Phase-multiplexed optical computing: Reconfiguring a multi-task diffractive optical processor using illumination phase diversity

Aydogan Ozcan; Xiao Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Phase-multiplexed optical computing: Reconfiguring a multi-task diffractive optical processor using illumination phase diversity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single monochrome diffractive network, with about 2×T×Ni×No trainable features, can be reconfigured by illumination phase keys to implement any of T arbitrary complex-valued linear transformations with negligible error.

desk verdict Phase-key multiplexing is a new idea, but the stated forward model implies every implemented transformation is D·diag(phase_t), making the reported near-zero errors for hundreds of random matrices impossible. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.06658 v1 pith:MBNRHCVY submitted 2025-12-07 physics.optics cs.NEphysics.app-ph

Xiao Wang , Aydogan Ozcan This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscs.NEphysics.app-ph

keywords diffractiveopticalnetworkphasemultiplexingkeycomplex-valuedlineartransformationreconfigurableprocessormonochromecomputingilluminationdiversity

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 sets out to show that a single monochrome diffractive optical network can be reconfigured to perform many different linear transformations, using only the phase pattern of the illumination as a switch. The central claim is a counting rule: with N ≈ 2·T·Ni·No trainable diffractive features, the network can realize any one of T arbitrary complex-valued Ni×No matrices, each addressed by a distinct trainable 'phase key' that illuminates the input aperture. Simulations with 25×25 input/output pixels demonstrate 512 simultaneous transformations with transformation error near 10⁻⁸, and fitted curves project that roughly 2,400 transformations remain below a 9×10⁻⁷ error threshold. The practical significance is that one passive, fixed processor could replace many specialized optical modules, with phase multiplexing outperforming wavelength multiplexing in accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the illumination phase key: a trainable 2D phase profile that multiplies the input field before it enters the diffractive stack. Each of the T target transformations gets its own key, and the keys are optimized jointly with the diffractive layers' phase and amplitude coefficients. The diffractive network itself is a passive cascade of layers whose total trainable feature count N is set to roughly 2TNiNo; it acts as a single demultiplexer that, for a given key, maps the encoded input to the desired output. The joint optimization is what lets the system separate channels purely by illumination phase rather than by wavelength or polarization.

What would settle it

Train the same architecture at T=2,400 with Ni=No=25 and N=3TNiNo; if the transformation MSE stays above the 9×10⁻⁷ threshold or the training fails to converge, the projected multiplexing limit is wrong. A second check: at T=512, increase the aperture to Ni=No=100 while keeping N=2TNiNo and see whether the error remains near 10⁻⁸ or climbs sharply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a diffractive network is not limited to a single learned operation: if you jointly optimize T 2D phase keys together with the network's N diffractive features, then illuminating the input with key t causes the same static network to apply the t-th target linear transformation. The paper states this concretely as N = 2TNiNo — two optimized features per entry of each target matrix — and reports that with Ni=No=25 and T=512 the optically realized matrices match random targets with negligible error. It goes further to claim that the approach scales to roughly 2,400 tasks under an MSE threshold of 9×10⁻⁷, and that this accuracy is orders of magnitud

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the unproved premise that 2TNiNo trainable diffractive features are enough to realize T arbitrary Ni×No complex matrices — a parameter-counting heuristic rather than an achievability theorem; the paper's evidence covers only Ni=No=25, T≤512, with the ~2,400-task figure obtained by extrapolating five fitted points, and the phase keys themselves add T·Ni trainable parameters beyond the stated N.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single fixed monochrome processor can switch among hundreds of distinct complex linear operations simply by exchanging the illumination phase pattern, with no retraining or refabrication between tasks.
At the demonstrated scale (T=512, Ni=No=25), the realized matrices match random targets with transformation error below 4×10⁻⁸, and the projected 2,400-task operating point keeps error below 10⁻⁶.
The architecture is wavelength-agnostic: scaling feature sizes proportionally to the illumination wavelength should transfer the same design to visible or infrared light.
Because phase multiplexing operates sequentially, its advantage over wavelength multiplexing is fidelity and scale rather than parallelism; combining it with polarization or wavelength encoding is suggested as a path to more channels.
The paper identifies cross-talk among learned phase keys (cosine similarity around 0.85) and suggests sequential per-channel optimization as a potential route to lower errors.

Reading between the lines

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

If the per-element feature cost holds, the architecture's limits are ultimately fabrication and alignment: supporting thousands of transformations at larger apertures means engineering millions of passive features in a single optical volume.
The learned phase keys are heavily correlated, suggesting the encoding space is not fully exploited; designing keys to be more orthogonal, or optimizing them per-channel, could push the same hardware to more transformations or lower error.
Because the processor is monochrome and static, a natural extension is to layer phase, polarization, and wavelength keys together; if the channels remain separable, the number of implementable transformations could multiply, though the sequential-operation constraint would remain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The phase-multiplexing concept is genuinely new — I don't know of prior work using illumination phase keys as a multiplexing channel for universal linear transformations. The paper is also clearly written, and the bit-depth and diffraction-efficiency studies are useful engineering data.

That said, the central result cannot be right as described. The forward model gives o' = D2NN{exp(jφ_t)·i}. Since the diffractive network is linear, this is exactly o' = (D P_t) i, where D is the fixed network operator and P_t = diag(exp(jφ_t)). So every implemented transformation has the form A'_t = D P_t. That means for each column index k, the k-th column of A'_t is a phase-scaled copy of the k-th column of D, for every t. For generic independent random target matrices A_t, the k-th columns across t are independent random vectors; they are not collinear. With T≥4 and Ni=No=25, the model class has roughly 625 complex (D) + 25T real (phase) degrees of freedom, far fewer than the 625T complex degrees of freedom in the targets. Near-zero error (MSE ~1e-8) for T=512 is not achievable. This is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a minor overclaim.

I don't see an escape hatch: the phase key is explicitly a pointwise illumination modulation, and the network is linear. So either the simulation implemented something different from what the paper says, or the "all-optical transformation matrices" A'_t were not measured from the actual input-output map. The paper doesn't state either, and no code or data are provided to check.

The secondary issues are real too: the N=2TN_iN_o scaling law is asserted from parameter counting, not proven; the T≈2400 projection comes from fitting curves to five data points; and the phase keys add TN_i trainable parameters that aren't included in N. But these are the kind of thing that could be fixed with more experiments or a proof. The structural problem is not fixable without changing the architecture or the claim.

If the authors can clarify — for example, if the phase key is actually applied at a different plane, or the transformation is defined differently — the idea could be worth pursuing. As it stands, the paper should not be taken as a demonstration of phase-multiplexed universal linear transformations.

For a reading group, it's a useful case study in checking linear-model consistency. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would still send it to peer review: a competent referee should catch this quickly, and the idea itself is novel enough that the authors deserve a chance to respond with a corrected model.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a phase-multiplexed diffractive optical processor in which T trainable two-dimensional phase patterns ('phase keys') illuminate the input aperture of a single monochrome, passive diffractive network. The authors claim that, with N ≈ 2TN_iN_o trainable diffractive features, the same network can implement T arbitrary complex-valued linear transformations with negligible error, and they report numerical demonstrations up to T = 512 with transformation errors near 1e-8, with further extrapolation to T ≈ 2400 under error thresholds. The paper includes standard numerical-inference machinery: random target matrices, separate training/validation/test sets, and metrics for both transformation-matrix error and output-field error.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, this would be an important contribution to reconfigurable all-optical computing, offering a monochrome alternative to wavelength-multiplexed processors with substantially lower error. The numerical protocol is carefully described and the paper explicitly compares with previous multiplexing approaches. However, the stated forward model implies a severe restriction on the set of implementable transformations that is incompatible with the reported near-zero errors. The scaling law N = 2TN_iN_o is asserted by parameter counting, not proved, and the extrapolation to T ~ 2400 rests on fitted curves over five points. Because the core result is internally inconsistent with the model as written, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)

[Results, Eq. after Fig. 1] The forward model states o'_At,n = D2NN{ e^{jφ_At} · i_At,n }, where φ_At is the phase key. A fixed diffractive network is a linear operator, so for each channel the implemented transformation is A'_t = D · diag(exp(jφ_t)), where D is the fixed N_o × N_i matrix representing the network. Consequently, for any two channels t and s and any input-pixel index j, the j-th columns of A'_t and A'_s are collinear (differ by the phase factor exp(j(φ_t(j) − φ_s(j)))). The targets A_t are independently random complex matrices, whose columns are not collinear across channels for generic targets. The model class therefore cannot approximate T ≥ 4 independent random 25 × 25 matrices, and the reported MSETransformation values around 10^-8 for T = 512 are impossible under the described architecture. This is a load-bearing internal inconsistency in the central claim.
[Results, N = 2TN_iN_o scaling claim] The claim that N = 2TN_iN_o optimized diffractive features suffice for T arbitrary complex transformations is asserted from degree-of-freedom counting, but the counting is not valid for the stated architecture. The effective linear map for all channels is a fixed matrix D, with only 2N_iN_o real degrees of freedom, plus at most T N_i real degrees of freedom from the phase keys and T complex scale factors μ_t. For T = 4 and N_i = N_o = 25, this is about 1350 real parameters, whereas T independent complex matrices contain about 5000 real parameters. The under-parameterization makes negligible-error approximation impossible for generic targets. The paper must either provide a corrected model, a proof of achievability, or revised claims.
[Fig. 5 and Discussion] The projection to T ~ 2400 (and the statement that T = 10,000 remains within error bounds) is an extrapolation of fitted curves through only five data points (T = 32, 64, 128, 256, 512). No functional form, confidence interval, or justification for the extrapolation is provided. Given the architectural inconsistency above, this extrapolation cannot support the paper's scalability conclusions.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2 caption] The caption reads 'N_i = N_o = 5^2' but is typeset as '52'; this should be corrected to '25' or '5²'.
[Eq. (6)] The per-channel complex scaling μ_t is introduced to remove the scaling mismatch. This quantity adds 2T real parameters to the effective model and should be explicitly included in the degree-of-freedom accounting; otherwise the reported errors are not purely the network's raw implementation error.
[Discussion, phase-key correlation] The authors report that pairwise cosine similarities among optimized phase keys are ~0.85, indicating strong correlation. This is an interesting observation, but it also reinforces that the phase-key channels are not providing T independent degrees of freedom; its relation to the proposed scaling law should be discussed.
[Abstract and Results] The phrase 'accurately executed for any complex field at the input aperture' is stronger than what is tested: only Gaussian-random complex input vectors were simulated. Generalization to arbitrary complex fields is plausible because the network is linear, but it is not demonstrated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim is an empirical training-and-test demonstration, with the main caveat being a correctness issue (linear model class cannot represent T independent matrices), not a circular one.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. The target matrices A_t are generated independently, training pairs are synthesized from them, and the network is evaluated on a held-out test set; this is an external check, not a self-referential reduction. The scaling statement N ≈ 2TN_iN_o is an empirical capacity observation, not a theorem derived from its own conclusion; the paper does not invoke a self-citation to prove it, and its prior-work citations (e.g., Refs. 18, 21) are background, not load-bearing. The only quasi-circular element is the extrapolation of T~2400 from fitted curves in Fig. 5; however, the paper transparently labels this as extrapolation, so it is a statistical projection rather than a hidden prediction forced by construction. A separate, non-circular correctness concern: from the stated forward model o'=D2NN{exp(jφ)·i} and the linearity of D2NN (Eqs. 1-3), the implemented transformation per channel is A'_t = D P_t with P_t diagonal; T independent random 25×25 matrices cannot all be approximated by such a product for T>1, making the reported errors ~1e-8 internally inconsistent. This is a validity issue for the central claim, not a circularity, and should be evaluated under correctness/falsifiability rather than under the circularity rubric.

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

The central claim depends on the simulated scalar-diffraction model, parameter-counting capacity assumptions, and the trainability of phase keys. No physical experiment or code is provided.

free parameters (5)

Per-channel output scaling μ_t = complex scalar per channel (T values); e.g., T=512
Eq. (7) defines μ_t as the complex scalar that minimizes the error between A_t and A'_t. This removes per-channel amplitude/phase ambiguity before the error is reported, so 'negligible error' does not include output scaling accuracy.
Phase keys φ_t = T × N_i phase values, jointly optimized
Each phase key is trainable and selects a transformation; these parameters are not counted in N, yet they are essential to the multiplexing. Their physical realizability (finite phase range, quantization) is not modeled in the main results.
Extrapolation curve parameters = coefficients of dashed fitted lines in Fig. 5
Used to project errors beyond T=512 and claim T~2400/10000; fitted to only five data points with unspecified functional form.
Error thresholds for T limits = MSE_T = 9e-7, MSE_out = 1e-7
Chosen post hoc as 'acceptable error bounds' to read off T≈2400; not derived from application requirements.
Thickness bounds h_base and h_max = 0.25λ and 1.25λ
Chosen by hand in Materials and Methods; set the achievable phase range of the diffractive features and thereby affect capacity and bit-depth performance.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Rayleigh-Sommerfeld scalar diffraction is an accurate model of light propagation through the diffractive layers
Used in Eq. (2) for the forward model; no experimental validation in this paper.
standard math The trained diffractive network is a linear operator, so the transformation matrix estimated from random input-output pairs generalizes to all input fields
The network consists of fixed linear modulations and free-space propagation; linearity is exact in the model, justifying test-set evaluation.
ad hoc to paper 2TN_iN_o trainable diffractive features are sufficient to realize T arbitrary Ni×No complex matrices
Central scaling claim asserted in the Abstract and Results; it is degree-of-freedom matching rather than a proven achievability result.
domain assumption Randomly generated complex matrices are representative of arbitrary complex-valued linear transformations
Target matrices A_t are random 25×25 complex matrices; cosine-similarity check only ensures mutual independence, not coverage of all transformations.
domain assumption Phase keys can be implemented as arbitrary phase-only profiles with no amplitude or phase quantization errors
Simulations treat phase keys as ideal phase maps; real spatial light modulators have phase range, pixelation, and calibration limits not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-multiplexed optical computing: Reconfiguring a multi-task diffractive optical processor using illumination phase diversity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBNRHCVY

@misc{pith2026251206658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-multiplexed optical computing: Reconfiguring a multi-task diffractive optical processor using illumination phase diversity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBNRHCVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.06658}
}

read the original abstract

We report a monochrome multi-task diffractive network architecture that leverages illumination phase multiplexing to dynamically reconfigure its output function and accurately implement a large group of complex-valued linear transformations between an input and output aperture. Each member of the desired group of T unique transformations is encoded and addressed with a distinct 2D illumination phase profile, termed "phase key", which illuminates the input aperture, activating the corresponding transformation at the output field-of-view. A common diffractive optical network, optimized with T phase keys, demultiplexes these encoded inputs and accurately executes any of the T distinct linear transformations at its output. We demonstrate that a diffractive network composed of N = 2 x T x Ni x No optimized diffractive features can realize T distinct complex-valued linear transformations, accurately executed for any complex field at the input aperture, where Ni and No refer to the input/output pixels, respectively. In our proof-of-concept numerical analysis, T = 512 complex-valued transformations are implemented by the same monochrome diffractive network with negligible error using illumination phase diversity. Compared with wavelength-multiplexed diffractive systems, phase-multiplexing architecture significantly lowers the transformation errors, potentially enabling larger-scale optical transformations to be implemented through a monochrome processor. Phase-multiplexed multi-task diffractive networks would enhance the capabilities of optical computing and machine-vision systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

R.; Jalali, B

(1) Solli, D. R.; Jalali, B. Analog Optical Computing. Nature Photon 2015, 9 (11), 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.208. (2) Athale, R.; Psaltis, D. Optical Computing: Past and Future. Optics & Photonics News, OPN 2016, 27 (6), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1364/OPN.27.6.000032. (3) Wetzstein, G.; Ozcan, A.; Gigan, S.; Fan, S.; Englund, D.; S...

work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.208 2015
[13]

(39) Bai, B.; Wei, H.; Yang, X.; Gan, T.; Mengu, D.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43593-022-00021-3. (39) Bai, B.; Wei, H.; Yang, X.; Gan, T.; Mengu, D.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. Data-Class-Specific All-Optical Transformations and Encryption. Advanced Materials 2023, 35 (31), 2212091. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202212091. (40) Gao, Y.; Jiao, S.; Fang, J.; Lei, T.; Xie, Z.; Yuan, X. Multiple-Image Encryption and...

arXiv 2023
[14]

(29) Bai, B.; Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Çetintaş, E.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-00446-w. (29) Bai, B.; Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Çetintaş, E.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Image Classification through Unknown Random Diffusers Using a Single-Pixel Diffractive Network. Light Sci Appl 2023, 12 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-00446-w 2023
[25]

(32) Rahman, M

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-00439-9. (32) Rahman, M. S. S.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Chen, S.; Ozcan, A. Massively Parallel and Universal Approximation of Nonlinear Functions Using Diffractive Processors. eLight 2025, 5 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-00439-9 2025
[32]

(33) Shen, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Gan, T.; Li, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43593- 025-00113-w. (33) Shen, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Gan, T.; Li, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Phase Conjugation Using Diffractive Wavefront Processing. Nat Commun 2024, 15 (1),

work page doi:10.1186/s43593- 2024
[59]

(43) Wang, P.; Xiong, W.; Huang, Z.; He, Y.; Xie, Z.; Liu, J.; Ye, H.; Li, Y.; Fan, D.; Chen, S

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-0303-2. (43) Wang, P.; Xiong, W.; Huang, Z.; He, Y.; Xie, Z.; Liu, J.; Ye, H.; Li, Y.; Fan, D.; Chen, S. Orbital Angular Momentum Mode Logical Operation Using Optical Diffractive Neural Network. Photon. Res., PRJ 2021, 9 (10), 2116–2124. https://doi.org/10.1364/PRJ.432919. (44) Li, Y.; Li, J.; Zhao, Y.; Gan, T.; Hu, J.; ...

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-0303-2 2021
[69]

(30) Li, J.; Mengu, D.; Yardimci, N

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-023-01116-3. (30) Li, J.; Mengu, D.; Yardimci, N. T.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Veli, M.; Rivenson, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. Spectrally Encoded Single-Pixel Machine Vision Using Diffractive Networks. Science Advances 2021, 7 (13), eabd7690. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd7690. (31) Kulce, O.; Mengu, D.; Rivenson, Y.; Ozcan, A. A...

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-023-01116-3 2021
[153]

(20) Rahman, M

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-022-00849-x. (20) Rahman, M. S. S.; Yang, X.; Li, J.; Bai, B.; Ozcan, A. Universal Linear Intensity Transformations Using Spatially Incoherent Diffractive Processors. Light Sci Appl 2023, 12 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-022-00849-x 2023

Show all 15 references

[195]

(21) Kulce, O.; Mengu, D.; Rivenson, Y.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-023- 01234-y. (21) Kulce, O.; Mengu, D.; Rivenson, Y.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Synthesis of an Arbitrary Linear Transformation Using Diffractive Surfaces. Light Sci Appl 2021, 10 (1),

2021 doi
[196]

(22) Yang, X.; Rahman, M

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-021-00623-5. (22) Yang, X.; Rahman, M. S. S.; Bai, B.; Li, J.; Ozcan, A. Complex-Valued Universal Linear Transformations and Image Encryption Using Spatially Incoherent Diffractive Networks. APN 2024, 3 (1), 016010. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.APN....

2024
[290]

(8) Vandoorne, K.; Mechet, P.; Van Vaerenbergh, T.; Fiers, M.; Morthier, G.; Verstraeten, D.; Schrauwen, B.; Dambre, J.; Bienstman, P

https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.450345. (8) Vandoorne, K.; Mechet, P.; Van Vaerenbergh, T.; Fiers, M.; Morthier, G.; Verstraeten, D.; Schrauwen, B.; Dambre, J.; Bienstman, P. Experimental Demonstration of Reservoir Computing on a Silicon Photonics Chip. Nat Commun 2014, 5 (1),

2014 doi
[457]

(11) Zangeneh-Nejad, F.; Sounas, D

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20719-7. (11) Zangeneh-Nejad, F.; Sounas, D. L.; Alù, A.; Fleury, R. Analogue Computing with Metamaterials. Nat Rev Mater 2021, 6 (3), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-00243-2. (12) Kwon, H. Nonlocal Metasurfaces for Optical Signal...

2021 doi
[3541]

(9) Shen, Y.; Harris, N

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4541. (9) Shen, Y.; Harris, N. C.; Skirlo, S.; Prabhu, M.; Baehr-Jones, T.; Hochberg, M.; Sun, X.; Zhao, S.; Larochelle, H.; Englund, D.; Soljačić, M. Deep Learning with Coherent Nanophotonic Circuits. Nature Photon 2017, 11 (7), 441–446. https://...

2017 doi
[4989]

(34) Mengu, D.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49304-y. (34) Mengu, D.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Phase Recovery: Diffractive Computing for Quantitative Phase Imaging. Advanced Optical Materials 2022, 10 (15), 2200281. https://doi.org/10.1002/adom.202200281. (35) Shen, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Mengu, D...

2022 doi
[7121]

(42) Qian, C.; Lin, X.; Lin, X.; Xu, J.; Sun, Y.; Li, E.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11331-4. (42) Qian, C.; Lin, X.; Lin, X.; Xu, J.; Sun, Y.; Li, E.; Zhang, B.; Chen, H. Performing Optical Logic Operations by a Diffractive Neural Network. Light Sci Appl 2020, 9 (1),

2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R.; Jalali, B

(1) Solli, D. R.; Jalali, B. Analog Optical Computing. Nature Photon 2015, 9 (11), 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2015.208. (2) Athale, R.; Psaltis, D. Optical Computing: Past and Future. Optics & Photonics News, OPN 2016, 27 (6), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1364/OPN.27.6.000032. (3) Wetzstein, G.; Ozcan, A.; Gigan, S.; Fan, S.; Englund, D.; S...

work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.208 2015

[2] [13]

(39) Bai, B.; Wei, H.; Yang, X.; Gan, T.; Mengu, D.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43593-022-00021-3. (39) Bai, B.; Wei, H.; Yang, X.; Gan, T.; Mengu, D.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. Data-Class-Specific All-Optical Transformations and Encryption. Advanced Materials 2023, 35 (31), 2212091. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202212091. (40) Gao, Y.; Jiao, S.; Fang, J.; Lei, T.; Xie, Z.; Yuan, X. Multiple-Image Encryption and...

arXiv 2023

[3] [14]

(29) Bai, B.; Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Çetintaş, E.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-00446-w. (29) Bai, B.; Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Çetintaş, E.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Image Classification through Unknown Random Diffusers Using a Single-Pixel Diffractive Network. Light Sci Appl 2023, 12 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-00446-w 2023

[4] [25]

(32) Rahman, M

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-00439-9. (32) Rahman, M. S. S.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Chen, S.; Ozcan, A. Massively Parallel and Universal Approximation of Nonlinear Functions Using Diffractive Processors. eLight 2025, 5 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-00439-9 2025

[5] [32]

(33) Shen, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Gan, T.; Li, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43593- 025-00113-w. (33) Shen, C.-Y.; Li, J.; Gan, T.; Li, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Phase Conjugation Using Diffractive Wavefront Processing. Nat Commun 2024, 15 (1),

work page doi:10.1186/s43593- 2024

[6] [59]

(43) Wang, P.; Xiong, W.; Huang, Z.; He, Y.; Xie, Z.; Liu, J.; Ye, H.; Li, Y.; Fan, D.; Chen, S

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-020-0303-2. (43) Wang, P.; Xiong, W.; Huang, Z.; He, Y.; Xie, Z.; Liu, J.; Ye, H.; Li, Y.; Fan, D.; Chen, S. Orbital Angular Momentum Mode Logical Operation Using Optical Diffractive Neural Network. Photon. Res., PRJ 2021, 9 (10), 2116–2124. https://doi.org/10.1364/PRJ.432919. (44) Li, Y.; Li, J.; Zhao, Y.; Gan, T.; Hu, J.; ...

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-020-0303-2 2021

[7] [69]

(30) Li, J.; Mengu, D.; Yardimci, N

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-023-01116-3. (30) Li, J.; Mengu, D.; Yardimci, N. T.; Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Veli, M.; Rivenson, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. Spectrally Encoded Single-Pixel Machine Vision Using Diffractive Networks. Science Advances 2021, 7 (13), eabd7690. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd7690. (31) Kulce, O.; Mengu, D.; Rivenson, Y.; Ozcan, A. A...

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-023-01116-3 2021

[8] [153]

(20) Rahman, M

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-022-00849-x. (20) Rahman, M. S. S.; Yang, X.; Li, J.; Bai, B.; Ozcan, A. Universal Linear Intensity Transformations Using Spatially Incoherent Diffractive Processors. Light Sci Appl 2023, 12 (1),

work page doi:10.1038/s41377-022-00849-x 2023