MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789555118 · doi:10.1002/lpor.201700237

Silicon Photonics Circuit Design: Methods, Tools and Challenges

2018· article· en· W2789555118 on OpenAlexaff
Wim Bogaerts, Lukas Chrostowski

Bibliographic record

VenueLaser & Photonics Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsSchematicPhotonicsDesign flowElectronic design automationCircuit designComputer scienceDesign toolPhotonic integrated circuitElectronic circuitElectronic engineeringComputer architectureAbstractionIntegrated circuit designElectronic componentElectronicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringEmbedded systemPhysicsMechanical engineeringOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Silicon Photonics technology is rapidly maturing as a platform for larger‐scale photonic circuits. As a result, the associated design methodologies are also evolving from component‐oriented design to a more circuit‐oriented design flow, that makes abstraction from the very detailed geometry and enables design on a larger scale. In this paper, the state of this emerging photonic circuit design flow and its synergies with electronic design automation (EDA) are reviewed. The design flow from schematic capture, circuit simulation, layout and verification is covered. The similarities and the differences between photonic and electronic design, and the challenges and opportunities that present themselves in the new photonic design landscape, such as variability analysis, photonic‐electronic co‐simulation and compact model definition are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations580
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaser & Photonics ReviewSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207