4.6 Article

Computational complexity comparison of feedforward/radial basis function/recurrent neural network-based equalizer for a 50-Gb/s PAM4 direct-detection optical link

Journal

OPTICS EXPRESS
Volume 27, Issue 25, Pages 36953-36964

Publisher

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/OE.27.036953

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP150101864, DP190103724]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The computational complexity and system bit-error-rate (BER) performance of four types of neural-network-based nonlinear equalizers are analyzed for a 50-Gb/s pulse amplitude modulation (PAM)-4 direct-detection (DD) optical link. The four types are feedforward neural networks (F-NN), radial basis function neural networks (RBF-NN), auto-regressive recurrent neural networks (AR-RNN) and layer-recurrent neural networks (L-RNN). Numerical results show that, for a fixed BER threshold, the AR-RNN-based equalizers have the lowest computational complexity. Amongst all the nonlinear NN-based equalizers with the same number of inputs and hidden neurons, F-NN-based equalizers have the lowest computational complexity while the AR-RNN-based equalizers exhibit the best BER performance. Compared with F-NN or RNN, RBF-NN tends to require more hidden neurons with the increase of the number of inputs, making it not suitable for long fiber transmission distance. We also demonstrate that only a few tens of multiplications per symbol are needed for NN-based equalizers to guarantee a good BER performance. This relatively low computational complexity signifies that various NN-based equalizers can be potentially implemented in real time. More broadly, this paper provides guidelines for selecting a suitable NN-based equalizer based on BER and computational complexity requirements. (C) 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available