Design rules for highly parallel free-space optical interconnects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a number of successful free-space chip-to-chip and board-to-board optical interconnects have been demonstrated. Here, we present some of the design rules that can be derived as a result of this work and also as a result of numerical and theoretical analyzes. We draw a number of conclusions. In the area of optoelectronic very large scale integration (VLSI) design, we suggest that differential electrical and optical transceiver designs provide the best performance. In the area of optical design, we present scaling and system partitioning laws for clustered optical relays and determine the interconnect distances at which microlens or macrolens systems are more suitable. We also show that the ease with which two modules can be aligned can be related to the optical invariant of the system and is, thus, a function of the size of the detector and the numerical aperture of the detector optics. Finally, we show that when multiple optical components must be aligned, very high individual component tolerances are required if the system as a whole is to have a high chance of success.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it