Exploiting nonlinear incoherent image formation through linear volume metaoptics for inference

Arvin Keshvari; Ata Shakeri; Nan Zhang; Zin Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Exploiting nonlinear incoherent image formation through linear volume metaoptics for inference

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Linear optics can compute nonlinear functions of a scene's depth

desk verdict The depth-in-the-PSF observation is sound and the paper is honest about its limits, but the real-scene inference claim outruns what the toy demo actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19436 v1 pith:SBHDPS2O submitted 2025-08-26 physics.optics math.OCphysics.comp-ph

Nan Zhang , Arvin Keshvari , Ata Shakeri , Zin Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsmath.OCphysics.comp-ph PACS 42.30.-d42.79.-e

keywords incoherentimagingdepthmapvolumemetaopticsnonlinearopticalcomputationinversedesignopaquescenescomputationalperiodfinding

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An opaque 3D scene can be described by a 2D intensity map plus a depth map h(x,y). The paper shows that when this depth map is substituted into the standard integral for incoherent image formation, the depth enters inside the optics' intensity response function, so the resulting image is a nonlinear function of the depth map rather than a linear function of the scene's 3D intensity. Because freeform volume metaoptics can be inverse-designed to produce highly complex response functions, the same linear optical element could act as a nonlinear feature extractor, with only a light-weight linear readout needed to solve inference tasks. The authors demonstrate this on a period-finding toy problem: a designed metaoptics plus a linear backend retrieves the amplitudes and frequencies of depth-map sinusoids more accurately than a linear least-squares baseline, and the accuracy grows with the element's thickness. The mechanism is not unlimited: because incoherent point sources are statistically independent, the optical nonlinearity contains only pure powers of the depth at each location, never products of depths at different locations.

What carries the argument

Volume metaoptics — non-periodic, three-dimensional nanostructures described by a spatial permittivity profile ε(x,y,z) — whose intensity response function G is computed by solving Maxwell's equations for each point-dipole source. The load-bearing move is the delta-function reduction of an opaque scene to a depth map h and the insertion of that reduction into the incoherent imaging integral, which moves h from the scene factor u into the optics factor G and thereby turns a linear integral over scene intensities into a nonlinear map v=f(h;ε). The freeform permittivity profile provides the trainable degrees of freedom that make f expressive enough to support inference with a linear backend.

What would settle it

Design a training task in which the correct answer is the product of the depth values at two separate locations (for instance, a label equal to h(x1)h(x2) for two surface patches). The paper's derivation excludes such cross-location terms, so its model predicts this task cannot be learned by any volume size; if an optimized element does learn it, the claimed limitation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Eq. (6): for an opaque scene u(x,y,z;λ)=u2D(x,y;λ)δ(z−h(x,y)), the incoherent image equals the integral of G(x,y,z_CCD; x',y',h(x',y');λ,ε) against u2D. Since the depth map h appears inside the response function G, the image v=f(h;ε) depends nonlinearly on the depth map, whereas the image of a transparent 3D point cloud would depend linearly on intensities. Jointly optimizing the permittivity profile ε of a volume metaoptic and a linear readout (a matrix and bias) lets this nonlinear map be shaped for inference. In numerical simulations with 1D depth maps made of two sine harmonics, the optimized frontend-and-linear-backend achieves 6.7% mean-squared relative err

Load-bearing premise

The scene must be a single opaque surface, and every point must glow independently like a tiny light bulb; if surfaces are see-through, reflect light between each other, or glow in step with one another, the claimed nonlinear map stops describing the image.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A camera frontend made of a single linear volume metaoptic plus a linear readout could perform nonlinear inference tasks—such as retrieving the frequency content of a depth profile—without nonlinear electronic processing.
Accuracy improves as the volume's thickness or width grows, because additional volume supplies more degrees of freedom: an optical analogue of adding depth or width to a neural network.
Because the nonlinearity is limited to pure powers of the depth at each location and excludes cross-location products, tasks that would require such cross-terms remain out of reach for the incoherent, opaque-scene mechanism as formulated.
The same mechanism hints at almost-all-optical vision systems for naturally opaque 3D objects such as faces, with substantially reduced digital backends.
Extending the scene model from a depth map to full permittivity and permeability distributions could let a trained metaoptic sense latent material properties rather than only emissive intensity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the pure-power limitation is fundamental, the approach is equivalent to a diagonal polynomial kernel in depth; a direct test is a task whose answer depends on h(x1)h(x2), which the paper's model predicts should fail at any volume size.
The reported depth/width scaling suggests a capacity law tied to the number of independent resonant modes in the volume; one could sweep H and W on the same task and compare error decay to a mode-count estimate.
A practical deployment would need to address the tight working distance implied by NA=0.891 (about 2.55 mm for a 1 cm aperture); a possible extension is to design for lower NA and accept a smaller effective nonlinear feature set.
The same framing could be tested on partially coherent or multi-surface scenes: if coherence or inter-reflections introduce cross-terms, the platform might become more expressive, turning the paper's stated limitation into a tunable resource.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core observation is correct and worth airing: for an opaque scene modeled as u2D δ(z−h(x,y)), the incoherent image v is a nonlinear function of the depth map h because h enters the response function. The substitution in Eq. (6) is simple, but it cleanly explains why a linear optical frontend could in principle compute nonlinear functions of depth. The paper is also unusually honest: it states the no-cross-term limitation explicitly and labels the broader claims as hypotheses.

What is actually new is framing this as a trainable transform for volume metaoptics, and the proof-of-concept does what it claims. The joint FDFD optimization with a linear readout beats a linear least-squares baseline on the period-finding task and, at H=10λ, essentially matches a second-order model with 6.7% MSRE. That is a genuine existence proof for the limited model. The result that larger volume helps is plausible and consistent with more degrees of freedom.

The soft spots are real but mostly flagged by the authors. The load-bearing assumption is Eq. (4): a real opaque scene is not, in general, a single-valued depth field of independent point emitters. Surface BRDF, inter-reflections, and partial coherence all break the delta factorization, and then v=f(h;ε) is not the image-formation map. The paper's Section 4 implicitly concedes this by moving to εscene/µscene, but that move abandons the simple nonlinear-in-depth story. Second, the no-cross-term cap is not a minor technicality: with a linear backend the system only produces sums of pointwise powers of h, so it cannot implement operations that require spatial mixing. The authors state this plainly, and it directly limits the 'arbitrary nonlinear inference' reading. Third, the demo is 2D, effectively monochromatic, uniform intensity, no noise, and lacks error bars or a physical baseline. For a short conceptual paper these are presentation gaps, not fatal flaws.

Bottom line: this is a solid conceptual contribution with a correct derivation and an honest, reproducible-in-principle toy demonstration. The gap between the abstract's general claims and the demonstrated scope is real, but the paper itself supplies most of the caveats. It deserves a serious referee: I'd send it to review and read a revision that either tackles a more realistic scene model or narrows the claims explicitly.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that for an opaque scene represented by a depth map h(x,y) (with scene intensity collapsed to a surface delta function), the incoherent image formed by any linear imaging optics is a nonlinear function of the depth map: the depth enters the Green-function/response kernel itself, so v = f(h; ε). The authors propose that a jointly optimized volume metaoptics (ε) plus a linear backend Av+b can exploit this built-in nonlinearity for inference tasks on depth information, without any nonlinear element in the optical path. They support this with 2D, effectively monochromatic FDFD simulations of a toy period-finding problem (M=2 harmonics), showing that the trained metaoptics plus linear backend outperforms a linear baseline and approaches a quadratic pointwise model. Section 4 speculates about generalizations to latent permittivity descriptions and arbitrary light-matter interactions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the observation is conceptually interesting: natural incoherent depth information could be nonlinearly processed by a purely linear optical frontend plus a light linear readout, in contrast to standard end-to-end designs that place all nonlinearity in the electronic backend. The derivation from Eq. (1) to Eq. (6) is transparent and correct under the stated model, and the paper honestly acknowledges the pure-power/no-cross-term limitation in Section 3. The proof-of-concept, however, is limited to an idealized 2D, monochromatic, independent-point-emitter model, and the demonstration is a single training run without error bars or a fully specified baseline. The significance is therefore primarily at the level of a conceptual proposal rather than a validated photonic inference system.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (4) and Section 4] The central map v=f(h;ε) is exact only when the scene is a single-valued height field carrying statistically independent incoherent point emitters, so that Eq. (4) holds and no inter-source correlations survive. Real opaque scenes do not automatically satisfy this: surface emission is directional (BRDF), inter-reflections make the effective source at one point depend on the rest of the scene, and common illumination can leave partial coherence, so u ≠ u2D δ(z−h) and Eq. (6) is not the actual image-formation map. Section 4 itself leaves Eq. (4) behind by appealing to a latent εscene/µscene description with multiple scatterings, effectively conceding that the delta model is not the general real-world mechanism. The abstract and Section 1 claim applicability to 'real-world information' and '3D opaque scenes', but the manuscript only establishes the nonlinear map for the idealized independen
[Section 3, Model limitations] The acknowledged no-cross-term cap is load-bearing for the inference claim. Because the sources are independent, the image is a sum of pointwise pure powers of the depth map with no terms of the form y(x) y(x′); a linear backend can only form linear combinations of those pure powers. The demonstrated period-finding task is matched by a second-order pointwise model, and the paper itself reports that the H=10λ platform reaches 6.7% MSRE, 'essentially matching' that quadratic model. Thus the proof-of-concept does not establish that the platform can implement non-pointwise or arbitrary nonlinear computations on depth maps, which is the stronger claim made in Sections 1 and 4. The authors should either demonstrate a task that requires cross-location terms or explicitly frame the contribution as pointwise nonlinear operations only.
[Section 3, Fig. 1 and baseline] The empirical comparison to the 'linear model' is under-specified. A linear least-squares fit cannot retrieve unknown frequencies f_m because Eq. (8) is nonlinear in f_m; if the baseline instead uses fixed frequency features or a different estimator, that must be described. In addition, each training curve in Fig. 1 is a single run with no error bars, repeated initializations, or statistical variation, so the claim that increasing H and W systematically improves accuracy is not supported beyond the particular optimized runs shown. Since this empirical trend is the main evidence for the volume-metaoptics advantage, the demonstration needs more rigor or should be reported as illustrative.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and text] There is a typo 'op aque' in the abstract. The paper also uses 'L' in Fig. 1 while the text uses 'H' for the structure height; unify notation.
[Section 3, Model limitations] The sentence 'the depth map y = h(x)' uses y both as the output variable and as a spatial coordinate; this is confusing. Please rename the output variable.
[Section 3] The abstract promises 'strong spatio-spectral dispersions in volume metaoptics', but the proof-of-concept uses effectively monochromatic illumination and 2D z-invariant structures. The scope of the demonstration should be stated clearly in the abstract, or the claim should be softened.
[Section 3] The FDFD simulation details (grid resolution, boundary conditions, source model, detector sampling) are not given. For reproducibility, the authors should provide these settings or a link to the code.
[Section 3] The analogy to 'period-finding' in Shor's algorithm is imprecise: the task here estimates two harmonic amplitudes and frequencies, while Shor's period-finding typically infers a single period of a periodic function. The analogy is not necessary and could mislead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central nonlinear map v=f(h;ε) follows from direct substitution of the opaque-scene delta model into the physical incoherent imaging integral; the demonstration is a standard end-to-end train/test study, and self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation is Eq. (4) into Eq. (1) to obtain Eq. (6). This is a direct substitution: u(x',y',z') is replaced by u2D(x',y')δ(z'-h(x',y')), so G is evaluated at z'=h(x',y'). G itself is defined independently by the Maxwell-equation response (Eqs. (2)-(3)), so the nonlinear dependence of v on h is not assumed from the conclusion; it follows from the source-position dependence of the physical propagator. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the metaoptics permittivity ε and the linear readout (A,b) are jointly trained on Ntrain=50,000 samples and evaluated on Ntest=10,000 held-out samples from the same distribution, which is a standard generalization test rather than a circular fit. The paper's own 'Model limitations' passage acknowledges that only pure powers y^n appear, with no cross terms; this is an expressivity limitation that actually weakens the broad inference claim, but it is not a circular reduction. The self-citations (e.g., refs. [5]-[9], [14]-[15]) are contextual background on volume metaoptics and inverse design and are not load-bearing premises of the derivation. Concerns about whether real opaque scenes satisfy Eq. (4) (BRDF directionality, inter-reflections, partial coherence) are external-validity/correctness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central identity needs only the superposition principle and the delta-function scene model. Everything after that, the optimized permittivity, the readout, the random depth-map distribution, and the monochromatic 2D restriction, is loaded into the proof-of-concept rather than derived. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

learned permittivity profile epsilon (structural density rho) = not reported
The volume metaoptics is inverse-designed with Adam on 50,000 training depth maps; the demonstration depends on these optimized values, but they are not provided.
linear readout A and bias b = not reported
The backend mapping is fitted together with the optics to predict harmonic amplitudes and frequencies; no values or closed form are given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Incoherent image formation is a linear superposition of intensity point-spread functions from independent point sources (Eq. 1).
Assumed without proof; if sources are partially coherent or interact through scattering, the superposition integral breaks down.
domain assumption An opaque scene is exactly a single-valued height field, u = u2D delta(z - h(x,y)) (Eq. 4), with at most one emitting surface per transverse position.
Used to eliminate the z integration and move h into the response function. Transparency, inter-reflections, or multiple surfaces per viewing ray would invalidate the reduction.
domain assumption Incoherent sources are statistically independent, so no mixed cross terms h^p h'^q appear in the image.
This is explicitly stated in the Model limitations section and is the reason the demonstrated nonlinearity is limited to powers of the depth at each location.
domain assumption The demonstration may assume effectively monochromatic illumination and suppress wavelength dependence.
Section 3 states this simplification, which means the spatio-spectral dispersion highlighted in the abstract is not tested.
domain assumption The FDFD Maxwell solver accurately models the designed metaoptics.
The numerical proof relies on FDFD, but grid resolution, boundaries, and solver validation are not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploiting nonlinear incoherent image formation through linear volume metaoptics for inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBHDPS2O

@misc{pith2026250819436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploiting nonlinear incoherent image formation through linear volume metaoptics for inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBHDPS2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19436}
}

read the original abstract

We showed that a 2D depth map representing an incoherent 3D opaque scene is directly encoded in the response function of an imaging optics. As a result, the optics creates an image that depends nonlinearly on the depth map. Furthermore, strong spatio-spectral dispersions in volume metaoptics can be engineered to create a complex image in response to a depth map. We hypothesize that this complexity will allow the linear volume metaoptics to nonlinearly sense and process 3D opaque scenes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19436 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** , we show the optimized structure for H = 6λ as a representative example. Here, the structural density ρ parametrizes the local permittivity via ε = εb + ρ(εSiO2 − εb) with the background permittivity set to εb = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Fully nonlinear n euromorphic computing with linear wave scattering

Clara C Wanjura and Florian Marquardt. Fully nonlinear n euromorphic computing with linear wave scattering. Nat. Phys., 20(9):1434–1440, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Tunable nonlinear optical mapping in a multiple-scattering cavity

Y aniv Eliezer, Ulrich Rührmair, Nils Wisiol, Stefan Bit tner, and Hui Cao. Tunable nonlinear optical mapping in a multiple-scattering cavity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 120(31):e2305027120, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Non- linear optical encoding enabled by recurrent linear scatte ring

Fei Xia, Kyungduk Kim, Y aniv Eliezer, SeungY un Han, Liam Shaughnessy, Sylvain Gigan, and Hui Cao. Non- linear optical encoding enabled by recurrent linear scatte ring. Nat. Photon., 18(10):1067–1075, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Fla t optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces

Wei Ting Chen, Alexander Y Zhu, and Federico Capasso. Fla t optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces. Nat. Rev. Mater ., 5(8):604–620, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Topology-optimized multilayered metaoptics

Zin Lin, Benedikt Groever, Federico Capasso, Alejandro W Rodriguez, and Marko Lon ˇcar. Topology-optimized multilayered metaoptics. Phys. Rev. Appl., 9(4):044030, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Computational inverse design for ultra-compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angular aberration

Zin Lin, Charles Roques-Carmes, Rasmus E Christiansen, Marin Soljaˇci´c, and Steven G Johnson. Computational inverse design for ultra-compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angular aberration. Appl. Phys. Lett., 118(4), 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Toward 3D-printe d inverse-designed metaoptics

Charles Roques-Carmes, Zin Lin, Rasmus E Christiansen, Y annick Salamin, Steven E Kooi, John D Joannopou- los, Steven G Johnson, and Marin Soljacic. Toward 3D-printe d inverse-designed metaoptics. ACS Photonics , 9(1):43–51, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and pol arimetry

Zin Lin, Charles Roques-Carmes, Raphaël Pestourie, Mar in Solja ˇci´c, Arka Majumdar, and Steven G Johnson. End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and pol arimetry. Nanophotonics, 10(3):1177–1187, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 21 references

[9]

3D-patterned inverse-designed mid-infrar ed metaoptics

Gregory Roberts, Conner Ballew, Tianzhe Zheng, Juan C Ga rcia, Sarah Camayd-Muñoz, Philip WC Hon, and Andrei Faraon. 3D-patterned inverse-designed mid-infrar ed metaoptics. Nat. Commun., 14(1):2768, 2023

2023
[10]

In- verse design in nanophotonics

Sean Molesky, Zin Lin, Alexander Y Piggott, Weiliang Ji n, Jelena Vuckovi ´c, and Alejandro W Rodriguez. In- verse design in nanophotonics. Nat. Photon., 12(11):659–670, 2018

2018
[11]

End-to-end metasurface inverse design fo r single-shot multi-channel imaging

Zin Lin, Raphaël Pestourie, Charles Roques-Carmes, Zh aoyi Li, Federico Capasso, Marin Solja ˇci´c, and Steven G Johnson. End-to-end metasurface inverse design fo r single-shot multi-channel imaging. Opt. Express, 30(16):28358–28370, 2022

2022
[12]

Two-photon absorption under few-photon irradiation for op tical nanoprinting

Zi-Xin Liang, Y uan-Y uan Zhao, Jing-Tao Chen, Xian-Zi Dong, Feng Jin, Mei-Ling Zheng, and Xuan-Ming Duan. Two-photon absorption under few-photon irradiation for op tical nanoprinting. Nat. Commun., 16(1):2086, 2025
[13]

Free-standing bilayer metasurfaces in the visible

Ahmed H Dorrah, Joon-Suh Park, Alfonso Palmieri, and Fe derico Capasso. Free-standing bilayer metasurfaces in the visible. Nat. Commun., 16(1):3126, 2025. 5 A PREPRINT - O CTOBER 21, 2025

2025
[14]

Overlapping domains for to pology optimization of large-area metasurfaces

Zin Lin and Steven G Johnson. Overlapping domains for to pology optimization of large-area metasurfaces. Opt. Express, 27(22):32445–32453, 2019

2019
[15]

Scalable freeform optimization of wid e-aperture 3D metalenses by zoned discrete axisym- metry

Mengdi Sun, Ata Shakeri, Arvin Keshvari, Dimitrios Gia nnakopoulos, Qing Wang, Wei-Ting Chen, Steven G Johnson, and Zin Lin. Scalable freeform optimization of wid e-aperture 3D metalenses by zoned discrete axisym- metry. ACS Photonics, 12(6):3163–3171, 2025

2025
[16]

Fullwave design of cm- scale cylindrical metasurfaces via fast direct solvers

Wenjin Xue, Hanwen Zhang, Abinand Gopal, Vladimir Rokh lin, and Owen D Miller. Fullwave design of cm- scale cylindrical metasurfaces via fast direct solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08569 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[17]

Fast multi-sou rce nanophotonic simulations using augmented partial factorization

Ho-Chun Lin, Zeyu Wang, and Chia Wei Hsu. Fast multi-sou rce nanophotonic simulations using augmented partial factorization. Nat. Comput. Sci. , 2(12):815–822, 2022

2022
[18]

Low-overhead distribution strategy for simulation and o ptimization of large-area metasurfaces

Jinhie Skarda, Rahul Trivedi, Logan Su, Diego Ahmad-St ein, Hyounghan Kwon, Seunghoon Han, Shanhui Fan, and Jelena Vu ˇckovi´c. Low-overhead distribution strategy for simulation and o ptimization of large-area metasurfaces. npj Comput. Mater ., 8(1):78, 2022

2022
[19]

A ﬂexible framework for large-scale FDTD simulations: open-source inverse design for 3D nanostructures

Y annik Mahlau, Frederik Schubert, Konrad Bethmann, Re inhard Caspary, Antonio Calà Lesina, Marco Munder- loh, Jörn Ostermann, and Bodo Rosenhahn. A ﬂexible framework for large-scale FDTD simulations: open-source inverse design for 3D nanostructures. In Photonic and Phononic P...

2025
[20]

A systolic update scheme to over- come memory bandwidth limitations in GPU-accelerated FDTD simulations

Jesse Lu, David Qu, Jim Qu, Ryan Fong, Geun Ho Ahn, and Jel ena Vuckovic. A systolic update scheme to over- come memory bandwidth limitations in GPU-accelerated FDTD simulations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20610 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[21]

Interactive AI material generation and editing i n NVIDIA Omniverse

Hassan Abu Alhaija, James Lucas, Alexander Zook, Micha el Babcock, David Tyner, Rajeev Rao, and Maria Shugrina. Interactive AI material generation and editing i n NVIDIA Omniverse. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Real-Time Live!, pages 1–2. 2023. 6

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Fully nonlinear n euromorphic computing with linear wave scattering

Clara C Wanjura and Florian Marquardt. Fully nonlinear n euromorphic computing with linear wave scattering. Nat. Phys., 20(9):1434–1440, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Tunable nonlinear optical mapping in a multiple-scattering cavity

Y aniv Eliezer, Ulrich Rührmair, Nils Wisiol, Stefan Bit tner, and Hui Cao. Tunable nonlinear optical mapping in a multiple-scattering cavity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 120(31):e2305027120, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Non- linear optical encoding enabled by recurrent linear scatte ring

Fei Xia, Kyungduk Kim, Y aniv Eliezer, SeungY un Han, Liam Shaughnessy, Sylvain Gigan, and Hui Cao. Non- linear optical encoding enabled by recurrent linear scatte ring. Nat. Photon., 18(10):1067–1075, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Fla t optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces

Wei Ting Chen, Alexander Y Zhu, and Federico Capasso. Fla t optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces. Nat. Rev. Mater ., 5(8):604–620, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Topology-optimized multilayered metaoptics

Zin Lin, Benedikt Groever, Federico Capasso, Alejandro W Rodriguez, and Marko Lon ˇcar. Topology-optimized multilayered metaoptics. Phys. Rev. Appl., 9(4):044030, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Computational inverse design for ultra-compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angular aberration

Zin Lin, Charles Roques-Carmes, Rasmus E Christiansen, Marin Soljaˇci´c, and Steven G Johnson. Computational inverse design for ultra-compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angular aberration. Appl. Phys. Lett., 118(4), 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Toward 3D-printe d inverse-designed metaoptics

Charles Roques-Carmes, Zin Lin, Rasmus E Christiansen, Y annick Salamin, Steven E Kooi, John D Joannopou- los, Steven G Johnson, and Marin Soljacic. Toward 3D-printe d inverse-designed metaoptics. ACS Photonics , 9(1):43–51, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and pol arimetry

Zin Lin, Charles Roques-Carmes, Raphaël Pestourie, Mar in Solja ˇci´c, Arka Majumdar, and Steven G Johnson. End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and pol arimetry. Nanophotonics, 10(3):1177–1187, 2021

work page 2021