MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2071460286 · doi:10.1139/p04-014

A numerical method for one-dimensional action functionals of photonic band-gap structures

2004· article· en· W2071460286 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Fei Xie, Gaynor Reid, Satish Valluri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsHomotopyPlane wave expansion methodInvariant (physics)Nonlinear systemBand gapExtrapolationAction (physics)PhotonicsApplied mathematicsLinearizationMathematical analysisMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photonic band gaps (PBG), photonic analogues of electronic semiconductor band gaps, have attracted much attention recently because of numerous potential applications in communications and computing. Aközbek and John (Phys. Rev. E, 57, 2287 (1998).) developed a variational model of such band gaps, using action functionals, where solitary waves are expanded in terms of a finite orthonormal basis. These expansions to finite order N converged to solitary waves. The nonlinear polynomial equations for the coefficients in the expansions, have nonunique solutions. Our paper, makes a study of the multiplicity of the solutions for one-dimensional photonic band-gap structures. It is found that the nonuniqueness grows dramatically with the order of the expansion N. We use homotopy, which continuously deforms the solutions of exactly solvable systems, into the solutions of the systems to be solved with new results in numeric algebraic geometry, such that all solutions are determined. We used Maple 7 to obtain the polynomial equations for the variational coefficients, extending Aközbek and John's approach. A homotopy-based package PHCpack was used to solve the systems for N ≤ 4 and a linearization-extrapolation method was developed to find real solutions for N ≥ 5. The results are compared with the exact soliton solutions and their convergence behavior is discussed. The interplay of geometrical, topological and variational methods is seen in these interesting physical band-gap structures. PACS Nos.: 42.65.Tg, 42.70.Qs, 02.30.Xx, 02.70.Wz

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physics→Same topicPhotonic and Optical Devices→French-language works237,207→