MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064241848 · doi:10.1109/tcad.2013.2253835

Thermal Models for Optical Circuit Simulation Using a Finite Cloud Method and Model Reduction Techniques

2013· article· en· W2064241848 on OpenAlexaff
D.R. Burke, T. Smy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrylov subspaceComputer scienceReduction (mathematics)Subspace topologyRepresentation (politics)Set (abstract data type)Cloud computingElectronic engineeringThermalAlgorithmMathematicsIterative methodArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a procedure for the creation of versatile and powerful thermal compact models of integrated optical devices and demonstrates their use in an optical circuit level simulator. A detailed 3-D model of the device is first built using a meshless finite cloud method, producing a large linear sparse set of equations. This model is then reduced to a compact representation using a Krylov subspace model reduction (MR) technique. Such a reduced model is described by small dense matrices, but can reproduce the original temperature distribution within acceptable error. Three devices are used as demonstration models for the technique: a microdisc laser and two microring-based devices, a modulator, and an optical switch. All three devices are built in a silicon on oxide platform. Using MR the linear systems describing these models are reduced from thousands of unknowns to systems with less than 100 reduced variables. It is then demonstrated how the reduced compact models can be linked together to describe a complete optical system with solution errors of lower than 1%. Finally, it is shown how this reduced thermal model can be utilized in a circuit level opto-electronic circuit simulator and simulations are presented, demonstrating the effectiveness of the reduced models in speeding up simulation times or enabling otherwise intractable problems.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and SystemsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207