Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Transverse quantum-state characterization of programmable electron optics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One four-dimensional STEM scan per programmed state reconstructs the transverse density matrix of an electron beam from a programmable electrostatic phase plate, showing the beam is substantially mixed — purity falling from about 0.47 to…

desk verdict First measured density matrix for programmable electron optics, backed by unusually honest controls, but the headline purity trend is not yet separable from detector-sampling and time-confounding biases. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05749 v1 pith:DGUCXY2N submitted 2026-08-06 physics.optics cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-phquant-ph

Shengbo You , Paolo Rosi , Enzo Rotunno , Alberto Roncaglia , Luca Belsito , Amir H. Tavabi , Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski , Vincenzo Grillo
show 1 more author
Philipp M. Pelz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-phquant-ph
keywords electronvortexbeamsmixed-stateptychographytransversedensitymatrixorbitalangularmomentumprogrammablephaseplatespatialcoherencedoseefficiency4D-STEM
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 establishes that the transverse quantum state of an electron beam delivered by a programmable electrostatic phase plate can be fully reconstructed from a single four-dimensional STEM scan per setting, using mixed-state ptychography with no extra hardware. The central experimental result is that the delivered beam is far from pure: its purity falls from about 0.47 to about 0.24 as the applied bias grows, contradicting a simple fixed source-blur model, while the real-space coherence width stays near one nanometre. The same scans yield the beam's orbital-angular-momentum density matrix, an in-situ voltage-to-charge calibration, and dose-efficiency metrics, turning one acquisition into a quantum-state acceptance test for programmable electron optics. This matters because proposals for dose-efficient phase imaging, shaped-electron X-ray sources, and chiral spectroscopy all assume a pure, fully coherent delivered wave that until now had never been measured.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a two-stage reconstruction pipeline. Stage one extracts the complex aperture function directly from the parallax shifts of the bright-field disk, using a loop integral whose circulation separates the vortex winding (effective topological charge) from scan drift; stage two refines the probe as an effective finite-rank density matrix by mixed-state ptychography, jointly optimizing eight physical probe modes and a single object transmission. The accompanying partial-coherence-aware transfer theory extends the sideband-overlap SSNR formalism to arbitrary mixed probes: the coherence envelope D_coh = L_ρ/L_up multiplies the shot-noise-limited SSNR, reducing to known source-size and chromatic envelopes in the appropriate limits.

What would settle it

Run the same MEMS device through a randomized-order re-sweep with repeated zero-bias and repeated charge states; if purity no longer decreases monotonically with delivered charge, the reported trend is an artifact of acquisition order. Separately, fixing the physical probe and comparing reconstructions at native versus 2×2 binned detector sampling at a second camera length would test whether detector point-spread biases high-|ℓ| reconstructions toward lower purity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A microelectromechanical electrostatic spiral phase plate does not deliver the pure helical wavefront that programmable-electron-optics proposals assume; the delivered beam is a substantially mixed, partially coherent state. Mode-power analysis of eight reconstructed probe modes shows the dominant-mode power and purity Tr ρ² declining linearly with delivered orbital-angular-momentum charge, from a measured purity of about 0.47 at zero bias to about 0.24 at the largest programmed charge, while the von Neumann entropy rises from about 1.1 to about 1.6 nats. The real-space coherence envelope stays flat near 1 nm, and the Fourier-space envelope narrowing with charge is reproduced by a pure vortex control, identifying it as a diagnostic artifact rather than loss of angular coherence; the physically meaningful OAM density matrix instead shows a coherent-to-incoherent step: adjacent-channel coherence g ≈ 0.78 for the round beam falling to a charge-independent plateau near 0.30. The delivered charge is non-integer (gain 16.8 ± 0.1 ħ/V), so part of the measured OAM spread is a coherent consequence of fractional vortex structure, and the measured mixedness implies that purifying the output could improve dose efficiency roughly threefold.

Load-bearing premise

The central trend assumes that each charge state is faithfully represented by its single contiguous acquisition, so that the applied voltage is not confounded with acquisition order, drift, contamination, or the device's charging history; the authors flag that only a randomized interleaved re-sweep can separate these.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each programmed state gets a measured per-state specification — mode powers, OAM spectrum, coherence widths, and dose-to-SNR requirements — replacing the assumed-pure inputs used by vortex magnetometry, phase-plate imaging, and shaped-electron X-ray proposals.
  • The reconstructed charge tracks the programmed bias linearly (≈ 16.8 ħ/V), so a standard 4D-STEM camera becomes an in-situ calibration instrument for tunable phase plates.
  • Because the measured mixedness erases most of the coherent vortex's dose-efficiency advantage, purifying the delivered beam is the single largest expected improvement in dose-efficient structured illumination.
  • Virtual OAM sorting recovers the off-diagonal elements of the OAM density matrix — the inter-channel coherences — that hardware intensity-based sorters cannot access.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the method transfers to other dynamic shaping devices (pixel-array plates, Ampere phase plates), the same single-scan test could become a standard acceptance measurement for any programmable electron optic, quantifying device-to-device variation.
  • The measured ~1 nm real-space coherence patch implies, by the coherent-area scaling used for shaped-electron X-ray sources, enhancements of order ten for beams like those delivered here; reaching 1000× would require roughly ten-nanometre coherence, which is a quantitative design target.
  • A randomized, interleaved voltage re-sweep with repeated zero-bias states — the control the authors state they did not perform — would settle whether the purity decrease is genuinely charge-driven or a time/drift artifact; this is the most direct next experiment.
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 manuscript reports a method for reconstructing the transverse density matrix of a programmable electron optical element from a single four-dimensional STEM scan per state, using mixed-state ptychography. The method is demonstrated on a MEMS electrostatic spiral phase plate across programmed charges ℓ = −17…+17. The authors report that the delivered beam is substantially mixed, with purity falling from ≈0.47 to ≈0.24 as the applied bias grows, that the real-space coherence width stays near 1 nm, and that the same data provide an in-situ voltage-to-OAM calibration, virtual OAM sorting, and partial-coherence-aware dose-efficiency metrics. The manuscript includes an unusually extensive limitations section, round-beam reference scans, injection–recovery tests, mode-count and mask-width robustness checks, and openly deposited data and code.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim survives scrutiny, this is a significant advance: it would turn a standard 4D-STEM acquisition into a quantum-state acceptance test for programmable electron optics, replacing assumed purity and coherence with measured, per-state specifications. The paper's strengths include the round-beam reference reconstructions (purity 0.90–0.98), the injection–recovery self-consistency test (six of eight purities reproduced within ≈0.04), the mode-count plateau at 6–8 modes, the mask-width insensitivity (<0.02), and the branch-symmetric purity slopes. The manuscript is also commendably explicit about its own limitations. However, the headline purity trend is not yet separable from a charge-dependent detector-sampling bias, and the current data do not disentangle voltage from acquisition-time drift. These are load-bearing gaps for the main claim, and they require additional experimental or forward-model controls rather than mere rewording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III / Sec. F] The central claim that purity falls from ≈0.47 to ≈0.24 with charge, and is 'inconsistent with a fixed lateral source-blur model,' is not yet separable from a charge-dependent detector-sampling bias. The manuscript itself states in Sec. III and Sec. F that finite pixel integration, detector MTF, and undersampling are mathematically absorbed into probe-mode mixing and can bias the recovered mode rank at high |ℓ|, because the azimuthal phase gradient of a charge-ℓ vortex produces progressively finer scan-dependent interference structure. The round-beam control (purity 0.90–0.98) does not exercise this channel, since it lacks the ℓ-dependent structure, and the injection–recovery test uses the same idealized forward model and therefore cannot certify the real detector. To support the headline claim, the authors should provide either a forward-model study that includes an independently measured detector MTF and pixel integration for the actual detector, or experimental detector-sampling controls such as native versus 2×2 binning and a second camera length at fixed probe. Without such a bound, the purity trend is a system-level reconstruction result, not an established property of the delivered beam.
  2. [Sec. F] The monotonic purity decrease is inferred from one contiguous acquisition per charge state, in which the applied bias is ordered in acquisition time. The manuscript is explicit that voltage is confounded with acquisition time, drift, hysteresis, contamination, and device charging history, but this confound is load-bearing for the abstract's statement that purity falls 'as the applied bias grows.' A randomized, interleaved re-sweep with repeated zero-bias and repeated charge states, analyzed with bootstrap confidence intervals on the purity slope, is needed to separate a genuine voltage dependence from a time-dependent artifact. This is listed in Sec. F as a required control; the headline result should be re-derived from such data before publication.
  3. [Sec. F.1 and Sec. C] The adjacent-OAM degree of coherence g is used in Sec. C to conclude that the state is a partially coherent mixed-OAM vortex with a charge-independent plateau g = 0.30 ± 0.03. However, Sec. F.1 reports per-state reconstruction-seed standard deviations up to 0.14 (a factor of about three) at the highest charges, and the plateau spans exactly those high-charge states. A three-seed mean does not reduce this scatter for a ratio built from a single off-diagonal element. The paper's own caution against interpreting individual high-charge g values should be extended to the plateau claim, or the plateau should be reported with per-state seed uncertainty propagated, rather than as a global ±0.03.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Code Availability] The DOI '10.5281/zenodo.CODE' is a placeholder and should be replaced with a working DOI before acceptance.
  2. [Sec. D] The phrase 'the two device-in ℓ = 0 scans' appears to be a typo; consider rewording to 'the two ℓ = 0 scans acquired with the device installed' for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 4(c)] The text states that the ±0.1 ℏ/V regression standard error is a lower bound on total calibration uncertainty; the figure caption should state this as well, since the plotted error bar may otherwise be misread as the total uncertainty.
  4. [Sec. E, Eq. (11)] The electrode-charging model would be more reproducible if the explicit expressions for the potentials N1 and N2, including the convolution with ln|k|, were written out in the text or in an appendix rather than left to the code.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Purity trend is independently reconstructed, but the virtual OAM sorter is self-optimized on the same data, making its spectra and calibration partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. E (Virtual OAM sorting) and Sec. F (Limitations)]
    "because the virtual sorter refines both its sorting axis and its non-round aberration correction by maximizing OAM spectral concentration on the same data, it may sharpen the recovered spectra by construction; the resulting bias in dominant-channel power, ensemble-mean OAM, off-diagonal coherence, and the calibration slope and intercept, is one of the quantities the self-consistency injection–recovery test above partially bounds"

    The sorting axis and the virtual aberration-correction coefficients are free parameters chosen to maximize the spectral concentration sum_l P_l^2 on the very dataset whose OAM spectrum is then reported as the measurement. The reported dominant-channel power, ensemble-mean OAM, and calibration slope are therefore not independent readouts: the optimization criterion itself promotes concentration of the spectrum, so part of the measured 'signal' is enforced by construction. The paper explicitly labels this 'by construction' and only partially bounds it; the injection–recovery test uses the same forward model and does not remove the self-optimization of the sorter.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim—purity falling from about 0.47 to about 0.24 with increasing programmed charge—is not circular. The purity and mode powers are reconstructed from 4D-STEM data by mixed-state ptychography; no parameter is fitted to the purity itself, and the round-beam controls (purity 0.90-0.98) and injection-recovery tests provide external checks. The paper also candidly identifies the residual confounds: the charge series is one contiguous acquisition per state, so voltage is entangled with drift and contamination; and finite pixel integration, detector MTF, and undersampling can bias the recovered mode rank at high |l|. These are limitations and alternative explanations, not circular derivations. The genuine circular step is the virtual OAM sorter, whose sorting axis and virtual aberration correction are optimized by maximizing OAM spectral concentration on the same data whose spectrum is then reported; the paper itself admits this 'may sharpen the recovered spectra by construction.' Because the purity trend is independent of that self-optimization and the paper bounds the sorter bias only partially, the overall circularity is moderate rather than severe: score 4, not 6 or above.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement relies on a finite-rank modal model, thin-specimen and weak-phase assumptions, a Poisson noise model, and several post-hoc choices (mask width, mode count). The only explicit free parameters fitted to data are the two fluctuation amplitudes of the charging model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Electrode fluctuation amplitudes R1, R2 = 0 to 3.5 rad rms (grid step 0.5, fitted per charge state)
    In the stochastic phase-screen charging model (Sec. F.3), only these two amplitudes are free; they are least-squares fitted to the measured OAM populations alone, so the resulting purity and adjacent-OAM coherence are labeled predictions rather than independent forecasts.
  • Probe mode count = 8 physical modes (9 allocated, junk discarded)
    Chosen by hand. The paper reports that purity plateaus at 6-8 modes and that four modes over-estimate purity by up to 0.14, so this model choice affects absolute values and is a source of model dependence.
  • Needle-band data mask width = 14 px full width
    A band of detector pixels along the needle shadow is excluded from reconstruction. Widening the mask from 14 to 24 px changes purity by less than 0.02, so the dependence is weak, but it is a post-hoc data exclusion.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The specimen is thin and weakly scattering, so a single object transmission function suffices and the SSNR/DQE theory is valid.
    Used in both ptychographic stages and in the partial-coherence-aware transfer theory (Secs. A, D, F). Gold nanoparticles on amorphous carbon are assumed consistent with this assumption.
  • domain assumption The recorded intensities can be modeled as an incoherent sum over a finite set of mutually incoherent coherent probe modes.
    This is the central mixed-state ptychography model (Sec. C). It is validated by round-beam controls and injection-recovery tests, but the finite-rank truncation remains a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Shot noise follows Poisson statistics and, for mixed illumination, the noise power is set by the incoherent sum of modal magnitudes |Gamma_m|.
    Stated in Sec. D as a model inherited from Refs. [42,43,57]. The paper notes that a fully basis-invariant Fisher/Poisson-covariance derivation is left to future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transverse quantum-state characterization of programmable electron optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGUCXY2N

@misc{pith2026260805749,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transverse quantum-state characterization of programmable electron optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGUCXY2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05749}
}
read the original abstract

Programmable electron optics -- electronically controlled phase plates -- underpin proposals from dose-efficient phase imaging to shaped-electron X-ray sources, nearly all assuming a pure, fully coherent delivered wave whose purity has never been measured. Here we reconstruct the transverse density matrix of a microelectromechanical electrostatic spiral phase plate by mixed-state ptychography, from one four-dimensional STEM scan per state and without added hardware. The delivered beam is substantially mixed: its purity falls from approximately 0.47 to approximately 0.24 as the applied bias grows, inconsistent with a fixed lateral source-blur model, while the real-space coherence width stays near 1 nm. The same scans calibrate the device in situ, allow virtual orbital-angular-momentum sorting and, through a partial-coherence-aware transfer theory, indicate that purifying the output could improve dose efficiency roughly threefold. One acquisition thus becomes a quantum-state acceptance test for programmable electron optics, supplying the purity and coherence that emerging phase-plate and diffractive-imaging schemes assume but leave unquantified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05749 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. First four reconstructed probe modes of the MEMS vortex probe across the charge series (one dataset per programmed charge). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Reconstructed object phase across the charge series (one dataset per programmed charge; panels are labelled by the fit-predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Probe mode powers versus the fit-predicted mean OAM for the contiguous acquisition series (one dataset per charge; the abscissa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Virtual OAM sorting of the reconstructed probes, obtained by projecting the reconstructed mutual-coherence operator onto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Coherence envelopes of the vortex probes, following the estimation of Ref. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Partial-coherence-aware dose-efficiency metrics for weak-phase direct ptychography for the reconstructed vortex probes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reconstruction-seed reproducibility of the off-diagonal coherence The nonlinear reconstruction reaches different near- degenerate solutions depending on the random initialization of the object and the higher probe modes, and these solutions are not equally informative about every element of 𝜌𝑙𝑙′. Repeating individual reconstructions with the initializatio...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Needle-band data mask The reconstruction excludes a band of detector pixels along the needle shadow (a half-ray of full width 14 px at the page 14 of 18 measured shadow azimuth). The exclusion is necessary: the needle-region phase gradients are steep enough to deflect the illumination passing between the needles outside the recorded field of view, so the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Electrode-charging model and its fitting The forward model tested in Sec. F. represents the illumi- nation in each acquisition realization as a pure state 𝜓 = 𝐴(𝒌)exp[𝑖(ℓ𝜃+𝑅1𝑁1(𝒌)+𝑅2𝑁2(𝒌))], (11) with 𝐴 the aperture amplitude and 𝑁1,2 the electrostatic potentials of the two chopstick electrodes. Each potential is the characteristic function of that electr...

    work page

  4. [4]

    K. Y. Bliokh, P. Schattschneider, J. Verbeeck, and F. Nori, Electron vortex beams in a magnetic field: A new twist on Landau levels and Aharonov–Bohm states, Physical Review X 2, 41011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    S. M. Lloyd, M. Babiker, G. Thirunavukkarasu, and J. Yuan, Electron vortices: Beams with orbital angular momentum, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 35004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Edström, A

    A. Edström, A. Lubk, and J. Rusz, Elastic scattering of electron vortex beams in magnetic matter, Physical Review Letters 116, 127203 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Grillo et al., Observation of nanoscale magnetic fields using twisted electron beams, Nature Communications 8, 689 (2017)

    V. Grillo et al., Observation of nanoscale magnetic fields using twisted electron beams, Nature Communications 8, 689 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    K. Y. Bliokh, Y. P. Bliokh, S. Savel'ev, and F. Nori, Semiclas- sical dynamics of electron wave packet states with phase vortices, Physical Review Letters 99, 190404 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Uchida and A

    M. Uchida and A. Tonomura, Generation of electron beams carrying orbital angular momentum, Nature 464, 737 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Verbeeck, H

    J. Verbeeck, H. Tian, and P. Schattschneider, Production and application of electron vortex beams, Nature 467, 301 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    E. Mafakheri et al., Realization of electron vortices with large orbital angular momentum using miniature holograms page 16 of 18 fabricated by electron beam lithography, Applied Physics Letters 110, 93113 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Clark, A

    L. Clark, A. Béché, G. Guzzinati, A. Lubk, M. Mazilu, R. Van Boxem, and J. Verbeeck, Exploiting lens aberrations to create electron-vortex beams, Physical Review Letters 111, 64801 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Grillo, E

    V. Grillo, E. Karimi, G. C. Gazzadi, S. Frabboni, M. R. Dennis, and R. W. Boyd, Generation of nondiffracting electron Bessel beams, Physical Review X 4, 11013 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Pozzi, P.-H

    G. Pozzi, P.-H. Lu, A. H. Tavabi, M. Duchamp, and R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, Generation of electron vortex beams using line charges via the electrostatic Aharonov–Bohm effect, Ultramicroscopy 181, 191 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    K. Y. Bliokh et al., Theory and applications of free-electron vortex states, Physics Reports 690, 1 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    B. J. McMorran, A. Agrawal, I. M. Anderson, A. A. Herzing, H. J. Lezec, J. J. McClelland, and J. Unguris, Electron vortex beams with high quanta of orbital angular momentum, Science 331, 192 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Grillo, G

    V. Grillo, G. C. Gazzadi, E. Mafakheri, S. Frabboni, E. Karimi, and R. W. Boyd, Holographic generation of highly twisted electron beams, Physical Review Letters 114, 34801 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    rests on purity and coherence claims never measured. X-ray enhancement scales with the number of lattice cells inside the probe’s transverse coherence area [24]; pinwheel, phase-shaped and angular-momentum-resolved spectroscopy signals are interference terms surviving only ins...

  11. [19]

    A. H. Tavabi et al., Generation of electron vortex beams with over 1000 orbital angular momentum quanta using a tunable electrostatic spiral phase plate, Applied Physics Letters 121, 73506 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Vega Ibáñez and J

    F. Vega Ibáñez and J. Verbeeck, Retrieval of phase infor - mation from low-dose electron microscopy experiments: are we at the limit yet?, Microscopy and Microanalysis 31, ozae125 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    F. J. García de Abajo et al., Roadmap for quantum nanopho- tonics with free electrons, ACS Photonics 12, 4760 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    chopstick

    and phase-shaped spectroscopies with atomic-like selection rules [23] rely on interference between tailored momentum components whose contrast is bounded by the mutual coherence measured here (dominant-mode power 0.34…0.64 across the series, coherence envelope 𝐷coh ≈ 0.4…0.8)....

  15. [23]

    Béché, R

    A. Béché, R. Van Boxem, G. Van Tendeloo, and J. Verbeeck, Magnetic monopole field exposed by electrons, Nature Physics 10, 26 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Verbeeck, A

    J. Verbeeck, A. Béché, K. Müller-Caspary, G. Guzzinati, M. A. Luong, and M. Den Hertog, Demonstration of a 2 \texttimes 2 programmable phase plate for electrons, Ultra- microscopy 190, 58 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    C.-P. Yu, F. Vega Ibáñez, A. Béché, and J. Verbeeck, Quantum wavefront shaping with a 48-element programmable phase plate for electrons, Scipost Physics 15, 223 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    A. H. Tavabi, M. Beleggia, V. Migunov, A. Savenko, O. Öktem, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, and G. Pozzi, Tunable Ampere phase plate for low dose imaging of biomolecular complexes, Scientific Reports 8, 5592 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Habibzadeh Kavkani et al., Designing electrostatic MEMS- based electron optics: the case of the spiral phase plate, Arxiv Preprint (2026)

    P. Habibzadeh Kavkani et al., Designing electrostatic MEMS- based electron optics: the case of the spiral phase plate, Arxiv Preprint (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    A. P. Synanidis, P. A. D. Gonçalves, and F. J. García de Abajo, Rydberg-atom manipulation through strong interaction with free electrons, ACS Nano 19, 11891 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    M. R. Bourgeois, A. W. Rossi, and D. J. Masiello, Strategy for direct detection of chiral phonons with phase-structured free electrons, Physical Review Letters 134, 26902 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Garrigou and H

    S. Garrigou and H. Lourenço-Martins, Atomiclike selection rules in free electron scattering, Physical Review Letters 134, 256902 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    L. W. W. Wong, X. Shi, A. Karnieli, J. Lim, S. Kumar, S. Carbajo, I. Kaminer, and L. J. Wong, Free-electron crystals for enhanced X-ray radiation, Light: Science & Applications 13, 29 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    X. Shi, W. W. Lee, A. Karnieli, L. M. Lohse, A. Gorlach, L. W. W. Wong, T. Salditt, S. Fan, I. Kaminer, and L. J. Wong, Quantum nanophotonics with energetic particles: X-rays and free electrons, Progress in Quantum Electronics 102, 100577 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Ruffato et al., Three-dimensional stacking of phase plates for advanced electron beam shaping, Microscopy and Microanalysis 31, ozae108 (2025)

    G. Ruffato et al., Three-dimensional stacking of phase plates for advanced electron beam shaping, Microscopy and Microanalysis 31, ozae108 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    A. H. Tavabi et al., Demonstration of angular-momentum- resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy, Nature Commu- nications 16, 6601 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    reconstructs an effective, finite-rank density matrix of the illuminating probe from the same scanning-diffraction data used for imaging [36,37]. We introduce a general two- stage scheme for reconstructing the delivered transverse state of a programmable phase element, demonst...

  28. [36]

    Grillo et al., Measuring the orbital angular momentum spectrum of an electron beam, Nature Communications 8, 15536 (2017)

    V. Grillo et al., Measuring the orbital angular momentum spectrum of an electron beam, Nature Communications 8, 15536 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    A. H. Tavabi et al., Symmetry and planar chirality measured with a log-polar transformation in a transmission electron microscope, Physical Review Applied 22, 14083 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Juchtmans and J

    R. Juchtmans and J. Verbeeck, Local orbital angular momen- tum revealed by spiral-phase-plate imaging in transmission- electron microscopy, Physical Review a 93, 23811 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Juchtmans, L

    R. Juchtmans, L. Clark, A. Lubk, and J. Verbeeck, Spiral phase plate contrast in optical and electron microscopy, Physical Review a 94, 23838 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Venturi, M

    F. Venturi, M. Campanini, G. C. Gazzadi, R. Balboni, S. Frabboni, R. W. Boyd, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, E. Karimi, and V. Grillo, Phase retrieval of an electron vortex beam using diffraction holography, Applied Physics Letters 111, 223101 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    F. S. Yasin, T. R. Harvey, J. J. Chess, J. S. Pierce, C. Ophus, P. Ercius, and B. J. McMorran, Probing light atoms at subnanometer resolution: realization of scanning trans - mission electron microscope holography, Nano Letters 18, 7118 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Thibault and A

    P. Thibault and A. Menzel, Reconstructing state mixtures from diffraction measurements, Nature 494, 68 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    A. M. Maiden and J. M. Rodenburg, An improved ptycho- graphical phase retrieval algorithm for diffractive imaging, Ultramicroscopy 109, 1256 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Jiang et al., Electron ptychography of 2D materials to deep sub-ångström resolution, Nature 559, 343 (2018)

    Y. Jiang et al., Electron ptychography of 2D materials to deep sub-ångström resolution, Nature 559, 343 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    M. V . Berry, Optical vortices evolving from helicoidal integer and fractional phase steps, Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics 6, 259 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Leach, E

    J. Leach, E. Yao, and M. J. Padgett, Observation of the vortex structure of a non-integer vortex beam, New Journal of Physics 6, 71 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    T. R. Harvey et al., Interpretable and efficient interferometric contrast in scanning transmission electron microscopy with a diffraction-grating beam splitter, Physical Review Applied 10, 61001 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    P. N. Petrov, J. T. Zhang, J. J. Axelrod, P. K. Olshin, and H. Müller, Crossed laser phase plates for transmission electron microscopy, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  41. [49]

    Varnavides, J

    G. Varnavides, J. M. Bekkevold, S. M. Ribet, M. C. Scott, L. Jones, and C. Ophus, Beyond contrast transfer: Spectral SNR as a finite-dose metric for STEM phase retrieval, Microscopy and Microanalysis 32, ozag005 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Bennemann, A

    F. Bennemann, A. I. Kirkland, D. A. Muller, and P. D. Nellist, Detective quantum efficiency-based comparison of HRTEM and ptychography phase imaging, Microscopy and Microanalysis 32, ozag018 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    P. D. Nellist and J. M. Rodenburg, Beyond the conventional information limit: the relevant coherence function, Ultrami- croscopy 54, 61 (1994)

    1994

  44. [52]

    Uhlemann, H

    S. Uhlemann, H. Müller, P. Hartel, J. Zach, and M. Haider, Thermal Magnetic Field Noise Limits Resolution in Trans- mission Electron Microscopy, Physical Review Letters 111, 46101 (2013). page 17 of 18

    2013

  45. [53]

    Uhlemann, H

    S. Uhlemann, H. Müller, J. Zach, and M. Haider, Thermal magnetic field noise: Electron optics and decoherence, Ultramicroscopy 151, 199 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    P. N. Petrov et al., Laser phase plate improves structure determination of small proteins by cryo-EM, Science 392, (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    C.-H. Lee, S. E. Zeltmann, D. Yoon, D. Ma, and D. A. Muller, PtyRAD: A high-performance and flexible ptychographic reconstruction framework with automatic differentiation, Arxiv Preprint (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Dwyer and D

    C. Dwyer and D. M. Paganin, Quantum and classical Fisher information in four-dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy, Physical Review B 110, 24110 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Küçükoğlu et al., Low-dose cryo-electron ptychography of proteins at sub-nanometer resolution, Nature Communi- cations 15, 8062 (2024)

    B. Küçükoğlu et al., Low-dose cryo-electron ptychography of proteins at sub-nanometer resolution, Nature Communi- cations 15, 8062 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    , which mixed-state ptychography recovers [35,59], with the mode powers 𝑝𝑚 = ‖𝜓𝑚‖2 (∑𝑚𝑝𝑚 = 1) carried in their norms. Because the recorded intensity is the inco - herent sum of the modal intensities, and hence linear in the probe density matrix, the scan-frequency spectrum is ...

  51. [59]

    Zambon et al., High-frame rate and high-count rate hybrid pixel detector for 4D STEM applications, Frontiers in Physics 11, 1308321 (2023)

    P. Zambon et al., High-frame rate and high-count rate hybrid pixel detector for 4D STEM applications, Frontiers in Physics 11, 1308321 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Varnavides, J

    G. Varnavides, J. M. Bekkevold, S. M. Ribet, M. C. Scott, L. Jones, and C. Ophus, Relaxing direct ptychography sampling requirements via parallax imaging insights, Microscopy and Microanalysis 32, ozaf139 (2026)

    2026

  53. [61]

    Kandel, S

    S. Kandel, S. Maddali, M. Allain, S. O. Hruszkewycz, C. Jacobsen, and Y. S. G. Nashed, Using automatic differentia- tion as a general framework for ptychographic reconstruction, Optics Express 27, 18653 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Schloz, T

    M. Schloz, T. C. Pekin, Z. Chen, W. Van den Broek, D. A. Muller, and C. T. Koch, Overcoming information reduced data and experimentally uncertain parameters in ptychography with regularized optimization, Optics Express 28, 28306 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    J. M. Rodenburg and R. H. T. Bates, The theory of super- resolution electron microscopy via Wigner-distribution deconvolution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London a 339, 521 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    C. M. O'Leary, G. T. Martinez, E. Liberti, M. J. Humphry, A. I. Kirkland, and P. D. Nellist, Contrast transfer and noise considerations in focused-probe electron ptychography, Ultramicroscopy 221, 113189 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Wolf, New theory of partial coherence in the space– frequency domain

    E. Wolf, New theory of partial coherence in the space– frequency domain. Part I: spectra and cross spectra of steady- state sources, Journal of the Optical Society of America 72, 343 (1982)

    1982

  58. [66]

    S. Cao, P. Kok, P. Li, A. M. Maiden, and J. M. Rodenburg, Modal decomposition of a propagating matter wave via electron ptychography, Physical Review a 94, 63621 (2016). page 18 of 18

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.