Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report on eng-3923868:

 

This paper presents an integer divider (ILD) based on optical mask superposition. The core idea is to utilize spatial light modulation and segmented detection to achieve hardware acceleration for Euclidean division. This method is conceptually novel, with rigorous theoretical analysis and complete mathematical derivation. It has a clear physical implementation path and potential application prospects. However, there are still some aspects that need improvement. The specific comments and suggestions are as follows:

 

On the science of the paper:

1. There are extra boxes at the end of line 81, 109 and 118.
2. The text layout in Figure 2 is too cramped.
3. ‘Unconventional and neuromorphic computing’ in line 389 is repeated.
4. Some abbreviations used in the text are not provided with their full forms after them, For example, DSP and SIMD.
5. Although the paper presented the experimental design plan, it lacked any experimental data or simulation results to validate the theoretical model.
6. The conclusion section is too brief.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attached PDF file for my responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript introduces a new optical method to compute integer division (N/D) by superimposing two masks, in which the first mask contains N lines with a distance of q, and the second mask contains blocks with a width of D*q; finally, the detector reads the light transmission of two overlapped masks with a pixel size of D*q, the pixel number where the light intensity is the maximum represents the [N/D], and the intensity at pixel [N/D]+1 represents the N mod D. The manuscript is well written and demonstrates this method by deriving the thretical equations, analyzes the noise limitation and diffraction limitation, and proposes an expermental setup configuration. I suggest this manuscript be accepted. 

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attached PDF file for my responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the present work. The topic addressed is within my expertise. I have read comparable works before, so my decision is positive. However, to improve the manuscript, I recommend the following:

1-Talking about optical computing, the introductory section seems too fast. Please elaborate more. Much works have been conducted recently in the field.

2-The methodology used in Section 2 requires more elaboration for readers and not experts in the field.

3-How combinatorics tools are used in section 3? Please clarify? seems only counting.

4-Talking about the optical model, any illustration?

5-Theorem 1 is well-known,

6-Are equations 6 and 12 new? I mean the result seems not really surprising.

7-The discussion of ideas and outcomes must be done in a systematic way.

8-It is mentioned that "the ILD can serve as a physical primitive for modular
arithmetic and blockwise aggregation in optics." Is it the only way? 

9-Conclusions are too short.

 

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attached PDF file for my responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my questions have been revised by the author, and now I believe this paper can be published in Eng journal.