Design and Analysis of Ultra-Miniaturized Meandering Photonic Crystals Delay Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the characteristics of a novel miniaturized optical delay line, which delays light in a meandering photonic crystal waveguide, and describe the design steps. We show how lattice parameters and refractive index difference of the photonic crystal affect the bandgap width and suggest a criterion to select these parameters. Next, we focus on the parallel waveguide channels in photonic crystal, and analyze the impact of the channel length and the interchannel spacing on crosstalk. We suggest a method for mitering the sharp corners in meandering lines which reduces the undesired reflections by 8 dB. Considering all these guidelines, we examine the propagation of light in the proposed delay line through calculating time-delay and insertion loss. To achieve longer delays in a small device area, we concentrate on coupled cavities in photonic crystals and propose an approximate method for calculating the group velocity of light in the coupled defects. We show how by replacing waveguide channels of a meandering delay line with coupled defects we achieve time-delays more than 9 ps within a device size around 27 m, which corresponds to a miniaturization factor of 100.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".