MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051492273 · doi:10.1364/josab.31.001660

On the limitations of the first-order nonlinear Schrödinger equation in slow-light photonic crystal structures

2014· article· en· W2051492273 on OpenAlexaff
Yannick Lefevre, Nathalie Vermeulen, J. E. Sipe, Hugo Thienpont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotonic crystalNonlinear systemPhysicsPhotonicsFormalism (music)Bloch waveNonlinear opticsDispersion (optics)Nonlinear photonic crystalQuantum mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the limitations of the first-order nonlinear Schrödinger equation for describing slow-light enhanced optical nonlinearities in photonic crystal structures. We do this by introducing the concept of generalized Bloch modes to describe light propagation in nonlinear photonic crystal structures. By considering how the nonlinear effects perturb the eigenproblem that describes such generalized Bloch modes, we derive a formalism that allows us to determine the impact of nonlinearities up to an arbitrary order. Based on our formalism, we derive expressions for the first- and second-order nonlinear terms experienced by a single generalized Bloch mode. We then theoretically demonstrate that the second-order terms can in silicon-based slow-light photonic crystal waveguides already become significant at optical powers as small as 100 mW. Additionally, we show that the significance of the second-order term is closely related with the structural group index dispersion or second-order dispersion parameter of the structures considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America BSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207