Electro-optical phase-change 2 × 2 switching using three- and four-waveguide directional couplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical modeling and numerical simulation have been performed at λ=2100 nm on silicon-on-insulator channel-waveguide directional couplers in which the outer two Si waveguides are passive and the central waveguide(s) are electro-optical (EO) "islands." The EO channel(s) utilize a 10 nm layer of Ge2Sb2Te5 phase-change-material sited at midlevel of a doped Si channel. A voltage-driven phase change produces a large change in the effective index of the TE(o) and TM(o) modes, thereby inducing crossbar 2×2 switching. A mode-matching method is employed to estimate EO switching performance in the limit of strong interguide coupling. Low-loss switching is predicted for cross-to-bar and bar-to-cross coupling lengths. These "self-holding" switches had active lengths of 500-1000 μm, which are shorter than those in couplers relying upon free-carrier injection. The four-waveguide devices had lower cross talk but higher loss than the three-waveguide devices. For the crystalline phase we sometimes used an active length that was smaller than that for the amorphous phase.
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) | 0.002 | 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".