Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 123 references

Computational metaoptics for imaging

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Co-designing lens and algorithm expands what imaging can see.

desk verdict A competent, honest review/perspective of computational metaoptics that deserves peer review, with the main soft spot being reliance on the authors' own demonstrations and an approximate forward model that no one has yet stress-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09133 v1 pith:IGGU2X7N submitted 2024-11-14 physics.optics cs.CVphysics.comp-phquant-ph

Charles Roques-Carmes , Kai Wang , Yuanmu Yang , Arka Majumdar , Zin Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscs.CVphysics.comp-phquant-ph
keywords computationalmetaopticsmetasurfacesend-to-endinversedesignimagingco-designofopticsandalgorithmsphasequantumstatetomographyadjointoptimization
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

This paper argues that the next stage of metasurface imaging lies in treating the metasurface not as a finished lens but as the front end of a joint optical-computational system. Its central claim is that co-designing the metasurface geometry and the image-reconstruction algorithm by backpropagating the final reconstruction error through Maxwell's equations yields imaging performance that independent hardware and software design cannot match. The case is made through the bi-level optimization of Eqs. (1)-(4) and demonstrated by an optimized two-million-pillar metasurface that reconstructs 16 spectral channels from a single monochrome image. The paper is a perspective, so the claim is programmatic rather than established by a single experiment, and it rests on the assumption that full-wave simulations faithfully represent large-area devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the measurement matrix $G(p)$, which encodes how a metasurface with geometry $p$ maps the object field to the detector signal through the full-wave Maxwell equations (Eq. (4)). Around it, the paper builds the joint optimization: the outer objective $L(p,\alpha,\beta)$ (Eq. (1)) is the expected reconstruction error, and the inner problem (Eq. (2)) is a regularized least-squares reconstruction whose hyperparameters $\alpha,\beta$ are co-optimized. Differentiability of the entire pipeline, obtained through adjoint sensitivity analysis of the Maxwell equations and of the KKT optimality conditions of the inner problem, is what lets the designer discover metasurface geometries that work better with the chosen algorithm than either the optics alone or the algorithm alone would suggest.

What would settle it

One concrete falsifier: fabricate an end-to-end optimized metasurface, measure its actual measurement matrix by scanning focused beams, and compare the reconstructed-image error from that measured matrix with the error predicted by the simulated $G(p)$ used in the design; if the mismatch is large, the claimed performance gains do not survive fabrication.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that imaging systems built from a metasurface and a reconstruction algorithm should be optimized as one unit, because metasurfaces can act as physical preconditioners whose best designs are not human-intuited. It formulates co-design as the bi-level problem in Eqs. (1)-(4): the outer level minimizes average reconstruction error over the metasurface geometry $p$ and reconstruction hyperparameters $\alpha,\beta$, while the inner level solves a regularized regression that produces the estimate $\mathbf{u}_{\mathrm{est}}$. The measurement matrix $G(p)$ that appears in both the image-formation model and the reconstruction is obtained from full-wave Maxwell simulations, and the whole pipeline is differentiated by adjoint methods so that the gradient of the final image error flows back through the physics into the nanostructure geometry. The paper's flagship example is a 0.6$\times$0.6 mm$^2$ metasurface with two million TiO$_2$ pillars, optimized for 16-color snapshot multispectral imaging: it turns a spectrally mixed scene into a single monochrome frame from which 16 spectral channels are recovered, with the focal positions emerging from optimization rather than being pre-assigned. The claim is programmatic and review-level: co-design 'significantly improves imaging capabilities' and is expected to extend to phase imaging, quantum state measurement, and task-specific optical encoders.

Load-bearing premise

The whole case for end-to-end design assumes that the full-wave computer simulation of a manufactured-size metasurface is accurate enough that the optimized geometry behaves the same way in the real device as it did in the optimization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If end-to-end co-design delivers what the paper claims, the standard pipeline of designing a lens first and then denoising or reconstructing in software becomes obsolete for a broad class of compact imaging tasks.
  • Manufactured metasurface cameras could specialize hardware per application—multispectral, phase, polarization, or quantum-state readout—with the same fabrication platform, because the design freedom is transferred from the human to the optimizer.
  • Performance evaluation will shift from lens-only metrics (diffraction efficiency, Strehl ratio, MTF) to system-level quantities like the condition number of $G(p)$, Fisher information, and mutual information, which the paper argues are the right measures for co-designed systems.
  • In quantum photonics, the same co-design principle can replace sequences of waveplates and projective measurements with a single metasurface whose measurement set is optimized to be tomographically complete and well-conditioned.
  • At the largest scale, hyperscale end-to-end differentiable photonic digital twins would make optical hardware part of a learnable model, potentially exhibiting emergent behavior analogous to large language models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest test of the perspective would be a head-to-head comparison: the same reconstruction algorithm fed by an end-to-end optimized metasurface versus a conventionally designed metasurface with matched footprint and bandwidth, measured on real scenes with noise; the paper's claim predicts the co-designed device wins on reconstruction error.
  • Because the formulation treats the measurement matrix as the optimization target, the same bi-level machinery could be applied to programmable or reconfigurable metasurfaces, where $p$ becomes a time-varying control, turning static computational metaoptics into an adaptive sensing platform.
  • The data-agnostic property claimed for bi-level optimization is narrower than it appears: fewer than 30 training objects were used in the multispectral demonstration, but the optimizer still selects priors through $\alpha,\beta$; a natural extension is to test how reconstruction quality degrades as the training ensemble moves away from the deployment scene statistics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Perspective argues that co-designing metasurface optics and computational reconstruction through end-to-end inverse design, formalized in Eqs. (1)–(4) as a bi-level optimization over metasurface parameters p and reconstruction hyperparameters (α, β), enables imaging performance beyond what independent optical and algorithmic design can achieve. The paper reviews supporting examples such as single-shot multispectral imaging, phase imaging, and quantum state tomography; discusses appropriate performance metrics (MTF, condition number, Fisher information); and proposes future directions including optical encoders and hyperscale differentiable models. As a review, it presents no new experimental data, but it does articulate a general framework and surveys a rapidly growing literature.

Significance. If the framework is taken as a synthesis of a promising research program, the Perspective is timely and useful: it brings together results from metaoptics and computational imaging, identifies a unified mathematical formulation, and raises important evaluation questions that are often overlooked. The paper is honest about several field-level limitations, especially the difficulty of full-wave simulation for large-area metasurfaces. Its main weaknesses are that the mathematical framework is not self-consistent at the level of the measurement model, and that the strongest supporting example (the two-million-pillar metasurface of Ref. [15]) relies on the authors' own prior work without discussing validation of the forward model against hardware. These issues are central to the paper's thesis, but they are addressable in revision with clarifications and caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The measurement model v = G(p)u0 + η in Eq. (3), with G ∼ |E(r_sensor, λ)|², is not a linear transformation of an arbitrary optical field u0. For coherent imaging, the intensity is the squared magnitude of a field that is linear in u0, so v is quadratic in the object; for incoherent imaging, v is linear in the object *intensity*, but then Eq. (4) provides the coherent field from which the intensity point-spread function is derived, not a general matrix G acting on complex amplitudes. The paper never states which physical situation is assumed. Because Eqs. (1)–(2) treat G as a fixed linear matrix, the framework as written is only literally valid for incoherent, intensity-based imaging; the claimed generality for phase, polarization, and quantum-state measurements is not captured by the equations. Please state the physical assumptions and either restrict the formalism or generalize it (e.g., using a set of G^(k) for different polarization or spectral channels, or a quadratic measurement model).
  2. [§5 (Performance evaluation), §3 (end-to-end example)] The paper concedes that 'the inability to simulate a large-area metaoptics without making significant approximations' (citing Refs. [39,81]) makes diffraction efficiency hard to compute, yet the flagship example used to support the central end-to-end claim is a 0.6×0.6 mm² metasurface with two million TiO₂ pillars (Fig. 3, Ref. [15]). The authors do not explain how the forward model G(p) used to optimize this device was validated against measured hardware, nor how the known shortcomings of approximate simulators (e.g., ray-optics stray-light models that underestimate measured stray light) affect the claimed noise-tolerance gains and emergent focus positions. If the optimized design exploited simulation artifacts, the advertised improvement over independent design would not transfer to the fabricated device. The authors should state which approximate forward model was employed in Ref. [15], report any experimental validation of G, and discuss how their perspective accounts for this known mismatch in large-area metaoptics.
  3. [§3 (end-to-end design), paragraph on data-agnostic properties] The claim that the bi-level optimization approach is 'essentially data-agnostic' and 'generalizes perfectly to any scene thanks to the fully interpretable imaging mechanism from Eqs. (1-4)' is an overstatement. Equation (1) defines the objective L(p, α, β) as an average over an ensemble of training objects u0 and noise realizations η, so the optimized p is in general dependent on that training ensemble. The phrase 'generalizes perfectly' is not implied by the framework and appears to contradict the presence of a training set unless specific conditions hold (e.g., the optimized G is close to a universal, object-independent measurement matrix). The authors should either provide these conditions or temper the language to 'generalizes across the tested scenes' based on the actual evidence in Ref. [15].
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5 (Performance evaluation)] The word 'degradiation' should be 'degradation' in the paragraph on diffraction efficiency.
  2. [§5 (Condition number)] The sentence 'it have shown that end-to-end optimization directly leads to significant reductions of κ' should be 'it has been shown'.
  3. [§2 (Fig. 1)] The labels in Fig. 1 are very small and the subpanels are densely packed; a larger font and more separation would improve readability.
  4. [§4 (Quantum photonic state measurement)] The reference to 'recent work [74]' in the sentence 'recent work [74] has started to use' is grammatically odd; consider 'recent work [74] has begun to use' or 'recent works have used'.
  5. [References] Several central claims, particularly the end-to-end multispectral demonstration and the condition-number reductions, cite the authors' own papers (Refs. [14,15,86]) without independent corroboration. For a Perspective, this is acceptable, but a more balanced citation of independent groups would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review's central claim is a programmatic synthesis, and its supporting demonstrations are external published results, with an acknowledged forward-model fidelity limitation that is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

This paper is a perspective/review, not a derivation. The end-to-end framework in Eqs. (1)-(4) is a stated formulation of bi-level optimization, not a conclusion derived from its own premises, and it does not rename a known result: it organizes previously published demonstrations under a common notation. The supporting examples, such as the 0.6x0.6 mm^2 two-million-pillar multispectral metasurface, are cited to Refs. [15] and [14], whose authors overlap with this review; however, those citations point to independently published, externally checkable papers and are not used as premises that themselves assert the review's conclusion. The review also explicitly flags the main limitation in the Performance evaluation section: 'the inability to simulate a large-area metaoptics without making significant approximations,' citing Refs. [39] and [81]. This is a genuine threat to the fidelity of the forward model G(p) in end-to-end optimization, but it is a correctness and validation risk, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The presence of self-citations, including Refs. [14], [15], and [86], is notable but not circular because the cited works are separate demonstrations with their own evidence. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented physical entities. It relies on the standard assumptions of computational photonics and inverse design, plus the correctness of the cited literature.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Full-wave Maxwell simulations (Eq. 4) faithfully model the optical response of metasurface devices, including large-area metasurfaces with millions of meta-atoms.
    This is the backbone of the end-to-end inverse design framework. The paper itself notes the difficulty of simulating large-area metaoptics (Section 'Performance evaluation', citing Refs. [39, 81]), and the claim that metasurfaces can be optimized for imaging tasks relies on the forward model G(p) and its gradient being accurate.
  • domain assumption The reconstruction back end, whether regularized regression (Eq. 2) or a neural network, can be efficiently differentiated with respect to metasurface parameters p through the adjoint method.
    The paper states that the derivative of uest is computed via adjoint sensitivity analysis of the KKT conditions (Section 'End-to-end (inverse) design'), which requires differentiability and computational tractability.
  • domain assumption The objective function L(p, alpha, beta) is a meaningful proxy for end-to-end imaging performance, and its minimization leads to designs that work on real fabricated devices.
    The paper advocates minimizing reconstruction error on a training ensemble (Eq. 1) but acknowledges the need for new metrics beyond MTF, Strehl ratio, and diffraction efficiency (Section 'Performance evaluation').
  • domain assumption The examples cited from prior work were correctly reproduced and their success is representative of the general approach.
    A review paper cannot be checked on this point without examining the original sources, but the authors' own papers are heavily cited as evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computational metaoptics for imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGGU2X7N

@misc{pith2026241109133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computational metaoptics for imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGGU2X7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09133}
}
read the original abstract

Metasurfaces -- ultrathin structures composed of subwavelength optical elements -- have revolutionized light manipulation by enabling precise control over electromagnetic waves' amplitude, phase, polarization, and spectral properties. Concurrently, computational imaging leverages algorithms to reconstruct images from optically processed signals, overcoming limitations of traditional imaging systems. This review explores the synergistic integration of metaoptics and computational imaging, "computational metaoptics," which combines the physical wavefront shaping ability of metasurfaces with advanced computational algorithms to enhance imaging performance beyond conventional limits. We discuss how computational metaoptics addresses the inherent limitations of single-layer metasurfaces in achieving multifunctionality without compromising efficiency. By treating metasurfaces as physical preconditioners and co-designing them with reconstruction algorithms through end-to-end (inverse) design, it is possible to jointly optimize the optical hardware and computational software. This holistic approach allows for the automatic discovery of optimal metasurface designs and reconstruction methods that significantly improve imaging capabilities. Advanced applications enabled by computational metaoptics are highlighted, including phase imaging and quantum state measurement, which benefit from the metasurfaces' ability to manipulate complex light fields and the computational algorithms' capacity to reconstruct high-dimensional information. We also examine performance evaluation challenges, emphasizing the need for new metrics that account for the combined optical and computational nature of these systems. Finally, we identify new frontiers in computational metaoptics which point toward a future where computational metaoptics may play a central role in advancing imaging science and technology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and polarimetry,

    Z. Lin, C. Roques-Carmes, R. Pestourie, M. Solja ˇci´c, A. Ma- jumdar, and S. G. Johnson, “End-to-end nanophotonic inverse design for imaging and polarimetry,” Nanophotonics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1177–1187, 2021

    2021

  2. [15]

    End-to-end metasurface in- verse design for single-shot multi-channel imaging,

    Z. Lin, R. Pestourie, C. Roques-Carmes, Z. Li, F. Capasso, M. Soljaˇci´c, and S. G. Johnson, “End-to-end metasurface in- verse design for single-shot multi-channel imaging,” Optics Express, vol. 30, no. 16, pp. 28358–28370, 2022

    2022

  3. [86]

    End-to-end optimization of metasurfaces for imaging with compressed sensing,

    G. Arya, W. F. Li, C. Roques-Carmes, M. Soljacic, S. G. John- son, and Z. Lin, “End-to-end optimization of metasurfaces for imaging with compressed sensing,” ACS Photonics, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 2077–2087, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    Roadmap for optical metasurfaces,

    A. I. Kuznetsov, M. L. Brongersma, J. Yao, M. K. Chen, U. Levy, D. P. Tsai, N. I. Zheludev, A. Faraon, A. Arbabi, N. Yu, et al., “Roadmap for optical metasurfaces,” ACS pho- tonics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 816–865, 2024

    2024

  5. [2]

    Flat optics with designer metasur- faces,

    N. Yu and F. Capasso, “Flat optics with designer metasur- faces,” Nature materials, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 139–150, 2014

    2014

  6. [3]

    Metalenses at visible wavelengths: Diffraction-limited focusing and subwavelength resolution imaging,

    M. Khorasaninejad, W. T. Chen, R. C. Devlin, J. Oh, A. Y . Zhu, and F. Capasso, “Metalenses at visible wavelengths: Diffraction-limited focusing and subwavelength resolution imaging,” Science, vol. 352, no. 6290, pp. 1190–1194, 2016

    2016

  7. [4]

    Light propagation with phase discon- tinuities: generalized laws of reflection and refraction,

    N. Yu, P. Genevet, M. A. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Ca- passo, and Z. Gaburro, “Light propagation with phase discon- tinuities: generalized laws of reflection and refraction,” Sci- ence, p. 1210713, 2011

    2011

  8. [5]

    Recent advances in planar optics: from plasmonic to dielectric metasurfaces,

    P. Genevet, F. Capasso, F. Aieta, M. Khorasaninejad, and R. Devlin, “Recent advances in planar optics: from plasmonic to dielectric metasurfaces,” Optica, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 139–152, 2017

    2017

Show all 123 references
  1. [6]

    Metalenses: Versa- tile multifunctional photonic components,

    M. Khorasaninejad and F. Capasso, “Metalenses: Versa- tile multifunctional photonic components,” Science, vol. 358, no. 6367, p. eaam8100, 2017

    2017

  2. [7]

    Dielectric metasurfaces for complete control of phase and polarization with subwavelength spatial resolution and high transmission,

    A. Arbabi, Y . Horie, M. Bagheri, and A. Faraon, “Dielectric metasurfaces for complete control of phase and polarization with subwavelength spatial resolution and high transmission,” Nature nanotechnology, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 937–943, 2015

    2015

  3. [8]

    Nonlinear photonic meta- surfaces,

    G. Li, S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, “Nonlinear photonic meta- surfaces,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 1–14, 2017

    2017

  4. [9]

    Metasurfaces for quantum technologies,

    K. Wang, M. Chekhova, and Y . Kivshar, “Metasurfaces for quantum technologies,”Physics Today, vol. 75, pp. 38–44, aug 2022

    2022

  5. [10]

    Metasur- faces for quantum photonics,

    A. S. Solntsev, G. S. Agarwal, and Y . S. Kivshar, “Metasur- faces for quantum photonics,”Nature Photonics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 327–336, 2021

    2021

  6. [11]

    Bertero, P

    M. Bertero, P. Boccacci, and C. De Mol, Introduction to in- verse problems in imaging. CRC press, 2021

    2021

  7. [12]

    Compressed sensing,

    D. L. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” IEEE Transactions on information theory, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, 2006

    2006

  8. [13]

    On the use of deep learning for computational imaging,

    G. Barbastathis, A. Ozcan, and G. Situ, “On the use of deep learning for computational imaging,” Optica, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 921–943, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Full-color metaoptical imaging in visible light,

    L. Huang, S. Colburn, A. Zhan, and A. Majumdar, “Full-color metaoptical imaging in visible light,”Advanced Photonics Re- search, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 2100265, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Foveated thermal computational imaging prototype using all-silicon meta-optics,

    V . Saragadam, Z. Han, V . Boominathan, L. Huang, S. Tan, J. Fr ¨och, K. B ¨ohringer, R. Baraniuk, A. Majumdar, and A. Veeraraghavan, “Foveated thermal computational imaging prototype using all-silicon meta-optics,”Optica, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 18–25, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Fast extended depth of focus meta-optics for varifocal 11 functionality,

    J. Whitehead, A. Zhan, S. Colburn, L. Huang, and A. Majum- dar, “Fast extended depth of focus meta-optics for varifocal 11 functionality,” Photonics Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 828– 833, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Metasurface op- tics for full-color computational imaging,

    S. Colburn, A. Zhan, and A. Majumdar, “Metasurface op- tics for full-color computational imaging,” Science Advances, vol. 4, no. 2, p. eaar2114, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Single-shot deterministic complex amplitude imaging with a single-layer metalens,

    L. Li, S. Wang, F. Zhao, Y . Zhang, S. Wen, H. Chai, Y . Gao, W. Wang, L. Cao, and Y . Yang, “Single-shot deterministic complex amplitude imaging with a single-layer metalens,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 1, p. adl0501, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Computational inverse design for ultra- compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angu- lar aberration,

    Z. Lin, C. Roques-Carmes, R. E. Christiansen, M. Solja ˇci´c, and S. G. Johnson, “Computational inverse design for ultra- compact single-piece metalenses free of chromatic and angu- lar aberration,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 118, no. 4, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Multilayer noninteracting dielectric metasur- faces for multiwavelength metaoptics,

    Y . Zhou, I. I. Kravchenko, H. Wang, J. R. Nolen, G. Gu, and J. Valentine, “Multilayer noninteracting dielectric metasur- faces for multiwavelength metaoptics,” Nano letters, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 7529–7537, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    Toward 3d-printed inverse-designed metaoptics,

    C. Roques-Carmes, Z. Lin, R. E. Christiansen, Y . Salamin, S. E. Kooi, J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, and M. Sol- jacic, “Toward 3d-printed inverse-designed metaoptics,” Acs Photonics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 43–51, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Multifunctional volumetric meta-optics for color and polar- ization image sensors,

    P. Camayd-Mu ˜noz, C. Ballew, G. Roberts, and A. Faraon, “Multifunctional volumetric meta-optics for color and polar- ization image sensors,” Optica, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 280–283, 2020

    2020

  18. [25]

    3d-patterned inverse- designed mid-infrared metaoptics,

    G. Roberts, C. Ballew, T. Zheng, J. C. Garcia, S. Camayd- Mu˜noz, P. W. Hon, and A. Faraon, “3d-patterned inverse- designed mid-infrared metaoptics,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 2768, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    Multi-dimensional wavefront sensing using volumetric meta-optics,

    C. Ballew, G. Roberts, and A. Faraon, “Multi-dimensional wavefront sensing using volumetric meta-optics,” Optics Ex- press, vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 28658–28669, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Saad, Iterative methods for sparse linear systems

    Y . Saad, Iterative methods for sparse linear systems . SIAM, 2003

    2003

  21. [28]

    Isotropic topolog- ical second-order spatial differentiator operating in transmis- sion mode,

    O. Y . Long, C. Guo, H. Wang, and S. Fan, “Isotropic topolog- ical second-order spatial differentiator operating in transmis- sion mode,” Optics Letters, vol. 46, no. 13, pp. 3247–3250, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Meta- optics for spatial optical analog computing,

    S. Abdollahramezani, O. Hemmatyar, and A. Adibi, “Meta- optics for spatial optical analog computing,” Nanophotonics, vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 4075–4095, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    Analog com- puting using reflective plasmonic metasurfaces,

    A. Pors, M. G. Nielsen, and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, “Analog com- puting using reflective plasmonic metasurfaces,”Nano letters, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 791–797, 2015

    2015

  24. [31]

    Solving integral equations in free space with inverse-designed ultrathin optical metagratings,

    A. Cordaro, B. Edwards, V . Nikkhah, A. Al `u, N. Engheta, and A. Polman, “Solving integral equations in free space with inverse-designed ultrathin optical metagratings,” Nature Nan- otechnology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 365–372, 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    Nanophotonics: shrinking light-based technology,

    A. F. Koenderink, A. Al `u, and A. Polman, “Nanophotonics: shrinking light-based technology,”Science, vol. 348, no. 6234, pp. 516–521, 2015

    2015

  26. [33]

    Nonlocal metasurfaces for optical signal processing,

    H. Kwon, D. Sounas, A. Cordaro, A. Polman, and A. Al `u, “Nonlocal metasurfaces for optical signal processing,” Physi- cal review letters, vol. 121, no. 17, p. 173004, 2018

    2018

  27. [34]

    A survey of general-purpose computation on graphics hardware,

    J. D. Owens, D. Luebke, N. Govindaraju, M. Harris, J. Kr¨uger, A. E. Lefohn, and T. J. Purcell, “A survey of general-purpose computation on graphics hardware,” inComputer graphics fo- rum, vol. 26, pp. 80–113, Wiley Online Library, 2007

    2007

  28. [35]

    D. G. Bailey, Design for embedded image processing on FP- GAs. John Wiley & Sons, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    Nakamura, Image sensors and signal processing for digital still cameras

    J. Nakamura, Image sensors and signal processing for digital still cameras. CRC press, 2017

    2017

  30. [37]

    Topology optimization for nano-photonics,

    J. S. Jensen and O. Sigmund, “Topology optimization for nano-photonics,” Laser & Photonics Reviews , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 308–321, 2011

    2011

  31. [38]

    Inverse design in nanophotonics,

    S. Molesky, Z. Lin, A. Y . Piggott, W. Jin, J. Vuckovi ´c, and A. W. Rodriguez, “Inverse design in nanophotonics,” Nature Photonics, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 659–670, 2018

    2018

  32. [39]

    Inverse design of large-area meta- surfaces,

    R. Pestourie, C. P ´erez-Arancibia, Z. Lin, W. Shin, F. Ca- passo, and S. G. Johnson, “Inverse design of large-area meta- surfaces,” Optics express, vol. 26, no. 26, pp. 33732–33747, 2018

    2018

  33. [40]

    Compressive imaging through a multimode fiber,

    L. V . Amitonova and J. F. De Boer, “Compressive imaging through a multimode fiber,” Optics letters , vol. 43, no. 21, pp. 5427–5430, 2018

    2018

  34. [41]

    Non-line-of-sight imaging,

    D. Faccio, A. Velten, and G. Wetzstein, “Non-line-of-sight imaging,” Nature Reviews Physics, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 318–327, 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    Meta- surface for structured light projection over 120 field of view,

    Y . Ni, S. Chen, Y . Wang, Q. Tan, S. Xiao, and Y . Yang, “Meta- surface for structured light projection over 120 field of view,” Nano Letters, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 6719–6724, 2020

    2020

  36. [43]

    Metasurface array for single-shot spectroscopic ellipsome- try,

    S. Wen, X. Xue, S. Wang, Y . Ni, L. Sun, and Y . Yang, “Metasurface array for single-shot spectroscopic ellipsome- try,”Light: Science & Applications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 88, 2024

    2024

  37. [44]

    Multifunctional in- terleaved geometric-phase dielectric metasurfaces,

    E. Maguid, I. Yulevich, M. Yannai, V . Kleiner, M. L Brongersma, and E. Hasman, “Multifunctional in- terleaved geometric-phase dielectric metasurfaces,” Light: Science & Applications , vol. 6, no. 8, pp. e17027–e17027, 2017

    2017

  38. [45]

    Dielectric metasur- faces for distance measurements and three-dimensional imag- ing,

    C. Jin, M. Afsharnia, R. Berlich, S. Fasold, C. Zou, D. Arslan, I. Staude, T. Pertsch, and F. Setzpfandt, “Dielectric metasur- faces for distance measurements and three-dimensional imag- ing,” Advanced Photonics, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 036001, 2019

    2019

  39. [46]

    Metasurface generation of paired accelerating and rotating optical beams for passive ranging and scene reconstruction,

    S. Colburn and A. Majumdar, “Metasurface generation of paired accelerating and rotating optical beams for passive ranging and scene reconstruction,” ACS Photonics, 2020

    2020

  40. [47]

    Full- stokes imaging polarimetry using dielectric metasurfaces,

    E. Arbabi, S. M. Kamali, A. Arbabi, and A. Faraon, “Full- stokes imaging polarimetry using dielectric metasurfaces,” Acs Photonics, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 3132–3140, 2018

    2018

  41. [48]

    Metalens-assisted system for underwater imag- ing,

    F. Zhao, R. Lu, X. Chen, C. Jin, S. Chen, Z. Shen, C. Zhang, and Y . Yang, “Metalens-assisted system for underwater imag- ing,” Laser & Photonics Reviews, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 2100097, 2021

    2021

  42. [49]

    Matrix fourier optics enables a compact full-stokes polarization camera,

    N. A. Rubin, G. D’Aversa, P. Chevalier, Z. Shi, W. T. Chen, and F. Capasso, “Matrix fourier optics enables a compact full-stokes polarization camera,” Science, vol. 365, no. 6448, p. eaax1839, 2019

    2019

  43. [50]

    Dual band computational infrared spectroscopy via large aperture meta- optics,

    J. E. Froch, S. Colburn, A. Zhan, Z. Han, Z. Fang, A. Sax- ena, L. Huang, K. F. Bohringer, and A. Majumdar, “Dual band computational infrared spectroscopy via large aperture meta- optics,” ACS Photonics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 986–992, 2022

    2022

  44. [51]

    Monocular metasurface camera for passive single-shot 4d imaging,

    Z. Shen, F. Zhao, C. Jin, S. Wang, L. Cao, and Y . Yang, “Monocular metasurface camera for passive single-shot 4d imaging,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 1035, 2023

    2023

  45. [52]

    Metasurface-empowered five-dimensional imaging with structured light,

    Z. Wang, L. Li, Y . Shi, J. Chen, J. Yao, and Z. Li, “Metasurface-empowered five-dimensional imaging with structured light,” ACS Photonics, 2024

    2024

  46. [53]

    Angle sensitive pixels in cmos for lensless 3d imaging,

    A. Wang, P. Gill, and A. Molnar, “Angle sensitive pixels in cmos for lensless 3d imaging,” in 2009 IEEE Custom Inte- grated Circuits Conference, pp. 371–374, IEEE, 2009

    2009

  47. [54]

    Dynamic brain spectrum acquired by a real-time ultraspectral imaging chip with recon- figurable metasurfaces,

    J. Xiong, X. Cai, K. Cui, Y . Huang, J. Yang, H. Zhu, W. Li, B. Hong, S. Rao, Z. Zheng, et al., “Dynamic brain spectrum acquired by a real-time ultraspectral imaging chip with recon- figurable metasurfaces,” Optica, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 461–468, 2022

    2022

  48. [55]

    End-to-end optimization 12 of optics and image processing for achromatic extended depth of field and super-resolution imaging,

    V . Sitzmann, S. Diamond, Y . Peng, X. Dun, S. Boyd, W. Hei- drich, F. Heide, and G. Wetzstein, “End-to-end optimization 12 of optics and image processing for achromatic extended depth of field and super-resolution imaging,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 37, no. 4, ...

    2018

  49. [56]

    End-to-end hyperspectral- depth imaging with learned diffractive optics,

    S.-H. Baek, H. Ikoma, D. S. Jeon, Y . Li, W. Heidrich, G. Wetzstein, and M. H. Kim, “End-to-end hyperspectral- depth imaging with learned diffractive optics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00463, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  50. [57]

    End-to-end hybrid refractive-diffractive lens design with differentiable ray-wave model,

    X. Yang, M. Souza, K. Wang, P. Chakravarthula, Q. Fu, and W. Heidrich, “End-to-end hybrid refractive-diffractive lens design with differentiable ray-wave model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00834, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Limitations of hyperspectral imaging from rgb images: A data perspective,

    Q. Fu, M. Souza, E. Choi, S. Shin, S.-H. Baek, and W. Hei- drich, “Limitations of hyperspectral imaging from rgb images: A data perspective,” in Computational Optical Sensing and Imaging, pp. CTh4B–3, Optica Publishing Group, 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Neural nano-optics for high- quality thin lens imaging,

    E. Tseng, S. Colburn, J. Whitehead, L. Huang, S.-H. Baek, A. Majumdar, and F. Heide, “Neural nano-optics for high- quality thin lens imaging,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 6493, 2021

    2021

  53. [60]

    Single-shot quantitative phase gradient mi- croscopy using a system of multifunctional metasurfaces,

    H. Kwon, E. Arbabi, S. M. Kamali, M. Faraji-Dana, and A. Faraon, “Single-shot quantitative phase gradient mi- croscopy using a system of multifunctional metasurfaces,”Na- ture Photonics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 109–114, 2020

    2020

  54. [61]

    Fourier optical spin splitting microscopy,

    J. Zhou, Q. Wu, J. Zhao, C. Posner, M. Lei, G. Chen, J. Zhang, and Z. Liu, “Fourier optical spin splitting microscopy,”Physi- cal review letters, vol. 129, no. 2, p. 020801, 2022

    2022

  55. [62]

    Single-shot deterministic complex amplitude imaging with a single-layer metalens,

    L. Li, S. Wang, F. Zhao, Y . Zhang, S. Wen, H. Chai, Y . Gao, W. Wang, L. Cao, and Y . Yang, “Single-shot deterministic complex amplitude imaging with a single-layer metalens,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 1, p. eadl0501, 2024

    2024

  56. [63]

    Quantitative phase imaging with a compact meta-microscope,

    J. Wang, R. Yu, X. Ye, J. Sun, J. Li, C. Huang, X. Xiao, J. Ji, W. Shen, Z. Tie, et al., “Quantitative phase imaging with a compact meta-microscope,” npj Nanophotonics, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 4, 2024

    2024

  57. [64]

    Varifocal metalens for com- pact and accurate quantitative phase imaging,

    Q. Min, J. Trapp, T. Fang, R. Hu, F. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Liu, A. Dai, C. Yang, J. Guo, et al., “Varifocal metalens for com- pact and accurate quantitative phase imaging,”ACS Photonics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 2797–2804, 2024

    2024

  58. [65]

    Polarization-dependent all-dielectric metasurface for single-shot quantitative phase imaging,

    E. Engay, D. Huo, R. Malureanu, A.-I. Bunea, and A. Lavri- nenko, “Polarization-dependent all-dielectric metasurface for single-shot quantitative phase imaging,”Nano Letters, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3820–3826, 2021

    2021

  59. [66]

    Deep learning in optical metrology: a review,

    C. Zuo, J. Qian, S. Feng, W. Yin, Y . Li, P. Fan, J. Han, K. Qian, and Q. Chen, “Deep learning in optical metrology: a review,” Light: Science & Applications, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–54, 2022

    2022

  60. [67]

    Limits of adaptive optics for high-contrast imag- ing,

    O. Guyon, “Limits of adaptive optics for high-contrast imag- ing,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 629, no. 1, p. 592, 2005

    2005

  61. [68]

    Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine,

    Y . Park, C. Depeursinge, and G. Popescu, “Quantitative phase imaging in biomedicine,” Nature photonics, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 578–589, 2018

    2018

  62. [69]

    Transport of inten- sity equation: a tutorial,

    C. Zuo, J. Li, J. Sun, Y . Fan, J. Zhang, L. Lu, R. Zhang, B. Wang, L. Huang, and Q. Chen, “Transport of inten- sity equation: a tutorial,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering , vol. 135, p. 106187, 2020

    2020

  63. [70]

    Wide-field, high- resolution fourier ptychographic microscopy,

    G. Zheng, R. Horstmeyer, and C. Yang, “Wide-field, high- resolution fourier ptychographic microscopy,”Nature photon- ics, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 739–745, 2013

    2013

  64. [71]

    Computing liquid-crystal photonics platform enabled wavefront sensing,

    S. Liu, F. Fan, S. Chen, S. Wen, and H. Luo, “Computing liquid-crystal photonics platform enabled wavefront sensing,” Laser & Photonics Reviews, vol. 17, no. 8, p. 2300044, 2023

    2023

  65. [72]

    Quantitative phase imaging endoscopy with a metalens,

    A. Shanker, J. E. Fr ¨och, S. Mukherjee, M. Zhelyeznyakov, S. L. Brunton, E. J. Seibel, and A. Majumdar, “Quantitative phase imaging endoscopy with a metalens,” Light: Science & Applications, vol. 13, p. 305, Nov. 2024

    2024

  66. [73]

    Quantum metasurface for multiphoton inter- ference and state reconstruction,

    K. Wang, J. G. Titchener, S. S. Kruk, L. Xu, H.-P. Chung, M. Parry, I. I. Kravchenko, Y .-H. Chen, A. S. Solntsev, Y . S. Kivshar, et al., “Quantum metasurface for multiphoton inter- ference and state reconstruction,” Science, vol. 361, no. 6407, pp. 1104–1108, 2018

    2018

  67. [74]

    Char- acterization of Orbital Angular Momentum Quantum States Empowered by Metasurfaces,

    M. Wang, L. Chen, D. Y . Choi, S. Huang, Q. Wang, C. Tu, H. Cheng, J. Tian, Y . Li, S. Chen, and H. T. Wang, “Char- acterization of Orbital Angular Momentum Quantum States Empowered by Metasurfaces,” Nano Letters, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 3921–3928, 2023

    2023

  68. [75]

    Robust Classical and Quantum Polarime- try with a Single Nanostructured Metagrating,

    S. Lung, K. Wang, N. R. H. Pedersen, F. Setzpfandt, and A. A. Sukhorukov, “Robust Classical and Quantum Polarime- try with a Single Nanostructured Metagrating,” ACS Photon- ics, vol. 11, pp. 1060–1067, mar 2024

    2024

  69. [76]

    Au- tomated modal analysis of entanglement with bipartite self- configuring optics,

    C. Roques-Carmes, A. Karnieli, D. A. Miller, and S. Fan, “Au- tomated modal analysis of entanglement with bipartite self- configuring optics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16849, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Error mitigated metasurface-based ran- domized measurement schemes,

    H. Ren, Y . Zhang, Z. Zheng, C. Ying, L. Xu, M. Rahmani, and K. B. Whaley, “Error mitigated metasurface-based ran- domized measurement schemes,” Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 33310, 2024

    2024

  71. [78]

    Shadow tomography of quantum states,

    S. Aaronson, “Shadow tomography of quantum states,” inPro- ceedings of the 50th annual ACM SIGACT symposium on the- ory of computing, pp. 325–338, 2018

    2018

  72. [79]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,

    H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,” Nature Physics, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  73. [80]

    Efficient characterizations of multiphoton states with an ultra-thin optical device,

    K. An, Z. Liu, T. Zhang, S. Li, Y . Zhou, X. Yuan, L. Wang, W. Zhang, G. Wang, and H. Lu, “Efficient characterizations of multiphoton states with an ultra-thin optical device,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, p. 3944, may 2024

    2024

  74. [81]

    Imaging with flat op- tics: metalenses or diffractive lenses?,

    S. Banerji, M. Meem, A. Majumder, F. G. Vasquez, B. Sensale-Rodriguez, and R. Menon, “Imaging with flat op- tics: metalenses or diffractive lenses?,” Optica, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 805–810, 2019

    2019

  75. [82]

    J. W. Goodman, Statistical optics. John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  76. [83]

    Perspectives on imaging with diffractive flat optics,

    R. Menon and N. Brimhall, “Perspectives on imaging with diffractive flat optics,” ACS Photonics , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1046–1052, 2023

    2023

  77. [84]

    Broadband thermal imaging using meta- optics,

    L. Huang, Z. Han, A. Wirth-Singh, V . Saragadam, S. Mukher- jee, J. E. Fr ¨och, Q. A. Tanguy, J. Rollag, R. Gibson, J. R. Hendrickson, et al., “Broadband thermal imaging using meta- optics,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1662, 2024

    2024

  78. [85]

    Beating bandwidth limits for large aperture broadband nano-optics,

    J. E. Fr ¨och, P. K. Chakravarthula, J. Sun, E. Tseng, S. Colburn, A. Zhan, F. Miller, A. Wirth-Singh, Q. A. Tanguy, Z. Han, et al., “Beating bandwidth limits for large aperture broadband nano-optics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06824, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    A tutorial on fisher information,

    A. Ly, M. Marsman, J. Verhagen, R. P. Grasman, and E.-J. Wagenmakers, “A tutorial on fisher information,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 80, pp. 40–55, 2017

    2017

  80. [88]

    Universal evaluation and design of imag- ing systems using information estimation,

    H. Pinkard, L. Kabuli, E. Markley, T. Chien, J. Jiao, and L. Waller, “Universal evaluation and design of imag- ing systems using information estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20559, 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    Fundamental bounds on the precision of iscat, cobri and dark-field microscopy for 3d localization and mass photom- etry,

    J. Dong, D. Maestre, C. Conrad-Billroth, and T. Juffmann, “Fundamental bounds on the precision of iscat, cobri and dark-field microscopy for 3d localization and mass photom- etry,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 54, no. 39, p. 394002, 2021

    2021

  82. [90]

    Fun- 13 damental bounds on the precision of classical phase micro- scopes,

    D. Bouchet, J. Dong, D. Maestre, and T. Juffmann, “Fun- 13 damental bounds on the precision of classical phase micro- scopes,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 024047, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Coherent optical eigenstate memory,

    D. Z. Anderson, “Coherent optical eigenstate memory,”Optics Letters, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 56–58, 1986

    1986

  84. [92]

    Optical resonators and neural networks,

    D. Z. Anderson, “Optical resonators and neural networks,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 151, pp. 12–16, AIP, 1986

    1986

  85. [93]

    Meta-optic accelerators for object classifiers,

    H. Zheng, Q. Liu, Y . Zhou, I. I. Kravchenko, Y . Huo, and J. Valentine, “Meta-optic accelerators for object classifiers,” Science Advances, vol. 8, no. 44, p. eabo6410, 2022

    2022

  86. [94]

    Optical frontend for a convolutional neural network,

    S. Colburn, Y . Chu, E. Shlizerman, and A. Majumdar, “Optical frontend for a convolutional neural network,” Applied Optics, vol. 58, no. 13, pp. 3179–3186, 2019

    2019

  87. [95]

    Deep learning with coherent nanophotonic circuits,

    Y . Shen, N. C. Harris, S. Skirlo, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr-Jones, M. Hochberg, X. Sun, S. Zhao, H. Larochelle, D. Englund, et al. , “Deep learning with coherent nanophotonic circuits,” Nature Photonics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 441–446, 2017

    2017

  88. [96]

    Accelerating recurrent ising machines in photonic integrated circuits,

    M. Prabhu, C. Roques-Carmes, Y . Shen, N. Harris, L. Jing, J. Carolan, R. Hamerly, T. Baehr-Jones, M. Hochberg, V . ˇCeperi´c, et al., “Accelerating recurrent ising machines in photonic integrated circuits,” Optica, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 551– 558, 2020

    2020

  89. [97]

    Experimentally realized in situ back- propagation for deep learning in photonic neural networks,

    S. Pai, Z. Sun, T. W. Hughes, T. Park, B. Bartlett, I. A. Williamson, M. Minkov, M. Milanizadeh, N. Abebe, F. Morichetti, et al. , “Experimentally realized in situ back- propagation for deep learning in photonic neural networks,” Science, vol. 380, no. 6643, pp. 398–404, 2023

    2023

  90. [98]

    Self-configuring universal linear optical component,

    D. A. B. Miller, “Self-configuring universal linear optical component,” Photonics Research , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2013

    2013

  91. [99]

    Photonic multiply-accumulate op- erations for neural networks,

    M. A. Nahmias, T. F. De Lima, A. N. Tait, H.-T. Peng, B. J. Shastri, and P. R. Prucnal, “Photonic multiply-accumulate op- erations for neural networks,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2019

    2019

  92. [100]

    Performing mathematical operations with meta- materials,

    A. Silva, F. Monticone, G. Castaldi, V . Galdi, A. Al `u, and N. Engheta, “Performing mathematical operations with meta- materials,” Science, vol. 343, no. 6167, pp. 160–163, 2014

    2014

  93. [101]

    Design of compact meta-crystal slab for general optical con- volution,

    H. Wang, W. Jin, C. Guo, N. Zhao, S. P. Rodrigues, and S. Fan, “Design of compact meta-crystal slab for general optical con- volution,” ACS Photonics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1358–1365, 2022

    2022

  94. [102]

    Multifunctional intelligent surfaces based on volumetric in- verse topology design,

    M. Asgari, P. B. Catrysse, H. Wang, S. Fan, and V . Asadchy, “Multifunctional intelligent surfaces based on volumetric in- verse topology design,” in2024 49th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz), pp. 1–2, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  95. [103]

    All-optical machine learning us- ing diffractive deep neural networks,

    X. Lin, Y . Rivenson, N. T. Yardimci, M. Veli, Y . Luo, M. Jarrahi, and A. Ozcan, “All-optical machine learning us- ing diffractive deep neural networks,”Science, 2018

    2018

  96. [104]

    Photonic advantage of optical encoders,

    L. Huang, Q. A. A. Tanguy, J. E. Fr ¨och, S. Mukherjee, K. F. B¨ohringer, and A. Majumdar, “Photonic advantage of optical encoders,” Nanophotonics, 2023

    2023

  97. [105]

    Spa- tially varying nanophotonic neural networks,

    K. Wei, X. Li, J. Fr ¨och, P. Chakravarthula, J. White- head, E. Tseng, A. Majumdar, and F. Heide, “Spa- tially varying nanophotonic neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03407, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Light emission by nonequilibrium bodies: local kirchhoff law,

    J.-J. Greffet, P. Bouchon, G. Brucoli, and F. Marquier, “Light emission by nonequilibrium bodies: local kirchhoff law,” Physical Review X, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 021008, 2018

    2018

  99. [107]

    A framework for scintillation in nanophotonics,

    C. Roques-Carmes, N. Rivera, A. Ghorashi, S. E. Kooi, Y . Yang, Z. Lin, J. Beroz, A. Massuda, J. Sloan, N. Romeo, et al., “A framework for scintillation in nanophotonics,” Sci- ence, vol. 375, no. 6583, p. eabm9293, 2022

    2022

  100. [108]

    Quantum noise in photon- ics,

    C. H. Henry and R. F. Kazarinov, “Quantum noise in photon- ics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 68, no. 3, p. 801, 1996

    1996

  101. [109]

    Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins,

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, “Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins,” Nature Photonics, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 516–527, 2018

    2018

  102. [110]

    Measuring, processing, and generating partially coherent light with self- configuring optics,

    C. Roques-Carmes, S. Fan, and D. A. Miller, “Measuring, processing, and generating partially coherent light with self- configuring optics,” Light: Science & Applications , vol. 13, no. 1, p. 260, 2024

    2024

  103. [111]

    N. A. Gershenfeld, The nature of mathematical modeling . Cambridge university press, 1999

    1999

  104. [112]

    Gradient de- scent finds global minima of deep neural networks,

    S. Du, J. Lee, H. Li, L. Wang, and X. Zhai, “Gradient de- scent finds global minima of deep neural networks,” in In- ternational conference on machine learning , pp. 1675–1685, PMLR, 2019

    2019

  105. [113]

    Deep learning without poor local minima,

    K. Kawaguchi, “Deep learning without poor local minima,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  106. [114]

    Deep feedfor- ward networks,

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, “Deep feedfor- ward networks,” Deep learning, no. 1, 2016

    2016

  107. [115]

    The loss surfaces of multilayer networks,

    A. Choromanska, M. Henaff, M. Mathieu, G. B. Arous, and Y . LeCun, “The loss surfaces of multilayer networks,” inArti- ficial intelligence and statistics, pp. 192–204, PMLR, 2015

    2015

  108. [116]

    Fine-grained analysis of optimization and generalization for overparameter- ized two-layer neural networks,

    S. Arora, S. Du, W. Hu, Z. Li, and R. Wang, “Fine-grained analysis of optimization and generalization for overparameter- ized two-layer neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 322–332, PMLR, 2019

    2019

  109. [117]

    Gradient descent on two-layer nets: Margin maximization and simplicity bias,

    K. Lyu, Z. Li, R. Wang, and S. Arora, “Gradient descent on two-layer nets: Margin maximization and simplicity bias,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 12978–12991, 2021

    2021

  110. [118]

    Gradient descent globally solves average-case non-resonant physical design problems,

    R. Trivedi, “Gradient descent globally solves average-case non-resonant physical design problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02978, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Challenges and applications of large language models,

    J. Kaddour, J. Harris, M. Mozes, H. Bradley, R. Raileanu, and R. McHardy, “Challenges and applications of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10169, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Deep learning,

    Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,”nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015

    2015

  113. [121]

    Efficient large-scale lan- guage model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm,

    D. Narayanan, M. Shoeybi, J. Casper, P. LeGresley, M. Patwary, V . Korthikanti, D. Vainbrand, P. Kashinkunti, J. Bernauer, B. Catanzaro, et al. , “Efficient large-scale lan- guage model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm,” in Proceedings of the International Conference...

    2021

  114. [122]

    Programmable nano-optics and photonics,

    T. Gu, A. Majumdar, and J. Teng, “Programmable nano-optics and photonics,” Nanophotonics, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 2047– 2049, 2024

    2024

  115. [123]

    Emergent abilities of large language models,

    J. Wei, Y . Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler, et al. , “Emergent abilities of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.