MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093903864 · doi:10.1103/physreva.84.043839

Quasicompactons in inverted nonlinear photonic crystals

2011· article· en· W2093903864 on OpenAlexaff
Yongyao Li, Boris A. Malomed, Jianxiong Wu, Wei Pang, Sicong Wang, Jianying Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Photonic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaAmplitudeNonlinear systemSolitonPseudopotentialSaturable absorptionPhysicsMaximaCentroidNonlinear opticsPhotonicsOpticsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisLaserMathematicsGeometryFiber laser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study large-amplitude one-dimensional solitary waves in photonic crystals featuring competition between linear and nonlinear lattices, with minima of the linear potential coinciding with maxima of the nonlinear pseudopotential, and vice versa (inverted nonlinear photonic crystals, INPCs), in the case of the saturable self-focusing nonlinearity. Such crystals were recently fabricated using a mixture of SU-8 and Rhodamine-B optical materials. By means of numerical methods and analytical approximations, we find that large-amplitude solitons are broad sharply localized stable pulses (quasicompactons, QCs). With the increase of the total power, $P$, the QC's centroid performs multiple switchings between minima and maxima of the linear potential. Unlike cubic INPCs, the large-amplitude solitons are mobile in the medium with the saturable nonlinearity. The threshold value of the kick necessary to set the soliton in motion is found as a function of $P$. Collisions between moving QCs are considered too.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicNonlinear Photonic SystemsFrench-language works237,207