Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Comparison of Kikuchi Diffraction Geometries in Scanning Electron Microscope

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four SEM diffraction geometries all build the same full diffraction sphere of an aluminum crystal.

desk verdict A genuinely useful four-geometry benchmark with code and data; the headline quality ranking is credible but not quantitatively secured because dose is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13018 v2 pith:PFV4AGKG submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.ins-det

Tianbi Zhang , Lukas Berners , Jakub Holzer , T. Ben Britton This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.ins-det
keywords KikuchidiffractionEBSDtransmissionreflectionspheregnomonicdistortiondirectelectrondetectordynamicalsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether four different scanning electron microscope geometries for collecting Kikuchi diffraction patterns—reflection Kikuchi diffraction (RKD), conventional EBSD, on-axis transmission Kikuchi diffraction (TKD), and off-axis TKD—produce equivalent crystallographic information. The authors reconstruct an experimental "diffraction sphere" from each geometry by reprojecting multiple patterns, applying cubic symmetry, and averaging. They find that with proper geometry design every method can generate the full diffraction sphere, so the differences between the techniques are quantitative trade-offs in signal, distortion, and angular resolution rather than fundamental differences in the underlying diffraction physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the experimental diffraction sphere, a spherical representation of diffracted intensity centered at the scattering source point, reconstructed by gnomonic reprojection of individual flat-detector Kikuchi patterns followed by application of the 24 cubic symmetry operators and averaging of multiple patterns from different crystal orientations. This sphere is the common coordinate frame that makes the four geometries directly comparable; band profiles are then extracted from the sphere using a spherical-harmonics approximation, and pattern quality is assessed by reprojecting the sphere back onto flat detector planes and comparing the reprojections with dynamical template simulations.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of detected diffracted-electron dose per incident electron for each of the four geometries under matched beam energy and sample material would settle whether the reported pattern-quality ranking reflects geometry itself or simply the much higher exposure used for some geometries; if the ranking changes when doses are equalized, the geometry comparison would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that all four Kikuchi diffraction geometries in the SEM can be used to generate the entire experimental diffraction sphere of an aluminum crystal, and that transmission Kikuchi diffraction techniques yield higher reprojected pattern quality and better resolved higher-order features than the reflection geometries. The paper demonstrates this by reconstructing spherical diffraction patterns from each geometry and comparing them against dynamical Bloch-wave simulations. The differences that remain—such as gnomonic distortion in off-axis TKD, energy-loss blurring in EBSD and RKD, and thickness-dependent diffraction spots in on-axis TKD—are attributed to geometric placement and scattering path length rather than to a need for fundamentally different pattern formation models.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that patterns acquired under very different conditions—different microscopes, detectors, beam currents, frame counts, and exposure times—can be directly compared as probes of geometry, even though the dose forming each pattern was not directly quantified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single experimental diffraction sphere can serve as a reference template for pattern matching, so patterns from any of the four geometries can be indexed against the same spherical reference.
  • Off-axis TKD's extreme pattern-centre placement causes strong gnomonic distortion and a limited forward-scattering window, but this same geometry may be exploitable for high-sensitivity measurements near the pattern edge.
  • Averaging multiple reconstructed stereograms suppresses geometry-specific features such as excess/deficiency contrast and uneven signal, making averaged spheres useful references while hiding details that matter for high-resolution strain or lattice-parameter analysis.
  • Energy filtering with direct electron detectors is most important for reflection geometries (especially RKD), where wide energy distributions blur patterns, whereas transmission geometries gain little from filtering because energy loss is already small.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the equivalence of the four geometries holds for aluminum, the same spherical-reconstruction workflow should extend to lower-symmetry crystals, where the fundamental zone is larger and detector placement would need to be more deliberate to cover the full sphere.
  • The finding that averaged spheres suppress excess/deficiency effects suggests that any future template-matching routine requiring true dynamical contrast should build its reference from dynamical simulation rather than from an averaged experimental sphere, which the paper itself notes for high-resolution applications.
  • The dose-efficiency comparison is left open: a direct measurement of detected diffracted electrons per incident beam electron across the four geometries would quantify how much of the apparent quality ranking comes from geometry versus from the different exposure times, frame counts, and beam currents used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares four Kikuchi diffraction geometries in the SEM—on-axis TKD, off-axis TKD, EBSD, and RKD—using direct electron detectors and a common data-processing pipeline that reconstructs an experimental "diffraction sphere" via reprojection, symmetry averaging, and dynamical-template pattern matching. The authors demonstrate that all four geometries can reconstruct the full sphere, then compare reprojected pattern quality, band profiles, and higher-order features, concluding that TKD geometries yield sharper patterns and better resolved higher-order features, while RKD suffers from lower signal and benefits from energy filtering. The manuscript also discusses practical implications for gnomonic distortion, scattering-angle distributions, and energy-loss effects, and releases raw data and processing code as part of the AstroEBSD package.

Significance. If the comparison were fully controlled, the paper would provide a valuable systematic benchmark for geometry selection in SEM-based Kikuchi diffraction, unifying the techniques under a single spherical framework. The main strengths are the release of raw data and open-source processing code, the use of modern direct detectors with energy filtering, and the explicit demonstration of diffraction-sphere reconstruction across four geometries, including the less common RKD. The qualitative observations about gnomonic distortion, scattering-angle distribution, and energy-loss effects are physically plausible and consistent with prior literature. However, the central quantitative ranking of pattern quality is not yet established because the comparison is confounded by uncontrolled acquisition parameters, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1 and Discussion (efficiency paragraph)] Table 1 and the Discussion report widely differing beam currents (0.5–52.8 nA), exposure times (0.02–0.2 s), frame counts (1–100), detectors (Timepix3 vs. 2×2 Timepix), instruments, and energy thresholds, and the authors state that they "have not quantified the dose forming the patterns directly." Because the claim that "TKD techniques result in higher reprojected pattern quality" is the headline result, the missing dose normalization is a load-bearing omission. The observed superiority of TKD could in principle be driven by detector gain, per-pixel dose, or energy filtering rather than by the geometry itself. Please either quantify the dose per pattern (e.g., beam current × exposure × frame count, accounting for the angularly dependent collection efficiency) and demonstrate that the ranking survives, or restrict the conclusion to the specific acquisition conditions used and add an explicit caveat that the comparison is not dose-normalized.
  2. [Figure 4 and Figure 5 (Results)] Figure 4 is the main evidence for "higher reprojected pattern quality" of TKD, but the comparison is purely qualitative: the log FFT power spectra are shown but not reduced to a scalar metric, and the difference maps against the simulation are presented without a quantitative figure of merit. Similarly, Figure 5 shows band profiles with an "arbitrary" Y-axis scale and a normalization chosen on the {002} profiles, and the statement that "higher order features are best resolved in the TKD geometries" is based on visual inspection. Please provide a quantitative metric (e.g., radial spectral falloff, edge-sharpness measure, or band-profile peak-to-background ratio) with uncertainties from the multiple reconstructed spheres, so that the ranking is testable.
  3. [Data Processing (pattern matching) and Figure 4(c)] The reconstruction pipeline uses dynamical-template pattern matching (Foden et al., AstroEBSD) with templates generated from the same Winkelmann framework that is later used as the simulation benchmark in Figs. 4 and 5. This means that the difference maps in Fig. 4(c) reflect, in part, the degree to which the reconstruction pipeline biases patterns toward that particular simulation model; a pattern that fits the template well will show small differences by construction. While this circularity does not bias the comparison between geometries (since the same pipeline is used for all), it weakens the claim that the reconstructed spheres are validated against an independent theory. Please state this explicitly or use an alternative simulation implementation for the benchmark comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Data Availability] The Data Availability statement says "Raw data of EBSD and TKD are available on Zotero" but the URLs point to Zenodo; the repository name should be corrected.
  2. [Conclusions (first paragraph)] There is a typo in the sentence "through pattern analyses. , Evaluation was performed" — the period should not be followed by a comma; please remove the stray comma.
  3. [Introduction (reference [9])] Reference [9], a paper on inclusive engineering terminology, does not appear relevant to the crystallographic discussion of "reference sphere"; if the authors intend to engage with the master/slave terminology debate, a more directly relevant citation should be provided, or the reference should be removed.
  4. [Table 1] The headings "Solid Angle Subtended-Y" and "Solid Angle Subtended-X" are ambiguous; please clarify that these are the angular ranges subtended along the detector's Y and X axes, respectively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the experimental geometry comparison is self-contained and supported by released data and code.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental comparison of four Kikuchi diffraction geometries, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The central claims—that all four geometries can reconstruct the full diffraction sphere and that TKD reprojections show sharper higher-order features—are based on experimental patterns, FFT power spectra, and band profiles extracted from measured data. The use of Winkelmann-style dynamical simulations for template matching determines orientations and pattern centres, but these are nuisance parameters, not quantities that force the intensity agreement subsequently compared against simulated spheres. The simulation is used as an independent benchmark, and the paper explicitly identifies places where the reconstruction does not reproduce experimental features (e.g., E/D effects and diffraction spots in Figure 6), showing that agreement is not built in by construction. Self-citations to prior methodology (e.g., AstroEBSD, modular stages, reconstruction routines) are not load-bearing for the qualitative ranking; the raw data and code are released for independent verification. The acknowledged lack of direct dose quantification is a potential confound for the TKD-versus-RKD comparison, but that is a correctness/experimental-design concern, not circularity. No quoted step exhibits a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction or a conclusion that is definitionally equivalent to its premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reconstruction and comparison rest on standard gnomonic and dynamical assumptions plus hand-chosen analysis parameters, but introduce no new physical entities. The strongest prior-art assumptions are the point-source gnomonic projection and the validity of the Winkelmann dynamical model across geometries; the most notable hand-chosen settings are the RKD energy threshold, the spherical-harmonics bandwidth, and the simulation strong-beam thresholds.

free parameters (3)
  • RKD energy threshold = 26 keV
    Chosen by hand to avoid contrast inversion; directly affects the RKD pattern quality comparison and the claim about lower thresholds degrading contrast.
  • Spherical harmonics bandwidth for band profiles = 384
    Chosen for the spherical harmonic approximation; can damp high-frequency band features and therefore affects the TKD versus EBSD/RKD resolution comparison.
  • Dynamical simulation strong-beam thresholds = d_hkl > 0.4 Å, I_hkl > 10% of I_max
    Inputs to the AztecCrystal simulation used as the benchmark for reprojected and profile comparisons.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A Kikuchi pattern is a gnomonic projection of a diffraction sphere centered at the source point.
    Used throughout the spherical remapping pipeline; standard in the field but approximate for finite interaction volumes.
  • domain assumption Winkelmann's simplified dynamical diffraction model adequately captures pattern intensities in all four geometries.
    Pattern matching and benchmarking rely on it; if the model omits geometry-specific physics, comparisons inherit the omission.
  • domain assumption Applying the 24 cubic symmetry operators to individual patterns and averaging multiple patterns reconstructs a faithful full diffraction sphere.
    Required for the full-sphere reconstruction; the paper itself shows this averaging removes real excess/deficiency and spot features.
  • domain assumption The analyzed Al samples are uniform FCC and all patterns come from the Al-rich matrix.
    Limits the conclusions to a high-symmetry material; lower symmetry or textured samples would need more patterns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of Kikuchi Diffraction Geometries in Scanning Electron Microscope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PFV4AGKG

@misc{pith2026241113018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of Kikuchi Diffraction Geometries in Scanning Electron Microscope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PFV4AGKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13018}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in scanning electron microscope (SEM) based Kikuchi diffraction have demonstrated the important potential for reflection and transmission methods, like transmission Kikuchi diffraction (TKD) and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). Furthermore, with the advent of compact direct electron detectors (DED) it has been possible to place the detector in a variety of configurations within the SEM chamber. This motivates the present work where we explore the similarities and differences of the different geometries that include on-axis TKD & off-axis TKD using electron transparent samples, as well as more conventional EBSD. Furthermore, we compare these with the newest method called "reflection Kikuchi diffraction" RKD where the sample is placed flat in the chamber and the detector is placed below the pole piece. Through remapping collected diffraction patterns, all these methods can be used to generate an experimental "diffraction sphere" that can be used to explore diffraction from any scattering vector from the unit cell, as well as the ability to perform band profile analysis. This diffraction sphere approach enables us to further probe specific differences between the methods, including for example thickness effects in TKD that can result in the generation of diffraction spots, as well as electron scattering path length effects that result in excess and deficiency variations, as well as inversion of bands in experimental patterns.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zaefferer, A critical review of orientation microscopy in SEM and TEM, Cryst

    S. Zaefferer, A critical review of orientation microscopy in SEM and TEM, Cryst. Res. Technol. 46 (2011) 607–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/crat.201100125

    work page doi:10.1002/crat.201100125 2011

  2. [2]

    Keller, R.H

    R.R. Keller, R.H. Geiss, Transmission EBSD from 10 nm domains in a scanning electron microscope, J. Microsc. 245 (2012) 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2818.2011.03566.x

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    van Bremen, D

    R. van Bremen, D. Ribas Gomes, L.T.H. de Jeer, V . Ocelík, J.T.M. De Hosson, On the optimum resolution of transmission-electron backscattered diffraction (t-EBSD), Ultramicroscopy 160 (2016) 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.10.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.10.025 2016

  4. [4]

    Marshall, J

    A.L. Marshall, J. Holzer, P . Stejskal, C.J. Stephens, T. Vystavěl, M.J. Whiting, The EBSD spatial resolution of a Timepix-based detector in a tilt-free geometry, Ultramicroscopy 226 (2021) 113294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2021.113294

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Schwartz, M

    A.J. Schwartz, M. Kumar, B.L. Adams, D.P . Field, Electron backscatter diffraction in materials science, Springer, Boston, MA, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387- 88136-2

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387- 2009

  6. [6]

    Britton, J

    T.B. Britton, J. Jiang, Y . Guo, A. Vilalta-Clemente, D. Wallis, L.N. Hansen, A. Winkelmann, A.J. Wilkinson, Tutorial: Crystal orientations and EBSD — Or which way is up?, Mater. Charact. 117 (2016) 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATCHAR.2016.04.008

    doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2016.04.008 2016

  7. [7]

    Michael, J.A

    J.R. Michael, J.A. Eades, Use of reciprocal lattice layer spacing in electron backscatter diffraction pattern analysis, Ultramicroscopy 81 (2000) 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3991(99)00119-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(99)00119-9 2000

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.10.006 2007

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Danowitz, A.F

    A. Danowitz, A.F . Asfaw, B. Benson, P . Hummel, K.C. McKell, Assessing the Effects of Master Slave Terminology on Inclusivity in Engineering Education, in: American Society for Engineering Education, 2021. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36069

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Frank, A note on the reading of Kossel patterns, J

    F .C. Frank, A note on the reading of Kossel patterns, J. Common Met. 28 (1972) 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5088(72)90163-4

    1972 doi

  3. [11]

    Day, Spherical EBSD, J

    A.P . Day, Spherical EBSD, J. Microsc. 230 (2008) 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.2008.02011.x

    2008

  4. [12]

    Nishikawa, S

    S. Nishikawa, S. Kikuchi, Diffraction of Cathode Rays by Mica, Nature 121 (1928) 1019–

    1928

  5. [13]

    Nishikawa, S

    S. Nishikawa, S. Kikuchi, Diffraction of Cathode Rays by Calcite, Nature 122 (1928) 726–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/122726a0

    1928 doi

  6. [14]

    M.N. Alam, M. Blackman, D.W. Pashley, High-angle Kikuchi patterns, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Math. Phys. Sci. 221 (1954) 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1954.0017

    1954

  7. [15]

    Venables, R

    J.A. Venables, R. Bin-jaya, Accurate microcrystallography using electron back- scattering patterns, Philos. Mag. J. Theor. Exp. Appl. Phys. 35 (1977) 1317–1332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437708232955. 37

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    Venables, C.J

    J.A. Venables, C.J. Harland, Electron back-scattering patterns—A new technique for obtaining crystallographic information in the scanning electron microscope, Philos. Mag. J. Theor. Exp. Appl. Phys. 27 (1973) 1193–1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437308225827

    1973 doi

  9. [17]

    Dingley, M

    D. Dingley, M. Longden, J. Weinbren, J. Alderman, On-Line Analysis of Electron Back Scatter Diffraction Patterns. I. Texture Analysis of Zone Refined Polysilicon, Scanning Microsc. 1 (1987). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/microscopy/vol1/iss2/2

    1987

  10. [18]

    De Ruijter, J.K

    W.J. De Ruijter, J.K. Weiss, Methods to measure properties of slow‐scan CCD cameras for electron detection, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63 (1998) 4314. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1143730

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Chen, S.U

    Y .H. Chen, S.U. Park, D. Wei, G. Newstadt, M.A. Jackson, J.P . Simmons, M. De Graef, A.O. Hero, A Dictionary Approach to Electron Backscatter Diffraction Indexing, Microsc. Microanal. 21 (2015) 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927615000756

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Krieger Lassen, D.J

    N.C. Krieger Lassen, D.J. Jensen, K. Conradsen, Image Processing Procedures for Analysis of Electron Back Scattering Patterns, Scanning Microsc. 6 (1992). https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/microscopy/vol6/iss1/7

    1992

  13. [21]

    Niessen, A

    F . Niessen, A. Burrows, A.B. da S. Fanta, A systematic comparison of on-axis and off- axis transmission Kikuchi diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 186 (2018) 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.12.017

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Fundenberger, E

    J.J. Fundenberger, E. Bouzy, D. Goran, J. Guyon, H. Yuan, A. Morawiec, Orientation mapping by transmission-SEM with an on-axis detector, Ultramicroscopy 161 (2016) 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.11.002

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Brodu, E

    E. Brodu, E. Bouzy, J.J. Fundenberger, Diffraction contrast dependence on sample thickness and incident energy in on-axis Transmission Kikuchi Diffraction in SEM, Ultramicroscopy 181 (2017) 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.04.017

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Reimer, Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998

    L. Reimer, Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540- 38967-5

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    Farrer, M.M

    J.K. Farrer, M.M. Nowell, D.J. Dingley, D.J. Dingley, EBSD Pattern Collection and Orientation Mapping at Normal Incidence to the Electron Beam, Microsc. Microanal. 9 (2003) 80–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927603441135

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    G. Cios, A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, T. Tokarski, B.R. Jany, P . Bała, EBSD and TKD analyses using inverted contrast Kikuchi diffraction patterns and alternative measurement geometries, Ultramicroscopy 267 (2024) 114055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2024.114055

    2024

  19. [27]

    Vystavěl, P

    T. Vystavěl, P . Stejskal, M. Unčovský, C. Stephens, Tilt-free EBSD, Microsc. Microanal. 24 (2018) 1126–1127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927618006116

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    H. Yuan, E. Brodu, C. Chen, E. Bouzy, J.J. Fundenberger, L.S. Toth, On-axis versus off- axis Transmission Kikuchi Diffraction technique: application to the characterisation of severe plastic deformation-induced ultrafine-grained microstructures, J. Microsc. 267 (2017) 70–80. h...

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Fancher, M.J

    C.M. Fancher, M.J. Burch, S. Patala, E.C. Dickey, Implications of gnomonic distortion on electron backscatter diffraction and transmission Kikuchi diffraction, J. Microsc. 285 (2021) 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.13077. 38

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhang, T.B

    T. Zhang, T.B. Britton, A simple, static and stage mounted direct electron detector based electron backscatter diffraction system, Micron 178 (2024) 103582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2023.103582

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhang, T

    T. Zhang, T. Britton, Multi-exposure diffraction pattern fusion applied to enable wider- angle transmission Kikuchi diffraction with direct electron detectors, Ultramicroscopy 257 (2024) 113902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113902

    2024

  24. [32]

    Poikela, J

    T. Poikela, J. Plosila, T. Westerlund, M. Campbell, M.D. Gaspari, X. Llopart, V . Gromov, R. Kluit, M. V . Beuzekom, F . Zappon, V . Zivkovic, C. Brezina, K. Desch, Y . Fu, A. Kruth, Timepix3: A 65K channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous ToA/ToT and sparse readout...

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Llopart, R

    X. Llopart, R. Ballabriga, M. Campbell, L. Tlustos, W. Wong, Timepix, a 65k programmable pixel readout chip for arrival time, energy and/or photon counting measurements, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 581 (2007) 485–494. http...

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    Britton, V .S

    T.B. Britton, V .S. Tong, J. Hickey, A. Foden, A.J. Wilkinson, AstroEBSD: exploring new space in pattern indexing with methods launched from an astronomical approach, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 51 (2018) 1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576718010373

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Bachmann, R

    F . Bachmann, R. Hielscher, H. Schaeben, Texture analysis with MTEX- Free and open source software toolbox, Solid State Phenom. 160 (2010) 63–68. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP .160.63

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Foden, D.M

    A. Foden, D.M. Collins, A.J. Wilkinson, T.B. Britton, Indexing electron backscatter diffraction patterns with a refined template matching approach, Ultramicroscopy 207 (2019) 112845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.112845

    2019

  29. [37]

    Foden, A

    A. Foden, A. Previero, T.B. Britton, Advances in electron backscatter diffraction, (2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.04860

    2019 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hielscher, F

    R. Hielscher, F . Bartel, T.B. Britton, Gazing at Crystal Balls – Electron Backscatter Diffraction Indexing and Cross Correlation on a Sphere, Microsc. Microanal. 25 (2019) 1954–1955. https://doi.org/10.1017/S143192761901050X

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Winkelmann, G

    A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, G. Cios, T. Tokarski, P . Bała, B. Hourahine, C. Trager-Cowan, Kikuchi pattern simulations of backscattered and transmitted electrons, J. Microsc. 284 (2021) 157–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.13051

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    McAuliffe, D

    T.P . McAuliffe, D. Dye, T.B. Britton, Spherical-angular dark field imaging and sensitive microstructural phase clustering with unsupervised machine learning, Ultramicroscopy 219 (2020) 113132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113132

    2020

  33. [41]

    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

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Hielscher, J

    R. Hielscher, J. Prestin, A. Vollrath, Fast Summation of Functions on the Rotation Group, Math. Geosci. 42 (2010) 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-010-9281-x

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    Wilkinson, G

    A.J. Wilkinson, G. Moldovan, T.B. Britton, A. Bewick, R. Clough, A.I. Kirkland, Direct detection of electron backscatter diffraction patterns, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 065506. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.065506. 39

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Britton, C

    T.B. Britton, C. Maurice, R. Fortunier, J.H. Driver, A.P . Day, G. Meaden, D.J. Dingley, K. Mingard, A.J. Wilkinson, Factors affecting the accuracy of high resolution electron backscatter diffraction when using simulated patterns, Ultramicroscopy 110 (2010) 1443–1453. https://...

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Britton, A.J

    T.B. Britton, A.J. Wilkinson, High resolution electron backscatter diffraction measurements of elastic strain variations in the presence of larger lattice rotations, Ultramicroscopy 114 (2012) 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2012.01.004

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    A. Deal, T. Hooghan, A. Eades, Energy-filtered electron backscatter diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 108 (2008) 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2007.03.010

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    M. Vos, A. Winkelmann, Effects of multiple elastic and inelastic scattering on energy- resolved contrast in Kikuchi diffraction, New J. Phys. 21 (2019) 123018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab5cd1

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Winkelmann, M

    A. Winkelmann, M. Vos, The role of localized recoil in the formation of Kikuchi patterns, Ultramicroscopy 125 (2013) 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2012.11.001

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Shih, K.W

    J.W. Shih, K.W. Kuo, J.C. Kuo, T. Y . Kuo, Effects of accelerating voltage and specimen thickness on the spatial resolution of transmission electron backscatter diffraction in Cu, Ultramicroscopy 177 (2017) 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.01.020

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Sneddon, P .W

    G.C. Sneddon, P .W. Trimby, L. Tegg, J.M. Cairney, Parameter dependence of depth and lateral resolution of transmission Kikuchi diffraction, Ultramicroscopy 267 (2024) 114062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2024.114062

    2024

  43. [51]

    Wisniewski, S

    W. Wisniewski, S. Saager, A. Böbenroth, C. Rüssel, Experimental evidence concerning the significant information depth of electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), Ultramicroscopy 173 (2017) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2016.11.004

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Marshall, The development and evaluation of EBSD detection systems, University of Surrey, 2022

    A.L. Marshall, The development and evaluation of EBSD detection systems, University of Surrey, 2022. https://doi.org/10.15126/thesis.900448 (accessed November 8, 2024)

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    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

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Q. Shi, E. Plancher, D. Loisnard, P . Karamched, J. Liu, Z. Chen, H. Wang, S. Roux, Improved high-resolution EBSD analyses by correcting radial distortion of electron diffraction patterns, Mater. Charact. 194 (2022) 112458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2022.112458

    2022

  47. [55]

    Simons, A

    H. Simons, A. King, W. Ludwig, C. Detlefs, W. Pantleon, S. Schmidt, F . Stöhr, I. Snigireva, A. Snigirev, H.F . Poulsen, Dark-field X-ray microscopy for multiscale structural characterization, Nat. Commun. 6 (2015) 6098. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7098

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Baba-Kishi, D.J

    K.Z. Baba-Kishi, D.J. Dingley, Backscatter Kikuchi diffraction in the SEM for identification of crystallographic point groups, Scanning 11 (1989) 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.4950110605

    1989 doi

  49. [57]

    Vespucci, A

    S. Vespucci, A. Winkelmann, G. Naresh-Kumar, K.P . Mingard, D. Maneuski, P .R. Edwards, A.P . Day, V . O’Shea, C. Trager-Cowan, Digital direct electron imaging of energy-filtered electron backscatter diffraction patterns, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 92 (2015) 2...

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    G.F . Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Pascal, S

    E. Pascal, S. Singh, P .G. Callahan, B. Hourahine, C. Trager-Cowan, M.D. Graef, Energy- weighted dynamical scattering simulations of electron diffraction modalities in the scanning electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 187 (2018) 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2018.01.003

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Hafez, M.K

    M.A. Hafez, M.K. Zayed, H.E. Elsayed-Ali, Review: Geometric interpretation of reflection and transmission RHEED patterns, Micron 159 (2022) 103286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2022.103286

    2022

  53. [61]

    Burton, S

    G.L. Burton, S. Wright, A. Stokes, D.R. Diercks, A. Clarke, B.P . Gorman, Orientation mapping with Kikuchi patterns generated from a focused STEM probe and indexing with commercially available EDAX software, Ultramicroscopy 209 (2020) 112882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic...

    2020

  54. [1020]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/1211019a0

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.