Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

The role of absorption in three-dimensional electron diffraction dynamical structure refinement

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Absorption can be neglected in routine 3D electron diffraction refinement except for high-Z crystals approaching the extinction distance; zone-axis residuals once blamed on crystal quality are largely absorption.

desk verdict Practical conclusion likely right; the residual analysis has a definition inconsistency and a reused-fit prediction, but the paper is a solid, useful contribution that deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.08935 v2 pith:2SYQKJT2 submitted 2026-02-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Benjamin Colmey , Tiarnan A.S. Doherty , Shreshth A. Malik , Paul A. Midgley This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords absorption3DelectrondiffractiondynamicalrefinementBloch-wavesimulationanomalousintegratedintensitiesthermaldiffusescatteringextinctiondistance
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 asks when inelastic scattering — 'absorption' in electron diffraction — can be safely ignored in dynamical structure refinement against 3D electron diffraction data. Using a two-beam analytical model and full many-beam multiple-scattering simulations, it derives how absorption attenuates integrated intensities: for thin crystals each reflection decays uniformly with thickness, set by the mean absorptive potential, while reflection-specific 'anomalous' absorption emerges near zone axes and in high-Z materials. Neglecting absorption in refinement produces a residual that grows linearly with thickness, reaching only a few percent for typical light- and medium-Z crystals, as confirmed by refinements of CsPbBr3, quartz, and borane with and without absorption. The practical conclusion is that routine refinements can omit absorption, except in high-Z materials at thicknesses approaching the extinction distance, where absorption materially affects residuals and can explain previously excluded zone-axis data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a complex optical potential added to the Bloch-wave dynamical equations: each Fourier coefficient of the potential becomes U_g + i U'_g, where U'_g is an absorptive form factor scaled by the Debye-Waller factor. The two-beam integrated-intensity ratio I_abs/I_no_abs ≈ e^{-2κ0t} [1 + (π² t ξ_g)/(2 ξ'^2_g)(1 - π² t²/(12ξ_g²))^{-1}] shows that absorption splits into a uniform thickness attenuation set by the mean absorptive potential and a reflection-specific anomalous part. The companion residual identity R1(t) ≈ √(2/π) t σ_λ/(2 λ̄²) links the refinement error directly to the mean absorption length λ̄ and its spread σ_λ, giving a testable predicted slope that matc

What would settle it

Refine a high-Z crystal, for example a lead-containing halide perovskite, at a thickness approaching its extinction distance, with and without absorption: the paper predicts a clear drop in Robs of several percent and a measurable change in refined thermal parameters when absorption is included. Observing no improvement would falsify the central claim; alternatively, measuring energy-filtered integrated intensities versus thickness at a zone axis and checking whether the elastic-versus-absorptive residual grows linearly with the predicted slope would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that integrating intensities over a rotation series averages out most orientation-specific absorption contrast, so absorption exerts only a weak influence on refinement residuals in 3D electron diffraction. For t/ξ_g << 1, the two-beam integrated intensity factorizes into a uniform exponential decay set by the mean absorptive potential U'_0, plus a small anomalous term proportional to ξ_g/ξ'^2_g; many-beam simulations show the deviation between elastic-only and absorptive integrated intensities grows roughly linearly with thickness, with slope √(2/π) σ_λ / (2 λ̄²). Applying this to real refinement data, the absorptive model lowers the residual Robs for CsPbBr3 from 6.4%

Load-bearing premise

The analysis treats all inelastic scattering as a complex optical potential that removes intensity, and assumes background subtraction fully removes that absorbed signal; if inelastic intensity is redistributed back into the reflections or survives in the background, the residuals and the 'negligible' conclusion could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For most 3D electron diffraction datasets—crystals thinner than roughly 100 nm and mean atomic number below about 50—elastic-only dynamical refinement is not systematically biased by absorption.
  • Zone-axis orientations with elevated residuals can be retained in refinement instead of excluded, because absorption accounts for part of the previously unexplained discrepancy.
  • The size of the absorption bias grows linearly with thickness, set by the spread of absorption lengths relative to the mean, so thin specimens are safe while thick high-Z specimens are not.
  • Integration over tilt angles suppresses absorption contrast; individual rocking curves show much stronger absorption effects than the integrated intensities used in 3D ED refinement.
  • In high-Z materials approaching the extinction distance, absorption corrections become necessary and can alter refined displacement parameters as well as residuals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's conclusion holds, previously discarded zone-axis frames in published 3D ED refinements may have been dropped unnecessarily; re-analyzing those datasets with an absorptive model could recover usable data without harming accuracy.
  • The same formalism implies that charge-density and bonding studies, which depend on low-order reflections with large U_g and U'_g, will be the first area where absorption matters even at moderate thickness.
  • A direct testable extension is temperature: materials measured above their Debye temperature should show larger absorption effects, since the absorptive form factors are scaled by mean-squared displacements.
  • The assumption that background subtraction removes all inelastic redistribution could be checked with energy-filtered 3D ED experiments; unfiltered measurements should show a larger apparent absorption than the model predicts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether absorption (inelastic scattering treated through a complex optical potential) matters for dynamical refinement of 3D electron diffraction (3D ED) integrated intensities. It derives a two-beam analytic expression for the absorbed integrated intensity (Eq. 8), defines a residual R1(t) between absorptive and elastic-only simulated intensities (Eq. 9), and derives a closed-form linear approximation R1(t) ∝ t (Eqs. 10–11). Many-beam Bloch-wave simulations for CsPbBr3, α-quartz, and borane show that absorption effects on integrated intensities grow approximately linearly with thickness and are stronger near zone axes. Dynamical refinements with and without absorption on experimental data show a modest improvement for CsPbBr3 (Robs 6.4→5.3%) and negligible changes for quartz and borane. The paper concludes that absorption can be safely neglected for routine refinements except in high-Z materials at thicknesses approaching ξg.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is practically important: 3D ED practitioners would know when to include absorption and when to omit it, and high zone-axis residuals previously attributed to crystal quality could be reinterpreted. The paper’s strengths include a self-contained analytic derivation (Supplementary S1–S2), systematic many-beam simulations across materials and orientations, and refinements on real experimental datasets with code availability. However, the central quantitative claim—the linear R1(t) slope and the “safe to neglect” threshold—rests on a model that the paper itself identifies as approximate, and on a definition of R1 that is not the quantity actually plotted. The paper is a useful contribution, but the quantitative predictions need to be stated more carefully and validated against a more complete inelastic-scattering model before the practical guidance can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (9) and Fig. 3(a)] The residual defined in Eq. (9) compares raw absorptive intensities with elastic-only intensities. If evaluated as written, the uniform attenuation e^{-t/λ̄} dominates R1(t), giving a slope of roughly 1/(2λ̄) ≈ 0.5 %/nm for λ̄ ≈ 90 nm—far larger than the reported ~0.05 %/nm. The actual analysis must have removed the uniform absorption component (as done in Supplementary Eq. S16 and Fig. S2). The main text should define the de-attenuated residual explicitly, otherwise the reader cannot reproduce Fig. 3(a) from Eq. (9). This is load-bearing because the closed-form slope in Eq. (11) is derived only for the de-attenuated quantity.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (11) and Fig. 2(b)] The slope predicted by Eq. (11) uses λ̄ and σλ obtained by fitting exponential decays to the very same simulated I_abs/I_no_abs ratios (Fig. 2b) that generate the residual plotted in Fig. 3(a). The agreement between Eq. (11) and the best-fit slope is therefore a consistency check, not an independent prediction. The text should be reworded to avoid implying that the slope is predicted from first principles; at most it shows the fitted Gaussian-λ model reproduces the simulated residual.
  3. [§2.1 and Conclusion] The quantitative thresholds (e.g., ~2% at 50 nm for CsPbBr3, and the high-Z/ξg exception) are obtained within a model that assumes absorbed intensity is fully removed, uses isotropic Debye–Waller-scaled absorptive form factors, and neglects phonon correlations (Einstein model). The paper itself lists these as limitations, and the experimental improvement for CsPbBr3 (6.4→5.3%) is smaller than the simulated prediction (6.4→4.5%), implying the model may overestimate absorption in that case. That does not bound the error in the opposite direction. A frozen-phonon calculation, or at least an energy-filtered measurement for one representative material/orientation, would substantially increase confidence that the residual curves and the practical conclusion are not artifacts of the optical-potential approximation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Table S1, borane row] The third borane orientation lists dR1/dt = 0.007 %/nm and predicted contribution 0.17% at t_obs = 170 nm. This is arithmetically inconsistent (0.007×170 ≈ 1.19%); likely a typo for 0.0007 or 0.001. Please correct.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The notation R1(t) conflicts with the experimental R1 defined just above. Consider using R_abs(t) or R_sim(t) to avoid confusion.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 2 caption] The caption states “A decaying exponential was fitted to each hkl curve” and gives λ̄ and σλ. The text later calls the resulting slope a “prediction.” Please consistently use “fit” or “parameterization” rather than “prediction” for quantities derived from the same simulation ratios.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) is presented as the weak-absorption limit of the integrated two-beam intensity. The derivation in Supplementary S1 is clear, but the main text would benefit from stating that the Lorentz correction is not included in this analytic expression; the numerical two-beam integration in §3.1 includes it. Otherwise readers may wonder why Eq. (8) does not have a Lorentz factor.
  5. [§4, Conclusion] The sentence “This work presents what is, to our knowledge, the first implementation of absorption in 3D ED dynamical refinement” is plausible but should be softened or substantiated by a more explicit comparison with prior use of constant absorptive potentials (e.g., Ref. [9]).
  6. [Fig. S2 caption] The term “de-attenuation factor exp(t/λ)” is used without deriving why λ=88.4 nm is chosen. A one-sentence explanation that this removes the uniform U′0 component would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Supporting R1-slope 'prediction' reuses parameters fitted to the same simulation; central absorption-negligible conclusion has independent experimental support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (11), Fig. 3(a); fitted parameters from Section 3.1, Fig. 2(b)]
    "Using the parameters ¯λ = 93.2 nm and σλ = 10.1 nm, the predicted slope from Eq. (11) is dR1/dt = 0.046 % nm−1, in close agreement with the best-fit slope of 0.048 % nm−1 shown in Fig. 3(a)."

    The λ̄ and σλ used in Eq. (11) are obtained by fitting decaying exponentials to the same simulated I_abs/I_no_abs intensity-ratio curves from which R1(t) is then computed via Eq. (9). The paper states for Fig. 2(b): 'A decaying exponential was fitted to each hkl curve, yielding ... ¯λ = 93.2 nm, σλ = 10.1 nm (many-beam).' Thus the 'predicted' R1 slope is a function of parameters fitted to the very dataset being summarized; the agreement with the best-fit slope of the R1 curve is a consistency check of the Gaussian/exponential approximation, not an independent prediction of absorption effects. No new data or independent constraint enters.

full rationale

The central practical conclusion—absorption can safely be neglected for routine 3D-ED refinement except in high-Z materials approaching ξg—is not circular. It is supported by independent experimental refinements (CsPbBr3 Robs improving from 6.4% to 5.3%, with negligible changes for quartz and borane) and by a standard complex optical-potential model using literature absorptive form factors. The one genuinely circular-looking step is the quantitative 'prediction' of the R1(t) slope: λ̄ and σλ in Eq. (11) are fitted to the same simulated I_abs/I_no_abs ratios used to compute R1(t), so the close agreement between the Eq. (11) slope and the best-fit R1 slope is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation. This does not undermine the main conclusion, because that conclusion rests primarily on the experimental refinement comparisons and on the relative insensitivity of integrated intensities, not on the fitted slope. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling was found; the citation of Malik et al. [7] is normal method reuse.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses established electron absorption concepts; no new physical entities are invented. The main epistemic cost is in the fitted absorption-length parameters and the modeling assumptions above.

free parameters (1)
  • Fitted absorption lengths λ_i, λ̄, σλ = λ̄=89.9 nm (two-beam), 93.2 nm (many-beam), σλ=2.0/10.1 nm; orientation-dependent values in Supp. Fig. S3
    Fitted to simulated I_abs/I_no_abs ratios (Fig. 2) and inserted into Eqs. (10)-(11) to predict the R1 slope. This makes the 'prediction' a consistency check with the same simulation output, not an independent test.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Complex optical potential with absorptive form factors f'_κ(s,B) from Thomas et al. [10] accurately represents inelastic scattering in 3D ED.
    Eq. (1), Sec. 2.1. All simulation/refinement absorption results depend on this parameterization.
  • domain assumption Absorbed electrons are removed from the measured integrated intensity; inelastic redistribution into diffuse background is negligible after background subtraction.
    Sec. 2.1 explicitly calls this a 'principal limitation' of the formulation.
  • domain assumption Isotropic Debye-Waller factors and the Einstein model adequately capture thermal vibrations for absorptive corrections.
    Sec. 2.1 states anisotropic/correlated/frozen-phonon effects are neglected, with 1-5% errors for f'.
  • domain assumption The Bloch-wave code of Malik et al. [7] and the chosen 60-tilt/±1.5° sampling faithfully reproduce experimental 3D ED integrated intensities.
    Sec. 3.1; integration over finite angular range is central to comparing simulation and experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-reflection absorption ratios follow I_abs/I_no_abs = e^{-t/λ_i} with Gaussian-distributed 1/λ_i, used to derive R1(t).
    Supp. Sec. S2; Fig. S3 shows the exponential/Gaussian description breaks down near zone axes, which the paper acknowledges.
  • domain assumption Plasmon/core-loss scattering, beam damage, and crystal imperfections do not dominate the observed residuals and do not prevent isolating absorption effects.
    Sec. 3.4 and Conclusion acknowledge these factors 'obscure' the absorption contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of absorption in three-dimensional electron diffraction dynamical structure refinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SYQKJT2

@misc{pith2026260208935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of absorption in three-dimensional electron diffraction dynamical structure refinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SYQKJT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.08935}
}
abstract

The role of absorption in 3D electron diffraction is established through analytical theory, simulation, and dynamical refinement. A two-beam expression for the absorbed integrated intensity in centrosymmetric crystals is derived, showing that for $t/\xi_g \ll 1$ reflections follow a uniform exponential decay set by the mean absorptive potential $U_0'$. Many-beam simulations of both centrosymmetric and non-centrosymmetric crystals reveal additional reflection-specific anomalous absorption beyond the uniform attenuation set by $U_0'$. Neglecting these effects in dynamical refinement of integrated intensities incurs an error that increases approximately linearly with thickness, with this error becoming more severe near zone axes. Dynamical refinements were performed on CsPbBr$_3$, quartz, and borane, with the inclusion of absorption yielding an improvement in $R_{\mathrm{obs}}$ from $6.4$ to $5.3$ \% for CsPbBr$_3$ and negligible improvements for quartz and borane. Anomalous absorption may therefore be ignored for routine refinement of integrated intensities except in high-$Z$ materials at thicknesses approaching $\xi_g $.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08935 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated intensity vs thickness for CsP bBr3, 200 keV, [uvw] = [−0.43, 1.00, 0.93], without (top) and with absorption (bottom), for (a) two-beam, (b) many-beam model. The six most intense reflections are highlighted in colour, with all others shown in grey for clarity. While the two-beam curves show smooth Pendell¨osung-type oscillations, the many-beam case develops the expected irregularities from multiple strong… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratio of integrated intensity (I int abs/Iint no abs) as a function of thickness for CsPbBr3 with [uvw] = [−0.43, 1.00, 0.93]. (a) Two-beam model; (b) many-beam model. A decaying exponential was fitted to each hkl curve, yielding absorption parameters λ¯ = 89.9 nm, σλ = 2.0 nm (two-beam) and λ¯ = 93.2 nm, σλ = 10.1 nm (many-beam). In the two-beam case ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Thickness dependence of residual error R1 (%), between simulated Iabs and Ino abs. (a) Integrated intensities (dark blue) compared with per-tilt intensities (light blue) for CsPbBr3 at [uvw] = [−0.43, 1.00, 0.93]; light blue points are R1 averages across ±1.5 ◦ tilt￾series with error bars showing standard deviation around the mean. Best-fit slopes were determined, yielding 0.048 % nm−1 and 0.058 % nm−1 for the integ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orientation dependence of absorption effects in CsP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of dynamical refinements performed with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Double conical beam-rocking system for measurement of integrated electron diffraction intensities

    R. Vincent and P. A. Midgley. “Double conical beam-rocking system for measurement of integrated electron diffraction intensities”. In: Ultramicroscopy 53.3 (1994), pp. 271– 282

    1994

  2. [2]

    3D Electron Diffraction: The Nanocryst allography Revolution

    Mauro Gemmi et al. “3D Electron Diffraction: The Nanocryst allography Revolution”. In: ACS Central Science 5.8 (2019). Open Access, pp. 1315–1329. doi: 10 . 1021 / acscentsci.9b00394

    2019

  3. [3]

    In:Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials238.7-8 (2023), pp

    V´ aclav Petˇ r ´ ıˇ cek et al. In:Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials238.7-8 (2023), pp. 271–282. doi: doi:10.1515/zkri-2023-0005

    doi:10.1515/zkri-2023-0005 2023

  4. [4]

    Hydrogen positions in single na nocrystals revealed by electron diffraction

    Luk´ aˇ s Palatinus et al. “Hydrogen positions in single na nocrystals revealed by electron diffraction”. In: Science 355 (2017), pp. 166–169. doi: 10.1126/science.aal3003

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aal3003 2017

  5. [5]

    Dynamical refinement with multipol ar electron scattering fac- tors

    Barbara Olech et al. “Dynamical refinement with multipol ar electron scattering fac- tors”. In: IUCrJ 11 (2024), pp. 309–324. doi: 10.1107/S2052252524001763

    work page doi:10.1107/s2052252524001763 2024

  6. [6]

    Ionisation of atoms determined by ka ppa refinement against 3D electron diffraction data

    Ashwin Suresh et al. “Ionisation of atoms determined by ka ppa refinement against 3D electron diffraction data”. In: Nature Communications 15 (2024), p. 9066. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53448-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53448-2 2024

  7. [7]

    Hybrid Physics-Machine Learning Models for Quantitative Electron Diffraction Refinements

    Shreshth A. Malik et al. “Hybrid Physics-Machine Learning Models for Quantitative Electron Diffraction Refinements”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05908 (2025). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.05908. arXiv: 2508.05908 [physics.comp-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05908 2025

  8. [8]

    Electron Diffraction of 3D Molecula r Crystals

    Ambarneil Saha et al. “Electron Diffraction of 3D Molecula r Crystals”. In: Chemi- cal Reviews 122.17 (2022). PMID: 35970513, pp. 13883–13914. doi: 10.1021/acs. chemrev.1c00879. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00879

    doi:10.1021/acs 2022

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Structure refinement from precession electron diffraction data

    Luk´ aˇ s Palatinus et al. “Structure refinement from precession electron diffraction data”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations of Crystallography 69 (2013), pp. 171–

    2013

  2. [10]

    Parameterized absorptive electron sc attering factors

    M. Thomas et al. “Parameterized absorptive electron sc attering factors”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances 80.2 (2024), pp. 146–150. doi: 10.1107/S2053273323010963

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Aberration-corrected and en ergy-filtered precession elec- tron diffraction

    Alexander S. Eggeman et al. “Aberration-corrected and en ergy-filtered precession elec- tron diffraction”. In: Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie228 (2013), pp. 43–50. doi: 10. 1524/zkri.2013.1565. 20

    2013

  4. [12]

    Absorption parameters in e lectron diffraction theory

    C. J. Humphreys and P. B. Hirsch. “Absorption parameters in e lectron diffraction theory”. In: The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical, Experimental and Applied Physics 18.151 (1968), pp. 115–122. doi: 10.1080/14786436808227313

    1968 doi

  5. [13]

    The Absorption Factor in Crystal Spect roscopy

    Gustav Albrecht. “The Absorption Factor in Crystal Spect roscopy”. In: Review of Scientific Instruments 10.8 (1939), pp. 221–222. doi: 10.1063/1.1751537

    1939 doi

  6. [14]

    van Genderen et al

    E. van Genderen et al. “Ab initio structure determinatio n of nanocrystals of or- ganic pharmaceutical compounds by electron diffraction at r oom temperature using a Timepix quantum area direct electron detector”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances 7...

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Electron crystallography and de dicated electron-diffraction in- strumentation

    Petra Simoncic et al. “Electron crystallography and de dicated electron-diffraction in- strumentation”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section E: Crystallographic Communica- tions 79 (2023), pp. 410–422. doi: 10.1107/S2056989023003109

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    From formulation to structure: 3D el ectron diffraction for the structure solution of a new indomethacin polymorph from an amorphous solid dispersion

    Helen W. Leung et al. “From formulation to structure: 3D el ectron diffraction for the structure solution of a new indomethacin polymorph from an amorphous solid dispersion”. In: IUCrJ 11 (2024), pp. 744–748. doi: 10.1107/S2052252524005487

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Automated structure factor refi nement from convergent- beam patterns

    J. M. Zuo and J. C. H. Spence. “Automated structure factor refi nement from convergent- beam patterns”. In: Ultramicroscopy 35.3–4 (June 1991), pp. 185–196. doi: 10.1016/ 0304-3991(91)90071-D

    1991

  10. [19]

    Energy-filtered convergent-beam di ffraction: examples and future prospects

    P. A. Midgley et al. “Energy-filtered convergent-beam di ffraction: examples and future prospects”. In: Ultramicroscopy 59.1–4 (July 1995), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1016/0304- 3991(95)00014-R

    1995 doi

  11. [20]

    Direct observation of d-orbital holes an d Cu–Cu bonding in Cu 2O

    J. M. Zuo et al. “Direct observation of d-orbital holes an d Cu–Cu bonding in Cu 2O”. In: Nature 401 (Sept. 1999), pp. 49–52. doi: 10.1038/43403

    1999 doi

  12. [21]

    A refinable three-parameter e quation for phenomeno- logical absorption in quantitative electron microscopy – d etermining the equation

    Philip N. H. Nakashima et al. “A refinable three-parameter e quation for phenomeno- logical absorption in quantitative electron microscopy – d etermining the equation”. In: Journal of Applied Crystallography 58.5 (Oct. 2025), pp. 1665–1676. doi: 10.1107/ S160057672500545X

    2025

  13. [22]

    On the intensities of electron diffrac tion rings

    Moses Blackman. “On the intensities of electron diffrac tion rings”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A 173.952 (Nov. 1939), pp. 68–82. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1939.0129. 21

    1939

  14. [23]

    Anomalous electron absorption effects in metal foils: theory and comparison with experiment

    H. Hashimoto et al. “Anomalous electron absorption effects in metal foils: theory and comparison with experiment”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 269.1336 (Aug. 1962), pp. 67–87. doi: 10 . 1098/rspa.1962.0164

    1962

  15. [24]

    Dynamical Simulations of Energy-Filtered I nelastic Electron Diffraction Patterns

    Z. L. Wang. “Dynamical Simulations of Energy-Filtered I nelastic Electron Diffraction Patterns”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A 48 (1992), pp. 674–688. doi: 10.1107/ S0108767392005791

    1992

  16. [25]

    Measurement of molecular mo tion in organic semicon- ductors by thermal diffuse electron scattering

    Alexander S. Eggeman et al. “Measurement of molecular mo tion in organic semicon- ductors by thermal diffuse electron scattering”. In: Nature Materials 12 (July 2013), pp. 1045–1049. doi: 10.1038/nmat3690

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Korpusk ularstrahlen durch Materie

    H. Bethe. “Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Korpusk ularstrahlen durch Materie”. In: Annalen der Physik 392 (1928), pp. 55–129. doi: 10.1002/andp.19283920202

    1928 doi

  18. [27]

    Effect of Inelastic Waves on Electron Diff raction

    Hide Yoshioka. “Effect of Inelastic Waves on Electron Diff raction”. In: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 12.6 (June 1957), pp. 618–628. doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.12.618

    1957 doi

  19. [28]

    Absorptive Form Factors for High- Energy Electron Diffraction

    D. M. Bird and Q. A. King. “Absorptive Form Factors for High- Energy Electron Diffraction”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations of Crystallography 46 (1990), pp. 202–208. doi: 10.1107/S0108767390000502

    1990 doi

  20. [29]

    Anisotropic Thermal Vibrations and Dyna mical Electron Diffraction by Crystals

    Lian-Mao Peng. “Anisotropic Thermal Vibrations and Dyna mical Electron Diffraction by Crystals”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations of Crystallography 53 (1997), pp. 663–672. doi: 10.1107/S0108767397004907

    1997 doi

  21. [30]

    Elastic and Inelastic Scattering in Electron Diffraction and Imaging

    Zhong Lin Wang. Elastic and Inelastic Scattering in Electron Diffraction and Imaging . English. Includes bibliographical references and index. Ne w York; London: Plenum Press, 1995

    1995

  22. [31]

    Modelling the inelastic scattering of f ast electrons

    L. J. Allen et al. “Modelling the inelastic scattering of f ast electrons”. In: Ultrami- croscopy 151 (Apr. 2015), pp. 11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2014.10.011

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    Bloch wave simulations in the f rozen lattice approximation

    Takashi Yamazaki et al. “Bloch wave simulations in the f rozen lattice approximation”. In: Ultramicroscopy 135 (2013), pp. 16–23. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . ultramic.2013.05.018

    2013

  24. [33]

    A physical optics formulation of Bl och waves and its application to 4D STEM, 3D ED and inelastic scattering simulations

    Budhika G. Mendis. “A physical optics formulation of Bl och waves and its application to 4D STEM, 3D ED and inelastic scattering simulations”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A 81.2 (Mar. 2025), pp. 113–123. doi: 10.1107/S2053273325000142. 22

    2025 doi

  25. [34]

    Dirac–Fock calculations of X-ray scatteri ng factors and contributions to the mean inner potential for electron scattering

    D. Rez et al. “Dirac–Fock calculations of X-ray scatteri ng factors and contributions to the mean inner potential for electron scattering”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A 50.4 (1994), pp. 481–497. doi: https://doi.org/10.1107/S0108767393013200 . eprint: https://onlinelib...

    1994 doi

  26. [35]

    P. B. Hirsch et al. Electron Microscopy of Thin Crystals . London: Butterworths, 1965, p. 549

    1965

  27. [36]

    A general Lorentz co rrection for single-crystal diffractometers

    G. J. McIntyre and R. F. D. Stansfield. “A general Lorentz co rrection for single-crystal diffractometers”. In: Acta Crystallographica Section A 44.3 (May 1988), pp. 257–262. doi: 10.1107/S0108767387011656

    1988 doi

  28. [37]

    In: Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie 225.2-3 (2010), pp

    Daliang Zhang et al. In: Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie 225.2-3 (2010), pp. 94–102. doi: doi:10.1524/zkri.2010.1202

    2010

  29. [38]

    Simple Bayesian method for improve d analysis of quasi-two- dimensional scattering data

    Alexander T. Holmes. “Simple Bayesian method for improve d analysis of quasi-two- dimensional scattering data”. In: Phys. Rev. B 90 (2 July 2014), p. 024514. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevB.90.024514

    2014

  30. [39]

    Accurate structure models and absolu te configuration determi- nation using dynamical effects in continuous-rotation 3D el ectron diffraction data

    Paul B. Klar et al. “Accurate structure models and absolu te configuration determi- nation using dynamical effects in continuous-rotation 3D el ectron diffraction data”. en. In: Nature Chemistry 15.6 (June 2023). Number: 6 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group, pp. 848–855. doi: 10....

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Specifics of the data processing of precession electron diffraction tomography data and their implementation in the program PET S2.0

    Luk´ aˇ s Palatinus et al. “Specifics of the data processing of precession electron diffraction tomography data and their implementation in the program PET S2.0”. In: Acta Crys- tallographica Section A: Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials 75.4 (Aug. 2019), pp. ...

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    Electron diffraction determines mo lecular absolute configuration in a pharmaceutical nanocrystal

    Petr Br´ azda et al. “Electron diffraction determines mo lecular absolute configuration in a pharmaceutical nanocrystal”. In: Science 364 (2019), pp. 667–669. doi: 10.1126/ science.aaw2560. 23 Supplementary Information: The role of absorption in dynamical three-dimensional elect...

    2019

  33. [188]

    doi: 10.1107/S0108767312048171

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.