Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Silicon metasurfaces for third harmonic geometric phase manipulation and multiplexed holography

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rotating silicon nanofins controls the phase of third-harmonic light.

desk verdict First solid demonstration that Pancharatnam-Berry phase works for third-harmonic wavefront control in silicon metasurfaces, with a real but addressable gap in how the multiplexed holograms respect the phase rule. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04999 v2 pith:5T4A7ZYX submitted 2019-08-14 physics.optics

Bernhard Reineke , Basudeb Sain , Ruizhe Zhao , Luca Carletti , Bingyi Liu , Lingling Huang , Costantino De Angelis , Thomas Zentgraf This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords siliconmetasurfacethirdharmonicgenerationPancharatnam-Berryphasegeometricnonlinearholographypolarizationmultiplexingall-dielectricwavefrontcontrol
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

The paper aims to show that the Pancharatnam-Berry geometric phase can be applied directly to the third-harmonic generation (THG) process in all-dielectric metasurfaces, not just to plasmonic antennas. It claims that rotating identical silicon nanofins with twofold rotational symmetry imprints a phase $\theta_{\mathrm{co}} = 2\sigma\phi$ on co-polarized and $\theta_{\mathrm{cross}} = 4\sigma\phi$ on cross-polarized third-harmonic light. If correct, this makes nonlinear wavefront control a matter of in-plane rotation of a single optimized structure, avoiding the geometry-by-geometry design needed in resonant Huygens-type nonlinear metasurfaces. The experiments back this with phase-gradient gratings that diffract the two polarizations to the predicted angles, and with holograms reconstructed at the third-harmonic wavelength, including a polarization-multiplexed sun-and-cloud image.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the nonlinear Pancharatnam-Berry phase rule $\theta=\sigma(n\pm1)\phi$, applied to third-harmonic generation ($n=3$) in nanofins with C2 rotational symmetry: the co-polarized THG acquires $\theta_{\mathrm{co}}=2\sigma\phi$ and the cross-polarized THG acquires $\theta_{\mathrm{cross}}=4\sigma\phi$, where $\sigma=\pm1$ marks the input circular polarization handedness. The element that carries the argument is the rotating nanofin: a single fixed geometry (400 × 200 × 650 nm$^3$ amorphous silicon) whose only degree of freedom is its in-plane orientation. Because all fins are identical, the phase of the generated light is decoupled from resonance engineering, and continuous 0-to-2π phase coverage comes for free from rotation, which is what enables the phase gratings and the phase-only holograms.

What would settle it

Take a single isolated nanofin to an interferometric THG phase measurement and rotate it in small steps: the claim predicts strictly linear phase steps of $2\sigma\phi$ and $4\sigma\phi$ independent of the fin's length, width, and pump wavelength. A phase trajectory that bends, jumps, or varies with fin dimensions at fixed rotation would show that the thicker dielectric resonator adds non-geometric phase and falsify the central assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a geometric phase can be added during the nonlinear frequency conversion itself in a silicon metasurface: when circularly polarized light at 1240 nm hits an array of identical amorphous-silicon nanofins, the third-harmonic signal's phase is set by the nanofin's in-plane rotation angle $\phi$, with factor $2$ for the co-polarized and $4$ for the cross-polarized component. This is the $\theta=\sigma(n\pm1)\phi$ rule previously established for thin plasmonic antennas, now applied to 650-nm-thick dielectric resonators. The paper reports measured diffraction angles of $\pm(5.36\pm0.01)^\circ$ and $\pm(10.10\pm0.01)^\circ$ for the co- and cross-polarized THG, matching the designed $5.01^\circ$ and $10.30^\circ$, and reconstruction of holograms encoded this way, with the two orthogonal THG polarizations carrying independent images in the multiplexed sample.

Load-bearing premise

The relation measured in thin plasmonic antennas—rotation angle $\phi$ maps to THG phase $2\sigma\phi$ or $4\sigma\phi$—is assumed to survive in 650-nm-thick, densely packed silicon nanofins in which internal resonances, propagation phase, and neighbor crosstalk could all add their own phase contributions; the observed diffraction and holograms are the only evidence that it does.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonlinear wavefront control becomes a lithographic rotation pattern: the same nanofin geometry can encode any phase profile from 0 to 2π, so fabrication reduces to writing orientation angles.
  • Polarization multiplexing at the third-harmonic wavelength is a direct corollary: co- and cross-polarized THG carry factors 2 and 4, so two independent holographic images can be read out by polarization filtering.
  • The geometric phase persists over the measured 1200–1350 nm pump range with roughly constant co-polarized THG intensity, so the phase control is not tied to a narrow resonance.
  • Because the phase is set by symmetry and rotation rather than by a specific resonant mode, the design tolerates fabrication errors in fin size and shape better than resonant Huygens-type designs.
  • The approach transfers the established toolbox of PB-phase linear metasurfaces to the third harmonic, opening nonlinear vector beams, orbital angular momentum generation, and nonlinear imaging with all-dielectric elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same rotation rule holds for other nonlinear orders through $\theta=\sigma(n\pm1)\phi$, the method would generalize directly to fourth- or fifth-harmonic wavefront control in centrosymmetric materials, provided the corresponding selection rules permit the harmonic.
  • The claim that phase is purely geometric could be tested further by scanning nanofin aspect ratios at fixed rotation: any phase drift with fin dimensions would reveal the residual role of internal modes and propagation phase.
  • One unstated but plausible extension is simultaneous wavelength and polarization multiplexing, since the PB phase is wavelength-agnostic while the resonance-enhanced conversion efficiency can be tuned separately.
  • The perceived crosstalk risk in dense dielectric arrays might be turned into a design handle: if inter-fin coupling shifts the effective rotation-phase mapping, sparse and dense layouts would produce measurably different diffraction efficiencies at the same encoded angles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of third-harmonic generation (THG) wavefront control in amorphous-silicon nanofin metasurfaces via the Pancharatnam-Berry (PB) geometric phase. Identical C2-symmetric nanofins with varying in-plane rotation encode a phase ramp of 0 to 2 pi (0 to 4 pi) for the co- (cross-) circularly polarized THG under RCP excitation. The phase-gradient sample produces diffraction spots at ±5.36 degrees (co) and ±10.10 degrees (cross), close to the independently designed values of ±5.01 degrees and ±10.3 degrees; the unrotated control sample produces only zeroth-order diffraction. Wavelength scans from 1200 to 1350 nm show broadband THG with a roughly 40-fold enhancement over an unstructured silicon film. The same approach is used to encode a Fourier-space hologram of the letter X in the co-polarization channel and a claimed polarization-multiplexed hologram reconstructing a sun in co-polarization and a cloud in cross-polarization. The paper concludes that rotation-only nonlinear PB phases simplify the design of dielectric nonlinear wavefront-shaping devices.

Significance. The claimed result is significant: if validated, it extends nonlinear geometric-phase holography from lossy plasmonic elements to all-dielectric silicon metasurfaces, offering continuous 0 to 2 pi phase control from a single structural parameter and polarization-multiplexed readout. The paper has genuine strengths: the diffraction angles are compared with pre-designed values rather than fitted, the unrotated control sample shows no anomalous diffraction orders, and the wavelength and film comparisons support a nanostructure origin of the observed THG. However, the abstract claims of high-fidelity reconstruction and independent polarization multiplexing are not quantitatively supported, and the multiplexing claim is constrained by the very 2 phi / 4 phi phase rule that is the paper's basis. These issues are addressable, but they currently prevent full acceptance of the paper as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Design of the metasurface; Fig. 4] The phase rule theta_co = 2 sigma phi and theta_cross = 4 sigma phi implies that, for a single rotation angle phi, the local complex THG amplitudes in the two output circular polarizations obey t_cross proportional to t_co squared. In the Fourier plane, the cross-polarized field is therefore the autocorrelation of the co-polarized field, E_cross(k) proportional to (E_co * E_co)(k), not an independent image. This is a load-bearing constraint for the multiplexed hologram in Fig. 4c: the sun and cloud target images cannot be chosen arbitrarily. The paper's statement that the PB phase allows encoding two different images overreaches unless the modified Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm explicitly enforces or exploits this compatibility. Please provide the algorithm details and either demonstrate that the sun/cloud pair satisfies the autocorrelation constraint or revise the independence claim. As a quantitative check, the measured cross-polarization hologram should be compared with the autocorrelation of the measured co-polarization hologram; for the X hologram, the cross channel should show the autocorrelation of X rather than zero.
  2. [Abstract; Experimental results (Fig. 4)] The abstract states that the encoded hologram is reconstructed with high fidelity, but the only evidence in Fig. 4 is visual inspection. No quantitative fidelity metric, signal-to-background ratio, or comparison between measured and simulated images is reported, and the residual zeroth-order spot is described qualitatively as weak. Please add a quantitative measure such as normalized cross-correlation with the simulated image, or soften the fidelity claim to match the qualitative evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Experimental results, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) uses the objective working distance W_Obj as the tangent denominator for diffraction-angle calibration; please justify this approximation or give the exact back-focal-plane relation, which is usually expressed in terms of the objective focal length rather than the working distance.
  2. [Experimental results, Fig. 3] The statement that co-polarization spots are approximately three times brighter than cross-polarization spots should specify whether this refers to peak intensity or integrated spot intensity, and how the integration region is chosen.
  3. [Design of the metasurface; Discussion] The relation theta = sigma(n +/- 1) phi is quoted from thin plasmonic antennas and assumed to transfer to 650-nm-thick dielectric nanofins. Please state explicitly that this transfer is an assumption, and consider adding a supplementary full-wave simulation of the generated THG phase versus rotation angle for the actual nanofin geometry to support the assumption.
  4. [Design of the metasurface; Fig. 1] Please state explicitly the wavelength and period used to compute the designed angles 5.01 degrees and 10.3 degrees (for example, third-harmonic wavelength near 413 nm and a 4.6-micrometer grating period) so that the reader can reproduce Eq. (1).
  5. [Discussion] The phrase dynamically switching between two images should be reworded to clarify that the switching is performed by changing the polarization analysis of the fixed metasurface, not by dynamically modulating the sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PB phase rule is imported from prior work but is tested against independently designed diffraction angles and holograms, with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The load-bearing physics input, the Pancharatnam-Berry phase rule θ = σ(n±1)φ specialized to θ_co = 2σφ and θ_cross = 4σφ, is explicitly taken from earlier work (ref. 28, which includes overlapping authors) rather than derived in this paper. That alone is not circularity: the paper states 'we expect' these phase factors and then tests them against independently specified targets—diffraction angles of 5.15° and 10.30° in design versus 5.36° and 10.10° measured, and holograms generated by a separate Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm described in the Supplement. No output parameter is adjusted to make the measured THG images match the model; spot positions, polarization dependence, and hologram reconstructions are all predictions from the assumed phase rule. The self-citations present (refs. 2, 5, 8, 26, 28) are not the sole support for the central claim, because the present experiments provide an independent, external test in a new material system. One logical consequence of the phase rule is that the cross-polarized THG field is proportional to the square of the co-polarized field, implying a compatibility constraint on the multiplexed sun/cloud images; this is a possible correctness or overreach concern, not a circular derivation, and it does not involve fitting or renaming. The Discussion also acknowledges the real limitations of crosstalk and phase-matching in thick dielectric resonators, but acknowledges them as challenges rather than using them to define the result. Therefore, by the standard requiring a specific reduction of a claimed result to its own inputs, no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim adds no new free parameters or postulated entities. Design quantities such as nanofin size, period, and wavelength are chosen for the experiment, not fitted to the reported output, and the geometric phase rule and selection rules are imported from prior literature.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear geometric phase relation theta = sigma*(n +/- 1)*phi for a rotated nano-resonator holds for dielectric nanofins as it does for plasmonic antennas.
    Adopted at the start of "Design of the metasurface" from refs. 28 and 2, without a new derivation for thick dielectric resonators. The experiment itself is the test of this transfer.
  • domain assumption C2-symmetric silicon nanofins radiate third harmonic in both co- and cross-circular polarization under circularly polarized pumping, while an isotropic silicon film does not.
    Used to interpret the film comparison in Fig. 3c and to justify that the nanostructures break isotropy; based on selection rules from refs. 29 and 30.
  • domain assumption The phase of the locally generated third harmonic is determined by the nanofin rotation alone, with crosstalk, internal modes, and phase-matching effects not erasing the encoded phase.
    Explicitly identified as a concern in the Introduction and Discussion; the diffraction and hologram data are the evidence for it.
  • standard math Computer-generated hologram phase profiles computed by the modified Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm reconstruct the intended images in Fourier space.
    Standard phase-retrieval method; the target images are used to generate phase masks, and the authors compare measured to simulated reconstructions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Silicon metasurfaces for third harmonic geometric phase manipulation and multiplexed holography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5T4A7ZYX

@misc{pith2026190804999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Silicon metasurfaces for third harmonic geometric phase manipulation and multiplexed holography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5T4A7ZYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04999}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear wavefront control is a crucial requirement in realizing nonlinear optical applications with metasurfaces. Numerous aspects of nonlinear frequency conversion and wavefront control have been demonstrated for plasmonic metasurfaces. However, several disadvantages limit their applicability in nonlinear nanophotonics, including high dissipative loss and low optical damage threshold. In contrast, it has been shown that metasurfaces made of high-index dielectrics can provide strong nonlinear responses. Regardless of the recent progress in nonlinear optical processes using all-dielectric nanostructures and metasurfaces, much less advancement has been made in realizing a full wavefront control directly with the generation process. Here, we demonstrate the nonlinear wavefront control for the third-harmonic generation with a silicon metasurface. We use a Pancharatnam-Berry phase approach to encode phase gradients and holographic images on nanostructured silicon metasurfaces. We experimentally demonstrate the polarization-dependent wavefront control and the reconstruction of an encoded hologram at the third-harmonic wavelength with high fidelity. Further, we show that holographic multiplexing is possible by utilizing the polarization states of the third harmonic generation. Our approach eases design and fabrication processes and paves the way to an easy to use toolbox for nonlinear optical wavefront control with all-dielectric metasurfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04999 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. a) Measured holographic image of the letter ‘X’ for different combinations of the input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krasnok, A.; Tymchenko, M.; Alù, A. Mater. Today 2018, 21 (1), 8–21, DOI:10.1016/j.mattod.2017.06.007

    doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2017.06.007 2018

  2. [2]

    H.; Pun, E

    Chen, S.; Li, G.; Zeuner, F.; Wong, W. H.; Pun, E. Y. B.; Zentgraf, T.; Cheah, K. W.; Zhang, S. Optics Express 2014, 113 (3), 33901, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.033901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.033901 2014

  3. [3]

    Nature 2008, 453 (7196), 757–760, DOI:10.1038/nature07012

    Kim, S.; Jin, J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Park, I.-Y.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.-W. Nature 2008, 453 (7196), 757–760, DOI:10.1038/nature07012

    doi:10.1038/nature07012 2008

  4. [4]

    H.; Li, K

    Li, G.; Sartorello, G.; Chen, S.; Nicholls, L. H.; Li, K. F.; Zentgraf, T.; Zhang, S.; Zayats, A. V. Laser Photonics Rev. 2018, 12 (6), 1800034, DOI:10.1002/lpor.201800034

    work page doi:10.1002/lpor.201800034 2018

  5. [5]

    Advanced Materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) 2018, 30 (8), DOI:10.1002/adma.201703843

    Schlickriede, C.; Waterman, N.; Reineke, B.; Georgi, P.; Li, G.; Zhang, S.; Zentgraf, T. Advanced Materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) 2018, 30 (8), DOI:10.1002/adma.201703843

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201703843 2018

  6. [6]

    ACS Photonics 2016, 3 (1), 117–123, DOI:10.1021/acsphotonics.5b00528

    Keren-Zur, S.; Avayu, O.; Michaeli, L.; Ellenbogen, T. ACS Photonics 2016, 3 (1), 117–123, DOI:10.1021/acsphotonics.5b00528

    work page doi:10.1021/acsphotonics.5b00528 2016

  7. [7]

    Advanced Optical Materials 2018, 6 (19), 1800646, DOI:10.1002/adom.201800646

    Chen, Y.; Yang, X.; Gao, J. Advanced Optical Materials 2018, 6 (19), 1800646, DOI:10.1002/adom.201800646

    work page doi:10.1002/adom.201800646 2018

  8. [8]

    Nature Communications 2016, 7, 11930, DOI:10.1038/ncomms11930

    Ye, W.; Zeuner, F.; Li, X.; Reineke, B.; He, S.; Qiu, C.-W.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Zentgraf, T. Nature Communications 2016, 7, 11930, DOI:10.1038/ncomms11930

    doi:10.1038/ncomms11930 2016

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Li, G.; Zhang, S.; Zentgraf, T. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2017, 2 (5), 17010, DOI:10.1038/natrevmats.2017.10

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    F.; Carletti, L.; Locatelli, A.; Rocco, D.; Finazzi, M.; Ghirardini, L.; Favero, I.; Gomez, C.; Lemaître, A.; Celebrano, M.; Angelis, C

    Gili, V. F.; Carletti, L.; Locatelli, A.; Rocco, D.; Finazzi, M.; Ghirardini, L.; Favero, I.; Gomez, C.; Lemaître, A.; Celebrano, M.; Angelis, C. de; Leo, G. Optics Express 2016, 24 (14), 15965–15971, DOI:10.1364/OE.24.015965

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    de; Kivshar, Y

    Carletti, L.; Koshelev, K.; Angelis, C. de; Kivshar, Y. Physical Review Letters 2018, 121 (3), 33903, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.033903

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Golla, C.; Weber, N.; Meier, C. J. Appl. Phys. 2019, 125 (7), 73103, DOI:10.1063/1.5082720. 13

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R.; Neshev, D

    Shcherbakov, M. R.; Neshev, D. N.; Hopkins, B.; Shorokhov, A. S.; Staude, I.; Melik-Gaykazyan, E. V.; Decker, M.; Ezhov, A. A.; Miroshnichenko, A. E.; Brener, I.; Fedyanin, A. A.; Kivshar, Y. S. Nano Letters 2014, 14 (11), 6488–6492, DOI:10.1021/nl503029j

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Xu, L.; Rahmani, M.; Zangeneh Kamali, K.; Lamprianidis, A.; Ghirardini, L.; Sautter, J.; Camacho-Morales, R.; Chen, H.; Parry, M.; Staude, I.; Zhang, G.; Neshev, D.; Miroshnichenko, A. E. Light Sci. Appl. 2018, 7 (1), 917, DOI:10.1038/s41377-018-0051-8

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    P.; Oulton, R

    Grinblat, G.; Li, Y.; Nielsen, M. P.; Oulton, R. F.; Maier, S. A. Nano Letters 2016, 16 (7), 4635–4640, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b01958

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    I.; Warne, L

    Campione, S.; Liu, S.; Basilio, L. I.; Warne, L. K.; Langston, W. L.; Luk, T. S.; Wendt, J. R.; Reno, J. L.; Keeler, G. A.; Brener, I.; Sinclair, M. B. ACS Photonics 2016, 3 (12), 2362–2367, DOI:10.1021/acsphotonics.6b00556

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    I.; Briggs, D

    Yang, Y.; Wang, W.; Boulesbaa, A.; Kravchenko, I. I.; Briggs, D. P.; Puretzky, A.; Geohegan, D.; Valentine, J. Nano Letters 2015, 15 (11), 7388–7393, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02802

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    D.; Xu, L.; Miroshnichenko, A

    Sautter, J. D.; Xu, L.; Miroshnichenko, A. E.; Lysevych, M.; Volkovskaya, I.; Smirnova, D. A.; Camacho-Morales, R.; Zangeneh Kamali, K.; Karouta, F.; Vora, K.; Tan, H. H.; Kauranen, M.; Staude, I.; Jagadish, C.; Neshev, D. N.; Rahmani, M. Nano Letters 2019, 19 (6), 3905–3911, ...

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    P.; Vaskin, A.; Reno, J

    Liu, S.; Vabishchevich, P. P.; Vaskin, A.; Reno, J. L.; Keeler, G. A.; Sinclair, M. B.; Staude, I.; Brener, I. Nature Communications [Online], 9 (1), 2507. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04944-9.pdf

  12. [20]

    A.; Solntsev, A

    Camacho-Morales, R.; Rahmani, M.; Kruk, S.; Wang, L.; Xu, L.; Smirnova, D. A.; Solntsev, A. S.; Miroshnichenko, A.; Tan, H. H.; Karouta, F.; Naureen, S.; Vora, K.; Carletti, L.; Angelis, C. de; Jagadish, C.; Kivshar, Y. S.; Neshev, D. N. Nano Letters 2016, 16 (11), 7191–7197, ...

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    F.; Favero, I.; Rocco, D.; Carletti, L.; Locatelli, A.; Angelis, C

    Ghirardini, L.; Marino, G.; Gili, V. F.; Favero, I.; Rocco, D.; Carletti, L.; Locatelli, A.; Angelis, C. de; Finazzi, M.; Celebrano, M.; Neshev, D. N.; Leo, G. Nano Letters 2018, 18 (11), 6750–6755, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b02432

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    P.; Oulton, R

    Grinblat, G.; Li, Y.; Nielsen, M. P.; Oulton, R. F.; Maier, S. A. ACS Photonics 2017, 4 (9), 2144–2149, DOI:10.1021/acsphotonics.7b00631

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Kauranen, M.; Zayats, A. V. Science Advances 2012, 6 (11), 737–748, DOI:10.1038/nphoton.2012.244

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    Nano Letters 2018, 18 (6), 3978–3984, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b01460

    Wang, L.; Kruk, S.; Koshelev, K.; Kravchenko, I.; Luther-Davies, B.; Kivshar, Y. Nano Letters 2018, 18 (6), 3978–3984, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b01460

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Nano Letters 2018, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04311

    Gao, Y.; Fan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, W.; Song, Q.; Xiao, S. Nano Letters 2018, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04311. 14

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Optics Express 2017, 25 (13), 14300–14307, DOI:10.1364/OE.25.014300

    Guo, Q.; Schlickriede, C.; Wang, D.; Liu, H.; Xiang, Y.; Zentgraf, T.; Zhang, S. Optics Express 2017, 25 (13), 14300–14307, DOI:10.1364/OE.25.014300

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Nano Letters 2019, 19 (2), 1044–1051, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04342

    Bar-David, J.; Levy, U. Nano Letters 2019, 19 (2), 1044–1051, DOI:10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04342

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Li, G.; Chen, S.; Pholchai, N.; Reineke, B.; Wong, P. W. H.; Pun, E. Y. B.; Cheah, K. W.; Zentgraf, T.; Zhang, S. Nature Materials 2015, 14 (6), 607–612, DOI:10.1038/nmat4267

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    L.; Rabin, H

    Tang, C. L.; Rabin, H. Phys. Rev. B 1971, 3 (12), 4025–4034, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.3.4025

    1971 doi

  22. [30]

    Bhagavantam, S.; Chandrasekhar, P. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 1972, 76 (1), 13– 20, DOI:10.1007/BF03048332

    1972 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.