Broadband loss characterization of traveling-wave substrate integrated electro-optical devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, broadband including microwave and millimeter-wave (mmW) characteristics of conventional optoelectronic devices with emphasis on waveguide photodetector (WGPD), traveling-wave (TW) photodetector and modulator are compared with our newly proposed substrate integrated electro-optical devices. In the newly proposed devices, substrate integrated circuit (SIC) concept is applied to the design of conventional TW photodetectors and modulator to realize a new SIC-based optoelectronic device configuration expected with high operation frequency and bandwidth. Microwave and mmW losses are one of the important bandwidth limitations for the microwave and mmW photonic devices. Different sources of loss including ohmic, dielectric and radiation losses in microstrip (MS) and coplanar waveguide (CPW) of the conventional type and substrate integrated waveguide (SIW) based electro-optical devices are analyzed and compared. Isotropic and anisotropic substrates are used for the loss analysis. The results show that the total microwave loss, which increases against frequency in the conventional MS and CPW waveguides, can be made almost constant in SIC-based devices. In addition, to demonstrate the SIC concept suitable for electro-optical devices, microwave part of SIW-photodetector and SIW-modulator are fabricated and the results obtained from measurement and simulation are compared.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".