Photonic crystal waveguide analysis using interface boundary conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devices based on combinations of photonic bandgap materials are understood intuitively in terms of the dispersion relations of the constituent periodic and locally homogeneous media. Quantitatively, though, photonic crystal-based devices are analyzed using numerical simulations which take no advantage of the a priori understanding of underlying periodic building-block materials. Here we unite the quantitative and qualitative pictures of photonic crystal devices and their design. We describe photonic crystals as effective media and impose boundary conditions between photonic crystals and homogeneous materials. We express optical field profiles as superpositions of plane waves in the homogeneous parts and propagating or decaying Bloch modes in the crystals, connected by transmission, reflection, and diffraction coefficients at the interfaces. We calculate waveguide modes, coupling lengths in directional couplers, and coupling between waveguides and point defects, achieving agreements of approximately 1% in frequencies and around 2% in quality factors. We use the new approach to optimize waveguide properties in a forward-going method, instead of the usual iterative optimizations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".