Pulsed- and continuous-wave difference-frequency generation in AlGaAs Bragg reflection waveguides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsed- and continuous-wave type-I and type-II difference-frequency generations (DFGs) in monolithic AlGaAs Bragg reflection waveguides were comparatively investigated. Phase matching bandwidth of exceeding 40 nm was observed in all the processes. Highest difference-frequency (DF) power of 2.45 nW was obtained in continuous-wave type-II interaction with the average external pump and signal powers of 62.9 and 2.9 mW, respectively. The corresponding nonlinear conversion efficiency is about 1.3×10−3% W−1 for a sample with a length of 1.5 mm. Using split-step Fourier method, the impacts of third-order nonlinearities including two-photon absorption and self-phase modulation on the efficiency of the DFG are numerically investigated. Furthermore, the adverse effects of group velocity mismatch and group velocity dispersion of the interacting frequencies on the efficiency of the pulsed nonlinear process are theoretically studied. Simulations indicate that the dominant factors in limiting the efficiency of the pulsed interaction are group velocity mismatch between pump and DF signal and two-photon absorption of the interacting waves.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".