MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080347244 · doi:10.1109/jqe.2012.2183116

Modeling of Pulse Propagation in Layered Structures With Resonant Nonlinearities Using a Generalized Time-Domain Transfer Matrix Method

2012· article· en· W2080347244 on OpenAlexaff
Peyman Sarrafi, Li Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodNonlinear systemTime domainTransfer-matrix method (optics)Dispersion (optics)Frequency domainFourier transformMatrix (chemical analysis)Transfer matrixPhysicsComputationOpticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisAlgorithmMathematicsMaterials scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a generalized time-domain transfer- matrix (TDTM) method, the only method to our knowledge that is capable of modeling high-index-contrast layered structures with dispersion and slow resonant nonlinearities. In this method transfer matrix is implemented in the time domain, either by switching between time and frequency domains using Fourier transform and its inverse operation, or by replacing the frequency variable (ω) with its temporal operator (-i (d/dt)). This approach allows us to implement the transfer matrix method (which can easily incorporate dispersion, is analytical in nature, and requires less computation time) in the time domain, where we can incorporate nonlinearity of various kinds, instantaneous (such as Kerr nonlinearity), or slow resonant nonlinearity (such as carrier-induced nonlinearity). This generalized TDTM method is capable of incorporate non-analytical forms of dispersion and of nonlinearity, making it a versatile tool for modeling optical devices where dispersion and nonlinearities are obtained phenomenologically. We also provide a few numerical examples to compare our method with the standard finite-difference time- domain (FDTD) method, as well as to examine the range of validity of our method. For pico-second and longer pulses, our results agree with the FDTD simulation results to within 1% and the computation time of our method is more than 100 fold reduced compared to that of FDTD for the longest pulse we used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Quantum ElectronicsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207