“Design of CWDM multiplexers based on series coupled ring resonators: Analysis and potential of MEMS technologies“
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New designs for a 1×4 and a 1×8 CWDM multiplexers based on cascaded groups of series coupled ring resonators [1]–[3] are presented. Compared to other integrated optical alternatives such as MMI phasars, cascaded Mach-Zehnder interferometers and cascaded AWG, the proposed circuits offer superior performance in their very sharp roll-off factor that exceeds 0.75, their reduced crosstalk level that lies below −80 dB and their negligible insertion loss for the 1×4 design. For the 1×8 design, the worst case insertion loss is 4 dB. However, the performances obtained exhibit passband ripples in the order of 5 dB, and besides, they are not very tolerant to fabrication errors. Being designed for SOI technology, the proposed circuits are compact as the circuit areas are 130×130 µm2 and 90×150 µm2 for the 1×4 and 1×8 designs, respectively. They also have a high potential for MEMS tunability.
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 | 0.001 | 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".