
- Chinese Optics Letters
- Vol. 23, Issue 2, 021301 (2025)
Abstract
1. Introduction
Programmable photonic integrated circuits (PPICs)[1–4], as an alternative to application-specific photonic integrated circuits (ASPICs), enable various functionalities to be configured on the same waveguide mesh. Such waveguide meshes are built from many tunable basic units (TBUs) connected based on 2D fixed topologies, as shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). Based on whether they support light backward propagation, waveguide meshes can be divided into two categories: 1) feedforward-only waveguide meshes[3,5] [as shown in Fig. 1(a)], which support only feedforward light propagation and are often used to configure multiport interferometers; 2) recirculating waveguide meshes [as shown in Fig. 1(b)], which support both feedforward and feedback light propagation, thereby offering enhanced functional versatility and can be used to configure both finite and infinite multiport interferometers and filters[3,5,6]. While the complex structure of recirculating waveguide meshes provides great functional flexibility, it simultaneously poses great challenges in practical applications.
Figure 1.(a) Feedforward-only waveguide mesh. (b) Recirculating waveguide mesh. (c) TBU within the feedforward-only waveguide mesh, typically implemented with an asymmetric MZI, featuring an internal PS on one arm and an external PS and two 50:50 BSs[
As shown in Fig. 1(e), the programming of PPIC relies on configuration algorithms to translate user-defined functionalities into voltages applied to waveguide meshes[2,7–13]. However, imperfections introduced during fabrication can degrade the performance of these algorithms, as the voltages retrieved based on an ideal assumption may not suit the actual fabricated mesh[14,15]. Attempts have been made to solve this problem by running these algorithms in an on-chip manner, using the measurement results of the fabricated mesh as feedback for these algorithms to ensure suitability for the actual defective mesh[7,8,16,17]. This approach is effective but inefficient[8,9,18], as it typically involves a number of time-consuming tasks of setting and measuring the mesh[18]. A better solution would be to adopt an off-chip manner, using simulation methods[15,19–21] and analytical gradient calculation methods[20,21] to build a virtual model of the fabricated mesh and replace the actual measurement of the fabricated mesh with analytical calculations. This improves efficiency but relies on accurate characterization of the fabricated mesh to ensure proper alignment.
However, characterizing recirculating waveguide meshes is particularly challenging. The more complex topology [Fig. 1(b)] and compact TBU structure [Fig. 1(d)] of the recirculating waveguide meshes, while offering more flexible functionality, also make their characterization difficult. Additionally, the flexibility required by such meshes also poses a higher characterization demand. These complexities make the characterization methods suitable for feedforward-only waveguide meshes[23,24] neither applicable nor sufficient. Also, existing methods suitable for recirculating waveguide meshes have been limited to primarily focus on characterizing only certain parameters[16,18,25], which is not sufficient for use in simulation methods or analytical gradient calculation methods, making it inadequate when it comes to the practical application of off-chip configuration. Therefore, in this Letter, we propose a new characterization method suitable for recirculating waveguide meshes.
Our method utilizes an optimization method to infer the imperfection parameters from the test result of the actual fabricated mesh. We also design a step-by-step procedure that can narrow down the possible range of certain imperfection parameters before the optimization, helping to reduce the parameter space and providing a good starting position for optimization. With this technique, the range of parameters that can be characterized is greatly broadened compared to existing methods, making it sufficient for use in simulation methods and analytical gradient calculation methods (see Sec. S1 in the Supplementary Material for detailed comparison). To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in precise characterization, we used the characterized parameters to build a model of the detective mesh and demonstrate its ability to accurately predict the mesh transmission matrices. Moreover, we carried out our method under various scenarios to analyze its stability and robustness. Lastly, we applied our method to the implementation of six different kinds of finite/infinite impulse response (FIR/IIR) filters to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in configuring applications on defective meshes.
Sign up for Chinese Optics Letters TOC. Get the latest issue of Chinese Optics Letters delivered right to you!Sign up now
2. Modeling of Recirculating Waveguide Meshes Considering Fabrication Imperfection
In recirculating waveguide meshes [Fig. 1(b)], TBUs [Fig. 1(d)] are implemented with a symmetric Mach–Zender interferometer (MZI) composed of 50:50 beam splitters (BSs) and phase shifters (PSs) attached to both arms. As mentioned earlier, the flexibility required by the recirculating waveguide meshes poses higher characterization demand. For such meshes, their applications in configuring filters necessitate their performance being evaluated across the entire frequency band, rather than at a single frequency point. Furthermore, the actual phases of each PS on both TBU arms must be obtained, rather than just the phase difference between the upper and lower arms, as in feedforward meshes. Thus, recirculating waveguide meshes requires a more comprehensive model that considers more imperfection factors. Therefore, our modeling considers various fabrication imperfections, including the passive phase without the voltage applied (
Thus, our characterization method aims to characterize these imperfections of each TBU in the mesh, i.e.,
3. Principle of Proposed Characterization Method
Existing methods suitable for recirculating waveguide meshes have been limited to primarily focus on characterizing only certain parameters, such as the coupling factor of the TBU versus the applied voltage or required voltage to set the TBU to the cross/bar state[16,18,25]. However, this is insufficient for use in simulation methods or analytical gradient calculation methods, as the working principle of these methods requires the specific imperfection parameters of each component of the TBU, rather than just the resultant coupling factor. Therefore, to enable the practical use of these methods in off-chip configuration, all parameters in
Figure 2.Characterization procedure involving 4 steps. Step 1: characterize passive phase difference
Step 1: Characterization of
Using the method proposed in Ref. [25], we can have the coupling factor of the TBU relative to the applied voltages (
Step 2: Characterization of
Our characterization method includes characterizing the group index
Step 3: Narrowing down the value ranges of
The phases of each PS on both arms of the TBU need to be characterized. However, these phases cannot be easily obtained because, in recirculating waveguide mesh, the formation of interference requires the participation of multiple TBUs, making it impossible to separate the effects of different TBUs. Consequently, deducing the phase information of the PS from the interference light intensity, a task that can be easily done in characterizing feedforward-only waveguide meshes, becomes infeasible. Without the phase information, the passive phase could potentially span any value between 0 and
Step 4: Characterizing utilizing optimization
In the final step of our characterization routine, we utilize an optimization method to find the optimal value of
4. Simulation Results
4.1. Characterization errors and accuracy of predicting mesh transmission matrices
Next, simulation verification of our method is conducted on a waveguide mesh containing 36 TBUs. In order to verify the effectiveness of our method, we conduct 30 experiments by randomly generating
Figure 3.PDFs, along with error ranges and corresponding confidence levels of KBS and dϑ characterization errors and transmission matrix
We also adopt the root mean square error (RMSE) [Eq. (1)] to measure the average prediction error of the transmission matrices. In our case, the average RMSE over 30 experiments is 0.35 dB,
Evidently, even though our characterization procedure was conducted at a single frequency point, it can precisely predict the transmission matrices over the entire FSR. Overall, we have demonstrated that the proposed method can characterize imperfections precisely and ensure accurate modeling of the defective mesh.
4.2. Stability and robustness analysis under real-world conditions
To further analyze the stability and robustness of the proposed method, we tested it under various real-world scenarios, considering different BS splitting ratio variances, inaccurate measurements of the mesh, inaccurate TBU insertion loss characterization, and inaccurate voltage control.
First, we consider differnt BS splitting ratio (
4.3. Verification of the proposed method by implementing various applications
Lastly, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our characterization method through the implementation of FIR filter applications, including two MZIs with different arm length differences and a 3-tap MZI lattice filter, as shown in Figs. 4(a)–4(c).
Figure 4.FIR applications. Circuit layout diagrams and waveguide mesh arrangements for three different FIR applications. (a), (b) MZIs with different arm length differences. (c) A 3-tap MZI lattice filter. (d), (e), (f) Spectral responses of the ideal, actual, and characterized meshes, when configured with voltages chosen based on ideal assumption, respectively, for the three applications. (g), (h), (i) Spectral responses of the actual and characterized meshes, when configured with voltages chosen based on the characterized
We first configured the filters using voltages chosen based on an ideal assumption. As a result, the normalized spectral responses of an ideal mesh, the actual mesh, and the characterized mesh were plotted in Figs. 4(d)–4(f). As we can see, the spectral responses of the actual mesh deviate significantly from those of the ideal mesh, indicating that configuring the mesh based on an ideal assumption would lead the actual defective mesh to deviate from the targeted functionality. Also, the spectral responses of the characterized mesh align with those of the actual mesh, validating the effectiveness of our characterization method in accurately predicting the actual mesh behavior. Then, we configured the filters using voltages chosen based on the characterized
We also demonstrated the implementation of IIR filter applications, including an optical ring resonator (ORR), a triple ORR coupled-resonator waveguide (CROW) filter, and a double ORR ring-loaded MZI. Similarly, we observed a phenomenon comparable to that seen in the FIR filter configurations (see Sec. S9 in the Supplementary Material for more details). The successful implementation of the FIR and IIR filters proves the effectiveness of our method in configuring applications on meshes with fabrication errors.
5. Conclusion
Our characterization method combines the optimization method with a step-by-step parameter-space-reduction technique, addressing the challenges in characterizing recirculating waveguide meshes. Under the condition of
Please refer to the Supplementary Material for more discussion on the modeling of imperfect recirculating waveguide meshes, the detailed principles of the characterization method, the robustness analysis of the method, and its practical applications.
References
[2] W. Bogaerts, D. Pérez, J. Capmany et al. Programmable photonic circuits. Nature, 586, 207(2020).
[4] W. Bogaerts, X. Chen, M. Wang et al. Programmable silicon photonic integrated circuits. IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), 1(2020).
[8] D. P. López. Automated configuration of general-purpose programmable photonic ics: from rf equalizers to dispersion management. Asia Communications and Photonics Conference (ACP) and International Conference on Information Photonics and Optical Communications (IPOC), 1(2020).
[11] X. Chen, W. Bogaerts. A graph-based design and programming strategy for reconfigurable photonic circuits. IEEE Photonics Society Summer Topical Meeting Series (SUM), 1(2019).
[12] Z. Gao, X. Chen, Z. Zhang et al. Provable routing analysis of programmable photonics(2023).
[16] D. Perez Lopez, A. Lopez Hernandez, P. Das Mahapatra et al. Field-programmable photonic array for multipurpose microwave photonic applications. IEEE International Topical Meeting on Microwave Photonics (MWP), 147(2019).
[20] Z. Gao, X. Chen, Z. Zhang et al. Automatic realization of light processing functions for programmable photonics. IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), 1(2022).
[24] S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Sludds, S. Krastanov. Single chip photonic deep neural network with accelerated training(2022).
[25] A. López-Hernández, M. Gutiérrez-Zubillaga, D. Pérez-López. Automatic self-calibration of programmable photonic processors. IEEE Photonics Conference (IPC), 1(2022).

Set citation alerts for the article
Please enter your email address