optical hardware engineers

Abstract: Universal function approximation underpins neural networks' capacity to represent nonlinear relationships, but realizing this capability in optical hardware requires engineering the computational features encoded in light. Here, we show that wavelength diversity enhances optical function-approximation expressivity through wavelength-scaled Fourier features generated by a shared phase encoder, without increasing the number of input-encoded harmonics. Multiple wavelengths contribute to the representation of each output function rather than merely serving as independent computational channels. We establish theoretical scaling laws and approximation-error bounds, revealing that, for nondispersive encoders, the spectral endpoints determine the accessible computational bandwidth, while intermediate illumination wavelengths enrich the available harmonics within that bandwidth. Numerical studies demonstrate improved approximation of real- and complex-valued nonlinear functions, with a representative design achieving more than a 100-fold reduction in mean-squared error relative to tested monochromatic optical processors with the same number of trainable phase features. Experimentally, we validate enhanced approximation accuracy and demonstrate the simultaneous approximation of 4,136 distinct nonlinear functions using a compact, single-layer diffractive processor under five-wavelength illumination. These results establish wavelength diversity as an additional physical resource for scaling the expressive power of optical computing and enhancing the accuracy of parallel nonlinear function approximation.

Abstract: Wave-based processors promise fast, energy-efficient Fourier layers for neural operators. They are usually validated on randomly sampled devices, but using them requires knowing how large their error can become under fabrication and alignment variation. In a stylised numerical case study, a hybrid Fourier neural operator runs its four spectral layers on simulated coherent 4f processors with 32 toleranced knobs, whose half-widths are representative rather than calibrated. For 120 models (four tasks, six training methods, five seeds), we compared the worst of N random in-spec devices with a searched one. On a deterministic simulator with one frozen draw of the random static errors, the searched device's held-out error was 1.08-3.10 times the maximum over 200 Monte Carlo devices and 1.06-2.71 times that over 1000. With 20 fresh static draws, it still exceeded the maximum over 200 random devices in 116 of 120 models. Under uniform sampling, the probability of drawing such a device is at most 0.37% per model (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson), which says nothing about how large its error is. The gap persisted with uniform or Sobol' sampling at the search's budget, shared knobs, a second crosstalk model, box scales of 0.25-2 and a pixel-level device model. Models trained only with random static errors reached 3.7-39.9 times their nominal error on searched devices, and fine-tuning on random and gradient-searched devices gave the lowest searched error of the six in all 20 task-seed pairs. For two heat-exchanger quantities, a search targeted at each exceeded the worst of 1000 random devices in all 39 models, and hence the Wilks 95/95 limit (worst of 59). For the mean pressure of 11 models, no random device exceeded a 1% error threshold, but the searched device did. Random testing estimates how often errors exceed a threshold; worst-device search gives a lower bound on how large they can be.