Tight-Binding Analysis of Coupled Dielectric Waveguide Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the mathematical similarity of the Schrödinger and Helmholtz equations, the tight-binding method has been employed for solving optical waveguide problems, in a manner similar to the methods commonly used in solid-state physics. The solutions (TE mode electric field waveforms and propagation constants) of a single dielectric slab waveguide are considered to be known, and tight-binding is used to compute the propagation constants of several multi-waveguide structures. Analytical solutions are derived for linear and circular arrays of adjacent waveguides. The problem of two similar adjacent waveguides is treated in detail for two cases of similar and different propagation constants of the two waveguides. For this case, the proposed method is verified using the beam propagation method (BPM). Optical band formation and effect of introducing defects is also illustrated by further examples. Keywords: tight-bindingdielectric waveguidephotonic bandgapdefectoptical trap Acknowledgments P. Khalili Amiri is presently with HiTeC/DIMES, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".