Reconfigurable optical computing based on graphene

Abolfazl Ghanbari; Ali Mahjoori

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Reconfigurable optical computing based on graphene

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graphene square metasurface flanked by two Fourier lenses can compute the derivative or integral of an incident optical field, retunable through the chemical potential.

desk verdict An incomplete draft whose phase-only design assumption can't realize the amplitude-varying transfer functions it claims, on top of missing tables and garbled equations. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.13625 v1 pith:NFFDIV66 submitted 2019-08-19 physics.app-ph

Abolfazl Ghanbari , Ali Mahjoori This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-ph

keywords opticalcomputinggraphenemetasurfacespatialdifferentiationintegrationreconfigurableopticsKuboconductivityFouriertransformsubwavelengthmetamaterial

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 aims to show that a thin planar structure—a metasurface made of subwavelength graphene squares on silicon dioxide—can perform two classic optical-computing operations on an incoming light field. Placed between two Fourier lenses, the metasurface multiplies the field's spatial-frequency spectrum by $T = i k_x$ or $T = 1/(i k_x)$, so the output field is the first derivative or the integral of the input. Because the surface conductivity of graphene depends on its Fermi level, the same fabricated geometry can be retuned to a new operating frequency by changing the chemical potential of the flakes, i.e., by applying a bias voltage. This matters because a single reconfigurable component could carry out real-time edge detection, image processing, or equation solving in the optical domain, without electronics.

What carries the argument

The central object is a computational metasurface: a planar array of subwavelength graphene squares resting on a silicon dioxide substrate, located in the Fourier plane between two Fourier lenses. Each square is sized so that its local complex transmission coefficient implements the required value of the transfer function at the corresponding spatial frequency $k_x$. The first lens Fourier-transforms the incident field, the metasurface multiplies the spectrum by $T(k_x)$, and the second lens transforms back to real space. The design uses the Kubo formula for graphene's surface conductivity, whose dependence on Fermi level is the handle that makes the response tunable by bias voltage.

What would settle it

Measure the complex transmission coefficient of single graphene squares on silicon dioxide at the design frequency as a function of side length and width; if the achievable values do not span nearly $2\pi$ of phase with high transmission, the transfer functions cannot be synthesized. At the system level, send a known Gaussian beam through the two-lens setup and compare the output profile to the analytic first derivative: a mismatch in the side lobes or a residual background would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a single metasurface of subwavelength graphene squares can be engineered as a spatial-frequency filter with transfer function $T=i k_x$ (first-order differentiator) or $T=1/(i k_x)$ (integrator), with two graded-index Fourier lenses performing the forward and inverse transforms. For a Gaussian beam input, the paper's numerical output matches the ideal first derivative; for a Gaussian-derivative input, the output matches the ideal integral. The paper further claims that increasing the operating frequency by ten percent does not disrupt these operations provided the chemical potentials of the flakes are adjusted, so the device is reconfigurable without any change in geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that varying the length and width of subwavelength graphene squares can provide nearly $2\pi$ of phase shift while keeping transmission high; the exact dimensions are not given in the manuscript, so if the flakes cannot realize the required complex transmission values, the output will not match a derivative or an integral.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A thin optical component could differentiate or integrate an incoming field in a single pass, replacing an electronic or bulk-optical processing step.
The same fabricated metasurface can be shifted to a different frequency band by changing the graphene chemical potential, making one device serve multiple spectral ranges.
Because spatial differentiation in the Fourier domain is equivalent to edge enhancement, the configuration offers a direct path to optical edge detection and image sharpening.
The success of the square-flake design implies that other linear operators that are functions of spatial frequency can be imprinted into a metasurface by the same local-sizing recipe.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same architecture could be pushed to higher-order operators such as $T=(i k_x)^2$ or $T=k_x^2+k_y^2$, turning the device into a general programmable spatial filter.
The chemical-potential knob that the paper uses for frequency retuning could in principle also switch the device between differentiation and integration, since a different bias changes which transfer function the metasurface approximates.
An immediate experimental test would be to fabricate a small array and compare its complex transmission against the design values; the missing supplementary dimension tables make this the first obstacle for any reproductions.

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

Plainly: this is an incomplete draft, and its central design assumption doesn't survive contact with the transfer functions it claims to implement.

The idea is a reasonable extension of Silva et al.'s computational metamaterials: put a metasurface between two Fourier lenses, and make the metasurface reconfigurable by gating graphene flakes. Graphene's voltage-tunable conductivity is a sensible handle, and the general architecture is standard. If the device worked, it would add dynamic programming to optical analog processing. That's worth something.

But the paper as submitted is not ready for review. There are placeholders, a garbled Kubo formula, duplicated figure captions, section numbering errors, and no actual dimensions for the flakes—they're deferred to missing Supplementary Tables. The validation is purely qualitative visual comparison, with no error metrics or simulation parameters. That alone would justify a desk reject.

The deeper problem is the one your stress test flags. Section 3 says the graphene squares can provide almost 2π phase shift while keeping high transmission. That describes a phase-only screen, |t| ≈ 1. The differentiator and integrator transfer functions, T = i k_x and T = 1/(i k_x), require amplitude to scale as |k_x| and 1/|k_x|. A phase-only screen cannot do that; its impulse response isn't a derivative or integral kernel. The paper never explains how amplitude is controlled—and the integrator diverges at k_x = 0 anyway, with no band limits given. This isn't just missing detail; it's an internal contradiction between the stated design mechanism and the claimed function.

The reconfigurability section is also weak: it raises the operation frequency by 10% and then tunes the chemical potentials to recover the original output. That's a tuning exercise, not a demonstration of a new function.

Credit where it's due: graphene-based reconfigurable computational metasurfaces are a plausible direction, and the authors correctly identify the relevant prior art in computational metamaterials and graphene devices. The concept is worth working on. But this manuscript doesn't support the central claim.

For peer review: desk reject. If the authors can supply the missing tables and—more importantly—show how a high-transmission graphene metasurface yields the amplitude profiles in T1 and T2, it might deserve a serious look. As it stands, no.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reconfigurable optical computing system in which a metasurface made of subwavelength graphene squares on a silicon dioxide substrate is placed between two Fourier lenses. The authors claim that by spatially varying the size of the graphene squares, the structure can realize the transfer functions T = i k_x (first-order differentiator) and T = 1/(i k_x) (integrator), so that the output field is proportional to the derivative or integral of the incident field. They further claim that the same geometry can be dynamically reconfigured to a different frequency range by tuning the chemical potential of the graphene flakes via an external bias voltage. The paper presents qualitative comparisons between simulated output fields and ideal derivative/integral profiles, without any quantitative error metrics, and defers the essential design parameters to Supplementary Tables that are not included in the manuscript.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, the paper would contribute a useful reconfigurable implementation of computational metamaterials, exploiting graphene's tunable conductivity. The conceptual direction is timely and builds on an established line of work (e.g., Silva et al.). However, as presented, the evidence is far from sufficient: the transfer functions are stated without derivation, the geometry-to-transmission mapping is missing, the Kubo formula is garbled, and the validation is purely qualitative. The paper also contains a potentially load-bearing inconsistency between the described phase-only, high-transmission design and the amplitude-varying transfer functions. The work would be significant if these gaps were closed, but in its current form it does not substantiate its claims.

major comments (5)

[Sections 3 and 4] The design described in Section 3 provides 'almost 2π phase shift' while maintaining 'a high level of transmission', which implies a phase-only screen with |t(k_x)| ≈ 1. In contrast, the transfer functions T1 = i k_x and T2 = 1/(i k_x) have magnitudes proportional to |k_x| and 1/|k_x|, respectively. A phase-only screen cannot implement these amplitude profiles. The authors must explain how the required amplitude modulation is achieved, and provide the complex transmission profile t(k_x) of the metasurface (e.g., from full-wave simulation) with its magnitude and phase plotted against the ideal transfer function over the operating spatial-frequency band.
[Equation (1)] The printed Kubo formula is garbled to the point of being unusable: symbols are concatenated (e.g., '2 ( ) 2 ( )[ 2ln( 1)] ln[ ] ln[ ] 4 2 ( ) 4 2 ( )'), brackets are mismatched, and the variables (relaxation time, Fermi energy, frequency, temperature) are not clearly assigned. The authors should provide a clean, correctly typeset formula and state the numerical values of all parameters used in the simulations, including substrate permittivity and flake dimensions.
[Section 4 and Supplementary Tables I–III] The central claim that the graphene squares realize the transfer functions T1 and T2 rests entirely on Supplementary Tables I and II, which are missing from the manuscript. The reconfigurability demonstration similarly depends on the chemical potentials in Table III. Without these tables, and without a description of how the square dimensions map to the complex transmission coefficient, the design is not reproducible and the validation cannot be checked. These materials are load-bearing and must be included.
[Section 4 (validation)] The validation of the differentiator and integrator is qualitative: the authors state that comparing Figs. 2b and 2c 'one induces that the proposed differentiator is functioning perfect', but no quantitative error metric is provided. The authors should report a normalized mean-square error or a correlation coefficient between the simulated output and the ideal derivative/integral over the full spatial domain, and they should specify the spatial-frequency band over which the realized transfer function matches the ideal, including a regularized treatment of the integrator's divergence at k_x = 0.
[Sections 3 and 4 (Fourier lens assumption)] The analysis assumes that the two graded-index Fourier lenses perform ideal Fourier transforms with no loss, finite aperture, or aberrations. This idealization is unquantified. Since the output fidelity depends on the accessible spatial-frequency band and on the lens transfer function, the authors should specify the lens parameters and justify that the ideal-lens approximation holds over the band of interest.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The section numbering in the Introduction is inconsistent: the text refers to 'Section II, Section III, Section III, Section IIII' while the actual sections are numbered 2 through 6.
[Figures 2 and 3] The caption of Figure 2 is duplicated after the discussion of the integrator, and Figure 3 appears to be referenced but its caption is missing. The captions and figure numbers should be corrected.
[Throughout] The text contains numerous typographical errors and garbled phrases, such as 't he' in the abstract, 'Plank constant' instead of 'Planck constant', and 'Reconfigurabilty' in the Section 5 heading. A thorough language edit is needed.
[References] Reference [19] is incomplete ('Silva, Alexandre, et al. Science 342 (2014): 160-163.' lacks the article title), and the reference list contains duplicate entries (refs. 20 and 36, 21 and 30, 32 and 41).
[Section 4] The transfer functions are written in garbled notation: 'T_rx = i k_x' and 'T_rx = 1/(i k_x)' appear as '1rxT ik=' and '2 1/rxT ik='. The equations should be typeset properly, with a clear distinction between the operator T and the gradient index of the Fourier lens.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The differentiation and integration demonstrations restate the Fourier-domain transfer functions used to set the graphene square dimensions; physical realization is deferred to missing supplementary tables.

self definitional [Section 3 and Section 4 (performance analysis of differentiator and integrator), around the statements 'desired transfer function T1 = i k_x' and 'desired transfer function of the integrator, i.e T2…]
"To this end, as we explained in the previous section, it is needed to spatially vary the size of the squares according to the corresponding desired transfer function [T1 = i k_x]. The interested reader is referred to Table I of Supplementary materials to find the values of the dimensions, needed to realize the transfer function [T1]. ... we change the size of the squares according to the desired transfer function of the integrator, i.e [T2 = 1/(ikx)]."

The block diagram is a 4f system: two Fourier lenses with a metasurface that multiplies the incident spectrum by a transfer function. The design procedure is to choose the square dimensions so that the metasurface transfer function equals the derivative operator i k_x (or the integral operator 1/(i k_x)). The output is then F^-1[T(k_x) F(input)], which is the derivative (or integral) by the Fourier derivative theorem. Thus the 'demonstrated' output is the mathematical consequence of the design target itself; the paper defines the device to be the operation it then claims to have realized.
other [Section 5 (Reconfigurability of the proposed graphene-based structure).]
"we increase of operation of the aforementioned differentiator (by 10 percent) designed in the previous section and try to maintain the original functionality of the differentiator by changing the values of the chemical potentials ... It is obvious that the proposed differentiator has been perfectly reconfigured to the desired frequency range."

The chemical potentials are adjusted until the original functionality is restored at the shifted frequency. The reported 'perfect reconfiguration' is the success criterion of that tuning loop, not an independent prediction; the control parameters are chosen specifically to reproduce the prior transfer function. This is a milder circularity than the design-to-output restatement, but it reinforces that the demonstrations are constructed from their targets rather than tested by parameter-free predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the graphene metasurface computes derivatives and integrals—is supported in the text only by a chain that starts from the desired transfer function, assigns square dimensions to realize that transfer function, and then shows the output matches the corresponding Fourier-domain operation. In a 4f system the output is F^-1[T F(input)], so if T is set to i k_x (or 1/(i k_x)) the derivative (or integral) result follows by construction; the in-text demonstration is therefore a restatement of the design target rather than an independent verification. The physical realization step (that subwavelength graphene squares can produce the required complex transmission, including the amplitude variation |k_x| or 1/|k_x|) is not shown in the paper; it is deferred to Supplementary Tables I–III, which are not included, and the paper's own 'high level of transmission' phase-only description is in tension with the needed amplitude profiles. The reconfigurability section is similarly a tuning exercise: chemical potentials are varied until the original function is restored. These are genuine circular/reductive features, so a score of 6 is appropriate. There is no self-citation chain or author-imported uniqueness theorem; the core idea of a graphene-based tunable Fourier metasurface has independent conceptual content, which is why the score is not higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design depends on unspecified geometry and chemical-potential parameters, ideal Fourier-lens behavior, an unvalidated metasurface phase-engineering claim, and the standard Fourier-optics operator identities. The missing Supplementary tables contain the actual design values, so the ledger cannot be completed from the text.

free parameters (3)

Square flake dimensions for differentiator = Not stated (Supplementary Table I)
The geometry is chosen to realize T = i k_x; no values or design rule are given in the text.
Square flake dimensions for integrator = Not stated (Supplementary Table II)
The geometry is chosen to realize T = 1/(i k_x); no values or design rule are given in the text.
Chemical potentials for reconfigured operation = Not stated (Supplementary Table III)
The reconfigurability test tunes chemical potentials to maintain functionality after a 10% frequency shift, making the result dependent on fitted parameters.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The two graded-index Fourier lenses perform ideal Fourier transforms of the input and output fields.
Section 3 and Fig. 1b: the 4-f configuration is the basis for multiplying the metasurface transfer function with the spectrum of the incident field.
domain assumption Kubo formula (Eq. 1) accurately models graphene surface conductivity in the operating band.
Section 2: used without specifying the frequency range or validating against experiment.
ad hoc to paper Subwavelength graphene square flakes can provide near-2π phase shift with high transmission by varying their length and width.
Section 3: asserted as the enabling capability, with evidence deferred to Supplementary material and no prior citation.
standard math A spatial differentiator and integrator correspond to Fourier-domain transfer functions T = i k_x and T = 1/(i k_x).
Section 4: standard Fourier-optics result used as the design target.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconfigurable optical computing based on graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFFDIV66

@misc{pith2026190913625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconfigurable optical computing based on graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFFDIV66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.13625}
}

read the original abstract

Optical computing has recently attracted a great deal of interest as it offers the ability to process data in a parallel manner. In this report, an optical computing system based on a metamaterial structure made of graphene is designed and demonstrated. It is shown that the proposed structure is able to do different operations such as taking derivative, and integration of an incident field. In addition to this, it is shown that the proposed structure is reconfigurable due to the possibility of tuning the surface conductivities of the graphene flakes. The proposed configuration not only goes beyond the major restriction of traditional electronic computers, but also provides a dynamic operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.13625 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Karim, Mohammad A., and Abdul A. Awwal. Optical computing : an introduction . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992

work page 1992
[2]

Optical signal processing, computing, and neural networks

Yu, Francis TS, and Suganda Jutamulia. Optical signal processing, computing, and neural networks. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992

work page 1992
[3]

Optical computing: Photonic neural networks

Woods, Damien, and Thomas J. Naughton. "Optical computing: Photonic neural networks." Nature Physics 8.4 (2012): 257

work page 2012
[4]

Optical processing and computing

Arsenault, Henri, ed. Optical processing and computing. Elsevier, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Photorefractive nonlinear optics and optical computing

Yeh, Pochi, et al. "Photorefractive nonlinear optics and optical computing." Optical Engineering 28.4 (1989): 284328

work page 1989
[6]

Optic al quantum computing

O'brien, Jeremy L. "Optic al quantum computing." Science 318.5856 (2007): 1567 - 1570

work page 2007
[7]

Fabrication of kinoform structures for optical computing

Gale, Michael T., et al. "Fabrication of kinoform structures for optical computing." Applied optics 31.26 (1992): 5712-5715

work page 1992
[8]

The role of optics in computing

Tucker, Rodney S. "The role of optics in computing." Nature Photonics 4.7 (2010): 405

work page 2010

Show all 42 references

[9]

All -optical differential equation solver with constant -coefficient tunable based on a single microring resonator

Yang, Ting, et al. "All -optical differential equation solver with constant -coefficient tunable based on a single microring resonator." Scientific reports 4 (2014): 5581

2014
[10]

Real-time optical image processing by synthesis of the coherence function using real -time holography

Okugawa, Tom, and Kazuo Hotate. "Real-time optical image processing by synthesis of the coherence function using real -time holography." Ieee Photonics Technology Letters 8.2 (1996): 257-259

1996
[11]

Plasmonic computing of spatial differentiation

Zhu, Tengfeng, et al. "Plasmonic computing of spatial differentiation." Nature communications 8 (2017): 15391

2017
[12]

Fla me temperature estimation from light field image processing

Li, Tianjiao, et al. "Fla me temperature estimation from light field image processing." Applied optics 57.25 (2018): 7259-7265. Insert PSN Here

2018
[13]

Theory of optical edge detection and imaging of thick layers

Nyyssonen, D. "Theory of optical edge detection and imaging of thick layers." JOSA 72.10 (1982): 1425-1436

1982
[14]

Enhancement of magneto - optical domain observation by digital image processing

Schmidt, Friedrich, Wolfgang Rave, and Alex Hu bert. "Enhancement of magneto - optical domain observation by digital image processing." IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 21.5 (1985): 1596-1598

1985
[15]

Reusable optical image storage and processing device

Feinleib, J., and D. S. Oliver. "Reusable optical image storage and processing device." Applied optics 11.12 (1972): 2752-2759

1972
[16]

Horner, eds

Javidi, Bahram, and Joseph L. Horner, eds. Real-time optical information processing. Academic Press, 2012

2012
[17]

Topological analog signal processing

Zangeneh-Nejad, Farzad, and Romain Fleury. "Topological analog signal processing." Nature communications 10.1 (2019): 2058

2019
[18]

Topological Fano Resonances

Zangeneh-Nejad, Farzad, and Romain Fleury. "Topological Fano Resonances." Physical review letters 122.1 (2019): 014301

2019
[19]

Science 342 (2014): 160-163

Silva, Alexandre, et al. Science 342 (2014): 160-163

2014
[20]

Graphene -based atomic -scale switches

Standley, Brian, et al. "Graphene -based atomic -scale switches." Nano letters 8.10 (2008): 3345-3349

2008
[22]

Bends and splitters in graphene nanoribbon wa veguides

Zhu, Xiaolong, et al. "Bends and splitters in graphene nanoribbon wa veguides." Optics Express 21.3 (2013): 3486-3491

2013
[23]

Saturable absorber based on graphene -covered-microfiber

He, Xiaoying, et al. "Saturable absorber based on graphene -covered-microfiber." IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 25.14 (2013)

2013
[24]

Independently tunable dual -band perfect absorber based on graphene at mid-infrared frequencies

Zhang, Yuping, et al. "Independently tunable dual -band perfect absorber based on graphene at mid-infrared frequencies." Scientific reports 5 (2015): 18463

2015
[25]

Green approach to prepare graphene -based composites with high microwave absorption capacity

Bai, Xin, Yinghao Zhai, and Yong Zhang. "Green approach to prepare graphene -based composites with high microwave absorption capacity." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 115.23 (2011): 11673-11677

2011
[26]

Graphene-based passively Q -switched 2 μm thulium - doped fiber laser

Liu, Jiang, Jia Xu, and Pu Wang. "Graphene-based passively Q -switched 2 μm thulium - doped fiber laser." Optics Communications 285.24 (2012): 5319-5322

2012
[27]

Significant enhancement in the efficiency of photoconductive antennas using a hybrid graphene m olybdenum disulphide structure

Zangeneh-Nejad, Farzad, and Reza Safian. "Significant enhancement in the efficiency of photoconductive antennas using a hybrid graphene m olybdenum disulphide structure." Journal of Nanophotonics 10.3 (2016): 036005

2016
[28]

Graphene based tunable metamaterial absorber and polarization modulation in terahertz frequency

Zhang, Yin, et al. "Graphene based tunable metamaterial absorber and polarization modulation in terahertz frequency." Optics express 22.19 (2014)

2014
[29]

Graphene based salisbury screen for terahertz absorber

Min Woo, Jeong, et al. "Graphene based salisbury screen for terahertz absorber." Applied Physics Letters 104.8 (2014): 081106

2014
[30]

Broadband THz absorbers with graphene -based anisotropic metamaterial films

He, Sailing, and Tuo Chen. "Broadband THz absorbers with graphene -based anisotropic metamaterial films." IEEE transactions on terahertz science and technology 3.6 (2013): 757-763

2013
[31]

A perfect absorber made of a graphene micro -ribbon metamaterial

Alaee, Rasoul, et al. "A perfect absorber made of a graphene micro -ribbon metamaterial." Optics express 20.27 (2012): 28017-28024

2012
[32]

Graphene -based, 50 nm wide -band tunable passively Q -switched fiber laser

Cao, W. J., et al. "Graphene -based, 50 nm wide -band tunable passively Q -switched fiber laser." Laser Physics Letters 9.1 (2011): 54. Insert PSN Here

2011
[33]

Tunable graphene antennas for selective enhancement of THz - emission

Filter, Robert, et al. "Tunable graphene antennas for selective enhancement of THz - emission." Optics express 21.3 (2013): 3737-3745

2013
[34]

Tunable terahertz optical antennas based on graphene ring structures

Liu, Penghong, et al. "Tunable terahertz optical antennas based on graphene ring structures." Applied Physics Letters 100.15 (2012): 153111

2012
[35]

A graphene -based THz ring resonator for label-free sensing

Zangeneh-Nejad, Farzad, and Reza Safian. "A graphene -based THz ring resonator for label-free sensing." IEEE Sensors Journal 16.11 (2016): 4338-4344

2016
[36]

Graphene -based atomic -scale switche s

Standley, Brian, et al. "Graphene -based atomic -scale switche s." Nano letters 8.10 (2008): 3345-3349

2008
[37]

A graphene -based broadband optical modulator

Liu, Ming, et al. "A graphene -based broadband optical modulator." Nature 474.7349 (2011): 64

2011
[38]

Unique prospects for graphene -based terahertz modulators

Sensale-Rodriguez, Berardi, et al. "Unique prospects for graphene -based terahertz modulators." Applied Physics Letters 99.11 (2011): 113104

2011
[39]

Hybrid graphene –molybdenum disulphide based ring resonator for label-free sensing

Zangeneh-Nejad, Farzad, and Reza Safian. "Hybrid graphene –molybdenum disulphide based ring resonator for label-free sensing." Optics Communications 371 (2016): 9-14

2016
[40]

Laser scribing of high -performance and flex ible graphene-based electrochemical capacitors

El-Kady, Maher F., et al. "Laser scribing of high -performance and flex ible graphene-based electrochemical capacitors." Science 335.6074 (2012): 1326-1330

2012
[41]

Graphene -based, 50 nm wide -band tunable passively Q -switched fiber laser

Cao, W. J., et al. "Graphene -based, 50 nm wide -band tunable passively Q -switched fiber laser." Laser Physics Letters 9.1 (2011): 54

2011
[42]

Graphene mode-locked ultrafast laser

Sun, Zhipei, et al. "Graphene mode-locked ultrafast laser." ACS nano 4.2 (2010): 803-810

2010
[43]

Laser -induced porous graphene films from commercial polymers

Lin, Jian, et al. "Laser -induced porous graphene films from commercial polymers." Nature communications 5 (2014): 5714

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Karim, Mohammad A., and Abdul A. Awwal. Optical computing : an introduction . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992

work page 1992

[2] [2]

Optical signal processing, computing, and neural networks

Yu, Francis TS, and Suganda Jutamulia. Optical signal processing, computing, and neural networks. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992

work page 1992

[3] [3]

Optical computing: Photonic neural networks

Woods, Damien, and Thomas J. Naughton. "Optical computing: Photonic neural networks." Nature Physics 8.4 (2012): 257

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Optical processing and computing

Arsenault, Henri, ed. Optical processing and computing. Elsevier, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Photorefractive nonlinear optics and optical computing

Yeh, Pochi, et al. "Photorefractive nonlinear optics and optical computing." Optical Engineering 28.4 (1989): 284328

work page 1989

[6] [6]

Optic al quantum computing

O'brien, Jeremy L. "Optic al quantum computing." Science 318.5856 (2007): 1567 - 1570

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Fabrication of kinoform structures for optical computing

Gale, Michael T., et al. "Fabrication of kinoform structures for optical computing." Applied optics 31.26 (1992): 5712-5715

work page 1992

[8] [8]

The role of optics in computing

Tucker, Rodney S. "The role of optics in computing." Nature Photonics 4.7 (2010): 405

work page 2010