Photonic quasi-crystals in Fourier and Fourier-Bessel space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photonic crystals that are aperiodic or quasi-crystalline in nature have been the focus of research due to their complex spatial distributions, resulting in high order rotational symmetries. Recently we proposed aperiodic patterns that were rotationally symmetric while being random in the radial direction. The structures are designed by segmenting the circular design space, randomly populating one segment, and repeating that segment about a center of rotation. Studying the symmetries and geometrical attributes of aperiodic structures is typically performed in reciprocal Fourier space by examining the distribution of the Fourier coefficients. This allows the translational symmetry to be directly extracted and the rotational nature to be interpreted. Instead we propose comparing the typical Fourier analysis with the use of a Fourier-Bessel space. The Fourier-Bessel approach expands the dielectric layout in cylindrical coordinates using exponential and Bessel functions as the angular and radial basis functions. The coefficients obtained in this fashion directly provide the rotational symmetries that are present. This work will examine both the Fourier and Fourier-Bessel distributions of the proposed structures as well as other quasi-crystals in order to explore the strengths and weaknesses of both techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".