Analog Optical Inference on Million-Record Mortgage Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Analog optical computers promise large efficiency gains for machine learning inference, yet no demonstration has moved beyond small-scale image benchmarks. We benchmark the analog optical computer (AOC) digital twin on mortgage approval classification from 5.84 million U.S. HMDA records and separate three sources of accuracy loss. On the original 19 features, the AOC reaches 94.6% balanced accuracy with 5,126 parameters (1,024 optical), compared with 97.9% for XGBoost; the 3.3 percentage-point gap narrows by only 0.5pp when the optical core is widened from 16 to 48 channels, suggesting an architectural rather than hardware limitation. Restricting all models to a shared 127-bit binary encoding drops every model to 89.4--89.6%, with an encoding cost of 8pp for digital models and 5pp for the AOC. Seven calibrated hardware non-idealities impose no measurable penalty. The three resulting layers of limitation (encoding, architecture, hardware fidelity) locate where accuracy is lost and what to improve next.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2026.
Builds on
11 of 19 references.
References · 11
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 740
- 2019Deep Equilibrium Modelscited by 615
- 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
- 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
- 2025TabArena: A Living Benchmark for Machine Learning on Tabular Datacited by 176
- 2025TabPFN-2.5: Advancing the State of the Art in Tabular Foundation Modelscited by 132
- 2024TabM: Advancing Tabular Deep Learning with Parameter-Efficient Ensemblingcited by 113
- 2023The physics of optical computingcited by 33
- 2024TabReD: Analyzing Pitfalls and Filling the Gaps in Tabular Deep Learning Benchmarkscited by 33
Built on by
Not cited yet.