Design principles of multifiber resonant directional couplers with hollow Bragg fibers: ?example of a 3×3 coupler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When several hollow photonic crystal fibers (HPCFs) are placed in proximity to each other, radiation-induced interfiber coupling between their core guided modes is observed. Under certain conditions coupling between the core modes of two touching collinear fibers can have a resonant increase via excitation of a low-quality intermirror cavity resonant state. Such coupling, however, decreases dramatically within the first micrometer of intermirror separation. Moreover, when fibers are touching, in the frequency domain a large number of accidental degeneracies with fiber surface and mirror states complicate the design of a stable 2 x 2 coupler. To alleviate these problems we consider coupling among three hollow Bragg fibers. When placed in the vertices of an isosceles triangle, even for a finite separation between fibers, triangular interfiber cavity forms a high-quality resonator that can be tuned via additional structural elements to a particular frequency of interest. Interfiber surface states are suppressed by keeping the fiber separation finite, thus allowing stable coupling conditions in a 3 x 3 HPCF coupler configuration.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".