An Analytical Method for Evaluating the Robustness of Photonic Integrated Circuits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose an efficient analytical method to evaluate the robustness of integrated photonic devices and circuits in the presence of independently-distributed random variations in the device parameters. By approximating the output of a photonic system in terms of a first or second-order Taylor series, we derive closed-form expressions for the mean and variance of the system output, which allow us to compute the one-standard-deviation (1-sigma) bounds on the expected system performance. Compared to other approaches for evaluating robustness, our method does not require computationally-intensive numerical simulations of the system output and can apply to any statistical distribution of parameter variations, including uniform and normal distributions. We demonstrate the method by analyzing the robustness of two coupled resonator systems: a fifth-order microring filter, and optical delay lines based on 1D Coupled Resonator Optical Waveguides and 2D Floquet topological microring lattice. Our method could provide a useful tool in the design and analysis of robust optical devices and circuits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it