Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Optimizing Atomic Number Contrast in Multislice Electron Ptychography

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Atomic-number contrast in ptychography is set by the integration radius, not the technique alone.

desk verdict Simulation study shows integration radius controls Z-contrast in ptychography—solid core result, but the source-size comparison vs HAADF/iDPC is not as clean as the dose thresholds imply. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09355 v1 pith:5LBUDRGH submitted 2025-06-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.atom-ph

Bridget R. Denzer , Colin Gilgenbach , James M. LeBeau This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atom-ph
keywords ptychographyatomicnumbercontrastZ-contrastmultisliceelectronprojectedpotentialatomcolumnintegrationCuZnscanningtransmissionmicroscopy
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

The paper argues that the atomic-number (Z) contrast in multislice electron ptychography is not a fixed property of the technique but is controlled by the area over which the reconstructed projected potential is integrated at each atom column. Using simulated 4D STEM datasets of supercells spanning Z = 8 to 87, the authors show that a small integration radius (0.20 Å) yields a monotonic $Z^{0}$.66 dependence, while a larger radius (0.90 Å) produces a non-monotonic, shell-structure-dependent contrast that follows orbital filling. They then demonstrate that this shell-structure sensitivity lets ptychography distinguish Cu (Z = 29) from Zn (Z = 30) in a 20 nm thick $\beta$-CuZn simulation with >95% accuracy at doses above about 1.7e4 e/Å2, where iDPC and HAADF stay below 83%. The practical claim is that choosing the integration radius lets the microscopist tune Z-contrast for a specific material system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the integration radius r0 used to measure the per-atom integrated projected potential from a ptychographic reconstruction: the reconstructed phase is converted to projected potential via the interaction parameter, summed over a circular region around each atom column, and divided by the number of atoms in the column. Varying r0 changes which part of the atomic potential contributes — the nuclear core at small r0 versus outer valence electrons at large r0 — and this radial selectivity is what converts a monotonic $Z^{0}$.66 law into shell-structure-dependent contrast. The distinguishability metric is the contrast-to-noise ratio between the Cu and Zn column distributions, with a 95% threshold set by the empirical cumulative distribution function.

What would settle it

An experimental 4D-STEM dataset of a β-CuZn lamella (approximately 20 nm thick) collected at 300 keV with a convergence semi-angle near 25 mrad and dose above 1.7e4 e/Å2: if a multislice ptychographic reconstruction integrated over a 0.90 Å radius does not separate the Cu and Zn column distributions at better than 95% accuracy, the central distinguishability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that the Z-dependence of ptychographic projected potentials is governed by which part of the atomic potential is sampled: integrating over a small disk around the column core sees mostly the nuclear potential and gives a near-linear power law ($Z^{0}$.66), whereas integrating over a wider disk (0.90 Å) includes valence-shell electrons, producing shell-structure oscillations with local minima at closed shells (Z = 10, 18) and dips across the 3d series. The reconstructed per-atom integrated projected potentials match the transmission function to within 2.4% on average, showing the trend reflects the true electrostatic potential. Because these shell-structure differences can be larger than the Z-step difference itself, elements a single atomic number apart — Cu and Zn — become separable with contrast-to-noise ratios high enough for >95% correct column identification at 0.90 Å integration radius, at doses above roughly 1.7e4 e/Å2 and with a 0.50 Å finite source size, while iDPC and HAADF remain below 83% at all doses considered.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the simulated 4D STEM datasets — with frozen-lattice thermal scattering, Gaussian source-size blur, and Poisson shot noise — faithfully represent a real electron microscope, and that a single Debye-Waller factor for all elements does not change the qualitative Z-trends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a given material, the integration radius can be chosen to maximize contrast between specific neighboring elements, turning Z-contrast into a tunable parameter rather than a fixed response.
  • Ptychography offers a quantitative edge over iDPC and HAADF for separating elements with ΔZ = 1 in relatively thick (>20 nm) samples, at least in simulation.
  • Peak-intensity measurements are systematically worse than integrated measurements for similar-Z distinguishability; at high dose all integration methods (fixed radius, Voronoi, Gaussian, Lorentzian) give CNR ≈ 6.4–7.6.
  • Lowering the integration radius from 0.90 Å to 0.64 Å drops the average CNR by 20% and requires higher dose or smaller source size to maintain 95% distinguishability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the shell-structure mechanism should also operate in single-slice (non-multislice) phase reconstructions, so the optimal integration radius may need recalibration for thin samples where dynamical scattering is weaker.
  • Because the reconstructed potential tracks the transmission function to 2.4%, the Z-dependence curves could serve as a calibration library for converting measured integrated potentials into elemental occupancy maps for arbitrary element pairs, not just Cu/Zn.
  • Since larger integration radii capture bonding charge redistribution, the optimum radius could vary with local chemical environment, meaning a single global radius may not be optimal across heterogeneous interfaces.
  • The reported dose threshold of 1.7e4 e/Å2 is tied to the specific optics (25 mrad convergence, 50 mrad collection) and reconstruction settings; changing these would shift the threshold, though the qualitative radius dependence should persist.
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 paper uses multislice electron ptychography simulations, combined with HAADF and iDPC simulations, to show that the apparent atomic-number dependence of ptychographic projected potentials depends strongly on the radius over which each atom column is integrated. For a small integration radius (r0 = 0.20 Å) the per-atom integrated potential follows a monotonic power law (≈Z^0.66), while for larger radii (up to r0 = 0.90 Å) the Z-dependence becomes non-monotonic and tracks orbital shell structure. The authors then use the enhanced contrast at r0 = 0.90 Å to claim that Cu and Zn (Z = 29 and 30) columns in a 20 nm thick β-CuZn supercell can be distinguished with >95% accuracy for doses above about 1.7×10^4 e/Ų at 0.50 Å source size, whereas iDPC and HAADF remain below 83%. The paper also compares different quantification methods and maps the dose–source-size parameter space for four integration radii.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper offers a practical, simulation-grounded insight: the choice of integration radius is a tunable parameter that can enhance or suppress Z-contrast in ptychography, and it can highlight elements that are only one atomic number apart even in moderately thick samples. The simulation parameters are specified in detail, the central trends are internally consistent across the four integration radii, and the comparison with iDPC and HAADF frames the result in a practically relevant way. The paper does not provide experimental validation, but the simulation study is sufficiently careful to be informative if the finite-source-size modeling is made symmetric across the compared techniques.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II A and Figure 3] The finite-source-size model is not applied symmetrically across the compared methods. For ptychography, the source is emulated by a random probe shift at each scan position and thermal configuration, whereas for HAADF and iDPC it is included by convolving the final images with a two-dimensional Gaussian. These are not equivalent partial-coherence models: a single random shift per scan position injects per-position probe-position errors that the reconstruction algorithm may either suppress as noise or partly fit out as scan distortion if probe-position refinement is enabled, and neither behavior reproduces the incoherent Gaussian blur used for the other two methods. Because the dose threshold in Figure 3 (>95% ptychography distinguishability above about 1.7×10^4 e/Ų versus <83% for iDPC and HAADF) is the paper's central quantitative comparison, the authors should either generate the ptychographic data with an explicit incoherent average over a source distribution (e.g., multiple probe shifts per scan position) and state whether position refinement was used, or justify that the random-shift model is equivalent to the convolution model for focused-probe ptychography.
  2. [Section III A and Figure 1c] The reported 2.4% average deviation between the reconstructed projected potential and the transmission function is an internal consistency check, not an independent validation, because the transmission function is computed from the same atomic potentials that feed the multislice forward simulation. The statement that this agreement 'indicates that the trends are a reflection of the electrostatic potential' should be rephrased to clarify that it demonstrates the reconstruction preserves the input potential; if the shell-structure prediction is intended as a general physical statement, the authors should add a comparison with an independent potential parameterization or with experimental data.
  3. [Section III C, Eq. (1) and Figure 3] The paper reports a 95% true-positive identification threshold without specifying the number of atom columns per species used to construct the empirical cumulative distribution function, nor the uncertainty on the threshold. With a small number of columns (the simulated β-CuZn supercell is 7.36×7.36 nm), the threshold may carry substantial sampling error. The authors should state the number of Cu and Zn columns and, if possible, provide confidence intervals for the threshold doses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III A] The claim that 'ptychography recovered projected potentials are nearly independent of thickness' is difficult to reconcile with the reported 12.9% average decrease in per-atom projected potential with thickness (Supplementary Figure S1); a rewording to 'the Z-dependence trends remain qualitatively similar' would be more accurate.
  2. [Section III D] There is a typo in the text: 'the integration methods provde higher CNR' should read 'provide'.
  3. [Throughout the provided manuscript] The text contains many '/gid...' artifacts and garbled references; the authors should ensure the production version is clean and all references are properly rendered.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states 'The black dashed line shows the threshold for 95% distinguishability,' but the main text uses '95% true positive atom column identification' and '95% accuracy'; these terms should be defined consistently so that the reader knows exactly what quantity the threshold represents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims arise from forward simulations with an honest internal consistency check, not from fitted inputs or self-citation loops.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is simulation, ptychographic reconstruction, then quantification of reconstructed projected potentials. No prediction is produced by fitting a parameter and then reporting it as an independent result. The Z^0.66 power law for r0 = 0.20 Å is a descriptive fit to the simulation trend and is explicitly compared with an external prior result, Chen et al. (2021), not assumed as an input. The 2.4% agreement between the reconstructed projected potential and the transmission function is an internal benchmark: the transmission function is computed from the same atomic potentials used to generate the simulated 4D STEM data, so this comparison validates the reconstruction pipeline rather than introducing an independent physical prediction. Importantly, the ptychographic reconstruction is not forced by construction to equal the transmission function; the algorithm could fail to recover it, so the check is not tautological. The Cu/Zn distinguishability and CNR thresholds in Figures 3 and 5 are computed directly from the distributions of reconstructed per-atom potentials under varying dose and source size, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The use of PtychoShelves is a tool citation, and the cited Z-dependence literature is external to this work. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. Any concerns about the realism of the finite-source-size model or Debye-Waller treatment are correctness or transferability issues, not circularity. Therefore the paper warrants a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim needs the multislice forward model, the frozen-lattice and source-size approximations, and the phase-to-potential conversion. The only fitted numerical descriptor is the Z^x exponent (0.66); Debye-Waller factors and integration radii are chosen simulation and analysis settings rather than fitted parameters. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Z-dependence power-law exponent (small integration radius) = 0.66
    The near-monotonic small-radius Z-dependence is characterized by fitting a power law Z^x to the simulated per-atom integrated projected potentials; the exponent is used to compare with the Z^0.67 value from Chen et al. (2021). It is a fitted descriptor, not an input assumption.
  • Debye-Waller factor, periodic table supercells = 0.50 A^2
    Chosen to be identical for all elements to isolate Z-dependence from thermal vibration differences; representative of room-temperature elemental crystals but artificial for the supercell.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Multislice forward model (Kirkland 2010) accurately describes 300 keV electron scattering through Z=8-87 columns up to 23.4 nm thickness.
    Invoked in Section II A for all simulations; the central results are properties of this model.
  • domain assumption Frozen-lattice approximation with 30 thermal configurations adequately captures thermal diffuse scattering.
    Section II A; if 30 configurations are insufficient, reconstructed potential statistics and CNR thresholds would change.
  • domain assumption Finite effective source size can be modeled as a Gaussian random probe shift per scan position and thermal configuration.
    Section II A and cited Nellist and Rodenburg 1994; affects CNR vs source-size maps.
  • standard math Reconstructed phase divided by interaction parameter gives the projected potential in V-A units.
    Section II C, standard relation (Zou 1999; Fejes 1977; Kirkland 2010).
  • ad hoc to paper Equal Debye-Waller factor for all elements in the periodic table supercell isolates Z-dependence.
    Section II A; a controlled-simulation assumption that removes thermal-vibration contrast, so the observed and optimized Z-contrast is specific to this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Atomic Number Contrast in Multislice Electron Ptychography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LBUDRGH

@misc{pith2026250609355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Atomic Number Contrast in Multislice Electron Ptychography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LBUDRGH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09355}
}
abstract

Here we explore the atomic number ($Z$) dependence of multislice electron ptychography and approaches to optimize Z sensitivity. Specifically, we show that ptychography's $Z$-dependence is highly dependent on the integrated area of an atom column considered. A monotonic $Z$-dependence is found when the reconstructed projected atomic potentials are integrated over a small region. When increasing the integration area, $Z$-contrast changes significantly, becoming highly non-monotonic and following trends in the orbital shell-structure. Moreover, the reconstructed projected potential aligns with the transmission function with an overall deviation of only 2.4\%. The non-monotonic $Z$-dependence is further shown to be useful to accentuate contrast between certain elements, allowing for distinguishability of elements that are only a single atomic number apart, and even in $>$ 20 nm thick samples. This is demonstrated for $\beta$-CuZn ($Z$ = 29 and 30), with the differentiability between the elements explored for different signal quantification methods. The impact of electron dose and finite effective source size are also considered. These results demonstrate that the atom column integration area can optimize ptychographic $Z$-contrast for specific applications and experimental conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic and (b) ptychography reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Multislice electron ptychography reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Contrast-to-noise ratios of simulated CuZn using ptychography, iDPC, and HAADF with a finite source size of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Contrast-to-noise ratio of ptychographic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contrast-to-noise ratio of CuZn reconstructions with varying electron dose and finite source size with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Pennycook, S.J

    Browning, N.D., Chisholm, M.F. & Pennycook, S.J. (1993). Atomic-resolution chemical analysis using a scanning transmission electron microscope, Nature 366, 143--146

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    & Lindner, J.K

    Bürger, J., Riedl, T. & Lindner, J.K. (2020). Influence of lens aberrations, specimen thickness and tilt on differential phase contrast STEM images, Ultramicroscopy 219, 113118

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    & Dickey, E.C

    Calderon, S., Funni, S.D. & Dickey, E.C. (2022). Accuracy of Local Polarization Measurements by Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy , Microscopy and Microanalysis 28, 2047--2058

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    & Muller, D.A

    Cao, M.C., Han, Y., Chen, Z., Jiang, Y., Nguyen, K.X., Turgut, E., Fuchs, G.D. & Muller, D.A. (2018). Theory and practice of electron diffraction from single atoms and extended objects using an EMPAD , Microscopy 67, i150--i161

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    & Grillo, V

    Carlino, E. & Grillo, V. (2005). Atomic-resolution quantitative composition analysis using scanning transmission electron microscopy Z -contrast experiments, Physical Review B 71, 235303

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    & Lin, W

    Celik, A. & Lin, W. (2002). Contrast, Current Protocols in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 4

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    & Muller, D.A

    Chen, Z., Jiang, Y., Shao, Y.T., Holtz, M.E., Odstrčil, M., Guizar-Sicairos, M., Hanke, I., Ganschow, S., Schlom, D.G. & Muller, D.A. (2021). Electron ptychography achieves atomic-resolution limits set by lattice vibrations, Science 372, 826--831

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    & Muller, D.A

    Chen, Z., Odstrcil, M., Jiang, Y., Han, Y., Chiu, M.H., Li, L.J. & Muller, D.A. (2020). Mixed-state electron ptychography enables sub-angstrom resolution imaging with picometer precision at low dose, Nature Communications 11, 2994

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    & Walker, C.B

    Chipman, D.R. & Walker, C.B. (1971). Long- Range Order in - Brass , Physical Review Letters 26, 233--236

    1971

  2. [10]

    & Nellist, P.D

    Clark, L., Martinez, G.T., O’Leary, C.M., Yang, H., Ding, Z., Petersen, T.C., Findlay, S.D. & Nellist, P.D. (2023). The Effect of Dynamical Scattering on Single -plane Phase Retrieval in Electron Ptychography , Microscopy and Microanalysis 29, 384--394

    2023

  3. [11]

    & Van Aert, S

    De Backer, A., Martinez, G., Rosenauer, A. & Van Aert, S. (2013). Atom counting in HAADF STEM using a statistical model-based approach: Methodology , possibilities, and inherent limitations, Ultramicroscopy 134, 23--33

    2013

  4. [12]

    & Etheridge, J

    Dwyer, C., Erni, R. & Etheridge, J. (2008). Method to measure spatial coherence of subangstrom electron beams, Applied Physics Letters 93, 021115

    2008

  5. [13]

    & Etheridge, J

    Dwyer, C., Erni, R. & Etheridge, J. (2010). Measurement of effective source distribution and its importance for quantitative interpretation of STEM images, Ultramicroscopy 110, 952--957

    2010

  6. [14]

    & Teichert, S

    Falke, U., Bleloch, A., Falke, M. & Teichert, S. (2004). Atomic Structure of a ( 2 × 1 ) Reconstructed NiSi 2 / Si ( 001 ) Interface , Physical Review Letters 92, 116103

    2004

  7. [15]

    Fejes, P.L. (1977). Approximations for the calculation of high-resolution electron-microscope images of thin films, Acta Crystallographica Section A 33, 109--113

    1977

  8. [16]

    & Ikuhara, Y

    Findlay, S., Shibata, N., Sawada, H., Okunishi, E., Kondo, Y. & Ikuhara, Y. (2010). Dynamics of annular bright field imaging in scanning transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 110, 903--923

    2010

  9. [17]

    & Dolling, G

    Gilat, G. & Dolling, G. (1965). Normal Vibrations of Brass , Physical Review 138, A1053--A1065

    1965

  10. [18]

    & Van Aert, S

    Hao, Y., De Backer, A., Findlay, S.D. & Van Aert, S. (2025). Towards atom counting from first moment STEM images: Methodology and possibilities, Ultramicroscopy 268, 114066

    2025

  11. [19]

    & Dinges, C

    Hartel, P., Rose, H. & Dinges, C. (1996). Conditions and reasons for incoherent imaging in STEM , Ultramicroscopy 63, 93--114

    1996

  12. [20]

    & Pennycook, T.J

    Hofer, C. & Pennycook, T.J. (2023). Reliable phase quantification in focused probe electron ptychography of thin materials, Ultramicroscopy 254, 113829

    2023

  13. [21]

    & Meyer, J.C

    Hofer, C., Skákalová, V., Haas, J., Wang, X., Braun, K., Pennington, R.S. & Meyer, J.C. (2021). Atom-by-atom chemical identification from scanning transmission electron microscopy images in presence of noise and residual aberrations, Ultramicroscopy 227, 113292

    2021

  14. [22]

    & Muller, D.A

    Jiang, Y., Chen, Z., Han, Y., Deb, P., Gao, H., Xie, S., Purohit, P., Tate, M.W., Park, J., Gruner, S.M., Elser, V. & Muller, D.A. (2018). Electron ptychography of 2D materials to deep sub-ångström resolution, Nature 559, 343--349

    2018

  15. [23]

    Kirkland, E.J. (2010). Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy , Boston, MA: Springer US

    2010

  16. [24]

    & Pennycook, S.J

    Krivanek, O.L., Chisholm, M.F., Nicolosi, V., Pennycook, T.J., Corbin, G.J., Dellby, N., Murfitt, M.F., Own, C.S., Szilagyi, Z.S., Oxley, M.P., Pantelides, S.T. & Pennycook, S.J. (2010). Atom-by-atom structural and chemical analysis by annular dark-field electron microscopy, N...

    2010

  17. [25]

    & Lazar, S

    Lazić, I., Bosch, E.G. & Lazar, S. (2016). Phase contrast STEM for thin samples: Integrated differential phase contrast, Ultramicroscopy 160, 265--280

    2016

  18. [26]

    & Stemmer, S

    LeBeau, J.M., Findlay, S.D., Allen, L.J. & Stemmer, S. (2008). Quantitative Atomic Resolution Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy , Physical Review Letters 100, 206101

    2008

  19. [27]

    & Han, Y

    Li, G., Xu, M., Tang, W.Q., Liu, Y., Chen, C., Zhang, D., Liu, L., Ning, S., Zhang, H., Gu, Z.Y., Lai, Z., Muller, D.A. & Han, Y. (2025). Atomically resolved imaging of radiation-sensitive metal-organic frameworks via electron ptychography, Nature Communications 16, 914

    2025

  20. [28]

    & Nellist, P

    MacArthur, K., Pennycook, T., Okunishi, E., D'Alfonso, A., Lugg, N., Allen, L. & Nellist, P. (2013). Probe integrated scattering cross sections in the analysis of atomic resolution haadf stem images, Ultramicroscopy 133, 109--119

    2013

  21. [29]

    & Nellist, P.D

    Martinez, G.T., Shi, B.X., Naginey, T.C., Jones, L., O'Leary, C.M., Pennycook, T.J., Nicholls, R.J., Yates, J.R. & Nellist, P.D. (2019). Direct Imaging of Charge Redistribution due to Bonding at Atomic Resolution via Electron Ptychography

    2019

  22. [30]

    & Rodenburg, J

    Nellist, P. & Rodenburg, J. (1994). Beyond the conventional information limit: the relevant coherence function, Ultramicroscopy 54, 61--74

    1994

  23. [31]

    & Rawlik, M

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., Stensitzki, T., Ingargiola, A., Allan, D., Fox, A., Carter, F. & Rawlik, M. (2025). LMFIT : Non - Linear Least - Squares Minimization and Curve - Fitting for Python

    2025

  24. [32]

    & Guizar-Sicairos, M

    Odstrčil, M., Menzel, A. & Guizar-Sicairos, M. (2018). Iterative least-squares solver for generalized maximum-likelihood ptychography, Optics Express 26, 3108

    2018

  25. [33]

    & Whelan, M.J

    Peng, L.M., Ren, G., Dudarev, S.L. & Whelan, M.J. (1996). Debye– Waller Factors and Absorptive Scattering Factors of Elemental Crystals , Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography 52, 456--470

    1996

  26. [34]

    & Jesson, D

    Pennycook, S. & Jesson, D. (1991). High-resolution Z -contrast imaging of crystals, Ultramicroscopy 37, 14--38

    1991

  27. [35]

    & Boatner, L.A

    Pennycook, S.J. & Boatner, L.A. (1988). Chemically sensitive structure-imaging with a scanning transmission electron microscope, Nature 336, 565--567

    1988

  28. [36]

    Sha, H., Cui, J. & Yu, R. (2022). Deep sub-angstrom resolution imaging by electron ptychography with misorientation correction, Science Advances 8, eabn2275

    2022

  29. [37]

    & Kachi, S

    Shimizu, S., Murakami, Y. & Kachi, S. (1976). Lattice Softening and Martensitic Transformation in Cu – Ni – Zn Phase Alloys , Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 41, 79--84

    1976

  30. [38]

    & Pfeiffer, F

    Thibault, P., Dierolf, M., Menzel, A., Bunk, O., David, C. & Pfeiffer, F. (2008). High- Resolution Scanning X -ray Diffraction Microscopy , Science 321, 379--382

    2008

  31. [39]

    & Guizar-Sicairos, M

    Thibault, P. & Guizar-Sicairos, M. (2012). Maximum-likelihood refinement for coherent diffractive imaging, New Journal of Physics 14, 063004

    2012

  32. [40]

    & Menzel, A

    Thibault, P. & Menzel, A. (2013). Reconstructing state mixtures from diffraction measurements, Nature 494, 68--71

    2013

  33. [41]

    Timischl, F. (2015). The contrast‐to‐noise ratio for image quality evaluation in scanning electron microscopy, Scanning 37, 54--62

    2015

  34. [42]

    Treacy, M.M. (2011). Z Dependence of Electron Scattering by Single Atoms into Annular Dark - Field Detectors , Microscopy and Microanalysis 17, 847--858

    2011

  35. [43]

    & Tendeloo, G.V

    Van Aert, S., Verbeeck, J., Erni, R., Bals, S., Luysberg, M., Dyck, D.V. & Tendeloo, G.V. (2009). Quantitative atomic resolution mapping using high-angle annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 109, 1236--1244

    2009

  36. [44]

    & Guizar-Sicairos, M

    Wakonig, K., Stadler, H.C., Odstrčil, M., Tsai, E.H.R., Diaz, A., Holler, M., Usov, I., Raabe, J., Menzel, A. & Guizar-Sicairos, M. (2020). PtychoShelves , a versatile high-level framework for high-performance analysis of ptychographic data, Journal of Applied Crystallography ...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Warren, B.E. (1990). X-ray diffraction, Dover books on physics and chemistry, New York: Dover, facsim. ed ed

    1990

  38. [46]

    (ed.) (2021)

    Welberry, T.R. (ed.) (2021). International Tables for Crystallography : Mathematical , physical and chemical tables , vol. C, Chester, England: International Union of Crystallography, 2 ed

    2021

  39. [47]

    Xia, Y., Harrison, P., Ornelas, I., Wang, H. & Li, Z. (2020). HAADF ‐ STEM image analysis for size‐selected platinum nanoclusters, Journal of Microscopy 279, 229--233

    2020

  40. [48]

    & Kimoto, K

    Yamashita, S., Kikkawa, J., Yanagisawa, K., Nagai, T., Ishizuka, K. & Kimoto, K. (2018). Atomic number dependence of Z contrast in scanning transmission electron microscopy, Scientific Reports 8, 12325

    2018

  41. [49]

    & Pantelides, S.T

    Yan, Y., Chisholm, M.F., Duscher, G., Maiti, A., Pennycook, S.J. & Pantelides, S.T. (1998 a ). Impurity- Induced Structural Transformation of a MgO Grain Boundary , Physical Review Letters 81, 3675--3678

    1998

  42. [50]

    & Tsai, A.P

    Yan, Y., Pennycook, S.J. & Tsai, A.P. (1998 b ). Direct Imaging of Local Chemical Disorder and Columnar Vacancies in Ideal Decagonal Al - Ni - Co Quasicrystals , Physical Review Letters 81, 5145--5148

    1998

  43. [51]

    & Pennycook, S.J

    Yan, Y., Xu, Z., Viehland, D. & Pennycook, S.J. (1998 c ). Z- Contrast Imaging of Ordered Structures in Pb ( Mg1 / 3Nb2 /3) O3 and Ba ( Mg1 / 3Nb2 /3) O3 , Microscopy and Microanalysis 4, 554--555

    1998

  44. [52]

    & Nellist, P.D

    Yang, H., Rutte, R.N., Jones, L., Simson, M., Sagawa, R., Ryll, H., Huth, M., Pennycook, T.J., Green, M., Soltau, H., Kondo, Y., Davis, B.G. & Nellist, P.D. (2016). Simultaneous atomic-resolution electron ptychography and Z -contrast imaging of light and heavy elements in comp...

    2016

  45. [53]

    Yang, W., Sha, H., Cui, J. & Yu, R. (2025). Imaging thick objects with deep-sub-angstrom resolution and deep-sub-picometer precision

    2025

  46. [54]

    & Yang, W

    Yu, R., Sha, H., Cui, J. & Yang, W. (2024). Introduction to electron ptychography for materials scientists, Microstructures 4

    2024

  47. [55]

    & Bosch, E.G.T

    Yücelen, E., Lazić, I. & Bosch, E.G.T. (2018). Phase contrast scanning transmission electron microscopy imaging of light and heavy atoms at the limit of contrast and resolution, Scientific Reports 8, 2676

    2018

  48. [56]

    Zou, X. (1999). On the phase problem in electron microscopy: The relationship between structure factors, exit waves, and HREM images, Microscopy Research and Technique 46, 202--219

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.