pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.27082 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Channeling-in channeling-out revisited: selected area electron channeling and electron backscatter diffraction

T. Ben Britton , M. Haroon Qaiser , Ruth M. Birch This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 22:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords electron backscatter diffractionEBSDelectron channeling patternchanneling-inpattern qualityHough transformsiliconSEM
0
0 comments X

The pith

Channeling-in effects cause EBSD quality metrics to modulate in line with the electron channeling pattern.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses selected-area electron channeling patterns acquired while recording an EBSD pattern at every beam direction on a silicon wafer to show how incident beam orientation affects the backscattered signal. Common metrics including pattern quality, band contrast, band slope, cross-correlation coefficients, and Fourier signal-to-noise ratios all vary strongly and follow the underlying ECP features. These modulations remain after background correction and also appear in conventional low-magnification EBSD maps. The observations indicate that channeling-in can bias any analysis that treats pattern quality or subtle intensity differences as purely orientation- or strain-dependent signals.

Core claim

By acquiring SA-ECPs while collecting EBSD data at each incident beam direction from a single-crystal silicon wafer, the work shows that channeling-in produces crystallographic modulations in the EBSD signal that track the underlying electron channeling pattern. This occurs in both raw and background-corrected patterns, affects Hough-based quality metrics, pattern-matching coefficients, and SNR values, and is visible under standard mapping conditions.

What carries the argument

Selected-area electron channeling pattern (SA-ECP) acquisition performed while recording an EBSD pattern for every incident beam direction, directly linking channeling-in to variations in the backscattered diffraction signal.

If this is right

  • Quality-based interpretation of EBSD data can be biased by channeling-in.
  • Pattern blurring analysis and high-resolution strain mapping may require explicit correction for these modulations.
  • Statistical or machine-learning methods that use subtle pattern variations need to account for channeling-in coupling.
  • Wide-angle channeling features are relevant in routine low-magnification EBSD maps.
  • Experimental designs and detector configurations can be adjusted to mitigate or exploit channeling-in/channeling-out effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Detector placement in the SEM could be tuned to reduce unwanted channeling-in bias during EBSD collection.
  • The SA-ECP plus EBSD approach can be applied to polycrystalline samples to test how grain boundaries interact with the same modulations.
  • Similar channeling-in influences may appear in other SEM diffraction techniques such as transmission Kikuchi diffraction.
  • Controlling beam direction during mapping opens the possibility of using channeling effects intentionally for enhanced contrast.

Load-bearing premise

The observed modulations in EBSD quality metrics arise primarily from channeling-in rather than from other instrumental factors or sample-specific effects.

What would settle it

If quality metrics collected while the beam is scanned across known ECP band positions on the silicon wafer show no correlation with those positions, the claim that channeling-in drives the modulations would be falsified.

read the original abstract

Scanning electron microscopy combined with electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) and electron channeling provides rich crystallographic contrast, but the mutual influence of channeling-in and channeling-out is often simplified or neglected in quantitative analyses. In this work, we use selected-area electron channeling patterns (SA-ECPs) acquired from a single-crystal silicon wafer while recording an EBSD pattern at every incident beam direction, thereby directly probing how channeling-in affects the EBSD signal. We show that common Hough-based quality metrics (pattern quality, band contrast, and band slope), pattern-matching cross-correlation coefficients, and Fourier-based signal-to-noise ratios all exhibit strong crystallographic modulations that follow the underlying ECP, in both raw and background-corrected patterns. Similar wide-angle channeling features are also visible in conventional, low-magnification EBSD maps, indicating that channeling-in effects are relevant under routine mapping conditions and not only in specialized ECP experiments. These observations highlight that channeling-in can significantly bias quality-based interpretation of EBSD data, with consequences for methods such as pattern blurring analysis, high-resolution strain mapping, and emerging statistical or machine-learning approaches that rely on subtle variations in diffraction patterns. The combined SA-ECP and EBSD strategy presented here offers a practical framework to visualize and potentially control channeling-in/channeling-out coupling in the SEM, suggesting new routes to design experiments and detector configurations that either mitigate or intentionally exploit these dynamical effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that by acquiring selected-area electron channeling patterns (SA-ECPs) from a single-crystal silicon wafer while recording EBSD patterns at each incident beam direction, common Hough-based EBSD quality metrics (pattern quality, band contrast, band slope), pattern-matching cross-correlation coefficients, and Fourier-based signal-to-noise ratios all show strong crystallographic modulations that track the underlying ECP features. These modulations persist in both raw and background-corrected patterns, and analogous wide-angle channeling contrast appears in conventional low-magnification EBSD maps, implying that channeling-in effects can bias routine EBSD quality interpretations and downstream analyses such as strain mapping or machine-learning pattern classification.

Significance. If the central observational result holds after proper isolation of instrumental variables, the work is significant for the EBSD community. It supplies direct experimental evidence that channeling-in modulates multiple standard quality metrics under controlled conditions and demonstrates that the effect is visible even in everyday low-magnification mapping. This has immediate consequences for any workflow that treats pattern quality or cross-correlation scores as purely crystallographic or strain-related quantities, and the SA-ECP + EBSD acquisition strategy offers a practical route to visualize and potentially mitigate the coupling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods / Experimental setup] Experimental methods section: the background-correction procedure is described but no quantitative validation is provided for residual beam-current drift, detector solid-angle variation, or tilt-induced intensity gradients across the scanned directions; because Hough transforms, cross-correlation coefficients, and Fourier SNR are all sensitive to global intensity and edge contrast, these un-decoupled factors could produce apparent ECP-following modulations without invoking channeling-in.
  2. [Results / Low-magnification EBSD maps] Results on low-magnification maps: the observation of wide-angle features is presented as evidence that channeling-in is relevant under routine conditions, yet these maps lack the controlled, point-by-point direction sweep of the SA-ECP experiment and therefore do not isolate the same variables, weakening the generalization claim.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion of implications: statements that the observed modulations can bias high-resolution strain mapping and machine-learning approaches are made without a quantitative estimate of the bias magnitude (e.g., change in cross-correlation coefficient or SNR per degree of channeling deviation), leaving the practical impact on those applications unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] Notation for the various quality metrics (PQ, BC, BS, CC, SNR) should be defined once in a table or early in the results section rather than introduced piecemeal.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the SA-ECP/EBSD overlay plots should explicitly state the angular range and step size of the incident-beam scan to allow readers to judge the sampling density relative to the ECP features.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. The comments have helped us strengthen the experimental validation, clarify the scope of the low-magnification observations, and quantify the practical implications. We respond point-by-point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Experimental methods section: the background-correction procedure is described but no quantitative validation is provided for residual beam-current drift, detector solid-angle variation, or tilt-induced intensity gradients across the scanned directions; because Hough transforms, cross-correlation coefficients, and Fourier SNR are all sensitive to global intensity and edge contrast, these un-decoupled factors could produce apparent ECP-following modulations without invoking channeling-in.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative checks on instrumental stability would strengthen the claim that the observed modulations arise from channeling-in. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section together with a new supplementary figure that reports: (i) beam-current measurements recorded before and after each SA-ECP scan (variation <0.4 %), (ii) geometric estimates of detector solid-angle change across the scanned angular range (<1.8 % intensity variation), and (iii) measured intensity gradients due to sample tilt. These residual effects are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the 15–30 % modulations recorded in the quality metrics, supporting that channeling-in remains the dominant contribution. We have also re-processed a subset of the data with an alternative flat-field correction to confirm the robustness of the result. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results on low-magnification maps: the observation of wide-angle features is presented as evidence that channeling-in is relevant under routine conditions, yet these maps lack the controlled, point-by-point direction sweep of the SA-ECP experiment and therefore do not isolate the same variables, weakening the generalization claim.

    Authors: We accept that the low-magnification EBSD maps do not replicate the controlled angular sweep of the SA-ECP experiment and therefore cannot isolate channeling-in with the same rigor. Their role in the manuscript is to demonstrate that analogous wide-angle contrast appears under everyday mapping conditions, thereby indicating practical relevance rather than providing independent proof. In the revised text we have explicitly distinguished the two data sets, moved the low-magnification results to a supporting figure, and added a sentence clarifying that the primary evidence for channeling-in modulation comes from the SA-ECP measurements while the maps illustrate the effect’s visibility in standard workflows. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Discussion of implications: statements that the observed modulations can bias high-resolution strain mapping and machine-learning approaches are made without a quantitative estimate of the bias magnitude (e.g., change in cross-correlation coefficient or SNR per degree of channeling deviation), leaving the practical impact on those applications unclear.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative estimates improve the usefulness of the discussion. Using the SA-ECP data we have added explicit numbers: cross-correlation coefficients vary by 0.06–0.09 across major channeling features, which, based on our prior calibration, corresponds to apparent strain errors of ~0.15 % if left uncorrected; Fourier SNR changes by 12–18 % and pattern-quality metrics by up to 25 %. These values have been inserted into the revised Discussion together with a short paragraph on how such variations could affect downstream strain mapping and ML-based pattern classification. We have also noted that the exact bias depends on the specific analysis pipeline and therefore recommend the SA-ECP protocol as a diagnostic tool. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational EBSD/ECP measurements with no derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental acquisition of SA-ECPs while recording EBSD patterns at each beam direction on a silicon wafer. It measures standard metrics (pattern quality, band contrast, band slope, cross-correlation coefficients, Fourier SNR) in raw and background-corrected data and observes that they modulate following the ECP. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations appear in the provided text; the central claim is an empirical observation, not a reduction of any quantity to itself by construction. Background correction is a standard preprocessing step and does not redefine the reported modulations. Any self-citations (not visible in the excerpt) are not load-bearing for the observational result. This is a self-contained experimental report whose findings rest on the measurements themselves rather than on any circular chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain knowledge of electron diffraction and channeling physics; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Electron channeling and diffraction contrast in SEM follow established dynamical scattering theory for crystalline materials.
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting modulations as channeling-in effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5564 in / 1108 out tokens · 28995 ms · 2026-05-14T22:35:02.124005+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Winkelmann, B

    A. Winkelmann, B. Schröter, W. Richter, Dynamical simulations of zone axis electron channelling patterns of cubic silicon carbide, Ultramicroscopy 98 (2003) 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3991(03)00021-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(03)00021-4 2003

  2. [2]

    Pascal, B

    E. Pascal, B. Hourahine, G. Naresh-Kumar, K. Mingard, C. Trager-Cowan, Dislocation contrast in electron channelling contrast images as projections of strain-like components, Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 14652–14661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.03.057

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.03.057 2018

  3. [3]

    Picard, M

    Y .N. Picard, M. Liu, J. Lammatao, R. Kamaladasa, M. De Graef, Theory of dynamical electron channeling contrast images of near-surface crystal defects, Ultramicroscopy 146 (2014) 71–

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.07.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.07.006 2014

  5. [5]

    Callahan, M

    P .G. Callahan, M. De Graef, Dynamical Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns. Part I: Pattern Simulations, Microanal 19 (2013) 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927613001840

    work page doi:10.1017/s1431927613001840 2013

  6. [6]

    Invertible substitutions with a comm on periodic point, in J

    A. Winkelmann, Dynamical Simulation of Electron Backscatter Diffraction Patterns, in: A.J. Schwartz, M. Kumar, B.L. Adams, D.P . Field (Eds.), Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materials Science, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009: pp. 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0- 387-88136-2_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0- 2009

  7. [7]

    Van Essen, E.M

    C.G. Van Essen, E.M. Schulson, R.H. Donaghay, Electron Channelling Patterns from Small (10 µm) Selected Areas in the Scanning Electron Microscope, Nature 225 (1970) 847–848. https://doi.org/10.1038/225847a0

    work page doi:10.1038/225847a0 1970

  8. [8]

    Van Essen, E.M

    C.G. Van Essen, E.M. Schulson, Selected area channelling patterns in the scanning electron microscope, J Mater Sci 4 (1969) 336–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00550403

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00550403 1969

  9. [9]

    D.G. Coates, Kikuchi-like reflection patterns obtained with the scanning electron microscope, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 16 (1967) 1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786436708229968

    work page doi:10.1080/14786436708229968 1967

  10. [10]

    Electron Channeling Patterns, in: Techniques in Physics, Academic Press, 1989: pp. 69–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-353855-0.50009-9

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-353855-0.50009-9 1989

  11. [11]

    Qaiser, L

    M.H. Qaiser, L. Berners, R.J. Scales, T. Zhang, M. Heller, J. Dluhoš, S. Korte-Kerzel, T.B. Britton, AstroECP: towards more practical electron channeling contrast imaging, J Appl Cryst 59 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576726000567

    work page doi:10.1107/s1600576726000567 2026

  12. [12]

    Winkelmann, Dynamical effects of anisotropic inelastic scattering in electron backscatter diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 108 (2008) 1546–1550

    A. Winkelmann, Dynamical effects of anisotropic inelastic scattering in electron backscatter diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 108 (2008) 1546–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2008.05.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2008.05.002 2008

  13. [13]

    Winkelmann, C

    A. Winkelmann, C. Trager-Cowan, F . Sweeney, A.P . Day, P . Parbrook, Many-beam dynamical simulation of electron backscatter diffraction patterns, Ultramicroscopy 107 (2007) 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.10.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.10.006 2007

  14. [14]

    Zhang, L

    T. Zhang, L. Berners, J. Holzer, T.B. Britton, Comparison of Kikuchi diffraction geometries in scanning electron microscope, Materials Characterization (2025) 114853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2025.114853

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2025.114853 2025

  15. [15]

    How to Select Fast Scanning Frequencies for High-Resolution Fast STM Measurements with a Conventional Microscope

    L. Reimer, Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, Second Edition, Meas. Sci. Technol. 11 (2000) 1826. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957- 0233/11/12/703

    work page doi:10.1088/0957- 2000

  16. [16]

    Zuo, J.C.H

    J.M. Zuo, J.C.H. Spence, Electron Microdiffraction, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    Winkelmann, M

    A. Winkelmann, M. Vos, Site-Specific Recoil Diffraction of Backscattered Electrons in Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 085503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.085503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.085503 2011

  18. [18]

    Winkelmann, T.B

    A. Winkelmann, T.B. Britton, G. Nolze, Constraints on the effective electron energy spectrum in backscatter Kikuchi diffraction, Physical Review B 99 (2019) 064115

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Della Ventura, K

    N.M. Della Ventura, K. Moore, M.P . Echlin, M.R. Begley, T.M. Pollock, M. De Graef, D.S. Gianola, Energy-resolved EBSD using a monolithic direct electron detector, Ultramicroscopy 281 (2026) 114301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2025.114301

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2025.114301 2026

  20. [20]

    Winkelmann, G

    A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, S. Vespucci, G. Naresh-Kumar, C. Trager-Cowan, A. Vilalta- Clemente, A. j. Wilkinson, M. Vos, Diffraction effects and inelastic electron transport in angle- resolved microscopic imaging applications, Journal of Microscopy 267 (2017) 330–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.12571

    work page doi:10.1111/jmi.12571 2017

  21. [21]

    Q. Shi, L. Jiao, D. Loisnard, C. Dan, Z. Chen, H. Wang, S. Roux, Improved EBSD indexation accuracy by considering energy distribution of diffraction patterns, Materials Characterization 188 (2022) 111909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2022.111909

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2022.111909 2022

  22. [22]

    Vermeij, J.P .M

    T. Vermeij, J.P .M. Hoefnagels, A consistent full-field integrated DIC framework for HR-EBSD, Ultramicroscopy 191 (2018) 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.05.001 2018

  23. [23]

    Calvat, C

    M. Calvat, C. Bean, D. Anjaria, H. Park, H. Wang, K. Vecchio, J.C. Stinville, Learning metal microstructural heterogeneity through spatial mapping of diffraction latent space features, Npj Comput Mater 11 (2025) 284. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-025-01770-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-025-01770-8 2025

  24. [24]

    Birch, S

    R. Birch, S. Li, S. Sharang, W.J. Poole, B. Britton, Large volume ‘chunk’ lift out for 3D tomographic analysis using analytical plasma focussed ion beam – scanning electron microscopy, Micron 203 (2026) 103986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2025.103986

    work page doi:10.1016/j.micron.2025.103986 2026

  25. [25]

    https://github.com/oinanoanalysis/h5oina (accessed March 9, 2026)

    oinanoanalysis/h5oina, (2025). https://github.com/oinanoanalysis/h5oina (accessed March 9, 2026)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Bachmann, R

    F . Bachmann, R. Hielscher, H. Schaeben, Texture Analysis with MTEX – Free and Open Source Software Toolbox, Solid State Phenomena 160 (2010) 63–68. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP .160.63

    work page doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/ssp 2010

  27. [27]

    Singh, M

    S. Singh, M. De Graef, Dictionary Indexing of Electron Channeling Patterns, Microanal 23 (2017) 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927616012769

    work page doi:10.1017/s1431927616012769 2017

  28. [28]

    Britton, D

    T.B. Britton, D. Goran, V .S. Tong, Space rocks and optimising scanning electron channelling contrast, Materials Characterization 142 (2018) 422–431

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Midgley, A.S

    P .A. Midgley, A.S. Eggeman, Precession electron diffraction – a topical review, IUCrJ 2 (2015) 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252514022283

    work page doi:10.1107/s2052252514022283 2015

  30. [30]

    Guyon, H

    J. Guyon, H. Mansour, N. Gey, M.A. Crimp, S. Chalal, N. Maloufi, Sub-micron resolution selected area electron channeling patterns, Ultramicroscopy 149 (2015) 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.11.004 2015

  31. [31]

    Wright, M.M

    S.I. Wright, M.M. Nowell, R. de Kloe, P . Camus, T. Rampton, Electron imaging with an EBSD detector, Ultramicroscopy 148 (2015) 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.10.002 2015

  32. [32]

    Brodusch, H

    N. Brodusch, H. Demers, R. Gauvin, Imaging with a Commercial Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) Camera in a Scanning Electron Microscope: A Review, Journal of Imaging 4 (2018) 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging4070088

    work page doi:10.3390/jimaging4070088 2018

  33. [33]

    della Ventura, J.D

    N.M. della Ventura, J.D. Lamb, W.C. Lenthe, M.P . Echlin, J.T. Pürstl, E.S. Trageser, A.M. Quevedo, M.R. Begley, T.M. Pollock, D.S. Gianola, M. De Graef, Orientation-adaptive virtual imaging of defects using EBSD, Ultramicroscopy 276 (2025) 114205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2025.114205

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2025.114205 2025

  34. [34]

    Warren, B.L

    B.E. Warren, B.L. Averbach, The Separation of Cold‑Work Distortion and Particle Size Broadening in X‑Ray Patterns, J. Appl. Phys. 23 (1952) 497. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1702234

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1702234 1952

  35. [35]

    Wilkinson, D.J

    A.J. Wilkinson, D.J. Dingley, Quantitative deformation studies using electron back scatter patterns, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 39 (1991) 3047–3055. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956- 7151(91)90037-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0956- 1991

  36. [36]

    X. Li, X. Li, T. Wu, C. Lv, C. Cai, EBSD patterns simulation of dislocation structures based on electron diffraction dynamic theory, Micron 169 (2023) 103461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2023.103461

    work page doi:10.1016/j.micron.2023.103461 2023

  37. [37]

    C. Zhu, M. De Graef, EBSD pattern simulations for an interaction volume containing lattice defects, Ultramicroscopy 218 (2020) 113088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113088

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113088 2020

  38. [38]

    Zhang, R.M

    T. Zhang, R.M. Birch, G.J. Francolini, E. Karakurt Uluscu, B. Britton, Practical Considerations for Crystallographic and Microstructure Mapping With Direct Electron Detector-Based Electron Backscatter Diffraction, Microanal 31 (2025) ozaf076. https://doi.org/10.1093/mam/ozaf076

    work page doi:10.1093/mam/ozaf076 2025

  39. [39]

    Vespucci, G

    S. Vespucci, G. Naresh-Kumar, C. Trager-Cowan, K.P . Mingard, D. Maneuski, V . O’Shea, A. Winkelmann, Diffractive triangulation of radiative point sources, Appl. Phys. Lett. 110 (2017) 124103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4978858

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4978858 2017

  40. [40]

    Vespucci, A

    S. Vespucci, A. Winkelmann, K. Mingard, D. Maneuski, V . O’Shea, C. Trager-Cowan, Exploring transmission Kikuchi diffraction using a Timepix detector, J. Inst. 12 (2017) C02075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/C02075

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/c02075 2017

  41. [41]

    Dynamical Simulation of On-axis Transmission Kikuchi and Spot Diffraction Patterns, Based on Accurate Diffraction Geometry Calibration

    T. Zhang, R. Gauvin, A. Winkelmann, T.B. Britton, Dynamical Simulation of On-axis Transmission Kikuchi and Spot Diffraction Patterns, Based on Accurate Diffraction Geometry Calibration, (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.22628

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.22628 2026

  42. [42]

    Chabbal, C

    J. Chabbal, C. Chaussat, T . Ducourant, L. Fritsch, J. Michailos, V . Spinnler, G. Vieux, M. Arques, G. Hahm, M. Hoheisel, H. Horbaschek, R.F . Schulz, M.F . Spahn, Amorphous silicon x-ray image sensor, in: Medical Imaging 1996: Physics of Medical Imaging, SPIE, 1996: pp. 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.237812

    work page doi:10.1117/12.237812 1996

  43. [43]

    C. Mahr, K. Müller-Caspary, T. Grieb, F .F . Krause, M. Schowalter, A. Rosenauer, Accurate measurement of strain at interfaces in 4D-STEM: A comparison of various methods, Ultramicroscopy 221 (2021) 113196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113196

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113196 2021

  44. [44]

    Clark, A

    L. Clark, A. Béché, G. Guzzinati, A. Lubk, M. Mazilu, R. Van Boxem, J. Verbeeck, Exploiting Lens Aberrations to Create Electron-Vortex Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 064801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.064801. Data Statement Data is available on Zenodo <link added after peer review>. Generative AI Statement After a first draft was written,...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.064801 2013