A single-layer panoramic metalens with > 170{\deg} diffraction-limited field of view

Anuradha Agarwal; Dominika Lyzwa; Fan Yang; Hualiang Zhang; Juejun Hu; Mikhail Y. Shalaginov; Peter Su; Sensong An; Tian Gu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 51 references

A single-layer panoramic metalens with > 170{\deg} diffraction-limited field of view

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A single flat metasurface layer focuses light across a 170-degree field of view.

desk verdict The design concept is novel and the simulations look promising, but the experiment at high angles has a serious geometry problem that undercuts the empirical headline. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03626 v2 pith:VL2LQZDU submitted 2019-08-09 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Mikhail Y. Shalaginov , Sensong An , Fan Yang , Peter Su , Dominika Lyzwa , Anuradha Agarwal , Hualiang Zhang , Juejun Hu

show 1 more author

Tian Gu

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph

keywords metalenswidefieldofviewdiffraction-limitedfocusingHuygensmeta-atomsmid-infraredopticsSeidelaberrationsplanarfocalplaneflat

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 a single metasurface layer on one flat substrate can focus light with diffraction-limited quality across a field of view wider than 170 degrees. The authors design a lens that places a small input aperture on the front of a transparent slab and a phase-correcting metasurface on the back, so each incoming direction uses a different portion of the same continuous metasurface. They fabricate the design for 5.2 µm mid-infrared light from PbTe Huygens meta-atoms and report measured Strehl ratios above 0.8 for incident angles from 0 to 85 degrees. If the claim holds, compact panoramic cameras, projectors, and depth sensors could be built from a single flat optic instead of stacked fisheye assemblies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the decoupling of the aperture stop and the metasurface on opposite sides of a flat substrate. The front-side aperture fixes the entrance pupil while the back-side metasurface redirects every ray to a common planar focal plane; this separation means beams arriving from different directions strike different, partially overlapping patches of the metasurface, so the phase can be tuned per field angle instead of being globally fixed to one hyperbolic profile. The phase law is the paper's key object: instead of the conventional single hyperboloid, the optimized profile carries the off-axis correction, and the design enforces a Marechal-type tolerance (RMS wavefront error below 0.07 wavelengths) to keep every field angle at Strehl ratio at or above 0.8. The meta-atoms are Huygens resonators—subwavelength PbTe blocks supporting overlapping electric and magnetic dipole resonances—chosen so that their phase response is nearly independent of incidence angle inside the substrate, which is what lets one fixed phase profile work for every direction.

What would settle it

Measure the actual phase delay of the fabricated meta-atoms versus incidence angle, or measure the lens's Strehl ratio at an angle where the internal ray approaches 45.6 degrees (near 85 degrees external incidence): if the phase deviation between normal and oblique incidence exceeds the tolerance that keeps RMS wavefront error below 0.07 wavelengths, or if the measured Strehl ratio falls below 0.8 anywhere from 0 to 85 degrees, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that angle-dependent aberrations of a flat lens—coma, astigmatism, and field curvature—can be corrected at once by a single metasurface when the aperture stop is separated from the metasurface on opposite faces of a planar substrate. Because different incident angles illuminate different, continuously overlapping regions of the metasurface, the phase profile can be optimized locally for every field angle; the authors require the RMS wavefront error to stay below 0.07 wavelengths, which keeps the Strehl ratio above 0.8 across the whole field. The implemented mid-infrared lens, built from eight PbTe Huygens meta-atom designs on a CaF2 substrate, is reported to focus and image with diffraction-limited quality from normal incidence out to 85° (the measurement limit of the setup, not the lens), with focusing efficiency between 32% and 45%. The same architecture is additionally shown by simulation in the near-infrared at 940 nm using polarization-insensitive a-Si nanoposts, with resolution of 2.9 µm and angular resolution near 0.1° over the full 180°.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes each fabricated PbTe meta-atom's phase delay is essentially unchanged for light arriving at any angle up to about 45.6 degrees inside the substrate, so a single angle-independent phase profile can cancel aberrations for all field directions; if real units deviate from that simulated flatness, the off-axis Strehl ratio would drop below 0.8.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Single-optic panoramic cameras become possible: one metasurface on a flat slab replaces the multi-element fisheye stack used today.
Detector and emitter integration is simplified because the focal plane is flat across the whole field, so standard planar arrays can be used.
The design blueprint transfers to other wavelengths and meta-atom platforms; the paper illustrates a simulated 940 nm version that is polarization-insensitive and diffraction-limited over the full 180°.
Image distortion from the wide field is only geometric barrel distortion, which software post-processing can remove without affecting resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

An extension the paper leaves implicit: because the angular blur is set by the input aperture, scaling up the aperture diameter while keeping the numerical aperture constant should directly improve angular resolution, at the cost of a larger metasurface.
A testable extension: the design's portability to other materials is bounded by how flat each meta-atom's phase response stays over the internal angular range, so measuring that phase slope for any new platform predicts the maximum viable field of view before fabrication.
The paper's 'greater than 170°' claim rests on measurements from 0° to 85°, so near-grazing incidence remains the risky regime not directly shown; the substrate's internal critical angle of about 45.6° sets a hard geometric limit for rays reaching the metasurface.
A neighboring problem this construction suggests: the same aperture–metasurface separation could be used to build a single-layer Fourier or projection lens with wide-angle steering, since the phase correction is angle-by-angle rather than global.

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

This paper is worth your attention for the design idea, but the experimental support for the headline number is shakier than it looks. The setup described for the 85° focal-spot measurements does not appear to be capable of doing what the paper claims.

What is actually new: they put the aperture on the front of a thick substrate and the metasurface on the back, then give the metasurface a custom phase profile that, at least in simulation, corrects third-order coma, astigmatism, and field curvature out to near-grazing angles. That is a genuine advance over the earlier single-layer 30° and doublet 56° results. The Kirchhoff diffraction simulations, which include angle-dependent meta-atom responses, are the strongest part. They show a plausible path to a flat, monolithically integrated lens with a planar focal plane over a hemispherical FOV.

The soft spot is the experimental verification. The design is explicitly based on Eq. (2), which maps an incident angle θ to a focal spot at f·tan(θ). At θ = 85° with f = 2 mm, the spot is about 22.9 mm off axis, and the focused cone (NA ≈ 0.24) is centered at roughly 85° from the substrate normal. The Methods say the FPA and magnifier were “translated as a single piece perpendicular to the metalens optical axis,” which implies the magnifier axis stays parallel to the normal. A standard two-lens magnifier with paraxial magnification 120 cannot collect a grazing-incidence cone without being tilted and recalibrated. The paper does not mention any tilting. So the Strehl ratios above 0.8 at 70° and 85° are not credible from the description as written. This is a load-bearing problem, because those data are the core evidence for the claimed experimental demonstration.

There are also smaller issues: no error bars on Strehl or efficiency, the measured range actually stops at ±85° (so the wide-angle part is simulated, not measured), and the optimized phase profile is only in the Supplementary. None of these are fatal by themselves, but they compound the geometry concern.

Credit where it is due: the design is original, the simulation work is thorough, and the citation pattern is honest. The self-cited PbTe platform is legitimately the basis for the fabricated device.

My bottom line: this deserves a serious referee because the concept is important and the flaw is in the experimental section, not necessarily the idea. A referee should ask for a detailed description of the high-angle measurement, specifically how the magnifier was oriented and how the 120× calibration works at an 85° field angle. If the geometry is fixed, this could be a strong paper. As it stands, I would not cite the experimental claim, but I would cite the design concept if I needed to point at the approach.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but expect that the experimental validation needs major revision or a rigorous rebuttal.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a single-layer metasurface lens on a flat CaF2 substrate with an input aperture, designed with the phase profile in Eq. (2) to correct third-order Seidel aberrations for oblique incidence. Using eight PbTe Huygens meta-atoms with 45-degree phase steps at 5.2 um, the authors fabricate a partial 2 mm x 3.6 mm metasurface and measure focal spots and USAF target images at external angles up to 85 degrees. They report Strehl ratios above 0.8 across 0-85 degrees, focusing efficiency of 32-45%, supporting Kirchhoff-diffraction and full-wave simulations, and a simulated 940 nm polarization-insensitive extension. The central claim is a record >170-degree diffraction-limited FOV with a planar focal plane.

Significance. If the claim holds, the result is significant: a single flat metasurface layer on a planar substrate can maintain diffraction-limited focusing across a hemispherical field of view, with a planar focal plane, and the design principle is transferable to other wavelength ranges. Strengths of the paper include the use of an external diffraction-limited benchmark (Strehl ratio relative to an ideal lens of the same NA), the absence of parameter fitting between simulation and experiment, detailed fabrication information, and a simulated extension to a 940 nm platform. The experimental validation, however, is central to the claim, and the measurement geometry and data presentation need to be clarified.

major comments (4)

[Methods, Metalens characterization; Fig. 4] The focal-spot collection geometry for high AOIs is not physically described. If the design follows Eq. (2) with theta the external angle, the image height at theta=85 degrees is f*tan(85 deg) approximately 22.9 mm for f=2 mm, and the focused cone is centered at roughly 85 degrees from the substrate normal; the magnifier, which is translated as a single piece perpendicular to the metalens optical axis, would then have its axis nearly parallel to the focal plane and could not collect this cone with a standard lens. If theta in Eq. (2) is instead the internal angle, the linear phase term in Eq. (2) is not the correct transverse phase of the wave inside the substrate, and the relation to the measured external angles must be stated explicitly. Please provide a ray-trace or side-view diagram of the measurement at 70 degrees and 85 degrees, state whether the magnifier or its axis was tilted, and report how the calibrated magnification of 120 +/- 3 was obtained at each AOI.
[Abstract and Fig. 4h] The experimental data cover external incidence angles of only 0 to 85 degrees, which by symmetry corresponds to a 170-degree full FOV; the claim of >170 degrees relies on simulated performance at 90 degrees. The abstract and conclusion state that the authors 'experimentally demonstrated aberration-free focusing and imaging over the entire FOV' and 'validated ... exceeding 170 degrees.' These statements should be restricted to the measured 170-degree range, with the extension beyond 85 degrees explicitly attributed to simulation.
[Methods, Metasurface fabrication; Fig. 3] Only a 2 mm x 3.6 mm section of the nominally 5.2 mm x 5.2 mm metasurface was fabricated. The paper should state explicitly that this section contains the active beam footprints for all measured AOIs and that full-aperture behavior follows by symmetry; otherwise the measured Strehl ratios characterize a partial lens, not the complete panoramic metalens claimed in the title and abstract.
[Fig. 2d and Fig. 4h] No error bars, repeated measurements, or statistical uncertainties are reported for the experimental Strehl ratios or focusing efficiencies, and the meta-atom phase-versus-angle simulations in Fig. 2d are presented without a quantitative worst-case phase error. Because the high-angle performance depends on the assumed angle-independence of the meta-atoms, please report measurement uncertainties and the simulated phase error bounds at each AOI.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2e and Supplementary Information] The optimized phase profile is only presented as a color plot in Fig. 2e; for reproducibility, the full phase function or a machine-readable phase map should appear in the main text or Supplementary Information, together with the explicit RMS wavefront error calculation.
[Eq. (2) and Fig. 4] The paper should clarify whether the angles theta_x and theta_y in Eq. (2) are external angles or angles inside the substrate, and should define the corresponding image-height mapping; this is currently ambiguous and is directly relevant to the measured focal-spot positions.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and wording errors, including 'varions incidence angles' in the Fig. 4 caption, 'metasuface' in the text, 'a stigmatism' for 'astigmatism', and the phrase 'record wide angular regime'; a careful proofread is needed.
[Table 1] The comparison in Table 1 would benefit from stating whether the FOV values are full-angle or half-angle, and from including the NA of this work directly in the table rather than only in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the wide-FOV phase design is optimized against an analytical target, and the Strehl verification is an external experimental benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The wide-FOV metalens phase profile is designed to approximate the analytical oblique-incidence phase profile of Eq. (2), and the design criterion is that the RMS wavefront error from that ideal spherical wavefront stays below 0.07 wavelength, which corresponds through the external Marechal/Strehl relation to Strehl ratios above 0.8. This is an optimization target, not a fitted prediction. The experimentally reported Strehl ratios are computed from measured focal-spot images and compared with the focal spot of an aberration-free lens of the same NA, which is an independent benchmark. No parameter is fitted to the measured Strehl values and then renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to the authors' prior PbTe-on-CaF2 Huygens meta-atom platform [34] supply fabrication protocols, material properties, and a meta-atom library, but they do not justify the wide-FOV aperture-metasurface architecture or the aberration-correction claim; those are introduced and validated in the present paper. The references to prior Strehl measurement procedures [34,42] are methodological citations, not load-bearing evidence for the new result. The only step that is tautological in a benign sense is the in-design check that a phase profile constrained to have RMS error below 0.07 lambda produces simulated Strehl ratios above 0.8, but the paper's central experimental claim does not rest on that internal consistency check. No circular reduction, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation was found.

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

The design relies on standard diffraction theory, full-wave simulations, and the Marechal criterion; no new physical entities are introduced. The performance depends on several chosen geometrical parameters, which are design variables, not fitted parameters.

free parameters (5)

Substrate thickness = 2 mm
Chosen design parameter, not fitted to data; it sets the separation between aperture and metasurface and influences the maximum lateral displacement on the metasurface, hence the FOV.
Aperture diameter = 1 mm
Chosen design parameter; defines the entrance pupil and, with substrate thickness, the beam footprint on the metasurface at each AOI.
Focal length = 2 mm
Chosen design parameter; fixes the NA (0.24) and the planar focal plane position.
Number of phase levels = 8 (45-degree steps)
Design choice for the meta-atom library; coarse phase quantization contributes wavefront error but is kept within the 0.07 lambda RMS criterion.
Metasurface size = 5.2 x 5.2 mm^2
Chosen large enough to capture the beam footprint at extreme AOIs; determines the maximum field angle the design supports without vignetting.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Kirchhoff diffraction integral accurately models the metasurface focusing including angular phase masks.
Used in Methods and Device modeling to optimize and evaluate the metalens performance.
domain assumption Full-wave CST simulations correctly predict the phase and amplitude response of the PbTe meta-atoms.
The meta-atom library in Fig. 2c,d is obtained from simulations; fabricated geometry is assumed to match.
standard math Marechal criterion: RMS wavefront error below 0.07 lambda corresponds to Strehl ratio above 0.8.
Used to set the design criterion and to interpret measured Strehl ratios as diffraction-limited.
domain assumption CaF2 and PbTe optical constants at 5.2 um are known and constant.
Inputs to simulations; tabulated values used without independent verification.
domain assumption The substrate is planar and the aperture is a hard circular stop.
The design model assumes an ideal circular aperture on a flat surface; fabrication deviations are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A single-layer panoramic metalens with > 170{\deg} diffraction-limited field of view." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VL2LQZDU

@misc{pith2026190803626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A single-layer panoramic metalens with > 170\deg diffraction-limited field of view},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VL2LQZDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03626}
}

read the original abstract

Wide-angle optical functionality is crucial for implementation of advanced imaging and image projection devices. Conventionally, wide-angle operation is attained by complicated assembly of multiple optical elements. Recent advances in nanophotonics have led to metasurface lenses or metalenses, a new class of ultra-thin planar lenses utilizing subwavelength nanoantennas to gain full control of the phase, amplitude, and/or polarization of light. Here we present a novel metalens design capable of performing diffraction-limited focusing and imaging over an unprecedented > 170 degree angular field of view (FOV). The lens is monolithically integrated on a one-piece flat substrate and involves only a single layer of metasurface that corrects third-order Seidel aberrations including coma, astigmatism, and field curvature. The metalens further features a planar focal plane, which enables considerably simplified system architectures for applications in imaging and projection. We fabricated the metalens using Huygens meta-atoms operating at 5.2 micron wavelength and experimentally demonstrated aberration-free focusing and imaging over the entire FOV. The design concept is generic and can be readily adapted to different meta-atom geometries and wavelength ranges to meet diverse application demands.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

Liu, W. et al. Metasurface Enabled Wide -Angle Fourier Lens. Adv. Mater. 30, 1706368 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

Jiang, Z. H. et al. Broadband and wide field -of-view plasmonic metasurface -enabled waveplates. Sci. Rep. 4, 7511 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

Lee, G. Y. et al. Metasurface eyepiece for augmented reality. Nat. Commun. 9, 4562 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Guo, Y. et al. High-Efficiency and Wide-Angle Beam Steering Based on Catenary Optical Fields in Ultrathin Metalens. Adv. Opt. Mater. 6, (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Yu, N. et al. Light Propagation with Phase Discontinuities: Generalized Laws of Reflection and Refraction. Science 334, 333–337 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

K., Kildishev, A

Ni, X., Emani, N. K., Kildishev, A. V., Boltasseva, A. & Shalaev, V. M. Broadband Light Bending with Plasmonic Nanoantennas. Science 335, 427–427 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

& Bozhevolnyi, S

Pors, A. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Efficient and broadband quarter-wave plates by gap-plasmon resonators. Opt. Express 21, 2942–2952 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

I., Miroshnichenko, A

Kuznetsov, A. I., Miroshnichenko, A. E., Brongersma, M. L., Kivshar, Y. S. & Luk’yanchuk, B. Optically resonant dielectric nanostructures. Science 354, aag2472 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 51 references

[9]

The future and promise of flat optics: A personal perspectiv e

Capasso, F. The future and promise of flat optics: A personal perspectiv e. Nanophotonics 7, 953–957 (2018)

2018
[10]

& Caloz, C

Achouri, K. & Caloz, C. Design, concepts, and applications of electromagnetic metasurfaces. Nanophotonics 7, 1095–1116 (2018)

2018
[11]

M., Arbabi, E., Arbabi, A

Kamali, S. M., Arbabi, E., Arbabi, A. & Faraon, A. A review of dielectric optical metasurfaces for wavefront control. Nanophotonics 7, 1041–1068 (2018)

2018
[12]

Campbell, S. D. et al. Review of numerical optimization techniques for meta-device design [Invited]. Opt. Mater. Express 9, 1842–1863 (2019)

2019
[13]

Shaltout, A. M. et al. Spatiotemporal light control with frequency -gradient metasurfaces. Science 365, 374–377 (2019)

2019
[14]

Das Gupta, T. et al. Self-assembly of nanostructured glass metasurfaces via templated fluid instabilities. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 320–327 (2019)

2019
[15]

Shi, H. et al. Beam manipulating by metallic nano -slits with variant widths. Opt. Express 13, 6815–6820 (2005)

2005
[16]

Aieta, F. et al. Aberration-free ultrathin flat lenses and axicons at telecom wavelengths based on plasmonic metasurfaces. Nano Lett. 12, 4932–4936 (2012)

2012
[17]

West, P. R. et al. All-dielectric subwavelength metasurface focusing lens. Opt. Express 22, 26212–26221 (2014)

2014
[18]

& Capasso, F

Khorasaninejad, M. & Capasso, F. Metalenses: Versatile multifunctional photonic components. Science 358, eaam8100 (2017)

2017
[19]

& Chavel, P

Lalanne, P. & Chavel, P. Metalenses at visible wavelengths: past, present, perspectives. Laser Photon. Rev. 11, 1600295 (2017)

2017
[20]

Tseng, M. L. et al. Metalenses: Advances and Applications. Adv. Opt. Mater. 6, 1800554 (2018)

2018
[21]

& Brongersma, M

Lin, D., Fan, P., Hasman, E. & Brongersma, M. L. Dielectric gradient metasurface optical elements. Science 345, 298–302 (2014)

2014
[22]

& Launois, H

Lalanne, P., Astilean, S., Chavel, P., Cambril, E. & Launois, H. Blazed binary subwavelength gratings with efficiencies larg er than those of conventional é chelette gratings. Opt. Lett. 23, 1081–1083 (1998)

1998
[23]

& Capasso, F

Aieta, F., Genevet, P., Kats, M. & Capasso, F. Aberrations of flat lenses and aplanatic metasurfaces. Opt. Express 21, 31530–31539 (2013)

2013
[24]

Chen, W. T. et al. A broadband achromatic metalens for focusing and imaging in the visible. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 220–226 (2018)

2018
[25]

Wang, S. et al. Broadband achromatic optical metasurface devices. Nat. Commun. 8, 187 (2017)

2017
[26]

C., Lu, M., Stei n, A

Shrestha, S., Overvig, A. C., Lu, M., Stei n, A. & Yu, N. Broadband achromatic dielectric metalenses. Light Sci. Appl. 7, 85 (2018)

2018
[27]

Zhou, Y. et al. Multilayer Noninteracting Dielectric Metasurfaces for Multiwavelength Metaoptics. Nano Lett. 18, 7529–7537 (2018)

2018
[28]

Arbabi, A. et al. Miniature optical planar camera based on a wide-angle metasurface doublet corrected for monochromatic aberrations. Nat. Commun. 7, 13682 (2016)

2016
[29]

Groever, B., Chen, W. T. & Capasso, F. Meta-lens doublet in the visible region. Nano Lett. 17, 4902–4907 (2017)

2017
[30]

Engelberg, J. et al. Near-IR wide field -of-view Huygens metalens for outdoor imaging applications. arXiv: 1901.07331 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[31]

& Eleftheriades, G

Epstein, A. & Eleftheriades, G. V. Huygens’ metasurfaces via the equivalence principle: design and applications. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, A31 (2016)

2016
[32]

Pfeiffer, C. et al. Efficient light bending with isotropic metamaterial Huygens’ surfaces. Nano Lett. 14, 2491–2497 (2014)

2014
[33]

Shalaev, M. I. et al. High-Efficiency All-Dielectric Metasurfaces for Ultracompact Beam Manipulation in Transmission Mode. Nano Lett. 15, 6261–6266 (2015)

2015
[34]

Zhang, L. et al. Ultra-thin high-efficiency mid-infrared transmissive Huygens meta-optics. Nat. Commun. 9, 1481 (2018)

2018
[35]

Decker, M. et al. High-Efficiency Dielectric Huygens’ Surfaces. Adv. Opt. Mater. 3, 813– 820 (2015)

2015
[36]

Chen, M., Kim, M., Wong, A. M. H. & Eleftheriades, G. V. Huygens’ metasurfaces from microwaves to optics: A review. Nanophotonics 7, 1207–1231 (2018)

2018
[37]

Yu, Y. F. et al. High-transmission dielectric metasurface with 2π phase control at visible wavelengths. Laser Photonics Rev. 9, 412–418 (2015)

2015
[38]

Chong, K. E. et al. Efficient Polarization-Insensitive Complex Wavefront Control Using Huygens’ Metasurfaces Based on Dielectric Resonant Meta-atoms. ACS Photonics 3, 514– 519 (2016)

2016
[39]

Liu, S. et al. Huygens’ Metasurfaces Enabled by Magnetic Dipole Resonance Tuning in Split Dielectric Nanoresonators. Nano Lett. 17, 4297–4303 (2017)

2017
[40]

Maguid, E. et al. Photonic spin-controlled multifunctional shared -aperture antenna array. Science 352, 1202–1206 (2016)

2016
[41]

M., Horie, Y

Arbabi, E., Arbabi, A., Kamali, S. M., Horie, Y. & Faraon, A. Multiwavelength metasurfaces through spatial multiplexing. Sci. Rep. 6, 32803 (2016)

2016
[42]

Devlin, Jaewon Oh, Alexander Y

Mohammadreza Khorasaninejad, Wei Ting Chen, Robert C. Devlin, Jaewon Oh, Alexander Y. Zhu, F. C. Metalenses at visible wavelengths: Diffraction -limited focusing and subwavelength resolution imaging. Science 352, 1190–1194 (2016)

2016
[43]

& Faraon, A

Arbabi, A., Horie, Y., Bagheri, M. & Faraon, A. Dielectric metasurfaces for complete control of phase and polarization with subwavelength spatial resolution and high transmission. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 937–943 (2015)

2015
[44]

M., Arbabi, A., Arbabi, E., Horie, Y

Kamali, S. M., Arbabi, A., Arbabi, E., Horie, Y. & Faraon, A. Decoupling optical function and geometrical form using conformal fl exible dielectric metasurfaces. Nat. Commun. 7, 11618 (2016)

2016
[45]

Hu, T. et al. Demonstration of color display metasurfaces via immersion lithography on a 12-inch silicon wafer. Opt. Express 26, 19548–19554 (2018)

2018
[46]

Arbabi, E. et al. MEMS-tunable dielectric metasurface lens. Nat. Commun. 9, 812 (2018)

2018
[47]

Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Panorama_(9663189831).jpg

Paris Panorama. Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Panorama_(9663189831).jpg
[48]

Lin, H. et al. Demonstration of mid-infrared waveguide photonic crystal cavities. Opt. Lett. 38, 2779–2782 (2013)

2013
[49]

Wang, J. et al. Structural, electrical, and optical properties of thermally evaporated nanocrystalline PbTe films. J. Appl. Phys. 104, 053707 (2008)

2008
[50]

Wang, J., Hu, J., Becla, P., Agarwal, A. M. & Kimerling, L. C. Room -temperature oxygen sensitization in highly textured, nanocrystalline PbTe films: A mechanistic study. J. Appl. Phys. 110, 083719 (2011)

2011
[51]

& Wolf, E

Born, M. & Wolf, E. Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propa -gation, Interference and Diffraction of Light. (2000)

2000

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Liu, W. et al. Metasurface Enabled Wide -Angle Fourier Lens. Adv. Mater. 30, 1706368 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Jiang, Z. H. et al. Broadband and wide field -of-view plasmonic metasurface -enabled waveplates. Sci. Rep. 4, 7511 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Lee, G. Y. et al. Metasurface eyepiece for augmented reality. Nat. Commun. 9, 4562 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Guo, Y. et al. High-Efficiency and Wide-Angle Beam Steering Based on Catenary Optical Fields in Ultrathin Metalens. Adv. Opt. Mater. 6, (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Yu, N. et al. Light Propagation with Phase Discontinuities: Generalized Laws of Reflection and Refraction. Science 334, 333–337 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [6]

K., Kildishev, A

Ni, X., Emani, N. K., Kildishev, A. V., Boltasseva, A. & Shalaev, V. M. Broadband Light Bending with Plasmonic Nanoantennas. Science 335, 427–427 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

& Bozhevolnyi, S

Pors, A. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Efficient and broadband quarter-wave plates by gap-plasmon resonators. Opt. Express 21, 2942–2952 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

I., Miroshnichenko, A

Kuznetsov, A. I., Miroshnichenko, A. E., Brongersma, M. L., Kivshar, Y. S. & Luk’yanchuk, B. Optically resonant dielectric nanostructures. Science 354, aag2472 (2016)

work page 2016