Thermal Property Microscopy with Compressive Sensing Frequency-Domain Thermoreflectance

Haobo Yang; Hong Guo; Jinhong Du; Ronggui Yang; Shuo Bai; Te-Huan Liu; Xin Qian; Zhenguo Zhu; Zhongnan Xie

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Thermal Property Microscopy with Compressive Sensing Frequency-Domain Thermoreflectance

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compressive-sensing upgrade to frequency-domain thermoreflectance reconstructs full thermal property images from as few as 15-50 percent of the measurement points, matching full scans with a relative error below 15 percent.

desk verdict A genuine transfer of compressive sensing to FDTR, but the throughput and resolution claims are inflated by oversampling a 3 µm spot on a 1 µm grid. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04728 v1 pith:25YYYZ7X submitted 2025-06-05 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Haobo Yang , Zhenguo Zhu , Zhongnan Xie , Jinhong Du , Shuo Bai , Hong Guo , Te-Huan Liu , Ronggui Yang

show 1 more author

Xin Qian

This is my paper

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords thermalpropertyimagingcompressivesensingfrequency-domainthermoreflectanceCS-FDTRconductivitymappinginterfaceconductancediscretecosinetransformL1-regularizedminimization

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 introduces compressive-sensing frequency-domain thermoreflectance (CS-FDTR), a way to map thermal properties such as thermal conductivity and interface thermal conductance across a material surface while measuring only a random subset of pixel locations. The full micrometer-resolution image is then recovered by solving an $\ell^1$-regularized minimization problem that exploits the fact that realistic thermal property maps are sparse in the discrete cosine transform domain. The claim is validated on three experimental cases: a patterned interface, an annealed pyrolytic graphite sample, and a sharp aluminum/graphite boundary. With 15-50 percent of the pixels sampled, the reconstructed images agree with point-by-point ground truth within a normalized root-mean-square error below 15 percent, cutting acquisition and data-processing time by a factor of 2-6. If this holds, thermal property imaging becomes fast enough to serve as a high-throughput characterization tool for materials discovery and screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the assumed sparsity of thermal property images in the two-dimensional discrete cosine transform (DCT) domain, combined with $\ell^1$-regularized minimization. The image is vectorized and written as $\boldsymbol{F}_v = \boldsymbol{\Psi}\boldsymbol{s}$ with $\boldsymbol{\Psi} = \boldsymbol{D}\otimes\boldsymbol{D}$ the Kronecker product of one-dimensional DCT matrices; random pixel sampling produces the underdetermined system $\boldsymbol{F}_s = \boldsymbol{\Phi}\boldsymbol{\Psi}\boldsymbol{s} = \boldsymbol{\Theta}\boldsymbol{s}$, which is ill-posed directly but solvable because random sampling matrices satisfy the restricted isometry property. The sparse coefficients are recovered by minimizing $\|\boldsymbol{s}\|_1$ subject to the data, implemented as the LASSO with regularization parameter $\lambda = 0.005\langle\boldsymbol{F}_s\rangle$ and solved iteratively with the OWL-QN algorithm. The concept that carries the argument is the reconstruction edge $s_{\mathrm{edge}}$: the largest DCT coefficient whose relative reconstruction error reaches unity, below which coefficients are effectively lost, connecting image sparsity to the sampling fraction needed for a target NRMSE.

What would settle it

A concrete test: fabricate a sample whose thermal property map is deliberately dense in the DCT domain, for instance an alternating high/low conductivity checkerboard at or near the pixel scale, run CS-FDTR at 15 and 50 percent sampling, and compare the reconstructed NRMSE against the point-by-point scan; if a physically realistic, non-pathological sample keeps the error well above the paper's 15 percent claim, the sparsity premise fails. A milder check is to take a sample with an isolated sharp interface and verify that the measured per-coefficient deviations match the predicted reconstruction edge $s_{\mathrm{edge}}$ at each sampling fraction, because that quantity is the paper's quantitative link between sparsity and sampling fraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that thermal property microscopy does not require measuring every pixel. Because a thermal property map has no significant variations below a minimal length scale, its two-dimensional discrete cosine transform contains few significant coefficients; the image is sparse in the transform domain. CS-FDTR samples a random subset of pixels, encodes the sampling pattern in a measurement matrix $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$, and recovers the sparse coefficient vector $\boldsymbol{s}$ by minimizing $\|\boldsymbol{s}\|_1$ subject to the measured data, implemented as the LASSO with regularization parameter $\lambda = 0.005\langle \boldsymbol{F}_s\rangle$ and solved with the OWL-QN algorithm, then applies the inverse transform to obtain the full image. The authors demonstrate this on three samples with different sparsity levels: a patterned Au/Cr/Si interface whose thermal-conductance map is reconstructed at about 5 percent NRMSE from 15 percent sampling; an annealed pyrolytic graphite sample with irregular in-plane conductivity variations reconstructed below 10 percent NRMSE from 25 percent sampling; and a vertical Al/graphite interface whose sparsity is only 3.48 percent and requires 50 percent sampling to reach about 15 percent NRMSE. The paper then defines a reconstruction edge $s_{\mathrm{edge}}$, the coefficient magnitude below which $\ell^1$ minimization zeroes out genuine signal, and shows that this edge, together with image sparsity, determines the sampling fraction needed for a given error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real thermal property maps are sparse in the discrete cosine transform domain, so that a small number of significant coefficients carries the whole image; the paper's own sharp-interface sample, with a sparsity of only 3.48 percent, is where that premise visibly strains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For sparse thermal property maps, such as patterned interfaces and composites with clustered property regions, sampling between 10 and 25 percent of pixels reconstructs the image with NRMSE below about 10 percent, cutting acquisition and data-processing time by a factor of 2-6.
For sharp isolated boundaries like the Al/graphite interface, the image is far less sparse (3.48 percent) and about 50 percent sampling is needed to reach 15 percent NRMSE, so the required sampling fraction is set by the image's sparsity.
Two practical rules follow: a 25 percent sampling fraction suffices for sparse structures, and an iterative sample-reconstruct-add-points procedure can adaptively reach a target image quality without a priori knowledge of sparsity.
Because the $\ell^1$ minimization itself takes only seconds, measurement time, not reconstruction, is the bottleneck that down-sampling removes.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct stress test would fabricate a sample whose thermal property map is deliberately dense in the DCT domain, such as a pixel-scale checkerboard of alternating high and low conductivity, and check whether the sampling fraction needed to stay below 15 percent NRMSE climbs toward full sampling; this would map the boundary of the sparsity premise.
The same random-sampling-plus-$\ell^1$ pipeline should transfer to other slow point-by-point pump-probe modalities, such as time-domain thermoreflectance, wherever the imaged quantity is sparse in some transform basis; the paper demonstrates the idea on FDTR only.
The reconstruction-edge analysis implies a reporting standard the paper does not adopt: publishing $s_{\mathrm{edge}}$ next to a CS-FDTR image would tell a reader which spatial features are trustworthy and which coefficients were lost to shrinkage.
For AI training datasets of thermal properties, the implicit caveat is that $\ell^1$ reconstruction systematically zeroes small high-frequency coefficients, so datasets generated at 15-25 percent sampling carry a built-in loss of fine spatial detail even when the aggregate error looks small.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something real: it applies compressed sensing to FDTR thermal imaging and validates the workflow on three samples with full scan ground truth. The sparsity analysis (reconstruction edge vs. sampling fraction) is a useful addition, and the iterative sampling strategy is practical. The experiments appear careful, and the reconstruction pipeline is standard LASSO. But the central selling point—the 2–6× throughput gain—needs to be read against a load-bearing caveat that the paper itself acknowledges but does not fully confront. The stated resolution is r_RMS = 3 µm, while the ground truth images are scanned on a 1 µm grid. That means the DCT sparsity, which drives the whole method, has been measured on images that are already band-limited by the laser spot. The reconstruction is essentially interpolating a smooth field from a random quarter of its samples. That is still useful, but it does not demonstrate micron-scale imaging, and the throughput factor is computed relative to a scan that oversamples the resolution limit. A resolution-matched full scan at ~3 µm steps would need far fewer points, and the 2–6× gain would shrink considerably. The Al/graphite case, with its sharp interface, only partially escapes this problem because the interface is still convolved with the PSF. So the stress-test concern lands. A second, more minor issue: all NRMSE values come from a single random mask, with no error bars or repeated-mask statistics. For a stochastic sampling scheme, that is a real weakness. Third, two references appear unrelated to their contexts (ref. 34 on amplifying Black voices in optics, ref. 44 on pyrene fluorescence), which suggests a citation-management slip. On the plus side, the regularization parameter choice is justified with robustness tests, and the circularity burden is low because ground truth is independently measured. The paper is honest about the resolution limit in Sec. II.B, which makes the abstract's 'micrometer resolutions' and the throughput estimate feel overstated rather than fraudulent. Worth sending to referees, but they should push for a revised framing that either demonstrates the method on structures with true sub-spot information or explicitly claims only 'acceleration of oversampled scans.' Also want to see error bars and a corrected reference list. This is a solid engineering contribution for large-area mapping of smooth thermal property variations, but not the resolution breakthrough the title implies.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents compressive sensing frequency-domain thermoreflectance (CS-FDTR), a method that randomly undersamples thermal property images and reconstructs them by L1-regularized minimization in the discrete cosine transform (DCT) domain. The method is demonstrated on three samples: a patterned Au/Cr/Si interface (thermal conductance map), an annealed pyrolytic graphite (APG) sample (in-plane thermal conductivity map), and a vertical Al/graphite interface (thermal conductivity profile). The authors report NRMSE below 15% at sampling fractions of 15%–50%, analyze sparsity through DCT coefficient distributions, and propose an iterative sampling strategy. They claim a throughput gain of factor 2–6 relative to point-by-point scanning.

Significance. If the claims hold, CS-FDTR would provide a practical way to reduce acquisition time and data-processing cost for thermal property mapping, which is relevant for materials discovery and screening. The paper's strengths are that it validates the reconstruction against independently measured full-scan ground truth images rather than synthetic data, includes robustness tests for the regularization parameter lambda, and quantifies the relation between image sparsity and reconstruction error. The main limitation is that the demonstrated spatial resolution is set by the 3 um laser spot, while the throughput gain is computed against a 1 um grid that oversamples that spot; this weakens the high-throughput claim as stated.

major comments (3)

[Section II.B and Section IV] The paper states that the spatial resolution is r_RMS = 3 um and that 'we use r_RMS to estimate the spatial resolution of thermal property imaging' (Section II.B). The ground-truth images, however, are acquired with Delta x = Delta y = 1 um (Section II.B), and the DCT sparsity analysis in Section IV is performed on these images. Because consecutive 1 um pixels are strongly correlated by the 3 um laser-spot point spread function, the measured DCT sparsity largely reflects the PSF smoothing rather than an intrinsic sample property at the 1 um scale. The reported NRMSE values therefore demonstrate that CS-FDTR can interpolate a 3 um-resolution image from a subset of a 1 um grid, but they do not establish imaging of thermal-property variations at 1 um resolution. The claimed throughput factor of 2-6 is computed relative to point-by-point scanning on the 1 um grid (Section II.A); a conventional scan with 3 um steps would require roughly nine times fewer points than this grid, so the throughput advantage of CS-FDTR against a resolution-matched conventional benchmark is not established. I recommend either comparing CS-FDTR with a resolution-matched conventional scan or providing evidence that features below r_RMS are actually recovered.
[Section III, Figures 4(c), 5(c), 6(c)] The NRMSE values (e.g., ~5% at 15% sampling for the patterned interface, <10% for APG, ~15% for Al/graphite) are obtained from a single random-sampling realization. The procedure described in Section II.C generates one nested sequence of masks by incrementally adding 5% samples, so the plotted NRMSE curves are deterministic for that sequence and no mask-to-mask variability is reported. Because the choice of random mask can affect reconstruction quality, especially at low sampling fractions, the quantitative fidelity claims need error bars or at least multiple independent masks to support the 'robustly' statement in the abstract. This is a local fix, but it is load-bearing for the numerical claims.
[Section II.A] The general argument states that 'there must be a minimal length scale l_min below which the thermal property variations are negligible' and uses this to justify DCT sparsity. In the present experiments, the effective band limit is set by the laser spot r_RMS = 3 um, not by a measured intrinsic l_min of the sample. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge that CS-FDTR reconstructs the PSF-convolved property field and that the sparsity is, in this demonstration, partly a consequence of the measurement system. Without this clarification, Section IV's quantitative sparsity numbers could be misinterpreted as intrinsic material properties.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.C, text near Eq. (4)] The phrase 'see Figure 2(a)' appears to be a figure cross-reference error; the DCT sparsity illustration is in Figure 3(a), not Figure 2(a).
[Sections III.A and V] The manuscript contains the typo 'NRSME' where 'NRMSE' is meant; please correct this in Section III.A and in the Summary paragraph.
[Section II.A] The phrase 'Inter Xeon Folden 6248R' should likely read 'Intel Xeon Gold 6248R'.
[References] Reference [34] is cited for the precision of the piezo controller, but the reference (Toussaint et al., Opt. Express 2024) appears to be on a different topic; please verify the citation.
[Section II.C, Eq. (10)] Equation (10) defines NRMSE relative to the total signal energy rather than to a mean-subtracted variance; please state this choice explicitly so readers understand that the metric is not the conventional normalized RMSE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CS-FDTR reconstruction is validated against independently measured point-by-point ground truth, and the key regularization parameter is chosen a priori with robustness checks.

full rationale

The central claim is that CS-FDTR reconstructs thermal property images from a random subset with NRMSE below 15% (Section III). The ground truth images are obtained by full point-by-point FDTR scanning (Figs. 4b, 5b, 6b) and are not derived from the compressive-sensing reconstruction. The LASSO reconstruction (Eq. 8) minimizes ||F_s - Theta s||_2^2 + lambda||s||_1 with lambda = 0.005<F_s> set a priori; Supplemental Figure S2 shows robustness for lambda in [0.001, 0.01]<F_s>, so the reported NRMSEs are not produced by fitting lambda to minimize error on the test images. The sparsity assumption (Section II.A) is a premise, not a conclusion derived from the target result, and the paper tests it by quantifying DCT coefficient sparsity and showing degradation for the less sparse Al/graphite interface (sparsity 3.48%, NRMSE ~15% at 50% sampling), which is a falsifiable observation. Self-citations (Refs. [10], [17]) provide supporting tutorials and models, but the heat-transfer model is also cited to Cahill [35], and the reconstruction validation is self-contained against full-scan data. The concern that the 3 um laser-spot PSF makes the ground-truth images band-limited at 1 um steps is a resolution/external-validity critique, not a circularity: it does not make the reconstructed image equal to the input by construction. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted image or NRMSE to the sampled data or to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on standard compressive sensing theory and a domain assumption of DCT-sparsity for thermal property maps. The only hand-set parameter is lambda, which is shown to be robust. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Regularization parameter lambda = 0.005 * <Fs> (mean of down-sampled image)
Introduced in Eq. (8) to balance fidelity and sparsity. Chosen by hand, but the paper tests robustness over 0.001-0.01 in Fig. S2. It affects the reconstructed image but is not fitted to minimize error on the test images.
Sparsity threshold (0.01<F>) = 0.01 times the image mean
Used in Section IV to quantify image sparsity as the fraction of DCT coefficients below this threshold. This is an analysis parameter, not part of the reconstruction method, but it influences the interpretation of sparsity versus sampling fraction.

assumptions (4)

standard math Random sampling matrices satisfy the restricted isometry property, allowing L1-minimization to recover sparse signals.
Invoked in Section II.C via Refs. [24,31,32] to justify solving Eq. (7). This is a standard result in compressive sensing theory.
domain assumption Realistic thermal property images are sparse in the DCT domain, i.e., the number of significant coefficients is much smaller than the number of pixels.
Stated in Section II.A ('the image is sparse') and used throughout. The paper provides supporting examples but this is an assumption about the physical world that fails for sharp interfaces, as the authors acknowledge for the Al/graphite sample.
domain assumption The FDTR measurement at each pixel yields a local thermal property value that can be treated independently and represents the property within the laser spot.
Section II.B models each measurement with the Green's function heat transfer method, assuming uniform properties within the beam region. This is standard for FDTR but is an idealization.
domain assumption The spatial resolution of the image is set by the RMS laser spot radius (3 um), not the scan step.
Section II.B argues that features smaller than the laser spot cannot be resolved, so the effective pixel resolution is r_RMS. This is used to justify the claim of 'micrometer resolutions' but conflicts with the 1 um scan step used to build the ground truth images.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Property Microscopy with Compressive Sensing Frequency-Domain Thermoreflectance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25YYYZ7X

@misc{pith2026250604728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Property Microscopy with Compressive Sensing Frequency-Domain Thermoreflectance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25YYYZ7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04728}
}

read the original abstract

Spatial mapping of thermal properties is critical for unveiling the structure-property relation of materials, heterogeneous interfaces, and devices. These property images can also serve as datasets for training artificial intelligence models for material discoveries and optimization. Here we introduce a high-throughput thermal property imaging method called compressive sensing frequency domain thermoreflectance (CS-FDTR), which can robustly profile thermal property distributions with micrometer resolutions while requiring only a random subset of pixels being experimentally measured. The high-resolution thermal property image is reconstructed from the raw down-sampled data through L_1-regularized minimization. The high-throughput imaging capability of CS-FDTR is validated using the following cases: (a) the thermal conductance of a patterned heterogeneous interface, (b) thermal conductivity variations of an annealed pyrolytic graphite sample, and (c) the sharp change in thermal conductivity across a vertical aluminum/graphite interface. With less than half of the pixels being experimentally sampled, the thermal property images measured using CS-FDTR show nice agreements with the ground truth (point-by-point scanning), with a relative deviation below 15%. This work opens the possibility of high-throughput thermal property imaging without sacrificing the data quality, which is critical for materials discovery and screening.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04728 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

S. Li, Q. Zheng, Y . Lv, X. Liu, X. Wang, P. Y . Huang, D. G. Cahill, and B. Lv, High thermal conductivity in cubic boron arsenide crystals, Science 361, 579 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

J. S. Kang, M. Li, H. Wu, H. Nguyen, and Y . Hu, Experimental observation of high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide, Science 361, 575 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

Tian et al., Unusual high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide bulk crystals, Science 361, 582 (2018)

F. Tian et al., Unusual high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide bulk crystals, Science 361, 582 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Huxtable, D

S. Huxtable, D. G. Cahill, V . Fauconnier, J. O. White, and J.-C. Zhao, Thermal conductivity imaging at micrometre-scale resolution for combinatorial studies of materials, Nature Mater 3, 298 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

J.-C. Zhao, X. Zheng, and D. G. Cahill, Thermal conductivity mapping of the ni –al system and the beta-NiAl phase in the ni–al–cr system, Scripta Mater 66, 935 (2012)

work page 2012
[6]

d’Acremont, G

Q. d’Acremont, G. Pernot, J.-M. Rampnoux, A. Furlan, D. Lacroix, A. Ludwig, and S. Dilhaire, High- throughput heterodyne thermoreflectance: application to thermal conductivity measurements of a fe– si–ge thin film alloy library, Rev. Sci. Instrum 88, 074902 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

M. Wang, G. Ramer, D. J. Perez-Morelo, G. Pavlidis, J. J. Schwartz, L. Yu, R. Ilic, V . A. Aksyuk, and A. Centrone, High throughput nanoimaging of thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance, Nano Lett. 22, 4325 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Cheng, F

Z. Cheng, F. Mu, X. Ji, T. You, W. Xu, T. Suga, X. Ou, D. G. Cahill, and S. Graham, Thermal visualization of buried interfaces enabled by ratio signal and steady -state heating of time -domain thermoreflectance, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13, 31843 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 44 references

[9]

Jarzembski, Z

A. Jarzembski, Z. T. Piontkowski, W. Hodges, M. Bahr, A. McDonald, W. Delmas, G. W. Pickrell, and L. Yates, Rapid subsurface analysis of frequency -domain thermoreflectance images with K -means clustering, J. Appl. Phys 135, 165102 (2024)

2024
[10]

Qian and R

X. Qian and R. Yang, Machine learning for predicting thermal transport properties of solids, Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 146, 100642 (2021)

2021
[11]

Wang et al., Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence, Nature 620, 47 (2023)

H. Wang et al., Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence, Nature 620, 47 (2023)

2023
[12]

Zhang, W

Y . Zhang, W. Zhu, F. Hui, M. Lanza, T. Borca‐Tasciuc, and M. Muñoz Rojo, A review on principles and applications of scanning thermal microscopy (SThM), Adv. Funct. Mater 30, 1900892 (2020)

2020
[13]

A. J. Schmidt, Pump-probe thermoreflectance, Annual Review of Heat Transfer 16, 159 (2013)

2013
[14]

Ozdogan, T

M. Ozdogan, T. Iken, D. Cakir, and N. Oncel, Thermal properties of SnSe nanoflakes by AFM-based scanning thermal microscopy measurements, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 242202 (2024)

2024
[15]

M. J. Pereira, J. S. Amaral, N . J. O. Silva, and V . S. Amaral, Nano-Localized Thermal Analysis and Mapping of Surface and Sub -Surface Thermal Properties Using Scanning Thermal Microscopy (SThM), Microsc Microanal 22, 1270 (2016)

2016
[16]

K. Kim, W. Jeong, W. Lee, and P. Reddy, Ultra -high vacuum scanning thermal microscopy for nanometer resolution quantitative thermometry, ACS Nano 6, 4248 (2012)

2012
[17]

Jiang, X

P. Jiang, X. Qian, and R. Yang, Tutorial: time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) for thermal property characterization of bulk and thin film materials, J. Appl. Phys. 124, 161103 (2018)

2018
[18]

A. J. Schmidt, R. Cheaito, and M. Chiesa, A frequency -domain thermoreflectance method for the characterization of thermal properties, Rev. Sci. Instrum 80, 094901 (2009)

2009
[19]

J. Yang, C. Maragliano, and A. J. Schmidt, Thermal property microscopy with frequency domain thermoreflectance, Rev. Sci. Instrum 84, 104904 (2013). 28

2013
[20]

D. H. Olson, J. L. Braun, and P. E. Hopkins, Spatially resolved thermoreflectance techniques for thermal conductivity measurements from the nanoscale to the mesoscale, J. Appl. Phys. 126, 150901 (2019)

2019
[21]

Ziabari, M

A. Ziabari, M. Parsa, Y . Xuan, J.-H. Bahk, K. Yazawa, F. X. Alvarez, and A. Shakouri, Far-field thermal imaging below diffraction limit, Opt. Express 28, 7036 (2020)

2020
[22]

Ziabari et al., Full-field thermal imaging of quasiballistic crosstalk reduction in nanoscale devices, Nat

A. Ziabari et al., Full-field thermal imaging of quasiballistic crosstalk reduction in nanoscale devices, Nat. Commun 9, 255 (2018)

2018
[23]

Farzaneh, K

M. Farzaneh, K. Maize, D. Lüerßen, J. A. Summers, P. M. Mayer, P. E. Raad, K. P. Pipe, A. Shakouri, R. J. Ram, and J. A. Hudgings, CCD-based thermoreflectance microscopy: principles and applications, J Phys D Appl Phys 42, 143001 (2009)

2009
[24]

E. J. Candès, J. K. Romberg, and T. Tao, Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements, Commun Pur Appl Math 59, 1207 (2006)

2006
[25]

Lustig, D

M. Lustig, D. L. Donoho, J. M. Santos, and J. M. Pauly, Compressed sensing MRI, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25, 72 (2008)

2008
[26]

T. Qin, X. Wang, Y . Qin, G. Wan, R. S. Witte, and H. Xin, Quality improvement of thermoacoustic imaging based on compressive sensing, Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett. 14, 1200 (2015)

2015
[27]

Adhikari, C

S. Adhikari, C. L. Cortes, X. Wen, S. Panuganti, D. J. Gosztola, R. D. Schaller, G. P. Wiederrecht, and S. K. Gray, Accelerating ultrafast spectroscopy with compressive sensing, Phys. Rev. Applied 15, 024032 (2021)

2021
[28]

Pascucci, S

M. Pascucci, S. Ganesan, A. Tripathi, O. Katz, V . Emiliani, and M. Guillon, C ompressive three- dimensional super -resolution microscopy with speckle -saturated fluorescence excitation, Nat . Commun 10, 1327 (2019)

2019
[29]

Niu and G

Y . Niu and G. Han, Fast AFM imaging based on compressive sensing using undersampled raster scan, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70, 1 (2021)

2021
[30]

K. P. Kelley, M. Ziatdinov, L. Collins, M. A. Susner, R. K. Vasudevan, N. Balke, S. V . Kalinin, and S. Jesse, Fast scanning probe microscopy via machine learning: non‐rectangular scans with compressed sensing and gaussian process optimization, Small 16, 2002878 (2020)

2020
[31]

E. J. Candes and M. B. Wakin, An introduction to compressive sampling, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25, 21 (2008)

2008
[32]

R. G. Baraniuk, Compressive Sensing [Lecture Notes], IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 24, 118 (2007)

2007
[33]

J. P. Feser, J. Liu, and D. G. Cahill, Pump-probe measurements of the thermal conductivity tensor for materials lacking in-plane symmetry, Rev. Sci. Instrum 85, 104903 (2014)

2014
[34]

K. C. Toussaint, A. K. Bowden, A. Ndao, M. N ’Gom, and T. A. Searles, Introduction to the special feature: amplify black voices in optics and photonics, Opt Express 32, 9213 (2024)

2024
[35]

D. G. Cahill, Analysis of heat flow in layered structures for time-domain thermoreflectance, Rev. Sci. Instrum 75, 5119 (2004)

2004
[36]

Bahk and A

J.-H. Bahk and A. Shakouri, Ultra-Fast Thermoreflectance Imaging for Electronic, Optoelectronic, and Thermal Devices, in 2019 IEEE BiCMOS and Compound Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Technology Symposium (BCICTS) (IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 2019), pp. 1–7

2019
[37]

Pierścińska, K

D. Pierścińska, K. Pierściński, and M. Bugajski, CCD Thermoreflectance for Thermal Characterization of Optoelectronic Devices , in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference Mixed Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems - MIXDES 2011 (2011), pp. 393–397. 29

2011
[38]

See Supplemental Material at [to be inserted by the publisher] for more information about the spatial resolution of FDTR image, selection of regularization parameter, typical FDTR signal and sensitivity analysis, line profile of thermal conductivity distributions, and sparsity...
[39]

Ahmed, T

N. Ahmed, T. Natarajan, and K. R. Rao, Discrete cosine transform, IEEE Trans. Comput. C–23, 90 (1974)

1974
[40]

Boyko, G

N. Boyko, G. Karamemis, V . Kuzmenko, and S. Uryasev, Sparse Signal Reconstruction: LASSO and Cardinality Approaches, in Dynamics of Information Systems, edited by C. V ogiatzis, J. L. Walteros, and P. M. Pardalos, V ol. 105 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014), pp. 77–90

2014
[41]

Andrew and J

G. Andrew and J. Gao, Scalable Training of L1 -Regularized Log-Linear Models, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (ACM, Corvalis Oregon USA, 2007), pp. 33– 40

2007
[42]

Compressed Sensing in Python | Humatic Labs , https://humaticlabs.com/blog/compressed-sensing- python/
[43]

J. Wu, S. Bai, S. Liu, H. J. Xu, and H. -M. Cheng, Fabrication and characterization of large isotropic pyrolytic carbons, New Carbon Mater. 21, (2006)

2006
[44]

Tanaka, J

C. Tanaka, J. Tanaka, E. Hutton, and B. Stevens, Delayed fluorescence spectrum of pyrene solutions at low temperatures, Nature 198, 1192 (1963)

1963

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

S. Li, Q. Zheng, Y . Lv, X. Liu, X. Wang, P. Y . Huang, D. G. Cahill, and B. Lv, High thermal conductivity in cubic boron arsenide crystals, Science 361, 579 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

J. S. Kang, M. Li, H. Wu, H. Nguyen, and Y . Hu, Experimental observation of high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide, Science 361, 575 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Tian et al., Unusual high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide bulk crystals, Science 361, 582 (2018)

F. Tian et al., Unusual high thermal conductivity in boron arsenide bulk crystals, Science 361, 582 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Huxtable, D

S. Huxtable, D. G. Cahill, V . Fauconnier, J. O. White, and J.-C. Zhao, Thermal conductivity imaging at micrometre-scale resolution for combinatorial studies of materials, Nature Mater 3, 298 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [5]

J.-C. Zhao, X. Zheng, and D. G. Cahill, Thermal conductivity mapping of the ni –al system and the beta-NiAl phase in the ni–al–cr system, Scripta Mater 66, 935 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [6]

d’Acremont, G

Q. d’Acremont, G. Pernot, J.-M. Rampnoux, A. Furlan, D. Lacroix, A. Ludwig, and S. Dilhaire, High- throughput heterodyne thermoreflectance: application to thermal conductivity measurements of a fe– si–ge thin film alloy library, Rev. Sci. Instrum 88, 074902 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

M. Wang, G. Ramer, D. J. Perez-Morelo, G. Pavlidis, J. J. Schwartz, L. Yu, R. Ilic, V . A. Aksyuk, and A. Centrone, High throughput nanoimaging of thermal conductivity and interfacial thermal conductance, Nano Lett. 22, 4325 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Cheng, F

Z. Cheng, F. Mu, X. Ji, T. You, W. Xu, T. Suga, X. Ou, D. G. Cahill, and S. Graham, Thermal visualization of buried interfaces enabled by ratio signal and steady -state heating of time -domain thermoreflectance, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13, 31843 (2021)

work page 2021