MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413305184 · doi:10.1364/optcon.572107

Comparison of Lumerical FDTD and Tidy3D for three-dimensional FDTD simulations of passive silicon photonic components

2025· article· en· W4413305184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Continuum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodPhotonicsPhotonic crystalOpticsSiliconPhysicsMaterials scienceComputer scienceOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We benchmark Lumerical FDTD and Tidy3D for 3D simulations of passive silicon photonic components on the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) platform. Six devices—including an MMI, directional coupler, waveguide crossing, mode converter, polarization splitter rotator, and ring resonator—are simulated under matched conditions using geometries from the generic process design kit (PDK) from GDSFactory. Our study emphasizes comparing simulation accuracy across both solvers, alongside an analysis of runtime and broadband behavior over varying resolutions and bandwidths. Results show that both solvers are reliable with minimal discrepancies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.267 · 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