Fig. 1. Comparison of new optical monitoring method and turning point method^[9]. (a) Theoretical thickness monitoring error;

Fig. 2. Measured spectral uniformity curves for large-size coating

Fig. 3. Stress of SiO₂ monolayer coatings versus deposition parameters^[18]. (a) Deposition temperature; (b) oxygen partial pressure

Fig. 4. Stress of HfO₂ monolayer coating versus deposition parameter. (a) Coating thickness^[19]; (b) deposition temperature^[20]

Fig. 5. Schematic of in situ stress measurement system^[24]

Fig. 6. Stress evolution of monolayer coatings ^[27]. (a) HfO₂; (b) SiO₂

Fig. 7. Stress evolution of multilayer coatings^[27]. (a) Structure of (HL)⁷; (b) structure of (H2L)⁶

Fig. 8. Surface morphology of cracks in coating^[3]. (a) Overall morphology; (b) local magnification

Fig. 9. Stress of SiO₂ coatings versus relative humidity^[34]. (a) Without oxygen backfill; (b) with oxygen backfill of 5×10^-5 Torr (1 Torr=133.322 Pa)

Fig. 10. Coating properties versus aging time. (a) Refractive indices (at 1064 nm) of HfO₂ and SiO₂ layers^[35]; (b) magnification of specific areas in Fig.10(a) with background color blocks indicating four consecutive steps^[35]; (c) stress of HfO₂/SiO₂ multilayer coatings with capping layer (MCL) and with shell layer (MSL) ^[36]

Fig. 11. Laser-induced damage thresholds for HfO₂ monolayer coatings with 240 nm thickness as a function of substrate-finish conditions^[39]

Fig. 12. Simulated results^[42]. (a) Effect of density of nano-absorbent defects on laser-induced coating temperature rise; (b) effects of size and absorption characteristics of nano-absorbent defects on laser-induced coating temperature rise; (c) effects of size and absorption characteristics of nodular defects on electric filed distribution of coating

Fig. 13. Laser-induced damage threshold and electric field distribution of highly-reflective coatings deposited on pits with different sizes^[44]. (a) Probability curves of laser-induced damage; (b) laser-induced damage threshold; (c) surface morphologies of pits with and without laser damage; (d) simulated electric field intensity distribution of coating surface; (e) simulated maximum electric field intensity of coating surface

Fig. 14. Nodular defects characterized by different methods. (a) Optical microscope; (b) atomic force microscope; (c) scanning electron microscope

Fig. 15. Enhancement of laser-induced damage threshold by SiO₂ inner protective layer. (a) 1064 nm anti-reflection coatings^[74];

Fig. 16. Effects of peak electric field intensity and peak electric field location in HfO₂ layers on laser-induced damage threshold^[76].

Fig. 17. Design and measured results of ultraviolet laser reflective coatings^[77]. (a) Schematic of design of traditional combination coating structure; (b) schematic of design of novel nanolaminate coating structure; (c) reflectance spectra; (d) transmittance spectra (incident angle of 45°, s-polarized light indicated by solid line, and p-polarized light indicated by dotted line); (e) single-pulse damage probability versus laser irradiation fluence

Fig. 18. Effects of deposition parameters on absorption of 1053 nm highly-reflective coatings (1 bar=10⁵ Pa). (a) Deposition pressure of HfO₂; (b) deposition rate of HfO₂; (c) deposition pressure of metal Hf; (d) deposition rate of metal Hf

Fig. 19. Properties of multilayer coatings with conventional interfaces and co-evaporation interfaces^[85]. (a) Refractive index; (b) laser-induced damage threshold; (c)‒(f) typical laser damage morphologies

Fig. 20. Smoothing process of coatings^[86]. (a) Typical nodular defect; (b) ideal planarized defect; (c) experimental setup

Fig. 21. Effects of HfO₂ and metal Hf as initial coating materials on properties of coatings^[87]. (a)(b) Effects of different pre-melting processes on surface of HfO₂ after coating; (c) effects of different HfO₂ pre-melting processes on laser-induced damage threshold of 1053 nm highly-reflective coatings; (d) effect of electron-beam sweep pattern of metal Hf on nodule defect density; (e) effect of electron-beam sweep pattern of metal Hf on laser-induced plasma scald fraction of 1053 nm highly-reflective coatings; (f) comparison of interfaces of HfO₂/SiO₂ multilayer coatings using HfO₂ and metal Hf as initial coating materials

Fig. 22. Schematics of NDR process^[92]. (a) Nodule defect models before and after processing; (b) process flow

Fig. 23. Effect of suturing layer on laser-induced damage threshold of highly-reflective coatings^[3]