Commit Graph
59 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
edoardo 6260bbac4b added metaprop_fibermode_doublet_multi which implements a multiplexer. In practice, two out-of-axis sources propagate through the metasurface doublet and reach the output plane as two distinct orthogonal fiber modes. For example, one source is converted to an LP11 and the other to an LP21. This is obtained by optimizing the average of the overlap of the two modes separately. 2026-07-15 15:28:54 +02:00
edoardo 9fbb398592 added metaprop_fibermode_doublet_shiftSource that introduces some modifications needed to properly account for out-of-axis excitations. Initially, it was observed that previous code was only capable of optimizing an on-axis source to an on-axis target. If for example the source was shifted away from the center, then the optimization would fail. Even if the target was shifted out-of-axis to match the position of the source, the algorithm would not work. Several bugs produced this issue. The first was related to how the theoretical model was translated to code, in particular how we handled gradient calculations. In theory, we considered column vectors, for which taking the transpose simply turns them into row vectors but does not change the element wise product. In the code, we instead deal with 2D arrays, and at that point transposing is no longer irrelevant. Check notes for more details about this bug. The second bug was related to how we handle FFTs. In particular, the simulation space is centered in the center of the array. FFTs work considering that the signal starts at the corners. This center mismatch did not cause any issue for the on-axis case, due to the symmetry of the problem. We did not observe both of these two bugs because in the on-axis case everything is centered. 2026-07-14 17:13:02 +02:00
edoardo fb55b76485 added metaprop_fibermode_doublet_epigraph which implements the epigraph formulation of the problem to handle multiplexing 2026-07-06 10:22:23 +02:00
edoardo f6fd791fff general testing of parameters. Regarding metaprop_fibermode_doublet, the spatial sampling has been fixed and the grid size is controlled by the number of pixels. I have seen that the mask-mask and mask-output plane distance is crucial and should not be chosen randomly, at the moment i have tested empirically some dimensions. The parameters in this commit seem to work ok, but we need to understand. Then, intensity conversation is still an issue, since the pattern at the output has 95/100, meaning 5/100 is lost somewhere. We really need to understand if this is an issue or not. With these settings, we might want to increase the window size, but then see the next point. I have introduced boundary boxes on phase masks, this is to avoid the algorithm using pixels that are clearly outside and only see noise. If we extend the simulation domain, we ought to extend these boundaries, otherwise the issue will present itself again. For what pixelation is concerned, honestly i expected worse, though there is still the need to apply some kind of filter to eradicate spurious single pixels. That should be doable using autograd, since the heavylifting is done by the adjoint, using autograd just for the filter part should not require too much computing effort. This needs to be tested. 2026-06-19 17:17:45 +02:00
edoardo 3276b3991c modified parameters for testing 2026-06-19 13:46:30 +02:00
edoardo f99dc5308e modified parameters for testing 2026-06-19 13:40:43 +02:00
edoardo 0d8c90c7fb modified parameters for testing 2026-06-19 13:38:07 +02:00
edoardo b57ec8e757 added metaprop_asm.py used to test the angular spectrum method 2026-06-19 13:37:41 +02:00
edoardo 1668de238d changing the grid system requires using a larger beamwaist for the input field. Effectively, the larger beam incides onto a larger number of unit-cells 2026-06-18 21:00:51 +02:00
edoardo 5e7ad710ba params. fix 2026-06-18 17:44:01 +02:00
edoardo a008cada72 more testing on grid size and propagation distances 2026-06-18 17:39:32 +02:00
edoardo b7271ffdf9 increasing domain size for testing 2026-06-18 14:04:06 +02:00
edoardo e275ea610b parameter change for testing 2026-06-18 11:48:30 +02:00
edoardo 24f3f24e5d code improvements and cleanup after introducing fftw 2026-06-18 10:45:31 +02:00
edoardo dee7bc9c8f fixed variable names 2026-06-17 14:18:31 +02:00
edoardo a87258a9c5 testing pyfftw 2026-06-17 13:49:25 +02:00
edoardo 93be0f6954 added timestamps for evaluation 2026-06-17 10:43:26 +02:00
edoardo e5ae6f6cf2 added metaprop_fibermode_doublet.py which implements the angular spectrum method, together with the adjoint formulation to simulate a metasurface doublet 2026-06-17 08:36:08 +02:00
edoardo 034f6c83c7 modified filter parameters. Using a conic filter with radius 0.5 2026-06-05 08:32:06 +02:00
edoardo 1f3e3d5775 uniform filter with radius 1 2026-06-04 17:07:50 +02:00
edoardo 54de099e46 added fiber_modes.ipynb useful utility to compute fiber modes 2026-06-04 14:29:31 +02:00
edoardo dae3d64b74 added metaprop_ad.py for testing automatic differentiation and conic filtering 2026-06-04 14:16:47 +02:00
edoardo 9b6842a061 added metaprop, implementing adjoint inverse design through the angular spectrum method 2026-06-02 23:17:21 +02:00
edoardo 15a1f59be6 fixed plots between epochs 2026-05-31 10:51:01 +02:00
edoardo 5523439021 I have seen that the first naive version does not converge well in the dft fields. So in the mean time I am running this version which outputs data more frequenctly 2026-05-30 22:36:03 +02:00
edoardo 4579f8544f updated parameters 2026-05-30 15:53:52 +02:00
edoardo 5ca07a7062 added metapeg_v2_unc.py, which is a naive implementation of topology optimization without filtering and projecting, which is useful to test the objective function alone and understand if the algorithm can produce the intended result under the most relaxed conditions (no binarization) 2026-05-30 15:52:30 +02:00
edoardo c9df747f4f solved conflict on folder creation among multiple processes 2026-05-29 14:42:29 +02:00
edoardo 5b18e7bce7 after the first tests, I increase the number of iterations per epoch 2026-05-29 14:29:30 +02:00
edoardo d01f28dab3 parameter change for testing 2026-05-27 14:58:10 +02:00
edoardo 1af0b18baf parameter change for testing 2026-05-27 14:55:58 +02:00
edoardo a283be231c 1) minor changes to metapeg_v2, but we no longer modify the chunk property and leave it to the default value (=True). Setting it to False causes segmentation errors in the adjoint loop, but works for direct simulations (for example in the normalization run) 2) added sim_opt_design, which is used to simulate an optimized design given the values of an optimized MaterialGrid after and outside the main optimization algorithm 2026-05-27 14:55:09 +02:00
edoardo 1fafc62824 trying split_chunks_evenly=True, previously it was set to false 2026-05-27 10:04:15 +02:00
edoardo caf555d248 testing for NaN 2026-05-27 09:27:44 +02:00
edoardo 7f8d9492d5 testing again for segm. errors. 2026-05-27 09:14:13 +02:00
edoardo 72517172c2 increased solution time for testing 2026-05-26 22:48:00 +02:00
edoardo df865759c3 increased resolution for testing 2026-05-26 13:43:00 +02:00
edoardo b21083f491 modified reshaping to automatically account for correct dimensions 2026-05-26 13:41:32 +02:00
edoardo 56d84e4c2f testing increasing resolution 2026-05-26 10:18:07 +02:00
edoardo 70a5391762 more debugging 2026-05-26 10:09:25 +02:00
edoardo f1a6fd25ab changed parameters for easier debugging 2026-05-26 08:50:50 +02:00
edoardo 249d39aa73 added faulthandler for testing 2026-05-26 08:43:49 +02:00
edoardo 2cfce678a3 testing for segmentation faults 2026-05-26 08:41:58 +02:00
edoardo 7f362f3e47 trying to lower resolution of design region to the same as the physics 2026-05-25 17:21:44 +02:00
edoardo c27f5a3896 another parameter test 2026-05-25 16:44:50 +02:00
edoardo 7039997fbd testing fields again 2026-05-25 15:38:48 +02:00
edoardo 1311203563 param. update 2026-05-25 14:41:00 +02:00
edoardo d113f54164 add field plot utilities for normalization run 2026-05-25 14:30:01 +02:00
edoardo 3be89321ee the stop condition on the normalization run needs to be better analyzed. Specifically, we should understand where to position the monitor point. Before, it was in a far field point, outside the simulation cell. I've seen the simulation does not converge, at first glance. Now I'll try position it in a real physical point inside the cell. Let's see if it converges in a different way. 2026-05-24 22:45:15 +02:00
edoardo 10db14256e minor changes 2026-05-24 21:00:07 +02:00