Submitted:
18 May 2024
Posted:
20 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
A. Overview of Fiber Optic Communication Networks
B. Machine Learning Role in Addressing Challenges
- Failure Detection: Monitoring network performance, ML can detect anomalies that may indicate a failure. It can analyse the amounts of network data to identify patterns and anomalies that may not be apparent to human operators. The algorithms used can quickly process data in real-time, enabling rapid detection of anomalies in network performance that may indicate potential failures, such as changes in signal strength or transmission speed. ML helps operators identify and allows for faster response times and reduces the impact of network disruptions.
- Failure Localization: Refers to the process of identifying the specific location or component within an optical fiber network that is experiencing a failure or anomaly. This is a critical step in network maintenance and troubleshooting, as it allows operators to quickly pinpoint the source of the problem and take appropriate corrective actions. By analysing network data and patterns, ML algorithms can identify the specific segment or device that is experiencing issues, speeding up the repair process and minimizes downtime and ensure the reliability of the optical fiber network.
- Failure Identification: Involves identifying the specific type of failure, which can be a complex task given the variety of potential issues in optical networks. ML aids in accurately diagnosing the problem by identifying patterns associated with different types of failures and analyzing historical data. By leveraging real-time monitoring, ML algorithms can detect anomalies from normal network behavior. It helps to differentiate between different types of failures including a fiber cuts, and signal degradation, based on patterns in network data.
C. Significance of Fault Tracing and Localization
- Data Loss Prevention: Anomaly detection and localization help prevent major data loss by quickly finding and fixing issues like fiber cuts or eavesdropping attempts that can disrupt data transmission in fiber optic networks [16].
- Service Continuity: By detecting and pinpointing anomalies, network operators can ensure that thousands of customers continue to receive uninterrupted service. Ensuring the reliability of communication networks is crucial, especially during critical situations [16].
- Enhancement of Security: Anomaly detection and localization enhance network security by identifying and addressing potential security breaches like invasions or attacks, protecting sensitive data transmitted across the network [16].
- Cost Reduction: Timely identification and localization of anomalies can lead to significant cost savings by preventing downtime, reducing the need for lengthy troubleshooting, and facilitating quick repair work [16].
- Efficient Network Management: Machine learning techniques, such as autoencoders and attention-based algorithms, improve the accuracy and speed of anomaly detection and localization. This enables network operators to proactively manage optical fiber communication networks, ensuring their security, reliability, and uninterrupted service to users [16].
D. Objectives
- Analyse the existing related literature to observe trends in machine learning applications for abnormalities in optical fiber communication networks.
- Determine the methodologies employed in previous studies to assess their efficacies in detecting and localizing faults along optical fiber networks.
- Classify leading machine learning algorithms on anomaly identification and localization in optical fibers networks.
- Observe the performance metrics results of ML-based defect detection models in optical fiber networks.
- Identify the manifested challenges in implementing machine learning algorithms and architectures for anomaly detection and localization in optical fiber communication networks.
II. Method
A. Literature Search
B. Principles for ML-Based Fault Identification in Optical Fiber Networks
- Identification: The data collection involved a straightforward registration of the terms— ‘Machine Learning,’ ‘Optical Fiber,’ and ‘Fault Detection’—in each database to ensure a direct filtration of the topics. Parallel terms such as ‘Anomaly,’ ‘Neural Network,’ ‘Defect Detection,’ ‘Optical Fiber Network,’ ‘Optical Fiber Cable,’ and ‘Optical Fiber Communication’ were used universally to maintain coherence and evenness in the processed studies on the platforms. These words were also regarded as references to find related titles, abstracts, and keywords.
- Screening: In this stage, measurements are taken cautiously when correlating keywords/terms in the accumulated scholarly papers to refrain from acquiring false arguments, especially from optical fiber networks using ML-based fault detection models. Disparate topics unrelated to the scope of the review were excluded; additionally, methodologies applied tangentially, contradicting the deployment of machine learning in the localization of faults within optical fiber networks, were not exempted from the procedure.
- Eligibility: Appropriate applications of Machine Learning-based systems in optical fiber networks from found literature are thoroughly explored and subjected to in-depth analysis. This process serves to determine the integrity of the relationship between the engineered configuration and the transmission line, aligning with the primary focus of the review. Furthermore, it centralizes the assessment around the advantages of various Machine Learning techniques in anomaly diagnosis and monitoring schemes in optical fiber networks.
C. Data Extraction
- Extraction Procedure: Literature with diverging objectives from the coverage of the review, albeit associated with the terms 'Optical Fiber Networks,' 'Machine Learning,' and 'Fault detection' in the titles, abstracts, and keywords, is rejected; otherwise, assessed with caution. Afterward, the literature that passes is shifted into the second screening phase, which is determined by the preliminary technical documentation—involvement in the matrix system sorted by relevant withdrawn outputs and figures.
- Performance Metrics: Accuracy rates and valuable numerical records are regarded in the grid.
- Limitations: Registered hindrances and set thresholds within the selected literatures are addressed and interpreted to emphasize the integrity and reliability of the literature to gain insights.
D. Analysis of Key Variables in ML-Based Fault Detection Systems
- Machine Learning Scheme: The techniques, configuration models, and administration modes of specific Machine Learning algorithms used on optical fiber transmission lines are analysed based on their results and intended purpose.
- Anomaly Localization Technique: The implementation and localization of defects, damages, and faults using machine learning are described in detail, highlighting the developed system's capabilities.
- Performance Evaluation Metrics: The accuracy rates and obtained numerical figures pertinent to the documentation of the Machine Learning are also analysed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the systems' performance.
III. Results
A. Overview of Anomaly Detection and Localization in Optical Fiber
B. Challenges Associated with Traditional Techniques
C. Machine Learning as a Detection Instrument of Optical Fiber Networks
- Supervised Learning: A machine learning model can be trained using a cluster of categorized or classified data [12], where the input data is correlated with the output. The machine learns to identify the output for new or unseen inputs.
- Unsupervised Learning: A machine learning model can be trained on unlabelled network data [12], where the input is not linked to the output data. The machine learns to find patterns and relationships out of an abstract data.
- Support Vector Machine (SVM): Applied mainly for classification. Its algorithms work on learning to find boundaries [10] between two data points to yield accurate predictions.
- Decision Trees: A classification-type algorithm whose architecture depicts a tree-like structure [10], consisting of decisions and consequences, presents nodes and pathways to process outcome.
- Neural Networks: Integrated with algorithms based on the functions of the human brain. Excels at performing complex executions and nonlinear relationships, particularly notable for classification processes [24].
- K-means clustering: A classification-type algorithm that partition a dataset into K distinct–non-overlapping clusters based on the diagnosed characteristic of cluster’s centroid [2].
- Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Utilize for dimensionality reduction, involving principal components which uses orthogonal projections. It is functional to diagnose optical fiber networks for anomalies by projecting the data onto the principal components to discern patterns from the origin [1].
- Isolation Forest: An unsupervised machine learning, specifically to localize fault manifestations via generation of decision trees group, attempting to isolate anomalous data points from the rest the data [3].
- Autoencoder: Utilize a neural network architecture to develop a compressed input for reconstruction, which machine learning will harness to learn that can be applied for anomaly detection and localization [27].
D. Flow of ML-Based Anomaly Localization in Optical Fiber Networks Assessment
A. Review of Integrated Machine Learning-Based Fault Tracing and Localization Models in Optical Fiber Communication Networks.
| Literature Title, Leading Author, and Year |
Machine Learning Technique |
Model/s | Anomaly Localization Technique |
Application and Findings |
Accuracy Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supervised | Unsupervised | |||||
| Application of Neural Network in Fault Location of Optical Transport Network - Liu et al. (2019) |
|
N/A | LSTM model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The proposed models used in the article are to apply neural networks in solving problems of fault location in optical communication networks. However, the LTSM model is innovated by using techniques like gradient clipping and weight regularization. LSTM model outperforms the standard BPNN in terms of faster localization time and higher F1-score, meeting the accuracy and real-time requirements for OTN fault location. The developed model shows advantages over traditional methods. | The LSTM model achieved a score of approx. 0.96. While BP neural network has approx. 0.93. Since the literature did not provide specific accurate ratings, the results were based on F1-scores. The LSTM model had a more stable and higher F1-score curve compared to the BP neural network. |
| A review of machine learning-based failure management in optical networks - Wang et al. (2022) |
|
|
No Particular Model |
|
The literature findings related to optical network failure analysis are managed and recorded accordingly. It mentioned investigations on different varieties of machine learning-based algorithms for optical network failure prediction, localization, etc. Included in these are: ANN, SVM, Decision Tree, etc. Experimental procedures were also demonstrated and listed to show highly accurate predictions and classification in optical fiber networks. It showcased the advantages of ML-based algorithms in improving the reliability and efficiency of optical network systems. | The Accuracy rates were evaluated and registered. Binary-SVM, random forest, multiclass SVM, and single-layer neural networks showed a consistency of 98%. The LSTM-based model's fault mechanism flexed with 93% accuracy, outperforming the conventional OTDR analysis techniques. Overall, the cognitive fault management models, which employ ML for autonomous failure detection, achieved superior performances based on the analysis. |
| Predicting the actual location of faults in underground optical networks using linear regression - Nyarko-Boateng et al. (2020) |
|
N/A |
|
Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The paper proposed an actual fault identifier in underground fiber networks using mainly linear regression and neural network. By utilizing 334 fiber network failures, the study generated models that contribute to reducing failures along the lines and contrasted these ML-based models to discuss the highest efficient model in the repair operations in underground fiber optics networks. | The SLR model showed a high-R-squared value of 97% indicating a good index for the data. However, compared to the SLP neural network model, the results achieved a high accuracy rate better than SLR with 98%, accompanying complex computational resources. |
| An Optical Communication’s Perspective on Machine Learning and Its Applications - Khan et al. (2019) |
|
|
No Particular Model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The literature discusses the exploration of machine learning (ML) algorithms and their beneficial advantages in the field of optical communications and networking. It found observations that ML techniques can enhance nonlinear transmission systems, optical performance monitoring, etc. Proactive fault detection using ML can significantly improve the performance of optical fiber networks. | The paper provides accuracy ratings of 94.48%, 93.05%, and 95.53% respectively; it displayed the efficiencies and high-profile ratings of ML techniques in monitoring OSNR, CD, DGD, AND MFI in optical networks. |
| Experimental Study of Machine-Learning-Based Detection and Identification of Physical-Layer Attacks in Optical Networks - Natalino et al. (2019) |
|
N/A | ALL mentioned Supervised Learning | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The primary objectives of the literature are to detect and identify physical-layer attacks in optical networks. The paper generated an Attack Detection Identification (ADI) framework, optimizing ML techniques where the ANN classifier secured the highest classification accuracy rate among the other ML-based classifiers. | ANN achieved 99.9% accuracy on average and had the lowest standard deviation. GP and RF performed well, garnering a high test accuracy, however, ANN outperformed them. Regardless, the QDA classifier had the lowest classification accuracy. |
| Neural network-based fiber optic cable fault prediction study for power distribution communication network - Zhang, Yan, et al. (2023) |
|
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) | Memory Feature Generating Convolutional Neural Network (MFG-CNN) | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The literature has developed an effective fault prediction model for fiber optic cables, utilizing enhanced data mining and deep learning techniques to improve the accuracy and efficiency of fault prediction, and demonstrates a practical approach to reducing repair time and improving network reliability. | The average accuracy that MFG-CNN obtained for fault diagnosis method is 98.68%. |
| Machine Learning Applications in Optical Fiber Sensing: A Research Agenda - Reyes-Vera et al. (2024) |
|
|
No Particular Model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The main point of the literature is to discuss the variations of machine learning techniques, including Neural Networks (NNs), random forests, Support Vector Machines (SVM), and semi-supervised learning to upgrade the performance, accuracy, and security of fiber optic systems across various applications–structural health monitoring, leak detection, telecommunications, etc. | It highlights the general analysis and high potential of covered machine learning techniques, involving their quality performance in different system domains. |
| Optical Fiber Distributed Vibration Sensing Using Grayscale Image and Multi-Class Deep Learning Framework for Multi-Event Recognition - Sun et al. (2021) |
|
N/A | 2DCNN-LSTM model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The developed deep learning model is designed for multi-event recognition in optical fiber. The 2DCNN-LSTM model enables the effective recognition and classification of different sensing events in an optical fiber-distributed vibrating sensing system for security applications. The model can extract automatic features without relying on predefined parameters. | 2DCNN-LSTM hybrid deep learning model demonstrated an accuracy rate of 97.0% on the vibration pattern recognition task. |
| Fault Monitoring in Passive Optical Networks using Machine Learning Techniques - Abdelli et al. (2023) |
Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) | N/A | LSTM-based Model |
|
The literature suggests two machine learning approaches for fault detection and localization in passive optical networks (PONs). The first approach employs an LSTM architecture to classify and localize reflection and event types in PON through supervised learning. The second method involves an LSTM-based autoencoder for localizing various types of anomalies. The paper provides a detailed analysis of these two techniques, which have shown high levels of accuracy in fault localization. | LSTM-based autoencoder extracted a diagnostic accuracy of 97% while maintaining low prediction errors. However, the LSTM network model classifies different types of reflection with an accuracy test of only 95%, which provides relatively small errors but is not superior to the second method ML-based model. |
| Machine learning methods for optical communications -Usman, H. M. (2020). |
|
N/A | No Particular Model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The literature highlights the categories of applications where machine learning methods have been successfully employed, such as non-linearity mitigation, performance monitoring, network planning, and performance prediction. | The article does not provide specific accuracy data points. However, it presents a comparative evaluation of machine learning techniques such as RL and SVM. These techniques aim to mitigate nonlinear effects in fiber-optic systems and offer a higher degree of accuracy compared to traditional methods. |
| Deep learning-based fault diagnosis and localization method for fiber optic cables in communication networks - Zhang, Gao, et al. (2023) |
Convolutional neural network (CNN) | Generative adversarial network (GAN) | DCGAN-CNN fault diagnosis model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The study intends to test deep learning models to diagnose and localize faults in fiber optic cables in communication networks. The DCGAN-CNN technology can achieve better fault diagnosis with an accuracy rate of 98.5% by utilizing the characteristics of GAN to generate simulation data and the classification ability of CNN. | The DCGAN-CNN achieved 98.5% compared to other methods. The SDGAN-FM utilized a large amount of unlabeled data to complete the diagnosis with an accuracy rate of 91.1%, making the DCGAN-CNN model better as a fault detector overall. |
| Machine learning framework for timely soft-failure detection and localization in elastic optical networks - Behera et al. (2023) |
Encoder-Decoder Long Short-Term Memory | N/A | Encoder-Decoder Long Short-Term Memory (ED-LSTM) model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The ED-LSTM model can predict hard-failures up to 4 days in advance when modeling soft-failure evolution over 1-2 lightpaths. The overall framework reduces operational expenses by triggering repair actions only, when necessary, based on the predicted soft-failure evolution, rather than relying on fixed QoT thresholds |
The accuracy of the ED-LSTM model varied depending on the number of lightpath sequences. The soft-failure evolution model of 2 lightpaths achieves an accuracy of 4.5x10^7. It was identified as the most effective approach. |
| Pattern Recognition for Distributed Optical Fiber Vibration Sensing: A Review - Li et al. (2021) |
|
Sparse auto-encoders algorithm (deep learning) | Models and Algorithms used in DOVS systems:
|
Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The article provides a performance comparison of different pattern recognition methods applied to DOVS applications. It shows that techniques like SVM, RVM, and deep learning can manage to score over 90% in defining types of intrusions/threats, leaks/etc. | The CNN model: 90%. GMM: 97.67%. ESN: 98.75%. Random Forest Classifier: 96.58%. CLDNN: 97%. Hierarchical Convolutional LSTM: 90%. The overall accuracy rate report ranges from around 85% to 97%, demonstrating high performance. |
| Machine Learning-Aided Optical Performance Monitoring Techniques: A Review - Tizikara et al. (2022) |
|
|
No Particular Model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | The literature explored the works of the diverse range of ML models in indexing cost-effective, real-time, and multi-impairment monitoring tools in optical communication networks. It assessed the previous observations of ML algorithms in fault management in optical fiber networks and established generalizations on their high-performing aspects. | It recorded correlation coefficients ranging from 0.91 – 0.99. For other studies, the literature noted accuracy rates, scoring 95% in simulation and 60% in experimental procedures. The results demonstrate that ML techniques for simultaneous monitoring of multiple physical layer impairment in optical networks are incomparable to traditional techniques. |
| Machine Learning-Based Anomaly Detection in Optical Fiber Monitoring - Abdelli et al. (2022b) |
|
|
A-BiGRU model | Machine Learning-Based Algorithm | Autoencoder is applied to quickly detect any anomalies or faults in the optical fiber, such as fiber cuts and optical eavesdropping attacks, while Attention-based BiGRU is utilized to diagnose the type of detected fiber fault (e.g. fiber cut, eavesdropping) and localize the fault position once an anomaly is detected by the autoencoder. The integrated approach combining the autoencoder and BiGRU models outperformed standalone BiGRU models, demonstrating the benefits of the two-stage framework. | Anomaly Detection Model (GRU-AE) for the optimal threshold of 0.008, the precision, recall, and F1 scores are around 96.9%, indicating excellent separability between normal and faulty classes. However, A-BiGRU achieves over 97% accuracy in diagnosing fault types. The accuracy increases with higher SNR, reaching close to 100%. |
IV. Discussion
A. Table Analysis
B. Outstanding Machine Learning in Optical Fiber Network for Fault Diagnosis and Localization
C. Accuracy Metrics of Machine Learning Algorithms
D. Challenges and Limitations
- Limited Data Availability- Machine learning algorithms naturally require large amounts of high-quality data to achieve the highest degree of accuracy. However, data accumulation in optical networks is complex, and preparations to create a complete visual of the system for this type of line consume time. Hence, the training of data is limited.
- Model Complexity – Some machine learning frameworks are superior in design and require advanced computations, which take time to train. Implementation in real-time or resource-constrained environments is difficult and limited.
- Heterogenous and Dynamic Data- Optical networks mostly produce large volumes of heterogeneous and dynamic data, which deeply affects the structural composition of machine learning models. The data can be influenced by various factors such as signal noise, fiber attenuation, and environmental factors which vary frequently, making the prediction and operation hard due to these diverse behavioral activities within the networks.
V. Conclusions
References
- A. Biswal, “What is Principal Component Analysis?,” Simplilearn.com, Nov. 07, 2023. https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/machine-learning-tutorial/principal-component-analysis.
- A. Khalfe, “Unsupervised machine learning: Clustering, dimensionality reduction, and anomaly detection techniques. - The Talent500 Blog,” The Talent500 Blog, Aug. 04, 2023. https://talent500.co/blog/unsupervised-machine-learning-clustering-dimensionality-reduction-and-anomaly-detection-techniques/.
- C. Maklin, “Isolation Forest - Cory Maklin - Medium,” Medium, Jul. 15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@corymaklin/isolation-forest-799fceacdda4.
- C. Natalino, M. Schiano, A. Di Giglio, L. Wosinska, and M. Furdek, “Experimental study of Machine-Learning-Based detection and identification of Physical-Layer Attacks in optical networks,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 37, no. 16, pp. 4173–4182, Aug. 2019. [CrossRef]
- D. K. Tizikara, J. Serugunda, and A. Katumba, “Machine Learning-Aided Optical Performance Monitoring Techniques: A review,” Frontiers in Communications and Networks, vol. 2, Jan. 2022. [CrossRef]
- D. Wang, C. Zhang, W. Chen, H. Yang, M. Zhang, and A. P. T. Lau, “A review of machine learning-based failure management in optical networks,” Science China. Information Sciences/Science China. Information Sciences, vol. 65, no. 11, Oct. 2022. [CrossRef]
- E. Reyes-Vera, A. Valencia-Arías, V. G. Pineda, E. F. A. Vigo, H. Á. Vásquez, and G. Sánchez, “Machine Learning Applications in Optical Fiber Sensing: A research agenda,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 7, p. 2200, Mar. 2024. [CrossRef]
- F. N. Khan, Q. Fan, C. Lu, and A. P. T. Lau, “An Optical Communication’s perspective on machine learning and its applications,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 493–516, Jan. 2019. [CrossRef]
- H. G. Çitil, “Important notes for a fuzzy boundary value problem,” Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 305–314, Jul. 2019. [CrossRef]
- H. H. Nguyen, “A complete view of decision trees and SVM in machine learning,” Medium, Dec. 07, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://towardsdatascience.com/a-complete-view-of-decision-trees-and-svm-in-machine-learning-f9f3d19a337b.
- H. M. Usman, “Machine learning methods for optical communications,” Trends in Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 055–057, Sep. 2020. [CrossRef]
- J. Delua, “Supervised vs. Unsupervised Learning: What’s the Difference? - IBM Blog,” IBM Blog, Mar. 12, 2021. https://www.ibm.com/blog/supervised-vs-unsupervised-learning/.
- J. Li et al., “Pattern Recognition for Distributed Optical Fiber Vibration Sensing: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 11983–11998, May 2021. [CrossRef]
- J. Yang, S. Li, Z. Wang, and G. Yang, “Real-Time tiny part defect detection system in manufacturing using deep learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 89278–89291, Jan. 2019. [CrossRef]
- K. Abdelli, C. Tropschug, H. Grießer, and S. Pachnicke, Fault Monitoring in Passive Optical Networks using Machine Learning Techniques. 2023. [CrossRef]
- K. Abdelli, J. Y. Cho, F. Azendorf, H. Grießer, C. Tropschug, and S. Pachnicke, “Machine-learning-based anomaly detection in optical fiber monitoring,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 14, no. 5, p. 365, Apr. 2022. [CrossRef]
- K. Kolasa, B. Admassu, M. Hołownia-Voloskova, K. Kędzior, J. Poirrier, and S. Perni, “Systematic reviews of machine learning in healthcare: A literature review,” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 63–115, Nov. 2023. [CrossRef]
- L. Zhang, W. Gao, and L. Yan, “Deep learning-based fault diagnosis and localization method for fiber optic cables in communication networks,” Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, Aug. 2023. [CrossRef]
- L. Zhang, L. Yan, W. Shen, F. Li, J. Wu, and W. Liang, “Neural network-based fiber optic cable fault prediction study for power distribution communication network,” Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, Nov. 2023. [CrossRef]
- O. Nyarko-Boateng, A. F. Adekoya, and B. A. Weyori, “Predicting the actual location of faults in underground optical networks using linear regression,” Engineering Reports, vol. 3, no. 3, Nov. 2020. [CrossRef]
- R. Y, “Optical fiber,” Circuit Globe, Jan. 25, 2023. https://circuitglobe.com/optical-fiber.html.
- S. Behera, T. Panayiotou, and G. Ellinas, “Machine learning framework for timely soft-failure detection and localization in elastic optical networks,” Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, vol. 15, no. 10, p. E74, Sep. 2023. [CrossRef]
- Seldon, “Supervised vs Unsupervised Learning Explained,” Seldon, Jan. 23, 2024. https://www.seldon.io/supervised-vs-unsupervised-learning-explained.
- “SVM vs Neural network,” Baeldung, Mar. 18, 2024. https://www.baeldung.com/cs/svm-vs-neural-network.
- T. Agarwal, “Optical Fiber : Working principle, types, advantages and disadvantages,” ElProCus - Electronic Projects for Engineering Students, Aug. 26, 2019. https://www.elprocus.com/optical-fiber-working-and-its-applications/.
- T. Liu, H. Mei, Q. Sun, and H. Zhou, “Application of neural network in fault location of optical transport network,” China Communications, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 214–225, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
- T. L. Singal, Optical Fiber Communications: Principles and applications. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.amazon.com/Optical-Fiber-Communications-Principles-Applications/dp/1316610047.
- “What is an autoencoder? | IBM.” https://www.ibm.com/topics/autoencoder.
- Z. Sun et al., “Optical fiber distributed vibration sensing using Grayscale image and Multi-Class Deep Learning framework for Multi-Event recognition,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 17, pp. 19112–19120, Sep. 2021. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).