1

Bounds on the Capacity of Memoryless
Simplified Fiber-Optical Channel Models
Kamran Keykhosravi, Student Member, IEEE,

arXiv:1708.03102v1 [] 10 Aug 2017

Giuseppe Durisi, Senior Member, IEEE,
and Erik Agrell, Senior Member, IEEE.

Abstract
A number of simplified models have been proposed for the fiber-optical channel and have been
extensively used in the literature. Although these models are mainly developed for the low-power
regime, they are used at moderate or high powers as well. It remains unclear to what extend the
capacity of these models is affected by the simplifying assumptions under which they are derived.
In this paper, the capacity of three memoryless channel models, which are obtained applying
different simplifying assumptions to the same physical fiber-optical channel, is investigated. First,
the capacity of a memoryless model that is obtained through a perturbation method is bounded
tightly and its capacity pre-log is proven to be 3. Second, a channel model based on the logarithmic
perturbation method is considered. The capacity is proven to be log(1 + SNR), where SNR is the
signal-to-noise ratio. This implies that the capacity pre-log is one. Third, a memoryless nonlinear
Schrödinger channel is studied. The capacity pre-log of this model is known to be 1/2. We establish

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under Grant 2013-5271.
Part of this work has been accepted for presentation at the 43th European Conference on Optical Communication
(ECOC 2017).
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
41296, Sweden (e-mail: kamrank@chalmers.se; durisi@chalmers.se; agrell@chalmers.se).
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

2

a novel upper bound that confines the capacity of this channel to a much narrower range than
the previously known upper bound. Since all three models represent the same physical channel,
the fact that each model yields a different capacity pre-log highlights that care must be exercised
in using simplified channel models in the high-power regime.

Index Terms
Achievable rate, information theory, optical fiber, channel capacity, nonlinear channel.

I. Introduction
The vast majority of the global Internet traffic is conveyed through fiber-optical networks,
which form the backbone of our information society. To cope with the growing data demand,
the fiber-optical networks have evolved from regenerated direct-detection systems to coherent
wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) systems [1]. Newly emerging bandwidth-hungry
services, like internet-of-thing applications and cloud processing, require even higher data
rates. Motivated by this ever-growing demand, an increasing attention has been devoted in
recent years to the analysis of the capacity of the fiber-optical channel.
Finding the capacity of the fiber-optical channel that is governed by the generalized nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation [2, Eq. (1)], which captures the effects of Kerr nonlinearity,
chromatic dispersion, and amplification noise, remains an open problem. The informationtheoretic analysis of the NLS channel is cumbersome because of a complicated signal–noise
interaction caused by the interplay between the nonlinearity and the dispersion. Using
the mismatch-decoding framework [3], a number of lower bounds on the capacity of this
channel have been developed (see, for example, [4] and [5]). To establish an upper bound,
Kramer et al. [6] used the split-step Fourier (SSF) method, which is a standard approach to
solve the NLS equation numerically [7, Sec. 2.4.1], to derive a discrete-time channel model.
They proved that the capacity of this discrete-time model is upper-bounded by that of an
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

3

equivalent AWGN channel. In contrast to the available lower bounds, which fall to zero or
saturate at high powers, this upper bound, which is the only one available for a realistic
fiber channel model, grows unboundedly.
Since the information-theoretic analysis of the NLS channel is difficult, to approximate
capacity one can resort to simplified models, a number of which have been studied in the
literature (see [8] and references therein for a recent review). Two approaches to obtain such
models are to use the regular perturbation or the logarithmic perturbation methods. In the
former, the effects of nonlinearity are captured by an additive perturbative term [9], [10].
This approach yields a discrete-time channel with input–output relation yl = xl + ∆xl + nl
[8, Eq. (5)], where xl and yl are the transmitted and the received symbols, respectively; nl is
the amplification noise; and ∆xl is the perturbative nonlinear distortion. This model holds
under the simplifying assumption that both the nonlinearity and the signal–noise interaction
are weak, which is reasonable at low power.
Regular perturbative fiber-optical channel models, with or without memory, have been
extensively investigated in the literature. In [11], a first-order perturbative model for WDM
systems with arbitrary filtering and sampling demodulation and coherent detection is proposed. Using this model, the authors of [11] show that the impairments in a single WDM
channel are highly affected by the modulation used on the neighboring channels. In [12],
the influence of four-wave-mixing interference on the capacity of a memoryless simplified
perturbative WDM channel is studied for three different statistical models of the nonlinear
crosstalk. The authors show that for different behavioral models the capacity may go to
infinity or zero. The capacity of a perturbative multiple-access channel is studied in [13]. It
is shown that the nonlinear crosstalk between channels does not affect the capacity region
when the information from all the channels is optimally used at each detector. However, if
joint processing is not possible, the channel capacity is limited by the inter channel distortion.
Another class of simplified models, which are equivalent to the regular perturbative
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

4

ones up to a first-order linearization, is that of logarithmic perturbative models, where
the nonlinear distortion term ∆xl is modeled as a phase shift. This yields a discretetime channel with input–output relation yl = xl ej∆xl + nl [8, Eq. (7)]. In [14] and [15],
a memoryless logarithmic perturbative optical channel for a two-user WDM transmission
system is developed and its capacity region is studied in the high-power regime. It is shown
that the capacity pre-log pair (1,1) is achievable, where the capacity pre-log is defined as the
asymptotic limit of C/ log P for P → ∞, where P is the input power and C is the capacity.
Despite the fact that the aforementioned simplified channels are valid in the low-power
regime, these models are often used also in the moderate- and high-power regimes. Currently,
it is unclear to what extend the simplifications used to obtain these models influence the
capacity at high powers. To find out, we study the capacity of two memoryless perturbative models, namely, a regular perturbative channel (RPC), and a logarithmic perturbative
channel (LPC). To assess accuracy of these two perturbative models, we investigate also the
capacity of the memoryless NLS channel (MNC), which is obtained from the zero-dispersion
NLS equation without further approximations, and whose capacity serves as benchmark.
A number of results are available on the capacity of this channel model. In [16], a lower
bound on the per-sample capacity of the memoryless NLS channel is derived, which proves
that the capacity goes to infinity with power. In [17], the capacity of the same channel is
evaluated numerically. Furthermore, it is shown that the capacity pre-log is 1/2. The only
known nonasymptotic upper bound on the capacity of this channel is log(1 + SNR) (bits
per channel use) [6], where SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio. This upper bound holds also
for the general case of nonzero dispersion.
The novel contributions of this paper are as follows: First, we tightly bound the capacity
of the RPC model and prove that its capacity pre-log is 3. Second, the capacity of the LPC
is readily shown to be the same as that of an AWGN channel with the same input and noise
power. Hence, the capacity pre-log of the LPC is 1. Third, we establish a novel upper bound
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

5

[18] on the capacity of the MNC. Our upper bound improves the previously known upper
bound [6] on the capacity of this channel significantly and together with the available lower
bounds allows one to characterize the capacity of the MNC accurately.
Although all three models represent the same physical optical channel, their capacities
behave very differently in the high-power regime. This result highlights the profound impact
of the simplifying assumptions on the capacity at high powers, and indicates that care should
be taken in translating the results obtained based on these models into guidelines for system
design.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we introduce the three channel
models. In Section III, we present upper and lower bounds on the capacity of these channels
and establish the capacity pre-log of the perturbative models. Numerical results are provided
in Section IV. We conclude the paper in Section V. The proofs of all theorems are given in
the appendices.
Notation: Random quantities are denoted by boldface letters. We use CN (0, σ 2 ) to

denote the complex zero-mean circularly symmetric Gaussian distribution with variance σ 2 .
We write R(x), |x|, and x to denote the real part, the absolute value, and the phase of a
complex number x. All logarithms are in base two. The mutual information between two
random variables x and y is denoted by I(x; y). The entropy and differential entropy are
denoted by H(·) and h(·), respectively. Finally, we use 1(·) for the indicator function.
II. Channel Model
The fiber-optical channel is well-modeled by the NLS equation, which describes the propagation of a complex baseband electromagnetic field through a lossy single-mode fiber as
∂a α − g
β2 ∂ 2 a
+
a+j
− jγ|a|2 a = n.
∂z
2
2 ∂t2

(1)

Here, a = a(t, z) is the complex baseband signal at time t and location z. The parameter γ is
the nonlinear coefficient, β2 is the group-velocity dispersion parameter, α is the attenuation
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

6

constant, g = g(z) is the gain profile of the amplifier, and n = n(t, z) is the white Gaussian
amplification noise. The third term on the left-hand side of (1) is responsible for the channel
memory and the fourth term for the channel nonlinearity.
To compensate for the fiber losses, two types of signal amplification can be deployed,
namely, distributed and lumped amplification. The former method compensates the fiber
loss continuously along the fiber, whereas the latter method boosts the signal power by
dividing the fiber into several spans and using an optical amplifier at the end of each span.
With distributed amplification, which we focus on in this paper, the noise can be described
by the autocorrelation function
E[n(z, t)n∗ (z 0 , t0 )] = αnsp hνδWN (t − t0 )δ(z − z 0 ).

(2)

Here, nsp is the spontaneous emission factor, h is Planck’s constant, and ν is the optical
carrier frequency. Also, δ(·) is the Dirac delta function and δWN (x) = WN sinc(WN x),
where WN is the noise bandwidth. In this paper, we shall focus on the ideal distributedamplification case g(z) = α.
Next, two perturbative channel models are introduced to approximate the solution of the
NLS equation (1). Both of these models have been used extensively in the literature to
describe the fiber-optical link under some simplifying assumptions. We shall focus on the
nondispersive case β2 = 0.
Regular perturbative channel (RPC) : In the regular perturbation method, the output
of the NLS channel (1) is approximated as [8, Eq. (5)]
a(z, t) = aL (z, t) + ∆a(z, t) + n(z, t)

(3)

where aL (z, t) is the solution of the NLS equation for γ = 0, ∆a(z, t) is the nonlinear
perturbation term, and n(z, t) is the amplification noise. One approach to compute ∆a(z, t)
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

7

is to write the solution of the NLS equation as a power series expansion of γ, i.e.,
a(z, t) =

∞
X

ai (z, t)γ i

(4)

i=0

where the signals ai (z, t) can be determined by substituting (4) into (1) [19], [20]. Proceeding
as in [20, Sec. 3] and setting β2 = 0 (zero-dispersion assumption), one obtains a0 (z, t) =
a(0, t) and a1 (z, t) = jL|a(0, t)|2 a(0, t), where L is the fiber length. By keeping only the first
two terms in the infinite sum in (4) and sampling the signal at the receiver at the symbol
rate, we derive the discrete-time memoryless channel
y = x + jη|x|2 x + n.

(5)

PN = 2αnsp hνLWN

(6)

η = γL.

(7)

Here, n ∼ CN (0, PN ),

is the total noise power, and

We refer to (5) as the RPC.
Logarithmic perturbative channel (LPC): Another method for approximating the solution of the NLS equation (1) is to use logarithmic perturbation, where the output signal is
written as
a(z, t) = a(0, t) exp j

∞
X

!

γ i ailp (z, t)

+ n(z, t).

(8)

i=1

Here, the signals ailp (z, t) can be determined by substituting (8) in the NLS equation (1).
By setting β2 = 0 and by using [21, Eq. 10b], one obtains a1lp (z, t) = jL|a(0, t)|2 . Keeping
only the first term in the infinite sum in (8) and sampling the output signal at the receiver,
we obtain the discrete-time memoryless channel
2

y = xejη|x| + n

(9)

where n ∼ CN (0, PN ), PN is defined in (6), and η is defined in (7). We note that channels
(5) and (9) are equal up to a first-order linearization.
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

8

Memoryless NLS Channel (MNC): To assess the accuracy of the simplified channels (5)
and (9), we shall also study the underlying NLS channel in (1) for the case β2 = 0. Let r0
and θ0 be the amplitude and the phase of a transmitted symbol x and r and θ be those of
the received samples y. When dispersion is ignored, the discrete-time channel input–output
relation can be described by the conditional probability density function (pdf) [22, Ch. 5]
fr,θ|r0 ,θ0 (r, θ|r0 , θ0 ) =

∞


fr|r0 (r | r0 ) 1 X
+
R Cm (r)ejm(θ−θ0 ) .
2π
π m=1

(10)

The conditional pdf fr|r0 (r | r0 ) and the Fourier coefficients Cm (r) in (10) are given by
r2 + r02
2rr0
2r
exp −
I0
fr|r0 (r | r0 ) =
PN
PN
PN
!





(11)

2
r02 xm tan(xm ) r2 + αm
r sec(xm )
αm r
exp
−
.
Im
Cm (r) =
sm
PN
2sm
sm

!





(12)

Here, Im (·) denotes the mth order modified Bessel function of the first kind. Also, we have
xm =

2jmγr02 PN L
2r02 + PN

αm = r0 sec(xm )
sm =

PN tan(xm )
.
2xm

!1/2

(13)
(14)
(15)

In the next section, we study the capacity of the channel models given in (5), (9), and (10).
Since all of these models are memoryless, their capacities under a power constraint P is given
by
C = sup I(y, x)

(16)

where the supremum is over all probability distributions of x that satisfy the average-power
constraint
E |x|2 ≤ P.
h

DRAFT

i

(17)
March 19, 2018

9

III. Analytical Results
In this section, we study the capacity of the RPC, the LPC, and the MNC models. All
these models represent the same fiber-optical channel and share the same set of parameters.
Bounds on the capacity of the RPC in (5) are provided in Theorems 1–3. Specifically, in
Theorem 1 we establish a closed-form lower bound, which, together with the upper bound
provided in Theorem 2, tightly bounds capacity (see Section IV). A different upper bound is
provided in Theorem 3. Numerical evidence suggests that this alternative bound is less tight
than the one provided in Theorem 2 (see Section IV). However, this alternative bound has
a simple analytical form, which makes it easier to characterize it asymptotically. By using
the bounds derived in Theorem 1 and Theorem 3, we prove that the capacity pre-log of the
RPC is 3. In Theorem 4, we present for completeness the (rather trivial) observation that
the capacity of the LPC in (9) coincides with that of an equivalent AWGN channel. Hence,
the capacity pre-log is 1. Finally, in Theorem 5, we provide an upper bound on the capacity
of the MNC in (10), which improves the previous known upper bound [6] significantly, and,
together with the available capacity lower bounds, yields a tight characterization of capacity
(see Section IV).

A. Capacity Analysis of the RPC
Theorem 1. The capacity CRPC of the RPC in (5) is lower-bounded by
2
λ2 + 6η 2 λ212η
+6η 2 + 1
≥ LRPC (P ) = max log
e
λ
λ 3 PN

(

CRPC

!)

(18)

where λ is positive and satisfies the constraint
18η 2 + λ2
≤ P.
λ (6η 2 + λ2 )

(19)

Furthermore, the maximum in (18) is achieved by the unique real solution of the equation
P λ3 − λ2 + 6P η 2 λ − 18η 2 = 0.
March 19, 2018

(20)
DRAFT

10

Proof: See Appendix I.
Theorem 2. The capacity of the RPC in (5) is upper-bounded by
CRPC ≤ URPC (P )

h 

i
µ2 + 6η 2
s + PN
log 3
+ λ + max µE q |y|2 | |x|2 = s log e − λ
s>0
µ ePN
P + PN

(

=

min

µ>0, λ>0



)

. (21)

Here, q(x) = g −1 (x), where g(x) = x + η 2 x3 .
Proof: See Appendix II.
Note that, given |x|2 = s, the random variable |y|2 /PN is conditionally distributed as
a noncentral chi-squared random variable with 2 degrees of freedom and noncentrality
parameter (s + η 2 s3 )/PN . This enables numerical computation of URPC (P ).
Theorem 3. The capacity of the RPC in (5) is upper-bounded by
µ2 + 6η 2
≤ ŨRPC (P ) = min log
µ>0
µ3 ePN
(

CRPC

!

)

+ µ(P + B) log e

(22)

where
√
πPN
q √
B = PN +
.
123/8 ( 3 − 1)η

(23)

(P + B) µ3 − µ2 + 6η 2 (P + B) µ − 18η 2 = 0.

(24)

Furthermore, the minimum in (22) is achieved by the unique real solution of the equation

Proof: See Appendix III.
Pre-log analysis: By substituting µ = 1/P into (22), we see that
6η 2
lim [CRPC − 3 log(P )] ≤ log
.
P →∞
PN
!

(25)

Furthermore, since
18η 2 + λ2
18η 2 + 3λ2
≤
λ (6η 2 + λ2 )
λ (6η 2 + λ2 )
3
=
λ
DRAFT

(26)
(27)
March 19, 2018

11

we can obtain a valid lower bound on CRPC by substituting λ = 3/P into (18). Doing so, we
obtain
2η 2 e2
lim [CRPC − 3 log(P )] ≥ log
.
P →∞
9PN
!

(28)

It follows from (25) and (28) that the capacity pre-log of the RPC is 3.

B. Capacity Analysis of the LPC
Theorem 4. The capacity of the LPC in (9) is
CLPC

P
= log 1 +
.
PN




(29)

Proof: We use the maximum differential entropy lemma [23, Sec. 2.2] to upper-bound
CLPC by log(1 + P/PN ). Then, we note that we can achieve this upper bound by choosing
x ∼ CN (0, P ).

C. Capacity Analysis of the MNC
A novel upper bound on the capacity of the MNC in (10) is presented in the following
theorem [18].
Theorem 5. The capacity of the MNC in (10) is upper-bounded by
CMNC ≤ UMNC (P )

(30)

(

=

min

λ>0, α>0

P + PN
α log
α




)

+ log(πΓ(α)) + λ + max{gλ,α (r0 , P )}
r0 >0

(31)

where Γ(·) denotes the Gamma function and
gλ,α (r0 , P ) = (α log e − λ)

h
i
r02 + PN
+ (1 − 2α)E log(r) | r0 = r0
P + PN

− h(r | r0 = r0 ) − h(θ | r, r0 = r0 , θ0 = 0).
March 19, 2018

(32)
DRAFT

12

TABLE I: Channel parameters.

Parameter

Symbol

Value

Attenuation

α

0.2 dB/km

Nonlinearity

γ

1.27 (W · km)−1

Fiber length

L

5000 km

Noise bandwidth

WN

32 GHz

Emission factor

nsp

1

Photon energy

hν

1.28 · 10−19 J

Noise variance

PN

−27.2 dBm

The upper bound UMNC (P ) can be calculated numerically using the expression for the
conditional pdf fr,θ|r0 ,θ0 (r, θ|r0 , θ0 ) given in (10).
Proof: See Appendix IV.

IV. Numerical Examples
We evaluate the bounds derived in Section III for a fiber-optical channel whose parameters
are listed in Table I. Using (7), we obtain η = 6350 W−1 .
Fig. 1 depicts the upper and lower bounds on the capacity of the RPC in (5) and the
MNC in (10). The capacity (29) of the LPC in (9), which is equal to that of an equivalent
AWGN channel, is plotted as well.
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the capacity of the RPC is tightly bounded between the upper
bound URPC (P ) in (21) and the lower bound LRPC (P ) in (18). The maximum relative gap
between these two bounds is 0.8% (it occurs at −16 dBm). Furthermore, one can observe
that although the alternative upper bound ŨRPC (P ) in (22) is loose at low powers, it becomes
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

13

14
12

Bit/Channel use

8

P
C

Bounds on CRPC

CL

10

LRPC (P )
URPC (P )

C MNC

ŨRPC (P )

Bounds on CMNC

6

UMNC (P )
Half-Gaussian lower bound
Gaussian lower bound

4
2
0
−40

−30

−20

−10

0

10

20

30

40

P (dBm)

Fig. 1: Capacity bounds for the RPC in (5) and the MNC in (10), together with the capacity of the LPC in (9).

tight in the moderate- and high-power regimes. The relative gap between this upper bound
and LRPC (P ) is less than 0.5% at P = 0 dBm and this gap becomes smaller at higher powers.
We also plot the upper bound UMNC (P ) on the capacity of the MNC together with
two capacity lower bounds. It can be seen that UMNC (P ) improves substantially on the
upper bound given in [6], i.e., the capacity of the corresponding AWGN channel (29) (which
coincides with CLPC ). The two lower bounds are evaluated by calculating numerically the
mutual information in (16) for a fixed input distribution. The first lower bound is obtained
by considering a circularly-symmetric input distribution with half-Gaussian amplitude r0
√
!
2
r02
.
(33)
fr0 (r0 ) =
exp −
πP
2P
It has been shown in [17] that (33) is capacity-achieving in the high-power regime. The
second lower bound is based on a circularly-symmetric Gaussian input distribution, which
achieves capacity whenever the nonlinearity is negligible, i.e., in the low-power regime. As
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

14

is evident from Fig. 1, in the high-power regime, the half-Gaussian lower bound is tighter
than the Gaussian lower bound, while in the low-power regime the latter provides a tighter
bound.
Fig. 1 suggests that CMNC experiences changes in slope at about 0 and 30 dBm. This can
be explained as follows. Because of the nonlinearity, the signal experiences a phase shift that
is a nonlinear function of the signal and the noise. In the moderate-power regime, the noise
variance increases rapidly with the signal power, which reduces the information rate that
can be transmitted through the signal phase. In the high-power regime, the phase of the
received samples converges to a uniform distribution over the interval [0, 2π) and essentially
becomes independent of the transmitted signal. Hence, the information rate that can be
transmitted through the signal phase is a unimodal function of the power that vanishes in
the high-power regime, which explains the changes in the slope of CMNC .
As a final observation, we note that CRPC diverges from CMNC at about −15 dBm, whereas
CLPC diverges from CMNC at about −5 dBm. Since the MNC describes the nondispersive NLS
channel without any simplifying assumptions, this result shows that the perturbative models
are grossly inaccurate in the high-power regime.

V. Discussion and Conclusion
The capacity of three memoryless optical channel models, namely, the RPC, the LPC,
and the MNC were investigated. Two of these models, i.e., the RPC and the LPC, are based
on perturbation theory and ignore signal–noise interaction, which makes them accurate only
in the low-power regime. The third model, i.e., the MNC, describes accurately a memoryless
fiber-optical channel governed by the NLS equation. By tightly bounding the capacity of the
RPC, by characterizing the capacity of the LPC, and by developing a tight upper bound on
the capacity of the MNC, we characterized the impact of the simplifying assumptions used
to derive the RPC and the LPC on capacity. Our results indicate that the capacity of the
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

15

perturbative channels (i.e., the RPC and the LPC) is significantly different from that of the
MNC at moderate and high powers. Specifically, the capacity pre-log is proved to be 3 for
the RPC and 1 for the LPC, whereas the capacity pre-log of the MNC is 1/2. This result
shows that the two perturbative models are grossly inaccurate at high powers.
Appendix I
Proof of Theorem 1
The capacity of the regular perturbative channel can be written as
CRPC = sup I(x; y)

(34)

where the supremum is over all the probability distributions on x that satisfy the power
constraint (17). Let
w = x + jη|x|2 x.

(35)

We have that
I(x; y) = h(y) − h(y | x)

(36)

= h(w + n) − h(w + n | x)

(37)

= h(w + n) − h(n) .

(38)

Using the entropy power inequality [23, Sec. 2.2] and the Gaussian entropy formula [24,
Th. 8.4.1], we conclude that


h(w + n) ≥ log 2h(w) + 2h(n)





= log 2h(w) + πePN .

(39)
(40)

Substituting (40) into (38), and using again the Gaussian entropy formula [24, Th. 8.4.1],
we obtain




I(x; y) ≥ log 2h(w) + πePN − log(πePN ) .
March 19, 2018

(41)
DRAFT

16

We take x circularly symmetric. It follows from (35) that w is also circularly symmetric.
Using [25, Eq. (320)] to compute h(w), we obtain
h(w) = h |w|2 + log π.




(42)

Substituting (42) into (41), we get


I(x; y) ≥ log

h(|w|2 )

2

ePN



+ 1 .

(43)

Next to evaluate the right-hand side (RHS) of (43), we choose the following distribution
for the amplitude square s = |x|2 of x:
fs (s) = ζ 3η 2 s2 + 1 e−λs ,




s ≥ 0.

(44)

The parameters λ > 0 and ζ > 0 are chosen so that (44) is a pdf and so that the power
constraint (17) is satisfied. We prove in Appendix I-A that by choosing these two parameters
so that
ζ=

λ3
λ2 + 6η 2

(45)

and so that (20) holds, both constraints are met. In Appendix I-B, we then prove that
h |w|2 = − log ζ + ζ




1 18η 2
+ 3 log e.
λ
λ
!

(46)

Substituting (46) and (45) into (43), we obtain (18). Although not necessary for the proof,
in Appendix I-C, we justify the choice of the pdf in (44) by showing that it maximizes h(w).

A. Choosing ζ and λ
We choose the coefficients ζ and λ so that (44) is a valid pdf and E[s] ≤ P . Note that
Z∞
0

fs (s) ds =

Z∞ 

ζ 3η 2 s2 + 1 e−λs ds

(47)

0

=ζ
DRAFT



λ2 + 6η 2
.
λ3

(48)
March 19, 2018

17

Therefore, choosing ζ according to (45) guarantees that fs (s) integrates to 1. We next
compute E[s] :
E[s] =

Z∞

sfs (s) ds

(49)

0

=

Z∞

sζ 3η 2 s2 + 1 e−λs ds




(50)

0

18η 2
1
+ 2 .
4
λ
λ
!

=ζ

(51)

Substituting (45) into (51), we obtain
18η 2 + λ2
.
E[s] =
λ (λ2 + 6η 2 )

(52)

We see now that imposing E[s] ≤ P is equivalent to (19). Observe that the RHS of (52) and
the objective function on the RHS of (18) are decreasing functions of λ. Therefore, setting
the RHS of (52) equal to P , which yields (20), maximizes the objective function in (18).
Finally, we prove that (20) has a single positive root. We have
f (λ) = P λ3 − λ2 + 6P η 2 λ − 18η 2
= λ2 + 6η 2 (P λ − 1) − 12η 2 .




(53)
(54)

Note that f (λ) → ∞ as λ → ∞ and that the RHS of (54) is negative when λ < 1/P . Furthermore, f (λ) is monotonically increasing in the interval [1/P, ∞). Indeed, when λ ≥ 1/P ,
d
f (λ) = 3P λ2 − 2λ + 6P η 2
dλ

(55)

≥ 3λ − 2λ + 6P η 2

(56)

> 0.

(57)

This yields the desired result.
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

18

B. Proof of (46)
To compute the differential entropy of t = |w|2 , we first determine the pdf of t. By
definition,
t = s + η 2 s3 .

(58)

d
g(x) = 1 + 3η 2 x2
dx

(59)

Let now g(x) = x + η 2 x3 . Since

we conclude that g(x) is monotonically increasing for x ≥ 0. Hence, g(x) is one-to-one when
x ≥ 0 and its inverse
q(x) = g −1 (x)

(60)

is well defined. Thus, the pdf of t is given by [26, Ch. 5]
ft (t) =
=

fs (q(t))
g 0 (q(t))

(61)

ζ(3η 2 q 2 (t) + 1) e−λq(t)
3η 2 q 2 (t) + 1

(62)

= ζe−λq(t) ,

t ≥ 0.

(63)

Here, (62) holds because of (44). Using (63), we can now compute h(t) as
h(t) = −

Z∞

ft (t) log(ft (t)) dt

(64)

0

= − log ζ + λζ (log e)
= − log ζ + λζ (log e)

Z∞
0
Z∞

q(t) e−λq(t) dt

(65)

re−λr 1 + 3η 2 r2 dr




(66)

0

1
18η 2
+
log e
λ2
λ4
!

= − log ζ + λζ

(67)

where in (66) we used the change of variables r = q(t). This proves (46).
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

19

C. fs (s) maximizes h(w)
We shall prove that the pdf fs (s) = ζ (3η 2 s2 + 1) e−λs , s ≥ 0, maximizes h(w). It follows
from (42) that to maximize h(w), we need to maximize h(t). We assume that the power
constraint is fulfilled with equality, i.e., that
E[s] =

Z ∞
0

sfs (s) ds = P.

(68)

Using the change of variables s = q(t), where q(t) was defined in (60), we obtain
Z ∞
0

q(t)fs (q(t))q 0 (t) dt = P.

(69)

Substituting (61) into (69) and using that q 0 (t) = 1/g 0 (q(t)), we obtain
Z ∞
0

q(t)ft (t) dt = P.

(70)

It follows now from [24, Th. 12.1.1] that the pdf that maximizes h(t) is of the form ft (t) =
eλ0 +λ1 q(t) ,

t ≥ 0, where λ0 and λ1 need to be chosen so that (70) is satisfied and ft (t)

integrates to one. Using (61), we get
fs (s) = ft (g(s))g 0 (s)
= 1 + 3η 2 s2 eλ0 +λ1 s ,




(71)
s ≥ 0.

(72)

By setting ζ = eλ0 and λ = λ1 , we obtain (44).

Appendix II
Proof of Theorem 2
Fix λ ≥ 0. It follows from (16) and (17) that
E[|x|2 ] + PN
CMNC (P ) ≤ sup I(x; y) + λ 1 −
P + PN
(

March 19, 2018

!)

(73)
DRAFT

20

where the supremum is over the set of probability distributions that satisfy the power
constraint (17). Next, we upper-bound the mutual information I(x; y) as
I(x; y) = h(y) − h(y | x)

(74)

= h(y) − h(n)

(75)

= h(|y|) + h( y | |y|) + E(log |y|) − h(n)

(76)

= h |y|2 + h( y | |y|) − log 2 − h(n)

(77)

≤ h |y|2 + log (π) − h(n)

(78)

= h |y|2 − log(ePN )

(79)













where in (76) we used [25, Lemma 6.16] and in (77) we used [25, Lemma 6.15]. We fix now an
arbitrary input pdf fx (·) that satisfies the power constraint and define the random variables
v = |y|2 and w = x + jη|x|2 x. Next, we shall obtain an upper bound on h(v) that is valid
for all fx (·). Let
f˜v (v) = κe−µq(v) ,

v≥0

(80)

for some parameters κ > 0 and µ > 0. The function q(·) is defined in (60). We next choose κ
so that f˜v (v) is a valid pdf. To do so, we set z = q(v), which implies that g(z) = v, and that


1 + 3η 2 z 2 dz = dv.


(81)

Therefore, integrating f˜(v) in (80), we obtain
Z∞

−µq(v)

κe

dv = κ

0

Z∞

e−µz 1 + 3η 2 z 2 dz




(82)

0

µ2 + 6η 2
=κ
.
µ3

(83)

µ3
µ2 + 6η 2

(84)

!

We see from (83) that the choice
κ=
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

21

makes f˜v (v) a valid pdf. Using the definition of the relative entropy, we have


Z +∞



D fv (v) || f˜v (v) =

−∞

!

fv (v)
dv
fv (v) log ˜
fv (v)
h



i

= −h(v) − E log f˜v (v)

(85)
(86)

.

Since the relative entropy is nonnegative [24, Thm. 8.6.1], we obtain




h(v) ≤ −Ev log f˜v (v)



(87)

= − log κ + µE[q(v)] log e.

(88)

Substituting (79) and (88) into (73), we obtain
E[|x|2 ] + PN
CMNC (P ) ≤ − log(ePN ) − log κ + λ + sup µE[q(v)] log e − λ
P + PN
(

)

s + PN
≤ − log(ePN ) − log κ + λ + max µE q(v) | |x| = s log e − λ
s>0
P + PN


h

2

i

(89)


(90)

.

The final upper bound (21) is obtained by minimizing (90) over all λ ≥ 0 and µ ≥ 0.
Appendix III
Proof of Theorem 3
It follows from (88) and (79) that
I(x; y) ≤ − log(κ) + µE[q(v)] log e − log(ePN )

(91)

where v = |y|2 . Moreover,
E[q(v)] = E q |w + n|2
h 

i

(92)

= E q |w|2 + |n|2 + 2R(wn∗ )
h 

i

.

(93)

Next, we analyze the function q(x). We have
q 0 (x) =
=
March 19, 2018

1
g 0 (q(x))
1
.
1 + 3η 2 q 2 (x)

(94)
(95)
DRAFT

22

Furthermore,
q 00 (x) = −

6η 2 q(x)
≤ 0.
(1 + 3η 2 q 2 (x))3

(96)

Therefore, q(x) is a nonnegative concave function on [0, ∞). Thus, for every real numbers
x ≥ 0 and y ≥ −x,
q(x + y) ≤ q(x) + q 0 (x)y.

(97)

Using (97) in (93), with x = |w|2 + |n|2 and y = 2R(wn∗ ), we get
E[q(v)] ≤ E q |w|2 + |n|2 + 2q 0 |w|2 + |n|2 R(wn∗ ) .
h 







i

(98)

Using (97) once more with x = |w|2 and y = |n|2 , we obtain
E[q(v)] ≤ E q |w|2 + q 0 |w|2 |n|2 + 2q 0 |w|2 + |n|2 R(wn∗ )
h 



= E q |w|2

i

h 







+ PN E q 0 |w|2
h 

i



i

(99)

+ 2E q 0 |w|2 + |n|2 R(wn∗ ) .
h 



i

(100)

We shall now bound each expectation in (100) separately. Since |w|2 = g(|x|2 ), we have that
E q |w|2
h 

i

= E |x|2
h

i

(101)

≤P

(102)

where the last inequality follows from (17). It also follows from (95) that
q 0 (|w|2 ) ≤ 1.

(103)

Furthermore, (95) and (96) imply that the function q 0 (x) is positive and decreasing in the
interval x ≥ 0. Therefore,
E q 0 |w|2 + |n|2 R(wn∗ ) ≤ E q 0 |w|2 + |n|2 |R(wn∗ )|
h 



i

h 

i

(104)

≤ E q 0 |w|2 |R(wn∗ )|

(105)

≤ E q 0 |w|2 |w| · |n|

(106)

h 

h 

DRAFT



i





i

March 19, 2018

23

√

i
πPN h 0  2 
E q |w| |w|
2
√
n  o
πPN
≤
max tq 0 t2
t≥0
2
(
)
√
t
πPN
=
max
t≥0
2
1 + 3η 2 q 2 (t2 )

=

where (107) holds because E[|n|] =

q

(107)
(108)
(109)

πPN /4 and the last equality follows from (95). To

calculate the maximum in (109), we use the change of variables t2 = x + η 2 x3 to obtain
(
)
(√
)
t
x + η 2 x3
max
= max
(110)
t≥0
x≥0
1 + 3η 2 q 2 (t2 )
1 + 3η 2 x2
1
r
(111)
=

√
3/8
12
3−1 η
where the last step follows by some standard algebraic manipulations that involve finding
the roots of the derivative of the objective function on the RHS of (110). Substituting (111)
into (109), we obtain
2

h 
0

2

E q |w| + |n|



√
πPN
r
R(wn ) ≤
 .
√
3/8
2 × 12
3−1 η
∗

i

(112)

Substituting (102), (103), and (112) into (100), and the result into (91), we obtain








√


πPN
r
I(x; y) ≤ − log κ + µ (log e) P + PN +
− log(ePN ).


√





123/8
3 − 1 η

(113)

Finally, we obtain (21) by substituting (84) into (113). Since the upper bound (113) on
mutual information holds for every input distribution that satisfies the power constraint,
it is also an upper bound on capacity for every µ > 0. To find the optimal µ, we need to
minimize
µ2 + 6η 2
log
µ3

!

exp(µ(P + B)) (µ2 + 6η 2 )
+ µ (P + B) log e = log
µ3

!

(114)

where B was defined in (24). Observe now that the function inside logarithm on the RHS
of (114) goes to infinity when µ → 0 and when µ → ∞. Therefore, since this function is
positive, it must have a minimum in the interval [0, ∞). To find this minimum, we set its
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

24

derivative equal to zero and get (24). Note finally that since (20) has exactly one real root,
which was proved in Appendix I-A, (24) also has exactly one real root.
Appendix IV
Proof of Theorem 5
The proof uses similar steps as in [27, Sec. III-C]. We upper-bound the mutual information
between the x and y expressed in polar coordinates as
I(x; y) = I(r0 , θ0 ; r, θ)

(115)

= I(r0 , θ0 ; r) + I(r0 , θ0 ; θ | r)

(116)

= h(r) − h(r | r0 , θ0 ) + h(θ | r) − h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 )

(117)

≤ h(r2 ) − E[log(r)] − log 2 − h(r | r0 , θ0 ) + log(2π) − h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 ).

(118)

In (118) we used [25, Eq. (317)] and that h(θ | r) ≤ log(2π). Let now f˜r2 (·) denote an
arbitrary pdf for r2 . Following the same calculations as in (85)–(87), we obtain
h(r2 ) ≤ −Er2 log(f˜r2 (r2 )) .
h

i

(119)

We shall take f˜r2 (·) to be a Gamma distribution with parameters α > 0 and β = (P +PN )/α,
i.e.,
z α−1 e−z/β
f˜r2 (z) = α
,
β Γ(α)

z ≥ 0.

(120)

Here, Γ(·) denotes the Gamma function. Substituting (120) into (119), we obtain
E[log(f˜r2 (r2 ))]

(121)

E[r20 ] + PN
P + PN
= 2(α − 1)E[log(r)] − α
log e − α log
P + PN
α




− log(Γ(α)).

(122)

It follows from (10) that the random variables r and θ0 are conditionally independent given
r0 . Therefore,
h(r | r0 , θ0 ) = h(r | r0 ).
DRAFT

(123)
March 19, 2018

25

Next, we study the term h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 ) in (118). From Bayes’ theorem and (10) it follows
that for every θ0 ∈ [0, 2π)
fθ|r,r0 ,θ0 (θ|r, r0 , θ0 ) = fθ|r,r0 ,θ0 (θ − θ0 |r, r0 , θ0 − θ0 ).

(124)

Therefore,
h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 ) =
=
=

Z 2π
0

Z 2π
0

Z 2π
0

fθ0 (θ0 )h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 = θ0 ) dθ0

(125)

fθ0 (θ0 )h(θ − θ0 | r, r0 , θ0 = 0) dθ0

(126)

fθ0 (θ0 )h(θ | r0 , θ0 = 0) dθ0

(127)

= h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 = 0).

(128)

Here, (127) follows because differential entropy is invariant to translations [24, Th. 8.6.3].
Substituting (122), (119), (123), and (128) into (118), we obtain
P + PN
I(r0 , θ0 ; r, θ) ≤ α log
α




+ log(Γ(α)) + log(π) + α

E[r20 ] + PN
log e
P + PN

+ (1 − 2α)E[log(r)] − h(r | r0 ) − h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 = 0).

(129)

Fix λ ≥ 0. We next upper bound CMNC using (129) as
E[r20 ] + PN
CMNC (P ) ≤ sup I(r0 , θ0 ; r, θ) + λ 1 −
P + PN
(

P + PN
≤ α log
α


!)

(130)



+ log(Γ(α)) + log(π) + λ

(

+ sup (α log e − λ)

E[r20 ] + PN
+ (1 − 2α)E[log(r)] − h(r | r0 )
P + PN
)

− h(θ | r, r0 , θ0 = 0)

(131)

where the supremum is over the set of input probability distributions that satisfy (17). We
complete the proof by noting that the supremum in (131) is less or equal to maxr0 >0 {gλ,α (r0 , P )},
where gλ,α (r0 , P ) is defined in (32).
March 19, 2018

DRAFT

26

References

[1] E. Agrell et al., “Roadmap of optical communications,” J. Opt., vol. 18, no. 6, May 2016, Art. no. 063002.
[2] A. Mecozzi, “Limits to long-haul coherent transmission set by the Kerr nonlinearity and noise of the in-line
amplifiers,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1993–2000, Nov. 1994.
[3] N. Merhav, G. Kaplan, A. Lapidoth, and S. Shamai (Shitz), “On information rates for mismatched decoders,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1953–1967, Nov. 1994.
[4] M. Secondini, E. Forestieri, and G. Prati, “Achievable information rate in nonlinear WDM fiber-optic systems
with arbitrary modulation formats and dispersion maps,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 3839–3852,
Dec. 2013.
[5] 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.
[6] G. Kramer, M. I. Yousefi, and F. R. Kschischang, “Upper bound on the capacity of a cascade of nonlinear and
noisy channels,” in IEEE Info. Theory Workshop (ITW), Jerusalem, Apr. 2015.
[7] G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 4th ed.

San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 2006.

[8] E. Agrell, G. Durisi, and P. Johannisson, “Information-theory-friendly models for fiber-optic channels: A primer,”
in IEEE Info. Theory Workshop (ITW), Jerusalem, Apr. 2015.
[9] K. V. Peddanarappagari and M. Brandt-Pearce, “Volterra series transfer function of single-mode fibers,” J.
Lightw. Technol., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2232–2241, Dec. 1997.
[10] A. Mecozzi, C. B. Clausen, and M. Shtaif, “Analysis of intrachannel nonlinear effects in highly dispersed optical
pulse transmission,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 392–394, Apr. 2000.
[11] A. Meccozzi and R.-J. Essiambre, “Nonlinear Shannon limit in pseudolinear coherent systems,” J. Lightw.
Technol., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2011–2024, Jun. 2012.
[12] E. Agrell and M. Karlsson, “Influence of behavioral models on multiuser channel capacity,” J. Lightw. Technol.,
vol. 33, no. 17, pp. 3507–3515, Sep. 2015.
[13] M. H. Taghavi, G. C. Papen, and P. H. Siegel, “On the multiuser capacity of WDM in a nonlinear optical fiber:
Coherent communication,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 5008–5022, Nov. 2006.
[14] H. Ghozlan and G. Kramer, “Interference focusing for mitigating cross-phase modulation in a simplified optical
fiber model,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory, Texas, Jun. 2010, pp. 2033–2037.
[15] ——, “Interference focusing for simplified optical fiber models with dispersion,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform.
Theory, Saint-Petersburg, Jul-Aug 2011, pp. 376–379.
[16] K. S. Turitsyn, S. A. Derevyanko, I. Yurkevich, and S. K. Turitsyn, “Information capacity of optical fiber channels
with zero average dispersion,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 91, no. 20, p. 203901, Nov. 2003.
DRAFT

March 19, 2018

27

[17] M. I. Yousefi and F. R. Kschischang, “On the per-sample capacity of nondispersive optical fibers,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 7522–7541, Nov. 2011.
[18] K. Kamran, G. Durisi, and E. Agrell, “A tighter upper bound on the capacity of the nondispersive optical fiber
channel,” in Proc. European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC)(accepted), Gothenburg, Sep. 2017.
[19] A. Vannucci, P. Serena, and A. Bononi, “The RP method: A new tool for the iterative solution of the nonlinear
Schrödinger equation,” J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1102–1112, Jul. 2002.
[20] E. Forestieri and M. Secondini, “Solving the nonlinear Schrödinger equation,” in Optical Communication Theory
and Techniques.

New York, NY: Springer, 2005, pp. 3–11.

[21] E. Ciaramella and E. Forestieri, “Analytical approximation of nonlinear distortions,” IEEE Photon. Technol.
Lett., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 91–93, Jan. 2005.
[22] K.-P. Ho, Phase-Modulated Optical Communication Systems.
[23] A. E. Gamal and Y.-H. Kim, Network Information Theory.

New York, NY: Springer, 2005.
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

[24] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006.

[25] A. Lapidoth and S. M. Moser, “Capacity bounds via duality with applications to multiple-antenna systems on
flat-fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2426–2467, Oct. 2003.
[26] A. Papoulis and S. U. Pillai, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Education, 2002.
[27] G. Durisi, “On the capacity of the block-memoryless phase-noise channel,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 8,
pp. 1157–1160, Aug. 2012.

March 19, 2018

DRAFT

