MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414532241 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-16408-4

Machine learning enhanced design and knowledge discovery for multi-junction photonic power converters

2025· article· en· W4414532241 on OpenAlexafffund
R. F. Hunter, Gavin P. Forcade, Yuri Grinberg, D. Paige Wilson, Meghan N. Beattie, Christopher E. Valdivia, Mathieu de Lafontaine, Louis-Philippe St-Arnaud, Henning Helmers, Oliver Höhn, David Lackner, Carmine Pellegrino, Jacob J. Krich, Alexandre W. Walker, Karin Hinzer

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaLarus Technologies (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaGovernment of OntarioCMC Microsystems
KeywordsDimensionality reductionCurse of dimensionalityConvertersSubspace topologyPhotonicsReduction (mathematics)Power (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is proving to be a revolutionary tool across many disciplines, including optoelectronic device design. In this report, we compare classical and machine learning enhanced design optimization methodologies. We investigate, as an example case, the design of the complex structures of ten-junction InP lattice matched photonic power converters with In[Formula: see text]Ga[Formula: see text]As absorbers optimized for operation at 1550 nm. We find that the implicit pattern recognition capabilities of dimensionality reduction using principal component analysis accelerate design discovery, optimization, and the understanding of complex optical phenomena in the simulated devices. The dimensionality reduction approach offers over twenty times as many optimal designs with greater variability and with a 15% reduction in computational cost compared to a classical optimization method. Furthermore, we find that the representation of the reduced dimensionality subspace offers an intuitive interpretation of optical phenomena expected to occur in this design problem. This method is general and offers the potential for knowledge discovery, expanded design perspective, and optimization acceleration in conjunction with a significant reduction in computational expense in systems which can be numerically modeled.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207