pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22398 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Accurate Nanoscale Mapping of Electric Fields across Random Grain Boundaries in Polycrystalline Oxides Using Precession-Assisted 4D-STEM

Sangjun Kang (1 , 2) , Hyeyoung Cho (1 , Maximilian T\"ollner (1 , Anna Rose Nelson (2) , Ziming Ding (1) , Xiaoke Mu (3) , Di Wang (1)
show 12 more authors
Wolfgang Rheinheimer (4) Kai Wang (2) Bai-Xiang Xu (2) Jakob Konstantin Laux (2) Mahmoud Serour (2) Karsten Albe (2) Andreas Klein (2) Christian K\"ubel (1 2) ((1) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2) Technical University Darmstadt (3) Lanzhou University (4) University of Stuttgart)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords grain boundariesspace charge layers4D-STEMelectric field mappingprecession electron diffractionSTEM-DPCBaTiO3SrTiO3
0
0 comments X

The pith

Precession-assisted 4D-STEM with Sobel-SVD processing refines central disk positions for accurate electric field maps at grain boundaries

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

The paper demonstrates a method to measure local electric fields and charge distributions at grain boundaries in oxide ceramics. These boundaries contain space charge layers that strongly influence ionic conductivity and other functional properties, yet conventional center-of-mass analysis in STEM-DPC is distorted by crystal orientation and dynamical scattering effects. Adding controlled electron beam precession, followed by iterative Sobel edge detection and singular value decomposition on the nanobeam diffraction patterns, produces unbiased diffraction shift measurements with reduced artifacts. Tests on random grain boundaries in BaTiO3 and SrTiO3 show better accuracy than standard approaches, and atomistic simulations help isolate the space charge electric field from mean inner potential variations and elemental segregation. Readers interested in materials for electronics or energy storage would value a more quantitative way to inspect these nanoscale features in real polycrystalline samples.

Core claim

Combining electron beam precession with advanced post-processing that uses iterative edge detection via a Sobel filter and singular value decomposition enables reliable and accurate, unbiased diffraction shift measurements with minimal crystallographic artefacts. The approach accurately refines the central disk position in nanobeam electron diffraction patterns and thereby significantly improves extraction of the local electric field and corresponding charge distribution. Comparative tests against conventional center-of-mass methods confirm superior accuracy and robustness on random grain boundaries in BaTiO3 and SrTiO3, while atomistic simulations separate the space charge layer field from

What carries the argument

Precession-assisted nanobeam electron diffraction with Sobel-filter iterative edge detection and SVD post-processing for central-disk position refinement

If this is right

  • Enables high-fidelity mapping of electromagnetic fields and their charge distribution in complex polycrystalline specimens
  • Provides superior accuracy and robustness compared with conventional CoM analysis for random grain boundaries
  • Allows separation of the space charge layer electric field from mean inner potential differences and elemental segregation via atomistic simulations
  • Lays groundwork for improved quantitative analysis using STEM-DPC in oxide ceramics

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same processing pipeline could be tested on other polycrystalline oxides to check whether space charge layers behave similarly across different chemistries
  • Routine application might guide engineering of grain boundary chemistry to control ionic conductivity in solid electrolytes
  • Extending the method to in-situ biasing experiments could reveal how applied voltages alter the local fields at operating conditions

Load-bearing premise

That precession together with Sobel filtering and SVD removes all orientation-dependent contrast and dynamical scattering artefacts at random grain boundaries without introducing new biases, and that atomistic simulations can cleanly isolate the space charge electric field from mean inner potential and segregation effects.

What would settle it

Independent electric field values obtained by electron holography on the same grain boundary that disagree with the new method's maps beyond experimental error bars would falsify the accuracy improvement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22398 by 2), 2) ((1) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, (2) Technical University Darmstadt, (3) Lanzhou University, (4) University of Stuttgart), Andreas Klein (2), Anna Rose Nelson (2), Bai-Xiang Xu (2), Christian K\"ubel (1, Di Wang (1), Hyeyoung Cho (1, Jakob Konstantin Laux (2), Kai Wang (2), Karsten Albe (2), Mahmoud Serour (2), Maximilian T\"ollner (1, Sangjun Kang (1, Wolfgang Rheinheimer (4), Xiaoke Mu (3), Ziming Ding (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow for reliable mapping of electric field and strain across grain boundaries in polycrystalline oxides using precession-assisted 4D-STEM and SVD-based diffraction shift detection. (a) Schematic illustration of electron beam precession during 4D-STEM acquisition to reduce diffraction and orientation contrast. (b) Central bright-field disk from a diffraction pattern processed via an optimized Sobel edg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of DPC maps obtained by different 4D-STEM acquisition and processing. (a) BF-STEM image showing the region selected for 4D-STEM acquisition, which is expected to yield a uniform field distribution (except for few GBs). (b) 4D-STEM ACOM orientation map of the same region, showing the local crystallographic orientation distribution. (c, d) Color maps of the DPC signal obtained using the convention… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Large-area correlative mapping of microstructure, DPC response, reconstructed charge density, and Fe distribution in polycrystalline Fe-doped SrTiO3. (a) ACOM orientation map of the analyzed region, with the orientation color key shown on the left; the two grain boundaries selected for detailed analysis are labeled 1 and 2. (b) Corresponding large-area DPC map, with the DPC color wheel shown as a reference… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Space charge layers (SCLs) at grain boundaries play a crucial role in modulating local electric fields and influencing the functional properties of materials, such as oxygen vacancy migration and ionic conductivity in oxide ceramics. However, the direct experimental analysis of such localized electric fields and the corresponding charge distribution remains challenging. Conventional center-of-mass (CoM) analysis in scanning transmission electron microscopy differential phase contrast (STEM-DPC) is strongly affected by orientation-dependent contrast and dynamical scattering. Here, we demonstrate that combining electron beam precession with advanced post-processing, employing iterative edge detection via a Sobel filter and singular value decomposition (SVD), enables reliable and accurate, unbiased diffraction shift measurements with minimal crystallographic artefacts. The new method accurately refines the central disk position in nanobeam electron diffraction (NBED) patterns and thus significantly improves the extraction of the local electric field and corresponding charge distribution. Comparative analysis with conventional CoM methods shows superior accuracy and robustness for random grain boundaries in BaTiO3 and SrTiO3 as exemplary case studies. The experimental work is complemented by atomistic simulations to separate the electric field of the SCL from the mean inner potential difference of the grain boundary and the elemental segregation around the grain boundary. The in-depth analysis shows that our approach enables high-fidelity mapping of electromagnetic fields and their charge distribution in complex polycrystalline specimens, laying the groundwork for improved quantitative analysis using STEM-DPC.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a method for nanoscale mapping of electric fields at random grain boundaries in polycrystalline oxides (BaTiO3 and SrTiO3) via precession-assisted 4D-STEM. It combines electron beam precession with iterative Sobel-filter edge detection and singular value decomposition (SVD) post-processing to refine central-disk positions in nanobeam electron diffraction patterns, claiming this yields unbiased diffraction-shift measurements with reduced crystallographic artefacts compared to conventional center-of-mass (CoM) analysis in STEM-DPC. The approach is further supported by atomistic simulations to isolate space-charge-layer fields from mean-inner-potential differences and elemental segregation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would advance quantitative STEM-DPC analysis of localized electromagnetic fields in complex polycrystalline specimens, enabling more reliable extraction of charge distributions that influence ionic conductivity and other functional properties in oxide ceramics. The explicit use of precession to mitigate orientation-dependent contrast, combined with SVD-based refinement and simulation-based separation of contributions, offers a practical improvement over existing CoM methods.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that precession + Sobel + SVD produces 'unbiased diffraction shift measurements with minimal crystallographic artefacts' rests on an unverified assumption that the SVD subspace is orthogonal to electric-field-induced beam shifts; without ground-truth recovery metrics on simulated NBED patterns containing known space-charge fields plus controlled dynamical scattering, the superiority over CoM cannot be taken as evidence of absence of new bias.
  2. [Methods / Results] Methods and validation sections: the comparative analysis with conventional CoM is reported to show superior accuracy and robustness, yet the manuscript provides neither quantitative error bars, full post-processing parameter lists (e.g., number of retained SVD components), nor explicit validation that atomistic simulations cleanly separate the SCL electric field from mean-inner-potential and segregation effects; these gaps directly undermine the central claim of high-fidelity, artefact-minimal mapping.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'comparative analysis shows superior accuracy' should be accompanied by the specific metrics (e.g., mean shift error, R², or standard deviation reduction) used to quantify improvement.
  2. [Figures / Methods] Figure captions and methods: ensure all iterative Sobel-filter thresholds and SVD truncation criteria are stated explicitly so that the post-processing pipeline is reproducible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our work. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the validation of our method.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that precession + Sobel + SVD produces 'unbiased diffraction shift measurements with minimal crystallographic artefacts' rests on an unverified assumption that the SVD subspace is orthogonal to electric-field-induced beam shifts; without ground-truth recovery metrics on simulated NBED patterns containing known space-charge fields plus controlled dynamical scattering, the superiority over CoM cannot be taken as evidence of absence of new bias.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit validation of the orthogonality assumption. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated simulation section using atomistic models of NBED patterns that incorporate known space-charge fields superimposed on controlled dynamical scattering and orientation variations. These simulations provide quantitative ground-truth recovery metrics (e.g., mean absolute error and correlation coefficients for recovered shifts), demonstrating that the SVD components primarily capture crystallographic artefacts while remaining largely orthogonal to the field-induced beam shifts. This supports the superiority over CoM without introducing new bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Results] Methods and validation sections: the comparative analysis with conventional CoM is reported to show superior accuracy and robustness, yet the manuscript provides neither quantitative error bars, full post-processing parameter lists (e.g., number of retained SVD components), nor explicit validation that atomistic simulations cleanly separate the SCL electric field from mean-inner-potential and segregation effects; these gaps directly undermine the central claim of high-fidelity, artefact-minimal mapping.

    Authors: We agree that these elements were insufficiently detailed. The revised manuscript now includes quantitative error bars derived from multiple experimental acquisitions and simulation ensembles. We have added a full parameter table specifying post-processing settings, including retention of the top 8 SVD components (selected via singular value spectrum analysis). The simulation section has been expanded with explicit validation: controlled models with and without SCL fields, MIP variations, and segregation are compared to demonstrate clean separation of the electric-field contribution, with quantitative metrics confirming minimal crosstalk. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method validated externally

full rationale

The paper describes an experimental workflow (precession + iterative Sobel edge detection + SVD) for refining central-disk positions in NBED patterns and extracting electric fields at grain boundaries. The central claims of superior accuracy and reduced artefacts rest on direct comparative measurements against conventional CoM on BaTiO3/SrTiO3 samples plus independent atomistic simulations that separate space-charge fields from mean-inner-potential and segregation effects. No derivation step equates a result to its own inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The validation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard electron microscopy principles for relating diffraction shifts to electric fields and on the assumption that post-processing steps preserve physical meaning; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract description.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Diffraction shift in NBED patterns corresponds directly to the local electric field after artefact correction
    Invoked when claiming improved extraction of local electric field from refined central disk positions.
  • domain assumption Atomistic simulations can accurately isolate space charge layer field from mean inner potential and segregation contributions
    Used to complement experimental mapping and separate physical effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5686 in / 1447 out tokens · 30989 ms · 2026-05-08T11:25:55.493578+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

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Zhang, Y

    W. Zhang, Y. Gao, L. Kang, M. Yuan, Q. Yang, H. Cheng, W. Pan, J. Ouyang, Space -charge dominated epitaxial BaTiO3 heterostructures, Acta Materialia, 85 (2015) 207-215

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Gregori, R

    G. Gregori, R. Merkle, J. Maier, Ion conduction and redistribution at grain boundaries in oxide systems, Progress in Materials Science, 89 (2017) 252-305

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    X. Guo, R. Waser, Electrical properties of the grain boundaries of oxygen ion conductors: acceptor-doped zirconia and ceria, Progress in Materials Science, 51 (2006) 151-210

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Clarke, Grain boundaries in polycrystalline ceramics, Annual Review of Materials Science, 17 (1987) 57-74

    D.R. Clarke, Grain boundaries in polycrystalline ceramics, Annual Review of Materials Science, 17 (1987) 57-74

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Zuo, Y.A

    Y. Zuo, Y.A. Genenko, A. Klein, P. Stein, B. Xu, Domain wall stability in ferroelectrics with space charges, Journal of Applied Physics, 115 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Ikeda, Y.M

    J.A.S. Ikeda, Y.M. Chiang, Space charge segregation at grain boundaries in titanium dioxide: I, relationship between lattice defect chemistry and space charge potential, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 76 (1993) 2437-2446

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    De Souza, The formation of equilibrium space -charge zones at grain boundaries in the perovskite oxide SrTiO 3, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 11 (2009) 9939-9969

    R.A. De Souza, The formation of equilibrium space -charge zones at grain boundaries in the perovskite oxide SrTiO 3, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 11 (2009) 9939-9969

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, Y. Kanitani, Y. Kudo, S. Tomiya, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Real-space observation of a two-dimensional electron gas at semiconductor heterointerfaces, Nature Nanotechnology, 18 (2023) 521-528

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    T. Seki, G. Sánchez-Santolino, R. Ishikawa, S.D. Findlay, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Quantitative electric field mapping in thin specimens using a segmented detector: Revisiting the transfer function for differential phase contrast, Ultramicroscopy, 182 (2017) 258-263

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Q. Zhao, S. Stalin, C. -Z. Zhao, L.A. Archer, Designing solid -state electrolytes for safe, energy - dense batteries, Nature Reviews Materials, 5 (2020) 229-252

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Maier, Ionic conduction in space charge regions, Progress in solid state chemistry, 23 (1995) 171-263

    J. Maier, Ionic conduction in space charge regions, Progress in solid state chemistry, 23 (1995) 171-263

    work page 1995

  12. [12]

    B. Haas, J. -L. Rouviere, V. Boureau, R. Berthier, D. Cooper, Direct comparison of off -axis holography and differential phase contrast for the mapping of electric fields in semiconductors by transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy, 198 (2019) 58-72

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Anada, K

    S. Anada, K. Yamamoto, H. Sasaki, N. Shibata, Y. Hori, K. Kinugawa, A. Imamura, T. Hirayama, Precise measurement of electric potential, field, and charge density profiles across a biased GaAs pn tunnel junction by in situ phase -shifting electron holography, Journal of Applied Physics, 122 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Gatel, R

    C. Gatel, R. Serra, K. Gruel, A. Masseboeuf, L. Chapuis, R. Cours, L. Zhang, B. Warot-Fonrose, M. Hÿtch, Extended charge layers in metal-oxide-semiconductor nanocapacitors revealed by Operando electron holography, Physical Review Letters, 129 (2022) 137701

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Shibata, S.D

    N. Shibata, S.D. Findlay, H. Sasaki, T. Matsumoto, H. Sawada, Y. Kohno, S. Otomo, R. Minato, Y. Ikuhara, Imaging of built -in electric field at a pn junction by scanning transmission electron microscopy, Scientific reports, 5 (2015) 10040

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    M. Lohr, R. Schregle, M. Jetter, C. Wächter, K. Müller ‐Caspary, T. Mehrtens, A. Rosenauer, I. Pietzonka, M. Strassburg, J. Zweck, Quantitative measurements of internal electric fields with differential phase contrast microscopy on InGaN/GaN quantum well structures, physica status solidi (b), 253 (2016) 140-144

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Brown, N

    H. Brown, N. Shibata, H. Sasaki, T. Petersen, D. Paganin, M. Morgan, S. Findlay, Measuring nanometre-scale electric fields in scanning transmission electron microscopy using segmented detectors, Ultramicroscopy, 182 (2017) 169-178

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Bruas, V

    L. Bruas, V. Boureau, A. Conlan, S. Martinie, J. -L. Rouviere, D. Cooper, Improved measurement of electric fields by nanobeam precession electron diffraction, Journal of Applied Physics, 127 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Müller-Caspary, T

    K. Müller-Caspary, T. Grieb, J. Müßener, N. Gauquelin, P. Hille, J. Schörmann, J. Verbeeck, S. Van Aert, M. Eickhoff, A. Rosenauer, Electrical polarization in AlN/GaN nanodisks measured by momentum-resolved 4D scanning transmission electron microscopy , Physical review letters, 122 (2019) 106102

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    J. Jo, I. Lazi ć, E.G. Bosch, S. Vespucci, G. Pozzi, R.E. Dunin -Borkowski, Quantitative comparison of long -range electric field measurements using off -axis electron holography and 4D -STEM via differential phase contrast, Ultramicroscopy, (2025) 114218

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, Y. Kohno, Y.O. Murakami, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Nanoscale electromagnetic field imaging by advanced differential phase-contrast STEM, Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering, 2 (2025) 27-41

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Clark, H

    L. Clark, H. Brown, D. Paganin, M. Morgan, T. Matsumoto, N. Shibata, T. Petersen, S. Findlay, Probe Shaping for Quantitative DPC -STEM Using Segmented Detectors, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 24 (2018) 916-917

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Groll, J

    M. Groll, J. Bürger, I. Caltzidis, K.D. Jöns, W.G. Schmidt, U. Gerstmann, J.K. Lindner, DFT‐Assisted Investigation of the Electric Field and Charge Density Distribution of Pristine and Defective 2D WSe2 by Differential Phase Contrast Imaging, Small, 20 (2024) 2311635

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Mawson, A

    T. Mawson, A. Nakamura, T. Petersen, N. Shibata, H. Sasaki, D. Paganin, M. Morgan, S. Findlay, Suppressing dynamical diffraction artefacts in differential phase contrast scanning transmission electron microscopy of long-range electromagnetic fields via precession, Ultramicroscopy, 219 (2020) 113097

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    C. Li, X. Mu, M. Korytov, I. Alexandrou, E.G. Bosch, Differential phase contrast (DPC) mapping electric fields: Optimising experimental conditions, Journal of Microscopy, 293 (2024) 177-188

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    T. Seki, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Toward quantitative electromagnetic field imaging by differential- phase-contrast scanning transmission electron microscopy, Microscopy, 70 (2021) 148-160

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    C. Ophus, Four -dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy (4D -STEM): From scanning nanodiffraction to ptychography and beyond, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 25 (2019) 563-582

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Grieb, F.F

    T. Grieb, F.F. Krause, K. Müller-Caspary, R. Ritz, M. Simson, J. Schörmann, C. Mahr, J. Müßener, M. Schowalter, H. Soltau, 4D -STEM at interfaces to GaN: Centre -of-mass approach & NBED -disc detection, Ultramicroscopy, 228 (2021) 113321

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    S. Kang, M. Töllner, D. Wang, C. Minnert, K. Durst, A. Caron, R.E. Dunin -Borkowski, J. McCord, C. Kübel, X. Mu, Large-angle Lorentz Four-dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy for simultaneous local magnetization, strain and structure m apping, Nature Communications, 16 (2025) 1305

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, B. Feng, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Direct observation of space-charge-induced electric fields at oxide grain boundaries, Nature Communications, 15 (2024) 8704

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Wu, M.-G

    L. Wu, M.-G. Han, Y. Zhu, Toward accurate measurement of electromagnetic field by retrieving and refining the center position of non -uniform diffraction disks in Lorentz 4D -STEM, Ultramicroscopy, 250 (2023) 113745

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Nakamura, Y

    A. Nakamura, Y. Kohno, H. Sasaki, N. Shibata, Differential phase contrast imaging with reduced dynamical diffraction effect, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 23 (2017) 1412-1413

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    C. Mahr, T. Grieb, F.F. Krause, M. Schowalter, A. Rosenauer, Towards the interpretation of a shift of the central beam in nano -beam electron diffraction as a change in mean inner potential, Ultramicroscopy, 236 (2022) 113503

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Krajnak, D

    M. Krajnak, D. McGrouther, D. Maneuski, V. O'Shea, S. McVitie, Pixelated detectors and improved efficiency for magnetic imaging in STEM differential phase contrast, Ultramicroscopy, 165 (2016) 42- 50

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Clark, H

    L. Clark, H. Brown, D. Paganin, M. Morgan, T. Matsumoto, N. Shibata, T. Petersen, S. Findlay, Probing the limits of the rigid -intensity-shift model in differential -phase-contrast scanning transmission electron microscopy, Physical Review A, 97 (2018) 043843

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Sehrawat, K

    A. Sehrawat, K. Albe, J. Rohrer, Machine -learning interatomic potential for BaTiO3: phase transitions, domain walls, and grain boundaries, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 38 (2026) 015402

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Lysogorskiy, C.v.d

    Y. Lysogorskiy, C.v.d. Oord, A. Bochkarev, S. Menon, M. Rinaldi, T. Hammerschmidt, M. Mrovec, A. Thompson, G. Csányi, C. Ortner, Performant implementation of the atomic cluster expansion (PACE) and application to copper and silicon, npj computational materials, 7 (2021) 97

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Wang, R.A

    K. Wang, R.A. De Souza, X. -L. Peng, R. Merkle, W. Rheinheimer, K. Albe, B. -X. Xu, A defect - chemistry-informed phase-field model of grain growth in oxide ceramics: application to Fe -doped SrTiO3, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.17650, (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Madsen, T

    J. Madsen, T. Susi, abTEM: Ab initio transmission electron microscopy image simulation, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 26 (2020) 448-450

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Usler, F

    A. Usler, F. Ketter, R. De Souza, How space -charge behaviour at grain boundaries in electroceramic oxides is modified by two restricted equilibria, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 26 (2024) 8287-8298

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Padgett, M.E

    E. Padgett, M.E. Holtz, P. Cueva, Y. -T. Shao, E. Langenberg, D.G. Schlom, D.A. Muller, The exit - wave power-cepstrum transform for scanning nanobeam electron diffraction: robust strain mapping at subnanometer resolution and subpicometer precision, Ultramicroscopy, 214 (2020) 112994

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Impact of charge transition levels on grain boundary properties in acceptor doped oxide ceramics: A phase-field study

    S.K. Kai Wang, Mahmoud Serour, Roger A. De Souza, Andreas Klein, Rotraut Merkle, Wolfgang Rheinheimer, Christian Kübel, Lijun Zhang, Karsten Albe, Bai -Xiang Xu, Impact of charge transition levels on grain boundary properties in acceptor doped oxide ce ramics: A phase-field study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07545, (2026). Supplementary Information Figure S...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026