Measuring Velocity, Attenuation, and Reflection in Surface Acoustic Wave Cavities Through Acoustic Fabry–Pérot Spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface acoustic wave (SAW) cavities have been widely applied as electronic bandpass filters, sensors, microfluidic tweezers, and, in recent years, as devices for coupling with quantum systems. Here we propose a novel method of analyzing acoustic Fabry–Pérot spectra, by analogy with optical cavities, to determine the free surface velocity and attenuation of SAW waves, as well as the reflection of interdigital transducers (IDTs), all of which are crucial design parameters. In our experiment, two-port SAW resonators, consisting of two IDTs laterally separated by a free surface cavity length, are used to generate SAWs on 128° Y-X lithium niobate that are trapped between the two IDTs which also act as Bragg reflectors. Resonant cavity peaks can be observed through the electrical <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${S}_{{11}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> (reflection) spectrum measured on one IDT. The free spectral range and linewidths of cavity peaks are then measured to obtain the free surface SAW velocity, SAW propagation attenuation coefficient, and IDT reflection phase and amplitude. Our method of analyzing Fabry–Pérot spectra provides an intuitive approach for determining key characteristics of SAW waves and cavities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".