Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Electronic Damage Suppression in X-ray Diffraction with Attosecond X-ray Pulses

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Attosecond x-ray pulses suppress electronic excitation in solids, simulations show, opening a path to damage-free charge-density imaging.

desk verdict Credible simulation trend, but the 1e-2 excitation threshold that the feasibility claim rests on is asserted, not derived; worth careful refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29351 v1 pith:775AFRYY submitted 2026-07-31 physics.optics

Vladimir Lipp , Ichiro Inoue , Beata Ziaja This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords attosecondx-raypulsescharge-densityimagingXFELelectronicradiationdamagediamondsiliconconduction-bandelectronsdiffractionbeforedestruction
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 argues that hard x-ray pulses with attosecond duration can suppress the ultrafast electronic excitation that currently limits XFEL-based charge-density studies of organic and inorganic crystals. Through simulations of diamond and silicon, it shows that for a fixed photon energy and fluence, shortening the pulse from femtoseconds to attoseconds dramatically reduces the number of conduction-band electrons created during the pulse. It further shows that increasing the photon energy from 6 to 20 keV adds another order of magnitude of suppression. If correct, this would allow valence-electron densities to be visualized in their pristine state, extending XFEL techniques beyond macromolecular crystallography to the charge-density analysis of solids and small molecules.

What carries the argument

The key object is the pulse-intensity-averaged number of conduction-band electrons per atom, an overline-n_c quantity defined as the time integral of the instantaneous conduction-band population weighted by the x-ray pulse intensity envelope. It serves as the figure of merit for how much electronic damage contaminates the integrated diffraction signal. The simulations use a hybrid code (Monte Carlo for photoabsorption, Auger decay and collisional ionization; density-functional tight binding for transient band structure; molecular dynamics for atomic motion) to track electron excitation in large supercells of diamond and silicon.

What would settle it

A measurement of the pulse-weighted conduction-band population in silicon via x-ray pump–probe spectroscopy, comparing 100-as and 10-fs pulses at 6 keV and 10 µJ/µm², would test the simulated values directly; if the attosecond pulse yields an excitation fraction above 10^-2, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that attosecond x-ray pulses can keep the pulse-intensity-averaged number of conduction-band electrons per atom below 10^-2 — the level the authors associate with acceptable charge-density accuracy — even at fluences typical of current serial femtosecond crystallography and at the higher fluences enabled by state-of-the-art nanofocusing. Simulations of diamond and silicon show that 100-as pulses outrun nearly all secondary electron cascading, whereas 10-fs pulses do not. Increasing the photon energy to 20 keV further reduces the excitation. The authors conclude that the combination of attosecond pulse duration and high photon energy constitutes a route toward diffraction

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility conclusion rests on the assumption that a pulse-weighted excitation fraction below 10^-2 conduction-band electrons per atom is sufficient to keep charge-density maps accurate, but the paper does not quantitatively map that fraction to the resulting diffraction-signal error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Attosecond x-ray pulses would allow valence-electron-density measurements in organic and inorganic crystals at fluences that currently produce unacceptable electronic excitation with femtosecond pulses.
  • For silicon, femtosecond pulses at 10 µJ/µm² exceed the 10^-2 excitation threshold, while ~1-fs and 100-as pulses stay below it, so attosecond pulses make valence-electron visualization in inorganic materials feasible.
  • Higher x-ray photon energies (up to ~20 keV) provide additional suppression of transient electronic damage at fixed fluence, but the effect saturates at roughly an order of magnitude.
  • Attosecond pulses enable the use of tightly focused, high-fluence beams (two orders of magnitude higher than typical SFX beams) for small molecular samples without pushing the excitation fraction above the threshold.
  • Diamond, as a model for organic systems, shows that attosecond pulses at typical SFX fluence satisfy the threshold, indicating organic charge-density studies are immediately feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same pulse-weighting logic could be applied to other radiation-sensitive probes or to time-resolved studies, where the relevant figure of merit is the excitation during the probe window rather than at the end of the pulse.
  • A direct experimental test would be to measure the x-ray scattering pattern of a silicon or diamond crystal with attosecond and femtosecond pulses at identical fluence and photon energy; the attosecond pattern should show the valence-electron deformation density with far less contamination.
  • The paper's threshold of 10^-2 conduction-band electrons per atom, inferred from typical crystallographic R-factors, could be refined by quantitatively linking n_c to the error in the derived charge-density map, which would sharpen the boundary between 'feasible' and 'not feasible' pulse parameters.
  • For molecules with lighter atoms or wider band gaps, the balance between photoabsorption and secondary cascades may differ, so the qualitative benefit of attosecond pulses likely extends, but the quantitative threshold might shift; simulations for such systems would test the generality.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using hard x-ray pulses with attosecond duration to suppress transient electronic excitation in x-ray diffraction studies of solids, focusing on charge-density visualization. The authors use the in-house code XTANT+ to simulate diamond and silicon under 6–20 keV pulses with durations of 10 fs, 1 fs, and 100 as, and compute the pulse-intensity-averaged number of conduction-band electrons per atom (bar n_c, Eq. 1). They find that shorter pulses and higher photon energies reduce bar n_c, and conclude that attosecond pulses keep bar n_c below an asserted threshold of 10^-2 for accessible fluences, thereby enabling damage-free valence-electron-density mapping even under nanofocused high-fluence conditions.

Significance. The core simulation trend—shorter x-ray pulses suppress secondary electron cascades—is physically credible and consistent with prior work on ultrafast radiation damage. If the quantitative feasibility claim is substantiated, the paper would provide a valuable strategy for charge-density studies at XFEL facilities and could motivate experimental efforts with attosecond hard x-ray pulses. The simulations use a mature hybrid Monte Carlo/DFTB/MD tool with prior validation, and the pulse-averaged damage metric (Eq. 1) is a reasonable observable for time-integrated diffraction. However, the central conclusion depends on an unvalidated mapping between bar n_c and diffraction-signal error, and on a linear fluence scaling assumption that is not tested; these gaps currently prevent the paper from fully establishing its headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [After Table I (p. 4)] The threshold bar n_c < 10^-2 is asserted without a quantitative link to the diffraction signal. The text states that a few-percent R-factor in charge-density analysis implies this threshold, citing Refs. [35,36], but those references report typical ground-state refinement R-factors; they do not quantify how a given conduction-band fraction degrades structure factors. No simulation or analytical model in the paper connects n_c to diffraction error, even though XTANT+ can output transient electron densities. Because the feasibility claims (e.g., 'attosecond pulses permit two-orders-of-magnitude higher fluence') rest directly on this threshold, the mapping must be justified—for example, by computing transient structure factors and R-factors for the simulated n_c values.
  2. [After Table I (p. 4)] The extrapolation to nanofocused high-fluence pulses assumes bar n_c is proportional to fluence for all pulse durations and photon energies. This assumption is unverified and load-bearing: the advantage of attosecond pulses at 100–1000× higher fluence is a key conclusion. For 100 as pulses, primary photoionization will scale linearly with fluence, but the contribution from secondary cascades (which the paper argues are suppressed) could introduce nonlinearities. The authors should either run simulations at the higher fluences or provide an analytical justification for the scaling, at least for the 100 as case.
  3. [Tables I and II and Figs. 1–3] No uncertainty quantification or convergence analysis is provided for the reported bar n_c values. The Monte Carlo module used 10^5 iterations, but there is no variance estimate, and the 512-atom supercell size is not checked for convergence. The differences between some entries (e.g., 1 fs vs 100 as at 20 keV) are small; without error bars it is unclear whether the ordering is statistically meaningful. The authors should report error estimates from repeated Monte Carlo runs and, where feasible, a system-size convergence test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'here equal to 10 fs (red), 1 fs (blue), or 100 as (green),' but Fig. 3 shows only 10-fs pulses at fixed dose. The caption should be corrected to refer only to the 10-fs case.
  2. [Tables I and II] The table titles state 'Pulse-intensity-averaged number of conduction-band electrons per atom' but the column values are given without units; consider adding '/atom' to the header or a note in the caption.
  3. [Reference [19]] The author list of Ref. [19] contains a malformed entry 'T. M. L. A. Benediktovitch'; this should be corrected to a proper name (e.g., A. Benediktovitch).
  4. [Data availability] The statement that XTANT+ is not publicly available limits reproducibility; if a free release is planned, mention a timeline or access mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predictions are forward simulations from an independently parameterized code; the feasibility threshold is an external criterion, not a fitted output.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that attosecond x-ray pulses reduce transient conduction-band excitation and may therefore enable charge-density imaging—comes directly from XTANT+ simulations with controlled inputs (photon energy, fluence, pulse duration). No parameter is fitted to produce the conclusion: n_c(t) is a computed dynamical quantity, and \bar{n}_c is then defined as its pulse-intensity-weighted average. The 10^-2 threshold is introduced as a desirability criterion supported by external crystallographic practice (Refs. 35-36), not derived from the simulation or tuned to the table entries; whether this threshold is quantitatively appropriate is a validity concern, not a circularity. The use of the authors' own XTANT+ code [22] and prior experimental comparisons [23,24] is a normal tool citation: the code was published separately and its predictions are externally testable, so it does not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The explicit assumption that n_c scales linearly with fluence for the nanofocusing extrapolation is a stated heuristic, not a disguised prediction. The data-availability note that the software is not yet publicly released is a reproducibility limitation, but it does not make the derivation circular. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper reduces to the conclusion by construction.

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

The central claims rest on the validity of the XTANT+ hybrid simulation model in an untested attosecond regime, on a hand-picked threshold for acceptable excitation, and on a linear fluence scaling. No new physical entities are introduced. The simulation parameters are taken from prior literature, not fitted here.

free parameters (2)
  • Monte Carlo/thermal crossover energy = 10 eV
    Electrons above 10 eV are tracked by Monte Carlo collisional ionization; lower-energy electrons are assigned a Fermi distribution on transient DFTB levels. This cutoff is a modeling choice and was not varied or benchmarked.
  • Critical excitation threshold = 10^-2
    Hand-chosen threshold for judging feasibility of charge-density visualization, claimed to follow from a few-percent R-factor but with no quantitative mapping given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFTB parametrizations for diamond (Lipp et al. 2022) and silicon (Sieck 2000) accurately describe transient electronic structure under x-ray excitation.
    The simulations' accuracy depends on the transferability of DFTB parameters to highly excited states; prior validation is for femtosecond pulses, not attosecond.
  • domain assumption The physics of electron cascades is unchanged in the attosecond regime; coherent, non-dipole, or field-driven effects not captured by the MC/DFTB model are negligible.
    No experimental data exist for attosecond x-ray-induced damage; the code extrapolates femtosecond-validated physics to 100-as pulses.
  • domain assumption The pulse-intensity-weighted average n_c is a valid measure of the expected degradation of the diffraction signal.
    Motivated by prior studies, but the connection of this scalar to diffraction-pattern fidelity is not quantified.
  • domain assumption n_c scales linearly with fluence for the high-fluence nanofocusing extrapolation.
    Explicitly assumed in the text; not validated by simulations at 100x higher fluence.
  • domain assumption The threshold 10^-2 for n_c corresponds to acceptable charge-density accuracy.
    Linked to a few-percent R-factor without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electronic Damage Suppression in X-ray Diffraction with Attosecond X-ray Pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/775AFRYY

@misc{pith2026260729351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electronic Damage Suppression in X-ray Diffraction with Attosecond X-ray Pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/775AFRYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29351}
}
read the original abstract

So far, the focus of state-of-the-art structure determination using x-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) pulses has been on macromolecular crystallography. This approach has achieved remarkable success in solving the structure of microcrystals smaller than a few micrometres, which are difficult to investigate using conventional synchrotron sources. However, successful applications of XFELs to inorganic and small-molecule crystallography have been limited due to rapid electron excitation in these samples. This same issue has also prevented the use of XFELs in charge-density studies of solids. In this study, we propose using hard x-ray pulses with an attosecond duration for x-ray imaging of charge density in organic and inorganic systems. Simulations of irradiated diamond and silicon showed that attosecond x-ray pulses consistently reduce the electronic excitation for a fixed photon energy and pulse fluence. Further reduction of transient electronic damage can be achieved by increasing the x-ray photon energy under these conditions. These theoretical predictions demonstrate a powerful and well-founded strategy for visualizing valence-electron distribution, opening up new prospects for diffraction imaging studies with XFELs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Number of excited (conduction band) electrons per atom plotted as a function of time in diamond irradiated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Number of excited (conduction band) electrons per atom plotted as a function of time in silicon irradiated with 6-keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Number of excited (conduction band) electrons per atom plotted as a function of time for (a) diamond and (b) silicon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics, 6th edition (Wiley, New York, 1986)

    C. Kittel,Introduction to Solid State Physics, 6th edition (Wiley, New York, 1986)

    1986

  2. [2]

    Coppens,X-ray Charge Densities and Chemical Bond- ing(Oxford University Press, 1997)

    P. Coppens,X-ray Charge Densities and Chemical Bond- ing(Oxford University Press, 1997)

    1997

  3. [3]

    T. S. Koritsanszky and P. Coppens, Chemical applica- tions of x-ray charge-density analysis, Chemical Reviews 101, 1583 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    E. L. Saldin, E. A. Schneidmiller, and M. V. Yurkov,The Physics of Free Electron Lasers(Springer, Berlin, 1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    B. W. J. McNeil and N. R. Thompson, X-ray free-electron lasers, Nature Photonics4, 814 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Ziaja, D

    B. Ziaja, D. van der Spoel, A. Sz¨ oke, and J. Hajdu, Auger-electron cascades in diamond and amorphous car- bon, Physical Review B64, 214104 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Ziaja, R

    B. Ziaja, R. A. London, and J. Hajdu, Unified model of secondary electron cascades in diamond, Journal of Applied Physics97, 064905 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Neutze, R

    R. Neutze, R. Wouts, D. van der Spoel, E. Weckert, and J. Hajdu, Potential for biomolecular imaging with fem- tosecond x-ray pulses, Nature406, 752 (2000)

    2000

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    H. N. Chapman, C. Caleman, and N. Timneanu, Diffrac- tion before destruction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369, 20130313 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Schlichting, Serial femtosecond crystallography: the first five years, IUCrJ2, 246 (2015)

    I. Schlichting, Serial femtosecond crystallography: the first five years, IUCrJ2, 246 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    R. L. Owen, E. Rudi˜ no-Pi˜ nera, and E. F. Garman, Ex- perimental determination of the radiation dose limit for cryocooled protein crystals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103, 4912 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    M. R. Howells, T. Beetz, H. N. Chapman, C. Cui, J. M. Holton, C. J. Jacobsen, J. Kirz, E. Lima, S. Marchesini, H. Miao, D. Sayre, D. A. Shapiro, J. C. H. Spence, and D. Starodub, An assessment of the resolution limitation due to radiation-damage in x-ray diffraction microscopy...

    2009

  5. [13]

    E. A. Schriber, D. W. Paley, R. Bolotovsky, D. J. Rosen- berg, R. G. Sierra, A. Aquila, D. Mendez, F. Poitevin, J. P. Blaschke, A. Bhowmick, R. P. Kelly, M. Hunter, B. Hayes, D. C. Popple, M. Yeung, C. Pareja-Rivera, S. Lisova, K. Tono, M. Sugahara, S. Owada, T. Kuyk- endall, ...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Takaba, S

    K. Takaba, S. Maki-Yonekura, I. Inoue, K. Tono, T. Hamaguchi, K. Kawakami, H. Naitow, T. Ishikawa, M. Yabashi, and K. Yonekura, Structural resolution of a small organic molecule by serial x-ray free-electron laser and electron crystallography, Nature Chemistry15, 491 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Inoue, Y

    I. Inoue, Y. Deguchi, B. Ziaja, T. Osaka, M. M. Ab- dullah, Z. Jurek, N. Medvedev, V. Tkachenko, Y. In- ubushi, H. Kasai, K. Tamasaku, T. Hara, E. Nishibori, and M. Yabashi, Atomic-scale visualization of ultrafast bond breaking in x-ray-excited diamond, Physical Re- view Lette...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Inoue, T

    I. Inoue, T. Osaka, V. Tkachenko, T. Hara, K. J. Kap- 6 cia, Y. Inubushi, S. Kawaguchi, J. Yamada, E. Nishibori, M. Yabashi, and B. Ziaja, High-intensity x-ray pump- monochromatic x-ray probe technique across time zero, Optica12, 530 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Inoue, J

    I. Inoue, J. Yamada, K. J. Kapcia, M. Stransky, V. Tkachenko, Z. Jurek, T. Inoue, T. Osaka, Y. In- ubushi, A. Ito, Y. Tanaka, S. Matsuyama, K. Yamauchi, M. Yabashi, and B. Ziaja, Femtosecond reduction of atomic scattering factors triggered by intense x-ray pulse, Phys. Rev. Le...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Marinelli, J

    A. Marinelli, J. MacArthur, P. Emma, M. Guetg, C. Field, D. Kharakh, A. A. Lutman, Y. Ding, and Z. Huang, Experimental demonstration of a single-spike hard-x-ray free-electron laser starting from noise, Applied Physics Letters111, 151101 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4990716

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Huang, Y

    S. Huang, Y. Ding, Y. Feng, E. Hemsing, Z. Huang, J. Krzywinski, A. A. Lutman, A. Marinelli, T. J. Maxwell, and D. Zhu, Generating single-spike hard x-ray pulses with nonlinear bunch compression in free-electron lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 154801 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Inoue, R

    I. Inoue, R. Robles, A. Halavanau, V. Guo, T. M. L. A. Benediktovitch, S. Chuchurka, M. H. Seaberg, Y. Sun, D. Zhu, D. Cesar, Y. Ding, V. Esposito, P. Franz, N. S. Sudar, Z. Zhang, T. Osaka, G. Yam- aguchi, Y. Sano, K. Yamauchi, J. Yamada, U. Bergmann, M. F. Kling, C. Pellegri...

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y. Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijkstal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, N. Mirian, and G. Geloni, Terawatt-attosecond hard x-ray free- electron laser at high repetition rate, Nature Photonics 18, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    V. Lipp, V. Tkachenko, M. Stransky, B. Aradi, T. Frauenheim, and B. Ziaja, Density functional tight binding approach utilized to study x-ray-induced transi- tions in solid materials, Sci. Rep.12, 1 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Heimann, N

    P. Heimann, N. J. Hartley, I. Inoue, V. Tkachenko, A. Antoine, F. Dorchies, R. Falcone, J. Gaudin, H. H¨ oppner, Y. Inubushi, K. J. Kapcia, H. J. Lee, V. Lipp, P. Martinez, N. Medvedev, F. Tavella, S. Toleikis, M. Yabashi, T. Yabuuchi, J. Yamada, and B. Ziaja, Non-thermal stru...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Inoue, V

    I. Inoue, V. Tkachenko, K. J. Kapcia, V. Lipp, B. Zi- aja, Y. Inubushi, T. Hara, M. Yabashi, and E. Nishibori, Delayed onset and directionality of x-ray-induced atomic displacements observed on subatomic length scales, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 223203 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Sieck,Structure and physical properties of silicon clus- ters and of vacancy clusters in bulk silicon, Ph.D

    A. Sieck,Structure and physical properties of silicon clus- ters and of vacancy clusters in bulk silicon, Ph.D. thesis, Paderborn, Univ., Diss., Paderborn (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Hourahine, B

    B. Hourahine, B. Aradi, V. Blum, F. Bonaf´ e, A. Buc- cheri, C. Camacho, C. Cevallos, M. Y. Deshaye, T. Du- mitric˜ a, A. Dominguez, S. Ehlert, M. Elstner, T. van der Heide, J. Hermann, S. Irle, J. J. Kranz, C. K ohler, T. Kowalczyk, T. Kub˜ ar, I. S. Lee, V. Lutsker, R. J. Ma...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Hourahine, M

    B. Hourahine, M. Berdakin, J. A. Bich, F. P. Bonaf´ e, C. Camacho, Q. Cui, M. Y. Deshaye, G. D ´ ıaz Mir´ on, S. Ehlert, M. Elstner, T. Frauenheim, N. Goldman, R. A. Gonz´ alez Le´ on, T. van der Heide, S. Irle, T. Kowalczyk, T. Kubaˇ r, I. S. Lee, C. R. Lien-Medrano, A. Marye...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Inoue, J

    I. Inoue, J. Yamada, K. J. Kapcia, M. Stransky, V. Tkachenko, Z. Jurek, T. Inoue, T. Osaka, Y. Inubushi, A. Ito,et al., Femtosecond reduction of atomic scattering factors triggered by intense x-ray pulse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 163201 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ziaja, M

    B. Ziaja, M. Stransky, K. J. Kapcia, and I. Inoue, Model- ing femtosecond reduction of atomic scattering factors in X-ray-excited silicon with boltzmann kinetic equations, Atoms11, 154 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Cardoch and N

    S. Cardoch and N. Timneanu, Modeling electron dynam- ics in silicon driven by high-intensity femtosecond x-rays, Struct. Dyn.12(2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Banerjee, Z

    S. Banerjee, Z. Jurek, R. Jin, S.-K. Son, and R. Santra, Impact of ionization potential depression on single parti- cle imaging, Phys. Rev. Research8, 013025 (2026)

    2026

  24. [32]

    Ptasiewicz-Bak, I

    H. Ptasiewicz-Bak, I. Olovsson, and G. McIntyre, Charge density in NiCl2·4H2O at 295 and 30 K, Acta Crystallogr. B55, 830 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Chuang, C.-F

    Y.-C. Chuang, C.-F. Sheu, G.-H. Lee, Y.-S. Chen, and Y. Wang, Charge density studies of 3dmetal (Ni/Cu) complexes with a non-innocent ligand, Acta Crystallo- graphica Section B73, 634 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Krause, B

    L. Krause, B. Niep¨ otter, C. J. Sch¨ urmann, D. Stalke, and R. Herbst-Irmer, Validation of experimental charge- density refinement strategies: when do we overfit?, IUCrJ 4, 420 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Tanaka and E

    K. Tanaka and E. Nishibori, Charge density study of sim- ple inorganic solids using synchrotron single crystal x-ray diffraction, Crystal Growth & Design25, 8374 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    P. N. Nakashima, Quantitative convergent-beam electron diffraction and quantum crystallography—the metal- lic bond in aluminium, Structural Chemistry28, 1319 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Mimura, H

    H. Mimura, H. Yumoto, S. Matsuyama, T. Koyama, K. Tono, Y. Inubushi, T. Togashi, T. Sato, J. Kim, R. Fukui, Y. Sano, M. Yabashi, H. Ohashi, T. Ishikawa, and K. Yamauchi, Generation of 10 20 W cm −2 hard x- ray laser pulses with two-stage reflective focusing system, Nat. Commun...

    2014

  30. [38]

    Nagler, A

    B. Nagler, A. Aquila, S. Boutet, E. C. Galtier, A. Hashim, M. S. Hunter, M. Liang, A. E. Sakdinawat, C. G. Schroer, A. Schropp, M. H. Seaberg, F. Seiboth, T. van Driel, Z. Xing, Y. Liu, and H. J. Lee, Focal spot and wavefront sensing of an x-ray free electron laser us- ing ron...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Yumoto, Y

    H. Yumoto, Y. Inubushi, T. Osaka, I. Inoue, T. Koyama, K. Tono, M. Yabashi, and H. Ohashi, Nanofocusing op- tics for an x-ray free-electron laser generating an extreme intensity of 100 ew/cm2 using total reflection mirrors, Applied Sciences10, 10.3390/app10072611 (2020). 7

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Yamada, S

    J. Yamada, S. Matsuyama, I. Inoue, T. Osaka, T. In- oue, N. Nakamura, Y. Tanaka, Y. Inubushi, T. Yabu- uchi, K. Tono, K. Tamasaku, H. Yumoto, T. Koyama, H. Ohashi, M. Yabashi, and K. Yamauchi, Extreme fo- cusing of hard x-ray free-electron laser pulses enables 7 nm focus width...

    2024

Pith tools

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