Improving Topological Confinement Using Asymmetric Elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photonic topological systems are enticing alternatives to realize multifunctional optical circuits with minimum distortions due to their unique insulating features. Among them, expanded honeycomb structures give rise to topological phases without involving any external field or gyromagnetic materials. Unlike atoms in crystals, the morphology of the repeating element in photonic systems can be tailored, allowing to tune the different interelement couplings. In this regard, traditional circular rods are replaced in honeycomb lattices with teardrop‐shaped pillars to push the “center of mass” outward, thus heightening the intercell interaction. This teardrop honeycomb lattice can provide a broader nontrivial bandgap and better edge‐state confinement compared with a circular rod lattice with the same material‐to‐void filling factor. The approach proposes a novel method to tailor the performance of topological systems by engineering the individual pillars and results in better‐confining waveguides that can be building blocks for designing more compact optical circuits under the same platform.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".