# Constrained Co-Design for Photonic Bayesian Neural Networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02229 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02229/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02142/) (2015)
- [Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.07747/) (2017)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04977/) (2017)
- [Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticians](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1601.00670/) (2016)
- [Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02530/) (2019)
- [Weight Uncertainty in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.05424/) (2015)
- [Hands-on Bayesian Neural Networks -- a Tutorial for Deep Learning Users](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.06823/) (2020)
- [TrivialAugment: Tuning-free Yet State-of-the-Art Data Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.10158/) (2021)
- [Deep physical neural networks enabled by a backpropagation algorithm for arbitrary physical systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13386/) (2021)
- [Experimentally realized in situ backpropagation for deep learning in nanophotonic neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.08501/) (2022)
- [On the Effects of Quantisation on Model Uncertainty in Bayesian Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.11062/) (2021)
- [Uncertainty Reasoning with Photonic Bayesian Machines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02217/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Classical neural networks frequently produce overconfident predictions on ambiguous or out-of-distribution (OOD) data, a liability that grows with each AI system deployed in safety-critical real-world scenarios. Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) provide a principled framework for uncertainty-aware prediction by replacing deterministic parameters with probability distributions, but repeated sampling increases latency, memory traffic, and energy consumption. Photonic probabilistic computing offers a promising alternative by exploiting intrinsic optical stochasticity for fast and parallel sampling. However, photonic BNNs are not ideal samplers: analog constraints on quantization, programming error, dynamic range, and representable mean and variance restrict the variational families that can be implemented in hardware. In this work, we study which hardware-imposed constraints limit scalable photonic BNN inference, how these constraints can be represented, and which ranges can be tolerated by photonic BNNs beyond small proof-of-concept networks. We formulate photonic BNN inference as constrained stochastic variational inference and perform a systematic ablation study over stochasticity location, stochasticity modality, quantization, programming error, and mean/variance bounds. From these results, we derive concrete co-design guidelines that distinguish hardware constraints that can be compensated by training from those requiring hardware or architecture intervention. We validate these guidelines under coupled, hardware-realistic constraints on Dirty-MNIST, CIFAR-10, and CINIC-10, using Fashion-MNIST and SVHN as OOD benchmarks, showing that hardware-aware training recovers predictive performance and uncertainty quality whenever the required variational family remains representable, whereas violations of representational limits require targeted hardware modifications.