Computation cost reduction in 3D shape optimization of nanophotonic components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inverse design methodologies effectively optimize many design parameters of a photonic device with respect to a primary objective, uncovering locally optimal designs in a typically non-convex parameter space. Often, a variety of secondary objectives (performance metrics) also need to be considered before fabrication takes place. Hence, a large collection of optimized designs is useful, as their performance on secondary objectives often varies. For certain classes of components such as shape-optimized devices, the most efficient optimization approach is to begin with 2D optimization from random parameter initialization and then follow up with 3D re-optimization. Nevertheless, the latter stage is substantially time- and resource-intensive. Thus, obtaining a desired collection of optimized designs through repeated 3D optimizations is a computational challenge. To address this issue, a machine learning-based regression model is proposed to reduce the computation cost involved in the 3D optimization stage. The regression model correlates the 2D and 3D optimized structural parameters based on a small dataset. Using the predicted design parameters from this model as the initial condition for 3D optimization, the same optima are reached faster. The effectiveness of this approach is demonstrated in the shape optimization-based inverse design of TE0-TE1 mode converters, an important component in mode-division multiplexing applications. The final optimized designs are identical in both approaches, but leveraging a machine learning-based regression model offers a 35% reduction in computation load for the 3D optimization step. The approach provides a more effective means for sampling larger numbers of 3D optimized designs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".