Fig. 1. Damage comparison of nodules and nano-absorption centers under 351 nm laser irradiation^［18］

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of damage types of nano-absorption centers^［18］

Fig. 3. AFM images of damaged nano-absorption center of Sc₂O₃/SiO₂ multilayers

Fig. 4. Sectional view of nodule defect formed by different morphological seed sources

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of nodule structure^［26］

Fig. 6. （a）Laser transmission at edge of nodule^［34］；（b） Laser incidence angle range in nodule^［33］

Fig. 7. Electric field enhancement law of nodules under laser irradiation with different polarization states^［36］

Fig. 8. FDTD-simulated P-polarized state electric field intensity distribution in different nodule defects^［38］

Fig. 9. Nodule defects in SiO₂ monolayers^［39］

Fig. 10. Nodule defects with geometry D=sqrt（4dt） in monolayers of two different refractive index materials^［38］

Fig. 11. Nodule defect with geometry of D=sqrt（4dt） in all-angle reflective film^［39］

Fig. 12. Relationship of laser damage threshold of nodule defect with seed diameter， seed absorption and film absorption

Fig. 13. Mechanical properties of film deteriorate with increase of nodule size^［41］

Fig. 14. Sectional morphology， electric field distribution and damage morphology of nodules

Fig. 15. Structure and spectra of long-pass and short-pass polarizers

Fig. 16. Geometric model of nodule defect in polarizer operating at 56° incident angle

Fig. 17. Electric field distributions of nodule defects in long-pass and short-pass polarizers

Fig. 18. Damage morphologies of nodule defects in long-pass and short-pass polarizers

Fig. 19. Electric field distribution and damage morphologies of nodule defects of different sizes in long-pass and short-pass polarizers

Fig. 20. Initial damage threshold and damage growth threshold of nodules in Ta₂O₅/SiO₂ reflective coating

Fig. 21. Damage growth process of nodules in Ta₂O₅/SiO₂ reflective coatings prepared by EBE process

Fig. 22. Damage growth process of nodules in Ta₂O₅/SiO₂ reflective coatings prepared by IAD process

Fig. 23. Nodule defect with geometry D=sqrt（4dt） in wide-angle HfO₂/SiO₂ highly reflective coatings^［39］

Fig. 24. Sectional view of nodule defect after planarization of 1.25 μm SiO₂ layer

Fig. 25. Sectional view of nodule defect after planarization of 2.5 μm SiO₂ layer

Fig. 26. Damage thresholds of three groups of 1 064 nm high-reflection coatings with different levels of planarization

Fig. 27. Laser damage threshold of AR coatings deposited on various pretreating fused silica substrate

Fig. 28. Transmittance spectra of Hf_0.7Si_0.3O₂ monolayer， HfO₂ monolayer and Ta₂O₅ monolayer

Fig. 29. Variation of energy band gap of Hf_1-xSi_xO₂ mixed film with SiO₂ doping ratio

Fig. 30. Physical map of pick-off mirror

Fig. 31. Damage source distribution information of samples in different incident directions

Fig. 32. Cross-sectional TEM images of Hf_xSi_1-xO₂ nanocomposite layer

Fig. 33. Schematic illustration of additive manufacturing process flow combining laser interference lithography （LIL）， nanoimprinting （NIL）， atomic layer deposition （ALD）， and reactive ion beam etching （RIE）

Fig. 34. Typical damage morphologies of multilayer dielectric gratings （incident light from right to left）