Analytical model of metasurfaces comprising meta-atoms with anisotropic polarizabilities

Andrey B. Evlyukhin; Antonio Cal\`a Lesina; Izzatjon Allayarov; Vladimir R. Tuz

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Analytical model of metasurfaces comprising meta-atoms with anisotropic polarizabilities

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Closed-form formulas predict how anisotropic metasurfaces reflect obliquely incident light.

desk verdict A clean, incremental extension of coupled-dipole theory to anisotropic metasurfaces under oblique incidence; worth refereeing, but the polarizability averaging in the validation needs justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00395 v1 pith:HPBC4JVJ submitted 2024-12-31 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Izzatjon Allayarov , Vladimir R. Tuz , Antonio Calà Lesina , Andrey B. Evlyukhin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords anisotropicpolarizabilitycoupled-dipolemodelmetasurfaceobliqueincidencelatticesumsboundstatesinthecontinuumspecularreflectancedielectricnanoprism

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 derives closed-form expressions for the specular reflectance and transmittance of a periodic array of nanoparticles whose electric and magnetic dipole polarizabilities are anisotropic tensors, when the array is illuminated at an arbitrary incidence angle. The expressions keep the dipole moments explicit, so they can be applied directly to numerical multipole data. Using these formulas, the paper identifies conditions for symmetry-protected and accidental bound states in the continuum, and shows how oblique incidence couples in-plane and out-of-plane dipole components. The predicted spectra agree well with full-wave simulations for rectangular silicon nanoprism metasurfaces. If the model holds, it offers a fast semi-analytical route for designing metasurface devices that operate under oblique illumination.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled-dipole lattice-sum model with diagonal electric and magnetic polarizability tensors $\hat{\alpha}_p$ and $\hat{\alpha}_m$ (Eq. (6)). The machinery includes the lattice sums $S_x$, $S_y$, $S_z$ and the oblique-incidence coupling sum $g_x$, whose angular dependence is expressed in closed form; the coupled TE and TM equations reduce to small linear systems whose determinant zeros give the eigenmode and BIC conditions. The reflection and transmission coefficients are written in terms of the per-particle dipole moments, with the reciprocal-space lattice sums evaluated at the zero diffraction order.

What would settle it

Simulate the same silicon nanoprism metasurface with a full-wave solver in a configuration where the single-particle polarizability is strongly non-diagonal, such as an L-shaped or chiral meta-atom, and compare the angle-resolved specular reflectance against the model's prediction; a systematic deviation that grows with the off-diagonal polarizability terms would disprove the diagonal-tensor assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the direct dipole-moment representation, the paper derives coupled-dipole equations for TE and TM oblique incidence, solves them for the dipole moments, and obtains the specular reflection and transmission coefficients with an explicit dependence on the per-particle dipole moments and anisotropic polarizability tensors (Eqs. (40)-(41) for TE and (60)-(61) for TM). It shows that oblique incidence introduces a coupling parameter $g_x$ between the electric and magnetic dipole subsystems, and that the eigenmode conditions factor into the same algebraic form as the coupled dipole-quadrupole model at normal incidence. On this basis it derives the conditions for symmetry-protected BICs at normal incidence and accidental BICs at oblique incidence (Eqs. (73)-(74)). The central claim is that this analytical model reproduces full-wave numerical reflectance maps for anisotropic silicon nanoprisms in both the xz and yz planes of incidence.

Load-bearing premise

Each meta-atom is assumed to respond through a diagonal, local, angle-independent electric and magnetic polarizability tensor built by averaging two excitation directions; if the real polarizability is non-diagonal, varies with illumination direction, or is altered by the array environment, the closed-form reflectance expressions and BIC conditions no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The closed-form $r_{\rm TE}$/$t_{\rm TE}$ and $r_{\rm TM}$/$t_{\rm TM}$ allow fast parameter scans over incidence angle, lattice period, and polarizability without repeated full-wave simulations.
Because the formulas keep dipole moments explicit, researchers can insert numerically computed multipole moments into analytic expressions and identify which multipole drives a spectral resonance.
The BIC conditions give design rules for placing symmetry-protected and accidental BICs in anisotropic dielectric metasurfaces at chosen angles and wavelengths.
The angular dependence of the lattice sums explains how Rayleigh-anomaly orders split under oblique illumination, clarifying where narrow collective resonances will appear.

Reading between the lines

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

The analogy drawn between oblique-incidence dipole coupling and normal-incidence quadrupole coupling suggests that the incidence angle can serve as a continuous tuning knob for nonlocal effects that would otherwise require changing the particle geometry.
Because the model needs only single-particle polarizabilities and the lattice sums, it may extend naturally to finite or slightly disordered arrays by substituting truncated or averaged lattice sums, although the paper does not make this step.
A direct test of the diagonal-tensor assumption would be to apply the same formulas to a meta-atom with strongly off-diagonal polarizability, such as an L-shaped or chiral particle, where the closed-form reflectance and BIC conditions would be expected to fail predictably.

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

First, the take-home: this is a real and useful extension of the coupled-dipole method. The paper derives closed-form expressions for specular reflectance and transmittance for metasurfaces whose meta-atoms have diagonal anisotropic electric and magnetic polarizabilities, under oblique incidence. That specific combination is not in the earlier CDM literature (Refs. 13-16), and the authors also give a clean account of how the lattice sums split into multiple Rayleigh-anomaly features with angle. The algebra in Secs. IIB-C is internally consistent, and the final expressions in terms of dipole moments are convenient for multipole analysis of numerical data. The validation against full-wave RCWA for two orthogonal incidence planes, using FDTD-computed polarizabilities as inputs, is a genuinely reproducible setup.

The main soft spot is Eq. (A9). The authors know single-particle polarizabilities depend on excitation direction, and they combine two direction-specific values per tensor component with equal weights, without supplying any physical or numerical justification. That matters because every downstream prediction—the reflectance curves, the BIC conditions, and the aBIC locations at (θ=35°, λ=950 nm) and (θ=20°, λ=835 nm)—is built on these averaged tensors. It is not hard to imagine that a different weighting, or a polarizability that explicitly depends on incidence angle, would shift the predicted aBIC positions. The agreement with the full-wave maps suggests the average works for this particular nanoprism, but the paper offers no quantitative error metrics and no sensitivity analysis, so "very good agreement" is asserted rather than demonstrated.

The quadrupole contribution at shorter wavelengths is acknowledged, and it is a real limitation of the dipole-only model, though not a flaw in the derivation. The self-citations for the lattice-sum machinery are a minor circularity; the results they rely on are themselves published and externally checkable.

All told, the central derivation holds up. The weak spot is in the input preparation, not in the model. This is the kind of paper that deserves a serious referee: the formulas are clear, the scope is well-defined, and the averaging assumption can be fixed with a sensitivity study or a better-motivated effective tensor. I would take it for peer review, with the request that the authors either justify the equal-weight average or show that the results are insensitive to it.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical coupled-dipole model (CDM) for infinite periodic metasurfaces whose meta-atoms have anisotropic electric and magnetic dipole polarizabilities, under oblique plane-wave illumination. The authors derive coupled equations for the electric and magnetic dipole moments, present the angular dependence of the relevant lattice sums, and obtain closed-form expressions for the specular reflectance and transmittance for TE (Eqs. (40)-(41)) and TM (Eqs. (60)-(61)) polarizations, with the dipole moments kept as explicit ingredients. They also derive conditions for symmetry-protected and accidental bound states in the continuum (BICs) in Sec. II D and compare the model with full-wave RCWA simulations for a rectangular silicon nanoprism metasurface in two incidence planes. The central technical derivation is presented in Secs. II B-C, and the numerical comparison in Sec. III is used to support the claim that the model gives very good agreement with full-wave calculations.

Significance. If the derivation and the effective-tensor construction hold, this is a useful contribution: it extends the coupled-dipole method to anisotropic meta-atoms under oblique incidence, gives compact closed-form reflectance and transmittance expressions, spells out the angular behavior of the lattice sums, and identifies explicit conditions for sBICs and aBICs. The central array response is benchmarked against independent RCWA simulations, and the single-particle polarizabilities are computed from FDTD rather than fitted to the target reflectance, so the validation is not circular. The main risk is the equal-weight averaging of direction-dependent polarizabilities in Appendix A, on which all downstream predictions rest; this needs additional justification or validation before the model can be regarded as predictive for arbitrary anisotropic meta-atoms.

major comments (2)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A9)] The equal-weight averaging of the two excitation-direction values of each polarizability component is unjustified and is load-bearing for every prediction in the paper. The text immediately before Eq. (A9) states that because the nanoparticle is non-spherical, the polarizability depends on excitation direction and polarization, yet Eq. (A9) replaces six distinct values with a single averaged diagonal tensor with no derivation, error estimate, or comparison with the actual oblique-incidence polarizability. The dipole solutions (28)-(30) and (51)-(53), the reflectance expressions (40)-(41) and (60)-(61), and the BIC conditions (73)-(74) are all evaluated with these averaged tensors. Since the two values entering each average generally differ for the rectangular nanoprism, the agreement seen in Figs. 4-5 could be specific to this geometry rather than a generic property of the model. Please validate the averaging by, e.g., extracting polarizabilities under the actual oblique excitation directions used in the array, or by demonstrating that the predicted reflectance maps and BIC positions are insensitive to alternative, physically motivated averaging schemes.
[Sec. III, Figs. 4-5] The central claim of 'very good agreement' between the CDM and full-wave RCWA is not quantified. The reflectance maps show visible discrepancies at lower wavelengths, which the text attributes to quadrupole contributions, but no error metric is given and the spectral range over which the dipole model is intended to be predictive is not stated. Please provide quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., mean and maximum absolute reflectance difference over the plotted domain, and the errors in the sBIC and aBIC positions) and state the range of parameters where the dipole approximation is expected to be valid. This is especially important because the averaged-tensor construction in Appendix A is not validated separately, so the reader cannot tell whether a discrepancy should be attributed to the missing quadrupoles or to the polarizability averaging.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II A, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The sentence 'comparing (19) and (19) with (17) and (18)' should refer to Eq. (20) rather than repeating Eq. (19), and the text 'SX C' appears to be a typo for 'Sx'.
[Sec. II D, after Eq. (74)] The word 'polrization' in 'TM polrization' should be corrected to 'polarization'.
[Sec. II A, Eqs. (13)-(16) and Fig. 2] The real-space sums used for Fig. 2 are slowly convergent for the real parts, as acknowledged in the text, but the figure caption does not state the truncation or regularization procedure used. Please specify how the sums in Eqs. (13)-(16) were evaluated numerically.
[Sec. III and Fig. 3] The correspondence between the excitation conditions in Fig. 3(d) and the six configurations listed in Eqs. (A3)-(A8) should be stated explicitly, so that the reader can connect the averaged components in Figs. 3(e)-(f) with the individual direction-dependent values.
[Sec. II, general] The derivation is presented for the xz-plane of incidence with φ = 0, and the yz-plane case is handled in Sec. III by swapping in-plane components. Please state explicitly that the formulas generalize by rotation of the coordinate system and note any restrictions (e.g., square lattice) that are used when the same lattice sums are applied in the yz case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical reflectance and BIC predictions are derived from independently computed FDTD polarizabilities and geometric lattice sums, benchmarked against external RCWA simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central inputs—single-particle electric and magnetic polarizability tensor components—are computed from FDTD simulations of an isolated nanoprism under six different excitation conditions (Appendix A, Eqs. A1-A9), not fitted to the metasurface reflectance or to the RCWA data. The reflectance and transmittance expressions in Eqs. (40)-(41) and (60)-(61) are then derived algebraically from the coupled-dipole equations, with the dipole moments given explicitly in terms of those polarizabilities and the lattice sums. The lattice sums depend only on the array geometry, period, and incidence angle, and their imaginary parts in Eqs. (21)-(24) are derived identities, not adjusted parameters. The BIC conditions in Eqs. (73)-(74) follow from the zeros of the coupled-system determinant together with those lattice-sum imaginary parts; they are not constructed to match the aBIC positions found in the RCWA maps. Self-citations to Refs. [14] and [27] supply the standard coupled-dipole formulation, reciprocal-space lattice-sum transformations, and some imaginary-part identities, but these are parameter-free mathematical results that do not themselves contain the predicted reflectance or BIC locations, so they constitute independent support rather than a circular loop. The equal-weight averaging of direction-dependent polarizabilities in Eq. (A9) and the diagonal local-response assumption are modeling approximations that may affect accuracy, and the discrepancy at shorter wavelengths is attributed to omitted quadrupoles, but these are correctness/validity concerns, not circularity. Overall, the model's predictions are not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the agreement with full-wave RCWA provides an external check.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has no invented entities. Its central inputs are the single-particle polarizability tensor components, which are computed numerically and averaged in an ad hoc way, plus standard assumptions of the coupled-dipole method: homogeneous environment, local response, and negligible higher multipoles.

free parameters (1)

Averaged diagonal polarizability components (αp_x, αp_y, αp_z, αm_x, αm_y, αm_z) = Frequency-dependent complex values from single-particle FDTD; not tabulated
The model inputs are obtained by averaging two excitation directions per component in Eq. (A9). They are not fitted to the metasurface reflectance, but the averaging choice is ad hoc and affects all predictions.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The array is infinite, periodic, embedded in a homogeneous medium, and the field at each particle is the incident plane wave plus the retarded dipole fields of all other particles evaluated with Bloch phase factors.
Used to write Eqs. (1)-(3) from Refs. 13-14; neglects substrate inhomogeneity and finite-size effects.
domain assumption Single-particle polarizability tensors are diagonal in the particle frame, local (independent of irradiation direction), and unchanged by the presence of the array.
Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (6); this enables the closed-form solutions in Eqs. (28)-(30) and (51)-(53).
domain assumption Higher-order multipoles, especially quadrupoles, are negligible in the spectral range of interest.
The coupled-dipole model only includes electric and magnetic dipoles; the paper attributes the short-wavelength discrepancy in Figs. 4-5 to quadrupoles.
ad hoc to paper Averaging the two excitation-direction values of each polarizability component with equal weights yields a sufficient effective tensor for all incidence angles and incidence planes.
Eq. (A9) defines this average; no independent validation of the averaging rule is provided, and the yz-plane results depend on it through the interchange αyz_x = αxz_y.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical model of metasurfaces comprising meta-atoms with anisotropic polarizabilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPBC4JVJ

@misc{pith2026250100395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical model of metasurfaces comprising meta-atoms with anisotropic polarizabilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPBC4JVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00395}
}

read the original abstract

A general analytical approach to the study of electromagnetic resonances of metasurfaces consisting of meta-atoms with anisotropic electric and magnetic dipole polarizabilities and irradiated with obliquely incident light is developed in the direct dipole-moment representation. The presented approach allows us to clearly trace and explain the features of the electromagnetic coupling between electric and magnetic dipole moments in the metasurface and to identify its role in the formation of optical resonances. For these purposes, the dependence of the dipole lattice sums on the angle of illumination is also presented. Expressions for the transmittance and reflectivity corresponding to the specular reflectance are presented with explicit inclusion of the dipole moments of particles in the array, which allows using these expressions for multipole analysis of purely numerical results concerning the optical response of metasurfaces. The developed analytical method is tested to characterize the spectral resonances of dielectric metasurfaces composed of rectangular silicon nanoprisms. In addition, we discuss the relationship and similarity between the results of coupled dipole and coupled dipole-quadrupole methods. Our analytical representation of electromagnetic dipole coupling is an insightful and fast method for the characterization of collective resonances in metasurfaces under illumination at oblique incidence. It could be especially useful for designing planar nanophotonic devices consisting of arbitrary-shaped building blocks and operating under special irradiation conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00395 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Real and imaginary parts of the lattice sums [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (a1-a2) Full numerical and (b1-b2) coupled-dipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The same reflectance calculations as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Visualization of different excitation conditions of sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

W. Yang, S. Xiao, Q. Song, Y. Liu, Y. Wu, S. Wang, J. Yu, J. Han, and D.-P. Tsai, All-dielectric metasurface for high-performance structural color, Nat. Commun. 11, 1864 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

D. Wang, Z. Liu, H. Wang, M. Li, L. J. Guo, and C. Zhang, Structural color generation: from layered thin films to optical metasurfaces, Nanophotonics 12, 1019 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

W. T. Chen, A. Y. Zhu, and F. Capasso, Flat optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces, Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 604 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

Shastri and F

K. Shastri and F. Monticone, Nonlocal flat optics, Nat. Photonics 17, 36 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

T. Abir, M. Tal, and T. Ellenbogen, Second-harmonic en- hancement from a nonlinear plasmonic metasurface cou- pled to an optical waveguide, Nano Lett.22, 2712 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

Vabishchevich and Y

P. Vabishchevich and Y. Kivshar, Nonlinear photonics with metasurfaces, Photonics Res. 11, B50 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

A. S. Solntsev, G. S. Agarwal, and Y. S. Kivshar, Meta- surfaces for quantum photonics, Nat. Photon. 15, 327 (2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Santiago-Cruz, S

T. Santiago-Cruz, S. D. Gennaro, O. Mitrofanov, S. Ad- damane, J. Reno, I. Brener, and M. V. Chekhova, Resonant metasurfaces for generating complex quantum states, Science 377, 991 (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 31 references

[9]

X. Ni, A. V. Kildishev, and V. M. Shalaev, Metasurface holograms for visible light, Nat. Commun.4, 2807 (2013)

2013
[10]

Huang, S

L. Huang, S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, Metasurface holog- raphy: from fundamentals to applications, Nanophoton- ics 7, 1169 (2018)

2018
[11]

G. W. Mulholland, C. F. Bohren, and K. A. Fuller, Light scattering by agglomerates: coupled electric and mag- netic dipole method, Langmuir 10, 2533 (1994)

1994
[12]

Merchiers, F

O. Merchiers, F. Moreno, F. Gonz´ alez, and J. Saiz, Light scattering by an ensemble of interacting dipolar particles with both electric and magnetic polarizabilities, Phys. Rev. A 76, 043834 (2007)

2007
[13]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Colloquium: Light scattering by particle and hole arrays, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1267 (2007)

2007
[14]

A. B. Evlyukhin, C. Reinhardt, A. Seidel, B. S. Luk’yanchuk, and B. N. Chichkov, Optical response fea- tures of Si-nanoparticle arrays, Phys. Rev. B 82, 045404 (2010)

2010
[15]

D. R. Abujetas, J. A. Sanchez-Gil, and J. J. S´ aenz, Gen- eralized brewster effect in high-refractive-index nanorod- based metasurfaces, Opt. Express 26, 31523 (2018)

2018
[16]

D. R. Abujetas, J. Olmos-Trigo, J. J. S´ aenz, and J. A. S´ anchez-Gil, Coupled electric and magnetic dipole for- mulation for planar arrays of particles: Resonances and bound states in the continuum for all-dielectric metasur- faces, Phys. Rev. B 102, 125411 (2020)

2020
[17]

V. E. Babicheva and A. B. Evlyukhin, Resonant lat- tice Kerker effect in metasurfaces with electric and mag- netic optical responses, Laser Photonics Rev.11, 1700132 (2017)

2017
[18]

Allayarov, A

I. Allayarov, A. B. Evlyukhin, D. J. Roth, B. Chichkov, A. V. Zayats, and A. Cal` a Lesina, Dynamic nonlocal dielectric metasurfaces: Tuning collective lattice reso- nances via substrate–superstrate permittivity contrast, Adv. Photon. Res. 5, 2300268 (2024)

2024
[19]

Murai, D

S. Murai, D. R. Abujetas, G. W. Castellanos, J. A. S´ anchez-Gil, F. Zhang, and J. G. Rivas, Bound states in the continuum in the visible emerging from out-of-plane magnetic dipoles, ACS Photon. 7, 2204 (2020)

2020
[20]

D. R. Abujetas and J. A. S´ anchez-Gil, Near-field exci- tation of bound states in the continuum in all-dielectric metasurfaces through a coupled electric/magnetic dipole model, Nanomaterials 11, 998 (2021)

2021
[21]

D. R. Abujetas, J. Olmos-Trigo, and J. A. S´ anchez-Gil, Tailoring accidental double bound states in the contin- uum in all-dielectric metasurfaces, Adv. Opt. Mater. 10, 2200301 (2022)

2022
[22]

D. A. Bobylev, D. A. Smirnova, and M. A. Gorlach, Non- local response of Mie-resonant dielectric particles, Phys. Rev. B 102, 115110 (2020)

2020
[23]

V. E. Babicheva and A. B. Evlyukhin, Mie-resonant metaphotonics, Advances in Optics and Photonics 16, 539 (2024)

2024
[24]

A. B. Evlyukhin and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, Surface plasmon polariton scattering by small ellipsoid particles, Surf. Sci. 590, 173 (2005)

2005
[25]

A. Ndao, R. Salut, M. Suarez, and F. I. Baida, Plas- monless polarization-selective metasurfaces in the visible range, J. Opt. 20, 045003 (2018)

2018
[26]

V. A. Markel, Divergence of dipole sums and the nature of non-lorentzian exponentially narrow resonances in one- dimensional periodic arrays of nanospheres, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 38, L115 (2005)

2005
[27]

Allayarov, A

I. Allayarov, A. Cal` a Lesina, and A. B. Evlyukhin, Anapole mechanism of bound states in the continuum in symmetric dielectric metasurfaces, Phys. Rev. B 109, L241405 (2024)

2024
[28]

V. E. Babicheva and A. B. Evlyukhin, Multipole lattice effects in high refractive index metasurfaces, Journal of Applied Physics 129, 040902 (2021)

2021
[29]

S. I. Azzam and A. V. Kildishev, Photonic bound states 10 in the continuum: from basics to applications, Adv. Opt. Mater. 9, 2001469 (2021)

2021
[30]

Allayarov, A

I. Allayarov, A. B. Evlyukhin, and A. Cal` a Lesina, Mul- tiresonant all-dielectric metasurfaces based on high-order multipole coupling in the visible, Opt. Express 32, 5641 (2024)

2024
[31]

M. A. Green, Self-consistent optical parameters of intrin- sic silicon at 300 K including temperature coefficients, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 92, 1305 (2008)

2008

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

W. Yang, S. Xiao, Q. Song, Y. Liu, Y. Wu, S. Wang, J. Yu, J. Han, and D.-P. Tsai, All-dielectric metasurface for high-performance structural color, Nat. Commun. 11, 1864 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

D. Wang, Z. Liu, H. Wang, M. Li, L. J. Guo, and C. Zhang, Structural color generation: from layered thin films to optical metasurfaces, Nanophotonics 12, 1019 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

W. T. Chen, A. Y. Zhu, and F. Capasso, Flat optics with dispersion-engineered metasurfaces, Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 604 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Shastri and F

K. Shastri and F. Monticone, Nonlocal flat optics, Nat. Photonics 17, 36 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

T. Abir, M. Tal, and T. Ellenbogen, Second-harmonic en- hancement from a nonlinear plasmonic metasurface cou- pled to an optical waveguide, Nano Lett.22, 2712 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Vabishchevich and Y

P. Vabishchevich and Y. Kivshar, Nonlinear photonics with metasurfaces, Photonics Res. 11, B50 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

A. S. Solntsev, G. S. Agarwal, and Y. S. Kivshar, Meta- surfaces for quantum photonics, Nat. Photon. 15, 327 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Santiago-Cruz, S

T. Santiago-Cruz, S. D. Gennaro, O. Mitrofanov, S. Ad- damane, J. Reno, I. Brener, and M. V. Chekhova, Resonant metasurfaces for generating complex quantum states, Science 377, 991 (2022)

work page 2022