Frequency-switching Coherent Reception for Hardware-efficient High-baud-rate Optical Transmission Experiments
arXiv:2604.01623v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Signal gating combined with local-oscillator-frequency switching enables bandwidth scaling of offline coherent reception without costly receiver parallelization. We experimentally verify this concept at symbol rates of up to 288 GBaud.
View PDF
Abstract:Signal gating combined with local-oscillator-frequency switching enables bandwidth scaling of offline coherent reception without costly receiver parallelization. We experimentally verify this concept at symbol rates of up to 288 GBaud.
Comments: 3 pages, 4 figures
Subjects:
Signal Processing (eess.SP); Optics (physics.optics)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.01623 [eess.SP]
(or arXiv:2604.01623v1 [eess.SP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.01623
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Hiroshi Yamazaki [view email] [v1] Thu, 2 Apr 2026 05:01:48 UTC (673 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
announcearxiv
Choosing an AI Agent Orchestrator in 2026: A Practical Comparison
Running one AI coding agent is easy. Running three in parallel on the same codebase is where things get interesting — and where you need to make a tooling choice. There's no "best" orchestrator. There's the right one for your workflow. Here's an honest comparison of five approaches, with the tradeoffs I've seen after months of running multi-agent setups. The Options 1. Raw tmux Scripts What it is: Shell scripts that launch agents in tmux panes. DIY orchestration. Pros: Zero dependencies beyond tmux Full control over every detail No abstractions to fight You already know how it works Cons: No state management — you track everything manually No message routing between agents No test gating — agents declare "done" without verification Breaks when agents crash or hit context limits You become
![[R] Looking for arXiv cs.LG endorser, inference monitoring using information geometry](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-earth-satellite-QfbitDhCB2KjTsjtXRYcf9.webp)
[R] Looking for arXiv cs.LG endorser, inference monitoring using information geometry
Hi r/MachineLearning , I’m looking for an arXiv endorser in cs.LG for a paper on inference-time distribution shift detection for deployed LLMs. The core idea: instead of monitoring input embeddings (which is what existing tools do), we monitor the statistical manifold of the model’s output distributions using Fisher-Rao geodesic distance. We then run adaptive CUSUM (Page-Hinkley) on the resulting z-score stream to catch slow drift that per-request spike detection misses entirely. The methodology is grounded in published work on information geometry (Figshare, DOIs available). We’ve validated the signal on real OpenAI API logprobs, CUSUM caught gradual domain drift in 7 steps with zero false alarms during warmup, while spike detection missed it entirely. If anyone with cs.LG endorsement is
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Releases
I Turned My MacBook's Notch Into a Control Center for AI Coding Agents
Every developer using Claude Code knows the pain: you have 5+ terminal sessions running, Claude is asking for permission in one tab, waiting for input in another, and you're buried in a third. You Alt-Tab frantically, lose context, and waste time. So I built CodeIsland — a free, open-source macOS app that turns your MacBook's notch (Dynamic Island) into a real-time dashboard for all your AI coding agents. The Problem When you're running multiple Claude Code sessions across different projects, there's no way to see everything at a glance. You're constantly switching between terminals to: Check which session finished Approve permission requests Answer Claude's questions Monitor usage limits Multiple Claude Code sessions in cmux, with CodeIsland monitoring everything from the notch The Soluti
BuildWithAI: Architecting a Serverless DR Toolkit on AWS
Overview I'd been getting more involved in disaster recovery planning lately and kept running into the same gap — a lot of teams on AWS have backups, but not a real Disaster Recovery (DR) plan. No documented runbooks, no tested failover procedures, no RTO/RPO targets tied to business impact. So that became the motivation for this side project: six AI-powered tools that automate the tedious parts of DR planning, built entirely on AWS. In part one of this three-part series, we will walk through the architecture — the serverless stack, the central model config, and the 5-layer cost guardrail system that keeps everything under $10/month (of course, you can set your own threshold; that's just what felt right for this side project). The next two parts will cover prompt engineering for each tool
BuildWithAI: What Broke, What I Learned, What's Next
Overview The architecture and the prompts are covered. Now for the part that usually gets left out: what actually broke, what could be better, and how to deploy the whole thing on your own AWS account. So far we've gone through the serverless stack and 5-layer cost guardrails, then the system prompt pattern and the prompt engineering behind all six tools. This final part is the practical side — the gotchas from development and a step-by-step guide so you can fork the repo and get it running yourself. Things that broke Bedrock model access First deploy went fine. Lambda functions created, API Gateway live, DynamoDB provisioned. Then the first endpoint returned access denied from Bedrock. No helpful error message, just a generic denial. The issue: when I first deployed this using Claude Sonn
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!