Reliability Modelling of Optical Fiber Couplers Based on Accelerated Tensile Cyclic Tests
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a methodology designed to predict the reliability of optoelectronic devices through accelerated testing. To imitate an industrial silicon photonics chip, we fabricated a sample with a similar geometry that incorporated V-groove alignment features for fiber coupling. Two reliability tests, the tensile cycling test (TCT) and the side tensile cycling test (STCT), were performed to accelerate sample failure and generate fatigue failure data. Both tests revealed the same failure mode, which is characterized by the appearance of slow intensity cycles in the insertion loss due to a growing gap between optical fibers and the adhesive at the joint, resulting from fiber displacement during tensile cycles after strain relief (SR) failure. The power law model (PM) was applied to the collected fatigue data for both reliability tests. The PM revealed that both tests shared a common failure mechanism, involving minor delaminations between the ribbon coating and the SR adhesive. Notably, the PM exponents from STCT (0.80 ± 0.02) and low-load TCT (0.812 ± 0.002) suggest a similar mechanism, while high-load TCT showed a distinct mechanism (2.324 ± 0.001), characterized by adhesive residues dragged by the ribbon after breakage due to high loads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it