Defect and bandgap engineering in square spiral photonic crystals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of three-dimensional photonic bandgaps in square spiral thin films, made using the Glancing Angle Deposition (GLAD) method, was recently verified. We further demonstrate the flexibility of the GLAD process to fabricate silicon photonic bandgap crystals with customizable bandgap centre frequencies. GLAD combines physical vapor deposition at highly oblique flux incidence angles with dual axis substrate motion control, creating porous thin films with three-dimensional submicrometer topographies. This makes it a near-ideal approach for diamond lattice based photonic crystal fabrication, with manipulation of the photonic properties through the deposition parameters. We have produced a range of different square spiral thin films, and present characterization results indicating bandgaps at wavelengths close to 2 micrometers. Such low wavelength bandgaps have not previously been achieved for square spiral architectures. Ongoing work towards optimization of the process holds the promise of square spiral photonic crystals with even lower bandgap centre wavelengths, approaching the telecommunications windows. In addition to its flexibility and mass-production suitability, we present how GLAD can be used to engineer defects inside the photonic crystals during the one-step growth process. Such defects may potentially be employed as stand-alone waveguides, or as elements of more complex photonic device and circuitry designs involving subsequent micromachining of the GLAD thin films.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".