Metamaterial Lüneburg waveguide lenses for switch fabric on-a-chip applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical information processing has traditionally been demonstrated using 3D free-space optical systems employing bulk optical components. These systems are bulky and unstable due to the stringent alignment tolerances that must be met. Taking advantage of the alignment accuracy offered by planar light circuits, these issues may be overcome by confining the light in a planar slab waveguide. The limitation on scaling, consequent on the loss of one dimension is offset by the nanoscale component footprints attainable in a silicon integration platform. A key component of this free-space-opticson- a-chip concept is a waveguide lens. Waveguide lenses are of general utility but our specific application is their use to implement the complex crossover interconnections of a switch fabric. The graded refractive index of the lens is engineered by patterning the silicon layer of silicon on insulator slab waveguides into a dense distribution of cylinders; either solid (silicon) or voids (air); using a single etch step. The cylinders have variable diameters and are placed on a regular square or hexagonal grid with sub-wavelength pitch. In the case of voids, the patterned silicon may be suspended in air to form the core of a symmetric slab waveguide. Solid cylinders must be supported by the Si02 layer leading to an asymmetric waveguide of reduced effective index range. Advantageously, the patterning of the metamaterial region within the slab-waveguide requires only a single etch step. Photonic wire feeder waveguides at different positions around the lens may be used to launch light into the lenses or collect light from the lenses. A method is developed to determine the local effective media index of a periodic metamaterial in terms of the parameters of its unit cell. This method is used as a calibration to lay out a metamaterial with graded parameters. The operation of a metamaterial Lüneburg lens telescope is verified by FDTD simulations and shown to be capable of near zero insertion loss and crosstalk. The careful approximation of the graded index of the Lüneburg lens by a metamaterial introduces minimal impairments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".