1

Achievable Information Rates for Fiber Optics:
Applications and Computations
Alex Alvarado, Senior Member, IEEE, Tobias Fehenberger, Student Member, IEEE, Bin Chen, Member, IEEE, and
Frans M. J. Willems, Fellow, IEEE.

250
200
150
100

T

A. Alvarado, B. Chen, and F. M. J. Willems are with the Signal Processing
Systems (SPS) Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven
University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands (e-mails:
alex.alvarado@ieee.org, chen.bin.conan@gmail.com, f.m.j.willems@tue.nl)
Tobias Fehenberger is with the Institute for Communications Engineering,
Technical University of Munich (TUM), 80333 Munich, Germany (e-mail: tobias.fehenberger@tum.de
B. Chen is also with School of Computer and Information, Hefei University
of Technology (HFUT), Hefei, China
This research has been supported in part by the Netherlands Organisation
for Scientific Research (NWO) via the VIDI Grant ICONIC (project number
15685), by the Technical University of Munich (TUM) Graduate School
Partnership Mobility Grant, and by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (NSFC) under Grant 61701155.

17

16

20

15

20

14

20

13

12

20

20

11

10

20

20

09

20

08

20

07

20

06

20

05

20

20

04

50

20

I. I NTRODUCTION AND M OTIVATION
HROUGH a series of revolutionary technological advances, optical transmission systems have supported the
Internet’s traffic growth for decades [1]. Most of the large
bandwidth available in fiber systems is in use [2], however, it
seems like the capacity of the optical core network cannot keep
up with the traffic growth [3], [4]. This makes informationtheoretic analyses of optical fiber systems very important so
as to maximize the information rates and spectral efficiencies
of the nonlinear optical channel.
The optical fiber channel is effectively band-limited by
the fiber loss profile and the operating range of the optical amplifiers [1]. Because of this, the need of designing
bandwidth-efficient transceivers is an active area of research.
The most natural way of achieving this is via multi-level
modulation combined with forward error correction (FEC),
a combination known as coded modulation (CM). Different
coded modulation flavors exist, the most popular ones being
trellis coded modulation [5], bit-interleaved coded modulation
(BICM) [6]–[10], and MLC [11], [12]. FEC is usually either

“QPSK”/“4QAM”
“16QAM”
“64QAM”
“256QAM”

300

03

Index Terms—Achievable Information Rates, Coded Modulation, Generalized Mutual Information, Mutual Information,
Nonlinear Fiber Channel.

350

20

Abstract—In this paper, achievable information rates (AIR)
for fiber optical communications are discussed. It is shown that
AIRs such as the mutual information and generalized mutual information are good design metrics for coded optical systems. The
theoretical predictions of AIRs are compared to the performance
of modern codes including low-parity density check (LDPC) and
polar codes. Two different computation methods for these AIRs
are also discussed: Monte-Carlo integration and Gauss-Hermite
quadrature. Closed-form ready-to-use approximations for such
computations are provided for arbitrary constellations and the
multidimensional AWGN channel. The computation of AIRs in
optical experiments and simulations is also discussed.

Occurrences

arXiv:1709.10393v2 [eess.SP] 21 Dec 2017

(Invited Paper)

Fig. 1. Number of appearances of “M QAM” in OFC proceedings 2003–2017.

soft-decision (SD-FEC) or hard-decision (HD-FEC), which
refers to the type of information passed to the FEC decoder:
soft bits or hard bits, respectively.
CM has become a key technology for fiber-optical communications, as shown in Fig. 1. This figure shows the number
of occurrences of “M QAM” in the OFC proceedings in the
last 15 years. Although the number of occurrences is a very
rough metric (and can certainly be improved), this figure does
show a clear trend: QPSK and 16QAM are here to stay, and
64QAM and 256QAM are slowly becoming more important.
Ungerboeck’s celebrated trellis-coded modulation [5] was
very popular because the receiver could find the most likely
coded sequence using a single low-complexity decoder, that
exploited the nonbinary (NB) trellis structure of the code.
With the advent of powerful SD-FEC (such low-density paritycheck (LDPC) codes [13], turbo codes [14], and polar codes
[15]), however, modern fiber optical CM transceivers use a
receiver based on binary FEC. When only one code is used, the
scheme is known as BICM [6]–[10]. When multiple codes are
used, the system is called multilevel codes (MLC) [11], [12].
In MLC, two decoding strategies are possible: Multi-stage
decoding (MLC-MSD) [12, Sec. II] and parallel, independent
decoding of the individual levels (MLC-PDL) [12, Sec. VIB]. Both BICM and MLC-PDL are pragmatic (but suboptimal)
approaches to CM where the detection is split into two stages:
demap the bits independently, and then decode.
Until a few years ago, pre-FEC bit-error rate (BER), sym-

2

bol error rate (SER), Q-factor, and error vector magnitude
(EVM) were the standard performance metrics in the optical
communications community. Recently, however, this paradigm
has been changing, and achievable information rates (AIRs)
are becoming more popular. AIRs indicate the number of
information bits per symbol that can be reliably transmitted
through the channel and are at the core of Shannon’s celebrated
concept of channel capacity [16]. Because of the definition of
AIRs, one of the key advantages of using them as performance
metrics is that they are inherently related to FEC. Unlike
uncoded metrics like the pre-FEC BER, SER, EVM, or Qfactor, AIRs give an indication of the amount of information
bits that can be reliably transferred through a channel. While
uncoded metrics are related to bits before and after the
demapper, AIRs deal with the information bits before and after
FEC.
In this paper, we discuss the use of AIRs as a tool to design
CM transceivers with both NB and binary FEC. By means
of simple examples, AIRs are shown to be very powerful
design metrics. AIRs will be used to allow fair comparisons of
different constellations, DSP, decoding and nonlinearity compensation techniques, and also for post-FEC error prediction.1
An AIR for CM based on NB codes or MLC-MSD is the
mutual information (MI) [16], [18]–[20]. For binary FEC (with
BICM or with MLC-PDL), however, the relevant quantity is
the GMI [7]–[10]. In this paper we consider equally likely
symbols only, however, the extension of GMI to nonuniform
symbols can be done, as shown in [21, Sec. VI].
In this paper, we extend our results in [22] by also considering polar coded modulation with multilevel coding (MLC). We
also give general ready-to-use expressions for approximating
AIRs for multidimensional modulation formats. The paper is
structured as follows. In Sec. II, we discuss general aspects
of AIRs. In Sec. III, we present an information-theoretic
treatment of AIRs. In Sec. IV, computational aspects of AIRs
are discussed.
II. G ENERAL A SPECTS OF AIR S
Achievable information rates (AIRs) are informationtheoretic quantities that are, by definition, linked to the amount
of reliable information that can be transmitted through a given
channel. This section gives examples of how AIRs can be used
to predict key metrics of digital communication systems. At
the end of the section, we highlight the underlying assumption
of such an AIR analysis and the corresponding limitations.
A. Three Applications of AIRs
In the following, applications of AIRs are are shown via
three examples. The first use case is to predict the maximum
throughput of an AWGN channel. Next, AIRs are investigated
to compare the maximum reach for different modulation
formats and DSP techniques in optical fiber transmission. In
this context, a comparison of AIRs to LDPC and polar codes
is performed. Finally, the accuracy of using MI and GMI
for predicting the post-FEC BER is presented. In all cases,
1 AIRs

can also be used to characterize optical transceivers, as done in [17].

results with FEC encoding and decoding are included to show
that the throughput of these coded systems follows the AIR
predictions.
Example 1 (Throughput Prediction): Fig. 2 shows the MI
(solid green line) and GMI (dashed red line) for 256QAM
as well as the capacity of the 2D complex AWGN channel2
(solid black line) as a function of SNR, which is defined in
Sec. III-E. The curves in Fig. 2 show that MI and GMI are
very close to each other at high SNRs, whereas a clear gap is
visible in the low- and medium-SNR range. This is the case for
all square QAM constellations labeled by the binary reflected
Gray code (BRGC) [23]. For a particular SNR, the value of
MI (and GMI) gives the maximum number of information bits
that can be transmitted with a vanishing probability of error.
AIRs are asymptotic metrics in the sense that they assume
an ideal FEC with infinitely long codewords (see Sec. II-B
for details). Here we compare them to the performance of
polar codes (lines with markers in Fig. 2) with a finite block
length of 212 = 4096 code bits. These polar codes allow a
flexible adjustment of the code rate by freezing certain bit
channels, i.e., any code rate can be achieved. Polar codes were
used to implement two CM approaches: BICM and MLCMSD [24], [25]. In both cases the targeted code rates are the
same: Rc ∈ {1/3, 2/5, 1/2, 3/5, 3/4, 5/6, 9/10}.
For BICM, a single binary polar code is used for encoding,
and thus, the code rates under consideration are the same as the
targeted rates. For the design of MLC-MSD with polar codes,
however, multiple encoders and decoders need to be designed.
This was done by matching the rates of each polar encoder
to the conditional MIs such that the overall rate corresponds
to the targeted code rate. More details about this are given in
Sec. III-C.
In BICM, the decoder is based on a single polar decoder.
In MLC-MSD, each sub-decoder uses a standard successive
cancellation decoding algorithm [15, Sec. VIII] to compute
reliability information for each stage. Then, the soft information is passed from one sub-decoder to the next one. This
process continues until all codes have been decoded. Note that
MSD is similar to successive cancellation of each polar code
in the sense that both decoding processes are implemented in
a successive manner.
Fig. 2 shows the required SNR for these polar-coded CM
schemes to achieve a post-FEC bit error probability below
10−4 (markers). We observe that the MI can be used to
predict the throughput of polar codes with MLC-MSD and
that GMI predicts the performance of polar codes with BICM.
The gap between AIRs and polar code results is due to the
suboptimality (i.e., finite length) of the codes and can be
decreased by increasing the code length or by performing list
decoding [26].
Fig. 3 shows MI, GMI, and the results of binary LDPC
codes with the same seven code rates used for polar codes
in Fig. 2.3 Note that the block lengths of the LDPC and
polar coding schemes are chosen as significantly different
2 We consider here 2D complex constellation formed as the Cartesian
product of two M QAM constellation.
3 Each transmitted frame consists of 64800 code bits. The decoder uses the
message passing algorithm with 50 iterations.

3

16

12
AWGN Capacity
MI 256QAM
GMI 256QAM
Polar Code 256QAM MLC-MSD
Polar Code 256QAM BICM

14

64QAM
10
AIR [bit/sym]

AIR [bit/sym]

12

GMI
Polar Code BICM
LDPC Code BICM

10
8

DB

P

ED

C

8

EDC

6
4
2

16QAM

6
0

5

10

15

20

1000

25

DBP

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Distance [km]

SNR [dB]
Fig. 2. MI (solid) and GMI (dashed) vs. SNR for the 2D complex AWGN
channel and 256QAM (maximum spectral efficiency of 16 bit/sym). The
capacity of the AWGN channel in (20) is also shown (thick solid line). The
results obtained using polar codes are shown with markers.

Fig. 4. GMI vs. transmission distance for optical fiber simulations of 5 densely
spaced WDM channels with a per-channel symbol rate of 32 GBaud over
multiple spans of 80 km single-mode fiber followed by an EDFA (see [19,
Table 1] for details). The markers show the reach achieved by polar and LDPC
codes with rates Rc ∈ {2/3, 3/4, 5/6, 9/10}.

8
7

AIR [bit/sym]

6
5
4

AWGN Capacity
MI 16QAM
GMI 16QAM
LDPC 16QAM BICM
MI C4,256
GMI C4,256
LDPC C4,256 BICM

3
2
1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

SNR [dB]
Fig. 3. MI (solid) and GMI (dashed) vs. SNR for the 2D complex AWGN
channel. Two constellations with a maximum spectral efficiency of 8 bit/sym
are considered: 16QAM and C4,256 . The capacity of the AWGN channel in
(20) is also shown (thick solid line). The results obtained using LDPC codes
from [27] are shown with markers.

to facilitate their design process. A detailed comparison of
finite-length and complexity aspects of these FEC schemes is
outside the scope of this paper. The two considered modulation
formats are polarization-multiplexed 16QAM as well as C4,256
[28, Table IV], [29, Table I], which is one of the most
power-efficient 4D formats at asymptotically high SNRs [30,
Fig. 1 (a)]. We observe that the MI of this optimization
modulation format is larger than that of 16QAM. This MI
gain, however, does not translate into rate gains with LDPC
codes because the GMI of C4,256 is lower than the one of
16QAM. This figure suggests that binary LDPC codes follow
the GMI prediction rather than the MI.
M
Example 2 (Reach Increase Prediction): Fig. 4 shows AIRs
versus transmission distance and highlights the fact that AIRs
can be used to predict the reach increase in optical systems,
as demonstrated in [18] and [19]. For the optical system in

[19], Fig. 4 shows GMIs for two different modulation formats
and two nonlinearity compensation techniques: electronic dispersion compensation (EDC) and ideal single-channel digital
back propagation (DBP). These formats and compensation
techniques can be directly compared to each other (for the
same target AIR). These results show that, for multi-span
multi-channel optical transmission, single-channel DBP with
64QAM offers a potential reach increase of approximately
1100 km at 8 bit/sym with respect to EDC. Fig. 4 also shows
the AIRs for polar and LDPC codes of various rates. Similar to
Figs. 2 and 3, these codes follow the trend of the GMI curves.
The larger gap between polar codes and the GMI (larger than
for LDPC codes) is mainly due to the difference in block
lengths used: 4096 bits for polar codes and 64800 for LDPC
codes.
The results in Fig. 4 highlight the importance of using a
strong FEC for multi-span systems.4 This figure shows that
an SNR penalty of about 2 dB for polar codes (see Fig. 2)
results in a large reach loss. Similar conclusions were obtained
when comparing HD-FEC and SD-FEC in the context of
adaptive optical networks in [31]. This same approach was
used in [18] to compare probabilistic shaping and different
DSP techniques where is was shown for the first time that
the distance increase by probabilistically-shaped QAM input
and EDC are equivalent to those offered by DBP with uniform
QAM. AIRs can therefore be used to guide the CM design, and
also to decide on how to trade complexity and performance.
M
Example 3 (Post-FEC Performance Prediction): AIRs can
also be used as decoding thresholds. The error probability after
FEC can often be accurately predicted by considering the MI
and GMI. Consider for example the complex AWGN channel,
the NB-LDPC codes from [20], and three different 8QAM
constellations from [20, Fig. 3]. The post-FEC SER results
4 Note that within the scope of these simulations, potentially different
implementation penalties of 16QAM and 64QAM are not considered.

4

10−2

Rc = 0.90

Rc = 0.86

10−3

Rc = 0.81

HD-FEC
threshold

Rc = 0.75

Rc = 0.90

Rc = 0.85

Rc = 0.80

Rc = 0.75

10−3

10−2

Rc = 0.71

Post-FEC BER

10−1

Rc = 0.70

Post-FEC SER

10−1

10−4

10−4
0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.7

0.95

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

Normalized GMI

Normalized MI
Fig. 5. Post-FEC prediction for NB from [20]. The vertical lines represent
the normalized AIR for the corresponding code rates.

Fig. 6. Post-FEC prediction for binary LDPC codes. Some of the rates are
achieved by randomly puncturing the codes defined in [27]. The vertical lines
represent the normalized AIR for the corresponding code rates.

for this NB-CM scheme are shown in Fig. 5, where different
markers represent different modulation formats and the asymptotic decoding thresholds are shown as dashed vertical lines.
We observe from this figure that the MI (normalized by the
number of bits per symbol m = log2 M ) is a good predictor
of the post-FEC SER.5 We conjecture that similar results can
be obtained if MLC-MSD polar codes are considered.
Fig. 6 shows results for binary LDPC codes from the DVBS2 standard [27], where random puncturing was applied to
obtained the rates shown. Three different modulation formats
were considered: QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM (different
markers). In this case the decoder is binary and the normalized
GMI is the quantity that correctly predicts the post-FEC BER
for all modulation formats.
The main conclusion from Figs. 5 and 6 is that normalized
MI and GMI are very good decoding thresholds for SD-FEC.
Limitations to this method are outlined below in Sec. II-B. For
the considered binary LDPC codes, Table I shows the overall
code rate, which is the product of an outer staircase code with
6.25% overhead (rate 1/1.0625 = 94.1%) [35, Table 1] and
the rate Rc of the LDPC code. For such a concatenated coding
scheme, interleaving over different codewords is assumed to
break up potential burst errors. The GMI is estimated at the
HD-FEC decoding threshold of BER = 4.7 × 10−3 , which
makes Table I a ready-to-use lookup table to find the decoding
threshold of the concatenation of inner DVB-S2 LDPC code
and outer staircase code. The coding gaps in Table I reflect
the potential improvements from using stronger SD and HD
FEC.
M

TABLE I
OVERALL RATE AND NORMALIZED GMI REQUIRED FOR LDPC CODES
WITH DIFFERENT CODE RATES Rc THAT ARE CONCATENATED WITH A
STAIRCASE CODE TO ACHIEVE A BER OF 10−15 AFTER DECODING .

B. Limitations
Some important differences of AIRs and realistic FEC
schemes must be considered that can limit the applicability
of AIRs as performance predictors and decoding thresholds.
5 MI

as a post-FEC BER predictor in optical communications can be traced
to [32]. This idea was however proposed in [33], [34] in the context of wireless
communications.

Rc
0.71
0.75
0.81
0.86
0.9

Overall Rate
0.67
0.71
0.76
0.81
0.85

GMI LDPC
0.75
0.78
0.84
0.88
0.92

Coding gap at threshold
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07

For example, AIRs such as MI and GMI inherently assume a
capacity-achieving FEC code with ideal maximum-likelihood
(ML) decoding for which the complexity grows exponentially
with the block length of the block code [36, Sec. 5-1]. Decoding of almost all modern codes is performed with suboptimal
low-complexity decoding algorithms (such as the sum-product
algorithm [37] for LDPC codes).6 When MI or GMI is used
as decoding threshold for a FEC with a suboptimal decoding
algorithm, trapping sets that result in an error floor must be
treated with care. Such an error floor is the result of the
considered code and decoding algorithm, and an AIR analysis
with MI and GMI as it is carried out in this paper does
not include this effect. Lastly, MI and GMI can be used as
decoding thresholds only when the encoder and decoder pair
in question is universal. This has been discussed in detail in
[20, Secs. II-C and V].
A significant performance difference of polar and LDPC
codes to the AIRs exists because MI and GMI are asymptotic
limits for infinitely long codewords. As this requirement is
clearly impossible to fulfill for any practical FEC, the coding
gap between AIR and FEC performance is increased. Depending on the application, it might be sometimes more insightful
to include finite-length constraints in the analysis, for example
via density evolution or via finite block length regime bounds
6 Note that successive cancellation decoding for polar codes is ideal in the
sense of achieving capacity. However, it does not perform well for short and
moderate block lengths. The coding gap can be decreased by increasing the
block length or by performing list decoding.

5

(see for example [38]).
Another inherent assumption of the concatenated FEC
schemes in this paper is that ideal interleavers are included
between the inner and outer FEC. These interleaving blocks
remove any error bursts that occur during transmission, which
is a crucial assumption for applying the HD-FEC threshold
as it is done in this paper. Furthermore, the results presented
in Fig. 6 (as well as those in [39]) were generated using a
random interleaver, i.e., a random interleaving permutation
was generated for every transmitted codeword. This is in
contrast to the results in [40], where no interleaver was
used (the code bits from the LDPC code were cyclically
mapped to the modulation format). The difference between
these two approaches is that the former (the one used here)
is practically less relevant, however, the obtained prediction is
more accurate. These results should therefore be understood as
the performance prediction for the code ensemble generated by
the random realizations of the interleaver. On the other hand,
by not using an interleaver (as done in [40]), the post-FEC
BER prediction is slightly worse for low code rates, but the
results are highly practical. We conjecture that a very good
trade-off between practical relevance and error prediction can
be obtained if one single interleaver permutation is used all
the time, as long as that permutation is randomly generated.7
As discussed in Sec. III-D, if the LLRs are mismatched to
the communication channel or computed in an approximate
manner, for example with the max-log approximation [41],
lower AIRs can be obtained. This leads to the idea of correcting LLRs, which can also be connected to improving the
performance of the decoder. For more details on this, we refer
the reader to [9, Ch. 7] and references therein.
III. I NFORMATION -T HEORETIC E LEMENTS AND AIR S
A. Coded Modulation
Coded modulation (CM) comes in different flavors, the most
popular ones being TCM, NB-CM, MLC, and BICM. CM
for optical communications is nowadays a well-established
technique for spectrally efficient transmission. In this section,
we focus on MLC and BICM due to their practical relevance.
The FEC decoder used in CM also comes in two flavors:
hard-decision (HD) and soft-decision (SD) decoding. In this
paper, and due to its importance in next-generation optical
transceivers, we only consider SD-FEC. For a comparison of
AIRs between HD- and SD-FEC, we refer the reader to [19]
and references therein.8
In general, the optical channel suffer from intersymbol and
interpolarization interference (see inner part of Fig. 7). Most (if
not all) optical receivers compensate for these effects, however,
residual intersymbol interference (due to, e.g., Kerr nonlinear7 Another

(less practical) alternative would be to use one interleaver that
covers multiple LDPC codewords.
8 Note that the AIRs for nonbinary HD FEC studied in [19] are not
achieved by standard Hamming-distance-based nonbinary HD FEC decoders,
but instead, by codes that use some soft-decision for decoding. This was
recently shown in [42], which was initially correctly pointed out in [19,
Footnote 10]. For more explanations on this, we refer the reader to [9,
Sec. 3.4].

ities after dispersion compensation) are typically neglected9 .
Furthermore, each polarization is detected independently, and
the soft information on the coded bits is calculated ignoring
residual correlation between symbols in time. This is highlighted in Fig. 7, where a memoryless demapper is included
at the receiver. The resulting “information-theoretic channel”
is also shown in this figure, which can be interpreted as
an “average” channel. This channel is fully characterized by
the conditional PDF fY |X (Y |X), where X and Y are the
transmitted and received symbols, respectively. We will return
to these memoryless assumptions in Sec. V.
The transmitted symbols X are assumed to be multidimensional (MD) symbols with N complex dimensions (or
equivalently, with 2N real dimensions) drawn uniformly from
a discrete constellation X with cardinality M = 2m = |X |.
The noisy received symbols are MD symbols with N complex
dimensions, i.e., Y ∈ CN . We consider constellation points
xi = [xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , xi,N ] ∈ CN with i = 1, 2, . . . , M . The
difference between two symbols is defined as the vector dij ,
xi − xj , and the uniform input PMF by PX (x) = 1/M .10
The most popular case in fiber optical communications is
N = 2, which corresponds to coherent communications using
two polarizations of the light (4 real dimensions).
Throughout this paper we consider four different CM structures based on SD-FEC. These four alternatives are shown
in Table II. The first one is NB-CM where a NB FEC is
concatenated with a nonbinary modulation format (see Fig. 5)
and the second one is MLC-MSD (see Fig. 2). An AIR for
these two cases is the MI. The third and fourth alternatives
are BICM (see Fig. 3) and MLC-PDL, for which the GMI is
an AIR.
B. Channel Capacity
A coding scheme consists of a codebook, an encoder, and
a decoder. The codebook is the set of codewords that can
be transmitted through the channel, where each codeword is
a sequence of symbols. The encoder is a one-to-one mapping between the information sequences and codewords. The
decoder is a deterministic rule that maps the noisy channel
observations onto an information sequence.
A rate, in bits per MD symbol (or simply bit/sym), is said to
be achievable at a given block length L and for a given average
error probability ε if there exists a coding scheme whose
average error probability is below ε. The channel capacity
introduced by C. E. Shannon in 1948 [16] is the largest AIR
for which a coding scheme with vanishing error probability
exists, in the limit of large block length. In simple words,
the channel capacity represents the number of bits that can
be reliably “pushed” through a given channel. Shannon also
9 When taking into account this residual interference, improved AIRs for
fiber optics have been studied in, e.g., [43], [44]
10 Notation: Random variables are denoted by capital letters X and random
vectors by boldface letters X. Their corresponding realizations are denoted
by x and x. The inner product between two vectors is denoted by hx1 , x2 i.
Expectations are denoted by E[·] and the squared Euclidean norm is defined
as kXk2 = |X1 |2 + |X2 |2 + . . . + |XN |2 . Conditional probability density
functions
(PDFs) are denoted by fY |X (y|x). The imaginary unit is  ,
√
−1.

6

post-FEC BER

info
bits

Information-theoretic Channel: fY |X (Y |X)
Nonlinear Optical Channel: fY |X (Y |X)

c1,l
..
.

FEC
Encoder(s)

MD
Mapper

xl

Optical
Transmitter

Optical
Receiver
(incl. DSP)

Optical
Channel

cm,l

yl

MD
Memoryless
Demapper

L1,l
..
.

info
bits
FEC
Decoder(s)

Lm,l

MI
GMI
Fig. 7. System model under consideration. The nonlinear optical channel is modeled using a channel with memory described by the PDF fY |X (Y |X)
while the information-theoretic channel is modeled by the memoryless PDF fY |X (Y |X). The MI and GMIs defined in (3) and GMI in (12) respectively,
are also shown. The GMI is also schematically shown between the code bits and LLRs, which is discussed in Sec. III-F.
TABLE II
F OUR DIFFERENT CODED MODULATION flavors BASED ON SD FEC.
CM
NB FEC with NB modulation
Binary FEC with MLC-MSD
Binary FEC with MLC-PDL
Binary FEC with BICM

More Details
[20], [45], [46]
[11], [12, Sec. II]
[12, Sec. VI-B]
[6]–[9]

proved that the channel capacity cannot be exceeded, i.e., rates
above the channel capacity cannot be reliable transmitted.11
For a more detailed and precise description of these concepts
in the context of optical communications, we refer the reader
to [48]. In what follows, we discuss two AIRs: MI and GMI.
C. Mutual Information
Let C be the binary codebook used for transmission and c
denote the transmitted codewords as


c1,1 c1,2 . . . c1,L

..
..  ,
..
c =  ...
(1)
.
.
. 
cm,1 cm,2 . . . cm,L
where the block length (in symbols) is L.
Furthermore, let B = [B1 , . . . , Bm ] be a random vector
representing the transmitted bits [c1,l , . . . , cm,l ] at any time
instant l, which are mapped to the corresponding symbol
Xl ∈ X with l = 1, 2, . . . , L. Assuming a memoryless
channel, the optimal symbol-wise (SW) ML receiver chooses
the transmitted codeword based on an observed sequence
y = [y 1 , . . . , y L ] according to the rule
csw , argmax
c∈C

L
X
l=1

log fY |B (y l |c1,l , . . . , cm,l )

(2)

where fY |B (y|b) = fY |X (y|x) is the channel law.
Shannon’s channel coding theorem states that reliable transmission with the SW decoder in (2) is possible at arbitrarily
low error probability if the combined rate of the binary encoder
and mapper (in information bit per MD symbol) is below the
MI I(X; Y ), i.e., if Rc m ≤ I(X; Y ). In other words, for
11 This is known in the information theory literature as the converse of the
channel coding theorem which was proven in its strong form in [47].

AIR
MI
MI
GMI
GMI

Mathematical Expression
I(X; Y )
Pm
k ; Y |B1 , . . . , Bk−1 )
k=1 I(B
Pm
I(Bk ; Y )
Pk=1
m
k=1 I(Bk ; Y )

any memoryless channel, the largest achievable rate is the MI
defined as


fY ,X (Y , X)
I = I(X; Y ) , EX,Y log2
(3)
fY (Y )fX (X)
where EX,Y denotes the expectation with respect to both X
and Y .
The MI in (3) for discrete constellations and equally likely
symbols can be expressed as


fY |X (Y |X)
I = EX,Y log2
(4)
fY (Y )
M Z
fY |X (y|xi )
1 X
fY |X (y|xi ) log2 1 PM
dy
=
M i=1 CN
j=1 fY |X (y|xj )
M
(5)
where the integral is an MD integral over the N -dimensional
complex space, and (5) follows from the law of total probability. The MI for an arbitrary MD memoryless channel can
then be expressed as
M Z
1 X
I =m+
fY |X (y|xi )giI (y) dy,
(6)
M i=1 CN
with
fY |X (y|xi )
.
giI (y) = log2 PM
j=1 fY |X (y|xj )

(7)

The MI is an AIR for NB-CM. It is also an AIR for MLCMSD, which can be shown by the chain rule of mutual
information
m
X
I(X; Y ) =
I(Bk ; Y |B1 , . . . , Bk−1 )
(8)
k=1

7

The code rates of the polar coded MLC-MSD in Sec. II-A
were designed to match the m bit-wise conditional MIs in
(8). This is also shown in the second row of Table II.
D. Generalized Mutual Information
Bit-wise (BW decoders considered in this paper (BICM
and MLC-PDL) split the decoding process. First, L-values are
calculated, and then, one or multiple binary SD decoder are
used. More precisely, the BW decoder rule is
cbw , argmax
c∈C

L
X

log

l=1

m
Y
k=1

fY |Bk (y l |ck,l ).

(9)

The BW decoding rule in (9) is not the same as the ML rule
in (2) and the MI is in general not an achievable rate with a
BW decoder.12
The BW decoder can be cast into the framework of a
mismatched decoder13 by considering a symbol-wise metric
[54]
q(b, y) ,

m
Y
k=1

fY |Bk (y|bk ).

(10)

Using this mismatched decoding formulation, the BW rule in
(9) can be expressed as
cbw = argmax
c∈C

L
X

log q(bl , y l )

(11)

l=1

where with a slight abuse of notation we use bl =
[c1,l , . . . , cm,l ]T . Similarly, the ML decoder in (2) can be
seen as a mismatched decoder with a metric q(bl , y l ) =
fY |B (y l |bl ) = fY |X (y l |xl ) which is “matched” to the channel. Using this interpretation, the BW decoder uses metrics
matched to the bits fY |Bk (y|bk ), but not matched to the actual
(symbol-wise) channel.
An achievable rate for a BW decoder is the GMI, defined
as [55, Eqs. (59)–(60)] [9, (4.34)–(4.35)]
"
#
q(B, Y )s
G , max EB,Y log2 P
. (12)
s
s≥0
b∈{0,1}m PB (b)q(b, Y )
The GMI expression in (12) is general in the sense that it
holds for any metric q(B, Y ) and for any symbol distribution
PB (b). To simplify this expression, we make two assumptions.
First, we assume that the bits B1 , . . . , Bm are independent, and
second, that the receiver uses the BW metric in (10). The first
assumption is valid for any encoder that induces a uniform
symbol distribution (which is the case we consider in this
paper), and is valid for any constellation and labeling. The
second assumption is valid for BICM and MLC-PDL where
LLRs are computed for each bit independently (more details
about this are given in Sec. III-F).
12 An exception is Gray-mapped QPSK with noise added in each quadrature
independently. In this case, the detection can be decomposed into the detection
of two BPSK constellations, and thus, SW and BW decoders are identical.
13 Mismatched decoding theory [49]–[51] can be used to study AIRs when
the detector is based on a suboptimal decoding rule. This technique has been
used for example in [20], [52], [53] in the context of optical communications.

Under these two assumptions, (12) can be expressed as [9,
Theorem 4.11] and [9, Corollary 4.12]
#
"
m
X
fY |Bk (Y |Bk )s
(13)
G = max
EBk ,Y log2 1 P
s
s≥0
b∈{0,1} fY |Bk (Y |b)
2
k=1
=

m
X

(14)

I(Bk ; Y ),

k=1

where the optimization over s in this case gives s = 1.
The GMI in (14) can be written as


m
X
fY |Bk (Y |B)
G=
EBk ,Y log2
(15)
fY (Y )
k=1
Z
m
1 X X X
=
fY |X (y|xi )·
M
N
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb C
P
j∈I b fY |X (y|xj )
log2 1 PM k
dy, (16)
p=1 fY |X (y|xp )
2
where Ikb ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , M } with |Ikb | = M/2 is the set
of indices of constellation points whose binary label is b at
bit position k, and (16) follows by using the law of total
probability.
In analogy to (6) and (7), the GMI for an arbitrary MD
memoryless channel can then be expressed as
Z
m
1 X X X
G=m+
fY |X (y|xi )giG (y) dy,
M
N
C
b
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ik

(17)

with
P

j∈Ikb

fY |X (y|xj )

p=1

fY |X (y|xp )

giG (y) = log2 PM

,

(18)

The importance of the GMI in (17)–(18) is that it represents an
AIR for bit-wise receivers such as BICM and MLC-PDL. In
both cases, the decoding is suboptimal because the dependency
between the bits in a symbol is ignored (see (10)). In view
of (8), the GMI in (14) can be interpreted as a sum of
unconditional bit-wise MIs. These MIs can be used to select
the code rates in a MLC-PDL scheme, as shown in the third
row of Table II.
Remark 1: The GMI has not been proven to be the largest
achievable rate for the BICM receiver. For example, a different
achievable rate called the LM rate has been studied in [56,
Part I]. Finding the largest achievable rate with a BW decoder
remains an open research problem. Despite this cautionary
statement, the GMI is known to predict well the performance
of CM transceivers based on capacity-approaching SD-FEC
decoders, as shown in Sec. II-A.
E. MI and GMI for AWGN Channel
We now consider the multidimensional memoryless AWGN
channel Y = X + Z, where Z = [Z1 , Z2 , . . . , ZN ] is a
random vector whose entries are independent, complex, zeromean, circularly symmetric Gaussian random variables. The
total variance of the noise is therefore σz2 = EZ [kZk2 ], where

8

where σz2 /N corresponds to the noise variance per complex
dimension. The total transmitted power is given by σx2 ,
EX [kXk2 ], and thus, the SNR is defined as SNR , σx2 /σz2 .
The channel capacity (in bit/sym) of the MD AWGN channel
under an average power constraint is given by
C = N log2 (1 + SNR).

(20)

The next two theorems show general expressions for the MI
and GMI for the MD AWGN channel.
Theorem 1: The MI for the MD AWGN channel is
M Z
1 X
fZ (z)·
I =m−
M i=1 CN


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz, dij i}
log2
exp −
dz, (21)
σz2 /N
j=1
where Z is a circularly symmetric zero-mean complex Gaussian random vector with (total) variance σz2 and dij , xi −xj
as defined in Sec. III-A.
Proof: See Appendix A.
Theorem 2: The GMI for the MD AWGN channel is
Z
m
1 X X X
G=m−
fZ (z)·
M
N
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb C


PM
kdip k2 +2<{hz,dip i}
2 /N
p=1 exp −
σz

 dz. (22)
log2 P
kdij k2 +2<{hz,dij i}
2
j∈I b exp −
σ /N
k

z

Proof: See Appendix B.
In general, I ≥ G [9, Theorem 4.24]14 , where the rate
penalty I − G can be understood as the penalty caused by the
use of a suboptimal (BW) decoder. This rate penalty, however,
is known to be small for Gray-labeled constellations [7, Fig. 4],
[57], [58], [59, Sec. IV], as already discussed in Example 1.
Example 4 (MI and GMI for QAM Constellations and
AWGN): Fig. 8 shows MI and GMI for M QAM constellations
over the complex AWGN channel. These AIRs were calculated
using the numerical integration method described in Sec. IV-B.
When the BRGC is used as labeling rule, the GMI is very close
to MI at high SNRs.15 This means that the performance penalty
from bit-wise processing (i.e., BICM and MLC-PDL) is very
small, with a simultaneous significant reduction in complexity
(for BICM). We further observe in Fig. 8 that the GMI curves
cross, i.e., there is an SNR range in which a QAM format with
lower M has a larger GMI than QAM of larger cardinality.
This is due to the suboptimal (BW) demapping-decoding for
the GMI and hence not present for the MI.
M
14 The condition of i.i.d. bits in [9, Theorem 4.24] is not necessary—only
independence is needed.
15 The asymptotic optimality of Gray codes for arbitrary real constellations
has been recently proven in [58, Theorem 11].

8
AWGN Capacity
MI M QAM
GMI M QAM

7

256QAM

6
AIR [bit/sym]

the square norm is defined as kZk2 = |Z1 |2 + |Z2 |2 + . . . +
|ZN |2 . The value of σz2 is the total variance, and thus, the
channel law is given by


1
ky − xk2
fY |X (y|x) =
exp − 2
,
(19)
(πσz2 /N )N
σz /N

64QAM

5
4

16QAM

3
2
1

QPSK

0

5

10

15

20

25

SNR [dB]
Fig. 8. MI (solid) and GMI (dashed) vs. SNR for the complex AWGN channel
(N = 1). The labeling rule for the GMI is the BRGC. The capacity of the
AWGN channel in (20) is also shown (thick solid line).

F. LLR-based GMI
The GMI was defined in Sec. III-D in terms of the channel
observations Y . Most SD-FEC decoder used in BW receivers
operate based on “soft bits”, also known as L-values or simply
log-likelihood ratios (LLRs). These soft bits are real numbers
that represent the probability of the code bits. More precisely,
the magnitude of an LLR indicates the reliability: an LLR
close to zero means that no reliable information on that bit
is available. On the other hand, a very large and positive
(negative) LLR means that we are very certain the transmitted
code bit was a one (zero). Because LLRs are simply another
way of representing information, the GMI can be defined and
analyzed in terms of these LLRs, as schematically shown in
Fig. 7. We discuss precisely this in this section.
Assuming equally likely symbols, the LLRs for bit-wise
decoding are at any time instant l calculated as
P
x∈Xk1 fY |X (y|x)
Lk = log P
,
(23)
x∈X 0 fY |X (y|x)
k

where k = 1, . . . , m and
⊂ X is the set of constellation
symbols labeled by a bit b ∈ {0, 1} at bit position k. To
alleviate the computational complexity of (23), the well-known
max-log approximation is often used [60]
Xkb

Lk ≈ log

maxx∈Xk1 fY |X (y|x)

maxx∈Xk0 fY |X (y|x)

.

(24)

In the case of AWGN channels and square QAM constellations, the max-log approximation results in piecewise linear
relationships between the received symbol and the LLRs. This
in turn makes its implementation very simple, which is partly
why the max-log approximation is very popular in practice.
For the MD AWGN channel in (19), the exact L-values
in (23) and the max-log L-values in (24) are calculated,
respectively, as


P
ky−xk2
exp
−
1
2 /N
x∈Xk
σz


Lk = log P
(25)
ky−xk2
x∈X 0 exp − σ 2 /N
k

z

9

and
σ2
Lk ≈ z
N





min ky − xk2 − min1 ky − xk2 .

x∈Xk0

x∈Xk

(26)

For equally likely symbols, and regardless of the LLR
calculation and channel under consideration, the GMI in (13)
can be expressed as
G = m−
m
X
X 1Z ∞
b 
fL |B (l|b) log2 1 + es(−1) l dl.
min
s≥0
2 −∞ k k

fR (r). In view of (29), Monte-Carlo approximations of (21)
and (22) are readily obtained, as shown in the following.
The following corollary gives Monte-Carlo approximations
of the MI and GMI for the MD AWGN channel. The proof of
this corollary follows directly from Theorems 1 and 2 together
with (29).
Corollary 3 (Monte-Carlo Approximations): The MI and
GMI for the MD AWGN channel can be approximated as

k=1 b∈{0,1}

(27)

Remark 2: For the specific case when the L-values are calculated using (23), I(Bk ; Y ) = I(Bk ; Lk ) [9, Theorem 4.21],
and thus, the GMI in (14) becomes
G=

m
X

I(Bk ; Lk )

(28)

k=1

i.e., the GMI is a sum of bit-wise MIs between code bits and
L-values. The equality in (28) does not hold, however, if the Lvalues were calculated using the max-log approximation (24),
or more generally, if the L-values were calculated using any
other approximation. For example, when max-log L-values
are considered, it is possible to show that there is a loss
in achievable rate. Under certain conditions, this loss can be
recovered by correcting the max-log L-values, as shown in
[61]–[63].
LLRs mismatched to the channel or computed with some
approximation result in a rate loss. Different LLR correction
strategies can be used to improve the rate as well as the
performance of the FEC decoder. Such a scenario was for
example considered in [64], where the LLRs for a channel
subject to both additive and phase noise were matched only
to the additive noise part of the channel. It was shown for this
channel that different rates can be obtained depending on the
type of correction used, and that the decoding performance
can be improved by LLR scaling. For more details on this, we
refer the reader to [64] and [9, Ch. 7] and references therein.
IV. C OMPUTATION M ETHODS FOR AIR S
The MI and GMI for the AWGN channel can be approximated using Monte-Carlo integration but also via GaussHermite quadrature. These two methods are described in the
following sections. The numerical computation of AIRs for
the nonlinear optical fiber channel is discussed in Sec. V.
A. Monte-Carlo Integration
Monte-Carlo integration can be used to approximate an
integral via a finite sum [65, Chap. 9], namely,
Z
D
1 X
fR (r)g(r) dr ≈
g(r (n) ),
(29)
D n=1
CN
where R is an arbitrary random vector defined over C . In
(29), g(r) : CN → R is an arbitrary real-valued function
and r (n) with n = 1, . . . , D are samples from the distribution
N

I ≈m−

M
D
1 X 1 X
M i=1 D n=1
M
X

kdij k2 + 2<{ z (n) , dij }
log2
exp −
σz2 /N
j=1
m
D
1 X X X 1 X
M
D n=1
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb


PM
kdip k2 +2<{hz (n) ,dip i}
exp
−
2 /N
p=1
σz


log2
P
kdij k2 +2<{hz (n) ,dij i}
j∈I b exp −
σ 2 /N

!
(30)

G≈m−

k

(31)

z

where z (n) with n = 1, 2, . . . , D are independent realizations
of a zero-mean circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random vector with total variance σz2 .
Remark 3: The results in Theorem 3 are general in the
sense it applies to any MD constellation X . On the other hand,
these results are limited to a circularly symmetric MD AWGN
channel. The expressions (30) and (31) have been generalized
to correlated Gaussian noise in [66]. Experimental results for
MI and GMI where the circularly symmetric assumption was
lifted have been presented in [53].
Example 5 (MI for 2D complex constellations): We computed (30) for all the 227 2D complex constellations listed in
[67]. The obtained results are shown in Fig. 9 (colored lines),
where the AWGN capacity is shown as reference. All these
curves were computed using D = 104 Monte-Carlo samples
and obtained in a few hours on a standard computer. The
results in this figure can be used to compare the performance of
different modulation formats, even when they have a different
number of constellation points. In Fig. 9, we highlight 64QAM
(M = 4096) and two other constellations that outperform
64QAM: C4,4096 (M = 4096), and W4,5698 (M = 5698),
the latter proposed in 1974 in [28]. The constellation W4,5698
shows an excellent performance for a very large range of MIs.
We warn the reader, however, to be cautious with MI analysis.
Constellations that are good in terms of MI might not be
good in terms of GMI, as previously shown in [10] and in
Example 1.
M
In the following example, the results in Theorem 3 are
particularized to the relevant case of complex constellations.
Example 6 (Monte-Carlo Complex Constellations): The MI
and GMI for the complex AWGN channel can be approxi-

10

10
AIR [bit/sym]

by subtracting the transmitted from the received symbols 16 in
all the time slots where xi was transmitted, and (iii) use those
samples to compute the two innermost sums in (30) for all
i = 1, . . . , M . Although the optical channel is not in general
AWGN, this estimated quantity is an AIR using mismatched
metrics (more details in Sec. V).
M
Example 9 (Estimating GMI in Experiments): The GMI
in (33) (i.e., for the MD AWGN channel) can be estimated
following similar steps to those in Example 8. For more general memoryless channels, however, the GMI can be estimated
using (34) as

AWGN Capacity
MI 64QAM
MI C4,4096
MI W4,5698

12

8
6
4
2

m

0

5

10

15

G≈m−

20

SNR [dB]

where λk,l are L-values calculated for a given sequences of
mD transmitted code bits ck,l . This expression holds for any
LLR calculation (including max-log LLRs). If the L-values
λk,l are computed via (25), the GMI in (35) simplifies to

mated as
M
D
1 X 1 X
I ≈m−
M i=1 D n=1


M
X
|dij |2 + 2<{z (n) dij }
log2
exp −
σz2
j=1

G≈m−

(32)

(33)

z

where z (n) with n = 1, 2, . . . , D are independent realizations
of a zero-mean circularly symmetric complex Gaussian ranM
dom variable with variance σz2 .
Example 7 (Estimating GMI from LLRs): The GMI (27) can
be estimated via Monte-Carlo integration as [9, Theorem 4.20]
1
G≈m−
min
2D s≥0

X

D
X



b

log2 1 + es(−1)


(n)

λk,b

k=1 b∈{0,1} n=1

(34)
(n)

m D


ck,l
1 XX
log2 1 + e(−1) λk,l .
D

(36)

k=1 l=1

m
D
1 X X X 1 X
G≈m−
M
D n=1
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb


PM
|dip |2 +2<{z (n) dip }
p=1 exp −
σz2


log2 P
|dij |2 +2<{z (n) dij }
j∈I b exp −
σ2

m
X

(35)

k=1 l=1

Fig. 9. MI vs. SNR for all 2D complex (4D real) constellations in [67]. The
capacity of the AWGN channel in (20) is also shown (thick solid line).

k

D



XX
ck,l
1
min
log2 1 + e(−1) λk,l ,
D s≥0

where λk,b , n = 1, 2, . . . , D are i.i.d. random variables
distributed according to the conditional PDF of the L-values
fLk |Bk (λ|b). The minimization over s in (34) can be easily
approximated (numerically) using the concavity of the GMI
in s [9, Eq. (4.81)].
M
Remark 4: The expression in (34) is valid for any symbolwise metric in the form of (10), i.e., for any L-value Lk that
ignores the dependency between the bits in the symbol. In
particular, when the L-values are calculated exactly using (23),
the GMI can be estimated using (34) and s = 1, which follows
from [9, Theorem 4.20].
Example 8 (Estimating MI in Experiments): In a simulation
or experiment where DM symbols were transmitted, the r.h.s.
of (30) can be estimated in three steps: (i) estimate the noise
variance, (ii) for each symbol xi , obtain noise realizations z (n)

M
Remark 5: Note again that to calculate the GMI for max-log
LLRs (or more generally, for mismatched LLRs), (35) should
be used. Using (36) for mismatched LLRs will result in a rate
lower than the true one. In other words, the minimization over
s in (35) is a mandatory step for an information-theoretically
precise treatment of GMI with mismatched LLRs.
B. Gauss-Hermite Quadrature
For any real-valued function g(r) : C → R with bounded
2J-th derivative, the J-point Gauss-Hermite quadrature is
given by [68, Sec. 7.3.4]
Z
J
J
X
X
αl2 g(ξl1 + ξl2 ) (37)
exp (−|r|2 )g(r) dr ≈
αl1
C

l1 =1

l2 =1

where the quadrature nodes ξl and the weights αl can be
easily found (numerically) for different values of J. This value
determines the trade-off between the computation speed and
the accuracy of the quadrature. The approximation (37) is
exact when J → ∞. Table III shows the quadrature nodes
and weights for J = 10.
A straightforward (but not unique) generalization of (37) to
MD integrals is
Z
J X
J
J
2N
X
X
Y
exp (−krk2 )g(r) dr ≈
...
g(ξ)
αln
CN

l1 =1 l2 =1

l2N =1

n=1

(38)

where in this case g(r) : CN → R, and the vector of nodes
ξ , [ξl1 + ξl2 , ξl3 + ξl4 , . . . , ξl2N −1 + ξl2N ].

(39)

16 After all digital signal processing (filtering, equalization, synchronization,
matched filtering, sampling, etc.) such that the conditional sample means of
y are equal to the corresponding x.

11

TABLE III
Q UADRATURE NODES ξl AND WEIGHTS αl FOR J = 10
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

ξl
-3.4362
-2.5327
-1.7567
-1.0366
-0.3429
0.3429
1.0366
1.7567
2.5327
3.4362

αl
0.000007640
0.001343645
0.033874394
0.240138611
0.610862633
0.610862633
0.240138611
0.033874394
0.001343645
0.000007640

The following corollary gives Gauss-Hermite approximations of the MI and GMI for the MD AWGN channel.
Corollary 4 (Gauss-Hermite Approximations): The MI and
GMI for an MD AWGN channel can be approximated as
I ≈m−

M
J
J
J
2N
X
Y
1 XX X
I
.
.
.
g
(ξ)
αln
i
M π N i=1
n=1
l1 =1 l2 =1

(40)

l2N =1

These expressions are obtained by particularizing Corollary 4
to the case of N = 1 complex dimensions and were used to
obtain the curves in Example 1 in Sec. II-A with J = 20. M
Remark 6: The advantage of Gauss-Hermite quadrature over
Monte-Carlo is that the former is normally much faster for
real and two-dimensional (complex) constellations (see [9,
Example 4.26]). Monte-Carlo integration is better suited for
constellations with more dimensions or when the channel
law is unknown, as discussed in Sec. V. Another advantage
of Gauss-Hermite quadrature is that its evaluation does not
depend on random samples (as in the case of Monte-Carlo),
and thus, it is better-suited for numerical optimizations.17
Example 11 (MI for ∞-QAM): Fig. 10 shows the MI for
M QAM with cardinalities up to M ≤ 65536 = 216 , i.e., for
constellations with maximum spectral efficiency of 32 bit/sym
(sometimes called ∞-QAM constellations). These results were
obtained via (44) with J = 10 and highlight how GaussHermite quadrature is a very powerful tool for constellations
with a small number of dimensions. At high SNR, the gap
between the MI envelope and the capacity of the MD AWGN
channel reaches the “ultimate shaping gain” 1.53 dB [69].

with
giI (ξ)

!
√
kdij k2 + 2σz / N <{hξ, dij i}
exp −
= log2
σz2 /N
j=1

32

M
X

(41)

G≈m−

m
1 X X X
M πN
b

k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ik
J
X

J
X

l1 =1 l2 =1

...

24
AIR [bit/sym]

and

J
X
l2N =1

giG (ξ)

2N
Y

αln (42)

20
16
12
8
4

n=1

with

0


√
kdip k2 +2σz / N <{hξ,dip i}
2 /N
p=1 exp −
σz


√
log2 P
kdij k2 +2σz / N <{hξ,dij i}
2 /N
j∈Ikb exp −
σz
PM

giG (ξ) =



(43)

where ξ is given by (39).
Proof: See Appendix C.
Example 10: The MI and GMI for the complex AWGN
channel is
M
J
J
X
1 XX
I ≈m−
αl1
αl2 ·
M π i=1
l1 =1
l2 =1


M
X
|dij |2 + 2σz <{(ξl1 + ξl2 )dij }
log2
exp −
,
σz2
j=1
J
J
m
X
1 X X X X
αl1
αl2 ·
Mπ
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb l1 =1
l2 =1


PM
|dip |2 +2σz <{(ξl1 +ξl2 )dip }
exp
−
p=1
σz2
.

log2 P
|dij |2 +2σz <{(ξl1 +ξl2 )dij }
j∈I b exp −
σ2

(44)

G≈m−

k

z

1.53 dB

AWGN Capacity
MI QPSK
MI 16QAM
MI 64QAM
MI 256QAM
MI 1024QAM
MI 4096QAM
MI 16384QAM
MI 65536QAM

28

(45)

0

10

20

30

40

50

SNR [dB]
Fig. 10. MI vs. SNR for dense 2D complex M QAM constellations: M ≤
65536 = 216 , i.e., maximum spectral efficiency of 32 bit/sym. The capacity
of the AWGN channel in (20) is also shown (thick solid line).

M
V. MI AND GMI FOR THE N ONLINEAR O PTICAL C HANNEL
The fiber-optical channel is a nonlinear channel with memory, and thus, the AIRs we discussed in the previous sections
(MI and GMI) are (possibly loose) lower bounds on the rates
that can be achieved when memory and fiber nonlinearities
are taken into account. After a very brief discussion of the
capacity of such a channel, the majority of this section is
devoted to lower bounds on capacity (i.e., AIRs) for the memoryless demapper shown in Fig. 7. Ready-to-use expression to
compute these AIRs lower bounds are presented.
17 The randomness of the Monte-Carlo estimates in a numerical optimization
routine can, however, be avoided using the same random seed.

12

A. Channel Capacity
The nonlinear optical channel (where the propagation of
the optical field is governed by the nonlinear Schrödinger
equation) is a channel with memory. The channel law can
therefore be described by the conditional PDF fY |X (Y |X),
as shown in Fig. 7.
For channels with memory, and under certain assumptions
on information stability [70, Sec. I], the channel capacity is
1
C mem = lim sup I(X; Y ),
l→∞ pX l

(46)

where X = [X 1 , X 2 , . . . , X l ], Y = [Y 1 , Y 2 , . . . , Y l ],
I(X; Y ) is defined as a multidimensional MI analogous to (3),
and the maximization is over all distributions of the random
vectors X satisfying a power constraint.
Remark 7: The capacity expression in (46) is based on
a discrete-time channel model described by fY |X (Y |X),
and thus, it has units of bit per symbol (or bit per channel
use). This capacity expression does consider memory, yet it
does not take into account bandwidth (or potential bandwidth
expansion at high powers). Therefore, this analysis cannot be
straightforwardly used to determine the capacity in bit/s/Hz.
More details on this issue can be found in [71, Sec. V] [72].
For independent and identically distributed symbols X and
a suboptimal receiver that neglects any residual memory after
DSP (i.e., for the demapper in Fig. 7), the memoryless MI (3)
becomes the largest achievable rate. Such a setup is shown in
Fig. 7 by the information-theoretic channel. Furthermore, the
capacity in (46) is lower-bounded by
C

mem

≥ I ≥ G.

(47)

B. Lower Bounds on the MI and GMI
The MI for the (suboptimal) receiver described above and
independent and uniformly distributed symbols is given by
(4). As shown in (47), this also gives a lower bound on the
capacity of the channel with memory in (46). We are therefore
interested in computing (6) with giI (y) given by (7). For the
nonlinear optical channel, however, the channel law fY |X is
usually not known analytically. The MI can be lower bounded
as [73, Sec. VI]
M Z
1 X
I ≥ I˜ = m +
fY |X (y|xi )g̃iI (y) dy,
(48)
M i=1 CN

Gaussian noise assumption is reasonable.18 For this auxiliary
channel, and in analogy to (57), the lower bound (48) becomes
M Z
1 X
fY |X (y|xi )·
I˜ = m −
M i=1 CN


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hy − xi , dij i}
log2
exp −
dy (50)
σz2 /N
j=1
where we again dropped the complex conjugate in the term
y − xi due to the circular symmetry of the PDF qY |X .
In analogy to (50), a lower bound on the GMI in (22) can
be expressed as
Z
m
1 X X X
fY |X (y|xi )·
G ≥ G̃ = m −
M
N
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb C


PM
kdip k2 +2<{hy−xi ,dip i}
exp
−
2
p=1
σz /N

 dy (51)
log2 P
kdij k2 +2<{hy−xi ,dij i}
exp
−
b
2
j∈I
σ /N
k

z

In view of (29), the MI and GMI lower bounds in (50) and
(51) can be approximated via Monte-Carlo integration as
M
D
1 X 1 X
I˜ ≈ m −
M i=1 D n=1
(n)

M
X

kdij k2 + 2<{ si − xi , dij }
exp −
log2
σz2 /N
j=1

!
(52)

and
m
D
1 X X X 1 X
M
D n=1
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb


(n)
PM
kdip k2 +2<{ si −xi ,dip }
2 /N
p=1 exp −
σz

 (53)
log2
(n)
P
kdij k2 +2<{ si −xi ,dij }
j∈I b exp −
σ 2 /N

G̃ ≈ m −

k

z

(n)

where si with n = 1, 2, . . . , D are samples taken from
the channel conditioned on that the transmitted symbol was
X = xi , i.e., samples from the (analytically unknown) PDF
fY |X (y|xi ). Note that the expressions in (52) and (51) are not
lower bounds, but only an approximations to the lower bounds.
As the number of samples D tends to infinity, however, these
approximations tend to the true bounds in (50) and (51).
VI. C ONCLUSIONS

where
qY |X (y|xi )
g̃iI (y) = log2 PM
,
j=1 qY |X (y|xj )

(49)

and qY |X is any PDF (usually called the auxiliary channel).
In particular, if qY |X is the true channel law fY |X , (48) holds
with equality. Clearly, the more “close” qY |X is to fY |X , the
tighter the bound in (48).
A common choice for qY |X is a circularly symmetric Gaussian PDF with variance σz2 . The circularly symmetric Gaussian
PDF assumption might be suboptimal, but in the absence
of a better (non-Gaussian) model, the circularly symmetric

In this paper, we reviewed, achievable information rates
for fiber optical communication systems and showed that
they are versatile and powerful design metrics for coded systems. Different ready-to-use approximations were presented
and discussed. The main focus of this paper was on the
multidimensional AWGN channel. This model is very relevant
to current optical transceivers used in long-haul dispersionuncompensated links where a memoryless demapper is used.
18 It is experimentally demonstrated in [53] that for long-haul dispersionunmanaged optical systems a Gaussian assumption for the noise is a very
good approximation.

13

The methods described in this paper can be generalized to
non-AWGN channels and also to channels with memory. This
methodology could for example be used to design multidimensional constellations and coded modulation tailored to the
nonlinear optical channel. This is left for further investigation.
All the analysis presented here was also based on infiniteblock length assumptions and universal codes. Both finiteblock length analyses and analysis of code universality are
interesting future research avenues.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Gabriele Liga (University College London, UK) for providing some of the data in
Fig. 4 (previously published in [19]) as well as to Dr. Laurent
Schmalen (Nokia Bell Labs, Germany) for providing the data
in Fig. 5, previously reported in [20].

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
The proof follows similar steps to that in Appendix A. In
particular, (19) is used to express giG (y) in (18) as


PM
kdip k2 +2<{hz ∗
i (y),dip i}
exp
−
2 /N
p=1
σz

.
giG (y) = − log2
2
P
kdij k +2<{hz ∗
i (y),dij i}
exp
−
b
2
j∈I
σ /N
k

z

(60)
Both the index i and the complex conjugate in
are
dropped and the resulting expression is used in (17) to obtain
(22).
z ∗i (y)

A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
Using (19) in (7), we obtain


2
ik
exp − ky−x
2
σ /N

 z
(54)
giI (y) = log2 P
ky−xj k2
M
exp
−
2
j=1
σz /N


kz i (y)k2
exp − σ2 /N

 z
= log2 P
(55)
kz (y)+d k2
M
exp
− i σ2 /N ij
j=1
z


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz ∗i (y), dij i}
= − log2
exp −
,
σz2 /N
j=1

(56)

where z i (y) = y − xi , hz 1 , z 2 i is the inner product, and (56)
follows by using kz 1 +z 2 k2 = kz 1 k2 +kz 2 k2 +2<{hz ∗1 , z 2 i},
where z ∗ denotes complex conjugate19 .
The expression in (56) is used in (6) to obtain
M Z
1 X
fY |X (y|xi )·
M i=1 CN


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz i (y), dij i}
log2
exp −
dy (57)
σz2 /N
j=1
M Z
1 X
fZ (z i )·
=m−
M i=1 CN i


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz i , dij i}
log2
exp −
dz i
(58)
σz2 /N
j=1
M Z
1 X
=m−
fZ (z)·
M i=1 CN


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz, dij i}
log2
exp −
dz
(59)
σz2 /N
j=1

I =m−

19 This

where (58) follows from integrating over z i instead of over y.
Given that Z i is a circularly symmetric zero-mean complex
Gaussian random variable with variance σz2 , the complex
conjugate of z ∗i (y) in (57) was dropped. Furthermore, because
the statistics of Z i do not depend on i, this subindex can be
dropped, which gives (21), and thus, completes the proof.

can be proven using the identity kzk2 = z H z, where (·)H is
Hermitian transpose.

A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF C OROLLARY 4
The MI and GMI in (21) and (22) can be expressed as


M Z
1 X
1
kzk2
I =m−
exp
−
·
M i=1 CN (πσz2 /N )N
σz2 /N


M
X
kdij k2 + 2<{hz, dij i}
dz, (61)
log2
exp −
σz2 /N
j=1
and


Z
m
1 X X X
1
kzk2
G=m−
exp − 2
·
2
N
M
σz /N
N (πσz /N )
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb C


PM
kdip k2 +2<{hz,dip i}
2 /N
p=1 exp −
σz

 dz,
log2 P
(62)
kdij k2 +2<{hz,dij i}
2 /N
j∈Ikb exp −
σz
q
2
σz
respectively. Using the change of variables z =
N r, we
obtain
M Z

1 X
I =m−
exp −krk2 ·
M π N i=1 CN
!
√
M
X
kdij k2 + 2σz / N <{hr, dij i}
dr,
log2
exp −
σz2 /N
j=1
(63)

and
Z
m

1 X X X
exp −krk2 ·
N
Mπ
N
k=1 b∈{0,1} i∈Ikb C


√
PM
kdip k2 +2σz / N <{hr,dip i}
2
p=1 exp −
σz /N

 dr.
√
log2 P
kdij k2 +2σz / N <{hr,dij i}
exp
−
b
j∈I
σ 2 /N

G=m−

k

(64)

z

The proof is completed by applying (38) to (63) and (64).

14

R EFERENCES
[1] D. J. Richardson, “Filling the light pipe,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6002,
pp. 327–328, Oct. 2010.
[2] R. J. Essiambre and R. W. Tkach, “Capacity trends and limits of optical
communication networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 5, pp.
1035–1055, May 2012.
[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,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, vol.
374, no. 2062, Jan. 2016.
[4] P. J. Winzer and D. T. Neilson, “From scaling disparities to integrated
parallelism: A decathlon for a decade,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1099–1115, Mar. 2017.
[5] G. Ungerboeck, “Channel coding with multilevel/phase signals,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 55–67, Jan. 1982.
[6] E. Zehavi, “8-PSK trellis codes for a Rayleigh channel,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 873–884, May 1992.
[7] G. Caire, G. Taricco, and E. Biglieri, “Bit-interleaved coded modulation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 927–946, May 1998.
[8] A. Guillén i Fàbregas, A. Martinez, and G. Caire, “Bit-interleaved
coded modulation,” Foundations and Trends in Communications and
Information Theory, vol. 5, no. 1–2, pp. 1–153, 2008.
[9] L. Szczecinski and A. Alvarado, Bit-Interleaved Coded Modulation:
Fundamentals, Analysis and Design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, 2015.
[10] A. Alvarado and E. Agrell, “Four-dimensional coded modulation with
bit-wise decoders for future optical communications,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1993–2003, May 2015.
[11] H. Imai and S. Hirakawa, “A new multilevel coding method using errorcorrecting codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-23, no. 3, pp. 371–
377, May 1977.
[12] U. Wachsmann, R. F. H. Fischer, and J. B. Huber, “Multilevel codes:
Theoretical concepts and practical design rules,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1361–1391, July 1999.
[13] R. Gallager, “Low-density parity-check codes,” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA, 1963.
[14] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit
error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo codes,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Geneva, Switzerland,
May 1993.
[15] E. Arikan, “Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacityachieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 3051–3073, July
2009.
[16] C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communications,” Bell System
Technical Journal, vol. 27, pp. 379–423 and 623–656, July and Oct.
1948.
[17] R. Maher, A. Alvarado, D. Lavery, and P. Bayvel, “Increasing the
information rates of optical communications via coded modulation: a
study of transceiver performance,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2016,
article number: 21278.
[18] T. Fehenberger, A. Alvarado, P. Bayvel, and N. Hanik, “On achievable
rates for long-haul fiber-optic communications,” Opt. Express, vol. 23,
no. 7, pp. 9183–9191, Apr. 2015.
[19] G. Liga, A. Alvarado, E. Agrell, and P. Bayvel, “Information rates of
next-generation long-haul optical fiber systems using coded modulation,”
Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 2017.
[20] L. Schmalen, A. Alvarado, and R. Rios-Müller, “Performance prediction
of nonbinary forward error correction in optical transmission experiments,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1015–1026,
Feb. 2017.
[21] G. Böcherer, F. Steiner, and P. Schulte, “Bandwidth efficient and
rate-matched low-density parity-check coded modulation,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4651–4665, Dec. 2015.
[22] A. Alvarado, “Information rates and post-fec ber prediction in optical
fiber communications,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC), Los Angeles, CA, Mar. 2017.
[23] F. Gray, “Pulse code communication,” Mar. 1953, US Patent 2,632,058.
[24] M. Seidl, A. Schenk, C. Stierstorfer, and J. B. Huber, “Polar-coded
modulation,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4108–4119,
October 2013.
[25] G. Böcherer, T. Prinz, P. Yuan, and F. Steiner, “Efficient polar code
construction for higher-order modulation,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW), March 2017.
[26] I. Tal and A. Vardy, “List decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2213–2226, May 2015.

[27] ETSI, “Digital video broadcasting (DVB); Second generation framing
structure, channel coding and modulation systems for broadcasting,
interactive services, news gathering and other broadband satellite applications (DVB-S2),” ETSI, Tech. Rep. ETSI EN 302 307 V1.2.1 (200908), Aug. 2009.
[28] G. R. Welti and J. S. Lee, “Digital transmission with coherent fourdimensional modulation,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-20, no. 4,
pp. 497–502, July 1974.
[29] J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, “A fast encoding method for lattice
codes and quantizers,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-29, no. 6, pp.
820–824, Nov. 1983.
[30] M. Karlsson and E. Agrell, “Spectrally efficient four-dimensional modulation,” in Proc. Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC), Los
Angeles, CA, Mar. 2012.
[31] A. Alvarado, D. J. Ives, S. Savory, and P. Bayvel, “On the impact
of optimal modulation and FEC overhead on future optical networks,”
Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 2339–2352, May
2016.
[32] A. Leven, F. Vacondio, L. Schmalen, S. ten Brink, and W. Idler, “Estimation of soft FEC performance in optical transmission experiments,”
IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, vol. 23, no. 20, pp. 1547–1549,
Oct. 2011.
[33] K. Brueninghaus, D. Astély, T. Sälzer, S. Visuri, A. Alexiou, S. Karger,
and G.-A. Seraji, “Link performance models for system level simulations of broadband radio access systems,” in Proc. IEEE International
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Communications (PIMRC),
Berlin, Germany, Sep. 2006.
[34] L. Wan, S. Tsai, and M. Almgren, “A fading-insensitive performance
metric for a unified link quality model,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Las Vegas, NV,
Apr. 2006.
[35] L. M. Zhang and F. R. Kschischang, “Staircase codes with 6% to 33%
overhead,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1999–
2002, May 2014.
[36] W. Ryan and S. Lin, Channel Codes: Classical and Modern. Cambridge
University Press, 2009.
[37] F. R. Kschischang, B. J. Frey, and H.-A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and
the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp.
498–519, Feb. 2001.
[38] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the
finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, may 2010.
[39] A. Alvarado, E. Agrell, D. Lavery, R. Maher, and P. Bayvel, “Replacing
the soft-decision FEC limit paradigm in the design of optical communication systems,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 33, no. 20, pp.
4338–4352, Oct. 2015.
[40] A. Alvarado, E. Agrell, D. Lavery, and P. Bayvel, “LDPC codes for
optical channels: Is the “FEC Limit” a good predictor of Post-FEC
BER?” in Proc. Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC), Los
Angeles, CA, Mar. 2015.
[41] A. J. Viterbi, “An intuitive justification and a simplified implementation
of the MAP decoder for convolutional codes,” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 260–264, feb 1998.
[42] A. Sheikh, A. Graell i Amat, and M. Karlsson, “Nonbinary staircase
codes for spectrally and energy efficient fiber-optic systems,” in Proc.
Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC), Los Angeles, CA,
Mar. 2017.
[43] R. Dar, M. Shtaif, and M. Feder, “New bounds on the capacity of the
nonlinear fiber-optic channel,” Optics Letter, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 398–401,
Jan. 2014.
[44] T. Fehenberger, M. P. Yankov, L. Barletta, and N. Hanik, “Compensation
of XPM interference by blind tracking of the nonlinear phase in WDM
systems with QAM input,” in Proc. European Conference on Optical
Communications (ECOC). Valencia, Spain: Paper P.5.08, Sep. 2015.
[45] B. Rong, T. Jiang, X. Li, and M. R. Soleymani, “Combine ldpc codes
over gf(q) with q-ary modulations for bandwidth efficient transmission,”
IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 78–84, March
2008.
[46] L. Beygi, E. Agrell, J. M. Kahn, and M. Karlsson, “Coded modulation
for fiber-optic networks: Toward better tradeoff between signal processing complexity and optical transparent reach,” IEEE Signal Processing
Magazine, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 93–103, Mar. 2014.
[47] J. Wolfowitz, “The coding of messages subject to chance errors,” Illinois
Journal of Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 591–606, June 1957.
[48] E. Agrell, A. Alvarado, and F. R. Kschishang, “Implications of information theory in optical fibre communications,” Philosophical Transactions
A, no. 2062, Jan. 2016, (Invited Paper).

15

[49] G. Kaplan and S. Shamai (Shitz), “Information rates and error exponents
of compound channels with application to antipodal signaling in a fading
environment,” Archiv fuer Elektronik und Uebertragungstechnik, vol.
Heft 4, no. Band 47, pp. 228–239, 1993.
[50] N. Merhav, G. Kaplan, A. Lapidoh, and S. Shamai (Shitz), “On information rates for mismatched decoders,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 40,
no. 6, pp. 1953–1967, Nov. 1994.
[51] A. Ganti, A. Lapidoth, and İ. E. Telatar, “Mismatched decoding revisited: General alphabets, channels with memory, and the wide-band
limit,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2315–2328, Nov.
2000.
[52] M. Secondini, E. Forestieri, and G. Prati, “Achievable information rate
in nonlinear WDM fiber-optic systems with arbitrary modulation formats
and dispersion maps,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 31, no. 23,
pp. 3839–3852, Dec. 2013.
[53] T. A. Eriksson, T. Fehenberger, P. A. Andrekson, M. Karlsson, N. Hanik,
and E. Agrell, “Impact of 4D channel distribution on the achievable rates
in coherent optical communication experiments,” Journal of Lightwave
Technology, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 2256–2266, May 2016.
[54] A. Martinez, A. Guillén i Fàbregas, G. Caire, and F. Willems, “Bitinterleaved coded modulation revisited: A mismatched decoding perspective,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Toronto, ON, Canada, July 2008.
[55] A. Martinez, A. Guillén i Fàbregas, G. Caire, and F. M. J. Willems,
“Bit-interleaved coded modulation revisited: A mismatched decoding
perspective,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2756–2765,
June 2009.
[56] L. Peng, “Fundamentals of bit-interleaved coded modulation and reliable source transmission,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK, Dec. 2012.
[57] E. Agrell and A. Alvarado, “Optimal alphabets and binary labelings
for BICM at low SNR,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 10, pp.
6650–6672, Oct. 2011.
[58] A. Alvarado, F. Brännström, E. Agrell, and T. Koch, “High-SNR asymptotics of mutual information for discrete constellations with applications
to BICM,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1061–1076, Feb.
2014.
[59] A. Alvarado, F. Brännström, and E. Agrell, “High SNR bounds for the
BICM capacity,” in Proc. IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW),
Paraty, Brazil, Oct. 2011.

[60] A. J. Viterbi, “An intuitive justification and a simplified implementation
of the MAP decoder for convolutional codes,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 260–264, Feb. 1998.
[61] J. Jaldén, P. Fertl, and G. Matz, “On the generalized mutual information
of BICM systems with approximate demodulation,” in Proc. IEEE
Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Cairo, Egypt, Jan. 2010.
[62] T. Nguyen and L. Lampe, “Bit-interleaved coded modulation with
mismatched decoding metrics,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 2,
pp. 437–447, Feb. 2011.
[63] L. Szczecinski, “Correction of mismatched L-values in BICM receivers,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3198–3208, Nov. 2012.
[64] A. Alvarado, L. Szczecinski, T. Fehenberger, M. Paskov, and P. Bayvel,
“Improved soft-decision forward error correction via post-processing of
mismatched log-likelihood ratios,” in Proc. European Conference on
Optical Communications (ECOC), Düsseldorf, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[65] W. Tranter, Principles of communication systems simulation with wireless applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall
Professional Technical Reference, 2004.
[66] E. Sillekens, A. Alvarado, C. M. Okonkwo, and B. C. Thomsen, “An
experimental comparison of coded modulation strategies for 100 Gb/s
transceivers,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 34, no. 24, pp.
5689–5697, Dec. 2016.
[67] E.
Agrell,
“Database
of
sphere
packings,”
Online:
http://codes.se/packings, 2016.
[68] R. F. Churchhouse, Ed., Handbook of applicable mathematics. Vol 3:
Numerical Methods. John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
[69] G. D. Forney, “Trellis shaping,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 38, no. 2,
pp. 281–300, Mar 1992.
[70] S. Verdú and T. S. Han, “A general formula for channel capacity,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1147–1157, July 1994.
[71] G. Kramer, M. I. Yousefi, and F. R. Kschischang, “Upper bound on the
capacity of a cascade of nonlinear and noisy channels,” in Information
Theory Workshop (ITW), 2015.
[72] G. Kramer, “Autocorrelation function for dispersion-free fiber
channels with distributed amplification,” May 2017, available at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00454.
[73] D. Arnold, H.-A. Loeliger, P. 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.

