MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896233414 · doi:10.1109/group4.2018.8478722

Automating Photonic Design with Machine Learning

2018· article· en· W2896233414 on OpenAlexaff
Dusan Gostimirovic, Winnie N. Ye

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Reservoir Computing
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolverComputer scienceArtificial neural networkMATLABNonlinear systemPhotonicsParametric statisticsFinite-difference time-domain methodGratingRange (aeronautics)Electronic engineeringAlgorithmComputational scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose and demonstrate the first end-to-end artificial neural network (ANN) modeler for the automated design of photonic systems and devices. This approach gathers an initial range-restricted batch of numerically solved electromagnetic data and maps the nonlinear input-output relationship into a linear model of learned weights. This model is used to predict the output of different device variations for orders-of-magnitude faster optimization or system-level simulations. Our implementation uses the MATLAB numerical computing environment with the finite-difference time-domain electromagnetic solver from Lumerical to acquire the device data, create and train the ANN model, and optimize for a desired device output. In this demonstration, we create a model for a silicon grating coupler, which computes 56,000X faster than the numerical simulation, with an accuracy greater than 97% of the numerical results. Using a parametric sweep or an inverted ANN, the device parameters can be immediately found for a desired output.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and Reservoir ComputingFrench-language works237,207