MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409151419 · doi:10.1038/s44310-025-00060-x

Linear optical wave energy redistribution methods for photonic signal processing

2025· review· en· W4409151419 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Röwe, Xinyi Zhu, Benjamin Crockett, Geunweon Lim, Majid Goodarzi, Manuel Fernández, James van Howe, Hao Sun, Saket Kaushal, Afsaneh Shoeib, José Azaña

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Nanophotonics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsSPIE
KeywordsSignal processingRedistribution (election)PhotonicsEnergy (signal processing)PhysicsOpticsComputer scienceOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringDigital signal processingEngineeringQuantum mechanicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manipulating the phase of an optical wave over time and frequency gives full control to the user to implement a wide variety of energy preserving transformations directly in the analogue optical domain. These can be achieved using widely available linear mechanisms, such as temporal phase modulation and spectral phase filtering. The techniques based on these linear optical wave energy redistribution (OWER) methods are inherently energy efficient and have significant speed and bandwidth advantages over digital signal processing. We describe several recent OWER methods for optical signal processing, including denoising passive amplification, real-time spectrogram analysis, passive logic computing, and more. These functionalities are relevant whenever the signal is found on a classical or quantum optical wave, or could be upconverted from radio frequencies or microwaves, and they are of interest for a wide range of applications in telecommunications, sensing, metrology, biomedical imaging, and astronomy. The energy preservation of these methods makes them particularly interesting for quantum optics applications. Furthermore, many of the individual components have been demonstrated on-chip, enabling miniaturization for applications where size and weight are a main constraint.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj NanophotonicsSame topicOptical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207