory requirements of the ASK and DPSK branches, as well as two DIs, biased at ±45◦ , versus case (b) requiring just a single DI biased at 0◦ .
providing insight into the mechanism limiting performance.
The paper is structured as follows: Section II models
locking biases of the two DIs symmetrically offset ±45◦ off
the delay-interferometer-based receiver front end, the output
quadrature. For BDPASK (B standing for binary phase), it is
statistics of which are derived in Section III. The QDPASK
sufficient to use a single DI in the DPSK branch (biased at the
and BDPASK quantum-limited BER performance is derived in
quadrature, i.e., at 0◦ phase offset in the current phase conven-
Sections IV and V, aided by the Appendix, where the ASK
tion) [Fig. 2(b)]. The photocurrents at the constructive (+) and
branch performance is developed. Section VI optimizes the
destructive (−) ports of each DI are subtracted and electrically
BDPASK BER performance over the extinction ratio. The
amplified, yielding a balanced electrical output. Sign detection
analytic results are independently validated by numerical mul-
is further performed on each sampled balanced output, yielding
ticanonical Monte Carlo (MMC) simulations [19], [20] in
either one or two decision bits (for (B/Q)DPASK, respectively)
Section VII. Our analytic formulas are then applied in
at the output of the DPSK branch. The ASK branch generates an
Section VIII, working out detailed comparisons of the
additional bit during each chip, by sampling and thresholding
quantum-limit sensitivity versus SE performance for multilevel
the received photocurrent. The overall SE is then 2 or 3 bits/chip
and conventional differential phase formats. Finally, the conclu-
(= bits per second per hertz), respectively. The transfer-matrix
sions in Section IX suggest potential future extensions of MDP
relation from the field Ef (t) at the DI input (= the OF output)
research. ˜
to the fields at the two DI output ports is1
 (t)  
II. DPASK R ECEIVER F RONT E ND E+ Ef (t)
˜ =U ˜ . (1)
We assume a beat-noise-limited DPASK system (Fig. 1) E− (t) Ef (t − T )
˜ ˜
wherein the receiver is preceded by an OA and an optical filter
(OF), with the ASE being the dominant noise source. The trans-
The unitary matrix U , with elements Uij , called a DI transfer
mitter applies M -ary DPSK (with M = 2, 4) and two-level
matrix, is obtained as the cascade of a phase-shift (retardation)
ASK modulations in tandem. In the receiver, the optical input
matrix Ret[γ] describing the relative phase bias between the
is essentially split to feed DPSK and ASK optical detection
stages in parallel. For QDPASK (Q standing for quaternary
phase), and more generally for Mϕ -ary phase DPASK with
1 Attenuation factors such as splitting losses are irrelevant, since in the
Mϕ > 2, the integrated optical front end of the DPSK branch
beat-limited regime, the SNR stays invariant under any scaling factor equally
consists of a pair of delay interferometers (DIs) fed in parallel affecting signal and noise, as the noise has already been injected in the prior
[Fig. 2(a)], each with a chip-time delay T , and with the phase OA stage.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2250 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

“freeze the phase” setting Θ = 0 in (5), yielding an effective


channel model

ρk = Ak + nk , Ak = ρk . (5a)
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜

The balanced photocurrent at the output of each DI yields a


decision metric

qT [k] ≡ I+ (kT ) − I− (kT ) = |ρ+ |2 − |ρ− |2


˜ ˜

= |U11 ρk + U12 ρk−1 |2 − |U21 ρk + U22 ρk−1 |2 . (6)


˜ ˜ ˜ ˜

Fig. 3. Transfer-matrix analysis of an integrated-optic DI structure with We inquire into the statistics of the DI output [ρ+ , ρ− ]T ,
˜ ˜
obtained from the input [ρk , ρk−1 ]T by the linear transformation
balanced photodetection.
˜ ˜
of (3). As the input is a CG vector, so is the output of the
two DI arms and a rotation matrix Rot[π/4] describing the unitary transformation, with the same second-order statistics.
integrated optical coupler (Fig. 3): We conclude that the complex samples ρ+ , ρ− at the DI output
˜ ˜
π   jγ  π  ports are independent of each other, and each has Gaussian-
1 e 1
U = Rot Ret[γ] = √ jγ
Rot distributed independent real and imaginary parts, of variance
4 2 e −1 4 σ 2 . The decision metric
   jγ 
1 1 1 e 0
=√ , Ret[γ] = . (2) qT [k] = |ρ+ |2 − |ρ− |2 (7)
2 1 −1 0 1 ˜ ˜

Sampling the matrix relation (1) at the chip times t = kT at each balanced DI output is then the difference of independent
yields squared Rician variates with the same variance parameter. As
ρ   ρ  the receiver employs sign detection, the BER is essentially
+ k determined by the probability that this variate has a definite (say
˜ ≡U ˜ (3)
ρ− ρk−1 negative) sign, which is equivalent to the probability that one
˜ ˜
Rician exceeds another and is expressible as follows [23]–[25]:
where ρk ≡ Ef (kT ) are the samples of the OF output (DI  
˜
input), and ρ±˜ ≡ E± (kT ) (with the discrete-time index k on ρ 2 ρ 2 ρ
Pr {qT [k] < 0} = Pr | + | < | − | = Pr | + | < | − | ρ
the left-hand˜ side (LHS)
˜
discarded for brevity) are the samples ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
   
 


at the (+)/(−) DI output ports. The output intensities and the ρ  ρ 
output photocurrents at these ports are given, up to a constant   ˜+   ˜−  
by I± (t) = |E± (t)|2 . Using (3), the sampled photocurrents at = Stein 
 σ √2 , σ √2 
 (8)
the two ports ˜are
 2
  where the Stein function was introduced, standing for the
I+ (kT ) =E+ (kt) = |ρ+ |2 = |U11 ρk +U12 ρk−1 |2 (4a) following expression in [23], to be repeatedly used here (with
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
 2 Q[a, b] the Marcum Q function [19]):
 
I+ (kT ) =E− (kT ) = |ρ− |2 = |U21 ρk +U22 ρk−1 |2 .
 (4b)
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 1 {s− }2 +{s+ }2
Stein[s+ , s− ] ≡ Q[s− , s+ ] − e− 2 I0 [s− s+ ] (8a)
2
III. S TATISTICS OF THE B ALANCED O UTPUT OF A DI with its arguments, here called “s-factors” (somewhat analo-
gous to the Q-factor), essentially given by the square roots of
For zero ISI response, the input samples ρk are modeled as
˜ the optical SNR (OSNR) at each port2 :
follows [21], [22]:
 
 
ρk = Ak ejΘ + nk (5) ρ+ 
˜ ˜ ˜  ˜  
s± ≡ √ = OSNR± . (9)
σ 2
where Θ ∼ Unif[0, 2π] is an isotropic random channel phase
(effectively constant over the timescale of pairs of successive
chips), Ak are the noiselessly received samples, and the zero-
˜
mean circular Gaussian (CG) noise samples nk of variance 2σ 2 2 The OSNR is defined in this paper as the ratio of the absolute squared optical
2 ˜ signal sample to the noise sample variance, with the ASE noise effectively
(σ per quadrature dimension) are obtained by sampling the
integrated over the whole filter bandwidth rather than using in the denominator
OF-filtered noise complex envelope representing the ASE elec- the ASE noise spectral density in 0.1 nm, as in the conventional OSNR
trical field. For the purposes of statistical evaluation, we may definition.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2251

To determine these s-factors, we take the expectation of (3), IV. D ERIVATION OF AN A NALYTIC E XPRESSION FOR THE
using (5a) and square the resulting expression: BER OF THE QDPASK F ORMAT
 2   2  QDPASK detection is accomplished with an integrated-optic
   
ρ+  U11 ρk  + U12 ρk−1  front end consisting of two DIs with bias phase shifts γ =
 ˜     
   ˜ ˜  ±π/4 [4], [1]. Substituting these values into (2) yields
 2  =  2 
     
ρ−  U21 ρk  + U22 ρk−1 
 ˜   ˜ ˜     jπ

(±π ) U11 U12 1 e± 4 1
  U 4 = =√ jπ (15)
|U11 Ak + U12 Ak−1 |2 U21 U22 2 e± 4 −1
˜ ˜
= . (10)
|U21 Ak + U22 Ak−1 |2
˜ ˜
where the DI transfer matrix was tagged by a superscript γ =
Expanding the squared moduli yields (11), shown at the bottom ±π/4, distinguishing between the two DIs by the sign of γ.
of the page (with δk ≡ ∠Ak − ∠Ak−1 ). Plugging the matrix elements Uij of (15) into (14) yields
˜
Normalizing by 2σ 2 and using˜(9) yields (12), shown at the
   √  
bottom of the page, where input s-factors were introduced, s2+ 1 Kk +Kk−1 + 2 Kk Kk−1 cos δk ± π4
expressible in terms of the photon count Kk (at the kth chip) = √   (16)
s2− 2 Kk +Kk−1 − 2 Kk Kk−1 cos δk ± π4
of the signal waveform at the OA input:

|Ak |  where δk ∈ {0, π/2, π, 3π/2}, with the ± signs on the right-
sk = √˜ = Kk . (13)
2σ hand side (RHS) referring to the DI type and with the photon
counts coming in two varieties: Kk , Kk−1 ∈ {Kc , χKc }.
Equation (12) may then be expressed in terms of photon The error probability will first be evaluated under the trans-
counts as mission hypothesis δk = 0 (in which case the phases of the
two chip phasors Ak , Ak−1 are both equal). It is noted that this
s2+ = |U11 |2 Kk + |U12 |2 Kk−1 ˜
hypothesis is actually ˜
a composite one, further decomposable
 into hi–hi, hi–lo, lo–hi, and lo–lo level hypotheses. It turns out
+ 2 Kk Kk−1 |U11 U12 | cos(∠U11 − ∠U12 + δk ) that due to the fourfold rotational symmetry of the constellation,
the other angles δk = π/2, π, 3π/2 yield identical results, i.e.,
s2− = |U21 |2 2Kk + |U22 |2 Kk−1
 (δk = π2 ) (δk = 3π
2 )
+ 2 Kk Kk−1 |U21 U22 | cos(∠U21 − ∠U22 + δk ). (14) Pe(δk =0) = Pe = Pe(δk =π) = Pe ≡ Pesym (17)

Equivalent to providing the chip photon counts Kk and


Kk−1 , it suffices to specify just the count Kc of the most with Pesym denoting the total symbol error probability [= sym-
energetic chip out of each pair of successive chips, along with bol error rate (SER)], averaged over all four δk . For this reason,
the optical power extinction ratio χ, defined as the lower over we omit in most of the places below the explicit indication by a
the higher chip energy. For DPASK with two-level amplitude superscript of conditioning on δk = 0. Substituting δk = 0 into
modulation, there is a single relevant value of χ. In this case, (16) yields
the two successive chips attain four possible photocount com-
   √ 
binations, {Kc , Kc }, {Kc , χKc }, {χKc , Kc }, {χKc , χKc }, s2+ 1 Kk + Kk−1 + 2 Kk Kk−1 cos π4
referred to as level hypotheses, labeled hi–hi, hi–lo, lo–hi, and = √ (18)
s2− 2 Kk + Kk−1 − 2 Kk Kk−1 cos π4
lo–lo, respectively.

 2 
   

 ρ˜+   |U11 |2 |Ak |2 + |U12 |2 |Ak−1 |2 + 2|Ak ||Ak−1 ||U11 U12 | cos(∠U11 − ∠U12 + δk )
  ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
 2  =   (11)
   |U21 |2 |Ak |2 + |U22 |2 |Ak−1 |2 + 2|Ak ||Ak−1 ||U21 U22 | cos(∠U21 − ∠U22 + δk )
ρ−  ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
 ˜ 

   
s2+ |U11 |2 s2k + |U12 |2 s2k−1 + 2sk sk−1 |U11 U12 | cos(∠U11 − ∠U12 + δk )
= (12)
s2− |U21 |2 s2k + |U22 |2 s2k−1 + 2sk sk−1 |U21 U22 | cos(∠U21 − ∠U22 + δk )

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2252 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

compactly expressed (explicitly indicating the DI index and


±π/4) as  π   π 
± ±
 2 P (hi−lo) qT 4 [k] < 0 = P (δk =0,lo−hi) qT 4 [k] < 0
(± π4 ) 1 
s± = {Kk + Kk−1 ± 2Kk + Kk−1 } (19)
2   
   
Kc Kc
where the ± sign on the RHS corresponds to the ± subscript = Stein 1 + χ + 2χ, 1−χ+ 2χ .
2 2
on the LHS designating the (+)/(−) port (independent of
the ±π/4 DI superscript on the LHS). Now, breaking out the (20d)
composite hypothesis δk = 0 into the four level hypotheses,
we start with the hi–hi case Kk = Kk−1 = Kc , for which (19) ±π/4
The total probability that qT [k] is negative under the
yields composite hypothesis δk = 0 (which we return to explicitly in-
  dicate) is obtained by averaging over the four level hypotheses
(± π ,hi−hi) Kc √
s± 4 = 2± 2. (19a)  π   π 
2 −
P (δk =0) qT4 [k] < 0 = P (δk =0) qT 4 [k] < 0
For the lo–lo case, we simply substitute Kc → χKc in the last
equation, yielding 1 (hi−hi) 1 (lo−lo) 1 (hi−lo)
= P + P + P (21)
4 4 2
 
(± π ,lo−lo) χKc √
s± 4 = 2± 2. (19b) where the argument {qT
(±π/4)
[k] < 0} of the three functions on
2
the RHS was dropped for brevity. The DPSK-like decision law
For hi–lo and lo–hi cases, we have Kk = Kc , Kk−1 = χKc , or to be used in the DPSK branch of the DPASK receiver consists
vice versa. Equation (19) then yields of sign detection of the two quadrature decision variables:

(± π ,hi−lo) (± π ,lo−hi)  π 
−π
s± 4 = s± 4 qT4 [k] > 0, qT 4 [k] > 0 ⇒ δ̂k = 0

1 
= {Kc + χKc ± 2Kc χKc }  π  π
−π
2 qT4 [k] < 0, qT 4 [k] > 0 ⇒ δ̂k =
  2
Kc 
= 1 + χ ± 2χ. (19c)  π 
−π
2 qT4 [k] < 0, qT 4 [k] < 0 ⇒ δ̂k = π

We introduce the shorthand notation P (α) {·} ≡ Pr{·|H (α) }  π  3π


−π
to designate the probability of any event conditioned on either qT4 [k] > 0, qT 4 [k] < 0 ⇒ δ̂k = . (22)
2
of the four level hypotheses α ∈ {hi−hi, lo−lo, hi−lo, lo−hi}
(and also conditioned on δk = 0 ). With such explicit indexing In light of this decoding rule, the first two (equal) terms
by the transmission hypotheses, (8) reads of (21) describe the two pairwise error probabilities (PWEPs)
   δk = 0 → δ̂k = ±π/2. The overall union bound Pesym =
(± π ) (± π ,α) (± π ,α) (δ =0)
P (α) qT 4 [k] < 0 = Stein s+ 4 , s− 4 (20) Pe k as expressed in (17) for the SER is then given by the
sum of the following two identical PWEPs:
where the s-factors  π   π 

 π  Pesym = P (δk =0) qT4 [k] < 0 + P (δk =0) qT 4 [k] < 0
(± π ,α) (± ,hi−hi) (± π ,lo−lo) (± π ,hi−lo) (± π ,lo−hi)
s± 4 ∈ s± 4 , s± 4 , s± 4 s± 4  π 
(20a) = 2P (δk =0) qT4 [k] < 0 . (23)
are given by (19a)–(19c), the substitution of which yields in the
respective cases Employing Gray bit decoding with the decision rule of (22),
the bit pairs assigned to each of the four possible estimates δ̂k
 π 
± differ between nearest neighbors by just one bit, such that each
P (hi−hi) qT 4 [k] < 0
   symbol error predominantly yields a single bit error. However,
 
Kc √ Kc √ the number of bits received over the DPSK branch is twice the
= Stein 2 + 2, 2− 2 (20b) number of symbols; hence, the BER is half the SER:
2 2
 π 
±
P (lo−lo) qT 4 [k] < 0 Pebit [DPSK branch: QDPASK]
    
χKc √ χKc √ 1 sym
= Stein 2 + 2, 2− 2 (20c) = P [DPSK branch: QDPASK]. (23a)
2 2 2 e

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2253

Combining (23) and (23a), the factor of half cancels the factor The bit error probability for hard detection of the QDPASK
of two, yielding format is

 π  Pebit [QDPASK]
Pebit [DPSK branch: QDPASK] = P (δk =0)
qT4 [k] < 0    
1  Kc √
= 1−Q 2Kc , (1 + χ)
1 (hi−hi) 1 (lo−lo) 1 (hi−lo) 6 2
= P + P + P (24)   
4 4 2  Kc √
+Q 2χKc , (1 + χ)
2
where in the last expression, we applied (21). Finally, substitut-    

ing (20b)–(20d) yields the BER of the DPSK branch: 2Kc √ Kc √
+Q 2 − 2, 2+ 2
2 2
Pebit [DPSK branch: QDPASK]  
1 −Kc Kc
     − e I0 √
1 Kc √ Kc √ 2 2
= Stein 2+ 2, 2+ 2     
4 2 2 χKc √ χKc √
+Q 2 − 2, 2+ 2
   2 2
   
1 χKc √ χKc √
+ Stein 2+ 2, 2− 2 1 χKc
4 2 2 − e−χKc I0 √
2 2
       
    Kc  Kc 
1 Kc Kc + 2Q 1+χ− 2χ, 1+χ+ 2χ
+ Stein 1+χ+ 2χ, 1+χ− 2χ . 2 2
2 2 2
  
1+χ
K K c 
(25) − e 2 c I0 1 + χ2  (28)
2  6Kb 
Kc → 1+χ

The overall BER of QDPASK is then given by


where Kb  is the averaged received effective photocount per
bit, and χ is the power extinction ratio.
2 bit
Pebit [QDPASK] = P [DPSK branch: QDPASK]
3 e
1 V. A NALYTIC E XPRESSION FOR THE BER OF THE
+ Pebit [ASK branch : QDPASK] (26) BDPASK F ORMAT
3
A less-complex DPASK scheme, albeit of lower SE of just
which is expressed as the weighted average of the BERs of the 2 bits/chip (rather than 3 bits/chip as in QDPASK), was pro-
two branches, with the weighting factors in the 2 : 1 ratio, as posed and demonstrated, e.g., in [3], based on multiplexing
there are two bits rendered by the DPSK branch for every ASK two-level ASK modulation with binary rather than quaternary
bit. The ASK BER to be used in the last equation is given by differential phase modulation. We call this format BDPASK.
(43): The two-level ASK branch BER equals the SER, as there The receiver structure for BDPASK was already introduced in
is one ASK bit conveyed per symbol. Section II [Fig. 2(b)]. The ensuing attainable quantum limit of
It is useful to parameterize the results by the average pho- BER3 performance is
tocounts per bit Kb  in lieu of the peak number of photons
per chip Kc . As the received photon numbers per chip are Pe [BDPASK]
   
{Kc , χKc }, with probability half for each, the average re- 1 8Kb  2Kb  √
ceived number of photons per chip is given by Kc  = (Kc + = 1−Q , (1 + χ)
4 1+χ 1+χ
χKc )/2 = Kc (1 + χ)/2. As 3 bits are transmitted per chip, we
  
then have Kb = Kc /3 for the high level and χKb = χKc /3 for 8Kb  2Kb  √
the low level. The average photocount per bit is then Kb  = +Q χ , (1 + χ)
1+χ 1+χ
Kc /3 = Kc (1 + χ)/6. Solving for the peak chip photocount
  
yields 2Kb  √ 2Kb  √
+Q (1 − χ), (1 + χ)
1+χ 1+χ
6Kb      
Kc = (27) 1 −2Kb 1−χ 1−χ
(1 + χ) + e cosh 2Kb  − I0 2Kb 
2 1+χ 1+χ
(29)
to be plugged into (25) and (43). However, to keep the notation
simple, we refrain from explicitly making the substitution. 3 For BDPASK, there is 1 bit conveyed per symbol in each of the DPSK and
Combining (25), (43), (27), (23a), (26), and (8a) yields the final ASK branches; hence, we do not distinguish between SER and BER, discarding
BER formula. the superscripts.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2254 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

with Kb  as the averaged photon count per bit, which is now
related to the chip high-level photocount Kc and the power
extinction ratio χ by

4Kb 
Kc = . (29a)
(1 + χ)

We just briefly outline here the derivation of this formula,


which is less complex than the QDAPSK result (28) (as the
phase constellation is half as large), which is in principle,
carried out by retracing the QDPASK derivation steps in the last
section, building on the generic front-end analysis of Section II
and the Appendix. The result (29) is obtained by averaging over
the ASK and BDPSK partial BERs (with equal weights as there
is just one BDPSK bit delivered for every ASK bit). In turn, the
ASK BER is given by (43), while the BDPSK BER is Fig. 4. BER tradeoff between the two branches (ASK versus DPSK) of a
BDPASK receiver, as a function of extinction ratio (ratio of low to high chip
energy), for Kb  = 46 ph/bit. Solid curve: total average BER. Optimizing χ
Pe [DPSK branch: BDPASK] for ASK alone, one should yield χ as in OOK. Optimizing χ for DPSK alone,
  one should yield χ = 1 (i.e., the two chips have equal power). The balance
1 (hi−hi) 1 (lo−lo) 1 (hi−lo) point yielding optimum BER performance of the overall BDPASK system is
=2 Pe + Pe + Pe (30) attained at χ = 0.115(−9.4 dB), essentially at the crossover between the two
4 4 2
branches. The BER minimum attained at the optimum point is 10−9 .
with the factor of two due to the union bound as there are two
equal PWEP terms (corresponding to the two nearest neighbors in the overall constellation. In particular, for the two-level
of each constellation point), while the brackets describe the BDPASK (QDPASK), we, respectively, have {Mϕ , Ma } =
averaging over four level hypotheses: {2, 2}({Mϕ , Ma } = {4, 2}), yielding η = 2 (η = 3). The SE
is a compact scalar parameter normalizing the information
Pe(hi−hi) = 0.5e−Kc
throughput by the bandwidth.5
Pe(lo−lo) = 0.5e−χKc (30a) We now proceed to optimize the quantum limits of sensitivity
   for the DPASK formats over the extinction ratio (at a BER of
Kc √ Kc √ 10−9 ), applying our novel analytic formulas.
Pe(hi−lo) = Stein (1+ χ), (1− χ) (30b)
2 2

where (30a) coincides with the conventional formula for A. BDPASK Quantum Limit
the BDPSK BER4 quantum limits [1] for photon numbers
Kc , χKc . As for (30b), its derivation is similar to that of (20d). Optimizing the two branch BER formulas (29) and (43)
A closely related alternative derivation was briefly outlined over χ, it turns out that essentially equal BERs of 10−9 are
in [18], invoking a (mis)matched filtering analysis. (However, attained for the DPSK and ASK branches at the crossover
notice that the QDPASK derivation of (28) was not carried out point χ = 0.115 (Fig. 4). For Kc = 165, the low chip contains
in [18] and is being presented here for the first time.) χKc = 19 photons, i.e., Kc  = (Kc + χKc )/2 = 92 ph/chip,
on the average. As the SE is 2 bits/chip, then our optimized
quantum limit of BDPASK is Kb  = Kc /2 = 46 ph/bit. To
VI. O PTIMIZED Q UANTUM L IMITS FOR verify the plausibility of this result, we evaluate the PWEPs for
BDPASK AND QDPASK the individual level hypotheses, using (30a) and (30b), yielding
Considering the spectral and power efficiencies of DPASK,  
we first briefly discuss its spectral properties, stating a simple Pe(hi−hi) , Pe(hi−lo) , Pe(hi−lo)
BDPASK
formula for the SE
−39
= {6 × 10 , 2.22 × 10−13 , 3.37 × 10−9 }.
η = log2 Mϕ + log2 Ma
As the first two terms are essentially negligible, the total BER
= log2 Mϕ Ma (31) of the DPSK branch is dominated by the lo–lo BER, with (30)

where Ma is the number of amplitude levels, and Mϕ is


the number of phases. The two additive terms in the mid-
5 A full spectral description is provided by power spectral density (PSD)
dle expression are identified with the respective SEs of the
profile, the derivation of which for DPASK is outside the scope of this
DPSK and ASK branches. Equivalently, there are Mϕ Ma states paper; however, we briefly remark that due to the chip amplitudes attaining
multiple levels, the transmitted power spectra do not coincide with those
of the corresponding DPSK format, but their spectral shapes depend on the
4 For example, for Kc = 20 ph/chip = 20 ph/bit, we get 109 BER. extinction ratio.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2255

Further evaluating the ASK branch BER (43) with the parame-
ters of (33) yields

Pebit [ASK branch: QDPASK] = 1.25 × 10−9 .

Upon averaging the partial BERs of the two branches with


a 2 : 1 weighting, (26), or equivalently (28), yields a total
BER of 10−9 , which is seen to have been attained for Kb  =
52.4 ph/bit.

VII. MMC S IMULATIONS OF DPASK BER P ERFORMANCE


Optimized quantum limits for DPASK detection were just
derived at a particular BER of 10−9 . We now numerically
Fig. 5. BER tradeoff between the two branches (ASK versus DPSK) of the
QDPASK receiver, as a function of extinction ratio χ for Kb  = 52.42 ph/bit. validate our analytical approach, comparing our closed-form
Solid curve: total average BER. The balance point yielding optimum BER expressions for the BER and SER versus the photon count with
performance of the overall BDPASK system is attained at χ = 0.224 Monte Carlo simulations over a wide range of BER values
(−9.4 dB), slightly shifted off of the crossover point between the two branches.
The BER minimum attained at the optimum point is 10−9 . (10−9 , . . . , 10−3 ). In fact, due to the small error probabilities
of interest in our analysis, “brute-force” error counting by
reducing to an excellent approximation to a simple exponential Monte Carlo simulations is not practical. Instead, we resort
expression in the received power6 : to the MMC method [19], [20] to estimate the BER/SER.
This method, based on the concept of importance sampling,
(lo−lo)
2Pe enables the estimation of the probability density function (pdf)
Pe [DPSK branch: BDPASK] = of random variables such as bit or symbol error indicators,
4
= 0.25e−χKc including their low-probability tails, using a relatively small
Kb  number of simulation runs. The BER/SER is then estimated
= 0.25e−4χ (1+χ) . (32) by integrating the numerically evaluated pdfs over the decision
regions of interest.
B. QDPASK Quantum Limit Our analytical and numerical results of error-rate quantum
limits versus photon count for DPASK systems are presented
The optimization over χ of the BER formulas (23a) and in Figs. 6 and 7, as detailed in the figure captions. Fig. 6,
(43) for the two branches is illustrated in Fig. 5, yielding the pertaining to a QDAPSK system, displays the SER and BER of
following parameters: the DPSK and ASK branches. The numerically simulated SER
for the DPSK branch [Fig. 6(a)] was determined by estimating
χ = 0.224 the distribution of the phase difference between two consecutive
Kc = 256.96 ph/chip received symbols. Assuming (without loss of generality due
χKc = 57.56 ph/chip to symmetry) that the differential phase angle δk = 0 was
transmitted (corresponding to the bit string 00), the SER is the
Kc  = 157.26 ph/chip
probability that the detected angle exceeds ±π/4. The BER is
Kc  separately determined by counting the bit errors in either one of
Kb  = = 52.42 ph/bit. (33)
3 the two bit positions, at the output of the corresponding DI. For
The respective PWEPs in the DPSK branch, corresponding to example, transmitting δk = 0, and selecting the first DI, the bit
the level hypotheses, are error count Nebit for the first bit is the number realizations out
of the Nc trials (total transmitted number of chips), wherein the
 
Pe(hi−hi) , Pe(hi−lo) , Pe(hi−lo) balanced output of the DI is negative. The BER estimate of the
QDPASK overall DPSK branch is then7
= {7.3 × 10−35 , 4.4 × 10−13 , 3.51 × 10−9 }. Nebit
Pebit [DPSK branch: QDPASK] = .
It is apparent that the lo–lo PWEP is dominant in determining Nc
the DPSK branch performance, relative to the hi–lo and hi–hi Fig. 7 presents the BER for (B/Q)DASK systems and their
PWEPs, which are negligible, yielding for the total DPSK individual (DPSK and ASK) branches, compared with the BER
branch BER (24) (averaged over the four level hypotheses) performance of conventional M -ary DPSK. The numerical data
(lo−lo) points very closely track the analytical plots in all figures,
Pe
Pesym [DPSK branch: QDPASK] = = 8.78 × 10−10 .
4
7 Indeed, there are 2N transmitted bits (2 bits per chip), and due to the
c
symmetry, Nebit is also the expected number of errors in the second bit (at
6 In the second expression in (32), the factor of 2 is due to the union bound, the second DI output), i.e., the expected number of bit errors is Nebit , spread
while the factor of 1/4 corresponds to averaging over the four level hypotheses. over Ncbit bits.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2256 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

Fig. 6. Quantum limits of log10 “error ratio” (ER) (where ER stands for either Fig. 7. Quantum limits of BER versus received optical power (photons per
BER or SER as applicable) versus received optical power (photons per bit) for bit) for the DPASK systems, in comparison with conventional M -ary DPSK.
the DPSK and ASK branches of a QDPASK system at optimized χ = 0.224. (a) BDPASK versus (B/Q)DPSK. The top line is actually hardly resolvable
The continuous lines plot the analytic formulas derived in this paper. The into three individual lines describing the analytically derived BERs of the
discrete data points tightly tracking the analytical plots were derived by MMC DPSK and ASK branches of BDPASK as well as their average: the overall
simulations. (a) DPSK branch. The top line is the SER, and the lower line is the system BER. The superposed discrete points are obtained by averaging the
BER. (b) ASK branch. Here, BER = SER. BERs of the numerical MMC data points displayed in (b) QDAPSK versus
8-DPSK/QDPSK. The three closely spaced lines, labeled QDPASK, represent
validating our closed-form expressions, and further indicating the analytically derived BERs for the individual DPSK and ASK branches,
as well as the BER of the overall system, which is their average (with 2 : 1
that the union bounds implied in our derivation are quite tight. weights). The MMC numerical data points were also obtained by averaging
(with 2 : 1 weights) over the BER data points of the individual branches: DPSK
VIII. P ERFORMANCE C OMPARISON OF M ULTILEVEL [(b) bottom set of data points] and ASK [Fig. 6(a)]. Data points of an MMC
simulation are further superposed on the 8-DPSK top line. Fair performance
D IFFERENTIAL P HASE AND C ONVENTIONAL F ORMATS comparisons ought to account for both the BER and SE dimensions (Fig. 8).
The power-bandwidth efficiency (PBE) plane is used in com-
munication theory to vividly illustrate the tradeoffs between its 8-DPSK counterpart (for the same SE of 3 b/s/Hz), albeit at
the sensitivity and SE of transmission systems. Our findings the cost of higher receiver complexity.
on the quantum limits of the comparative BER performance BDPASK versus DQPSK: The rationale for introducing the
of the various MDP formats, namely BDPASK, QDPASK, and BDPASK and PhIM formats, in the first place, was to double the
PhIM, are displayed in the PBE plane (Fig. 8), revealing the SE to 2 b/s/Hz by multiplexing ASK atop of DPSK. However,
relative ranking of these formats with respect to each other, upon comparing our results for the DPASK sensitivity levels
as well as in comparison to “conventional” M -ary DPSK with with the known quantum limits of 38 ph/bit for ASK (OOK)
M = 2, 4, 8 and to ON–OFF keying (OOK), further compared and 20 ph/bit for BDPSK [5], it is apparent that, contrary to
with the PhIM format introduced in [12], as quoted in [18], and expectations, the recently introduced BDPASK format incurs
finally compared with the coherent BPSK and QPSK quantum a considerable photonic sensitivity penalty in return for the
limits [26]. Fig. 8 indicates that the two (B/Q)DPASK schemes improved SE. In fact, by merely using DQPSK, the same SE
explore different regions of the PBE plane; however, BDPASK performance improvement might be attained for comparable
is inferior in sensitivity relative to its 4-DPSK counterpart (for receiver complexity, with a better sensitivity of 31 photons
the same SE of 2 b/s/Hz), whereas QDPASK does better than per bit.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2257

amplitude-modulated versus the differentially phase-modulated


tributaries. As demonstrated in (32), wherein the lo–lo level
hypothesis was identified as the limiting factor, the excessive
attenuation (low χ) is seen to adversely affect the DPSK branch
performance. Meanwhile, (32) calls for χ to be increased. Even
a small finite extinction ratio χ rapidly brings up the ASK error
probability relative to the reference case of zero extinction ratio
(OOK): Once the lower level is no longer zero but climbs up
towards the upper level, the ASK eye closing degrades the BER
exponentially. The strong exponential tradeoffs between the
two branches as a function of χ are demonstrated in Fig. 4. Even
at the optimal crossover point χ = 0.115, the performance of
Fig. 8. Comparative performance of MDP formats (BDPASK, QDPASK, and either branch is significantly worse than that of the same branch
PhIM) versus conventional M -ary DPSK (for M = 2, 3, 4) in the PBE plane,
all at a BER of 10−9 . Most of the data points in this plot were previewed standalone (ideally with χ = 1 for DPSK and with χ = 0 for
in [22]. The direct-detection OOK and coherent-detection BPSK and QPSK ASK). On the positive side, the opening up of two parallel
formats (38, 9, 18.7 ph/bit, respectively [18]) are also displayed for comparison. DPSK and ASK branches allows doubling the SE by halving
While BDPASK and PhIM display the same SE of 2 b/s/Hz as quaternary
DQPSK does, these formats unfortunately require a higher optical power the chip rate for a given bit rate (e.g., just 5 Mchip/s suffices
(46 and 56.8 ph/bit) than DQPSK (30.9 ph/bit). QDPASK, however, is superior for 10 Gb/s). Hence, the chip duration is doubled, and along
to 8-DPSK, attaining the same SE of 3 b/s/Hz for just 52.4 ph/bit (versus with it, the number of photons per chip for a given optical
77.2 ph/bit for 8-DPSK). Generally, higher performance advanced modulation
formats should be located above (or on the left) of the path connecting the power, i.e., the energy per symbol, is doubled. This energy gain,
M -ary DPSK conventional formats. translating into an opening of the eyes, is unfortunately offset
by the adverse effect of the extinction-ratio compromise on both
QDPASK versus 8-ary DPSK: While the proponents of branches. Even at the point of best tradeoff between the ASK
DPASK might find the BDPASK results above disappointing, and DPSK branches, the balance of these two opposing mech-
the cause is not lost. Indeed, doubling the number of phases anisms (SE gain versus extinction-ratio degradation of both
from two to four, i.e., resorting to QDPASK, increases the SE branches) is not favorable overall, as reflected in the derived
from 2 to 3 bits/chip, whereas the sensitivity degrades from 46 BDPASK photon sensitivities. The detailed understanding of
to 52.4 ph/bit. It follows that the sensitivity of the QDPASK these effects has been enabled by our analysis of the quantum
frontrunner format exceeds that of 8-ary DPSK8 (77.2 ph/bit) limits of DPASK and their dependence on the extinction ratio.
by 1.7 dB for the same SE (3 b/s/Hz). The degradation in the
performance of the PhIM MDP format [18], as displayed in B. Comparison to Experimental DPASK Results
Fig. 8 (0.9 dB worse than BDPASK, 2.6 dB worse than DQPSK,
all at 2 b/s/Hz), may be accounted for by the mismatch loss of As previewed in [18], comparisons of our theoretical limits
the PhIM tributaries. with label-switching experimental results (e.g., [3] and [4]) are
It should be kept in mind that the PBE plane performance not directly feasible, as such systems typically employ unequal
presented in Fig. 8 corresponds to the particular BER value of chip rates for the ASK and DPSK tributaries (e.g., 40 (2.5) Gb/s
10−9 . The BER variation over a large range of optical powers DPSK versus 2.5 (10) Gb/s ASK), and the extinction ratios are
was already displayed in Fig. 7. For lower BER values, as not optimized for best average BER, but rather, the operating
usable with forward error correction (prior to its application), point is selected such that the label is allocated a lower BER
the comparison might come out different. For example, as (as there is less tolerance to packet header errors). However,
shown in [27], due to the lower slope of the DPASK BER curves comparison is possible with experimental results for spectrally
[Fig. 7(b)], the penalty with respect to DPSK nearly vanishes at efficient DPASK optical communication, e.g., the BDPASK
higher BER values (around 10−3 ) while still benefiting from the [3] (QDPASK [4]) experimentally measured sensitivities for
SE improvement. transmission at aggregate 20 (30)-Gb/s rates were −30.5 dBm
We finally remark that beyond the sensitivity-bandwidth (−26.8 dBm), translating to 349 ph/bit (545 ph/bit), respec-
efficiency tradeoffs, as displayed in the PBE plane, a fair tively. These sensitivities are worse by 8.8 dB (10.2 dB) than
comparison between modulation formats ought to further take our quantum limits. While such a performance gap is to be
into account the relative receiver complexities. expected in light of various experimental impairments, our
results here delineate the ultimate quantum-limit bounds of
A. Insight Into the Sensitivity Degradation Mechanisms performance to be attained with MDP systems.

The vulnerability of the BDPASK format, i.e., its degrada- C. Beyond the Quantum Limits—Projected Effects of
tion in sensitivity in return for the increase in SE afforded Fiber Impairments
by multiplexing ASK and DPSK, was traced in this paper
to the detrimental tradeoff between the performance of the Moreover, if similar theoretical comparisons were to be
extended, by addressing practical fiber impairments such as
8 The sensitivity of 8-DPSK may be found by applying well-known results of
1) dispersion and 2) nonlinearity, the relative ranking of systems
wireless communication for M -ary DPSK bit error prob. (e.g., [25, Sec. 7.1.2]) might substantially change. In dispersion-limited situations
and rescaling the SNR in photons per bit units by using (38). wherein sensitivity is not at premium, it is worth resorting

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2258 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

to multilevel bandwidth-conserving formats [15] trading off a photocurrent q ask (t), which is expressed as q ask (t) ≡ |Ef (t)|2
degradation in the noise immunity for a reduced dispersion (up to constant factors not affecting the OSNR, such˜ as the
penalty. For example, a BDPASK receiver may run its ASK responsivity and optical splitting loss). Sampling9 at time t =
and DPSK branches in parallel 10 GBd/s, attaining a 20-Gb/s kT and substituting (5a) yields
aggregate rate, while each branch operates at half the baud  2
rate, requiring half the bandwidth relative to a QDPSK receiver  
attaining the same SE. As for a brief discussion of nonlinear qkask ≡q ask
(kT ) = Ef (kT ) = |ρk |2 = |Ak + nk |2 . (34)

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
effects, recent indications of the substantial impact of the self-
phase-modulation nonlinear effects on the relative performance Denoting the higher of the two noiselessly received am-
of differential phase schemes are provided in [28] and [29]. plitudes by a, the low amplitude is then expressed in terms
Considering DPASK operation over practical fiber-optic links, √
of the power extinction ratio χ as a χ. We then have two
it is qualitatively expected that the degradation due to amplitude equiprobable transmission hypotheses associated with ampli-
attenuation be less pronounced in the presence of ASE-induced tude modulation during the kth chip:
nonlinear phase noise.
hi : qkask = |a + nk |2
˜
IX. C ONCLUSION a 
shi = = 2Kc (35a)
This paper is dedicated to analytically determining the quan- σ

tum limits of performance for DPASK MDP formats. The lo : qkask = |a χ + nk |2
˜
closed-form formulas were numerically verified by means of √
a χ 
MMC simulations. The analytic methodology described here slo = = 2χKc . (35b)
for determining the quantum limits may be extended to other σ
families of optical multilevel signaling formats [15], involving The ASK detector sets a threshold b2 , applying the
M -ary amplitude and/or partial response variants of combined decision rule
phase–amplitude modulation, such as poly-binary/quaternary
and AM-PSK duobinary schemes. However, even prior to 
qkask > b2 ⇒ hi, 
qkask < b2 ⇒ lo. (36)
considering additional modulation formats, much work re-
mains to be accomplished regarding the systematic extension The conditional probabilities of error are then
of the analysis of MDP transmission to cover the fiber and 
transmit–receive system impairments. (hi)
 ask 2 ask
Pe = Pr qk < b |hi = Pr qk < b|hi
An alternative venue, explored in [21] and [22], retains

the originally proposed DPASK transmission scheme while (lo)
 ask 2 ask
introducing at the receiver side optimal, albeit more complex, Pe = Pr qk > b |lo = Pr qk > b|lo (37)
soft detectors for the generalized Stokes parameters, as opposed

to the current hard detection occurring in the ASK and DPSK qkask = |ρk | = |A
branches (this is the reason for referring to the current formats
where
˜ k + nk | is Rician distributed un-
˜ ˜
ask 2
as hard-detection ones). Moreover, as outlined in [21] and [22],  two hypotheses: qk |hi = |a + n˜k | ∼ Rician[a, σ ]
der the
√ √
it is possible to combine the seemingly disparate concepts of and qkask |lo = |a χ + nk | ∼ Rician[a χ, σ 2 ]. The opti-
˜
DPASK signaling and multichip DPSK [14], [29], conceiving mum threshold position is determined by the ML principle as
novel modulation formats whereby multiple (> 2) baud inter- the point of intersection of the two conditional transition prob-
vals are jointly modulated in both amplitude and phase. The po- abilities. It may be shown that for a high SNR, the threshold
tential performance improvement of such advanced modulation asymptotically tends to be located halfway:
formats is yet to be determined.
√ √
The overriding conclusion is that the quest for advanced (a + a χ) (1 + χ)
modulation formats and optimal detection schemes is far b= =a . (38)
2 2
from being exhausted. The objective of simultaneously ex-
ploiting multiple optical degrees of freedom to attain high The conditional error probabilities are related to the cumulative
bandwidth-power efficiency and manageable complexity is still distribution function of Rician variates (expressed in terms of
outstanding. the Marcum Q function):
  
(hi) ask a b
A PPENDIX Pe = Pr qk < b|hi = 1 − Q ,
σ σ
BER OF THE ASK B RANCH OF B INARY   √ 
A MPLITUDE DPASK (lo) ask
a χ b
Pe = Pr qk > b|lo = Q , . (39)
σ σ
The DPASK system transmits (or rather noiselessly receives
at the OA input) during each chip either Kc or χKc photons.
9 Sampling after quadratic detection in the electrical domain amounts to
The differential phase modulation applied onto the transmitted
sampling before quadratic detection and taking the absolute square of the
field is irrelevant for the purposes of ASK detection. In the sample (formally, a memoriless transformation and a sampling operation are
ASK branch, a conventional ASK photodetector generates a commutative).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAZARATHY et al.: ANALYTICAL EVALUATION OF BERs FOR HARD DETECTION OF OPTICAL DPASK 2259

Using (38) and (35a) yields [10] W. Hung, C. K. Chan, L. K. Chen, and F. Tong, “A novel phase encoding
scheme for optical packet processing,” presented at the Eur. Conf. Optical
 √ 
a a(1 + χ) Communication, Rimini, Italy, 2003, Paper Tu4.4.4.
Pe(hi) = 1 − Q , [11] C. W. Chow and H. K. Tsang, “Optical packet labeling using three-level
σ 2σ orthogonal labeling,” presented at the 10th OptoElectronics Communica-
   tions Conf., Seoul, Korea, 2005, Paper 6A3-7.
 Kc √ [12] M. Zitelli, “Optical phase and intensity modulation using dark pulses,”
=1 − Q 2Kc , (1 + χ) . (40) IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1972–1974, Aug. 2004.
2
[13] J. Comellas, J. M. Gene, and J. Prat, “Quaternary optical transmission
system combining phase and polarization-shift keying,” IEEE Photon
Now, expressing the threshold b in σ units using (35a), Technol. Lett., vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1766–1768, Jul. 2004.
[14] M. Nazarathy and E. Simony, “Multi-chip differential phase encoded op-
we have tical transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1133–
√  1135, May 2005.
b a(1 + χ) KC √ [15] S. Walklin and J. Conradi, “Multilevel signaling for increasing the reach of
= = (1 + χ). (41) 10 Gb/s lightwave systems,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2235–
σ 2σ 2 2248, Nov. 1999.
[16] W. T. Webb, L. Hanzo, and R. Steele, “Bandwidth efficient QAM schemes
Substitution in the second equation of (39) yields for Rayleigh fading channels,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 138, no. 3,
   pt. 1, pp. 169–175, Jun. 1991.

(lo)
 Kc √ [17] J.-C. Lin, “Study of MR-DPSK modulation,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 6,
Pe = Q 2χKc , (1 + χ) . (42) no. 4, pp. 132–134, Apr. 2002.
2 [18] M. Nazarathy and E. Simony, “Performance limits of multilevel DPSK,”
IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2310–2312, Nov. 2005.
[19] R. Holzlohner and C. R. Menyuk, “Use of multicanonical Monte Carlo
Finally, averaging over the two conditional error probabilities simulations to obtain accurate bit error rates in optical communications
of (40) and (42) yields our final result for the error probability systems,” Opt. Lett., vol. 28, no. 20, pp. 1894–1896, Oct. 2003.
(=SER = BER) of the ASK branch: [20] D. Yevick, “Multicanonical communication system modeling-application
to PMD statistics,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1512–
1514, Nov. 2002.
Pebit [ASK branch] = Pesym [ASK branch] [21] M. Nazarathy and E. Simony, “A generalized Stokes parameters shift key-
   ing approach to multi-chip differential phase encoded optical modulation
1 1  Kc √ formats,” Opt. Lett., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 435–437, Feb. 2006.
= − Q 2Kc , (1 + χ)
2 2 2 [22] ——, “Stokes space optimal detection of differential phase and polariza-
tion shift keying modulation,” J. Lightw. Technol., to be published.
  
1  Kc √
[23] S. Stein, “Unified analysis of certain coherent and non-coherent binary
+ Q 2χKc , (1 + χ) . communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-10, no. 1,
2 2 pp. 43–51, Jan. 1964.
[24] M. Schwartz, W. R. Bennett, and S. Stein, Communication Systems and
(43) Techniques. New York: IEEE Press, 1996.
[25] M. K. Simon, S. M. Hinedi, and W. Lindsey, Digital Communication Tech-
niques: Signal Design and Detection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
R EFERENCES Hall, 1995.
[26] G. Jacobsen, “Sensitivity limits for digital optical communication
[1] A. H. Gnauck and P. J. Winzer, “Optical phase-shift-keyed transmission,” systems,” J. Opt. Commun., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 52–64, 1993.
J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 115–130, Jan. 2005. [27] A. H. Gnauck, P. J. Winzer, S. Chandrasekhar, and C. Dorrer, “Spectrally
[2] M. Ohm and J. Speidel, “Quaternary optical ASK-DPSK and receivers efficient (0.8 b/s/Hz) 1-Tb/s (25 × 42.7 Gb/s) RZ-DQPSK transmis-
with direct detection,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 1, sion over 28 100-km SSMF spans with 7 optical add/drops,” presented
pp. 159–161, Jan. 2003. at the Eur. Conf. Optical Communication, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004,
[3] X. Liu, Y. Kao, J. Leuthold, C. R. Doerr, and L. F. Mollenauer, “Quater- Paper Th4.4.1.
nary differential-phase-amplitude-shift-keying for DWDM transmission,” [28] X. Wei, X. Liu, and C. Xu, “Numerical simulation of the SPM penalty in a
presented at the Eur. Conf. Optical Communication, Rimini, Italy, 2003, 10-Gb/s RZ-DPSK system,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 15, no. 11,
Paper Th2.6.5. pp. 1636–1638, Nov. 2003.
[4] S. Hayase, N. Kikuchi, K. Sekine, and S. Sasaki, “Proposal of 8-state per [29] Y. Yadin, A. Bilenca, and M. Nazarathy, “Soft detection of multichip
symbol (binary ASK and QPSK) 30-Gb/s optical modulation demodula- DPSK over the nonlinear fiber-optic channel,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
tion scheme,” presented at the Eur. Conf. Optical Communication, Rimini, Lett., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 2001–2003, Sep. 2005.
Italy, 2003, Paper Th2.6.4.
[5] J. Hansryd, J. van Howe, and C. Xu, “Nonlinear crosstalk and compensa-
tion in QDPASK optical communication systems,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1975–1977, Aug. 2004.
[6] T. Koonen, G. Morthier, J. Jennen, H. de Waardt, and P. Demeester, Moshe Nazarathy (M’97–SM’05) received the
“Optical packet routing in IP-over-WDM networks deploying two-level B.Sc. (cum laude) in 1978 and Dr. Sci. E.E. degrees
optical labeling,” in Proc. ECOC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001, in 1982 from the Technion, Israel Institute of Tech-
pp. 608–609, Paper ThL.2.1. nology, Haifa, Israel.
[7] N. Chi, J. Zhang, P. V. Holm-Nielsen, and P. Jeppesen, “Transmission From 1982 to 1984, he held a postdoctoral po-
and transparent wavelength conversion of an optically labeled signal sition at Stanford University’s Information Systems
using ASK/DPSK orthogonal modulation,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. From
Lett., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 760–762, May 2003. 1984 to 1988, he was with Hewlett Packard’s Pho-
[8] N. Chi, C. Mikkelsen, L. Xu, J. Zhang, P. V. Holm-Nielsen, H. Ou, tonics and Instruments Laboratory, attaining the rank
J. Seoane, C. Peucheret, and P. Jeppesen, “Transmission and label en- of Principal Engineer. He co-founded Harmonic Inc.,
coding/erasure of orthogonally labeled signal using 40 Gb/s RZ-DPSK and served as Senior VP of R&D and corporate CTO
payload and 2.5 Gb/s IM label,” Electron. Lett., vol. 39, no. 18, pp. 1335– and General Manager of the company’s Israeli subsidiary and was a member of
1337, Sep. 2003. Harmonic’s Board of Directors from 1988 to 2001. Currently, he is a Visiting
[9] X. Liu, Y. Su, X. Wei, J. Leuthold, and R. C. Giles, “Optical-label switch- Associate Professor at the Electrical Engineering Department, Technion, Israel
ing based on DPSK/ASK modulation format with balanced detection for Institute of Technology. He also serves as a Technology Venture Partner with
DPSK payload,” presented at the Eur. Conf. Optical Communication, Giza Ventures, a leading Venture Capital firm in Israel, and on the Advisory
Rimini, Italy, 2003, Paper Tu4.4.3. Board of two start-up companies.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2260 JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 5, MAY 2006

Erez Simony was born in Tiberias, Israel. He received the B.S. degree in Yoav Yadin received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Electrical Engineer-
electrical engineering, the B.A. degree in physics in 1997, and the M.S. ing Department, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, in 1998
degree in electrical engineering in 2004 from the Technion, Israel Institute and 2001, respectively. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at the
of Technology, Haifa, Israel. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree Technion.
in computational neuroscience at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, His current research interests include advanced modulation formats for long-
Israel. haul and short-reach optical communications systems.
From 1997 to 2001, he was with the digital communication research group
of Rafael Ltd., with MediaGate Ltd., and with FlashNetwork Ltd., working on
various aspects of communication systems design and implementation. His cur-
rent research interests include communication theory, optical communication,
and computational neuroscience.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Corporacion Universitaria de la Costa. Downloaded on February 18,2020 at 20:42:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.