PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

1

Capacity Lower Bounds of the Noncentral
Chi-Channel with Applications to Soliton
Amplitude Modulation

arXiv:1609.02318v4 [] 16 Feb 2018

Nikita A. Shevchenko, Stanislav A. Derevyanko, Jaroslaw E. Prilepsky, Alex Alvarado, Polina Bayvel, and
Sergei K. Turitsyn

Abstract—The channel law for amplitude-modulated solitons
transmitted through a nonlinear optical fibre with ideal distributed amplification and a receiver based on the nonlinear
Fourier transform is a noncentral chi-distribution with 2n
degrees of freedom, where n = 2 and n = 3 correspond
to the single- and dual-polarisation cases, respectively. In this
paper, we study capacity lower bounds of this channel under an
average power constraint in bits per channel use. We develop
an asymptotic semi-analytic approximation for a capacity lower
bound for arbitrary n and a Rayleigh input distribution. It
is shown that this lower bound grows logarithmically with
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), independently of the value of n.
Numerical results for other continuous input distributions are
also provided. A half-Gaussian input distribution is shown to give
larger rates than a Rayleigh input distribution for n = 1, 2, 3.
At an SNR of 25 dB, the best lower bounds we developed
are approximately 3.68 bit per channel use. The practically
relevant case of amplitude shift-keying (ASK) constellations is
also numerically analysed. For the same SNR of 25 dB, a 16ASK constellation yields a rate of approximately 3.45 bit per
channel use.
Index Terms—Achievable information rates, channel capacity,
mutual information, nonlinear optical fibres, nonlinear Fourier
transform, optical solitons.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Optical fibre transmission systems carrying the overwhelming bulk of the world’s telecommunication traffic have undergone a long process of increasing engineering complexity
and sophistication [1]–[3]. However, the key physical effects
affecting the performance of these systems remain largely
the same. These are: attenuation, chromatic dispersion, fibre
nonlinearity due to the optical Kerr effect, and optical noise.
Although the bandwidth of optical fibre transmission systems
N. A. Shevchenko and P. Bayvel are with the Optical Networks Group, Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering, University College London,
London WC1E 7JE, UK (email: mykyta.shevchenko.13@ucl.ac.uk).
S. A. Derevyanko is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel
(email: stasd@bgu.ac.il).
J. E. Prilepsky and S. K. Turitsyn are with the Aston Institute of Photonic Technologies, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK (email:
y.prylepskiy1@aston.ac.uk).
A. Alvarado is with the Signal Processing Systems Group, Department of
Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Eindhoven, 5600 MB, The Netherlands (email: alex.alvarado@ieee.org)
Research supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) project UNLOC (EP/J017582/1), by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) via the VIDI Grant ICONIC (project
number 15685), and a UCL Graduate Research Scholarship (GRS).

is large, these systems are ultimately band-limited. This bandwidth limitation combined with the ever-growing demand for
data rates is expected to result in a so-called “capacity crunch”
[4], which caps the rate increase of error-free data transmission
[4]–[7]. Designing spectrally-efficient transmission systems is
therefore a key challenge for future optical fibre transmission
systems.
The channel model used in optical communication that
includes all three above-mentioned key effects for two states
of polarisation is the so-called Manakov equation (ME) [7, eq.
(1.26)], [8, Sec. 10.3.1]. The ME describes the propagation of
the optical field for systems employing polarisation division
multiplexing. The ME therefore generalises the popular scalar
nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NSE) [6]–[9], used for singlepolarisation systems. In both models, the evolution of the
optical field along the fibre is represented by a nonlinear partial
differential equation with complex additive Gaussian noise.1
The accumulated nonlinear interaction between the signal and
the noise makes the analysis of the resulting channel model
a very difficult problem. As recently discussed in, e.g., [10,
Sec. 1], [11], [12], exact channel capacity results for fibre
optical systems are scarce, and many aspects related to this
problem remain open.
Until recently, the common belief among some researchers
in the field of optical communication was that nonlinearity
was always a nuisance that necessarily degrades the system
performance. This led to the assumption that the capacity of
the optical channel had a peaky behaviour when plotted as a
function of the transmit power2 . Partially motivated by the idea
of improving the data rates in optical fibre links, a multitude
of nonlinearity compensation methods have been proposed
(see, e.g., [16]–[21]), each resulting in different discrete-time
channel models. Recently, a paradigm-shifting approach for
overcoming the effects of nonlinearity has been receiving
increased attention. This approach relies on the fact that both
the ME and NSE in the absence of losses and noise are exactly
integrable [22], [23].
One of the consequences of integrability is that the signal
evolution can be represented using nonlinear normal modes.
While the pulse propagation in the ME and NSE is nonlinear, the evolution of these nonlinear modes in the so1 The precise mathematical expressions for both channel models are given
in Sec. II-A.
2 However, nondecaying bounds can be found in the literature, e.g., in [10],
[13] (lower bounds) and [14], [15] (upper bounds).

2

called nonlinear spectral domain is essentially linear [24],
[25]. The decomposition of the waveform into the nonlinear
modes (and the reciprocal operation) is often referred to as
nonlinear Fourier transform (NFT), due to its similarity with
the application of the conventional Fourier decomposition in
linear systems [26].3 The linear propagation of the nonlinear
modes implies that the nonlinear cross-talk in the NFT domain
is theoretically absent, an idea exploited in the so-called
nonlinear frequency division multiplexing [24], [27]. In this
method, the nonlinear interference can be greatly suppressed
by assigning users different ranges in the nonlinear spectrum,
instead of multiplexing them using the conventional Fourier
domain.
Integrability (and the general ideas based around NFT) has
also lead to several nonlinearity compensation, transmission
and coding schemes [28]–[38]. These can be seen as a
generalisation of soliton-based communications [8], [9], [39,
Chapter 5], which follow the pioneering work by Hasegawa
and Nyu [40], and where only the discrete eigenvalues were
used for communication. The development of efficient and
numerically stable algorithms has also attracted a lot of
attention [41]. Furthermore, there have also been a number
of experimental demonstrations and assessments for different
NFT-based systems [33]–[38]. However, for systems governed
by the ME, the only results available come from the recent
theoretical work of Maruta and Matsuda [32].
Two nonlinear spectra (types of nonlinear modes) exist in
the NSE and the ME. The first one is the so-called continuous
spectrum, which is the exact nonlinear analogue of the familiar
linear FT, inasmuch as its evolution in an optical fibre is exactly equivalent to that of the linear spectrum under the action
of the chromatic dispersion and the energy contained in the
continuous spectrum is related to that in the time domain by
a modified Parseval equality [26], [31]. The unique feature of
the NFT is, however, that apart from the continuous spectrum,
it can support a set of discrete eigenvalues (the nondispersive
part of the solution). In the time domain, these eigenvalues
correspond to stable localised multi-soliton waveforms immune to both dispersion and nonlinearity [8]. The spectral
efficiency of the multiple-eigenvalue encoding schemes is an
area actively explored at the moment [29], [42], [43]. Multisoliton transmission has also received increased attention in
recent years, see, e.g., [44] and [45] and references therein.
Finding the capacity of the multi-eigenvalue-based systems
in the presence of in-line noise that breaks integrability still
remains an open research problem. If only a single eigenvalue
per time slot is used, the problem is equivalent to a wellknown time-domain amplitude-modulated soliton transmission
system4 . In this paper, we consider this simple set-up, where
a single eigenvalue is transmitted in every time slot. The
obtained results are applicable not only to classical soliton
communication systems, but also to the novel area of the
eigenvalue communications.
3 In mathematics and physics literature, the name inverse scattering transform method for the NFT is more commonly used.
4 Since the imaginary part of a single discrete eigenvalue is proportional to
the soliton amplitude.

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

Although the set-up we consider in this paper is one
of the simplest ones, its channel capacity is still unknown.
Furthermore, the only results available in the literature [29],
[42], [43], [46]–[49] are exclusively for the NSE, leaving
the ME completely unexplored. In particular, previous results
include those by Meron et al. [48], who recognised that mutual
information (MI) in a nonlinear integrable channel can (and
should) be evaluated through the statistics of the nonlinear
spectrum, i.e., via the channel defined in the NFT domain.
Using a Gaussian scalar model for the amplitude evolution
with in-line noise, a lower bound on the MI and capacity of
a single-soliton transmission system was presented. The case
of two and more solitons per one time slot was also analysed,
where data rate gains of the continuous soliton modulation
versus an on-off-keying (OOK) system were also shown. A
bit-error rate analysis for the case of two interacting solitons
has been presented in [50]. The derivations presented there,
however, cannot be used straightforwardly for information
theoretic analysis. Yousefi and Kschischang [29] addressed
the question of achievable spectral efficiency for single- and
multi-eigenvalue transmission systems using a Gaussian model
for the nonlinear spectrum evolution. Some results on the
continuous spectrum modulation were also presented. Later in
[42], the spectral efficiency of a multi-eigenvalue transmission
system was studied in more detail. In [43], the same problem
was studied by considering the correlation functions of the
spectral data obtained in the quasi-classical limit of large
number of eigenvalues. Achievable information rates for multieigenvalue transmission systems utilising all four degrees of
freedom of each scalar soliton in NSE were analytically
obtained in [46]. These results were obtained within the
framework of a Gaussian noise model provided in [29], [47]
(non-Gaussian models have been presented in [51], [52]) and
assuming a continuous uniform input distribution subject to
peak power constraints. The spectral efficiency for the NFT
continuous spectrum modulation was considered in [53]–[55].
Periodic NFT methods have been recently investigated in [56].
In [49], we used a non-Gaussian model for the evolution of
a single soliton amplitude and the NSE. Our results showed
that a lower bound for the capacity per channel use of such
a model grows unbounded with the effective signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR). In this paper, we generalise and extend our
results in [49] to the ME. To this end, we use perturbationbased channel laws for soliton amplitudes previously reported
in [51], [52] (for the NSE) and [57] (for the ME). Both
channel laws are a noncentral chi (χ) distribution with 2n
degrees of freedom, where n = 2 and n = 3 correspond to
the NSE and ME, respectively. Motivated by the similarity
of the channel models mentioned above, in this paper we
study asymptotic lower bound approximations on the capacity
(in bit per channel use) of a general noncentral chi-channel
arbitrary (even) number of degrees of freedom. To the best of
our knowledge, this has not been previously reported in the
literature. Similar models, however, do appear in the study of
noise-driven coupled nonlinear oscillators [58].
The first contribution of this paper is to numerically obtain
lower bounds for the channel capacity for three continuous
input distributions, as well as for amplitude shift-keying (ASK)

3

constellations with discrete number of constellation points.
For all the continuous inputs, the lower bounds are shown
to be nondecreasing functions of the SNR under an average
power constraint. The second contribution of this paper is to
provide an asymptotic closed-form expression for the MI of
the noncentral chi-channel with a arbitrary (even) number of
degrees of freedom. This asymptotic expression shows that the
MI grows unbounded and at the same rate, independently of
the number of degrees of freedom.
II. C ONTINUOUS - TIME C HANNEL M ODEL
A. The Propagation Equations
The propagation of light in optical fibres in the presence of
amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise can be described
by a stochastic partial differential equation which captures
the effects of chromatic dispersion, nonlinear polarisation
mode dispersion, optical Kerr effect, and the generation of
ASE noise from the optical amplification process. Throughout
this paper we assume that the fibre loss is continuously
compensated along the fibre by means of (ideal) distributed
Raman amplification (DRA) [59], [60]. In this work we
consider the propagation of a slowly varying 2-component
envelope E(`, τ ) = [E1 (`, τ ), E2 (`, τ )] ∈ C2 over a nonlinear
birefringent optical fibre, where τ and ` represent time and
propagation distance, respectively. Our model also includes the
2-component ASE noise N (`, τ ) = [N1 (`, τ ), N2 (`, τ )] due
to the DRA. We also assume a uniform change of polarised
state on the Poincaré sphere [61].
The resulting lossless ME is then given by [7, eq. (1.26)],
[8, Sec. 10.3.1], [57], [62]5
8γ
β2
Eτ τ +
hE , Ēi E = N (`, τ ),
(1)
2
9
where the retarded time τ is measured in the reference
frame moving with the optical pulse average group velocity,
E ≡ E(`, τ ) represents the slowly varying 2-component
envelope of electric field, β2 is the group velocity dispersion
coefficient characterising the chromatic dispersion, and γ is
the fibre nonlinearity coefficient. The pre-factor 8/9 in (1)
comes from the averaging of the fast polarisation rotation
[8, Sec. 10.3.1], [61]. For simplicity we will further work
with the effective averaged nonlinear coefficient γ ∗ , 8γ/9
when addressing the ME. In the case of a single polarisation
state, the propagation equation above reduces to the lossless
generalised scalar NSE [6], [9]
ıE ` −

β2
2
Eτ τ + γ |E| E = N (`, τ ).
(2)
2
In this paper we consider the case of anomalous dispersion
(β2 < 0), i.e., the focusing case. In this case, both the ME
in (1) and the NSE in (2) permit bright soliton solutions
(“particle-like waves”), which will be discussed in more detail
in Sec. II-B.
ıE` −

5 Throughout this paper, vectors are denoted by boldface symbols x =
[x1 , x2 , x3 , ...], while scalars are denoted by nonboldface symbols. The scalar
product is denoted by h· , ·i, and over-bar denotes complex conjugation. The
Euclidean norm is denoted by kxk2 , |x1 |2 + |x2 |2 + .... The partial
derivatives in the partial differential equations are expressed as subscripts, e.g.,
√
2
E ` , ∂E
, E τ τ , ∂∂τE
−1.
2 , etc. The imaginary unit is denoted by ı ,
∂`

It is customary to re-scale (1) to dimensionless units. We
shall use the following normalisation: The power will be
measured in units of P0 = 1 mW since it is a typical
power level used in optical communications. The
√ normalised
(dimensionless) field then becomes q = E/ P0 . For the
distance and time, we define the dimensionless variables z
and t as z = `/`0 and t = τ /τ0 , where
s
p
|β2 |
.
(3)
`0 = (γ ∗ P0 )−1 , τ0 = `0 |β2 | =
γ ∗ P0
For the scalar case (2), we use the same normalisation but we
replace γ ∗ by γ. Then, the resulting ME reads
1
q + hq , q̄i q = n(z, t),
(4)
2 tt
while the NSE becomes
1
2
ıqz + qtt + |q| q = n(z, t).
(5)
2
The ASE noise n(z, t) = [n1 (z, t), n2 (z, t)] in (4) is a
normalised version of N (`, τ ), and is assumed to have the
following correlation properties
ıq z +

E [ni (z, t)] = E [ni (z, t) nj (z 0 , t0 )] = 0,
E [ni (z, t) n̄j (z 0 , t0 )] = D δij δ (z − z 0 ) δ (t − t0 ) ,

(6)

with i, j ∈ {1, 2}, with δij being a Kronecker symbol, E [·]
is the mathematical expectation operator, and δ (·) is the
Dirac delta function. The correlation properties (6) mean that
each noise component ni (z, t) is assumed to be a zero-mean,
independent, white circular Gaussian noise. The scalar case
follows by considering a single noise component only.
The noise intensity D in (6) is (in dimensionless units)
D = σ02

`0
σ02
=p
,
P0 τ0
γ ∗ |β2 | P03

(7)

where σ02 is the spectral density of the noise, with real world
units [W/ (km · Hz)]. For ideal DRA, this σ02 can be expressed
through the optical fibre and transmission system parameters
as follows: σ02 = αfibre KT · hν0 , where αfibre is the fibre
attenuation coefficient, hν0 is the average photon energy, KT
is a temperature-dependent phonon occupancy factor [6].
From now on, all the quantities in this paper are in
normalised units unless specified otherwise. Furthermore, we
define the continuous time channel as the one defined by the
normalised ME and the NSE. This is shown schematically in
the inner part of Fig. 1, where the transmitted and received
waveforms are x(t) ≡ q(0, t) and y(t) ≡ q(Z, t), respectively,
where Z is the propagation distance.
B. Fundamental Soliton Solutions
It is known that the noiseless (n(z, t) = 0) ME (4) possesses a special class of solutions, the so-called fundamental
bright solitons.6 In general, the Manakov fundamental soliton
is fully characterised by 6 parameters [57] (4 in the NSE
case): frequency (also having the meaning of velocity in
6 Fundamental solitons are “bright” only for the focusing case we consider
in this paper, i.e., for anomalous dispersion.

4

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

X

x(t)

Amplitude-toSoliton Mapper

y(t)

Optical Fibre

Transmitter

Optical Channel

Forward
NFT

Y

Receiver

Fig. 1: System model under consideration. The symbols X = [X1 , X2 , X3 , ...] are converted to amplitudes, and then mapped
to a waveform x(t). The noisy received waveform y(t) is obtained by propagating x(t) in (4). The forward NFT processes
the waveform y(t) symbol-by-symbol, and gives a soft estimate of the transmitted symbols Y = [Y1 , Y2 , Y3 , ...].
some physical applications), phase, phase mismatch, centreof-mass position, polarisation angle, and amplitude (the latter
is inversely proportional to the width of the soliton). In this
paper we consider amplitude-modulated solitons, and thus, no
information is carried by the other 5 parameters. The initial
values of these 5 parameters can therefore be set to arbitrary
values. In this paper, all of them have been set to zero. For
the initial frequency, this can be further motivated to avoid
deterministic pulse walk-offs. As for the initial phase, phase
mismatch, and centre-of-mass position, as we shall see in the
next section, their initial values do not affect the marginal
amplitude channel law. Under these assumptions, the soliton
solution at z = 0 is given by [57], [62]
q(0, t) = [q1 (0, t), q2 (0, t)] = [cos β0 , sin β0 ] A sech(At),
(8)
where A is the soliton amplitude and 0 < β0 < π/2 is the
polarisation angle. The value of β0 can be used to control how
the signal power is split across the two polarisations.
For any β0 , the Manakov soliton solution after propagation
over a distance Z with the initial condition given by (8), is
expressed as

q(Z, t) = [cos β0 , sin β0 ] A sech(At) exp
 2 
ıA Z
.
= q(0, t) exp
2

ıA2 Z
2



(9)
(10)

The soliton solution for the NSE in (5) can be obtained by
using β0 = 0 in (8)–(10)7 , which gives
(11)

q(0, t) = A sech (At) ,
and
ıA2 Z
q(Z, t) = A sech (At) exp
2
 2 
ıA Z
= q(0, t) exp
.
2




(12)

As shown by (10) and (12), the solitons in (8) and (11) only
acquire a phase rotation after propagation. When the noise is
not zero, however, these solutions will change. This will be
discussed in detail in the following section.
7 This corresponds to the case where all the signal power is transmitted in
the first polarisation.

III. D ISCRETE - TIME C HANNEL M ODEL
A. Amplitude-modulated Solitons: One and Two Polarisations
We consider a continuous-time input signal x(t)
[x1 (t), x2 (t)] of the form
x(t) =

∞
X

sk (t),

=

(13)

k=1

where sk (t) = [sk,1 (t), sk,2 (t)] and k is the discrete-time
index. Motivated by the results in Sec. II-B, the pulses sk (t)
are chosen to be
sk (t) = [cos β0 , sin β0 ] Ak sech [Ak (t − kTs )] ,

(14)

where Ts is the symbol period. In principle, it is also possible
to encode information by changing the polarisation angle
β0 from slot to slot. However, in this paper, we fix its
value to be the same for all the time slots corresponding
to a fixed (generally elliptic) degree of polarisation. Thus,
the transmitted waveform corresponds to soliton amplitude
modulation, which is schematically shown in Fig. 2 for the
scalar (NSE) case.
At the transmitter, we assume that symbols Xk are mapped
to soliton amplitudes Ak via Ak = Xk2 . This normalisation is
introduced only to simplify the analytical derivations in this
paper. To avoid soliton-to-soliton interactions, we also assume
that the separation Ts is large, i.e., exp(−Ak Ts )  1, ∀k.
The receiver in Fig. 1 is assumed to process the received
waveform during a window of Ts via the forward NFT [22],
[32] and returns the amplitude of the received soliton, which
we denoted by Rk = Yk2 .
Before proceeding further, it is important to discuss the
role of the amplitudes Ak on a potential enhancement of
soliton-soliton interactions. The interaction force prefactor is
known to scale as the amplitude cubed [8, Chapter 9.2], [9,
Chapter 5.4]. However, the interaction also decays exponentially as exp(−Ak Ts ). This exponential decay dominates the
interaction, and thus, considering very large amplitudes (or
equivalently, very large powers, as we will do later in the
paper), is in principle not a problem. At extremely large
amplitudes, however, the model used in this paper is invalid for
different reasons: higher order nonlinearities should be taken
into account. This includes stimulated Brilloin scattering (for
very large powers) or Raman scattering (for very short pulses).
Studying these effects is, however, out of the scope of this
paper.
We would also like to emphasise that for a fixed pulse
separation Ts , the channel model we consider in this paper

5

Fig. 2: Schematic visualisation of the amplitude modulation of soliton sequence (scalar NSE case).
is not applicable for low soliton amplitudes. This is due to
two reasons. The first one is that for low amplitude solitons,
the perturbation theory used to derive the channel law becomes
inapplicable as the signal becomes of the same order as noise.
Secondly, low amplitude solitons are also very broad, and
thus, nonnegligible soliton interactions are generated. These
two cases can be overcome if the soliton amplitudes are
always forced to be larger than certain cutoff amplitude â,
which we will now estimate. For the first case (noise-limited),
2
. In the second
the threshold ânoise is proportional to σN
case (interaction-limited), the threshold is proportional to the
symbol rate, i.e., âinter ∝ Ts−1 . This shows that for fixed system
parameters, the threshold â = max{ânoise , âinter } is a constant.
The implications of this will be discussed at the end of Sec. IV.
Having defined the transmitter and receiver, we can now
define a discrete-time channel model, which encompasses the
transmitter, the optical fibre, and the receiver, as shown in
Fig. 1. Due to the assumption on solitons well-separated in
time, we model the channel as memoryless, and thus, from
now on we drop the time index k. This memoryless assumption is supported by additional numerical simulations we
performed, which are included in Appendix A. Nevertheless,
at this point it is important to consider the implications of a
potential mismatch between the memoryless assumption of the
model and the true channel in the context of channel capacity
lower bounds. In particular, if in some regimes (e.g., low power
or large transmission distances) the memoryless assumption
would not hold, considering a memoryless channel model
would result in approximated lower bounds on the channel
capacity. Provable lower bounds can be obtained by using
mismatched decoding theory [63] (as done in [64, Sec. III-A
and III-B]) or by considering an average memoryless channel
(as done in [6, Sec. III-F]). Although both approaches can
in principle be used in the context of amplitude-modulated
solitons, they both rely on having access to samples from
the true channel, and not from a (potentially memoryless)
model. Such samples can only be obtained through numerical
simulations or an optical experiment, which is beyond the
scope of this paper. In this context, the channel capacity lower
bounds in Sec. IV, should be considered as a first step towards
more involved analyses.

The conditional probability density function (PDF) for the
received soliton amplitude R given the transmitted amplitude
A was obtained in [57, eq. (15)] using standard perturbative
approach and the Fokker-Planck equation method. The result
can be expressed as a noncentral chi-squared distribution

  √ 
1 r
a+r
2 ar
pR|A (r|a) = 2
exp − 2
I2
,
(15)
2
σN a
σN
σN
where
2
σN
=D·

Z
2

(16)

is the normalised variance of accumulated ASE noise, and
I2 (·) is the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order
two. The expression in (15) is a noncentral chi-squared distribution with six degrees of freedom (see, e.g., [65, eq. (29.4)])
providing non-Gaussian statistics for Manakov√soliton amplitudes.√By making the change of variables Y = R, and using
X = A, the PDF in (15) can be expressed as
 2
 

2 y3
x + y2
2xy
pY |X (y|x) = 2 2 exp −
I2
, (17)
2
2
σN x
σN
σN
which corresponds to the noncentral chi-distribution with six
degrees of freedom. An extra factor 2y before the exponential
function comes from the Jacobian.
For the NSE, it is possible to show that the channel law
becomes [49], [51], [52]
 2
 

x + y2
2 y2
2xy
exp −
pY |X (y|x) = 2
I1
, (18)
2
2
σN x
σN
σN
which corresponds to a noncentral chi-distribution with four
degrees of freedom.
We note that although in this paper we only consider an
amplitude modulation Ak (or in the NFT terms the imaginary
part of each discrete eigenvalue), it is possible to include
other discrete degrees of freedom corresponding to various
soliton parameters in (14) in order to improve the achievable
information rates. This is, however, beyond the scope of
this paper. Furthermore, the channel models presented in this
section were obtained via a perturbative treatment, and thus,
in the context of soliton/eigenvalue communications they are

6

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

technically valid only at high SNR.8 Despite that, in the current
paper we will also study capacity lower bounds of a general
noncentral chi-channel with arbitrary number of degrees of
freedom any range of SNR. While admittedly the low-SNR
region is currently only of interest when n = 1 (noncoherent
phase channel) we believe its generalization for n > 1 can
still be of interest for the new generation of nonlinear optical
regeneration systems

2
N1 ∼ N (0, σN
)

+

2
N2 ∼ N (0, σN
)

+
Xk

B. Generalised Discrete-time Channel Model
The results in the previous section show that both scalar
and vector soliton channels can be modelled using the same
class of the noncentral chi-distribution with an even number of
degrees of freedom 2n, with n = 2, 3. The simplest channel of
this type corresponds to n = 1, which describes a fibre optical
communication channel with zero-dispersion [13] as well as
the noncoherent phase channel studied in [66] (see also [67]).
Motivated by this, here we consider a general communication
channel described by the noncentral chi-distribution with an
arbitrary (even) degrees of freedom 2n. Although we are
currently not aware of any physically-relevant communication
system that can be modelled with n ≥ 4, we present results
for arbitrary n to provide an exhaustive treatment for channels
of this type.
The channel in question is therefore modelled via the PDF
corresponding to noncentral chi-distribution
 2



x + y2
2xy
2 yn
In−1
,
pY |X (y|x) = 2 n−1 exp −
2
2
σN x
σN
σN
(19)
with n ∈ N and where N , {1, 2, 3, ...}. This channel law
corresponds to the following input-output relation
2
2n 
1X X
2
√ + Ni ,
Y =
(20)
2 i=1
n
2n

where {Ni }i=1 is a set of independent and identically distributed Gaussian random variables with zero mean and vari2
. The above input-output relationship is schematically
ance σN
shown in Fig. 3, which particularises to (17) and (18), for
n = 3 and n = 2, respectively.
IV. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section, we study capacity lower bounds of the
channel in (19). We will show results as a function of the
2
effective SNR defined as ρ , σS2 /σN
, where σS2 is the second
2
moment of the input distribution pX and σN
is given by
2
(16). The value of σS also
corresponds
to
the
average
soliton
 
amplitude, i.e., σS2 = E X 2 = E [A]. It can be shown that
for given system parameters, the noise power (in real world
2
units) is constant and proportional to σN
, and the signal power
(in real world units) is proportional to σS2 . The parameter ρ
therefore indeed corresponds to an effective SNR.
As previously explained, the inter-symbol interference due
to pulse interaction can be neglected due to the large enough
8 More precisely, when the total soliton energy in the time slot is much
greater than that of the ASE noise.

{·}2

{·}2

+

q

+

..
.

{·}
√
n

{·}
2

Yk

{·}2

2
N2n−1 ∼ N (0, σN
)

+

{·}2

2
N2n ∼ N (0, σN
)

Fig. 3: Generalised discrete-time channel model: noncentral
chi-channel with 2n degrees of freedom.
soliton separation assumed, and thus, the channel can be
treated as a memoryless (see Appendix A for more details).
The channel capacity, in bits per channel use, is then given by
[68], [69]
C(ρ) ,

max

2
pX (x): E[X 2 ]≤σS

(21)

IX,Y (ρ),

where

IX,Y (ρ) , E log2

pX,Y (X, Y )
pX (X) · pY (Y )
= hY (ρ) − hY |X (ρ),



(22)
(23)

and where hY (ρ) , − E [log2 pY (Y )] and hY |X (ρ) ,
− E log2 pY |X (Y |X) are the output and conditional differential entropies, respectively. The optimisation in (21) is
performed over all possible statistical distributions pX (x)
that satisfy the power constraint. In our case this constraint
corresponds to a fixed second moment of the input symbol
distribution or, equivalently, to a fixed average signal power
in a given symbol period.
The exact solution for the power-constrained optimisation
problem (21) with the channel law (19) is unknown. For the
noncentral chi-distribution with 2 degrees of freedom (i.e., to
the noncoherent additive noise channel), it was shown [66] that
the capacity-achieving distribution is discrete with an infinite
number of mass points. To the best of our knowledge, that
proof has not been extended to higher number of degrees of
freedom, however, we expect that will be the case for (19) too.
In this paper, we do not aim at finding the capacityachieving distribution, but instead, we study lower bounds on
the capacity. We do this because the capacity problem is in
general very difficult, but also because of the relevance of
having nondecreasing lower bounds on the capacity for the
optical community. To obtain a lower bound on the capacity,
we will simply choose an input distribution pX (x) (as done in,
e.g., [5], [49]). Without claiming the generality, we, however,

7

As we will see later, this input distribution is not the one
giving the highest lower bound. However, it has one important
advantage: it allows some analytical results for the mutual
information. The other three distributions are considered later
in this section as numerical examples.
The next two Lemmas provide an exact closed-form expression for the conditional differential entropy hY |X (ρ) and
an asymptotic expression for the output differential entropy
hY (ρ).
Lemma 1: For the channel in (19) and the input distribution
(24)


n
hY |X (ρ) = 2ρ + n − ψ(n) log2 e − 1
2
n−1
(log2 ρ + ψ(1) log2 e)
+
2


n log2 e ρ
ρ
−
Φ
, 1, n
2
ρ+1
ρ+1
(n−1)/2

ρ+1
Fn (ρ) log2 e,
(25)
− ρ−1
ρ
where ψ(x) , d log Γ(x)/dx is the digamma function and
Φ(α, 1, n) is the special case of the Lerch transcendent function [70, eq. (9.551)]
n−2

Φ(α, 1, n) , −

log(1 − α) X αk+1−n
−
.
αn
k+1

(26)

k=0

The function Fn (ρ) is defined as
Z∞
Fn (ρ) ,

p
ξKn−1 ( 1 + ρ−1 ξ) In−1 (ξ) log [In−1 (ξ)] dξ,

0

(27)
and Kn (x) is the modified Bessel function of the second kind
of order n.
Proof: See Appendix B.
Lemma 2: For the channel in (19) and the input distribution
(24)




1
ψ(1)
hY (ρ) = log2 ρ + 1 −
log2 e − 1+O ρ−1 ,
2
2
ρ → ∞ (28)
Proof:
The next
Theorem
distribution

See Appendix C.
theorem is one of the main results of this paper.
3: The MI for the channel in (19) and the input
(24) admits the following asymptotic expansion



1
e1−ψ(1)
log2
ρ + O ρ−1 , ρ → ∞. (29)
2
4π
Proof: We expand the function Fn (ρ) in (27) defining
the conditional entropy in Lemma 1. At fixed large ρ the
integrand asymptotically decays as exp (−ξ/2ρ), i.e., with
small decrement (which can be proven by a standard large
IX,Y (ρ) =

n=1
n = 2 [49, eq. (17)]
n=3
n = 12
Asymptote eq. (29)
Upper bound [66, eq. (41)] (n = 1)
Lower bound [67, eq. (21)] (n = 1)

4

MI IX,Y (ρ) [bit/sym]

consider four important candidates for the input distribution.
First, following [49], we use symbols drawn from a Rayleigh
distribution


2x
x2
pX (x) = 2 exp − 2 , x ∈ [0, ∞).
(24)
σS
σS

tz

3

n

1

=

1,

5

10

by

=

[6

6]

am

d

un

by

La

h
ot

7]

[6

d

pi

o
rb
e
w
Lo

3
2,

n

0

d

&

b

er

p
Up

2

0

n
ou

Ka

Sh

ai

12

15
ρ [dB]

20

25

30

Fig. 4: The MI IX,Y (ρ) in (23) (numerically calculated) for
the chi-distribution with different degrees of freedom and
the channel model (19). The asymptotic estimate given by
Theorem 3 is also shown. Lower and upper bounds for n = 1
are also shown.
argument asymptotes of the Bessel functions). This means
that the main contribution to the integral comes from the
asymptotic region 1 . ξ . ρ in most part of which the
large argument expansion of both Bessel functions is indeed
justified. Using it uniformly we obtain


ρ
1
Fn (ρ) = 2ρ2 +
log + 1 − log 4π − ψ(1) + O [1] ,
2
ρ
which used in (25) gives the asymptotic expression
hY |X (ρ) =



1
log2 πe + O ρ−1 ,
2

ρ → ∞.

(30)

The proof is completed by combining (30) and (28) with (23).
The result in Theorem 3 is a universal and n-independent
expression. The expression in (29) shows that the capacity
lower bound is asymptotically equivalent to half of logarithm
of SNR plus a constant which is order-independent. Fig. 4
shows the numerical evaluation of IX,Y (ρ) for n = 1, 2, 3, 12
obtained by numerically evaluating all the integrals in the exact
expressions for the conditional and output entropies in (25)
and (53), as well as the asymptotic expression in Theorem 3.
Interestingly, we can see that even in the medium-SNR region,
the influence of the number of degrees of freedom on the MI
is minimal, and the curves are quite close to each other. In
this figure, we also include the lower and upper bounds for
n = 1 given by [67, eq. (21)] and [66, eq. (41)], resp. These
results show that the asymptotic results in Theorem 3 correctly
follow these two bounds.
The main reason for considering a Rayleigh input distribution was that it yields a semi-analytical lower bound on the

8

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

MI IX,Y (ρ) [bit/sym]

4

Half-Gaussian n = 1
Rayleigh n = 1
Half-Gaussian n = 2
Rayleigh n = 2
Half-Gaussian n = 3
Rayleigh n = 3

4

MI IX,Y (ρ) [bit/sym]

Geometric n = 1
Maxwell-Boltzmann n = 1
Geometric n = 2
Maxwell-Boltzmann n = 2
Geometric n = 3
Maxwell-Boltzmann n = 3

5

Half-Gaussian
3
Rayleigh
2

3

2

Half-Gaussian n = 1
OOK n = 1
4-ASK n = 1
8-ASK n = 1
16-ASK n = 1
Half-Gaussian n = 2
OOK n = 2
4-ASK n = 2
8-ASK n = 2
16-ASK n = 2
Half-Gaussian n = 3
OOK n = 3
4-ASK n = 3
8-ASK n = 3
16-ASK n = 3

16-ASK

8-ASK

Half-Gaussian

4-ASK

OOK
1

1

Maxwell-Boltzmann

0
−10

−5

0

5

10
ρ [dB]

15

20

25

30

Fig. 5: MI estimates (by numerically evaluating (23) via
Monte-Carlo integration) for different trial continuous input
distributions and different values of n (different line types).
Different distributions are shown with different colours.

the capacity. In the following example, we consider three other
input distributions and numerically calculate the resulting MI.
Example 1: Consider the geometric (exponential), halfGaussian, and Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions given by
√
pX (x) =

2

σS

√
exp −

2x
σS

0
−10

−5

0

5

,

x ∈ [0, ∞),

(31)

√


2
x2
pX (x) = √
exp − 2 ,
2σS
πσS

x ∈ [0, ∞),

(32)

√


3 x2
3 6 x2
pX (x) = √ 3 exp − 2 ,
2σS
πσS

x ∈ [0, ∞),

(33)

and

respectively. The MIs for these three distributions for n =
1, 2, 3 are shown in Fig. 5 and show that the lower bound given
by the geometric input distribution in (31) displays high MI in
the low SNR regime (ρ < 10 dB), whereas the half-Gaussian
input distribution in (32) is better for medium and large SNR.
On the other hand, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in
(33) gives the lowest MI for all SNR. Numerical results also
indicate that all the presented MIs asymptotically exhibit an
equivalent growth irrespective of the number of the degrees of
freedom 2n.
The following example considers the use of discrete constellations. In particular, we assume that the soliton amplitudes
take values on a set X , {x1 , ..., xM }, where M , |X | = 2m

15

20

25

30

Fig. 6: MI estimates (numerically calculated) for equallyspaced M -ASK constellations with M = {2, 4, 8, 16} constellation points.
is the cardinality of the constellation, and m is a number of
bits per symbol. The MI (23) in this case can be evaluated as
Z∞
1 X
IX,Y (ρ) =
pY |X (y|x)
M
x∈X 0

· log2

!

10
ρ [dB]

1
M

pY |X (y|x)
dy,
0
x0 ∈X pY |X (y|x )

P

(34)

where we assumed the symbols are equally likely.
Example 2: Consider ASK constellations X
=
{0, 1, . . . , M − 1} with m = 1, 2, 3, 4 and second moment
σS2 , which correspond to OOK, 4-ASK, 8-ASK, and 16ASK, respectively. The MI numerically evaluated for these
constellations is shown in Fig. 6 for chi-channel with
n = 1, 2, 3. As a reference, in this figure we also show
(black lines) the MI for the (continuous) half-Gaussian input
distribution. The results in this figure show that in the low
SNR regime, the use of binary modulation is in fact better
than the half-Gaussian distribution. This can, however, be
remedied by using a geometric distribution, which, as shown
in Fig. 5, outperforms the half-Gaussian distribution in the
low SNR regime. In the high SNR regime, however, this is
not the case.
Finally, let us address the impact of the cutoff â we
introduced in Sec. III. All our results for continuous input
distributions have been obtained for the input distributions
that are not bounded away from zero (see (24), (31)–(33)).
Therefore,
symbols Xk are generated below the threshold
√
x̂ = â, where the channel law considered in this paper does
not hold. We shall now only consider here the case of the
Rayleigh input (24) as this distribution was used to obtain the
main result of this section. We will prove that in the highpower (i.e., high SNR) regime, the effect of the cutoff on the

9

achievable data rate tends to zero. To do so, we note that
for fixed fibre parameters and propagation distance, the cutoff
2
x̂2 = â = max{ânoise , âinter } is also fixed, while σS2 = ρσN
grows linearly with SNR. In other words, one can achieve
high SNR at the expense of high power solitons for fixed
noise variance. One possible way of showing that the effect
of the cutoff on the achievable rate is zero as SNR tends to
infinity is to consider a transmitter which generates a dummy
symbol every time Xk ≤ x̂. The value of the threshold x̂ is
message-independent and thus, can be assumed to be known
to the receiver which will discard sub-threshold symbols. This
allows us to keep the main results of the paper at the expense
of a data rate loss (since part of the time, dummy symbols
are transmitted). The probability of such “outage” event η is
given by an the integral of the input distribution from zero to
the threshold. For the Rayleigh input
 PDF (24) this probability
is given by η = 1 − exp −â/σS2 (see (64)–(67)). Therefore
2
asymptotically η(ρ) ≈ â/(ρσN
) → 0 when ρ → ∞. The
average rate loss is then given by 1 − η(ρ), which tends to
zero as ρ → ∞.
An alternative and more rigorous solution to the problem
above is to consider directly the difference between the MI
asymptote obtained in the current paper (i.e., Theorem 3)
and that obtained by a truncated input Rayleigh distribution
which simply does not generate sub-threshold symbols. This
difference can be shown to tend to zero as ρ → ∞. This proof
is given in Appendix D.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
A non-Gaussian channel model for the conditional PDF of
well-separated (in time) soliton amplitudes was used to study
lower bounds on the channel capacity. Results for propagation
of signals over a nonlinear optical fibre using one and two
polarisations were presented. The results in this paper demonstrated both analytically and numerically that there exist lower
bounds on the channel capacity that display an unbounded
growth with the effective SNR, similarly to the linear Gaussian
channel. All the results in this paper are given in bit per
channel use only, and thus, they should be considered as a first
step towards analysing the more practically relevant problem
of channel capacity in bit per second per unit bandwidth. This
is a considerably more challenging problem, which is left for
further investigation.
Apart from the ME soliton channel model this paper also
studied lower bounds on the capacity of an abstract general
noncentral chi-channel with arbitrary number of degrees of
freedom. Similar channel models appear in the study of
relatively general systems of noise-driven coupled nonlinear
oscillators [58]. Therefore, we believe that the results for
large number of degrees of freedom might also some day find
applications in nonlinear communication channels.
The results obtained in this paper for the general noncentral
chi-Channel are true capacity lower bounds for that channel
model. For the case of the application considered in this paper
(amplitude-modulated soliton systems), however, the presented
analysis was based on a perturbative-based model which holds
at high SNR. This model also does not consider potential

TABLE I: Simulation system parameter
Parameter

Value

Carrier frequency (ν0 )

193.41 THz

Fibre attenuation (αfibre )

0.20 dB km−1

Fibre group-velocity dispersion (β2 )

−21.67 ps2 km−1

Fibre nonlinearity (γ)

2.0 W−1 km−1

Phonon occupancy factor (KT )

1.13

Propagation distance

500 km

Propagation step-size

0.1 km

interaction between solitons, and thus, the results in this paper
are limited to solitons well separated in time. Another way
of interpreting these results is that the obtained expressions
are approximated lower bounds on the capacity of the true
channel. Bounds that consider memory effects are left for
further investigation. Furthermore, another interesting open
research problem is the derivation of capacity upper bounds
for amplitude-modulated soliton systems. This is also left for
further investigation.
A PPENDIX A
M EMORYLESS PROPERTY OF THE DISCRETE - TIME
CHANNEL MODEL

In this section, we present numerical simulations to verify
the memoryless assumption for the discrete channel model
in Sec. III. To this end, we simulated the propagation of
sequences of N = 10 soliton symbols through the scalar
waveform channel given by (5). Two launch powers (−1.5
and 1.45 dBm) and two propagation distances (500 km and
2000 km) are considered. The simulations were carried out via
the standard split-step Fourier method. The soliton amplitudes
were generated as i.i.d. samples from a Rayleigh input distribution (see (24)) and the variance of X was chosen to be 1.25
and 20, so that the resulting soliton waveforms have powers of
−1.5 and 1.45 dBm, respectively. The transmitted waveform
x(τ ) was created using (13) at a symbol rate of 1.7 GBd.
To guarantee an accurate simulation, the time-domain samples
were taken every 4.6 ps and the step size was 0.1 km. White
Gaussian noise was added at each step to model the ideal DRA
process. The simulation parameters are similar to those used
in [44] and are summarised in Table I.
Fig. 7 shows the waveforms before and after propagation
through the channel given in (5). As expected, the received
signal is a noisy version of the transmitted waveform, where
the noise increases as the propagation distance increases.
These results show that doubling the transmission distance
and/or (approximately) doubling the launch power has very
little effect in the soliton shapes.
The noisy waveforms shown in Fig. 7 were then used
to obtain soliton amplitudes Y , [Y1 , Y2 , . . . , Y10 ] via the
forward NFT. Each amplitude is obtained by processing the
corresponding symbol period via the spectral matrix method
[28, Sec. IV-B]. To test the memoryless assumption, we
perform a simple correlation test. In particular, we consider

10

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

(a) Launch Power is −1.5 dBm (Var[X] = 1.25)

10−1
Continuous-time signal

Continuous-time signal

10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
10−6

Input waveform |x(τ )|

1

2

3
τ [ns]

4

5

10−3
10−4
10−5

Output waveform |y(τ )| after 500 km

0

10−2

10−6

6

Output waveform |y(τ )| after 2000 km
Input waveform |x(τ )|

0

1

2

3
τ [ns]

4

5

6

(b) Launch Power is 1.45 dBm (Var[X] = 20)

10−1
Continuous-time signal

Continuous-time signal

10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
10−6

Input waveform |x(τ )|

1

2

3
τ [ns]

4

5

10−3
10−4
10−5

Output waveform |y(τ )| after 500 km

0

10−2

6

10−6

Output waveform |y(τ )| after 2000 km
Input waveform |x(τ )|

0

1

2

3
τ [ns]

4

5

6

Fig. 7: Continuous-time input x(τ ) and output y(τ ) soliton waveforms for 10 solitons and distributed noise due to IRA. Two
launch powers are considered: (a) −1.5 dBm and (b) 1.45 dBm. The solitons are propagated 500 and 2000 km.
the normalised output symbol correlation matrix, whose entries
are defined as
E [(Yk − E [Yk ]) (Yk0 − E [Yk0 ])]
ckk0 ,
.
(35)
E [Yk ] E [Yk0 ]
The obtained correlation matrices are shown in Fig. 8, where
statistics were gathered by performing 103 Monte-Carlo runs
of the signal propagation. As we can see from Fig. 8, the
matrices are almost diagonal. Since our communication channel is believed to be non-Gaussian, the absence of correlation
does not of course necessarily imply the memoryless property
(understood here as the statistical independence). However, it
does constitute an important quantification of the qualitative
criterion exp(−Ak Ts )  1 as given in Sec. III-A.
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF L EMMA 1
The MI is invariant under a simultaneous linear re-scaling
of the variables x → x/σN and y → y/σN . For notation
simplicity, and without loss of generality, throughout this
2
proof we thus assume σN
= 1. Furthermore, we study the
conditional entropy as a function of ρ = σS2 and all the results
will be given in nats.

We express the conditional differential entropy as
Z∞ Z∞
hY |X (ρ) = −

pX,Y (x, y) log pY |X (y|x) dy dx
0

(36)

0

= − log 2 − n E [log Y ] + (n − 1) E [log X]
 
 
+ E X 2 + E Y 2 − E [log In−1 (2XY )] , (37)
where (37) follows from (19). In what follows, we will
compute the 5 expectations in (37).
The third and fourth terms in (37) can be readily obtained
using (24)
E [log X] =

1
(log ρ + ψ(1)) ,
2

 
E X 2 = ρ.

(38)

(39)

To compute the second and fifth terms in (37), we first

11

(a) Launch Power is −1.5 dBm (Var[X] = 1.25)
ckk0

After 500 km
10

ckk0

After 2000 km
10

0.20

0.20

8

8
0.15

0.15

k0

6

k0

6
0.10

0.10

4

4
0.05

0.05

2

2

2

4

6

8

10

2

4

k

6

8

10

k

(b) Launch Power is 1.45 dBm (Var[X] = 20)
ckk0

After 500 km

0.25

10

8

0.20

8

6

0.15

6

0.15

4

0.10

0.25

0.20

k0

k0

10

ckk0

After 2000 km

0.10

4

0.05

2

2

4

6

8

0.05

2

10

2

4

k

6

8

10

k

Fig. 8: Normalised output symbol correlation matrices for the two launch powers and propagation distances in Fig. 7.
calculate the output distribution as
Z∞
pY (y) =

(40)

pX,Y (x, y) dx
0

y2
2y − ρ+1
=
e
ραn−2

1 − e−αy

2

n−2
X
k=0

(αy 2 )k
k!

!
,

(41)

where the joint distribution pX,Y (x, y) can be expressed using
(19) and (24) as
pX,Y (x, y) =

 2

4 yn
x + αy 2
exp
−
In−1 (2xy), (42)
ρ xn−2
α

and where (41) can be obtained using a symbolic integration
software. Using (41), we obtain (using a symbolic integration
software)
1
E [log Y ] = (αΦ(α, 1, n) + ψ(n)) ,
(44)
2
where ψ(n) is the digamma function, Φ(α, 1, n) is given by
(26). The second moment of the output distribution is obtained
directly from the channel input-output relation (20), yielding
 
E Y 2 = ρ + n.
(45)
Substituting (38), (39), (44) and (45) into (37), we have
n
n
n−1
hY |X (ρ) = − log 2 − αΦ(α, 1, n) − ψ(n) +
2
2
2
(6)
· (log ρ + ψ(1)) + 2ρ + n − hY |X (ρ),
(46)

where

with
α,

ρ
< 1,
ρ+1

(43)

(6)
hY |X (ρ)

Z∞ Z∞
pX,Y (x, y) log [In−1 (2xy)] dx dy.

,
0

0

(47)

12

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

(6)

The last step is to compute the term hY |X (ρ), which using
(42) can be expressed as
 2

Z∞ Z∞ n
4
x + αy 2
y
(6)
hY |X (ρ) =
exp
−
ρ
xn−2
α
0

0

· In−1 (2xy) log [In−1 (2xy)] dx dy.

(48)

We then make the change of variables ξ = 2xy, η = y 2 , with
the Jacobian ∂(x, y)/∂(ξ, η) = (4y 2 )−1 , yielding
Z∞
2n−2
(6)
hY |X (ρ) =
In−1 (ξ) log [In−1 (ξ)]
ρ
0
Z∞ 

·

η
ξ

n−2



ξ2
exp −
− η dη dξ. (49)
4ηα

0

The integration over η can be performed analytically, yielding


Z∞  n−2
ξ2
η
exp −
− η dη
ξ
4ηα
0


ξ
= 22−n α(1−n)/2 ξ Kn−1
,
(50)
α1/2
where Kn (x) is the modified Bessel function of the second
kind of order n. Using (50) in (49) gives


Z∞
α(1−n)/2
ξ
(6)
hY |X (ρ) =
ξKn−1
ρ
α1/2

Notice that from its definition it follows that the function f (z)
is confined to the interval
 0 ≤ f (z) ≤ 1. We shall now prove
(4)
that hY (ρ) decays as O ρ−1 or faster when ρ → ∞. Indeed,
one has
Z∞
y2
2y
(4)
e− ρ+1 f (αy 2 ) log f (αy 2 ) dy (58)
hY (ρ) = −
n−2
ρα
0

1
= − n−1
ρα

(51)

α(1−n)/2
Fn (ρ).
(52)
ρ
The proof is completed by using (52) in (46), the definition
of α in (43), and by returning to logarithm base 2.
=

e−z/ρ f (z) log f (z) dz.

(59)

0
(4)

Next, one notices that hY (ρ) is positive and can be upperbounded as follows
Z∞
1
(4)
(− f (z) log f (z)) dz
(60)
hY (ρ) ≤
ραn−1
0

C
,
.
ραn−1

(61)

It is therefore only left to prove that the integral converges,
i.e., that the constant C is finite. This can be done as follows:
Z∞
C = (− f (z) log f (z)) dz
0

Z∞
≤

(1 − f (z)) dz
0
Z∞

0

· In−1 (ξ) log [In−1 (ξ)] dξ

Z∞

=

e−z

0

n−2
X
k=0

zk
dz
k!

=n−1
< ∞,

where in the second line we have used an inequality −x ln x ≤
(4)
(1 − x), x ∈ (0, 1]. Therefore, asymptotically hY (ρ) decays
A PPENDIX C
not slower than 1/ρ.
P ROOF FOR L EMMA 2
The asymptotic expression for the output entropy can be
From (41), it follows that the output entropy can then be
written
by combining (60), (44), (45) and (53), which yields
expressed as9
 n−2 


1
ψ(1)
 2
ρα
1
− log 2 + O ρ−1 .
(62)
hY (ρ) = log ρ + 1 −
(4)
hY (ρ) = log
− E [log Y ] +
E Y + hY (ρ),
2
2
2
ρ+1
(53) The proof is completed by returning to logarithm base 2.
where α is given by (43),
Z∞
Z∞
(4)
(4)
hY (ρ) , pX (x) pY |X (y|x) gY (y) dy dx
0
Z∞

=

(54)

0
(4)

(55)

pY (y) gY (y) dy,
0

where pY (y) is given by (41) and
(4)

gY (y) , − log f (αy 2 )
f (z) , 1 − e−z

n−2
X
k=0

9 Similarly

(z)k
.
k!

to Appendix B, the results in this proof are in nats.

(56)
(57)

A PPENDIX D
P ROOF OF THE ASYMPTOTICALLY VANISHING RATE LOSS
Here we shall prove that an input distribution bounded
(truncated) away from zero gives the same results as Theorem
3 in the limit of large average power σS → ∞. To this
end, consider a system where the transmitted amplitudes
X are drawn from a Rayleigh distribution with PDF given
in (24). Let us now introduce a threshold x̂ of amplitudes
realisations below which our channel law model is expected
to be inapplicable. Let us now introduce an alternative system
where the symbols X̃ are drawn from a “truncated” Rayleigh
distribution with PDF
1
pX̃ (x) =
pX (x) H(x − x̂),
x ∈ [x̂, ∞), (63)
1−η

13

where H(x−x̂) is the Heaviside step function, and η is defined
as
(64)

η , P [X < x̂] .
This probability can be expressed as
Zx̂
η=

(65)

pX (x) dx
0

Zx̂

x2
x exp − 2
σS
0


x̂2
= 1 − exp − 2 .
σS

2
= 2
σS



0


dx

(67)

σs →∞

(69)

lim [hY − hỸ ] = 0

σs →∞

and

lim

σs →∞

i
h
hỸ |X̃ − hY |X = 0.

To prove (69), we have the following:
Z∞
pỸ (y) = pY |X (y|x) pX̃ (x)dx

(70)

Z∞

(72)

pY |X (y|x) pX (x) dx

(73)

x̂

≤

1
1−η

0

1
=
pY (y).
(74)
1−η
The Kullback-Leibler divergence (relative entropy) between
the distributions pỸ (y) and pY (y) is defined as


pỸ (Y )
D (pỸ (y) k pY (y)) , E log
(75)
pY (Y )
Z∞
p (y)
= pỸ (y) log Ỹ
dy
(76)
pY (y)
0

1
≤ log
1−η

Z∞
pỸ (y) dy

(77)

0

= − log (1 − η)
x̂2
= 2.
σS

(78)
(79)

Using the nonnegativity property of the relative entropy together with (79), we obtain
lim D (pỸ (y) k pY (y)) = 0.

σS →∞

(82)

pX̃ (x) g(x) dx,
0

where
Z∞
g(x) , −

pY |X (y|x) log pY |X (y|x) dy

(83)

0

represents the conditional differential entropy of pY |X (y|x),
and pY |X (y|x) is given by the noncentral chi-distribution (19).
Using (63), the conditional differential entropy hỸ |X̃ can
be expressed as
Z∞
1
pX (x) g(x) dx,
(84)
hỸ |X̃ =
1−η
x̂

Zx̂
g(x) pX (x) dx.

(85)

0

(71)

pY |X (y|x) pX (x) dx
Z∞

=

hY |X
1
=
−
1−η 1−η

0

1
=
1−η

0

Z∞

(66)

As discussed in Sec. III-A and Sec. IV, the threshold x̂ is a
constant, and thus, limσS →∞ η = 0.
To prove that the rate loss tends to zero, we shall prove that
h
i
lim IX,Y − IX̃,Ỹ = 0
(68)
or equivalently,

Using the fact that the relative entropy is zero if and only
if pỸ (y) = pY (y) almost everywhere [69, Theorem 8.6.1],
we conclude that (69) is fulfilled since the integrands in the
differential entropy integrals differ on a set with measure zero.
Let us now turn to the first conditional differential entropy
in (70), for which we have
Z∞ Z∞
hỸ |X̃ , −
pY |X (y|x) pX̃ (x) log pY |X (y|x) dxdy (81)

(80)

The first term in the r.h.s. of (85) tends to the conditional
entropy of the untruncated distribution. We shall now prove
that the last (integral) term in (85) tends to zero when σS →
∞. We note that according to (24) the input distribution pX (x)
tends to zero uniformly in the interval [0, x̂] as σS → ∞. Then,
according to the bounded convergence theorem, in order to
prove that integral term in (85) is asymptotically vanishing, it
is sufficient to prove that the function g(x) remains bounded
within the interval [0, x̂]. We shall do so by providing separate
upper and lower bounds for this function.
The upper bound for g(x) can be obtained by considering
a relative entropy between the channel law pY |X (y|x) and
an auxiliary distribution pY (y) supported on [0, ∞). The
nonnegativeness of the relative entropy immediately provides
an upper bound for the differential entropy (83), namely,
Z∞

g(x) ≤ − E [ log pY (Y ) ] = − pY |X (y|x) log pY (y) dy.
0

(86)

Choosing
a half-Gaussian
distribution
(y)
=

√
2
(2/ π) exp −y
immediately
gives
an
upper
bound

√
g(x) ≤ E Y 2 − log (2/ π). The second moment for the
noncentral chi distribution is readily available, e.g., from
(20), leading to the following upper bound:
√
π
2
g(x) ≤ x2 + n σN
+ log
.
(87)
2
Note that this upper bound is bounded inside an arbitrary finite
interval [0, x̂].
pY

14

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

Establishing a lower bound for g(x) is slightly more involved. The first step is to transform the noncentral chi distribution into a noncentral chi-squared distribution by making the
2
following change of variable in the integral (83): z = 2y 2 /σN
.
2
2
Introducing the additional notation λ = 2x /σN and n = k/2,
where k is a number of degrees of freedom of noncentral chisquared distribution, we obtain


√
z+λ
1  z (k−2)/4
exp −
pZ|Λ (z|λ) =
I(k−2)/2 ( λz)
2 λ
2
(88)
with z ∈ [0, ∞). We can now express g(x) in (83) as an
average with respect to the noncentral chi-squared distribution:
Z∞
g(λ) = −


pZ|Λ (z|λ) log

0

=g

(1)

(λ) + g (2) (λ) +


23/2 z 1/2
pZ|Λ (z|λ) dz
σN

(89)

3
log 2 − log σN ,
2

(90)

where we have introduced two functions: g (1) (λ), which represents the differential entropy of the noncentral chi-squared
distribution pZ|Λ (z|λ), i.e.,
g

(1)

Z∞
(λ) , −

pZ|Λ (z|λ) log pZ|Λ (z|λ) dz,

(91)

0

and g (2) (λ), which stands for minus half of the so-called
expected-log, i.e.,
1
g (2) (λ) , − E [ log Z ] .
2

(92)

The motivation for the above transformation stems from the
fact that it has been proven in [71] that the noncentral chisquared distribution function (88) is log-concave (i.e., log of
pZ|Λ (z|λ) is concave) if the number of degrees of freedom
k ≥ 2, i.e., n ≥ 1, which is always the case. On the other
hand, the differential entropy of any log-concave distribution
function can be lower-bounded as [72, Theorem 3]
 p
 1
3
g (1) (λ) ≥ log 2 Var [Z] = log (k + 2λ) + log 2.
2
2
(93)
Finally, let us now provide a lower bound for g (2) (λ) in
(92). This can be obtained by applying Jensen’s inequality:
1
1
g (2) (λ) ≥ − log E [Z] = − log (k + λ) .
2
2

(94)

Combining (90), (93), and (94), and returning to the original
notation, we obtain
 2

2
1
2x + nσN
g(x) ≥ log
− log σN + 3 log 2.
(95)
2
2
x2 + nσN
This lower bound on g(x) is bounded inside an arbitrary finite
interval x ∈ [0, x̂]. Thus, the function g(x) in the integral (85)
is uniformly bounded via (87) and (95) in [0, x̂]. Since in the
asymptotic limit σS → ∞ one has η → 0 and pX (x) →
0 from (85), it follows that (70) is fulfilled as well, which
concludes the proof.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Cvijetic and I. B. Djordjevic, Advanced Optical Communication
Systems and Networks, Artech House, Norwood, MA, 2013.
[2] P. J. Winzer, “Scaling Optical Fiber Networks: Challenges and Solutions,” Optics & Photonics News, vol. 26, pp. 28–35, Mar. 2015.
[3] P. Bayvel, R. Maher, T. Xu, G. Liga, N. A. Shevchenko, D. Lavery,
A. Alvarado, and R. I. Killey “Maximizing the Optical Network
Capacity,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, vol. 374, art. no. 20140440, Mar.
2016.
[4] D. J. Richardson, “Filling the Light Pipe,” Science, vol. 330, pp. 327–
328, Oct. 2010.
[5] P. Mitra and J. Stark, “Nonlinear Limits to the Information Capacity
of Optical Fibre Communications,” Nature, vol. 411, pp. 1027–1030,
June 2001.
[6] R. Essiambre, G. Kramer, P. J. Winzer, G. J. Foschini, and B. Goebel,
“Capacity Limits of Optical Fiber Networks,” J. Lightwave Technol.,
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 662–701, Feb. 2010.
[7] R. J. Essiambre, R. W. Tkach, and R. Ryf, “Fiber Nonlinearity
and Capacity: Single Mode and Multimode Fibers,” in Optical Fiber
Telecommunications, Vol. VIB: Systems and Networks, 6th ed., edts.
I. Kaminow, T. Li, and A. E. Willner, pp. 1–43, Academic Press, 2013.
[8] A. Hasegawa and Y. Kodama, Solitons in Optical Communication,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1995.
[9] E. Iannone, F. Matera, A. Mecozzi, and M. Settembre, Nonlinear
Optical Communication Networks, Wiley, New York, 1998.
[10] E. Agrell, A. Alvarado, and F. R. Kschishang “Implications of Information Theory in Optical Fibre Communications,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
A, vol. 374, art. no. 20140438, Mar. 2016.
[11] E. Forestieri and M. Secondini, “The Nonlinear Fiber-Optic Channel:
Modeling and Achievable Information Rate,” in Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS), Prague, Czech Republic, July
2015.
[12] M. Secondini and E. Forestieri, “Scope and Limitations of the Nonlinear Shannon Limit”, J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 893–902,
Feb. 2017.
[13] K. S. Turitsyn, S. A. Derevyanko, I. V. Yurkevich, and S. K. Turitsyn,
“Information Capacity of Optical Fiber Channels with Zero Average
Dispersion”, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, no. 30, art. no. 203901, Nov.
2003.
[14] G. Kramer, M. I. Yousefi, and F. R. Kschischang, “Upper Bound on
the Capacity of a Cascade of Nonlinear and Noisy Channels”, in IEEE
Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Jerusalem, Israel, Apr.-May 2015.
[15] M. I. Yousefi, G. Kramer, and F. R. Kschischang, “Upper Bound on
the Capacity of the Nonlinear Schrödinger Channel”, in IEEE 14th
Canadian Workshop on Information Theory (CWIT), St. John’s, NL,
Canada, July 2015.
[16] E. Ip and J. Kahn, “Compensation of Dispersion and Nonlinear
Impairments Using Digital Backpropagation,” J. Lightwave Technol.,
vol. 26, no. 20, pp. 3416–3425, Oct. 2008.
[17] D. S. Millar, S. Makovejs, C. Behrens, S. Hellerbrand, R. I. Killey,
P. Bayvel, and S. J. Savory, “Mitigation of Fiber Nonlinearity Using
a Digital Coherent Receiver,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.,
vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1217–1226, Sep.-Oct. 2010.
[18] L. B. Du, M. M. Morshed, and A. J. Lowery, “Fiber Nonlinearity
Compensation for OFDM Super-channels Using Optical Phase Conjugation,“ Opt. Express, vol. 20, no. 18, pp. 19921–19927, Aug. 2012.
[19] X. Liu, A. R. Chraplyvy, P. J. Winzer, R. W. Tkach, and S. Chandrasekhar, “Phase-conjugated Twin Waves for Communication beyond
the Kerr Nonlinearity limit,” Nature Photonics, vol. 7, pp. 560–568,
May 2013.
[20] L. B. Du, D. Rafique, A. Napoli, B. Spinnler, A. D. Ellis,
M. Kuschnerov, and A. J. Lowery, “Digital Fiber Nonlinearity Compensation: Toward 1-Tb/s transport,” IEEE Signal Processing Mag.,
vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 46–56, Mar. 2014.
[21] D. Rafique, “Fiber Nonlinearity Compensation: Commercial Applications and Complexity Analysis,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 544- 553, Jul. 2015.
[22] S. V. Manakov, “On the Theory of Two-dimensional Stationary Self
Focussing of Electromagnetic Waves.” Sov. Phys.-JETP, vol. 38, no. 2,
pp. 248–253, Feb. 1974.

15

[23] V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, “Exact Theory of Two-dimensional
Self-focusing and One-dimensional Self-modulation of Waves in Nonlinear Media,” Sov. Phys.-JETP, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 62–69, Jan. 1972.
[24] M. I. Yousefi and F. R. Kschischang, “Information Transmission Using
the Nonlinear Fourier Transform, Part I: Mathematical Tools,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4312–4328, Jul. 2014.
[25] S. K. Turitsyn, J. E. Prilepsky, S. T. Le, S. Wahls, L. L. Frumin,
M. Kamalian, and S. A. Derevyanko, “Nonlinear Fourier transform for
optical data processing and transmission: advances and perspectives,”
Optica, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 307–322, Mar. 2017.
[26] N. J. Ablowitz, D. J. Kaup, A. C. Newell, and H. Segur, “The Inverse
Scattering Transform-Fourier Analysis for Nonlinear Problems,” Stud.
Appl. Math. vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 249–315, Dec. 1974.
[27] X. Yangzhang, M. Yousefi, A. Alvarado, D. Lavery, and P. Bayvel,
“Nonlinear Frequency-Division Multiplexing in the Focusing Regime,”
in Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC), Los Angeles,
USA, paper Tu3D.1, Mar. 2017.
[28] M. I. Yousefi and F. R. Kschischang, “Information Transmission Using
the Nonlinear Fourier Transform, Part II: Numerical Methods,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4329–4345, Jul. 2014.
[29] M. I. Yousefi and F. R. Kschischang, “Information Transmission Using
the Nonlinear Fourier Transform, Part III: Spectrum Modulation,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4346–4369, Jul. 2014.
[30] E. G. Turitsyna and S. K. Turitsyn, “Digital Signal Processing based
on Inverse Scattering Transform,” Opt. Lett., vol. 38, no. 20, pp. 41864188, Oct. 2013.
[31] J. E. Prilepsky, S. A. Derevyanko, K. J. Blow, I. Gabitov, and S.
K. Turitsyn, “Nonlinear Inverse Synthesis and Eigenvalue Division
Multiplexing in Optical Fiber Channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 113,
art. no. 013901, July 2014.
[32] A. Maruta and Y. Matsuda, “Polarization Division Multiplexed Optical
Eigenvalue Modulation,” in International Conference on Photonics in
Switching (PS), Florence, Italy, Sep. 2015.
[33] H. Bülow, “Experimental Demonstration of Optical Signal Detection
Using Nonlinear Fourier Transform,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 33,
no. 7, pp. 1433–1439, Feb. 2015.
[34] H. Bülow, “Nonlinear Fourier Transformation Based Coherent Detection Scheme for Discrete Spectrum,” in Optical Fiber Communication
Conference (OFC), Los Angeles, USA, paper W3K.2, 2015.
[35] Z. Dong, S. Hari, T. Gui, K. Zhong, M. Yousefi, C. Lu, P.-K.
A. Wai, F. Kschischang, and A. Lau, “Nonlinear Frequency Division
Multiplexed Transmissions based on NFT,” IEEE Photon. Tech. Lett.,
vol. 27, no. 15, pp. 1621–1623, May 2015.
[36] A. Maruta, A. Toyota, Y. Matsuda, and Y. Ikeda, “Experimental
Demonstration of Long Haul Transmission of Eigenvalue Modulated
Signals,” Tyrrhenian International Workshop on Digital Communications (TIWDC), Florence, Italy, Sep. 2015.
[37] A. Maruta, “Eigenvalue Modulated Optical Transmission System,” in
The 20th Opto-Electronics and Communications Conference (OECC),
Shanghai, China, Paper JThA.21, Jun.-Jul. 2015.
[38] S. T. Le, I. D. Philips, J. E. Prilepsky, P. Harper, A. D. Ellis,
and S. K. Turitsyn, “Demonstration of Nonlinear Inverse Synthesis
Transmission Over Transoceanic Distances,” J. Lightwave Technol.,
vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2459–2466, May 2016.
[39] L. F. Mollenauer and J. P. Gordon, Solitons in Optical Fibers: Fundamentals and Applications (Academic Press, 2006).
[40] A. Hasegawa and T. Nyu, “Eigenvalue Communication,” J. Lightwave
Technol., vol. 11, pp. 395–399, Mar. 1993.
[41] S. Wahls and H. V. Poor, “Fast Numerical Nonlinear Fourier Transforms,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 6957–6974,
Dec. 2015.
[42] S. Hari, M. Yousefi, and F. Kschischang, “Multieigenvalue Communication,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 34, pp. 3110–3117, July 2016.
[43] P. Kazakopoulos and A. L. Moustakas, “On the Soliton Spectral
Efficiency in Non-linear Optical Fibers,” in 2016 IEEE International
Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Barcelona, Spain, July 2016.
[44] O. V. Yushko, A. A. Redyuk, M. P. Fedoruk, and S. K. Turitsyn, “Coherent Soliton Communication Lines,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys., vol. 119,
no. 5, pp. 787–794, Nov. 2014.
[45] T. Gui, C. Lu, A. P. T. Lau, and P. K. A. Wai, “High-Order Modulation
on a Single Discrete Eigenvalue for Optical Communications Based on
Nonlinear Fourier Transform,” Opt. Expr., vol. 25, no. 17, pp. 20286–
20297, Aug. 2017.
[46] Q. Zhang, and T. H. Chan, “Achievable Rates of Soliton Communication Systems,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Information
Theory (ISIT), Barcelona, Spain, July 2016.

[47] Q. Zhang, and T. H. Chan. “A Gaussian Noise Model of Spectral
Amplitudes in Soliton Communication Systems,” in IEEE International
Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications
(SPAWC), Stockholm, Sweden, June 2015.
[48] E. Meron, M. Feder, and M. Shtaif, “On the Achievable Communication Rates of Generalized Soliton Transmission Systems,” Dec. 2012.
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0297v2
[49] N. A. Shevchenko, J. E. Prilepsky, S. A. Derevyanko, A. Alvarado,
P. Bayvel, S. K. Turitsyn, “A Lower Bound on the per Soliton Capacity
of the Nonlinear Optical Fibre Channel,” in IEEE Information Theory
Workshop (ITW), Jeju Island, Korea, pp. 104–108, Oct. 2015.
[50] G. E. Falkovich, M. G. Stepanov, and S. K. Turitsyn, “Statistics
of Interacting Optical Solitons,” Physical Review E, vol. 64, art.
no. 067602, Nov. 2001.
[51] S. A. Derevyanko, S. K. Turitsyn, and D. A. Yakushev, “Non-Gaussian
Statistics of an Optical Soliton in the Presence of Amplified Spontaneous Emission,” Opt. Lett., vol. 28, no. 21, pp. 2097–2099, Nov. 2003.
[52] S. A. Derevyanko, S. K. Turitsyn, and D. A. Yakushev, “Fokker-Planck
Equation Approach to the Description of Soliton Statistics in Optical
Fiber Transmission Systems”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, vol. 22, no. 4, pp.
743–752, Apr. 2005.
[53] S. A. Derevyanko, J. E. Prilepsky, and S. K. Turitsyn, “Capacity
Estimates for Optical Transmission Based on the Nonlinear Fourier
Transform”, Nat. Commun., vol. 7, Art. No. 12710, Sep. 2016.
[54] M. I. Yousefi and X. Yangzhang, “Linear and Nonlinear FrequencyDivision Multiplexing,” in Proc. European Conference and Exhibition
on Optical Communications, Düsseldorf, Germany, Sep. 18–22, 2016,
pp. 342–344.
[55] I. Tavakkolnia and M. Safari, “Capacity Analysis of Signaling on
the Continuous Spectrum of Nonlinear Optical Fibers,” J. Lightwave
Technol., 2017 (to appear).
[56] M. K. Kopae, J. E. Prilepsky, S. T. Le, and S. K. Turitsyn, “Spectral
Efficiency Estimation in Periodic Nonlinear Fourier Transform Based
Communication Systems,” in Optical Fiber Communication Conference
(OFC), Los Angeles, USA, paper Th2A.54, Mar. 2017.
[57] S. A. Derevyanko, J. E. Prilepsky, and D. A. Yakushev, “Statistics of
a Noise-Driven Manakov Soliton,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. vol. 39, no.
6, pp. 1297–1309, Jan. 2006.
[58] J. E. Prilepsky and S. A. Derevyanko, “Statistics of Noise-Driven
Coupled Nonlinear Oscillators: Applications to Systems with Kerr
Nonlinearity,” Physica D, vol. 203, no. 3-4, pp. 249–269, Apr. 2005.
[59] J. D. Ania-Castañón, T. J. Ellingham, R. Ibbotson, X. Chen, L. Zhang,
and S. K. Turitsyn, “Ultralong Raman Fibre Lasers as Virtually
Lossless Optical Media,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 96, art. no. 023902,
Jan. 2006.
[60] T. J. Ellingham, J. D. Ania-Castanon, R. Ibbotson, X. Chen, L. Zhang,
and S. K. Turitsyn, “Quasi-Lossless Optical Links for Broad-Band
Transmission and Data Processing,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 268 - 270, Jan. 2006.
[61] P. K. A. Wai, C. R. Menyuk, and H. H. Chen, “Stability of Solitons
in Randomly Varying Birefringent Fibers,” Opt. Lett., vol. 16, no. 16,
pp. 1231–1233, Aug. 1991.
[62] T. I. Lakoba and D. J. Kaup, “Perturbation Theory for the Manakov
Soliton and its Applications to Pulse Propagation in Randomly Birefringent Fibers,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 56, pp. 6147–6165, Nov. 1998.
[63] D. Arnold, H.-A. Loeliger, P. O. Vontobel, A. Kavcic, and W. Zeng,
“Simulation-Based Computation of Information Rates for Channels
With Memory,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 3498–
3508, Aug. 2006.
[64] L. Schmalen, A. Alvarado, and R. Rios-Müller, “Performance Prediction of Nonbinary Forward Error Correction in Optical Transmission
Experiments,” J. Lightwave Technol., vol. 35, pp. 1015–1027, Feb.
2017.
[65] N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz and N. Balakrishnan, Continuous Univariate
Distributions. Volume 2, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2006.
[66] M. Katz and S. Shamai, “On the Capacity-Achieving Distribution of the
Discrete-Time Noncoherent and Partially Coherent AWGN Channels,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2257–2270, Oct. 2004.
[67] A. Lapidoth, “Capacity Bounds Via Duality: A Phase Noise Example,” in Proc. 2nd Asian-European Workshop on Information Theory
Breisach, Germany, June 26–29, 2002, pp. 58–61.
[68] C. E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell Syst.
Tech. J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, Jul. 1948.
[69] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd
ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006.
[70] I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products,
7th ed., New York, Academic Press, 2007.

16

[71] Y. Yu, “The Shape of the Noncentral Chi-square Density,” Jun. 2011.
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5241
[72] A. Marsiglietti, V. Kostina, “A Lower Bound on the Differential
Entropy for Log-Concave Random Variables with Applications to
Rate-Distortion Theory,” in 2017 IEEE International Symposium on
Information Theory (ISIT), Aachen, Germany, pp. 46–50, Jun. 2017.

Nikita A. Shevchenko obtained the BSc and MSc degrees, both in applied
physics, from Donetsk National University, Ukraine, in 2008 and 2009,
respectively, where he graduated summa cum laude. He then enrolled on a
PhD programme in condensed matter physics at Donetsk O. O. Galkin Institute
for Physics and Engineering of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
focusing on theoretical investigations in nonlinear optics. During his studies
he spent some time as an academic visitor at the University of Exeter, where
he was involved in a research project with the Electromagnetic and Acoustic
Materials Research group. In October 2013, he joined the Optical Networks
Group at University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom, where
he is currently working toward the PhD degree. His main research interests
lie in nonlinear optics, photonics, optical communications and information
theory.

Stanislav Derevyanko received his Ph.D. degree in theoretical physics in 2001
from Institute for Radiophysics and Electronics, Kharkiv, Ukraine. From 2002
to 2007, he was twice a Postdoctoral Researcher fellow at Photonics Research
Group at Aston University, Birmingham UK and from 2007 to 2012 he was an
EPSRC Advanced Fellow at Nonlinearity And Complexity Research Group
also at Aston University. From 2013 to 2015 he was a Marie Curie visiting
Fellow at Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel and in 2015 he joined the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ben Gurion University
of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel,
His research interests include nonlinear optics, optical telecommunications
and information theory.

Jaroslaw E. Prilepsky received his Master’s degree (M.E.) in Theoretical
Physic (Degree with first class honours) from V. Karazin Kharkiv National
University, Ukraine, in 1999, and Ph.D. degree in Theoretical Physics from
the B. Verkin Institute of Low Temperature Physics and Engineering, Kharkiv,
Ukraine, in 2003, studying nonlinear excitations in low-dimensional systems.
From 2003 till 2010 he was a Research Fellow in B. Verkin Institute of Low
Temperature Physics and Engineering, and in 2004 he was a Visiting Fellow
in Nonlinear Physics Center, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. In 2010-2012
he became a Research Associate in Nonlinearity and Complexity Research
Group, Aston University, UK, and from 2012 till now he has been a Research
Associate in Aston Institute of Photonics Technologies, Aston University. His
current research interests include (but not limited to) optical transmission
systems and networks, nonlinearity mitigation methods, nonlinear Fourierbased optical transmission methods, soliton usage for telecommunications,
information theory, and methods for optical signal processing. His is the
author of more than 60 journal papers and conference contributions in the
fields of nonlinear physics, solitons, nonlinear signal-noise interaction, optical
transmission, and signal processing.

Alex Alvarado (S’06–M’11–SM’15) was born in Quellón, on the island of
Chiloé, Chile. He received his Electronics Engineer degree (Ingeniero Civil
Electrónico) and his M.Sc. degree (Magíster en Ciencias de la Ingeniería
Electrónica) from Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso,
Chile, in 2003 and 2005, respectively. He obtained the degree of Licentiate
of Engineering (Teknologie Licentiatexamen) in 2008 and his PhD degree in
2011, both of them from Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden.

PREPRINT, FEBRUARY 19, 2018.

Dr. Alvarado is an assistant professor at the Signal Processing Systems
(SPS) Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of
Technology (TU/e), The Netherlands. During 2014–2016, he was a Senior
Research Associate at the Optical Networks Group, University College
London, United Kingdom. In 2012–2014 he was a Marie Curie Intra-European
Fellow at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, and during 2011–
2012 he was a Newton International Fellow at the same institution. Dr.
Alvarado’s current research is funded in part by the Netherlands Organisation
for Scientific Research (NWO) via a VIDI grant, as well as by the European
Research Council (ERC) via an ERC Starting grant.
Dr. Alvarado is a recipient of the 2009 IEEE Information Theory Workshop
Best Poster Award, the 2013 IEEE Communication Theory Workshop Best
Poster Award, and the 2015 IEEE Transaction on Communications Exemplary
Reviewer Award. He received the 2015 Journal of Lightwave Technology
best paper award, honoring the most influential, highest-cited original paper
published in the journal in 2015. Dr. Alvarado is a senior member of the IEEE
and an associate editor for IEEE Transactions on Communications (Optical
Coded Modulation and Information Theory). Since 2018, he also serves in
the OFC subcommittee Digital and Electronic Subsystems (S4). His general
research interests are in the areas of digital communications, coding, and
information theory.

Polina Bayvel received her BSc (Eng) and PhD degrees in Electronic &
Electrical Engineering from University of London, UK, in 1986 and 1990,
respectively. In 1990, she was with the Fiber Optics Laboratory, General
Physics Institute, Moscow (Russian Academy of Sciences), under the Royal
Society Postdoctoral Exchange Fellowship. She was a Principal Systems Engineer with STC Submarine Systems, Ltd., London, UK, and Nortel Networks
(Harlow, UK, and Ottawa, ON, Canada), where she was involved in the design
and planning of optical fibre transmission networks. During 1994-2004, she
held a Royal Society University Research Fellowship at University College
London (UCL), and in 2002, she became a Chair in Optical Communications
and Networks. She is the Head of the Optical Networks Group (ONG), UCL
which she also set up in 1994. She has authored or co-authored more than
300 refereed journal and conference papers. Her research interests include
wavelength-routed optical networks, high-speed optical transmission, and the
study and mitigation of fibre nonlinearities.
Prof. Bayvel is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering (FREng),
the Optical Society of America, the UK Institute of Physics, and the Institute
of Engineering and Technology. She was the recipient of the Royal Society
Wolfson Research Merit Award (2007-2012), 2013 IEEE Photonics Society
Engineering Achievement Award, and the 2014 Royal Society Clifford Patterson Prize Lecture and Medal. In 2015 she and 5 members of ONG received
the Royal Academy of Engineering Colin Campbell Mitchell Award for their
pioneering contributions to optical communications technology.

Sergei Turitsyn received the Graduate degree from the Department of Physics,
Novosibirsk University, Novosibirsk, Russia, in 1982 and the Ph.D. degree in
theoretical and mathematical physics from the Institute of Nuclear Physics,
Novosibirsk, in 1986. In 1992 he moved to Germany, first as a Humboldt
Fellow, and then working in the collaborative projects with Deutsche Telekom.
Currently, he is the Director of the Aston Institute of Photonic Technologies.
He received the Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award in 2005. In
2011, he received the European Research Council Advanced Grant, in 2014 he
received Lebedev medal by the Rozhdestvensky Optical Society, and in 2016
Aston 50th Anniversary Chair medal. He is a fellow of the Optical Society
of America and the Institute of Physics.

