Depositing light in a photonic stop gap using Kerr nonlinear microresonators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate numerically that it is possible to trap light in the structure shown in Figure la using four-wave mixing. We define two resonant frequencies associated with the structure: ω{O,i}=c/(neffR{o,i}), where "i" and "o" refer to the inner resonators (not shaded) and the outer resonators (shaded) respectively, and R; and Ro are the radii of the inner and outer resonators. The quantity neff is a linear effective index of refraction, assumed to be common to all the resonators and the channel guides, furthermore the frequency dependence of neff is ignored; these assumptions simplify the presentation of the effect. The outer microresonators couple the channel waveguides, so that forward travelling light in the bottom (top) channel is coupled to backward travelling light in the top (bottom) channel1,2. If light has frequency at or near NωO, where N is an integer, then the coupling is resonant, and a stop gap opens in the transmission spectrum of the structure1,2. These gaps lead to the dips in the transmission spectrum of the structure shown by the solid line in Figure lb; the dotted lines in Figure lb show some resonances of the inner microresonators (which do not lead to gaps). Material parameters, used throughout this paper, are neff=3.0, 2πRi,=25μm, 27πRo=30μm and σ=0.98 for all resonators.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".