Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 references

A Python-Based Approach to Sputter Deposition Simulations in Combinatorial Materials Science

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 A Python wrapper around SIMTRA predicts co-sputtered film compositions to within 3.5% on average.

desk verdict Useful open-source wrapper with a real validation dataset, but the 3.5% accuracy headline is a selected number, not an out-of-sample result. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14413 v1 pith:7MRC7AF5 submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Felix Thelen , Rico Zehl , Jan Lukas Bürgel , Diederik Depla , Alfred Ludwig This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph PACS 81.15.Cd02.70.Uu
keywords magnetronsputteringcombinatorialmaterialssciencethin-filmlibrariesMonteCarlosimulationSIMTRApycompositionpredictionNi-Pd-Pt-Ru
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

pySIMTRA, a Python wrapper around the established SIMTRA Monte Carlo transport code, extends sputter-deposition simulation from single-cathode to multi-cathode combinatorial co-sputtering by splitting the chamber into independent single-cathode simulations and running them in parallel. The paper demonstrates this approach on seven Ni-Pd-Pt-Ru materials libraries, calibrating each element's deposition rate against power and converting simulated arriving-atom fractions into compositions. Across the libraries the simulated and measured compositions match with a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5% (weighted so that 100% is a pure-element separation). The aim is to make composition distributions predictable before deposition, so that fewer pilot experiments and less material are wasted in exploring multidimensional composition spaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is pySIMTRA, an object-oriented wrapper that represents a sputter system as Python objects for the chamber, magnetron, and dummy surfaces, and that executes the compiled SIMTRA command-line Monte Carlo code. Its central move is to decompose a multi-cathode system into n independent single-cathode simulations, run them in parallel, and merge the output; this is valid only if cross-deposition between cathodes is negligible, which the authors argue holds because of the cathode chimneys. The particle physics is the standard SIMTRA machinery: initial positions sampled from measured racetrack profiles, energies from a Thompson distribution with a cutoff at the discharge voltage, a cosine angular distribution, Moliere-screened elastic collisions with argon, and free-path sampling. To convert arrival counts to compositions, the simulation is linked to experiment through power-dependent sputter rates measured by profilometry and a linear power-rate assumption.

What would settle it

Fabricate one library with all four cathodes running and a second set of libraries with each cathode run alone under the same conditions, then compare the measured composition of the co-sputtered library with the composition obtained by summing the single-cathode simulations. If the two differ by more than the 3.5% benchmark at any measurement point, the independent-cathode decomposition that pySIMTRA relies on is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the composition map of a co-sputtered thin-film library can be predicted from geometry and power settings alone, without fabricating the library first. The paper achieves this by wrapping SIMTRA so that each of the four cathodes is simulated as its own single-cathode Monte Carlo run, in parallel, and the resulting arrival maps are merged; the key calibration is a measured linear relationship between deposition power and sputter rate for each element, obtained by low-power depositions and profilometry. Simulated arrival fractions are converted to atomic percent by weighting with sputter rate, atomic mass, and nominal bulk density. Tested on one ternary and six quaternary libraries in the Ni-Pd-Pt-Ru system, the simulated composition point clouds reproduce the measured ones with a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5%; the one clear outlier (Ni-rich) is traced to an unstable RF discharge that occasionally extinguished the Pd cathode, and removing Pd from that simulation reduces the error to 3%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction relies on the assumption that sputtered atoms from one cathode do not deposit onto or interact with another cathode, so the multi-cathode process can be split into independent single-cathode simulations and simply added together; the authors argue this holds because each cathode sits in its own chimney.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A planned co-sputter library can be simulated in 20-40 minutes on a standard 8-core PC, which is faster than an equivalent pilot deposition, making simulation a practical pre-screening step.
  • Simulating multiple cathodes adds no wall-clock time because the wrapper parallelizes the single-cathode jobs, so quaternary and higher-order systems are as cheap to simulate as binary ones.
  • The method converts simulated arrival ratios into compositions only after calibrating each element's rate, so composition prediction accuracy inherits the accuracy of the rate measurement and the linear power-rate assumption.
  • Discrepancies between simulated and measured composition maps can act as diagnostics, for example revealing a cathode tilt offset (reproduced by tilting the model from 12.2 to 12.8 degrees) or an unstable cathode during deposition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the no-cross-deposition assumption is tested in a chamber without chimneys or with cathodes facing each other, the independent-cathode decomposition will likely under-predict intermixing; a direct check would be to compare pySIMTRA predictions against libraries made with one adjacent cathode shuttered on and off.
  • Because rates are calibrated at low power and the linear power-rate relation is assumed, extrapolation to much higher powers or to regimes where the discharge mode changes could break the accuracy; calibrating each element at several powers would map this out.
  • The same wrapper should extend naturally to thickness and roughness prediction, since it already tracks where each simulated atom lands, but SIMTRA's assumptions of neutral particles and purely elastic argon collisions would need revisiting for reactive sputtering or high-flux conditions.
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 introduces pySIMTRA, a Python wrapper that enables multi-cathode sputter deposition simulations by decomposing a multi-cathode system into independent single-cathode SIMTRA simulations, running them in parallel, and merging the results. The method is tested against seven Ni-Pd-Pt-Ru materials libraries (six quaternary, one ternary) by comparing simulated and measured compositions via Euclidean distance in composition space. Sputter rates are calibrated from profilometry of single-element films and a linear power-rate relationship is assumed. The abstract and conclusions claim a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5% between simulated and measured compositions, while the results section reports a mean distance of less than 5% across six libraries, excluding the Ni-rich library as an outlier. The paper also investigates an apparent cathode-tilt misalignment for the ternary library by re-running the simulation at a modified tilt angle. The wrapper, dataset, and code are made publicly available.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is robust, pySIMTRA would provide a practical, freely available tool for predicting co-sputtered thin-film library compositions, potentially reducing the number of pilot depositions in combinatorial materials synthesis. The paper's strengths include a transparent, modular software design; parallel execution that makes multi-cathode simulation computationally feasible; use of measured racetrack profiles; and public release of code and data. However, the headline 3.5% accuracy is not currently supported by a clearly pre-specified validation protocol, because one library is effectively excluded after observing a large error and another library is used to fit a geometric parameter (cathode tilt). The central methodological claim of accurate composition prediction therefore needs a more rigorous, out-of-sample assessment before the quantitative result can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions; Results (p. 8, Fig. 5)] The abstract and conclusions state a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5% between simulated and measured compositions, but the results section reports 'Across six materials libraries, the simulation achieves a mean Euclidean distance of less than 5%' and identifies the Ni-rich library as an exception with 7.5% mean distance (18% maximum), later reducing its error to 3% only after re-simulating without the Pd cathode. The origin of the 3.5% figure is not specified: it is not derivable from the reported per-library values under any straightforward inclusion rule unless the Ni-rich library is excluded or its post-hoc re-simulation is included. Since the central claim of the paper is this quantitative accuracy, the authors must state exactly which libraries and which simulation runs are used to compute the 3.5%, and justify that selection as a pre-specified protocol rather than a post-hoc one.
  2. [Results, pp. 10-11; Fig. 8] The ternary Pd-Pt-Ru library is used to fit the cathode tilt: the simulation is first run at the manually set 12.2°, then re-run at 12.8° to align the simulated compositional area with the measured one, and the text concludes that 'the sputter process was likely run with a cathode tilt deviation of 0.5°.' If the reported simulation accuracy for this library is based on the fitted 12.8° tilt, the comparison is in-sample and does not measure predictive accuracy. The authors should either report the accuracy using the a priori tilt (12.2°), or provide a leave-one-out analysis showing that the correct tilt can be inferred from the other libraries without using the ternary library's composition data.
  3. [Methods, 'The SIMTRA Python wrapper' (p. 4)] The wrapper's core strategy is to split a multi-cathode system into independent single-cathode simulations, and the paper states: 'an intrinsic assumption of this approach is that cross deposition between the cathode is not occurring.' This assumption is load-bearing for the entire method, yet the only justification is a qualitative statement that the cathode chimney makes the effect 'expected to be minimal.' No experimental or simulated quantification of cross-deposition is provided, nor is it shown that the validation libraries are sensitive to it. Please add a quantitative estimate or an experiment (e.g., depositing with one cathode masked and measuring material from another) to bound the error introduced by this assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, 'Setup of the sputter system' (p. 5)] The sentence 'About 10. particles were simulated per cathode' appears to be missing an exponent (likely 10^6 or 10^7); please correct the typographical omission.
  2. [Results, Fig. 5 and p. 8] The text says 'Across six materials libraries' while Figure 5 includes seven libraries (with the Ni-rich library shown twice). Please clarify whether the six-library mean excludes the Ni-rich library entirely or includes its re-simulation without Pd, and make the labeling of the figure and text consistent.
  3. [Results, p. 11] The text states 'a cathode tilt deviation of 0.5°' but the preceding values are 12.2° and 12.8°, which differ by 0.6°. Please correct the angle difference or the referenced numbers.
  4. [Results, p. 9] The discussion of sputter rate uncertainty states that thickness measurement error of 1 nm results in rate uncertainties 'higher than 1%' for films thinner than 100 nm. It would be helpful to provide a quantitative uncertainty propagation for the resulting composition error, since this directly affects the accuracy claims.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline 3.5% accuracy is selected: the Ni-rich library is excluded or re-simulated without Pd, and the ternary library's cathode tilt is tuned to match the measured composition.

  1. other [Abstract; Results and discussion, Figure 5 paragraph]
    "we achieve a match between simulated and measured compositions, with a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5%. ... Across six materials libraries, the simulation achieves a mean Euclidean distance of less than 5% with a maximum deviation of 9%. ... The only exception to the simulation performance is the Ni-rich library, which shows a mean Euclidean distance of 7.5% and a maximum deviation of 18%."

    The abstract's 3.5% is not tied to a fixed protocol. The results section reports <5% mean over six libraries and identifies the Ni-rich library as the only exception, with 7.5% mean and 18% maximum; the abstract does not state that the 3.5% headline excludes that library or any library. Consequently, the headline accuracy is obtained after dropping or re-defining the library that failed, making it a selected number rather than the accuracy of the stated model on the stated seven-library test set. The reported predictive accuracy is therefore partly forced by the choice of which libraries are included.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Results and discussion, Figure 8 paragraph]
    "In order to estimate the cathode tilt deviation, the simulation was repeated with varying tilts based on the scale on the adjustment screw. The results, visualized in Figure 8 (b), depict the compositional area covered by each simulated materials library. By increasing the tilt from the original 12.2° to 12.8°—equivalent to a 0.5 mm decrease on the adjustment screw—the simulated compositional area aligns more closely with the measured area."

    The cathode tilt is a free geometric parameter of the simulation. It was varied until the simulated compositional area matched the measured area, so the 12.8° run is an interpolation to the validation target, not an independent prediction. If any reported Euclidean distance uses this tilt-corrected run, the agreement is forced by construction. The text presents the tilt adjustment as an explanation of a discrepancy, but it is still a fit to the measured composition.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Results and discussion, Ni-rich library paragraph]
    "When simulating the materials library without the Pd-cathode, the simulation error is reduced to a mean Euclidean distance of 3%."

    The Pd cathode was removed from the model only after comparing to the measured library, so the 3% error after removal is an ex-post selected outcome. The text gives a plausible physical cause, but the model itself did not predict that Pd should be omitted; omitting a cathode changes the model definition to match the data. This is a fitted input—which cathodes are active—rather than an independent validation, and it is part of the path to the abstract's 3.5% claim.

full rationale

The underlying transport simulation is not itself circular: SIMTRA is an external code, the sputter-rate calibration is a standard empirical input, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The circularity is confined to the evaluation protocol used to support the main accuracy claim. The abstract reports a 3.5% mean Euclidean distance without stating that the results section computes accuracy over six libraries, not all seven; the Ni-rich library is re-simulated without Pd after seeing the measured compositions; and the ternary library's cathode tilt is adjusted from 12.2° to 12.8° to match the measured compositional area. These are ex-post selections or fits, so the headline predictive accuracy is partly forced by construction. Score 6 reflects that one or more reported predictions reduce to selected or fitted inputs; the tool itself may still have independent value, but the reported 3.5% is not a transparent out-of-sample accuracy.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The accuracy claim is a calibrated simulation result. It depends on measured sputter rates, an assumed linear power-rate relation, a confidential chamber geometry model, an assumed constant cathode tilt, and the standard SIMTRA transport assumptions. The post-hoc tilt adjustment for the ternary library is a fitted parameter, not a prediction.

free parameters (2)
  • Cathode tilt angle = 12.8 degrees for ternary library; 12.2 degrees nominal for others
    The tilt is set manually for all four cathodes together; for the Pd-Pt-Ru library the authors increased the simulated tilt from 12.2 to 12.8 degrees to align the simulated and measured composition areas (Results, Figure 8).
  • Sputter rate calibration with linear power-rate model = Rates in Table S1, e.g. Ni DC 35 W: 0.03685 nm/s; Pd RF 7 W: 0.004861 nm/s
    Rates are measured by profilometry at two powers and linearly interpolated; they directly determine the simulated composition, so the validation is not parameter-free (Methods, Figure 4).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Cross-deposition between cathodes is negligible.
    The multi-cathode system is decomposed into independent single-cathode SIMTRA runs; stated in Methods as an intrinsic assumption.
  • domain assumption Sputtered particles are neutral, collide only elastically with a homogeneous thermal argon background, and do not collide with each other.
    Standard SIMTRA assumptions carried over from refs [12,13]; the wrapper does not alter the transport physics.
  • domain assumption Deposition power and sputter rate are linearly related.
    Rates are measured at two powers and interpolated; the paper cites a linear relation and uses it to convert powers into rates.
  • domain assumption Thin-film density is equal to the nominal bulk density of each element.
    Composition is computed by weighting simulated particle numbers by nominal bulk density and atomic mass; the paper notes real film density can vary.
  • domain assumption Energy and angular distributions of sputtered particles are independent, with a cosine angular distribution.
    SIMTRA samples initial energy and direction separately; the paper acknowledges this is an approximation and used a cosine distribution.
  • domain assumption The chamber geometry model built from manufacturer technical drawings is accurate.
    The simulations use a geometric model based on confidential drawings; the dimensions cannot be disclosed, so this fidelity claim is unverifiable from the paper.
  • domain assumption The racetrack profile is axially symmetric and captured by a 2D diameter scan.
    A 2D racetrack profile is used because visual inspection showed axial symmetry; if false, initial particle positions would be mis-sampled.
  • ad hoc to paper Cathode tilt remains constant across depositions at the manually set value.
    The tilt is adjusted manually and can shift when the chamber is opened; for the ternary library the authors post hoc changed the tilt from 12.2 to 12.8 degrees to match the measured composition area.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Python-Based Approach to Sputter Deposition Simulations in Combinatorial Materials Science." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MRC7AF5

@misc{pith2026241114413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Python-Based Approach to Sputter Deposition Simulations in Combinatorial Materials Science},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MRC7AF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14413}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetron sputtering is an essential technique in combinatorial materials science, enabling the efficient synthesis of thin-film materials libraries with continuous compositional gradients. For exploring multidimensional search spaces, minimizing preliminary experiments is essen-tial, as numerous materials libraries are required to adequately cover the space, making it crucial to fabricate only those libraries that are absolutely necessary. This can be achieved by Monte Carlo particle simulations to model the deposition profile, e.g. by SIMTRA, which is an established package mainly designed for single cathode simulations. A strong enhance-ment of its capabilities is the development of a Python-based wrapper, designed to simulate multi-cathode sputter processes through parallel Monte Carlo simulations. By modeling a sputter chamber and determining the relationship between deposition power and rate for an exemplary quaternary system Ni-Pd-Pt-Ru, we achieve a match between simulated and measured compositions, with a mean Euclidean distance of 3.5%. The object-oriented design of the package allows easy customization and enables the definition of complex sputter sys-tems. Due to parallelization, simulating multiple cathodes results in no additional simulation time. These additions extend the capabilities of SIMTRA making it applicable in combinatorial materials research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure of the Python wrapper. Two file readers allow the SIMTRA input files and the sim￾ulation results to be read and to convert them to Python instances. The objects can be combined to a sputter system with n-magnetrons opposed to only one in SIMTRA. Before a simulation job is started, the objects are split up into n-single magnetron systems and then passed to the SIMTRA command line version. The simulation han… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Measurement approach to determine racetracks of sputter targets, (b) normalized race￾track profiles of the four used elements. In total, 16 elemental targets (1.5 inch diameter) were measured and are available with the python wrapper. Setup of the sputter system The depositions for testing the sputter simulation model were done in a co-sputter system with four cathodes (AJA International Polaris), each holding o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Photo of the sputter system with loaded substrate during a co-deposition process using all four cathodes. The geometrical model is shown in (b). The cathode tilt can only be adjusted manually via a screw connected to a linear drive, which sets the tilt angle for all four cathodes simultaneously, without the option for individual adjustment. Also, the table orientation can be adjusted manually. Since initial test… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Sputter rates of the four elements and their power supply pairings. The points indicate the experimentally acquired values, the lines show the assumed linear relationship of power and sputter rate. (b) Test dataset containing the compositional mappings of seven mat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Euclidean distances (in atomic percent and percent) of the measured and simulated compo￾sitions from the seven materials libraries. The Ni-rich library was simulated twice, with and without Pd. The only exception to the simulation performance is the Ni-rich library, wh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of (a) the equiatomic and (b) Ni-rich library on the composition space. The com￾position of the Ni-rich library is shown with and without the deposition of the Pd cathode. The deviation of measured and simulated composition is decreased when the Pd depositio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the element-wise measured (dark colors) and simulated (light colors) compo￾sition distributions. In contrast to the quaternary libraries, the simulated composition distributions of the ternary library, shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured and simulated compositions of the ternary Pd-Pt-Ru library on the composition space (a). The measured distribution shows a smaller range of compositions, hinting at a wrongly as￾sumed cathode tilt. The deviation was further investigated with (b), which show th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gregoire, L

    J.M. Gregoire, L. Zhou, J.A. Haber, Combinatorial synthesis for AI-driven materials discovery, Nature Synthesis 2 (2023) 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44160-023-00251-4

    doi:10.1038/s44160-023-00251-4 2023

  2. [2]

    C.-S. Lu, O. Lewis, Investigation of film-thickness determination by oscillating quartz resonators with large mass load, J Appl Phys 43 (1972) 4385–4390. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1660931

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1660931 1972

  3. [3]

    Nyaiesh, L

    A. Nyaiesh, L. Holland, The dependence of deposition rate on power input for dc and rf magnetron sputtering, Vacuum 31 (1981) 315–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-207X(81)80503-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0042-207x(81)80503-9 1981

  4. [4]

    Ekpe, L.W

    S.D. Ekpe, L.W. Bezuidenhout, S.K. Dew, Deposition rate model of magnetron sput-tered particles, Thin Solid Films 474 (2005) 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2004.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2004.09.007 2005

  5. [5]

    Bunn, C.J

    J.K. Bunn, C.J. Metting, J. Hattrick-Simpers, A Semi-Empirical Model for Tilted-Gun Planar Magnetron Sputtering Accounting for Chimney Shadowing, JOM 67 (2015) 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-014-1234-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11837-014-1234-2 2015

  6. [6]

    Myers, J.R

    A.M. Myers, J.R. Doyle, J.R. Abelson, D.N. Ruzic, Monte Carlo simulations of magne-tron sputtering particle transport, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vac-uum, Surfaces, and Films 9 (1991) 614–618. https://doi.org/10.1116/1.577375

    work page doi:10.1116/1.577375 1991

  7. [7]

    Macàk, P

    K. Macàk, P. Macàk, U. Helmersson, Monte Carlo simulations of the transport of sput-tered particles, Comput Phys Commun 120 (1999) 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00245-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(99)00245-3 1999

  8. [8]

    Sobbia, P.K

    R. Sobbia, P.K. Browning, J.W. Bradley, Numerical investigation via three-dimensional Monte Carlo modeling of sputtering and deposition processes in a direct current unbal-anced magnetron discharge, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films 26 (2008) 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1116/1.2816940

    work page doi:10.1116/1.2816940 2008

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Caillard, C

    A. Caillard, C. Charles, R.W. Boswell, P. Brault, Transport and Deposition of Plasma-Sputtered Platinum Atoms: Comparison Between Experiments and Simulation, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 36 (2008) 884–885. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2008.924421

    2008

  2. [10]

    Kwon, W.J

    U.H. Kwon, W.J. Lee, Multiscale Monte Carlo Simulation of Circular DC Magnetron Sputtering: Influence of Magnetron Design on Target Erosion and Film Deposition, Jpn J Appl Phys 45 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Depla, W.P

    D. Depla, W.P. Leroy, Magnetron sputter deposition as visualized by Monte Carlo modeling, Thin Solid Films 520 (2012) 6337–6354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2012.06.032

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Van Aeken, S

    K. Van Aeken, S. Mahieu, D. Depla, The metal flux from a rotating cylindrical magne-tron: a Monte Carlo simulation, J Phys D Appl Phys 41 (2008) 205307. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/41/20/205307. 14

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Mahieu, G

    S. Mahieu, G. Buyle, D. Depla, S. Heirwegh, P. Ghekiere, R. De Gryse, Monte Carlo simulation of the transport of atoms in DC magnetron sputtering, Nucl Instrum Meth-ods Phys Res B 243 (2006) 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2005.09.018

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Thompson, Atomic collision cascades in solids, Vacuum 66 (2002) 99–114

    M.W. Thompson, Atomic collision cascades in solids, Vacuum 66 (2002) 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-207X(02)00179-3

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Thelen, L

    F. Thelen, L. Banko, R. Zehl, S. Baha, A. Ludwig, Speeding up high-throughput char-acterization of materials libraries by active learning: autonomous electrical resistance measurements, Digital Discovery 2 (2023) 1612–1619. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00125C

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    A. Ludwig, Discovery of new materials using combinatorial synthesis and high-throughput characterization of thin-film materials libraries combined with computational methods, NPJ Comput Mater 5 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Banko, O.A

    L. Banko, O.A. Krysiak, J.K. Pedersen, B. Xiao, A. Savan, T. Löffler, S. Baha, J. Rossmeisl, W. Schuhmann, A. Ludwig, Unravelling Composition–Activity–Stability Trends in High Entropy Alloy Electrocatalysts by Using a Data-Guided Combinatorial Synthesis Strategy and Computatio...

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Pedersen, C.M

    J.K. Pedersen, C.M. Clausen, O.A. Krysiak, B. Xiao, T.A.A. Batchelor, T. Löffler, V.A. Mints, L. Banko, M. Arenz, A. Savan, W. Schuhmann, A. Ludwig, J. Rossmeisl, Bayes-ian Optimization of High-Entropy Alloy Compositions for Electrocatalytic Oxygen Re-duction**, Angewandte Che...

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    Due to the higher sim-ulation time and computational effort, this factor was not considered in this study

    could result in more accurate composition predictions. Due to the higher sim-ulation time and computational effort, this factor was not considered in this study. Conclusions The developed Python wrapper for SIMTRA enables fast and efficient simulation of co-sput-tering process...

  12. [70]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-019-0205-0

    doi

  13. [2024]

    All rate samples were sputtered at a pro-cess pressure of 0.5 Pa and 80 sccm Ar flow on a pre-deposited 15 nm Ta adhesion layer

    15 Supporting Information Table S1: Sputter parameters and determined sputter rates. All rate samples were sputtered at a pro-cess pressure of 0.5 Pa and 80 sccm Ar flow on a pre-deposited 15 nm Ta adhesion layer. The thickness was determined by averaging ten manually conducte...

  14. [8629]

    https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.45.8629

    doi

Pith tools

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