MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391232091 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44750-0

Roadmapping the next generation of silicon photonics

2024· review· en· W4391232091 on OpenAlexafffund
Sudip Shekhar, Wim Bogaerts, Lukas Chrostowski, John E. Bowers, Michael Hochberg, Richard Soref, Bhavin J. Shastri

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
KeywordsPhotonicsSilicon photonicsComputer scienceCMOSTelecommunicationsTransceiverElectronic engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceWirelessOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon photonics has developed into a mainstream technology driven by advances in optical communications. The current generation has led to a proliferation of integrated photonic devices from thousands to millions-mainly in the form of communication transceivers for data centers. Products in many exciting applications, such as sensing and computing, are around the corner. What will it take to increase the proliferation of silicon photonics from millions to billions of units shipped? What will the next generation of silicon photonics look like? What are the common threads in the integration and fabrication bottlenecks that silicon photonic applications face, and which emerging technologies can solve them? This perspective article is an attempt to answer such questions. We chart the generational trends in silicon photonics technology, drawing parallels from the generational definitions of CMOS technology. We identify the crucial challenges that must be solved to make giant strides in CMOS-foundry-compatible devices, circuits, integration, and packaging. We identify challenges critical to the next generation of systems and applications-in communication, signal processing, and sensing. By identifying and summarizing such challenges and opportunities, we aim to stimulate further research on devices, circuits, and systems for the silicon photonics ecosystem.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations680
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207