ArticleACS omega2022
Machine Learning in Interpolation and Extrapolation for Nanophotonic Inverse Design.
Article in ACS omega, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The algorithmic design of nanophotonic structures promises to significantly improve the efficiency of nanophotonic components due to the strong dependence of electromagnetic function on geometry and the unintuitive connection between structure and response. Such approaches, however, can be highly computationally intensive and do not ensure a globally optimal solution. Recent theoretical results suggest that machine learning techniques could address these issues as they are capable of modeling the response of nanophotonic structures at orders of magnitude lower time per result. In this work, we explore the utilization of artificial neural network (ANN) techniques to improve the algorithmic design of simple absorbing nanophotonic structures. We show that different approaches show various aptitudes in interpolation versus extrapolation, as well as peak performances versus consistency. Combining ANNs with classical machine learning techniques can outperform some standard ANN techniques for forward design, both in terms of training speed and accuracy in interpolation, but extrapolative performance can suffer. Networks pretrained on general image classification perform well in predicting optical responses of both interpolative and extrapolative structures, with very little additional training time required. Furthermore, we show that traditional deep neural networks are able to perform significantly better in extrapolation than more complicated architectures using convolutional or autoencoder layers. Finally, we show that such networks are able to perform extrapolation tasks in structure generation to produce structures with spectral responses significantly outside those of the structures on which they are trained.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.