Energy splitting of resonant photonic states in nonlinear nanophotonic double waveguides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have studied the energy splitting of bound photonic states in Kerr-nonlinear double photonic waveguides. The structure is formed by embedding two Kerr-nonlinear photonic crystals in a linear photonic crystal. When an intense external laser field is applied to the system, two coupled waveguides are induced. These waveguides may also be induced by applying a stress field to the system. Due to the coupling between waveguides, bound states split into symmetric and antisymmetric pairs. Using the transfer matrix method we obtained expressions for these split bound states and their energy separation. We have shown that the energy splitting depends on the separation of the waveguides and the intensity of the applied laser. The energy splitting predicted by our expressions agrees well with the splitting of resonant states in simulated transmission spectra. Our findings agree qualitatively with existing experimental observations of coupled photonic wells fabricated from photonic crystals. We found that the bound state energy levels can be tuned using the laser and stress fields, and that the system can be switched between zero to one or more pairs of resonant states. The results described here can be used to develop all-optical switches, tunable filters and nonlinear coupled waveguides.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".