MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1878203406 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2000.849585

Design, BPM simulation and optimization of Mach-Zehnder 3-wavelength demultiplexer based on Runge-Kutta method

2002· article· en· W1878203406 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Twati, G. L. Yip, H.K. Fung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtinction ratioBeam propagation methodWavelengthDemultiplexerOpticsLambdaPhysicsBandwidth (computing)Runge–Kutta methodsMathematicsRefractive indexNumerical analysisComputer scienceTelecommunicationsMultiplexingMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design, BPM simulation and optimization of a Mach-Zehnder 3-wavelength demultiplexer (MZ-3WDM) for the wavelengths /spl lambda/1=980 nm, /spl lambda/2=1310 nm and /spl lambda/3=1550 nm based on the Runge-Kutta method is presented. The combination of the effective index method based Rung-Kutta and a finite difference vector beam propagation method (FD-VBPM) provide for a computational design tool that yields good accuracy. The total device length obtained is 1.49 cm. The average distinction ratios, for the three wavelengths, 980 nm, 1310 nm and 1550 nm obtained are 34, 32 and 26 dB, respectively. The effect of the wavelength deviations, the error in diffusion time and the error in the waveguides width on the extinction ratio were carried out. The results of the study indicated that a 20 dB of extinction ratio for the three wavelengths could be obtained over a bandwidth of 32 nm range, a /spl plusmn/12 min error in diffusion time and a /spl plusmn/100 nm error in waveguides width.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotonic and Optical Devices→French-language works237,207→