Sixth-Order 2D Microring Optical Filter with Sharp Transmission Zero
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microring resonators have been shown to be extremely versatile elements for constructing high-order optical filters [1]. By coupling multiple microring resonators together, high-order optical transfer functions with flat-top passband and sharp skirt roll-offs can be realized. However, most coupled microring optical filters to date are based on the 1D serially-coupled configuration (also known as CROW filters) [1], which can only realize transfer functions with all poles and no transmission zeros. The inability of the 1D configuration to realize transmission zeros limits the rate of skirt roll-off that can be achieved in the filter spectrum. In contrast, the 2D coupling configuration provides multiple pathways of light through the lattice, which can result in complete destructive interference of the transmitted light at certain frequencies [2]. By positioning these transmission nulls near the edge of the passband, filter spectra with very sharp skirt roll-offs can be realized, which are important for applications requiring separation of two closely spaced wavelengths, such as in dense WDM communication systems, fluorescence spectroscopy and nonlinear pump-and-probe experiments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".