MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996514820 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2019.8936189

Effect of lithography on SOI, grating-based devices for sensor and telecommunications applications

2019· article· en· W2996514820 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay Mistry, Mustafa Hammood, Stephen Lin, Lukas Chrostowski, Nicolas A. F. Jaeger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithographyImmersion lithographyGratingMaterials scienceSilicon on insulatorExtreme ultraviolet lithographyPhotolithographyOptoelectronicsNext-generation lithographyInterference lithographyCMOSSmoothingElectron-beam lithographyComputer scienceSiliconNanotechnologyResistFabrication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate how lithography smoothing and proximity effects affect the performance of silicon-on-insulator devices that include grating-based, contra-directional couplers (contra-DCs). Using lithography models developed for CMOS-compatible, deep ultraviolet lithography processes, we predict and verify the spectral responses of fabricated contra-DC test structures. These verified models are then used to simulate and analyze the effects of lithography on the performance of a microring resonator with an integrated contra-DC, as regards the device 3-dB bandwidth (BW), insertion loss (IL), and adjacent side mode suppression ratio (SMSR). We demonstrate how the corrugation profile of the contra-DC is affected by smoothing and the inner and outer corrugation depths are reduced due to proximity effects. We show that, if the effects of lithography are not taken in account during device design flow, large discrepancies result between the predicted "as-fabricated" and "as-designed" device performance. Specifically, we demonstrate how the BW is reduced from 47 GHz to 21 GHz, how the IL is increased from 0.5 dB to 5.8 dB, and how the adjacent SMSR is reduced to 26 dB. We also establish that it is possible to use the lithography models to compensate for lithographic effects during device design flow and layout and to design a contra-DC in which the as-fabricated device performance metrics matches the target/expected as-designed performance metrics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207