Analysis of optical instability in coupled microring resonators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present energy coupling (EC) and power coupling (PC) formalisms for analyzing optical instability in coupled microring resonators having instantaneous intensity dependent nonlinear refractive index. Analysis of a chalcogenide double-microring resonator is performed to investigate and compare instability phenomena predicted by both formalisms. It is shown that the EC formalism fails to predict Ikeda instability in the double-microring resonator and generally yields results that drastically deviate from those of the more rigorous PC formalism at high input powers and large phase detunings. We also show that the input threshold powers for reaching self-pulsation and Ikeda instabilities in a double-microring resonator can be minimized by proper selection of the coupling parameters. In particular, self-pulsation can be reached in a chalcogenide double-microring with input powers as low as tens of milliwatts, while the threshold power for Ikeda instability can be reduced by more than 20% compared to the value required in a single microring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".