MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296102193 · doi:10.3390/photonics9090651

Ring Resonator Gap Determination Design Rule and Parameter Extraction Method for Sub-GHz Resolution Whole C-Band Si3N4 Integrated Spectrometer

2022· article· en· W4296102193 on OpenAlexaff
Gazi Mahamud Hasan, Peng Liu, Mehedi Hasan, Houman Ghorbani, Mohammad Rad, Éric Bernier, Trevor J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotonics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonatorFree spectral rangeSpectrometerOpticsBandwidth (computing)Materials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A panoramic ultra-high resolution photonic integrated circuit spectrometer is under development by the authors. The architecture comprises a tunable ring resonator (RR) stage and an AWG stage. The resolution defines the bandwidth of the RR, determined by the cross-coupled power and hence the gap between the access and ring waveguides. The AWG channel frequency spacing determines the required free-spectral range (FSR) and hence the perimeter of the ring resonator. The specified <1 GHz resolution combined with an FSR of 50 GHz renders accurate simulation difficult, obstructing the design process. In this report, a simplified design rule to determine the minimum gap between straight access waveguides and a circular ring waveguide is proposed. Realistic assumptions such as the existence of local bisymmetry and adiabatic mode evolution throughout the coupling region permit a simple mode solver to determine the relationship between the cross-coupled power and the minimum gap size. A parameter extraction method is also formulated for add-drop rings equipped with two nominally identical couplers that disentangles the loss and coupling ring parameters from intensity-only transmission measurements. The proposed rule is applied to the design of ring resonators fabricated on a Si3N4 platform. The parameter extraction method is used to analyze the measured characterization data of the ring resonators. The results show good agreement within ~43 nm between the design rule and the gaps size determined by the parameters extracted from the measured data and provide experimental confirmation of the technological viability of the ring resonators required by the spectrometer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotonicsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207