Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Free-electron decoherence in arbitrary materials is traced to the electromagnetic Green tensor, and thermal occupation of low-frequency modes turns energy-filtered electron holography into a nanoscale thermometer with ~0.1% visibility chang

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:05 UTC pith:EHNSJEJU

load-bearing objection The Green-tensor framework for free-electron decoherence is clean and genuinely useful, but the quantitative thermometry numbers rest on an ad hoc momentum cutoff that needs a sensitivity analysis before they should be used. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14693 v2 pith:EHNSJEJU submitted 2026-02-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Free-electron decoherence: Theory and applications

Cruz I. Velasco , Valerio Di Giulio , F. Javier Garc\'ia de Abajo This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords free-electron decoherenceelectron energy-loss spectroscopyelectromagnetic Green tensorelectron holographynanoscale thermometrysurface plasmonsCherenkov radiationthermal occupation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper establishes a unified formalism, centered on Eq. (9a), that computes the decoherence probability of a free electron in any material from the electromagnetic Green tensor and the thermal occupation of electromagnetic modes. It applies this to 200 keV electrons in bulk Al, Au, and LiF and near planar surfaces, finding that bulk plasmons dominate decoherence in the metals while above-bandgap electronic excitations plus phononic and guided modes dominate in LiF. The paper shows that thermal population of low-frequency modes makes the inelastic loss probability diverge, but the divergence is regularized by the finite separation between two interference paths, producing a pronounced temperature dependence of fringe visibility. It then predicts that energy-filtered holography on a 100 nm film can detect ~0.1% changes in fringe visibility for physically viable temperature variations in metals, offering a material-general route to nanoscale thermometry.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that free-electron decoherence is not a separate effect from electron energy loss: both are set by the same nonlocal loss probability Γ, with inter-path decoherence given by P(r,r') = ∫₀^∞ dω (n_T+1/2)[Γ(r,r)+Γ(r',r')−2Γ(r,r')], n_T being the thermal occupation of the electromagnetic modes. The local terms diverge at low frequency as n_T~1/ω, but the cross term cancels every mode whose wavelength exceeds the inter-path separation, because those modes are excited almost identically at both paths. That regularizing cancellation is the mechanism behind the paper's strongly temperature-dependent results. Applied to 200 keV electrons, the formalism shows bulk plasmons

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (9a), P(r,r') = ∫₀^∞ dω [n_T(ω)+1/2] times the combination of nonlocal EELS probabilities Γ evaluated at each path and at the cross position. Γ itself is defined from the zz component of the electromagnetic Green tensor, so all material and geometric information enters through that tensor. The work this object does is to turn the thermal 1/ω divergence of the EELS probability into a finite, geometry-dependent quantity: the subtraction 2Γ(r,r',ω) removes modes with wavelength larger than d⊥, exactly the modes that cannot distinguish the two paths. Temperature sensitivity then follows from the n_T(ω) factor acting on the low-frequency tail, and energy filtering i

Load-bearing premise

The predicted thermometry numbers rest on an imposed maximum scattering angle (10 mrad) that cuts off a low-frequency divergence in the bulk loss probability; if a physical mechanism sets a different cutoff, those numbers shift.

What would settle it

Measure energy-filtered fringe visibility of a two-path 200 keV beam (d⊥=50 μm) through a 100 nm Al film while stepping temperature from 300 K to 306 K; if the visibility does not fall by roughly 0.08% (≈6 K × 0.0138%/K) or the d⊥ dependence is not linear, the thermometric prediction fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the framework is right, then in a bulk metal such as Al or Au, a two-path electron loses coherence mainly by exciting bulk plasmons, while in LiF the main channels are electronic excitations above the band gap with a smaller phononic/guided-mode contribution.
  • Thermal occupation makes the low-frequency EELS probability diverge as 1/ω (and as 1/ω² for metal films at finite temperature), but the decoherence probability stays finite for any finite inter-path separation; only for infinitely separated paths does a logarithmic divergence remain.
  • Energy-filtering the transmitted beam below plasmon energies and above phonon energies maximizes the temperature sensitivity, with values around 0.014%/K for 100 nm Al films at d⊥=50 μm, corresponding to ~0.1% visibility changes for a 6 K temperature change near 300 K.
  • Because the formalism is expressed through the Green tensor, the same decoherence–thermometry route applies to arbitrary material geometries and to any conductive sample, not only the three materials tabulated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One consequence the paper leaves unexamined is that its quantitative thermometry predictions inherit the order of magnitude of the ad hoc 10 mrad cutoff used to truncate the divergent low-frequency loss; replacing that cutoff with a physical regularization (finite sample size, nonlocal screening, or finite interaction time) could shift the absolute visibility and the sensitivities in Table II.
  • The same cancellation mechanism suggests that materials with tunable low-frequency excitations—for instance, doped semiconductors or polar insulators with strong phonon-polaritons—could show even larger energy-filtered visibility responses than metals, which is a testable extension of the paper's parameter scans.
  • Since the theory gives the full off-diagonal density matrix, an experimentalist could go beyond fringe visibility and reconstruct the temperature-dependent decoherence directly from ptychographic or mixed-state electron measurements, making thermometry a byproduct of routine coherence characterization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a unified theoretical framework for free-electron decoherence in arbitrary media, expressing the interpath decoherence probability P(r,r') as an integral over the electromagnetic Green tensor (Eq. 9a). The derivation uses the Magnus expansion and the fluctuation–dissipation theorem, and is exact for a linear bosonic environment. The authors apply the framework to bulk media (Al, Au, LiF) and planar films, identify bulk plasmons as dominant decoherence channels in metals and interband excitations in LiF, analyze surface and guided-mode contributions, and propose energy-filtered holography as a nanoscale thermometry technique with predicted fringe-visibility sensitivities of order 0.1%/K. The paper also provides analytical low-frequency asymptotics and a useful spectral decomposition of decoherence channels.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, this work offers a broadly applicable, Green-tensor-based formalism connecting EELS and decoherence, with a concrete thermometry proposal based on temperature-dependent fringe visibility. The central derivation is clean and exact within the stated linear bosonic model; the material parameters are taken from independent optical data (Palik, Johnson–Christy), not fitted to the decoherence result, so the framework itself is not circular. The spectral assignments (bulk plasmons vs. interband vs. phonons) are physically plausible and provide falsifiable predictions. However, the thermometry numbers in Table II and Fig. 5 rest on the ad hoc momentum cutoff Qc, and the LiF permittivity model is internally inconsistent, so the quantitative claims currently outrun the supporting calculations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. II vs. Sec. V] All numerical thermometry results use temperature-independent permittivities; the authors explicitly say they do not enter into details of thermal changes in the dielectric response. However, for metals, the Drude damping η increases strongly with temperature due to electron–phonon scattering, and the low-frequency loss Γ(ω) that drives the thermometry signal depends directly on Im{1/ϵ(ω)} ≈ η ω/ω_p^2 in the Drude limit. Omitting this effect could shift the predicted sensitivities in Fig. 5 and Table II by a significant amount, especially at high temperatures (T=900–1000 K). The claim of 'physically viable temperature variations' should be backed by either including T-dependent optical constants or an estimate of their contribution to S and V.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'orking' should be 'working' (Sec. IIB); 'depedence' should be 'dependence' (after Eq. 18); 'recoeve' should be 'recover' (Sec. IVB); 'simnilarly' should be 'similarly' (Sec. IV); 'densitry' should be 'density' (Appendix D); 'nickle' should be 'nickel' (Ref. [1]).
  2. [Eq. (9b) and Eq. (10)] The relationship between the phase χ and the Green tensor is introduced without a derivation sketch; given the paper’s otherwise careful derivations, a short comment on how Eqs. (9b) and (10) follow from Eqs. (5)–(8) would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] In Fig. 2b, the label 'P_ω/ℏL' is not defined in the text; clarify the units and normalization of the frequency-resolved decoherence probability.
  4. [Sec. IVB, Eq. (24)] The sentence 'we recoeve Eq. (18) with L identified as the film thickness' is a useful check but would benefit from a brief explanation of why the vacuum regions do not contribute to Γ_bulk.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (9a) is derived, not assumed, and material inputs are independent optical data; self-citations are auxiliary.

full rationale

The central relation, Eq. (9a), is not assumed as an input. It is derived in Sec. II from the minimal-coupling interaction Hamiltonian, the Magnus expansion (Eq. 4), the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (Eq. 6), and the commutator property (Eq. 8); the text explicitly shows how Eqs. (5) reduce to Eqs. (9). The electron decoherence probability is therefore expressed in terms of the electromagnetic Green tensor, not defined to match any target visibility or thermometry result. Material response enters from independent sources: LiF parameters from Palik optical data (Eq. 15), Al and Au from Johnson-Christy data and standard RPA/Mermin/Drude nonlocal models (Eqs. 16-17). None of these parameters are fitted to the decoherence or fringe-visibility predictions. The spectral statements (bulk plasmons dominate in Al/Au, interband/phonon channels in LiF) follow from the independent dielectric data and the derived P(ω) decomposition, so they are derived consequences rather than renamed inputs. The self-citations (Refs. 18, 19 for the general density-matrix reduction, Ref. 46 for the Au nonlocal model, Ref. 64 for a Fresnel propagation phase) are not load-bearing: the derivation is reproduced in the text and the cited relations are standard or parameter-free with stated assumptions that do not include the target predictions. The acknowledged cutoff Qc = φ_out q0 (Eq. 19), with the statement "Throughout this paper, we introduce this cutoff to obtain results within the local approximation," is a physical-regulator limitation that affects the absolute magnitudes of P and the temperature sensitivities in Table II, but it is not a parameter fitted to the predicted quantities and does not make the derivation circular. The robustness of the thermometry numbers to this cutoff is a correctness/uncertainty concern, not a circularity concern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central framework rests on standard quantum optics (Magnus expansion, FDT) and empirically fitted dielectric functions for three materials. The only genuinely ad hoc parameter is the momentum cutoff Qc=φ_out q0 used to regulate the local-approximation divergence; the quantitative thermometry predictions depend on it. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Momentum cutoff Qc = φ_out q0 = 10 mrad × q0
    Chosen by hand to regularize the logarithmic divergence of the local-approximation bulk loss probability Γ(0,ω) (Eq. 19). Affects the absolute value of P and hence the predicted fringe visibility for large path separations.
  • LiF two-oscillator parameters = ϵ∞=1.96, ℏω1=38 meV, ℏω2=62 meV, ℏη1=2.16 meV, ℏη2=10.7 meV, s1=6.67, s2=0.116
    Fitted to experimental optical data [42] and used for the LiF permittivity. The central conclusions about phonon vs interband channels rely on this model.
  • Drude parameters for Al and Au = Al: ℏωp=15 eV, ℏη=0.6 eV; Au: ℏωp=9 eV, ℏη=0.05 eV
    Fitted to experimental optical constants [42,45]; used in the local transverse permittivity and as the local limit of the Mermin model. The metallic decoherence spectra depend on these values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Nonrecoil approximation: momentum exchange is negligible compared to central momentum, fixing the electron as a classical straight-line current.
    Used in Sec. IIB to linearize the electron Hamiltonian and write the interaction Hamiltonian as ev·A/c. Standard for 200 keV electrons in EELS.
  • domain assumption Environment initially in a thermal state at temperature T and uncorrelated with the electron.
    Required for the thermal average in Eq. (3) and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem in Eq. (6).
  • standard math Fluctuation-dissipation theorem relates A_z A_z correlations to Im{G_zz} times thermal factors.
    Invoked in Eq. (6), cited to Ref. [18]; provides the bridge between field correlations and the macroscopic Green tensor.
  • domain assumption Bosonic electromagnetic modes with linear minimal coupling; A^2 ponderomotive term negligible.
    Used in Sec. IIB to truncate the Magnus expansion at second order and to neglect the A^2 term with relative weight ~λ_e/L.
  • domain assumption Macroscopic electromagnetic response described by local/nonlocal permittivity tensors.
    Used throughout Secs. III–IV: the Mermin/Lindhard model for metals, Drude local approximation, and Lorentz-oscillator fit for LiF. The results inherit the validity of these material models.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24192 in / 16192 out tokens · 164588 ms · 2026-08-02T23:05:46.591930+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Electron microscopy relies on the spatial coherence of electron beams to generate atomic-scale images using interference and diffraction, which can be degraded by inelastic scattering processes that induce decoherence. Here, we present a theoretical study of decoherence arising from the electromagnetic interaction of free electrons with bulk materials and planar surfaces. We show that bulk plasmons dominate decoherence in Al and Au, while electronic excitations above the band gap, supplemented by weaker coupling to phononic and guided modes, are the primary channels in ionic insulators such as LiF. A thermal population of electromagnetic modes leads to a divergence in the energy-loss probability at low frequencies, which in turn produces a pronounced temperature dependence. We show that this effect can be exploited for nanoscale thermometry, predicting that optimized energy-filtered holography enables $\sim0.1\%$ changes in fringe visibility for physically viable temperature variations in metals. Through these results, we establish a unified theoretical framework to describe free-electron decoherence in the bulk and surfaces of arbitrary materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14693 by Cruz I. Velasco, F. Javier Garc\'ia de Abajo, Valerio Di Giulio.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: b shows Sω for Al, Au, and LiF films of 100 nm thickness. For all materials, within an energy-loss win￾dow between 100 meV and 10 eV, Sω reaches signifi￾cantly higher values than those achieved when integrat￾ing over the full energy range. The lower bound to this energy window is determined by the interpath distance d⊥ = 50 µm, which imposes an effective cutoff on the wavelength of modes that can effective… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Diffraction of electrons by a crystal of nickle,

    C.Davisson and L. H. Germer, “Diffraction of electrons by a crystal of nickle,” Phys. Rev.30, 705–740 (1927)

    1927

  2. [2]

    J. B. Pendry,Low Energy Electron Diffraction(Academic Press, London, 1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    Ultrafast elec- tron diffraction imaging of bond breaking in di-ionized acetylene,

    B. Wolter, M. G. Pullen, A.-T. Le, M. Baudisch, K. Doblhoff-Dier, A. Senftleben, M. Hemmer, C. D. Schröter, J. Ullrich, T. Pfeifer, R. Moshammer, S. Gräfe, O. Vendrell, C. D. Lin, and J. Biegert, “Ultrafast elec- tron diffraction imaging of bond breaking in di-ionized acetylene,” Science354, 308–312 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Ultrafast elec- tron diffraction: Visualizing dynamic states of matter,

    D. Filippetto, P. Musumeci, R. K. Li, B. J. Siwick, M. R. Otto, M. Centurion, and J. P. F. Nunes, “Ultrafast elec- tron diffraction: Visualizing dynamic states of matter,” Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045004 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Tutorial on off-axis electron holography,

    M. Lehmann and H. Lichte, “Tutorial on off-axis electron holography,” Micros. Microanal.8, 447–466 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Absolute scale quantitative off-axis electron holography at atomic resolution,

    Florian Winkler, Juri Barthel, Amir H. Tavabi, Sven Borghardt, Beata E. Kardynal, and Rafal E. Dunin- Borkowski, “Absolute scale quantitative off-axis electron holography at atomic resolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 156101 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Deconstruct- ing decoherence,

    J. R. Anglin, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek, “Deconstruct- ing decoherence,” Phys. Rev. A55, 4041–4053 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    Deco- herence and recoherence from vacuum fluctuations near a conducting plate,

    F. D. Mazzitelli, J. P. Paz, and A. Villanueva, “Deco- herence and recoherence from vacuum fluctuations near a conducting plate,” Phys. Rev. A68, 062106 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    Decoherence of electron beams by electro- magnetic field fluctuations,

    Y. Levinson, “Decoherence of electron beams by electro- magnetic field fluctuations,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.37, 3003–3017 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    Influence on electron coher- ence from quantum electromagnetic fields in the presence of conducting plates,

    J.-T. Hsiang and D.-S. Lee, “Influence on electron coher- ence from quantum electromagnetic fields in the presence of conducting plates,” Phys. Rev. D73, 065022 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    Theory of which path dephasing in single electron interference due to trace in conductive en- vironment,

    P. Machnikowski, “Theory of which path dephasing in single electron interference due to trace in conductive en- vironment,” Phys. Rev. B73, 155109 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    Measurement of decoherence of electron waves and visualization of the quantum-classical transition,

    Peter Sonnentag and Franz Hasselbach, “Measurement of decoherence of electron waves and visualization of the quantum-classical transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 200402 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Progress in electron- and ion- interferometry,

    F. Hasselbach, “Progress in electron- and ion- interferometry,” Rep. Prog. Phys.73, 016101 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    Experimental test of decoherence theory using electron matter waves,

    P. J. Beierle, L. Zhang, and H. Batelaan, “Experimental test of decoherence theory using electron matter waves,” New J. Phys.20, 113030 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Quantum decoherence by Coulomb interac- tion,

    N. Kerker, R. Röpke, L. M. Steinert, A. Pooch, and A. Stibor, “Quantum decoherence by Coulomb interac- tion,” New J. Phys.22, 063039 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations and electron coherence,

    L. H. Ford, “Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations and electron coherence,” Phys. Rev. D47, 5571–5580 (1993)

    1993

  17. [17]

    Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations and electron coherence. II. Effects of wave-packet size,

    L. H. Ford, “Electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations and electron coherence. II. Effects of wave-packet size,” Phys. Rev. A56, 1812–1818 (1997)

    1997

  18. [18]

    Radiative loss of coherence in free electrons: A long- range quantum phenomenon,

    C. I. Velasco, V. Di Giulio, and F. J. García de Abajo, “Radiative loss of coherence in free electrons: A long- range quantum phenomenon,” Light Sci. Appl.13, 31 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Electron diffrac- tion by vacuum fluctuations,

    V. Di Giulio and F. J. García de Abajo, “Electron diffrac- tion by vacuum fluctuations,” New J. Phys.22, 103057 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Inelastic electron holography,

    H. Lichte and B. Freitag, “Inelastic electron holography,” Ultramicroscopy81, 177–186 (2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Energy-filtered electron-diffracted beam holography,

    R. A. Herring, “Energy-filtered electron-diffracted beam holography,” Ultramicroscopy104, 261–270 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    Experiments on inelastic electron holography,

    P. L. Potapov, H. Lichte, J. Verbeeck, and D. van Dyck, “Experiments on inelastic electron holography,” Ultrami- croscopy106, 1012–1018 (2006)

    2006

  23. [23]

    Inelastic electron holography as a 17 variant of the Feynman thought experiment,

    P. L. Potapov, J. Verbeeck, P. Schattschneider, H. Lichte, and D. van Dyck, “Inelastic electron holography as a 17 variant of the Feynman thought experiment,” Ultrami- croscopy107, 559–567 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    The Fresnel effect of a defocused biprism on the fringes in inelastic holography,

    J. Verbeeck, G. Bertoni, and P. Schattschneider, “The Fresnel effect of a defocused biprism on the fringes in inelastic holography,” Ultramicroscopy108, 263–269 (2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    Mechanisms of decoherence in electron mi- croscopy,

    A. Howie, “Mechanisms of decoherence in electron mi- croscopy,” Ultramicroscopy111, 761–767 (2011)

    2011

  26. [26]

    Path decoherence of charged and neutral particles near surfaces,

    S. Scheel and S. Y. Buhmann, “Path decoherence of charged and neutral particles near surfaces,” Phys. Rev. A85, 030101 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Dephasing due to semi- conductor charging masks decoherence in electron-wall systems,

    Z. Chen and H. Batelaan, “Dephasing due to semi- conductor charging masks decoherence in electron-wall systems,” Europhys. Lett.129, 40004 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    On the exponential solution of differen- tial equations for a linear operator,

    W. Magnus, “On the exponential solution of differen- tial equations for a linear operator,” Comm. Pure Appl. Math.VII, 649–673 (1954)

    1954

  29. [29]

    Optical excitations in electron microscopy,

    F. J. García de Abajo, “Optical excitations in electron microscopy,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 209–275 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    Optical exci- tations with electron beams: Challenges and opportuni- ties,

    F. J. García de Abajo and V. Di Giulio, “Optical exci- tations with electron beams: Challenges and opportuni- ties,” ACS Photonics8, 945–974 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Retarded field calculation of electron energy loss in inhomogeneous di- electrics,

    F. J. García de Abajo and A. Howie, “Retarded field calculation of electron energy loss in inhomogeneous di- electrics,” Phys. Rev. B65, 115418 (2002)

    2002

  32. [32]

    Electron- phononinteractionindielectricfilms.Applicationtoelec- tron energy loss and gain spectra,

    A. A. Lucas, E. Kartheuser, and R. G. Badro, “Electron- phononinteractionindielectricfilms.Applicationtoelec- tron energy loss and gain spectra,” Phys. Rev. B2, 2488– 2499 (1970)

    1970

  33. [33]

    Multiple plasmon effects in the energy-loss spectra of electrons in thin films,

    M. Šunjić and A. A. Lucas, “Multiple plasmon effects in the energy-loss spectra of electrons in thin films,” Phys. Rev. B3, 719–729 (1971)

    1971

  34. [34]

    Multiple excitation of confined graphene plasmons by single free electrons,

    F. J. García de Abajo, “Multiple excitation of confined graphene plasmons by single free electrons,” ACS Nano 7, 11409–11419 (2013)

    2013

  35. [35]

    Temperature effect on en- ergy loss spectrum of fast electrons in aluminium and lead foils between 3 K and 295 K,

    A. Imbusch and H. Niedrig, “Temperature effect on en- ergy loss spectrum of fast electrons in aluminium and lead foils between 3 K and 295 K,” Phys. Lett. A32, 375–376 (1970)

    1970

  36. [36]

    Temperature-dependent optical properties of gold thin films,

    Harsha Reddy, Urcan Guler, Alexander V. Kildishev, Alexandra Boltasseva, and Vladimir M. Shalaev, “Temperature-dependent optical properties of gold thin films,” Opt. Mater. Express6, 2776–2802 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Optical properties of lithium fluoride in the infrared,

    M. Gottlieb, “Optical properties of lithium fluoride in the infrared,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.50, 343–349 (1960)

    1960

  38. [38]

    Temperature dependence of infrared dispersion in ionic crystals LiF and MgO,

    J.R. Jasperse, A. Kahan, J.N. Plendl, and S.S. Mitra, “Temperature dependence of infrared dispersion in ionic crystals LiF and MgO,” Phys. Rev.146, 526–542 (1966)

    1966

  39. [39]

    Thermally driven crossover from indirect toward direct bandgap in 2D semiconductors: MoSe 2 versus MoS2,

    S. Tongay, J. Zhou, C. Ataca, K. Lo, T.S. Matthews, J. Li, J.C. Grossman, and J. Wu, “Thermally driven crossover from indirect toward direct bandgap in 2D semiconductors: MoSe 2 versus MoS2,” Nano Lett.12, 5576–5580 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    Measurement of high exciton bind- ing energy in the monolayer transition-metal dichalco- genides WS2 and WSe2,

    A.T. Hanbicki, M. Currie, G. Kioseoglou, A.L. Friedman, and B.T. Jonker, “Measurement of high exciton bind- ing energy in the monolayer transition-metal dichalco- genides WS2 and WSe2,” Solid State Commun.203, 16– 20 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    Excitonic linewidth and coherence lifetime in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,

    M. Selig, G. Berghäusen, A. Raja, P. Nagler, C. Schüller, T.F: Heinz, T. Korn, A. Chernikov, E. Malic, and A. Knorr, “Excitonic linewidth and coherence lifetime in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,” Nat. Com- mun.7, 13279 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    E. D. Palik,Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids (Academic Press, San Diego, 1985)

    1985

  43. [43]

    On the properties of a gas of charged parti- cles,

    J. Lindhard, “On the properties of a gas of charged parti- cles,” K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd.28, 1–57 (1954)

    1954

  44. [44]

    Lindhard dielectric function in the relaxation-time approximation,

    N. D. Mermin, “Lindhard dielectric function in the relaxation-time approximation,” Phys. Rev. B1, 2362– 2363 (1970)

    1970

  45. [45]

    Optical constants of the noble metals,

    P. B. Johnson and R. W. Christy, “Optical constants of the noble metals,” Phys. Rev. B6, 4370–4379 (1972)

    1972

  46. [46]

    Nonlocal effects in the plasmons of strongly interacting nanoparticles, dimers, and waveg- uides,

    F. J. García de Abajo, “Nonlocal effects in the plasmons of strongly interacting nanoparticles, dimers, and waveg- uides,” J. Phys. Chem. C112, 17983–17987 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series, and Products(Academic Press, London, 2007)

    2007

  48. [48]

    Boundary effects in Cherenkov radia- tion,

    F. J. García de Abajo, A. Rivacoba, N. Zabala, and N. Yamamoto, “Boundary effects in Cherenkov radia- tion,” Phys. Rev. B69, 155420 (2004)

    2004

  49. [49]

    S. Y. Buhmann,Dispersion Forces I. Macroscopic Quantum Electrodynamics and Ground-State Casimir, Casimir-Polder and van der Waals Forces(Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    Radiation of a uni- formly moving electron due to its transition from one medium to another,

    V. L. Ginzburg and I. M. Frank, “Radiation of a uni- formly moving electron due to its transition from one medium to another,” Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. [Sov. Phys. JETP]16, 15–28 (1946)

    1946

  51. [51]

    Optical spectroscopy and energy-filtered trans- mission electron microscopy of surface plasmons in core- shell nanoparticles,

    A. S. Eggeman, P. J. Dobson, and A. K. Petford- Long, “Optical spectroscopy and energy-filtered trans- mission electron microscopy of surface plasmons in core- shell nanoparticles,” J. Appl. Phys.101, 024307 (2007)

    2007

  52. [52]

    Nanoscaletem- perature mapping in operating microelectronic devices,

    M. Mecklenburg, W. A. Hubbard, E. R. White, R. Dhall, S.B.Cronin, S.Aloni, andB.C.Regan,“Nanoscaletem- perature mapping in operating microelectronic devices,” Science347, 629 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    Nanoscale temperature measurement during temperature controlled in situ TEM using Al plas- mon nanothermometry,

    A. Chmielewski, C. Ricolleau, D. Alloyeau, G. Wang, and J. Nelayah, “Nanoscale temperature measurement during temperature controlled in situ TEM using Al plas- mon nanothermometry,” Ultramicroscopy209, 112881 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Thermometry with sub- nanometer resolution in the electron microscope using the principle of detailed balancing,

    M. J. Lagos and P. E. Batson, “Thermometry with sub- nanometer resolution in the electron microscope using the principle of detailed balancing,” Nano Lett.18, 4556– 4563 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Temperature measure- ment by a nanoscale electron probe using energy gain and loss spectroscopy,

    J. C. Idrobo, A. R. Lupini, T. Feng, R. R. Unocic, F. S. Walden, D. S. Gardiner, T. C. Lovejoy, N. Dellby, S. T. Pantelides, and O. L. Krivanek, “Temperature measure- ment by a nanoscale electron probe using energy gain and loss spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 095901 (2018)

    2018

  56. [56]

    Employing cathodoluminescence for nanothermometry and thermal transport measurements in semiconductor nanowires,

    K. W. Mauser, M. Solà-Garcia, M. Liebtrau, B. Dami- lano, P.-M. Coulon, P. A. Shields S. Vézian, S. Meuret, and A. Polman, “Employing cathodoluminescence for nanothermometry and thermal transport measurements in semiconductor nanowires,” ACS Nano18, 4911–4921 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Nanoscale cathodoluminescence thermome- try with a lanthanide-doped heavy-metal oxide in trans- mission electron microscopy,

    W.-W. Park, P. K. Olshin, Y.-J. Kim, H.-W. Nho, D. V. Mamonova, I. E. Kolesnikov, V. A. Medvedev, and O.- H. Kwon, “Nanoscale cathodoluminescence thermome- try with a lanthanide-doped heavy-metal oxide in trans- mission electron microscopy,” ACS Nano18, 4911–4921 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Nanoscale and element-specific lattice temperature 18 measurements using core-loss electron energy-loss spec- troscopy,

    L. D. Palmer, W. Lee, D. B. Durham, Jr. J. Fajardo, Y. Liu, A. A. Talin, T. E. Gage, and S. K. Cush- ing, “Nanoscale and element-specific lattice temperature 18 measurements using core-loss electron energy-loss spec- troscopy,” ACS Phys. Chem. Au5, 589–598 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Nanosecond nanoth- ermometry in an electron microscope,

    F. Castioni, Y. Auad, J. D. Blazit, X. Li, S. Y. Woo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C.-H. Ho, O. Stéphan, M. Kociak, and L. H. G. Tizei, “Nanosecond nanoth- ermometry in an electron microscope,” Nano Lett.25, 1601–1608 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Modal decomposition of a propagating matter wave via electron ptychography,

    S. Cao, P. Kok, A. M. Maiden, and J. M. Rodenburg, “Modal decomposition of a propagating matter wave via electron ptychography,” Phys. Rev. A94, 063621 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    Benchmarking analytical electron pty- chography methods for the low-dose imaging of beam- sensitive materials,

    H. L. Lalandec Robert, M. L. Leidl, K. Müller-Caspary, and J. Verbeeck, “Benchmarking analytical electron pty- chography methods for the low-dose imaging of beam- sensitive materials,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys.100, 20 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Mixed-state electron pty- chography enables sub-angstrom resolution imaging with picometerprecisionatlowdose,

    Z. Chen, M. Odstrcil, Y. Jiang, Y. Han, M.-H. Chiu, L.-J. Li, and D. A. Muller, “Mixed-state electron pty- chography enables sub-angstrom resolution imaging with picometerprecisionatlowdose,”Nat.Commun.11,2994 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    A high-performance reconstruction method for partially coherent ptychography,

    W. Xu, S. Ning, P. Sheng, H. Lin, A. I. Kirkland, and Y. Peng, “A high-performance reconstruction method for partially coherent ptychography,” Ultramicroscopy267, 114068 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Spectrometer- free electron spectromicroscopy,

    F. J. García de Abajo and C. I. Velasco, “Spectrometer- free electron spectromicroscopy,” ACS Nano19, 35770– 35776 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    Martin Dressel and George Grüner,Electrodynamics of Solids: Optical Properties of Electrons in Matter(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002)

    2002