A rate equation model of asymmetric multiple quantum-well lasers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper gives a description of a rate equation model to simulate the steady-state and frequency response characteristics of asymmetric multiple quantum well (AMQW) lasers using several different methods. AMQW lasers consist of several quantum wells of different widths or compositions designed to achieve a broad net gain profile for improved wavelength tuning. The position of the quantum wells relative to the p-side of the device plays an important role in the steady-state characteristics due to a significant nonuniform carrier distribution across the active region. Simulations of the carrier distribution and the onset of simultaneous lasing for certain structures are demonstrated using this model. Appropriate values for the distributed material loss and tunneling times were determined here by fitting the model output to measurements of the transition cavity length for a number of AMQW lasers. As well, comparison of different calculation methods demonstrates it is more appropriate to use a numerical analysis of the laser rate equations rather than analytic equations when modeling the frequency response of these structures. However, an analytic equation for the resonance frequency was found that fit well with numerical simulations of several different AMQW laser structures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".