Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 74 references

EBSD and Subtle Crystallographic Differences - A Study of Resolving Interlayer Spacings in Nb-Ni and Nb-Co mu-phases

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EBSD pattern matching can measure atomic-layer spacings in mu-phase intermetallics, resolving differences as small as 0.02–0.06 Å between compositions.

desk verdict The EBSD trend is credible, but the abstract's 'good agreement with HR-TEM' is contradicted by the paper's own Table 3—worth a serious referee, but the validation claim needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01210 v1 pith:Q7GFTXHH submitted 2026-08-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Lukas Berners , Nisa Ulumuddin , Annika Baum , Silvia Richter , Khalil Rejiba , Joshua Spille , Siyuan Zhang , Christina Scheu
show 4 more authors
Joachim Mayer Benjamin Berkels T. Ben Britton Sandra Korte-Kerzel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords EBSDmu-phaseinterlayerspacingdynamicaltemplatematchingelectronbackscatterdiffractionintermetallicsprojectioncentrecalibrationNb-Ni
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 asks whether electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) can detect crystallographic features that change only the intensity of diffraction patterns, not the apparent orientation. It shows that by matching experimental patterns against a library of dynamically simulated templates that differ only in the spacing between atomic layers in the triple layer of mu-phase Nb-Ni and Nb-Co intermetallics, the method recovers interlayer spacings that track composition. The inferred spacings for four alloys agree with published XRD and HR-STEM values, so EBSD could become a way to map subtle structural variations across large sample areas. The same approach failed to resolve site-lattice occupancy of the 3a site, and the authors cannot yet say which pattern features drive the match.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is template matching between experimental EBSD patterns and dynamical diffraction simulations (EMSoft) of crystal structures whose 6c2 z-position (and hence triple-layer spacing dt) is systematically varied. A normalised cross-correlation metric, refined through an interior-point optimisation of orientation and projection centre, selects the best-matching structure; a fourth-degree polynomial fit to the NCC scores across the template grid locates the optimal dt. The distinction works because changes in dt alter pattern intensities in specific regions, even when the overall patterns look nearly identical.

What would settle it

Measure a sample with a known uniform interlayer spacing (e.g., a high-purity mu-phase single crystal whose structure has been refined by high-resolution XRD or neutron diffraction), run the same template-matching routine, and check whether the inferred dt matches the refined value within the reported scatter of about 0.01 Å; a systematic offset larger than the sample-to-sample differences would falsify the claim that EBSD resolves these spacings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that EBSD, combined with dynamical template matching, can resolve the interlayer spacing dt between the Kagome and triple layers in Nb-Ni and Nb-Co mu-phases. By generating template libraries in which the z-position of the 6c2 site is varied in steps of 0.025 Å and comparing experimental patterns from four alloy compositions using normalised cross-correlation, the authors infer dt values of 0.361 (48Nb-52Co), 0.380 (51Nb-49Ni), 0.399 (56Nb-44Co), and 0.420 Å (58Nb-42Ni). These values increase with Nb content in agreement with literature trends from XRD and HR-STEM, and the sample-to-sample differences are larger than the scatter within each sample. The authors are carefu

Load-bearing premise

The inferred interlayer spacings are only as good as the simulated pattern intensities, which assume a single accelerating voltage, fixed Bethe parameters, and an affine projection-centre model under conditions where the authors cannot rule out systematic projection-centre errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EBSD can track composition-dependent interlayer spacings across areas much larger than HR-STEM fields of view, enabling correlative studies of structure and mechanical properties.
  • The reported dt values increase with Nb content in both systems, matching published XRD and HR-STEM trends, so the method captures real structural differences rather than noise.
  • The method does not currently resolve 3a-site occupancy, meaning the technique's sensitivity is limited to features with a sufficient scattering contribution.
  • The approach is computationally heavy: the full mu-phase parameter space is far too large to sample exhaustively, so the method is only practical when the problem is constrained to a few parameters.
  • For simpler crystal structures or with faster simulation methods, the same workflow could make subtle spacing measurements routine in the scanning electron microscope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same template-matching workflow to other Frank-Kasper or ordered intermetallic phases where interlayer spacing is known to couple to slip behaviour, provided the identity of the variable atomic site is known in advance.
  • Because the authors find an orientation dependence of the inferred dt and cannot pin down the crystallographic features behind the NCC changes, part of the signal may be a compensation effect between simulation inaccuracies and projection-centre offsets; testing this would require a ground-truth sample with a known, uniform dt.
  • The failure to resolve 3a occupancy suggests that occupancy-related intensity changes are below the current detection floor; combining the method with excess/deficiency-corrected simulations or energy filtering may push sensitivity lower.
  • If the trends hold, EBSD could serve as a screening tool to identify local variations in spacing within a single grain, producing maps of 'structural phase' that are invisible to standard orientation maps.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether EBSD with dynamical template matching can resolve subtle crystallographic differences in Nb-Ni and Nb-Co mu-phases, specifically the interlayer spacing dt between the triple layer and Kagome layer, and the 3a site occupancy. The authors build a library of EMSoft-simulated EBSD patterns in which the 6c2 z-position (i.e., dt) and 3a occupancy are varied, match experimental patterns from four arc-melted samples using global orientation refinement and PCA, and extract dt values from polynomial fits to NCC landscapes. They report dt = 0.361 Å (48Nb-52Co), 0.380 Å (51Nb-49Ni), 0.399 Å (56Nb-44Co), 0.420 Å (58Nb-42Ni), i.e., dt increases with Nb content, and interpret this as a successful prediction in agreement with XRD and HR-TEM. They also report a full Nb occupancy of the 3a site for all samples, while acknowledging that occupancy changes could not actually be resolved. The paper includes extensive simulation-parameter studies, projection-centre calibration, and an HR-STEM motif-extraction comparison for two Nb-Ni samples.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would demonstrate a genuinely new capability: extracting sub-angstrom interlayer spacings from EBSD patterns at statistically meaningful sampling scales, complementing local HR-STEM and bulk XRD. The study is unusually careful in several respects: it provides open data and code, tests the influence of EMSoft Bethe parameters, dmin, acceleration voltage, and projection-centre misalignment on pattern distinctiveness, and uses a large-area projection-centre calibration plane. The internal consistency of the EBSD trend across four samples and its qualitative match to literature trends for Nb-Co are encouraging. However, the validation is substantially weakened by a direct internal contradiction with the paper's own HR-STEM data for Nb-Ni, and by the use of template libraries built from the same literature structures used as benchmarks. The significance of the result as a stand-alone measurement is therefore not established; at present it is best viewed as a promising but incomplete methodology study.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2 vs. Table 3] The abstract's claim of 'good agreement with XRD and HR-TEM' is contradicted by the paper's own HR-STEM data. Table 3 reports dt = 0.436 ± 0.035 Å for 51Nb-49Ni and 0.386 ± 0.035 Å for 58Nb-42Ni, i.e., a decrease of ~0.05 Å with increasing Nb content. Table 2 reports EBSD dt values of 0.380 ± 0.012 Å and 0.420 ± 0.008 Å, i.e., an increase of 0.040 Å. Section 4.2 states that 'HR-STEM investigations in the present study reveal an increase of the dt site by about 0.1Å', which is the opposite of what Table 3 shows. This is a load-bearing contradiction: the abstract explicitly advertises HR-TEM agreement, and Section 4.2 uses it to validate the EBSD trend. The authors must correct the STEM analysis or its interpretation, verify sample labelling in Fig. 11, and then revise the abstract and Section 4.2 accordingly. If the HR-STEM data remain as reported, the claim of HR-TEM agreement must be re
  2. [§2.5.2, §3.6, §4.2] The validation is partly circular. The template library for Nb-Ni is generated from the structures of Joubert et al. (2004), and the Nb-Co starting structures are DFT-relaxed cells from Luo et al. (2023) — the same literature sources used later as benchmarks for the 'agreement'. The dt search range is explicitly 'according to the expected range of IL parameters from [5]'. The fitted dt values are therefore obtained by interpolation within a library that is centred on the expected literature values. This does not constitute an independent measurement of dt. The paper should either use templates derived from crystallographically independent sources (e.g., structures relaxed with different methods or bare experimental XRD-derived coordinates without literature z-values) or clearly state that the method can only rank candidate structures within a pre-specified structural model, not measure d
  3. [§4.1 and Fig. 8] The authors correctly state that they 'cannot fully exclude residual systematic errors in the absolute alignment' and cite Alkorta et al. showing that projection-centre offsets can mimic lattice strain. The reported sample-to-sample differences in dt are 0.02–0.06 Å, whereas a 0.5% lattice-parameter change (which the authors estimate could be present in the XRD data) corresponds to a phantom dt shift of 0.015 Å. A systematic PC error of ~1.7 px could therefore contribute a large fraction of the observed compositional trend. The precision analysis is rigorous (scatter around the plane is ~0.001), but precision does not constrain accuracy. The paper should provide a quantitative uncertainty budget that includes systematic PC errors, or explicitly restrict all claims to relative trends within the same calibration setup. As written, the absolute dt values and the compositional gradients are
  4. [§4.3] The authors admit that they 'cannot at present identify those or any crystallographic features which are decisive in the pattern matching.' While the empirical NCC trend is internally consistent, the claim that EBSD 'resolves' interlayer spacings is weakened if the physical origin of the NCC changes is unidentified. The paper would be strengthened by either a more detailed band-by-band or zone-axis analysis linking specific intensity changes to the 6c2 displacement, or by a clear statement in the abstract and conclusions that the method currently provides an empirical, library-based correlation rather than a physically interpretable measurement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The definition of the normalised cross-correlation is incomplete: the denominator is written as (||A−Abar|| · ||B−Bbar||) but the norm is defined as 'qP i,j (Ai,j − Abar)' without a square-root symbol or square inside. Please correct the notation.
  2. [Figure 3] The text refers to '48Nb-42Co' in the misorientation-angle discussion; this should presumably be '48Nb-52Co' for consistency with the sample list.
  3. [Figure S4 caption] The caption says 'No noise and offset applied.' without a panel label; several panels share this description. Please clarify which panel is which and use consistent notation for the SNR/offset values.
  4. [Reference [55]] Reference [55], cited for the influence of Bethe parameters on EBSD intensities, is a paper on Cu/W interface cohesion properties. It appears unrelated to the statement; please verify the citation and replace it with the appropriate source.
  5. [§2.6] The NCC threshold of 0.65 is introduced without a sensitivity analysis. Since this threshold filters patterns before averaging orientations, a brief comment on how the results depend on this choice would be helpful.
  6. [Table 3] The HR-STEM dt and dt−K values are given with standard deviations of 0.035 Å and 0.017–0.067 Å. Given the small sample sizes, please state the number of unit cells/motif triplets analysed and whether the scatter is dominated by local strain variations or measurement uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EBSD template-matching measurement is an independent NCC-based selection, not a fit to the validation values; minor self-citation overlap exists but is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: experimental EBSD patterns → PCA components → global orientation/PC refinement → NCC comparison against dynamical templates generated by varying the 6c2 z position (dt) and 3a occupancy → 4th-degree polynomial fit to normalized NCC values → best dt per sample. The predicted dt is the argument of the maximum of an independently computed similarity metric; it is not obtained by solving for a parameter from the validation data. Several results deviate from the literature inputs (e.g., Nb-Ni EBSD dt is ~0.05 Å above Joubert's XRD; the 3a occupancy is pinned at the grid edge and disagrees with HR-STEM for the low-Nb Nb-Co sample), demonstrating that the search is not statistically forced to return the literature values. The paper does contain self-citations with overlapping authorship: Nb-Co template atom positions are taken from Luo et al. [1] (same group) and the Nb-Co validation is also compared against [1]; Nb-Ni structures come from Joubert et al. [5], which also supplies the XRD validation. These are external peer-reviewed data and the dt values are not imported from them, so this is a minor self-citation overlap, not a load-bearing circular step. The in-house HR-STEM measurement (Table 3) is independent of the template construction. A separate correctness problem, flagged here because the review rules require it: Table 3 reports HR-STEM dt = 0.436 ± 0.035 Å for 51Nb-49Ni and 0.386 ± 0.035 Å for 58Nb-42Ni, i.e., a decrease with Nb content, while Table 2 reports EBSD dt = 0.380 ± 0.012 Å and 0.420 ± 0.008 Å, an increase. Section 4.2 states that 'HR-STEM investigations in the present study reveal an increase of the dt site by about 0.1Å', which contradicts its own Table 3. This undermines the abstract's 'good agreement with HR-TEM' but is an accuracy/consistency issue, not a circularity. The central EBSD-vs-literature trend comparison is a real measurement whose validity should be assessed by resolving the HR-STEM discrepancy, not by a circularity argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is carried by hand-tuned simulation parameters and by the assumption that varying only 6c2 z and 3a occupancy spans the structural space. The fitted dt values are listed as free parameters because they are the output of the matching procedure, not independently measured constants.

free parameters (10)
  • dt, 48Nb-52Co = 0.361 Å
    NCC peak over dt template grid; fitted to EBSD patterns, not independently calibrated.
  • dt, 51Nb-49Ni = 0.380 Å
    NCC peak over dt template grid; fitted to EBSD patterns.
  • dt, 56Nb-44Co = 0.399 Å
    NCC peak over dt template grid; fitted to EBSD patterns.
  • dt, 58Nb-42Ni = 0.420 Å
    NCC peak over dt template grid; fitted to EBSD patterns.
  • 3a site occupancy (all samples) = 1.0 (Nb)
    Best match always full Nb occupancy, but authors conclude SLO cannot be resolved; effectively a fitted value with no independent support.
  • EMSoft Bethe parameters c1/c2/c3 = (5, 10, 50)
    Hand-chosen following EMSoft recommendation for heavy elements; NCC difference between low/high settings is comparable to a 0.05 Å dt shift.
  • Acceleration voltage of templates = 19.45 kV
    Chosen by screening; single-voltage approximation is an assumption given energy distribution ambiguity.
  • PCA variance retained vt = 0.1
    Hand-set; controls how many PCA components enter matching.
  • NCC acceptance threshold = 0.65
    Hand-set to filter poor patterns; arbitrary.
  • Minimum d-spacing in simulation = 0.2 Å
    Chosen; tested effect relative to 0.1 Å is small.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mu-phase structure is fully described by the five Wyckoff positions (3a, 6c1-3, 18h); only the 6c2 z position and 3a occupancy vary with composition in the tested concentration range.
    Used to build the 45-structure template library (Section 2.5.2). If other positional or occupancy degrees of freedom also change, NCC differences could be misassigned to dt.
  • domain assumption Dynamical templates from EMSoft with fixed Bethe parameters (5,10,50), single 19.45 kV voltage, and dmin = 0.2 Å reproduce experimental EBSD relative intensities accurately enough for NCC-based structure selection.
    Sections 2.5.1 and 4.4. Figure 6 shows Bethe-parameter changes cause NCC changes comparable to a 0.05 Å dt shift; only limited sensitivity tests are provided.
  • domain assumption The affine projection-centre plane fit is accurate enough that residual PC errors cannot produce phantom strains comparable to the dt differences.
    Section 4.1. The authors estimate PC scatter ~0.001 but explicitly cannot rule out systematic offsets, and cite Alkorta's strain/PC degeneracy.
  • standard math Normalised cross correlation (Eq. 1) is a monotonic similarity metric whose global maximum identifies the true crystal structure.
    Assumed throughout orientation refinement and template selection; no independent validation that NCC differences of ~0.001-0.009 are structurally specific.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EBSD and Subtle Crystallographic Differences - A Study of Resolving Interlayer Spacings in Nb-Ni and Nb-Co mu-phases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q7GFTXHH

@misc{pith2026260801210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EBSD and Subtle Crystallographic Differences - A Study of Resolving Interlayer Spacings in Nb-Ni and Nb-Co mu-phases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q7GFTXHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01210}
}
read the original abstract

In ordered intermetallics, slight variations in lattice site occupancy and specific interlayer spacings have been identified as the sources of significant changes in critical resolved shear stress and therefore how a given phase may affect alloy properties. So far, atom positions and lattice site occupancies have traditionally been characterised by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD), which are methods that offer either local detail or high statistical significance but not both. Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), by contrast, provides high spatial resolution across large sample areas and therefore, has the potential to enable the local investigation of interlayer spacing and site lattice occupancy with improved statistical reliability. The objectives of the study are to benchmark EBSDs capability for resolving these subtle features and to correlate them with compositional and mechanical properties. In this case study, we therefore show that EBSD can resolve key crystallographic features of mu-phase intermetallics, specifically interlayer spacings. We combine pattern matching with large-scale dynamical simulations of template libraries guided by XRD based information on lattice parameters. For this, we generate structures that vary in the spacing between triple-layer and Kagome layer and in the site lattice occupancy of the 3a site. This approach successfully predicts the change of interlayer spacing between Kagome and triple layers in Nb-Co and Nb-Ni mu-phases, in good agreement with XRD and HR-TEM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of structural properties of candidate structures, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic principle of the methodology employed in this study: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Microstructure of investigated samples, (a)-(d): IPF map with respect to sample normal (same scalebar as image-quality maps), (e)-(h): Image quality map of investigated samples corresponding to IPF maps in (a)-(d), (i)-(l): Texture of the sample represented by (1 1 2 0) and (0 0 0 1) Pole figures, (m)-(p): Misorientation angle distribution calculated from the IPFs maps, the blue bins correspond to the misorientation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EDS and WDS results for Nb-Ni and Nb-Co samples. The sample locations are indicated on sketches of the investigated samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: XRD analysis: (a): XRD intensity for Nb-Ni and Nb-Co samples in dependency of the interlayer spacing. The black lines mark the peak positions of the µ-phase after fitting (shown up to an intensity of 10 % of the maximum intensity). The data is normalised by the maximum…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualisation of various influences of simulation parameters on the patterns. The colour-bar gives the intensity values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Assessment of influence of noise and P CX offsets on 100 random orientation differences in NCC on the distinctiveness of dynamical templates with varying site-lattice occupancy: (a): No noise and offset, (b): Poisson noise with a singal to noise ratio (SNR) of 17.5 dB.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Projection centre (P C) refinement (a): Plane fitted to pattern centre points from global optimisation routine, as parametrised by P CX, P CY and P CZ. Typical result, example taken from 58Nb-42Ni for dt = 0.325 (b): Typical variation of projection centre values and NC…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results after comparing experimental and simulated patterns for multiple components identified by the PCA. Contour plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variation of interlayer spacings dt with orientation. The scatter in the horizontal direction is artificially added to reduce the overlap of data points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results from interlayer spacing analysis of the HR-STEM data: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of interlayer spacings determined in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Attempt to highlight key differences between a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Joubert, B

    J.-M. Joubert, B. Sundman, N. Dupin, Assessment of the niobium–nickel system, Calphad 28 (3) (2004) 299–306.doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2004.09.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.calphad.2004.09.004 2004

  2. [1]

    W. Luo, Z. Xie, S. Zhang, J. Guénolé, P.-L. Sun, A. Meingast, A. Alhassan, X. Zhou, F. Stein, L. Pizzagalli, B. Berkels, C. Scheu, S. Korte- Kerzel, Tailoring the Plasticity of Topologically Close-Packed Phases via the Crystals’ Fundamen- tal Building Blocks, Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) 35 (24) (2023) e2300586.doi:10.1002/ adma.202300586

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    W. Chen, Y. Zhao, X. Fei, X. Wang, P. Nan, Y. Zhang, H. Jin, B. Ge, The mechanisms of pref- erential occupation and planar defect transforma- tion in theμphase of cobalt-based superalloys, Acta Materialia 298 (2025) 121399.doi:10.1016/ j.actamat.2025.121399

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    F. C. Frank, J. S. Kasper, Complex alloy structures regarded as sphere packings. II. Analysis and classi- fication of representative structures 12 (1959) 483– 499.doi:10.1107/S0365110X59001499

    work page doi:10.1107/s0365110x59001499 1959

  5. [4]

    M. H. F. Sluiter, A. Pasturel, Y. Kawazoe, Site oc- cupation in the Ni-Nbμphase, Physical Review B 67 (17) (2003).doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.67.174203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.67.174203 2003

  6. [6]

    J. B. Forsyth, L. M. Da d’Alte Veiga, The structure of the [mu]-phase Co7Mo6, Acta crystallographica 15 (1962) 543–546. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/ S0365110X62001401

    work page 1962

  7. [7]

    X. Wu, W. Liu, X.-G. Lu, Y. Jiang, Y. He, Site occupancy behavior of the binaryμphase, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 305 (2022) 122704.doi: 10.1016/j.jssc.2021.122704

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    P. Dong, X. Pei, X. Zhang, L. Ge, N. Hu, H. Li, Z. Zhang, The element occupation preference ofμ phase in ternary Ni-Cr-Mo model superalloy, Mate- rials & Design 225 (2023) 111569.doi:10.1016/j. matdes.2022.111569

    arXiv 2023

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Wilkinson, T. B. Britton, Strains, planes, and EBSD in materials science, Materials Today 15 (9) (2012) 366–376.doi:10.1016/S1369-7021(12) 70163-3

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Randle, O

    V. Randle, O. Engler, Introduction to texture anal- ysis : macrotexture, microtexture and orientation mapping, Gordon & Breach, Amsterdam [u.a.], 2000. URLhttps://publications.rwth-aachen.de/ record/95364

    2000

  3. [11]

    Reimer, Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, 2nd Edition, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Heidelberg, 1998

    L. Reimer, Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis, 2nd Edition, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin Heidelberg, 1998

    1998

  4. [12]

    A. J. Schwartz, M. Kumar, B. L. Adams, D. P. Field, Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materi- als Science, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009.doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-88136-2

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Vespucci, A

    S. Vespucci, A. Winkelmann, G. Naresh-Kumar, K. P. Mingard, D. Maneuski, P. R. Edwards, A. P. Day, V. O’Shea, C. Trager-Cowan1, Digital direct electronimagingofenergy-filteredelectronbackscat- ter diffraction pattern, Physical Review B 92 (2015) 205301

    2015

  6. [14]

    Zhang, T

    T. Zhang, T. B. Britton, Multi-exposure diffrac- tion pattern fusion applied to enable wider-angle transmission Kikuchi diffraction with direct elec- tron detectors, Ultramicroscopy 257 (2024) 113902. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113902

    2024

  7. [15]

    D. R. Steinmetz, S. Zaefferer, Towards ultrahigh res- olution EBSD by low accelerating voltage, Materi- als Science and Technology 26 (6) (2010) 640–645. doi:10.1179/026708309X12506933873828

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Zaefferer, A critical review of orientation mi- croscopy in SEM and TEM, Crystal Research and Technology 46 (6) (2011) 607–628.doi:10.1002/ crat.201100125

    S. Zaefferer, A critical review of orientation mi- croscopy in SEM and TEM, Crystal Research and Technology 46 (6) (2011) 607–628.doi:10.1002/ crat.201100125

    2011

  9. [17]

    F. Ram, M. de Graef, Phase differentiation by elec- tron backscatter diffraction using the dictionary in- dexing approach, Acta Materialia 144 (2018) 352– 364.doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.10.069

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Sharma, A

    J. Sharma, A. Nicolaÿ, M. de Graef, N. Bozzolo, Phase discrimination betweenδandηphases in the new nickel-based superalloy VDM Alloy 780 us- ing EBSD, Materials Characterization 176 (2021) 111105.doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2021.111105

    2021

  11. [19]

    McAuliffe, D

    T.P. McAuliffe, D. Dye, T.B. Britton, Spherical- angular dark field imaging and sensitive microstruc- tural phase clustering with unsupervised machine learning, Ultramicroscopy 219 (2020) 113132

    2020

  12. [20]

    T. P. McAuliffe, I. Bantounas, L. R. Reynolds, A. Foden, M. Hardy, T. B. Britton, D. Dye, Quanti- tative precipitate classification and grain boundary property control in Co/Ni-base superalloys, Metal- lurgical and Materials Transactions A 52 (5) (2021) 25 1649–1664.doi:10.100...

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Winkelmann, G

    A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, Point-group sensitive orientation mapping of non-centrosymmetric crys- tals, Applied Physics Letters 106 (7) (2015).doi: 10.1063/1.4907938

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Winkelmann, G

    A. Winkelmann, G. Cios, T. Tokarski, P. Bała, Y. Grin, U. Burkhardt, Assignment of chiral ele- mental crystal structures using kikuchi diffraction, Materials Characterization 196 (2023) 112633.doi: 10.1016/j.matchar.2022.112633

    2023

  15. [23]

    G. Cios, A. Winkelmann, T. Tokarski, P. Bala, Pat- tern matching workflows for EBSD data analysis: Quartz chirality mapping, Materials Characteriza- tion 224 (2025) 115076.doi:10.1016/j.matchar. 2025.115076

    2025

  16. [25]

    Naresh-Kumar, A

    G. Naresh-Kumar, A. Vilalta-Clemente, H. Jussila, A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, S. Vespucci, S. Nagara- jan, A. J. Wilkinson, C. Trager-Cowan, Quantita- tive imaging of anti-phase domains by polarity sen- sitive orientation mapping using electron backscat- ter diffraction, Scientif...

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    Burkhardt, H

    U. Burkhardt, H. Borrmann, P. Moll, M. Schmidt, Y. Grin, A. Winkelmann, Absolute Structure from Scanning Electron Microscopy, Scientific reports 10 (1) (2020) 4065.doi:10.1038/ s41598-020-59854-y

    2020

  18. [27]

    Martin, A

    S. Martin, A. Winkelmann, A. Leineweber, Domain structure of pseudosymmetricη” ordered cu6sn5 by ebsd analysis, Acta Materialia 229 (2022) 117828. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.117828

    2022

  19. [28]

    G. Cios, A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, T. Tokarski, L. Rychlowski, L. Dan, P. Bala, Mapping of lat- tice distortion in martensitic steel-Comparison of different evaluation methods of EBSD patterns, Ul- tramicroscopy 253 (2023) 113824.doi:10.1016/j. ultramic.2023.113824

    2023

  20. [29]

    Abdellaoui, Z

    L. Abdellaoui, Z. Chen, Y. Yu, T. Luo, R. Hanus, T. Schwarz, R. Bueno Villoro, O. Cojocaru- Mirédin, G. J. Snyder, D. Raabe, Y. Pei, C. Scheu, S. Zhang, Parallel dislocation net- works and cottrell atmospheres reduce thermal conductivity of pbte thermoelectrics, Advanced Funct...

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    Abdellaoui, S

    L. Abdellaoui, S. Zhang, S. Zaefferer, R. Bueno- Villoro, A. Baranovskiy, O. Cojocaru-Mirédin, Y. Yu, Y. Amouyal, D. Raabe, G. J. Snyder, C. Scheu, Density, distribution and nature of pla- narfaultsinsilverantimonytellurideforthermoelec- tric applications, Acta Materialia 178 ...

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    T. B. Britton, A. J. Wilkinson, Measurement of residual elastic strain and lattice rotations with high resolution electron backscatter diffraction, Ultrami- croscopy 111 (8) (2011) 1395–1404.doi:10.1016/ j.ultramic.2011.05.007

    2011

  23. [32]

    Nolze, A

    G. Nolze, A. Winkelmann, Crystallometric and pro- jective properties of Kikuchi diffraction patterns, Journal of Applied Crystallography 50 (1) (2017) 102–119.doi:10.1107/S1600576716017477

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    S. W. Wallace, S. Wright, Addressing the Difficul- ties of Differentiating Members of the Feldspar Solid Solution Series via Electron Backscatter Diffraction, Microscopy and Microanalysis 25 (S2) (2019) 2476– 2477.doi:10.1017/S1431927619013114

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    T. Lühr, A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, D. Krull, C. Westphal, Direct Atom Imaging by Chemical- Sensitive Holography, Nano letters 16 (5) (2016) 3195–3201.doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b00524

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    P. G. Callahan, M. de Graef, Dynamical electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Part I: pattern sim- ulations, Microscopy and microanalysis : the offi- cial journal of Microscopy Society of America, Mi- crobeam Analysis Society, Microscopical Society of Canada 19 (5) (2013) ...

    2013

  27. [36]

    Stein, D

    F. Stein, D. Jiang, M. Palm, G. Sauthoff, D. Grüner, G. Kreiner, Experimental reinvestigation of the Co–Nb phase diagram, Intermetallics 16 (2008) 785– 792.doi:10.1016/j.intermet.2008.02.017

    2008 doi

  28. [37]

    Okamoto, Nb-Ni (Niobium–Nickel), Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion 29 (2) (2008) 210

    H. Okamoto, Nb-Ni (Niobium–Nickel), Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion 29 (2) (2008) 210. doi:10.1007/s11669-008-9277-0

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    Eggert, The p/b-method, about 50 years a hidden champion, Microscopy and Microanalysis 24 (S1) (2018) 734–735.doi:10.1017/S1431927618004166

    F. Eggert, The p/b-method, about 50 years a hidden champion, Microscopy and Microanalysis 24 (S1) (2018) 734–735.doi:10.1017/S1431927618004166. 26

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    Eggert, Complementary standardless quantita- tive methods with eds, Microscopy and Micro- analysis 25 (S2) (2019) 560–561.doi:10.1017/ S1431927619003532

    F. Eggert, Complementary standardless quantita- tive methods with eds, Microscopy and Micro- analysis 25 (S2) (2019) 560–561.doi:10.1017/ S1431927619003532

    2019

  31. [40]

    Pouchou, F

    J.-L. Pouchou, F. Pichoir, Quantitative Analysis of Homogeneous or Stratified Microvolumes Applying the Model “PAP”, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1991, pp. 31–75.doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2617-3_4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4899-2617-3_4

    1991 doi

  32. [41]

    Luca Lutterotti, Siegfried Matthies, H. R. Wenk, MAUD: a friendly Java program for material analysis using diffraction, 1999. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:136186256

    1999

  33. [42]

    G.Kresse, J.Furthmüller, Efficientiterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane- wave basis set, Physical review B 54 (16) (1996) 11169

    1996

  34. [43]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Physical review B 47 (1) (1993) 558

    1993

  35. [44]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopo- tentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Physical review b 59 (3) (1999) 1758

    1999

  36. [45]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Physical re- view letters 77 (18) (1996) 3865

    1996

  37. [46]

    Methfessel, A

    M. Methfessel, A. T. Paxton, High-precision sam- pling for brillouin-zone integration in metals, physi- cal review B 40 (6) (1989) 3616

    1989

  38. [47]

    H. J. Monkhorst, J. D. Pack, Special points for brillouin-zone integrations, Physical review B 13 (12) (1976) 5188

    1976

  39. [48]

    T. P. McAuliffe, A. Foden, C. Bilsland, D. Daskalaki Mountanou, D. Dye, T. B. Britton, Advancing char- acterisation with statistics from correlative electron diffraction and X-ray spectroscopy, in the scanning electron microscope, Ultramicroscopy 211 (2020) 112944.doi:10.1016/...

    2020

  40. [49]

    Wallis, L

    T.B.Britton, J.Jiang, Y.Guo, A.Vilalta-Clemente, D. Wallis, L. N. Hansen, A. Winkelmann, A. J. Wilkinson, Tutorial: Crystal orientations and EBSD — Or which way is up?, Materials Characteriza- tion 117 (2016) 113–126.doi:10.1016/j.matchar. 2016.04.008

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    Krakow, R

    R. Krakow, R. J. Bennett, D. N. Johnstone, Z. Vuk- manovic, W. Solano-Alvarez, S. J. Lainé, J. F. Einsle, P. A. Midgley, C. M. F. Rae, R. Hielscher, On three-dimensional misorientation spaces, Pro- ceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 473 (2206) (2017) 20...

    2017

  42. [51]

    M. H. Qaiser, L. Berners, R. J. Scales, T. Zhang, M. Heller, J. Dluhoš, S. Korte-Kerzel, T. B. Brit- ton, AstroECP : towards more practical electron channeling contrast imaging, Journal of Applied Crystallography 59 (2) (2026).doi:10.1107/ S1600576726000567

    2026

  43. [52]

    R. C. Gonzalez, R. E. Woods, Digital image process- ing, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River N.J., 2002

    2002

  44. [53]

    Winkelmann, T

    A. Winkelmann, T. B. Britton, G. Nolze, Con- straints on the effective electron energy spectrum in backscatter Kikuchi diffraction, Physical Review B 99 (6) (2019).doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.99.064115

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    M. A. Jackson, E. Pascal, M. de Graef, Dictionary Indexing of Electron Back-Scatter Diffraction Pat- terns: a Hands-On Tutorial, Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation 8 (2) (2019) 226–246. doi:10.1007/s40192-019-00137-4

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    J. W. Wang, J. L. Fan, H. R. Gong, Effects of Zr alloying on cohesion properties of Cu/W interfaces, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 661 (2016) 553– 556.doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.11.154

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    A. S. A. Alhassan, S. Zhang, B. Berkels, Di- rect motif extraction from high resolution crys- talline STEM images, Ultramicroscopy 254 (2023) 113827.arXiv:2303.07438,doi:10.1016/j. ultramic.2023.113827

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Mevenkamp, B

    N. Mevenkamp, B. Berkels, Unsupervised and accu- rate extraction of primitive unit cells from crystal images, in: Proceedings of the 37th German Confer- ence on Pattern Recognition (GCPR), Vol. 9358 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2015, pp. 105–116.doi:10.1007/...

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    J. F. Zhao, H. P. Wang, B. Wei, Atomic-scale struc- tural characterization and twin formation mecha- nisms ofμphase within refractory Nb Ni alloy, Ma- terials Characterization 201 (2023) 112921.doi: 10.1016/j.matchar.2023.112921

    2023

  50. [59]

    S. Ma, X. Li, J. Zhang, J. Liu, P. Li, Y. Zhang, H. Jin, W. Zhang, Y. Zhou, X. Sun, Q. Zhang, Y. Chen, S. Mao, Atomic arrangement and forma- tion of planar defects in theμphase of Ni-base single crystal superalloys, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 766 (2018) 775–783.doi:10.101...

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    Gasper, N

    C. Gasper, N. Ulumuddin, S. Zhang, S.-H. Lee, C. Scheu, B. Berkels, Z. Xie, S. Korte-Kerzel, Chemically tailored planar defect phases in the ta- fe{\mu}-phase, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17336 (2025)

    2025

  52. [61]

    C. R. Herrington, Quantitative EDS and WDS X- ray microanalysis of semiconductor materials: Prin- ciples and comparisons, Journal of Electron Mi- croscopy Technique 2 (5) (1985) 471–479.doi: 10.1002/jemt.1060020509

    1985 doi

  53. [62]

    Camus, Factors Affecting WDS Performance Superiority over EDS, Microscopy and Microanal- ysis 21 (S3) (2015) 1629–1630.doi:10.1017/ S1431927615008922

    P. Camus, Factors Affecting WDS Performance Superiority over EDS, Microscopy and Microanal- ysis 21 (S3) (2015) 1629–1630.doi:10.1017/ S1431927615008922

    2015

  54. [63]

    T. B. Britton, V. S. Tong, J. Hickey, A. Foden, A. J. Wilkinson, AstroEBSD : exploring new space in pattern indexing with methods launched from an astronomical approach, Journal of Applied Crystal- lography 51 (6) (2018) 1525–1534.doi:10.1107/ S1600576718010373

    2018

  55. [64]

    Bachmann, R

    F. Bachmann, R. Hielscher, H. Schaeben, Texture Analysis with MTEX – Free and Open Source Soft- ware Toolbox, Solid State Phenomena 160 (2010) 63–68.doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP. 160.63

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

    W. Li, X. Zhou, J. Xu, R. Zhang, L. Lai, Y. Zeng, H. Miao, Accurate and fast localization of EBSD pattern centers for screen moving technology, Ul- tramicroscopy 259 (2024) 113924.doi:10.1016/j. ultramic.2024.113924

    2024

  57. [66]

    Mingard, A

    K. Mingard, A. Day, C. Maurice, P. Quested, To- wardshighaccuracycalibrationofelectronbackscat- ter diffraction systems, Ultramicroscopy 111 (5) (2011) 320–329.doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2011. 01.012

    2011 doi

  58. [67]

    E. L. Pang, P. M. Larsen, C. A. Schuh, Global opti- mization for accurate determination of EBSD pat- tern centers, Ultramicroscopy 209 (2020) 112876. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.112876

    2020

  59. [68]

    Winkelmann, B

    A. Winkelmann, B. M. Jablon, V. S. Tong, C. Trager-Cowan, K. P. Mingard, Improving EBSD precision by orientation refinement with full pattern matching, Journal of microscopy 277 (2) (2020) 79– 92.doi:10.1111/jmi.12870

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    T. B. Britton, C. Maurice, R. Fortunier, J. H. Driver, A. P. Day, G. Meaden, D. J. Dingley, K. Mingard, A. J. Wilkinson, Factors affecting the accuracy of high resolution electron backscat- ter diffraction when using simulated patterns, Ul- tramicroscopy 110 (12) (2010) 1443–1...

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    Alkorta, Limits of simulation based high reso- lution EBSD, Ultramicroscopy 131 (2013) 33–38

    J. Alkorta, Limits of simulation based high reso- lution EBSD, Ultramicroscopy 131 (2013) 33–38. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2013.03.020

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    Winkelmann, G

    A. Winkelmann, G. Nolze, G. Cios, T. Tokarski, P. Bała, B. Hourahine, C. Trager-Cowan, Kikuchi pattern simulations of backscattered and transmit- ted electrons, Journal of microscopy 284 (2) (2021) 157–184.doi:10.1111/jmi.13051

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    Zhang, L

    T. Zhang, L. Berners, J. Holzer, T. B. Britton, Com- parison of Kikuchi diffraction geometries in the scan- ning electron microscope, Materials Characteriza- tion 222 (2025) 114853.doi:10.1016/j.matchar. 2025.114853

    2025

  64. [73]

    Q. Shi, E. Plancher, D. Loisnard, P. Karamched, J. Liu, Z. Chen, H. Wang, S. Roux, Improved high- resolution EBSD analyses by correcting radial dis- tortion of electron diffraction patterns, Materials Characterization 194 (2022) 112458.doi:10.1016/ j.matchar.2022.112458

    2022

  65. [74]

    Nolze, T

    G. Nolze, T. Tokarski, L. Rychlowski, Use of elec- tron backscatter diffraction patterns to determine the crystal lattice. Part 3. Pseudosymmetry, Journal of applied crystallography 56 (Pt 2) (2023) 367–380. doi:10.1107/S1600576723000845

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    unaltered

    N. Saowadee, K. Agersted, J. R. Bowen, Lattice con- stantmeasurementfromelectronbackscatterdiffrac- tion patterns, Journal of microscopy 266 (2) (2017) 200–210.doi:10.1111/jmi.12529. 28 S1. Supplementary S1.1. Additional data for WDS Figure S1: Additional Data from WDS scannin...

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.