Accurate modeling and experimental validation of a singlemode 4 W output power double cladding erbium ytterbium fibre amplifier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a model that accurately predicts the performances of high power double cladding erbium ytterbium fibre amplifiers. We experimentally validate the model in co- and counter-propagation configuration for different pump wavelengths and fibre lengths. By adjusting the ytterbium to erbium cross-relaxation rate with a simple amplifier experiment, we obtained a complete agreement between the model predictions and the experimental data regarding the output signal. We measured that the McCumber relationship considerably overestimates the ytterbium emission crosssection; with a correction of this parameter, we obtained an excellent prediction of the ytterbium spontaneous emission at 1.0 μm. The model is valid for high power singlemode amplifiers as we obtained a full agreement for a 4W output power amplifier from a seed signal of 8 mW at 1556nm. The output was diffraction limited with a measured M<sup>2</sup> parameter of 1.03 without doing any mode selection from a slightly multimode fibre with a core diameter of 10 μm and a numerical aperture of 0.18.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".