Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

St4DeM: A software suite for multi-modal 4D-STEM acquisition techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read St4DeM lets one microscope session record 7D data by combining 4D-STEM, spectroscopy, and tomography.

desk verdict A genuinely useful acquisition suite, but the 7D reconstruction is a proof-of-principle that the paper itself shows to be weak — referee it for the software, not the 7D claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19762 v1 pith:RI3UM2PR submitted 2025-04-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Toni Uusimaeki , Cheuk-Wai Tai , Tom Willhammar , Thomas Thersleff , Hasan Ali , Seda Ulusoy , Meltem Sezen , Bora Derin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords 4D-STEMnanodiffraction7D-STEMEELSspectrumimagingEDSelectrontomographyDigitalMicrographiDPC
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

St4DeM is a software suite, written in the Digital Micrograph scripting environment, that brings several scanning transmission electron microscopy modes into one interface: 4D-STEM diffraction-pattern acquisition, EELS and EDS spectrum imaging, ptychography, and tilt-series electron tomography. The paper's central claim is that these modes can be synchronized so a single experiment records diffraction and chemical spectra at every probe position across many tilt angles, producing a genuinely 7-dimensional dataset. A proof-of-principle 7D-STEM reconstruction is shown, with two real-space lateral axes, one tomographic depth axis, three diffraction axes, and one energy-loss axis. If the software performs as described, a standard microscope computer can acquire and analyze multi-modal nanoscale data without stitching together separate programs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the inverse Radon index map: for each tilt angle, the map stores, at every voxel of the 3D real-space reconstruction, the x-axis index of the 4D-STEM tilt image whose ray passes through that voxel. The software then rotates each 2D diffraction pattern by the goniometer tilt angle and accumulates it into every voxel whose index matches, producing a 3D diffraction volume per voxel (Method 1) or a sparse list of 3D peak coordinates and intensities (Method 2). The real-space volume itself is obtained beforehand from a conventional HAADF tilt series with SIRT, re-projected to form a virtual tilt series, and used to register the 4D-STEM tilt series. No weighting or Fourier filtering is applied during the diffraction back-projection; only nearest-neighbor interpolation is used, deliberately, because the authors note that interpolating between adjacent diffraction patterns would mimic dynamical diffraction artifacts.

What would settle it

Record the same 4D-STEM tilt series from a crystal whose structure and orientation are already known, apply Method 1 or Method 2, and compare the reconstructed per-voxel diffraction volumes or peak lists with multislice or Bloch-wave simulations of the same tilt geometry; if peak positions or relative intensities differ beyond interpolation error, the straight-ray back-projection is not faithful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is a reconstruction pipeline that converts a 4D-STEM tilt series into per-voxel 3D diffraction volumes. After a conventional HAADF tilt series is reconstructed with SIRT to give a real-space volume, that volume is down-sampled and re-projected to create a virtual tilt series, which is used to register the 4D-STEM tilt series. Then, guided by an inverse Radon index map, every 2D diffraction pattern is rotated by the goniometer tilt angle and accumulated along the straight ray through the real-space volume, so each voxel ends up with its own 3D diffraction pattern (Method 1), or with a sparse list of 3D peak coordinates and intensities (Method 2). Adding an EELS energy dimension makes the full dataset 7-dimensional. The authors present this as a proof of principle for the acquisition and analysis software, not as a refined tomographic study of the test samples.

Load-bearing premise

The 7D reconstruction assumes each measured 2D diffraction pattern can be back-projected along a straight ray through a coarsely sampled volume with no correction for dynamical diffraction, no treatment of the missing wedge, and only nearest-neighbor interpolation, and this assumption is never checked against a known structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single acquisition session can output a 7D dataset, combining two real-space axes, one tilt/depth axis, three diffraction axes, and one energy axis, from standard microscope hardware without a dedicated direct detector.
  • The sparse peak-list reconstruction (Method 2) makes 6D and 7D analysis practical on a laptop: days instead of roughly two months and about 1 GB instead of nearly 4 TB of data.
  • Virtual 3D bright-field, dark-field, and chemical maps can be computed after the fact from the reconstructed volume, so one experiment serves multiple contrast mechanisms.
  • The alignment strategy, re-projecting a SIRT real-space volume to register the 4D-STEM tilt series, can be reused for other multi-modal tilt series.
  • Because the suite runs inside the Digital Micrograph environment, it lowers the barrier for laboratories already using that platform to adopt 4D-STEM tomography and spectrum imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear back-projection is replaced by an iterative scheme that enforces consistency between the accumulated diffraction volumes, the 7D reconstruction could tolerate sparser tilt sampling and reduce the missing-wedge artifacts the authors leave uncorrected.
  • The same inverse-Radon-index machinery could be applied directly to momentum-resolved EELS tilt series, adding a fourth signal dimension without first reducing each tilt image to a scalar.
  • Online peak prediction combined with double-tilt zone-axis tracking, which the authors propose, could make the acquisition dose-efficient enough for beam-sensitive materials if implemented as a real-time feedback loop.
  • Benchmarking Method 1 against Method 3, where virtual images are formed from the 4D-STEM cubes and reconstructed with scalar tomography, would quantify how much fidelity is lost or gained in the straight-ray diffraction projection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript presents St4DeM, a Digital Micrograph-based software suite for multi-modal 4D-STEM acquisition. The suite combines 4D-STEM acquisition with EELS and EDS spectrum imaging, electron tomography, ptychography, real-time visualization, alignment routines, and incoherent differential phase contrast (iDPC) analysis. Acquisition is demonstrated on two microscope platforms (Thermo Fisher Themis and JEOL JEM-2100F), with frame rates up to 100 fps via synchronized server/client control. The authors further describe a tomographic reconstruction workflow that back-projects the 2D diffraction patterns from a 4D-STEM tilt series into a 3D real-space volume, yielding 6D diffraction volumes or sparse peak lists, and they present this as a proof-of-principle 7D-STEM pipeline when combined with EELS spectrum-image tilt series. The software, acquired data, and analysis code are stated to be available on GitHub and Zenodo.

Significance. If the acquisition and analysis claims hold, St4DeM would be a useful contribution to the electron microscopy software ecosystem, because it integrates several multimodal acquisition modes in a widely used commercial environment. The paper benefits from explicit, publicly available software and data, and it demonstrates reproducible multi-instrument acquisition, including automated tilt-series acquisition and iDPC processing. The reconstruction component, however, is only a proof of principle and is not quantitatively validated against a known structure or a simulated phantom; the authors themselves note that the TiNi specimen was not diffracting enough for meaningful dark-field images and that only nearest-neighbor interpolation was used. The significance is therefore conditional: the acquisition and visualization aspects are credible, while the 7D-analysis claim is stronger than the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Figure 7] The 6D/7D reconstruction claim is not validated. The method back-projects each 2D diffraction pattern along a straight ray through the 3D real-space volume, but a focused STEM probe's CBED pattern is a dynamical, coherent signal that depends on local thickness, orientation, and defocus; it is not a line integral of the object's diffracted intensity. The authors acknowledge limitations (nearest-neighbor interpolation, no precession, weak diffraction from the TiNi sample), but no test against a known structure, simulated phantom, or quantitative metric (peak positions, resolution, missing-wedge effects) is provided. Without such a test, the reconstructed diffraction volume in Figure 7 cannot be distinguished from software plumbing. I recommend adding a validation experiment or simulation that compares the back-projected diffraction volume against a known structure or phantom, and reporting a quantitative agreement metric.
  2. [III.B, Conclusions] The '7-dimensional data' claim is broader than the demonstrated result. The EELS energy dimension was reduced to sums of the zero-loss and plasmon peaks before reconstruction, so a full energy-resolved volume was never reconstructed. The paper should either present a truly energy-resolved reconstruction or explicitly qualify the demonstration as 6D diffraction reconstruction plus 2D energy-filtered projections; the current wording in the Abstract and Section III.B overstates the dimensionality that was actually achieved.
  3. [III.B, Methods 1 and 2] The registration and alignment chain for the 4D-STEM tilt series is described but not quantitatively assessed. The method relies on registering the 4D-STEM tilt series to a re-projected SIRT reconstruction of a HAADF tilt series, yet no metric is given for the registration accuracy or for the propagated effect of SIRT reconstruction artifacts and the missing wedge on the final diffraction-volume alignment. Since the entire back-projection pipeline depends on this alignment, the absence of any error metric is a load-bearing gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III, figure callout] The callout to 'Figure 2(b)' in the description of the Main tab of the user interface should be 'Figure 3(b)', since Figure 2 already refers to STEM images.
  2. [II, FIB sample preparation] The caption of Figure 1 contains a stray parenthesis: 'diameter less than )100 nm)' should be 'diameter less than 100 nm'.
  3. [Various] There are several typographical errors, including 'defocuse's' (should be 'defocus values' or 'defoci'), 'tomogaphy' (should be 'tomography'), and 'compromising as a tilt series' (likely 'composing' or 'comprising').
  4. [III.A] The term 'd-scanning effects' is used without definition; please clarify what is meant by this term, as it is central to the automatic plane-subtraction step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Self-contained software/methods paper; no circular derivation chains found.

full rationale

St4DeM is a software and methods paper; its claims are about acquisition modes, a 7D reconstruction pipeline, and proof-of-principle demonstrations rather than a derivation of a predicted quantity from fitted inputs. The 7D reconstruction is implemented by standard back-projection logic: 'the 2D DPs are projected along the ray by reconstructing a 3D DP to every voxel along the ray – by rotating the 2D DP by its tilt angle.' This is an algorithmic assignment of measured intensities into a tomographic volume; it does not involve fitting a parameter and then predicting that same parameter, nor does any equation equate an output with an input by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges validity limitations, including 'problematic dynamical diffraction behavior,' nearest-neighbor interpolation only, and that the TiNi specimen 'was not diffracting enough to form meaningful dark field virtual images'; these are soundness/validation concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to AutoEM [18], EMCD [21], and earlier 4D-STEM applications [19,20] are attributions of bundled software components or prior applications, and none of them is used as load-bearing evidence that forces the present results. The energy dimension is described as 'one energy step at a time,' but only zero-loss and plasmon sums were reconstructed, which is an incompleteness of the demonstration rather than a circular reduction. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, or ansatz-smuggled-via-citation pattern is present. The derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained with respect to the input data and standard tomography mathematics, so circularity is not present.

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

No free parameters are fitted; user-controlled inputs such as the sparsity fraction and masks are acquisition settings, not model parameters. The reconstruction relies on standard linear back-projection assumptions of electron tomography, plus a domain assumption that each diffraction pattern can be treated as a ray-projection of the sample's 3D diffraction function. These assumptions are not quantitatively validated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 4D-STEM signal from each probe position is a linear superposition of diffraction from voxels along the beam path, so a diffraction pattern can be back-projected along a straight ray.
    Used in the 6D/7D reconstruction (Section III.B) to project 2D DPs into 3D real space; this linearity is not validated for the tested thick, tilted sample.
  • domain assumption The tilt series covers a sufficient angular range and the missing wedge does not invalidate the reconstruction for a proof of principle.
    The TiNi tilt series spans -64 to 74 degrees, and the reconstruction uses nearest-neighbor interpolation without weighting; the authors acknowledge resolution loss but still present the images as demonstrations.
  • domain assumption Digital Micrograph scripting combined with the C++ SDK libraries can control the microscope and cameras with sufficient synchronization for 100 fps acquisition.
    The claimed acquisition speed depends on this technical capability, demonstrated on a specific Thermo Themis setup with a Oneview camera; it may not transfer to other hardware.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of St4DeM: A software suite for multi-modal 4D-STEM acquisition techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RI3UM2PR

@misc{pith2026250419762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: St4DeM: A software suite for multi-modal 4D-STEM acquisition techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RI3UM2PR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19762}
}
read the original abstract

A suite of acquisition applications related to the 4D-STEM technique is presented as a software package written within the Digital Micrograph environment, which is a widely used software platform in worldwide electron microscopy laboratories. The 4D-STEM technique allows the acquisition of diffraction patterns at each electron probe position in a scanning transmission electron microscope map. This suite includes 4D-STEM acquisition, ptychography, EELS/EDS spectrum imaging, tomography and basic virtual visualization and alignment methods on 4D data including incoherent differential phase contrast analysis. By integrating electron tomography with 4D-STEM and EELS SI, St4DeM enables the acquisition and analysis of 7-dimensional data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The preparation of needle-shaped sample using FIB processing: (a) The milling of the conic sample using circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. STEM HAADF images (a) and (b) acquired using a Thermo Fischer Themis 300 kV and JEOL JEM-2100F respectively, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The St4DeM user interface within DM 3, showing (a) the Camera, (b) Main, (c) Settings, (d) Visualization and (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A 4D-STEM image of Fe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A 4D-STEM image of carbon nanotube with added noise (a), where the inlet DP shown in upper right corner with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 6D-STEM workflow. (a) STEM HAADF tilt series is reconstructed into 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. 7D-STEM virtual reconstructions. (a) A bright field and (b) a dark field image taken from 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author S. J. \ Pennycook \ and\ author P. D. \ Nellist ,\ @noop title Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy \ ( publisher Springer-Verlag ,\ year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    author author O. L. \ Krivanek , author T. C. \ Lovejoy , \ and\ author N. Dellby ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Microscopy \ volume 259 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Wu , author X

    author author H. Wu , author X. Zhao , author D. Song , author F. Tian , author J. Wang , author K. P. \ Loh , \ and\ author S. J. \ Pennycook ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 194 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    author author B. D. A. \ Levin ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics: Materials \ volume 4 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Ophus ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 25 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    author author C. Ophus ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 25 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Chatterjee , author J

    author author D. Chatterjee , author J. Wei , author A. Kvit , author B. Bammes , author B. Levin , author R. Bilhorn , \ and\ author P. Voyles ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 27 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Fang , author Y

    author author S. Fang , author Y. Wen , author C. S. \ Allen , author C. Ophus , author G. G. D. \ Han , author A. I. \ Kirkland , author E. Kaxiras , \ and\ author J. H. \ Warner ,\ @noop journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 10 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    author author K. X. \ Nguyen , author P. Purohit , author R. Hovden , author E. Turgut , author M. W. \ Tate , author L. F. \ Kourkoutis , author G. D. \ Fuchs , author S. M. \ Gruner , \ and\ author D. A. \ Muller ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 22 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    author author F. I. \ Allen , author T. C. \ Pekin , author A. Persaud , author S. J. \ Rozeveld , author G. F. \ Meyers , author J. Ciston , author C. Ophus , \ and\ author A. M. \ Minor ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2103.07076v1 [physics.app-ph] \ ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jeong , author N

    author author J. Jeong , author N. Cautaerts , author G. Dehm , \ and\ author C. H. \ Liebscher ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2102.09711 [physics.ins-det] \ ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    author author A. K. \ Shukla , author C. Ophus , author C. Gammer , \ and\ author Q. Ramasse ,\ @noop journal journal Microanalysis \ ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  4. [12]

    author author D. A. \ Muller , author Z. Chen , author Y. Jiang , author M. Odstrcil , author Y. Han , author P. Purohit , author M. W. \ Tate , author S. M. \ Gruner , \ and\ author V. Elser ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 25 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  5. [13]

    Thersleff , author S

    author author T. Thersleff , author S. Budnyk , author L. Drangai , \ and\ author A. Slabon ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 219 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  6. [14]

    Thersleff \ and\ author C.-W

    author author T. Thersleff \ and\ author C.-W. \ Tai ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 29 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  7. [15]

    Weyland \ and\ author P

    author author M. Weyland \ and\ author P. A. \ Midgley ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 7 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  8. [16]

    Zheng \ and\ author Y

    author author H. Zheng \ and\ author Y. Zhu ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 180 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  9. [17]

    author author D. R. G. \ Mitchell \ and\ author B. Schaffer ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 103 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  10. [18]

    Uusimäki , author T

    author author T. Uusimäki , author T. Wagner , author H.-G. \ Lipinski , \ and\ author R. Kägi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Nanoparticle Research \ volume 21 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  11. [19]

    Bello-Jurado , author D

    author author E. Bello-Jurado , author D. Schwalbe-Koda , author M. Nero , author C. Paris , author T. Uusimäki , author Y. Román-Leshkov , author A. Corma , author T. Willhammar , \ and\ author R. Gómez-Bombarelli ,\ @noop journal journal Angewandte Chemie \ volume 61 ( year ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Willhammar , author K

    author author T. Willhammar , author K. Daicho , author D. N. \ Johnstone , author K. Kobayashi , author Y. Liu , author P. A. \ Midgley , author L. Bergström , \ and\ author T. Saito ,\ @noop journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 15 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ali , author S

    author author H. Ali , author S. K. M. \ Sathyanath , author C.-W. \ Tai , author J. Rusz , author T. Uusimäki , author B. Hjörvarsson , author T. Thersleff , \ and\ author K. Leifer ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 251 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ulusoy , author M

    author author S. Ulusoy , author M. Feygenson , author T. Thersleff , author T. Uusimäki , author M. Valvo , author A. G. \ Roca , author J. Nogues , author P. Svedlindh , \ and\ author G. Salazar-Alvarez ,\ @noop journal journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces \ volume 16 ...

    2024

  15. [23]

    karlsson ,\ @noop title Beyond the C++ Standard Library: An Introduction to Boost \ ( publisher Addison-Wesley Professional ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    author author B. karlsson ,\ @noop title Beyond the C++ Standard Library: An Introduction to Boost \ ( publisher Addison-Wesley Professional ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  16. [24]

    author author M. E. \ Rudnaya , author W. Van den Broek , author R. M. P. \ Doornbos , author R. M. M. \ Matheij , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Maubach ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 111 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  17. [25]

    Plana-Ruiz , author J

    author author S. Plana-Ruiz , author J. Portillo , author S. Estradé , author F. Peiró , author U. Kolb , \ and\ author S. Nicolopoulos ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 193 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  18. [26]

    author author J. A. \ Hachtel ,\ @noop title Getdpc , \ ( year 2025 ),\ note https://github.com/hachteja/GetDPC NoStop

    2025

  19. [27]

    Radermacher ,\ @noop title Weighted Back-projection Methods \ ( publisher Springer, New York ,\ year 2007 ) NoStop

    author author M. Radermacher ,\ @noop title Weighted Back-projection Methods \ ( publisher Springer, New York ,\ year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  20. [28]

    author author M. E. \ Rudnaya , author W. Van den Broek , author R. M. P. \ Doornbos , author R. M. M. \ Matheij , \ and\ author J. M. L. \ Maubach ,\ @noop journal journal Microscopy and Microanalysis \ volume 27 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  21. [29]

    Schwartz , author C

    author author J. Schwartz , author C. Harris , author J. Pietryga , author J. Rowell , author B. Major , author P. Avery , author U. Ayachit , author B. Geveci , author A. Genova , author C. Quammen , author P. Ercius , author Y. Jiang , author R. Robinson , author M. D. \ Han...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Yaniv , author B

    author author Z. Yaniv , author B. C. \ Lowekamp , author H. J. \ Johnson , \ and\ author R. Beare ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Digital Imaging \ volume 31 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kluyver , author B

    author author T. Kluyver , author B. Ragan-Kelley , author F. Pérez , author B. Granger , author M. Bussonnier , author J. Frederic , author K. Kelley , author J. Hamrick , author J. Grout , author S. Corlay , author P. Ivanov , author D. Avila , author S. Abdalla , author C. ...

    2016

  24. [32]

    de la Peña , author V

    author author F. de la Peña , author V. T. \ Fauske , author P. Burdet , author T. Ostasevicius , author M. Sarahan , author M. Nord , author J. A. \ Taillon , author D. Johnstone , author K. E. \ MacArthur , author A. Eljarrat , author S. Mazzucco , author J. Caron , author T...

  25. [33]

    Cautaerts , author P

    author author N. Cautaerts , author P. Crout , author H. W. \ Ånes , author E. Prestat , author J. Jeong , author G. Dehm , \ and\ author C. H. \ Liebscher ,\ @noop journal journal Ultramicroscopy \ volume 237 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.