Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of a 4 × 4 Reconfigurable MZI-Based Linear Optical Processor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 4 × 4 reconfigurable Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI)-based linear optical processor is investigated through its theoretical analyses and characterized experimentally. The linear transformation matrix of the structure is theoretically determined using its building block, which is a 2 × 2 reconfigurable MZI. To program the device, the linear transformation matrix of a given application is decomposed into that of the constituent MZIs of the structure. Thus, the required phase shifts for implementing the transformation matrix of the application by means of the optical processor are determined theoretically. Due to random phase offsets in the MZIs resulting from fabrication process variations, they are initially configured through an experimental protocol. The presented calibration scheme allows to straightforwardly characterize the MZIs to mitigate the possible input phase errors and determine the bar and cross states of each MZI for tuning it at the required sate before programming the device. After the configuration process, the device can be programmed to construct the linear transformation matrix of the application. In this regard, using the required bias voltages, the phase shifts obtained from the decomposition process are applied to the phase shifters of the MZIs in the device.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it