Control and enhancement of photo-induced refractive index modifications in fused silica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A thorough study of the femtosecond photo-inscription of optical waveguides in fused silica is presented. Quantitative phase microscopy was used to study the variation of the index contrast of the waveguides as a function of the writing conditions. It is revealed that waveguides based exclusively on Type I refractive index modifications are difficult to form for pulses longer than 300 fs. We show that this limitation can be circumvented by scanning the laser beam multiple times at low pulse energy. We also demonstrate that by equally multiplying the scan speed and the number of passes, the index contrast can be increased, which was not expected for the low-repetition-rate regime. Based on the nonlinear ionization memory, we propose an explanation for this phenomenon. For shorter pulses, multiple passes of the beam allowed for the formation of waveguides with an enhanced index contrast while preserving the morphology and uniformity of Type I modifications. Index contrasts up to 9 × 10−3 in Heraeus F300 fused silica are reported. Using this method, waveguides that exhibits single mode operation at wavelengths of 405, 633, 980 and 1550 nm were successfully inscribed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".