Open Access
Add to BibSonomy
Abstract
We correct two minor errors in the manuscript. The effective diameter of the ring modulator should be 62.5 μm rather than 65 μm. The factor, g, in the FOM for comparing between the O- and C-band results should be 0.83 instead of 0.7.
© 2018 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
We have identified two minor errors in [1]. The errors do not affect the final conclusions of the article.
First, the effective diameter of ring modulator should be 62.5 μm instead of 65 μm.
The second error concerns the figure of merit (FOM) in Eq. (6). The FOM, , is proportional to . While is 0.7 times lower at a wavelength of 1310 nm relative to 1550 nm for the same carrier concentration change, is 0.845 times smaller at 1310 nm than 1550 nm. Therefore, to compare the tuning efficiency between O-band and C-band, the correction factor, g, should be 0.7/0.845 = 0.83, not 0.7.
With g = 0.83, the FOM values in Table 3 are changed to the following. All other values remain the same. This work still demonstrates the highest FOM for Si microring modulators.
Table 3. Performance comparison of microring modulators
References
1. Z. Yong, W. D. Sacher, Y. Huang, J. C. Mikkelsen, Y. Yang, X. Luo, P. Dumais, D. Goodwill, H. Bahrami, P. G.-Q. Lo, E. Bernier, and J. K. Poon, “U-shaped pn junctions for efficient silicon mach-zehnder and microring modulators in the o-band,” Opt. Express 25(7), 8425–8439 (2017). [CrossRef] [PubMed]