Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Polarization control via artificial optical nonlinearity in dielectric metasurfaces

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that four susceptibility coefficients retrieved from one unrotated metasurface predict the complete polarization and phase of third-harmonic light from any metasurface built from the same cuboid meta-atoms.

desk verdict Useful design-toolbox paper for nonlinear metasurfaces: the cross-device predictions are genuine, but the symmetry statement is sloppy and the tensor retrieval is partly fitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03752 v1 pith:BDFGWWRJ submitted 2025-09-03 physics.app-ph

Fuyong Yue , Giacomo Balistreri , Nicola Montaut , Fabrizio Riminucci , Andrea Toma , Riccardo Piccoli , Stefano Cabrini , Roberto Morandotti
show 1 more author
Luca Razzari
This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph PACS 42.65.Ky
keywords third-harmonicgenerationnonlineargeometricphasedielectricmetasurfacespolarizationengineeringartificialsusceptibilitymetagratingamorphoussilicongradientmetasurface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the third-harmonic (TH) polarization response of a dielectric metasurface made from rotated cuboid meta-atoms is completely described by four coefficients built from a single effective third-order susceptibility tensor. The authors retrieve that tensor from one plain, unrotated array of amorphous-silicon cuboids and then use it to predict, without new fitting, the polarization state of TH light emitted by a polarization metagrating and a gradient metasurface. Agreement between prediction and measurement across three device types is the evidence for the claim. If the claim holds, nonlinear metasurface designers can treat the meta-atom geometry as a programmable artificial nonlinearity whose amplitude, phase, and polarization response are known in advance.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the effective third-order susceptibility tensor of the cuboid unit cell, reduced by mmm symmetry and the in-plane, non-resonant assumption to four components: chi11, chi22, chi18, chi29. Equation (1) is the mechanism: after transforming the input Jones vector into the rotated local frame, applying standard THG formulas, and transforming back, the nonlinear polarization density appears as four terms, each carrying a distinct dependence on input circular amplitudes and rotation angle α. The constants a1-a4 in Eq. (2) map the four tensor components onto those observable terms. Everything else—the metagrating's orthogonal polarization orders, the gradient metasurface's dif

What would settle it

Take a metasurface of the same cuboid meta-atoms but with a rotation sequence or lattice spacing different from the plain array, measure the TH polarization angle and powers across the diffraction orders, and compare with Eq. (1) using the tensor values retrieved from the plain sample. If prediction errors grow systematically with rotation angle or with neighbor separation, the invariance of the tensor under rotation and lattice arrangement is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (1) is the central claim: the TH nonlinear polarization density of a rotated cuboid meta-atom equals four circular-basis terms weighted by coefficients a1-a4, which are linear combinations of the four nonzero susceptibility components allowed by mmm symmetry. Circular input yields opposite- and same-handed TH components with geometric phases e^{±4iα} and e^{±2iα}; linear input mixes the input angle θ with rotation α in four terms. The tensor values are retrieved from one plain unrotated metasurface, and Eq. (1) then reproduces, without refitting, the measured TH polarization and power distribution of a polarization metagrating and a gradient metasurface. The paper concludes Eq. (1)

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four retrieved susceptibility coefficients stay unchanged when a meta-atom is rotated or placed next to differently oriented neighbors; only the rotation angle enters the model, never a change in the local field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single characterization of a plain unrotated metasurface supplies enough information to design arbitrarily rotated devices, so future designs do not need per-device nonlinear fitting.
  • For cross-shaped meta-atoms with tetragonal symmetry, coefficients a2 and a3 vanish, so circular input produces TH only with opposite handedness—recovering earlier spin-selection results as a special case.
  • Gradient metasurfaces with linearly varying rotation angle produce +1/+2 or -1/-2 diffraction orders for RCP/LCP input, and the 0th order appears only when the input is not circular—a signature the model predicts and measures.
  • The cuboid geometry breaks the isotropic relation chi18 = chi11/3, which enables THG under circularly polarized pump light that is forbidden in the plain a-Si film.
  • Because the model covers amplitude, phase, and polarization, it can be adapted to other meta-atom symmetries and to second-order nonlinear processes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if tensor transferability is generic, the same 'characterize one plain array, then rotate' procedure could make nonlinear metasurface design a lookup table of measured tensors per meta-atom geometry.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted absence of a 0th-order diffracted TH beam for purely circular input suggests a compact geometry for background-free frequency conversion, since signal in nonzero orders is spatially separated from the collinear pump.
  • Editorial inference: retrieving the tensor from a metasurface with a different lattice period or with an asymmetric rotation sequence would test the model's most fragile link; systematic drift with rotation angle or neighbor separation would reveal coupling effects the single-meta-atom model omits.
  • Editorial inference: the measured up-to-20-degree deviation between TH and input linear polarization in a single-layer metasurface could be developed into a compact nonlinear polarization rotator, though the paper does not frame it that way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytical model for third-harmonic generation from dielectric metasurfaces made of rotated cuboid a-Si meta-atoms. Starting from the mmm susceptibility matrix and assuming the fundamental polarization is unchanged inside the meta-atoms, it derives Eq. (1), expressing the TH polarization density as four terms with coefficients a1-a4 that depend on four effective tensor components χ11, χ22, χ18, and χ29. The tensor values are extracted from TH conversion-efficiency measurements on a plain unrotated metasurface, and the model is then used to design and interpret a nonlinear polarization metagrating (±22.5° rotations) and a gradient metasurface (22.5° rotation steps). The measured diffraction orders and polarization states of the two functional devices are in reasonable agreement with the model predictions, supporting the proposed design toolbox.

Significance. If the model holds, it offers a compact, quantitative design rule for controlling TH polarization and phase with a small set of geometry-defined effective tensor components. The work goes beyond earlier demonstrations of nonlinear geometric phase by adding full polarization characterization and by transferring the tensor characterization from a plain metasurface to two distinct functional devices, which is a valuable cross-check. The explicit four-term decomposition in Eq. (1), the measured tensor values, and the experimental validation on multiple device geometries are useful assets for future nonlinear metasurface design. The main limitations are the assumed invariance of the effective tensor under rotation and lattice environment, and the partly self-referential validation on the plain metasurface itself.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results, Fig. 2(c,d)] The four susceptibility tensor elements are retrieved from the same plain metasurface whose full polarization response is then compared with Eq. (6). As stated in the text, 'All the theoretical curves were evaluated using Eq. (6) together with the retrieved susceptibility tensor values.' For the plain metasurface, this comparison is therefore a consistency check, not an independent test of Eq. (1). The paper should explicitly separate the retrieval procedure (e.g., from the H/V conversion efficiencies alone) from the prediction of the full θ-dependent curves, and report uncertainties on χ11, χ22, χ18, and χ29. The independent validation of Eq. (1) rests on the metagrating and gradient devices, and this should be emphasized as the predictive test.
  2. [Theory, Eq. (1); Device design; Results on metagrating and gradient metasurface] The central claim that Eq. (1) provides a 'complete picture' for arbitrary input polarization and rotation angle requires the effective tensor elements obtained at α=0 to remain invariant when a meta-atom is rotated and placed in a different lattice environment. The assumptions listed in the Theory section (E_z=0, negligible resonance effects, unchanged fundamental polarization) suppress exactly the orientation-dependent local-field and near-field coupling effects that could violate this invariance. The two functional devices sample only α=±22.5° and a linear α step of 22.5°, so the predicted e^{4iα} and e^{2iα} dependences are not tested over a range of α. A direct test—for example, uniform-rotation metasurfaces at several α values, or full-wave nonlinear simulations extracting the effective tensor at nonzero α—is needed to support the generality of Eq. (1).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theory, first paragraph] The cuboid is assigned to the orthorhombic mmm class, but the next sentence says 'in the Schoenflies notation, this structure falls within the C2 class.' A cuboid with three mutually perpendicular mirror planes belongs to D2h (mmm), not C2, which has only a twofold rotation axis. The two assignments should be reconciled; if only the in-plane twofold symmetry is intended, the connection to the full mmm susceptibility matrix should be clarified.
  2. [Eq. (6)] There appears to be a sign inconsistency between the expression for P_TH and the argument of atan in the definition of θ_TH: one uses -3(χ22+χ29) sin θ + (χ22 - 3χ29) sin 3θ, while the other uses the negative of that quantity. Because the intensity involves a square, the sign does not affect Fig. 2(c), but the formulas should be made mutually consistent.
  3. [Results, tensor presentation] The reduced matrix presentation, e.g., M_meta = (χ11 0; 0 χ22; χ18 0; 0 χ29), is visually ambiguous. Since the reduced susceptibility has two output polarization rows and four input field-combination columns, it should be formatted as a 2×4 matrix (or clearly labeled as a list of nonzero components). The same comment applies to the film tensor values.
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] The experimental data in Figs. 3(c,d) and 4(c-e) are shown as normalized powers. Please state explicitly how normalization was performed for each curve and whether any intensity-dependent calibration was applied between diffraction orders. This would strengthen the quantitative comparison between different orders.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Same-device THG curves are generated from tensor values fitted to that same device, but the central cross-device claims rest on independent metagrating and gradient-metasurface data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, plain metasurface characterization; Fig. 2(c,d)]
    "We retrieved these effective nonlinear tensor elements by quantifying the TH conversion efficiencies of the fabricated plain metasurface relative to the polarization of the input and generated fields. ... All the theoretical curves were evaluated using Eq. (6) together with the retrieved susceptibility tensor values."

    The four susceptibility components (χ11, χ22, χ18, χ29) are obtained by fitting the plain metasurface's own polarization-dependent THG conversion data. The 'theoretical prediction' curves shown in Fig. 2(c,d) for the same device are simply Eq. (6) evaluated with those fitted values. Their agreement with the blue experimental points is therefore a self-consistency check forced by the fit, not an independent test of the model. This does not undermine the later metagrating and gradient-metasurface comparisons, which use separately fabricated devices and independent measurements, but it means the plain-metasurface curves should not be described as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Eq. (1), with the four tensor elements, provides a complete description of TH polarization for arbitrary input polarization and meta-atom rotation. The tensor elements are admittedly retrieved from the plain metasurface measurements. The same-device curves in Fig. 2(c,d) are therefore not an independent validation: they are evaluations of the model using parameters fitted to that same dataset. However, the metagrating and gradient metasurface are distinct devices with different lattice arrangements and rotation angles, and their measured diffraction-order polarizations and intensity trends are compared with model predictions using the previously retrieved tensor. Those comparisons are independent and constitute the main load-bearing validation of the model. The invariance of the tensor under rotation and lattice environment is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact, but that is a robustness limitation, not a circularity: it does not reduce the cross-device prediction to the fitted input. No significant self-citation chain or uniqueness argument is used to force the model choice. Overall, the paper contains one localized fitted-input-called-prediction step, while the central predictive claim retains independent experimental support, warranting a moderate score of 4 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities; it treats the metasurface as an effective nonlinear medium with a standard susceptibility tensor. The four tensor elements are free parameters fitted to experimental data, not derived from geometry. The main axioms are the symmetry assignment and the local-field approximations (E_z=0, no resonances, unchanged fundamental polarization). The transferability of the tensor across geometries is an additional untested assumption that is partly validated by the device experiments.

free parameters (4)
  • chi_11 = 7.90e-18 m^2/V^2
    Effective third-order susceptibility tensor element retrieved from measured TH conversion efficiency of the plain metasurface; used as input to Eq. (6).
  • chi_22 = 7.42e-19 m^2/V^2
    Effective third-order susceptibility tensor element retrieved from measurements; controls y-output for yyy input combination.
  • chi_18 = 4.67e-19 m^2/V^2
    Effective third-order susceptibility tensor element associated with the xyy input combination; extracted from polarization-resolved THG measurements.
  • chi_29 = 1.38e-18 m^2/V^2
    Effective third-order susceptibility tensor element associated with the xxy input combination; extracted from polarization-resolved THG measurements.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The meta-atom cuboid geometry corresponds to the mmm (D2h) point group with the given nonzero susceptibility tensor structure.
    Theory section: 'Such geometry can be associated with the orthorhombic crystal class (mmm...)' and the tensor matrix is written accordingly. If the actual symmetry is lower or higher, the tensor structure would change.
  • domain assumption Incident light is polarized in the x-y plane, propagates along z, and has E_z = 0; the fundamental polarization remains unchanged inside the meta-atoms.
    Theory section: 'we consider the case where the incident light is polarized in the x-y plane... and experiences negligible resonance effects... We assume that the polarization of the fundamental light remains unchanged within the meta-atoms.' This is load-bearing for the rotation transformation of the tensor.
  • standard math The nonlinear polarization density acts as a direct source of TH radiation in the far field.
    Used to relate the computed P_3ω to the measured TH field. Standard result in nonlinear optics, cited to Boyd and Ref. 40.
  • domain assumption The effective susceptibility tensor is independent of the rotation angle and lattice arrangement of the meta-atoms.
    Implied when the tensor retrieved from the plain (unrotated) metasurface is used to predict the metagrating and gradient metasurface responses. Not explicitly proven; supported only by the experimental agreement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization control via artificial optical nonlinearity in dielectric metasurfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDFGWWRJ

@misc{pith2026250903752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization control via artificial optical nonlinearity in dielectric metasurfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDFGWWRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03752}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear optical phenomena are generally governed by geometry in matter systems, as they depend on the spatial arrangement of atoms within materials or molecules. Metasurfaces, through precisely designed geometries on a subwavelength scale, allow tailoring the optical response of a material far beyond its natural properties. Therefore, metasurfaces are highly appealing to enable the engineering of nonlinear optical interactions at an unprecedented level. Current studies on nonlinear metasurfaces predominantly focus on the phase control of the generated light. Nonetheless, investigating the tensorial nature of the nonlinearity of metasurfaces and its effect on the polarization of the generated light is critical to fully unlock a range of applications, such as nonlinear vector beam generation and nonlinear polarization imaging. Here, we study the artificial optical nonlinearity of a dielectric metasurface originating from its meta-atom symmetry and describe the third-order nonlinear behavior by considering the polarization degree of freedom. We establish an effective nonlinear medium model that serves as a design toolbox for developing amorphous silicon-based geometric metasurfaces with customizable features in third harmonic generation. We further extract quantitative values of the artificial nonlinear susceptibility tensor elements related to the investigated nonlinear process and geometry. The implemented functional devices demonstrate the versatility of dielectric metasurfaces in shaping the emitted light in terms of amplitude, phase, and polarization, for the precise engineering of novel nonlinear architectures targeting applications in nonlinear imaging and complex light generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03752 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Characterization of the plain metasurface. (a) Simulated (solid curves) and measured (square markers) linear transmittance spectra when H (black) and V (blue) input polarizations were used for illumination. Inset: meta-atom sketch and scanning electron microscope image of the fabricated sample. Here, a, b, l and D, are the meta-atom length, width, thickness and period, respectively. (b) Power scaling measurement of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Characterization of a phase-grating metasurface (metagrating). (a) Sketch of the nonlinear metagrating working principle. Inset: illustration of the metasurface design. Each grating period consists of four blocks with spatially varying rotation angles of ±22.5° along the x-direction. The grating period is 2.08 μm with duty cycle of 50%. (b) Simulated and measured TH intensity profiles of the diffracted light, showca… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Physical review letters, 1961

    Franken, e.P., et al., Generation of optical harmonics. Physical review letters, 1961. 7(4): p. 118

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Optics express, 2013

    Darginavičius, J., et al., Ultrabroadband supercontinuum and third -harmonic generation in bulk solids with two optical -cycle carrier-envelope phase-stable pulses at 2 μ m. Optics express, 2013. 21(21): p. 25210-25220

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Science, 1991

    Eaton, D.F., Nonlinear optical materials. Science, 1991. 253(5017): p. 281-287

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Giuliani, and H

    Bey, P., J. Giuliani, and H. Rabin, Linear and circular polarized laser radiation in optical third harmonic generation. Physics Letters A, 1968. 26(3): p. 128-129

    work page 1968

  5. [5]

    -S., Principles of terahertz science and technology

    Lee, Y. -S., Principles of terahertz science and technology . Vol. 170. 2009: Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Frontiera, and E.O

    Prince, R.C., R.R. Frontiera, and E.O. Potma, Stimulated Raman Scattering: From Bulk to Nano. Chemical Reviews, 2017. 117(7): p. 5070-5094

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Nature Nanotechnology, 2016

    Kravtsov, V., et al., Plasmonic nanofocused four -wave mixing for femtosecond near - field imaging. Nature Nanotechnology, 2016. 11(5): p. 459-464

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020

    Parodi, V., et al., Nonlinear optical microscopy: From fundamentals to applications in live bioimaging. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. 8: p. 585363

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Mu, and R

    Sun, M., X. Mu, and R. Li, Linear and Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy and Microscopy. Vol. 29. 2024: Springer

    2024

  2. [10]

    Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2023

    Koch, M., et al., Terahertz time -domain spectroscopy. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2023. 3(1): p. 48

    2023

  3. [11]

    Reports on Progress in Physics, 2017

    Orieux, A., et al., Semiconductor devices for entangled photon pair generation: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2017. 80(7): p. 076001

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bhagavantam, S. and P. Chandrasekhar, Harmonic generation and selection rules in nonlinear optics. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences - Section A, 1972. 76(1): p. 13-20

    1972

  5. [13]

    Litchinitser, N.M. and J. Sun, Optical meta -atoms: Going nonlinear. Science, 2015. 350(6264): p. 1033-1034

    2015

  6. [14]

    Nature Materials, 2015

    O’Brien, K., et al., Predicting nonlinear properties of metamaterials from the linear response. Nature Materials, 2015. 14(4): p. 379-383

    2015

  7. [15]

    Wen, Y. and J. Zhou, Artificial nonlinearity generated from electromagnetic coupling metamolecule. Physical review letters, 2017. 118(16): p. 167401

    2017

  8. [16]

    Physical review letters, 2014

    Chen, S., et al., Symmetry-selective third -harmonic generation from plasmonic metacrystals. Physical review letters, 2014. 113(3): p. 033901. 14

    2014

  9. [17]

    Nature Nanotechnology, 2015

    Celebrano, M., et al., Mode matching in multiresonant plasmonic nanoantennas for enhanced second harmonic generation. Nature Nanotechnology, 2015. 10(5): p. 412- 417

    2015

  10. [18]

    Nano letters, 2019

    Chen, S., et al., Strong nonlinear optical activity induced by lattice surface modes on plasmonic metasurface. Nano letters, 2019. 19(9): p. 6278-6283

    2019

  11. [19]

    Nature Photonics, 2015

    Segal, N., et al., Controlling light with metamaterial-based nonlinear photonic crystals. Nature Photonics, 2015. 9(3): p. 180-184

    2015

  12. [20]

    Zhang, and T

    Li, G., S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, Nonlinear photonic metasurfaces. Nature Reviews Materials, 2017. 2(5): p. 17010

    2017

  13. [21]

    Tymchenko, and A

    Krasnok, A., M. Tymchenko, and A. Alù, Nonlinear metasurfaces: a paradigm shift in nonlinear optics. Materials Today, 2018. 21(1): p. 8-21

    2018

  14. [22]

    ACS Photonics, 2019

    Gennaro, S.D., et al., Nonlinear Pancharatnam−Berry Phase Metasurfaces beyond the Dipole Approximation. ACS Photonics, 2019. 6(9): p. 2335-2341

    2019

  15. [23]

    Nature materials, 2015

    Li, G., et al., Continuous control of the nonlinearity phase for harmonic generations. Nature materials, 2015. 14(6): p. 607-612

    2015

  16. [24]

    Nature communications, 2016

    Ye, W., et al., Spin and wavelength multiplexed nonlinear metasurface holography. Nature communications, 2016. 7(1): p. 11930

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nano Letters, 2020

    Chen, S., et al., High-order nonlinear spin–orbit interaction on plasmonic metasurfaces. Nano Letters, 2020. 20(12): p. 8549-8555

    2020

  18. [26]

    Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2021: p

    Yue, F., et al., Nonlinear Mid‐Infrared Metasurface based on a Phase‐Change Material. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2021: p. 2000373

    2021

  19. [27]

    National Science Review, 2018

    Kivshar, Y., All-dielectric meta-optics and non-linear nanophotonics. National Science Review, 2018. 5(2): p. 144-158

    2018

  20. [28]

    ACS Photonics, 2021

    Grinblat, G., Nonlinear Dielectric Nanoantennas and Metasurfaces: Frequency Conversion and Wavefront Control. ACS Photonics, 2021. 8(12): p. 3406-3432

    2021

  21. [29]

    Advanced Optical Materials, 2020

    Liu, B., et al., Nonlinear Wavefront Control by Geometric ‐ Phase Dielectric Metasurfaces: Influence of Mode Field and Rota tional Symmetry. Advanced Optical Materials, 2020. 8(9): p. 1902050

    2020

  22. [30]

    Nano letters, 2019

    Reineke, B., et al., Silicon metasurfaces for third harmonic geometric phase manipulation and multiplexed holography. Nano letters, 2019. 19(9): p. 6585-6591

    2019

  23. [31]

    Krouglov, and V

    Samim, M., S. Krouglov, and V. Barzda, Nonlinear Stokes-Mueller polarimetry. Physical Review A, 2016. 93(1)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Paterova, A.V. and L.A. Krivitsky, Nonlinear interference in crystal superlattices. Light: Science & Applications, 2020. 9(1)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Zhu, Z., et al., Nonlinear polarization imaging by parametric upconversion. Optica,

  26. [34]

    Advanced Photonics, 2021

    Camacho-Morales, M.d.R., et al., Infrared upconversion imaging in nonlinear metasurfaces. Advanced Photonics, 2021. 3(3): p. 036002

    2021

  27. [35]

    Physical Review Applied, 2019

    Tang, Y., et al., Nonlinear Vectorial Metasurface for Optical Encryption. Physical Review Applied, 2019. 12(2): p. 024028

    2019

  28. [36]

    Buono, W.T. and A. Forbes, Nonlinear optics with structured light. Opto-Electronic Advances, 2022. 5(6): p. 210174-210174-19

    2022

  29. [37]

    Optica, 2019

    Marino, G., et al., Spontaneous photon-pair generation from a dielectric nanoantenna. Optica, 2019. 6(11): p. 1416-1422

    2019

  30. [38]

    Nano Letters, 2021

    Santiago-Cruz, T., et al., Photon Pairs from Resonant Metasurfaces. Nano Letters, 2021. 21(10): p. 4423-4429. 15

    2021

  31. [39]

    Science Advances, 2022

    Zhang, J., et al., Spatially entangled photon pairs from lithium niobate nonlocal metasurfaces. Science Advances, 2022. 8(30): p. eabq4240

    2022

  32. [40]

    and S.-w

    Yang, X.-l. and S.-w. Xie, Expression of third-order effective nonlinear susceptibility for third-harmonic generation in crystals. Applied optics, 1995. 34(27): p. 6130-6135

    1995

  33. [41]

    2003: Elsevier

    Boyd, R.W., Nonlinear optics. 2003: Elsevier

    2003

  34. [42]

    science, 2011

    Yu, N., et al., Light propagation with phase discontinuities: generalized laws of reflection and refraction. science, 2011. 334(6054): p. 333-337

    2011

  35. [43]

    Nano letters, 2012

    Huang, L., et al., Dispersionless phase discontinuities for controlling light propagation. Nano letters, 2012. 12(11): p. 5750-5755

    2012

  36. [44]

    Nano letters, 2016

    Mesch, M., et al., Nonlinear plasmonic sensing. Nano letters, 2016. 16(5): p. 3155 - 3159

    2016

  37. [45]

    Nanoscale Advances, 2019

    Xiong, B., et al., Controlling the degrees of freedom in metasurface designs for multi - functional optical devices. Nanoscale Advances, 2019. 1(10): p. 3786-3806

    2019

  38. [46]

    Advanced Optical Materials, 2023

    Jiang, Y., et al., Linear and nonlinear optical field manipulations with multifunctional chiral coding metasurfaces. Advanced Optical Materials, 2023. 11(6): p. 2202186

    2023

  39. [47]

    Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2019

    Ma, M., et al., Optical information multiplexing with nonlinear coding metasurfaces. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2019. 13(7): p. 1900045

    2019

  40. [48]

    Krenn, and A

    Erhard, M., M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high -dimensional quantum entanglement. Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. 2(7): p. 365-381

    2020

  41. [49]

    Nature communications, 2017

    Steinlechner, F., et al., Distribution of high-dimensional entanglement via an intra-city free-space link. Nature communications, 2017. 8(1): p. 15971

    2017

  42. [50]

    Tian, and Y

    Du, S., Y. Tian, and Y. Li, Impact of four -wave-mixing noise from dense wavelength - division-multiplexing systems on entangled -state continuous -variable quantum key distribution. Physical Review Applied, 2020. 14(2): p. 024013

    2020

  43. [51]

    Light: Science & Applications,

    Lee, J., Quantum imaging with ultra-thin metasurfaces. Light: Science & Applications,

  44. [52]

    eLight, 2025

    Ma, J., et al., Quantum imaging using spatially entangled photon pairs from a nonlinear metasurface. eLight, 2025. 5(1): p. 2

    2025

  45. [53]

    Nano Letters, 2014

    Shcherbakov, M.R., et al., Enhanced Third -Harmonic Generation in Silicon Nanoparticles Driven by Magnetic Response. Nano Letters, 2014. 14(11): p. 6488-6492

    2014

  46. [54]

    Opto-Electronic Advances, 2024

    Wang, J.T., et al., Resonantly enhanced second - and third -harmonic generation in dielectric nonlinear metasurfaces. Opto-Electronic Advances, 2024. 7(5): p. 16

    2024

  47. [55]

    Bar-David, J. and U. Levy, Nonlinear Diffraction in Asymmetric Dielectric Metasurfaces. Nano Letters, 2019. 19(2): p. 1044-1051

    2019

  48. [56]

    Optica, 2021

    Gigli, C., et al., Tensorial phase control in nonlinear meta-optics. Optica, 2021. 8(2): p. 269-276

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.