Fig. 1. Sensitivity performance of different error types of optical systems^[12]

Fig. 2. Design flow chart for searching the initial structure of an off-axis three-mirror optical system with low error sensitivity^[13]

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the multiple structure method^[14]

Fig. 4. Design example: (a) before desensitization design; (b) after desensitization design^[15]

Fig. 5. (a) Mobile phone camera design layout with Power Series aspheres; (b) mobile phone camera design layout with Q-type aspheres; (c) MTF of Lens with Power Series aspheres element 4 with decenter of 30 μm; (d) MTF of Lens with Q-type aspheres element 4 with decenter of 30 μm; WFE of the lenses with (e) Power Series aspheres and (f) Q-type aspheres with a change in element thickness of 10 µm^[17]

Fig. 6. Non-coaxial freeform three-mirror reflective optical system^[19]

Fig. 7. Desensitization design and analysis: (a) lens sections before GE2; (b) lens sections after GE2; (c) incident angles before and after GE2 and their differences; (d) statistical sensitivity to errors before and after GE2^[21]

Fig. 8. Variation of WFE and error sensitivity evaluation function S in the desensitization design process^[25]

Fig. 9. S and ∆RMS WFE before and after desensitization

Fig. 10. Sensitivity curve of the optical systems to surface figure errors^[26]

Fig. 11. Optical system in AOE desensitization design process:off-axis magnitude (a) 350 mm; (b) 250 mm; (c) 200 mm; (d) 200 mm, tilt tertiary mirror and image plane to eliminate ray obsuration and ray crossing^[27]

Fig. 12. RMS WFE increment caused by misalignment perturbations ^[27].

Fig. 13. Photographic lens (a) before and (b) after desensitization optimization^[30]

Fig. 14. Probable decreases of MTF at 15 lp/mm before (shadowed bars) and after desensitization optimization (black bars)^[30]

Fig. 15. Relationship between aspheric coefficients and error sensitivity of different combinations. (a) Decenter in the x-direction. (b) Tilt in the x-direction ^[31]

Fig. 16. Design results of three desensitization design methods. (a) The method of reducing the number of high-order aspheric coefficients. (b) Multiple structure method. (c) Combined desensitization design method^[1]

Fig. 17. Comparison diagrams before and after desensitization design using three methods proposed by Leticia Carrión-Higueras. (a) WFE of lens group before and after desensitization design. (b) MTF of system before and after desensitization design^[1]

Fig. 18. Optical system modelfor OPV derivation ^[32]

Fig. 19. Variation of OPV and ΔRMS WFE in desensitization optimization process^[32]

Fig. 20. Control of the sensitivity during global optimization^[35]

Fig. 21. Comparison using different desensitization design methods for aspheric miniature camera lenses. (a) Global search method. (b) Full differential wavefront error integrated optimization. (c) Reduction of ray angle of incidence. (d) Reduction of tilt-induced axial coma. (e) Zoomed configurations. (f) Reduction of decenter-induced differential wavefront error^[37]

Fig. 22. Misalignment aberrations for tilt, decenter and despace of the secondary mirror^[40]

Fig. 23. Triplet lens (a) before and (b) after desensitization design^[41]

Fig. 24. MTF at 50 lp/mm with second element decentered −0.025 mm (a) before and (b) after desensitization design ^[41]

Fig. 25. Average of two figures of merit for the Petzval, Cooke triplet and double-Gauss lenses^[42]

Fig. 26. ZEMAX Tolerance sensitivity analysis by ZEMAX for the radius,thickness and surface tilt of Petzval, Cooke triplet and double-Gauss lenses^[42]

Fig. 27. Design example. (a) Before optimization. (b) After optimization^[45]

Fig. 28. Distortion sensitivities before and after optimization. (a) Distortion sensitivity of the surface decenter. (b) Distortion sensitivity of the surface tilt^[45]

Fig. 29. Layout of optical system before (a) and after (b) desensitization design^[6]

Fig. 30. RMS aberration caused by misalignment of optical system. (a) Before desensitization design. (b) After desensitization design^[6]

Fig. 31. Solutions for a generic multi-objective problem plotted in the functions space^[46]