MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415475836 · doi:10.1126/science.aaf6644

Metalenses at visible wavelengths: Diffraction-limited focusing and subwavelength resolution imaging

2016· article· en· W2415475836 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Khorasaninejad, Wei Ting Chen, Robert C. Devlin, Jaewon Oh, Alexander Y. Zhu, Federico Capasso

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanCharles Stark Draper LaboratoryAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchHarvard School of Engineering and Applied SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOpticsWavelengthDiffractionResolution (logic)Visible spectrumMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subwavelength resolution imaging requires high numerical aperture (NA) lenses, which are bulky and expensive. Metasurfaces allow the miniaturization of conventional refractive optics into planar structures. We show that high-aspect-ratio titanium dioxide metasurfaces can be fabricated and designed as metalenses with NA = 0.8. Diffraction-limited focusing is demonstrated at wavelengths of 405, 532, and 660 nm with corresponding efficiencies of 86, 73, and 66%. The metalenses can resolve nanoscale features separated by subwavelength distances and provide magnification as high as 170×, with image qualities comparable to a state-of-the-art commercial objective. Our results firmly establish that metalenses can have widespread applications in laser-based microscopy, imaging, and spectroscopy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3,336
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207