Diffraction of Light from Optical Fourier Surfaces

Daniel Petter; David J. Norris; Gabriel Nagamine; J. J. Erik Maris; Juri G. Crimmann; Nolan Lassaline; Raphael Brechb\"uhler; Valentina G. De Rosa; Yannik M. Glauser

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Diffraction of Light from Optical Fourier Surfaces

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measured diffraction from sinusoidally pure silver surfaces matches full electrodynamic simulations, while scalar models diverge for deep gratings and large angles.

desk verdict A careful, dense experimental study that delivers the first quantitative FDTD validation of OFSs and a useful error map for scalar models, with a modest but real caveat about PPA-to-Ag topography transfer. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10340 v1 pith:H27VW6T4 submitted 2025-01-17 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yannik M. Glauser , J. J. Erik Maris , Raphael Brechbühler , Juri G. Crimmann , Valentina G. De Rosa , Daniel Petter , Gabriel Nagamine , Nolan Lassaline

show 1 more author

David J. Norris

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 42.25.Fx42.79.Dj

keywords opticalFouriersurfacessinusoidalphasegratingsscalardiffractiontheoryFDTDsimulationsthermalscanning-probelithographyRayleighanomalyefficiencytemplatestripping

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 'optical Fourier surfaces'—silver mirrors patterned with pure sinusoidal height profiles—diffract light exactly as full electrodynamic simulations predict, but not as common analytical scalar diffraction models predict. That claim matters because single- and double-sinusoidal profiles are the most fundamental phase gratings, so they provide a clean platform for designing diffractive optics by Fourier-spectrum engineering. The authors fabricate 30 single-sinusoid and 12 double-sinusoid surfaces with thermal scanning-probe lithography and template stripping, measure wavelength-dependent diffraction efficiencies, and compare them with simulations and four scalar models. If correct, the work both validates a manufacturing route to precise wavy surfaces and draws a quantitative boundary for when simple scalar formulas can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the optical Fourier surface (OFS), a phase grating whose height profile contains only the spatial frequencies intended in the design: for a single sinusoid $h(x)=A\sin(gx)$ with $g=2\pi/\Lambda$, and for a double sinusoid $h(x)=A_1\sin(g_1x)+A_2\sin(2g_1x-\varphi)$. The surface converts to a phase modulation through the optical path difference, $OPD=-\gamma h(x,y)$, with $\gamma=2$ in the paraxial approximation and $\gamma=\cos\theta_i+\cos\theta_m$ in the non-paraxial treatment. Diffraction-order amplitudes follow from the Jacobi–Anger expansion of the grating transparency, giving Bessel-function coefficients $J_m(A_b)$ with $A_b=(2\pi/\lambda)A\gamma$; the four scalar models differ in whether $\gamma$ is paraxial or non-paraxial and whether evanescent orders are renormalized away. The comparison is made quantitative by feeding the measured fitted amplitudes of every structure into both the electrodynamic simulation and the scalar models, so the experimental match isolates the physics of the diffraction process rather than the fabrication design.

What would settle it

Measure the full 40 µm × 40 µm silver topography of the deepest single-sinusoid and double-sinusoid samples with an independent AFM or interferometer and compare fitted amplitudes and phases to the PPA-derived values used in this paper; if the stripping step changes amplitude or phase by more than the stated ~1–2%, the quantitative agreement with electrodynamic simulations would need to be reassessed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that reflective optical Fourier surfaces—silver gratings whose profiles are exactly one sinusoid or two superposed sinusoids—diffract light in quantitative agreement with full electrodynamic simulations, while analytical scalar diffraction models fail for deep profiles and large angles. For the single-sinusoid series (period 1000 nm, amplitudes 5–150 nm) the measured total first-order efficiency reproduces the simulated wavelength and depth trends; discrepancies stay small except near the Rayleigh anomaly and for the deepest structures, where experimental imperfections of about 10% are estimated. For the double-sinusoid series the measured +1st-order efficiency matches simulation within about 5% over most of the phase–wavelength map, whereas the best scalar model deviates by up to about 30%. The authors conclude that the measured optical response of OFSs is accurately predicted by electrodynamics and that commonly used scalar formulas should be used with caution outside shallow, small-angle regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the polymer-template topography measured during lithography is still the true topography of the final silver surface after template stripping; only a small central region of one sample was directly checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sinusoidal OFSs can serve as quantitative references for Fourier-spectrum engineering: measured diffraction efficiencies across wavelength and depth match full electrodynamic simulations, so a designed Fourier content can be translated into a measured response.
Scalar diffraction models, even the best tested non-paraxial model with renormalization, should not be trusted for deep profiles or large diffraction angles; deviations up to about 30% are mapped as a function of amplitude and wavelength.
Adding one extra sinusoid with controlled relative phase produces strongly asymmetric diffraction, with up to 18–24 times more light in one first order than the other, tunable by phase.
Near the Rayleigh anomaly, simulation–experiment discrepancies trace mainly to finite-size and experimental effects rather than to the OFS fabrication itself, since the simulations assume an infinite grating.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the PPA-to-silver transfer is as faithful as assumed, the same platform should support arbitrary superpositions of Fourier components, making full-wave simulation the practical design tool for complex diffractive devices.
Beyond the paper: the growing discrepancy with the number of sinusoids suggests that scalar-model error is cumulative; holograms and optical neural networks with many Fourier components may need error maps such as Figure 4f to correct designs or full electrodynamic simulation.
Beyond the paper: the phase-asymmetry discrepancy around $\varphi=\pi$ hints at shadowing or multiple-scattering effects that scalar phase-only models cannot capture; a test would be to measure the same double-sinusoid series at oblique incidence or with p-polarized light and compare the asymmetry ratio to simulation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I have read the paper and the stress-test note. Here is my take.

What is actually new: this is the first quantitative comparison of measured diffraction efficiencies from single- and double-sinusoidal reflective OFSs against FDTD simulations and scalar models. The dataset is dense—30 single-sinusoidal and 12 double-sinusoidal structures, wavelength sweeps 450–745 nm, and difference maps. The central finding is convincing: experiment and FDTD agree within ~5% over most of parameter space, while scalar Model 3 diverges by 10–30% in deep/high-angle regimes. That is a useful quantitative error map for the diffractive optics community, and it supports the OFS platform claim. The fabrication advance (PPA resist, 4x area, 50% deeper, higher yields) is a real, concrete improvement.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test concern about PPA-to-Ag amplitude transfer is real but moderate. The Methods state that PPA topography is taken to represent the Ag, and the validation is AFM of the central 10 um x 10 um of one single-sinusoidal sample, comparing only the period (~1% difference), not amplitude or full shape. So formally, the amplitude input to every FDTD/scalar curve rests on a single-sample check. However, the FDTD agreement across the full range of amplitudes up to 150 nm is strong circumstantial evidence that the amplitudes are not systematically wrong; if they were, the match would break in a depth-dependent way. So I would not call this fatal, but I would ask the authors to provide amplitude comparison on at least a few structures, and to state explicitly what was measured. The other soft spots are minor: no per-point error bars (though the paper gives a ~10% estimated error for the deepest samples and discusses chromatic aberration), and no data/code release. The SI is thorough; the four scalar models are clearly derived and the choice of Model 3 as representative is justified. The citation pattern is fine; using McPeak permittivity from the same group is normal practice.

Bottom line: this is a solid, careful experimental study. The central claim stands. It deserves a serious referee, and I would accept it for peer review, with the PPA-to-Ag validation as the main point to address. I would cite it if I worked on diffractive surfaces.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic comparison of measured diffraction efficiencies from reflective silver optical Fourier surfaces (OFSs) with FDTD simulations and four analytic scalar diffraction models. Thirty single-sinusoidal gratings (period 1 µm, fitted amplitudes 5–150 nm) and twelve double-sinusoidal gratings (periods 1 µm and 0.5 µm, amplitudes 90/45 nm, relative phase 0–2π) were fabricated by thermal scanning-probe lithography and template stripping. Diffraction efficiencies for the 0th, ±1st, and (indirectly) 2nd orders were acquired over 450–745 nm for s-polarized light. The central claim is that the measurements agree with FDTD within a few percent over most of parameter space, whereas scalar models deviate by up to roughly 30% for deep structures and long wavelengths. The paper also reports improved fabrication area, depth, and yield using PPA resist.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable demonstration that OFSs are a precise experimental platform for Fourier-spectrum engineering and a rare, clean benchmark for the validity limits of scalar diffraction theory. The study's main strengths are its density (30+12 structures, wavelength sweeps, difference maps), the absence of fitted parameters in the scalar models, and the use of full electrodynamic simulations with an independently measured Ag permittivity rather than diffraction data. These features make the broad trends credible. However, the precise wording 'agree quantitatively' is currently supported by difference maps without per-point uncertainty estimates and by a topographic-transfer validation that covers only one sample and one parameter; these gaps need to be closed before the quantitative claim is fully established.

major comments (2)

[Methods: Characterization of Surface Topography] The load-bearing premise of the quantitative comparison is that the PPA topography recorded by TSPL is identical to the final Ag topography. The Methods states this directly ('The topography of the PPA structures was taken directly to represent that of the corresponding Ag structures'), and the fitted amplitudes and phases from Figures 2d and 2i are used as inputs for every FDTD and scalar-model curve in Figures 4 and 5. The only direct validation is an AFM measurement of the central 10 µm × 10 µm region of one single-sinusoidal Ag OFS, and the reported comparison is a ~1% difference in period; no amplitude, profile-shape, or full-area validation is given. A systematic amplitude change during evaporation or template stripping would bias all model/simulation comparisons, and while the broad FDTD agreement across many amplitudes makes a large systematic error unlikely, it does not quantify the remaining uncertainty. Please add AFM-based amplitude and roughness comparisons for multiple samples spanning the amplitude and phase ranges used, or otherwise demonstrate that the PPA-to-Ag transfer does not alter depths.
[Methods: Evaluation and Analysis of Diffraction Efficiencies and Figures 4–5] The paper repeatedly states agreement to within ~5% or discrepancies up to ~15%, but no per-point error bars, confidence intervals, or repeatability data are given. The only precision estimates are the measured +1/−1 asymmetry in Figure 4d, which reaches ~5%, and the amplitude and phase fit accuracies reported in the topography section. Because the scalar-model residuals in Figures 4f and 5f are of order 10–30%, the reader cannot determine whether the simulation-experiment residuals are within measurement uncertainty or whether particular deviations (e.g., near the Rayleigh anomaly or for the deepest structures) are real. Please provide a full uncertainty budget (laser power fluctuation, camera dark noise, reference normalization, integration-window choice, wavelength calibration, and sample-to-sample repeatability) and either plot error bars or mark confidence regions in the difference maps; this is necessary to support the abstract's 'agree quantitatively' claim.

minor comments (4)

[Methods] The efficiency formula in Methods is presented as an unnumbered display equation; please number it and define C_s, C_ref, P_s, and P_ref in the preceding sentence.
[Figure 3] The green vertical lines and pink integration regions are described in the caption but are difficult to identify in the reproduced panels; please make them more prominent or add labels in the figure itself.
[Figures 4 and 5] The color scales in the difference maps use positive and negative deviations on the same color axis; a diverging colormap with an explicit zero contour would make the sign and magnitude of the deviations easier to read.
[Figure S7 and main text discussion of the Rayleigh anomaly] The caption of Figure S7 explains that the 2nd-order efficiency is determined indirectly from uncollected photons; because this quantity is used as complementary evidence when discussing the Rayleigh anomaly, please state the same caveat in the main text as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FDTD and scalar predictions use measured topography as input and no diffraction data is fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The experimental diffraction efficiencies are independent optical measurements. The FDTD simulations are full electrodynamic solutions of Maxwell's equations (Lumerical) using silver permittivity from McPeak et al. (2015), an externally measured dataset that, despite overlapping authorship, has independent content and is not derived from the present diffraction data. The scalar diffraction models are analytical expressions based on Jacobi–Anger expansions with paraxial/non-paraxial path-difference factors and evanescent-order renormalization; they contain no parameters fitted to any measured diffraction efficiency. The only fitted quantities are the sinusoidal amplitudes, periods, and relative phases obtained from TSPL topography, and these enter solely as geometric inputs to the simulations and models. No optical response is used to tune or infer any model parameter, so the agreement with FDTD and the disagreement with scalar models are genuine predictions rather than constructions. The PPA-to-Ag topography transfer is an assumption validated only on one sample by AFM; this is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circular because the validation does not define the predicted efficiencies and the FDTD agreement across many amplitudes provides independent, though indirect, support. Self-citations to prior OFS, permittivity, and template-stripping work are supporting references for fabrication methods and material constants, not the source of the quantitative claims. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or argument structure.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the measured diffraction data; the FDTD and scalar-model predictions use independently measured topography and literature permittivity. The principal assumptions are the PPA-to-Ag transfer fidelity, the applicability of McPeak permittivity to the evaporated films, the adequacy of the ideal periodic FDTD model, the normal-incidence plane-wave approximation, and the standard Fourier-optics mathematics. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The topography of the patterned PPA film, measured in-situ during TSPL, faithfully represents the final Ag OFS topography after template stripping.
Invoked in Methods, Characterization of Surface Topography. The fitted amplitudes from PPA are the geometric inputs for both FDTD and scalar models. Validation was performed on only the central 10 um by 10 um area of one single-sinusoidal sample, comparing AFM with TSPL topography and finding about 1 percent period difference. If stripping systematically alters amplitude or shape, the comparison would be biased.
domain assumption The optical permittivity of the evaporated Ag films is described by the data of McPeak et al. (ACS Photonics 2015), deposited under similar conditions.
Used in Methods, FDTD Simulations: 'Permittivity data was taken from McPeak et al., which deposited Ag under similar conditions.' The simulated efficiencies depend directly on this permittivity; a mismatch with the actual evaporated film would shift the predicted diffraction efficiencies.
domain assumption FDTD simulation of an infinitely periodic, ideal sinusoidal Ag slab adequately models the fabricated finite 40 um by 40 um OFS.
The FDTD domain uses periodic boundary conditions and assumes an ideal profile (Methods, FDTD Simulations). Finite-size effects are only approximately captured by convolving modeled outputs with an Airy disc. The paper itself notes the infinite-structure assumption predicts a more distinct Rayleigh anomaly than observed.
domain assumption The incident illumination is well approximated by a normal-incidence plane wave.
The Optical Measurements section states the beam is 'approximated as a large-diameter Gaussian beam' focused on the back focal plane of the objective. Any residual angular spread or deviation from normal incidence would alter the measured efficiencies and the comparison with simulations.
standard math The analytic scalar models rest on the Helmholtz equation, Fourier optics, and the Jacobi-Anger expansion as presented in Section S1.
These are standard mathematical tools assumed without proof in the SI. They are not contested in this paper, but the derivation of the model efficiencies depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffraction of Light from Optical Fourier Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H27VW6T4

@misc{pith2026250110340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffraction of Light from Optical Fourier Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H27VW6T4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10340}
}

abstract

Diffractive surfaces shape optical wavefronts for applications in spectroscopy, high-speed communication, and imaging. The performance of these structures is primarily determined by how precisely they can be patterned. Fabrication constraints commonly lead to square-shaped, "binary" profiles that contain unwanted spatial frequencies that contaminate the diffraction. Recently, "wavy" surfaces (known as optical Fourier surfaces, OFSs) have been introduced that include only the desired spatial frequencies. However, the optical performance and reliability of these structures have not yet been experimentally tested with respect to models and simulations. Such a quantitative investigation could also provide previously unobtainable information about the diffraction process from the most fundamental diffractive surfaces$\unicode{x2014}$sinusoidally pure profiles. Here, we produce and study two classes of reflective OFSs: (i) single-sinusoidal profiles of varying depth and (ii) double-sinusoidal profiles with varying relative phase. After refining our fabrication procedure to obtain larger and deeper OFSs at higher yields, we find that the measured optical responses from our OFSs agree quantitatively with full electrodynamic simulations. In contrast, our measurements diverge from analytical scalar diffraction models routinely used by researchers to describe diffraction. Overall, our results confirm that OFSs provide a precise and powerful platform for Fourier-spectrum engineering, satisfying the growing demand for intricately patterned interfaces for applications in holography, augmented reality, and optical computing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Fourier-Tailored Light-Matter Coupling in van der Waals Heterostructures
physics.optics 2025-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A Fourier-patterned hBN waveguide with an embedded WS2 monolayer shows an anti-crossing with a 40 meV Rabi splitting, placing the system at the onset of strong coupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[3]

overestimates and underestimates the efficiency in regions with strong and weak +1st-order diffraction, respectively. (Figure S4 in the Supporting Information shows results for 11 all four investigated models.) Especially toward longer wavelengths (i.e., larger diffraction angles), the model becomes increasingly unreliable. This observation follows the fi...

work page 2000
[13]

Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings

(S3) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings. Opt. Eng. 2019, 58, 087105. (S4) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior, Part II: Parametric Diffraction Efficiency of Sinusoidal Reflection (Holographic) Gratings. Opt. E...

work page 2019
[24]

T.; Veli, M.; Luo, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

(15) Lin, X.; Rivenson, Y.; Yardimei, N. T.; Veli, M.; Luo, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Machine Learning Using Diffractive Deep Neural Networks. Science 2018, 361, 1004–1008. (16) Hu, J. T.; Mengu, D.; Tzarouchis, D. C.; Edwards, B.; Engheta, N.; Ozcan, A. Diffractive Optical Computing in Free Space. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15,

work page 2018
[158]

Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Displays: Emerging Technologies and Future Perspectives

(13) Xiong, J.; Hsiang, E.-L.; He, Z.; Zhan, T.; Wu, S.-T. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Displays: Emerging Technologies and Future Perspectives. Light Sci. Appl. 2021, 10,

work page 2021
[216]

Waveguide-Based Augmented Reality Displays: Perspectives and Challenges

(14) Ding, Y.; Yang, Q.; Li, Y.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Liang, H.; Wu, S.-T. Waveguide-Based Augmented Reality Displays: Perspectives and Challenges. eLight 2023, 3,

work page 2023
[1525]

A.; Aieta, F.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Capasso, F.; Gaburro, Z

(17) Yu, N.; Genevet, P.; Kats, M. A.; Aieta, F.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Capasso, F.; Gaburro, Z. Light Propagation with Phase Discontinuities: Generalized Laws of Reflection and Refraction. Science 2011, 334, 333–337. (18) Yu, N.; Capasso, F. Flat Optics with Designer Metasurfaces. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 139–150. (19) Chen, W. T.; Zhu, A. Y.; Capasso, F. Flat O...

work page 2011
[1999]

M.; Greenaway, A

(8) Blanchard, P. M.; Greenaway, A. H. Simultaneous Multiplane Imaging with a Distorted Diffraction Grating. Appl. Opt. 1999, 38, 6692–6699. (9) David, C.; Bruder, J.; Rohbeck, T.; Grünzweig, C.; Kottler, C.; Diaz, A.; Bunk, O.; Pfeiffer, F. Fabrication of Diffraction Gratings for Hard X-Ray Phase Contrast Imaging. Microelectron. Eng. 2007, 84, 1172–1177....

work page 1999
[2013]

B.; Ziolkowski, R

(38) Judkins, J. B.; Ziolkowski, R. W. Finite-Difference Time-Domain Modeling of Nonperfectly Conducting Metallic Thin-Film Gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1995, 12, 1974–1983. (39) Banerjee, S.; Cole, J. B.; Yatagai, T. Calculation of Diffraction Characteristics of Subwavelength Conducting Gratings Using a High Accuracy Nonstandard Finite-Difference Time-Do...

work page 1995

Show all 13 references

[2017]

Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings

(23) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings. Opt. Eng. 2019, 58, 087105. (24) Leger, J. R.; Swanson, G. J.; Veldkamp, W. B. Coherent Laser Addition Using Binary Phase...

2019
[2018]

Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior, Part II: Parametric Diffraction Efficiency of Sinusoidal Reflection (Holographic) Gratings

(32) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior, Part II: Parametric Diffraction Efficiency of Sinusoidal Reflection (Holographic) Gratings. Opt. Eng. 2020, 59, 017103. (33) Saleh, B. E. A.; Teich, M. C. Fundamentals of Photonics; John Wiley & Sons Inc,

2020
[2019]

Electromagnetic Grating Theories: Limitations and Successes

(34) Petit, R. Electromagnetic Grating Theories: Limitations and Successes. Nouv. Rev. Opt. 1975, 6, 129–135. (35) Chandezon, J.; Raoult, G.; Maystre, D. A New Theoretical Method for Diffraction Gratings and Its Numerical Application. J. Opt. 1980, 11, 235–241. (36) Li, L.; Ch...

1975
[2020]

(3) Ravindran, A.; Nirmal, D.; Prajoon, P.; Rani, D. G. N. Optical Grating Techniques for MEMS-Based Spectrometer—a Review. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 21, 5645–5655. (4) Dakss, M. L.; Kuhn, L.; Heidrich, P. F.; Scott, B. A. Grating Coupler for Efficient Excitation of Optical Guided W...

2020
[2022]

E.; Vernold, C

22 (61) Harvey, J. E.; Vernold, C. L.; Krywonos, A.; Thompson, P. L. Diffracted Radiance: A Fundamental Quantity in Nonparaxial Scalar Diffraction Theory. Appl. Opt. 1999, 38, 6469–6481. (62) Cueff, S.; Berguiga, L.; Nguyen, H. S. Fourier Imaging for Nanophotonics. Nanophotoni...

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

overestimates and underestimates the efficiency in regions with strong and weak +1st-order diffraction, respectively. (Figure S4 in the Supporting Information shows results for 11 all four investigated models.) Especially toward longer wavelengths (i.e., larger diffraction angles), the model becomes increasingly unreliable. This observation follows the fi...

work page 2000

[2] [13]

Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings

(S3) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior: Including Conical Diffraction and Rayleigh Anomalies from Transmission Gratings. Opt. Eng. 2019, 58, 087105. (S4) Harvey, J.; Pfisterer, R. Understanding Diffraction Grating Behavior, Part II: Parametric Diffraction Efficiency of Sinusoidal Reflection (Holographic) Gratings. Opt. E...

work page 2019

[3] [24]

T.; Veli, M.; Luo, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A

(15) Lin, X.; Rivenson, Y.; Yardimei, N. T.; Veli, M.; Luo, Y.; Jarrahi, M.; Ozcan, A. All-Optical Machine Learning Using Diffractive Deep Neural Networks. Science 2018, 361, 1004–1008. (16) Hu, J. T.; Mengu, D.; Tzarouchis, D. C.; Edwards, B.; Engheta, N.; Ozcan, A. Diffractive Optical Computing in Free Space. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15,

work page 2018

[4] [158]

Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Displays: Emerging Technologies and Future Perspectives

(13) Xiong, J.; Hsiang, E.-L.; He, Z.; Zhan, T.; Wu, S.-T. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Displays: Emerging Technologies and Future Perspectives. Light Sci. Appl. 2021, 10,

work page 2021

[5] [216]

Waveguide-Based Augmented Reality Displays: Perspectives and Challenges

(14) Ding, Y.; Yang, Q.; Li, Y.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Liang, H.; Wu, S.-T. Waveguide-Based Augmented Reality Displays: Perspectives and Challenges. eLight 2023, 3,

work page 2023

[6] [1525]

A.; Aieta, F.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Capasso, F.; Gaburro, Z

(17) Yu, N.; Genevet, P.; Kats, M. A.; Aieta, F.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Capasso, F.; Gaburro, Z. Light Propagation with Phase Discontinuities: Generalized Laws of Reflection and Refraction. Science 2011, 334, 333–337. (18) Yu, N.; Capasso, F. Flat Optics with Designer Metasurfaces. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 139–150. (19) Chen, W. T.; Zhu, A. Y.; Capasso, F. Flat O...

work page 2011

[7] [1999]

M.; Greenaway, A

(8) Blanchard, P. M.; Greenaway, A. H. Simultaneous Multiplane Imaging with a Distorted Diffraction Grating. Appl. Opt. 1999, 38, 6692–6699. (9) David, C.; Bruder, J.; Rohbeck, T.; Grünzweig, C.; Kottler, C.; Diaz, A.; Bunk, O.; Pfeiffer, F. Fabrication of Diffraction Gratings for Hard X-Ray Phase Contrast Imaging. Microelectron. Eng. 2007, 84, 1172–1177....

work page 1999

[8] [2013]

B.; Ziolkowski, R

(38) Judkins, J. B.; Ziolkowski, R. W. Finite-Difference Time-Domain Modeling of Nonperfectly Conducting Metallic Thin-Film Gratings. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1995, 12, 1974–1983. (39) Banerjee, S.; Cole, J. B.; Yatagai, T. Calculation of Diffraction Characteristics of Subwavelength Conducting Gratings Using a High Accuracy Nonstandard Finite-Difference Time-Do...

work page 1995