Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Scan-Coil Delay Causes Anisotropic Signal Loss in Fast 4D-STEM

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At microsecond dwell times, scan-coil settling smears 4D-STEM signal along the fast-scan direction, and a phase-correlation sub-frame alignment recovers most of the lost signal without hardware changes.

desk verdict A real, well-documented scan-coil settling effect in fast 4D-STEM, with an honest but slightly overclaimed software correction; deserves peer review after adding ground-truth validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13106 v1 pith:WVQLVJ7A submitted 2026-08-13 physics.ins-det physics.bio-phphysics.med-phphysics.opticsq-bio.QM

Vishal Kumar , Andreas Jehle , Tizian Lorenzen , Julika Radecke , Knut Müller-Caspary , Massimo Kube , Henning Stahlberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.bio-phphysics.med-phphysics.opticsq-bio.QM PACS 68.37.Ma
keywords 4D-STEMscan-coildelayintra-dwellsmearingsub-framealignmentphase-correlationregistrationlow-doseelectronmicroscopypixelateddetectorsanisotropicresolutionloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a finite scan-coil response is a measurable and systematic problem in fast 4D-STEM, not a rare edge case. At dwell times around ten microseconds, the probe is still moving while the detector integrates, so each diffraction pattern mixes signal from several neighbouring beam positions; the smearing lies almost entirely along the fast-scan direction. The paper argues this can be corrected after the fact by splitting each dwell into sub-frames, registering each early sub-frame to the final settled sub-frame with a phase-correlation shift along the unrolled scan trajectory, and re-summing. A sympathetic reader should care because the correction works on existing data and existing microscopes, and the largest gains appear exactly where low-dose biological imaging needs them: large step sizes and high spatial frequencies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the time-to-space mapping of the data and its inversion: with the detector running at 100 kHz while the scan steps at 10 kHz, each commanded probe position is recorded as ten consecutive 10 µs sub-frames, and the intra-dwell drift appears as a translation of early sub-frame images relative to the settled final sub-frame. The paper unrolls each per-sub-frame reconstructed image along the actual 1D scan path, measures the translation by upsampled phase cross-correlation at 1/20-pixel precision, applies the shift with Fourier phase shifting, and re-rasterises the result. Direct probe imaging and centre-of-mass analysis carry the argument that this translation comes from the deflection coils rather than stage drift, because the shift direction follows the scan trajectory and is independent of scan strategy.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to record a fast 4D-STEM dataset on a field of view several times larger than the few-Ångström steps tested here, apply the scalar per-sub-frame shift, and plot the residual shift vectors against position; if the residuals grow systematically toward the edges of the field or develop a rotational component, the uniform-translation assumption fails. A complementary check is to re-bin event-driven TimePix4 data into 1 µs (or finer) slices and ask whether the earliest slices still show within-slice motion that a single shift cannot remove.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that intra-dwell scan-coil settling is real, generic, directional, and correctable in software. Time-resolved probe images show the probe centroid converging to its commanded position only after roughly 40 µs on one microscope and about 20 µs on another, and the same settling appears in diffraction-space centre-of-mass shifts across linear, serpentine, and spiral scans. The paper's correction measures one scalar translation per sub-frame relative to the final sub-frame, applies it via Fourier phase shifting along the unrolled scan path, and yields recovery factors above unity along the scan direction at every step size tested, reaching nearly 3× at the Au(200) reflection and producing broadband recovery in defocused parallax imaging at 5.025 Å steps, while the perpendicular direction remains near unity.

Load-bearing premise

The correction rests on the assumption that every sub-frame's intra-dwell drift is exactly one scalar translation along the scan path, the same everywhere in the field of view; if coil settling varies with position or includes distortion, parts of the image would be misregistered after alignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any 4D-STEM dataset recorded with sub-frame or event-binned structure can be corrected with the same software-only procedure, without touching the microscope or the dose.
  • Recovery grows with both scan step size and spatial frequency, so the method returns the most signal in exactly the low-dose biological regime where large steps are mandatory.
  • The per-sub-frame shift curves can serve as a quantitative instrument diagnostic for scan-coil settling performance, reproducible across scan patterns and step sizes.
  • The alignment carries over to focused and defocused reconstruction modes, so it can be combined with ptychography by treating early sub-frames as intermediate probe positions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near independence of settling time from scan strategy suggests the coil response can be modeled with a simple linear system; if so, the shift curve could be predicted for arbitrary dwell times and step sizes without acquiring a calibration dataset each time.
  • Because the smear acts as a directional low-pass filter whose cutoff moves lower as step size grows, a deconvolution-based alternative to registration might recover even the signal that remains spread within individual sub-frames.
  • The residual within-sub-frame motion sets a floor on what any post-acquisition registration can restore; event-driven detectors that time-stamp individual electrons could probe this floor and tell whether hardware pre-emphasis is ultimately needed.
  • The scalar-shift assumption should be stress-tested at much larger fields of view than reported; if coil settling is position-dependent, a single uniform shift will fail at the edges, and a spatially varying warp would be required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports that at microsecond dwell times the scan deflection coils in a 4D-STEM instrument do not settle instantaneously; the probe continues to move during the detector integration window, smearing the recorded diffraction signal anisotropically along the fast-scan direction. Using direct real-space probe imaging and sub-frame diffraction analysis on a gold cross-grating, the authors document a settling timescale of several tens of microseconds across multiple scan strategies, step sizes, and two independent microscopes. They propose a phase-correlation-based alignment that registers each early sub-frame to the final settled sub-frame along the unrolled scan trajectory, and they quantify the benefit with a recovery factor R(k) = P_aligned/P_raw. The correction is reported to restore signal across a broad range of spatial frequencies, with the largest gains at large step sizes relevant for low-dose biological imaging.

Significance. The direct observation of intra-dwell scan-coil settling is a timely and important characterization for the fast 4D-STEM community, and the proposed software-only correction is practically appealing because it requires no hardware modification. The claim is supported by direct probe imaging (Figure 1), diffraction CoM drift measurements that are independent of scan strategy (Figure 2), residual-shift collapse after correction (Supplementary Figures 3-4), and reproduction on a second microscope (Supplementary Figures 1 and 8). The manuscript also makes data and code available. However, the quantitative recovery factors are not yet convincingly tied to a ground truth: because each sub-frame is an integration over continuous probe motion, the alignment removes only the between-sub-frame displacement, not the intra-sub-frame blur, and the recovery factor is computed on the same data used to estimate the shifts. A ground-truth simulation or slow-scan comparison is needed before the reported factors can be read as the actual fraction of signal recovered.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4 (Sub-frame alignment) and Section 4 (Discussion)] The scalar-translation model in Section 2.4 treats each early sub-frame as a shifted copy of the final settled sub-frame. However, Section 2.1 states that each sub-frame is a 10 μs integration window, and the probe motion during that window is continuous (Figure 1). An early sub-frame is therefore a directionally blurred version of the object, not a pure translation. Phase-correlation alignment can remove the centroid displacement between sub-frames, but it cannot undo the convolution with the intra-window probe trajectory. The Discussion correctly concedes that 'a residual smearing therefore persists within every sub-frame,' yet the paper never quantifies this residual or compares the corrected result against a settled-acquisition ground truth. Without such a comparison, the recovery factors in Figures 4-6 (up to about 3× at Au(200)) cannot be interpreted as the fraction of signal actually recovered. I recommend adding a simulation with a known ground-truth object and known probe trajectory, or a comparison to a slow-scan (long-dwell) acquisition of the same field of view.
  2. [Section 2.5 (Recovery factor analysis)] The recovery factor R(k) = P_aligned(k)/P_raw(k) is computed on the same data used to estimate the per-sub-frame shifts in Section 2.4. This creates an internal consistency loop: R(k) measures how well the alignment procedure removes the between-sub-frame displacement, not how well the aligned image matches the true settled object. The directional control (R≈1 along the slow-scan direction) demonstrates that the correction does not boost power uniformly, but it does not establish that the fast-scan aligned image is closer to ground truth. The manuscript would be strengthened by a calibration experiment or simulation that reports R(k) against a known ground-truth signal loss.
  3. [Section 3 (Figures 4-6) and Section 2.2] For the 50 μs total dwell time datasets used in Figures 4-6, the data are divided into five 10 μs sub-frames, and the alignment uses the final sub-frame as the settled reference. The settling timescale measured in Figure 2 is approximately 40 μs, so the reference sub-frame (40-50 μs) may still contain a small residual drift. The manuscript should specify which sub-frame serves as the reference for each dataset and quantify the residual drift in that reference, since a biased reference would affect both the measured shifts and the recovery factors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'a.k.a., the probe' is colloquial; consider replacing it with 'the electron probe.'
  2. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'For measurements at LMU, microscope was operated at 200 kV' is missing an article; it should read 'the microscope was operated at 200 kV.'
  3. [Section 3 (Figure 6)] The text contains the typo 'powersepctrum'; it should be 'power spectrum.'
  4. [Section 3 (Sub-frame alignment description)] The statement that intra-dwell drift 'manifests as a single scalar translation of one 1D signal relative to another' is presented as exact, but it is an approximation given the within-sub-frame integration; a brief acknowledgment of this approximation at this point would help the reader.
  5. [Section 4] In the sentence beginning 'The software correction discussed here, applies directly,' the comma after 'here' is incorrect and should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the effect is directly measured, with only a minor same-data validation loop in the shift-correction assessment.

  1. other [Section 2.4 and Figure 3c (residual-shift validation); Section 2.5 recovery-factor definition]
    "Figure 3c shows the residual shifts after applying the correction and re-running the phase correlation between aligned sub-frames. The residuals are negligible across all sub-frames, confirming that the alignment is exact to within the sub-pixel precision of the registration."

    This validation re-runs the same upsampled phase cross-correlation that produced the per-sub-frame shifts on data that have been shifted by exactly those estimated shifts. Recovering a near-zero displacement is therefore a property of the estimator's own solution rather than an independent test that the scalar-translation model correctly describes the underlying probe motion. The recovery factor in Section 2.5 is likewise computed on the same aligned images, so R(k) is a same-data figure of merit rather than a prediction; however, the paper's central claim that intra-dwell coil settling occurs is grounded independently in direct probe imaging (Figure 1) and diffraction CoM drift (Figure 2), so this loop is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result—that scan-coil settling causes intra-dwell probe motion in fast 4D-STEM—is established by direct measurements rather than derived from the correction itself: Figure 1 resolves the probe centroid across ten 10-µs sub-frames after a commanded jump, Figure 2 measures the CoM drift of the bright-field disc across ~6000 positions for three scan strategies and four step sizes, and Supplementary Figures 1 and 8 reproduce the settling on a second microscope and detector. The phase-correlation alignment in Section 2.4 estimates each early sub-frame's translation against the final settled sub-frame; applying that translation and measuring a recovery factor R(k)=P_aligned/P_raw in Section 2.5 is a same-data evaluation, not a prediction forced by construction, and the slow-scan direction remaining near unity provides a directional control. The only mildly self-referential element is Figure 3c, where re-running the same phase-correlation routine on already-aligned data returns near-zero residuals; this is a consistency check rather than an independent validation and is not load-bearing. The residual intra-sub-frame smearing is explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion. The self-citation [32] is not load-bearing because the effect is re-measured in this paper on two instruments. No equation reduces to its input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; thus overall circularity is minimal.

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

The central claims rest on standard STEM physics and on several domain assumptions about the scan-coil response and the correction model. No numbers are fitted to data; the measured per-sub-frame shifts are empirical quantities, not free parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The probe motion during a dwell can be modeled as a rigid translation along the scan trajectory, uniform across the field of view.
    Section 2.4 and Figure 3 assume a single scalar shift per sub-frame registers the entire image; validated by residual analysis in Supplementary Figures 3-4.
  • domain assumption The final sub-frame (after roughly 40-100 microseconds) is fully settled and can serve as the reference for alignment.
    The settling is measured to decay within roughly 40 microseconds; final sub-frames are considered settled in the alignment procedure (Figures 1-3).
  • domain assumption The scan generator output switches to the new commanded position in under a microsecond, so the observed settling is attributable to the deflection coils.
    Stated in Results, confirmed by oscilloscope measurement of the scan-generator output.
  • domain assumption The gold cross-grating reference sample has azimuthally isotropic scattering, so an anisotropic power-spectrum recovery factor indicates a directional instrument effect.
    Used implicitly in interpreting recovery-factor anisotropy as evidence of scan-direction smearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scan-Coil Delay Causes Anisotropic Signal Loss in Fast 4D-STEM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVQLVJ7A

@misc{pith2026260813106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scan-Coil Delay Causes Anisotropic Signal Loss in Fast 4D-STEM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVQLVJ7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13106}
}
read the original abstract

Fast pixelated detectors are driving 4D-STEM toward microsecond dwell times, a regime in which the finite response of the scan deflection coils becomes comparable to the dwell time itself. Using direct probe imaging and sub-frame diffraction analysis, we document a significant intra-dwell scan-coil delay that systematically smears the recorded signal anisotropically along the fast scan direction, with a settling timescale of several tens of microseconds. We present a phase-correlation-based sub-frame alignment procedure that measures and corrects this smearing, and we assess its impact on focused and defocused 4D-STEM reconstructions over a range of scan step sizes. The correction restores signal across a broad range of spatial frequencies, with the largest gains at the large step sizes required for low-dose biological imaging. Because it operates on existing data with no modification to the microscope, the method offers a practical route to recovering signal that would otherwise be lost to scan-coil delay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13106 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Sub-frame alignment via phase correlation. (a) Misalignment vectors for the vDF images of sub-frames 1, 2, and 3, relative to the final (10th) sub-frame. Each vector shows the measured shift along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of alignment correction across reconstruction modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Step-size and frequency dependence of the alignment correction. vDF images, power spectra, and recovery factor versus azimuthal angle for four scan step sizes: (a) 0.32 Å, (b) 0.455 Å, (c) 0.642 Å, (d) 0.905 Å. Dashed circles mark integration windows used to compute the recovery factor at each accessible Au reflection (d = 2.35, 2.04, 1.44, 1.23 Å for Au (111), (200), (220), (311)). Pink and blue shaded regions in t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Broadband recovery in defocused aberration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Muller, Structure and bonding at the atomic scale by scanning transmission electron microscopy, Nature Materials 8 (2009) 263–270

    D.A. Muller, Structure and bonding at the atomic scale by scanning transmission electron microscopy, Nature Materials 8 (2009) 263–270

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    C. Ophus, Quantitative scanning transmission electron microscopy for materials science: Imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy, and tomography, Annual Review of Materials Research 53 (2023) 105–141

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Pennycook, P.D

    S.J. Pennycook, P.D. Nellist, Scanning transmission electron microscopy: imaging and analysis, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Kumar, J.P

    V. Kumar, J.P. Camden, Imaging vibrational excitations in the electron microscope, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 126 (2022) 16919–16927

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Pennycook, D

    S. Pennycook, D. Jesson, High-resolution Z-contrast imaging of crystals, Ultramicroscopy 37 (1991) 14–38

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Nellist, S.J

    P.D. Nellist, S.J. Pennycook, The principles and interpretation of annular dark-field Z-contrast imaging, in: Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, Elsevier, 2000: pp. 147–203

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, Y. Kohno, Y.O. Murakami, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Nanoscale electromagnetic field imaging by advanced differential phase-contrast STEM, Nature Reviews Electrical Engineering 2 (2025) 27–41

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Shibata, S.D

    N. Shibata, S.D. Findlay, Y. Kohno, H. Sawada, Y. Kondo, Y. Ikuhara, Differential phase- contrast microscopy at atomic resolution, Nature Physics 8 (2012) 611–615

    work page 2012

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C. Ophus, Four-dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy (4D-STEM): From scanning nanodiffraction to ptychography and beyond, Microscopy and Microanalysis 25 (2019) 563–582

    2019

  2. [10]

    Z. Chen, Y. Jiang, Y.-T. Shao, M.E. Holtz, M. Odstrčil, M. Guizar-Sicairos, I. Hanke, S. Ganschow, D.G. Schlom, D.A. Muller, Electron ptychography achieves atomic-resolution limits set by lattice vibrations, Science 372 (2021) 826–831

    2021

  3. [11]

    D. Ma, G. Li, D.A. Muller, S.E. Zeltmann, Information in 4D-STEM: Where it is, and how to use it, Ultramicroscopy (2026) 114351

    2026

  4. [12]

    Bustillo, S.E

    K.C. Bustillo, S.E. Zeltmann, M. Chen, J. Donohue, J. Ciston, C. Ophus, A.M. Minor, 4D- STEM of beam-sensitive materials, Accounts of Chemical Research 54 (2021) 2543–2551

    2021

  5. [13]

    G. Li, H. Zhang, Y. Han, 4D-STEM ptychography for electron-beam-sensitive materials, ACS Central Science 8 (2022) 1579–1588

    2022

  6. [14]

    G. Li, M. Xu, W.-Q. Tang, Y. Liu, C. Chen, D. Zhang, L. Liu, S. Ning, H. Zhang, Z.-Y. Gu, Atomically resolved imaging of radiation-sensitive metal-organic frameworks via electron ptychography, Nature Communications 16 (2025) 914–914

    2025

  7. [15]

    Küçükoğlu, I

    B. Küçükoğlu, I. Mohammed, R.C. Guerrero-Ferreira, S.M. Ribet, G. Varnavides, M.L. Leidl, K. Lau, S. Nazarov, A. Myasnikov, M. Kube, J. Radecke, C. Sachse, K. Müller-Caspary, C. Ophus, H. Stahlberg, Low-dose cryo-electron ptychography of proteins at sub-nanometer resolution, N...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Y. Yu, K.A. Spoth, M. Colletta, K.X. Nguyen, S.E. Zeltmann, X.S. Zhang, M. Paraan, M. Kopylov, C. Dubbeldam, D. Serwas, Dose-efficient cryo-electron microscopy for thick samples using tilt-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy, Nature Methods 22 (2025) 2138–2148

    2025

  9. [17]

    Zivanov, T

    J. Zivanov, T. Nakane, S.H.W. Scheres, A Bayesian approach to beam-induced motion correction in cryo-EM single-particle analysis, IUCrJ 6 (2019) 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1107/S205225251801463X

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Punjani, J.L

    A. Punjani, J.L. Rubinstein, D.J. Fleet, M.A. Brubaker, cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination, Nature Methods 14 (2017) 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4169

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Grant, N

    T. Grant, N. Grigorieff, Measuring the optimal exposure for single particle cryo-EM using a 2.6 Å reconstruction of rotavirus VP6, Elife 4 (2015) e06980–e06980

    2015

  12. [20]

    Stroppa, M

    D.G. Stroppa, M. Meffert, C. Hoermann, P. Zambon, D. Bachevskaya, H. Remigy, C. Schulze- Briese, L. Piazza, From STEM to 4D STEM: Ultrafast diffraction mapping with a hybrid-pixel detector, Microscopy Today 31 (2023) 10–14

    2023

  13. [21]

    Jannis, C

    D. Jannis, C. Hofer, C. Gao, X. Xie, A. Béché, T.J. Pennycook, J. Verbeeck, Event driven 4D STEM acquisition with a Timepix3 detector: Microsecond dwell time and faster scans for high precision and low dose applications, Ultramicroscopy 233 (2022) 113423–113423

    2022

  14. [22]

    Poikela, J

    T. Poikela, J. Plosila, T. Westerlund, M. Campbell, M.D. Gaspari, X. Llopart, V. Gromov, R. Kluit, M.V. Beuzekom, F. Zappon, Timepix3: a 65K channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous ToA/ToT and sparse readout, Journal of Instrumentation 9 (2014) C05013– C05013

    2014

  15. [23]

    Buban, Q

    J.P. Buban, Q. Ramasse, B. Gipson, N.D. Browning, H. Stahlberg, High-resolution low-dose scanning transmission electron microscopy, Journal of Electron Microscopy 59 (2010) 103– 112

    2010

  16. [24]

    S. Ning, T. Fujita, A. Nie, Z. Wang, X. Xu, J. Chen, M. Chen, S. Yao, T.-Y. Zhang, Scanning distortion correction in STEM images, Ultramicroscopy 184 (2018) 274–283

    2018

  17. [25]

    Mullarkey, J.J.P

    T. Mullarkey, J.J.P. Peters, C. Downing, L. Jones, Using your beam efficiently: Reducing electron dose in the STEM via flyback compensation, Microscopy and Microanalysis 28 (2022) 1428–1436

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ophus, J

    C. Ophus, J. Ciston, C.T. Nelson, Correcting nonlinear drift distortion of scanning probe and scanning transmission electron microscopies from image pairs with orthogonal scan directions, Ultramicroscopy 162 (2016) 1–9

    2016

  19. [27]

    Jones, P.D

    L. Jones, P.D. Nellist, Identifying and correcting scan noise and drift in the scanning transmission electron microscope, Microscopy and Microanalysis 19 (2013) 1050–1060

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sang, A.R

    X. Sang, A.R. Lupini, R.R. Unocic, M. Chi, A.Y. Borisevich, S.V. Kalinin, E. Endeve, R.K. Archibald, S. Jesse, Dynamic scan control in STEM: spiral scans, Advanced Structural and Chemical Imaging 2 (2016) 6–6

    2016

  21. [29]

    Palos, L

    M. Palos, L. Spillane, G. Topore, Y. Li, D. Pesquera, C. Ophus, S.M. Ribet, M.S. Conroy, Programmable Beam Control for Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy and Ptychography, arXiv Preprint arXiv:2509.10726 (2025). Kumar et al. Scan-Coil Delay in 4D-STEM 19

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Ning, W. Xu, L. Loh, Z. Lu, M. Bosman, F. Zhang, Q. He, An integrated constrained gradient descent (iCGD) protocol to correct scan-positional errors for electron ptychography with high accuracy and precision, Ultramicroscopy 248 (2023) 113716–113716

    2023

  23. [31]

    Odstrčil, A

    M. Odstrčil, A. Menzel, M. Guizar-Sicairos, Iterative least-squares solver for generalized maximum-likelihood ptychography, Optics Express 26 (2018) 3108–3123

    2018

  24. [32]

    Kumar, H

    V. Kumar, H. Stahlberg, M. Kube, Dynamic Response of the Beam Deflection System for High-Speed 4D-STEM, Microscopy and Microanalysis 32 (2026) ozag053-049

    2026

  25. [33]

    Savitzky, S.E

    B.H. Savitzky, S.E. Zeltmann, L.A. Hughes, H.G. Brown, S. Zhao, P.M. Pelz, T.C. Pekin, E.S. Barnard, J. Donohue, L. Rangel DaCosta, py4DSTEM: A software package for four- dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy data analysis, Microscopy and Microanalysis 27 (2021...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Van der Walt, J.L

    S. Van der Walt, J.L. Schönberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias, F. Boulogne, J.D. Warner, N. Yager, E. Gouillart, T. Yu, scikit-image: image processing in Python, PeerJ 2 (2014) e453–e453

    2014

  27. [35]

    Bongiovanni, M.M

    G. Bongiovanni, M.M. van Rijt, O. Sháněl, E.R. Kieft, Advancing ultrafast (S) TEM with the combination of an RF cavity and an electrostatic beam blanker, Structural Dynamics 12 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Egoavil, P

    R. Egoavil, P. Potocek, E. Van Cappellen, M. Meledina, M. Wirix, B. Freitag, Advantages of an Electrostatic Beam Blanker in STEM, Microscopy and Microanalysis 31 (2025) ozaf048- 104

    2025

  29. [37]

    Varnavides, S.M

    G. Varnavides, S.M. Ribet, S.E. Zeltmann, Y. Yu, B.H. Savitzky, D.O. Byrne, F.I. Allen, V.P. Dravid, M.C. Scott, C. Ophus, Iterative phase retrieval algorithms for scanning transmission electron microscopy, arXiv Preprint arXiv:2309.05250 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Varnavides, J.M

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

    2026

  31. [39]

    Cheng, N

    Y. Cheng, N. Grigorieff, P.A. Penczek, T. Walz, A primer to single-particle cryo-electron microscopy, Cell 161 (2015) 438–449

    2015

  32. [40]

    Béché, B

    A. Béché, B. Goris, B. Freitag, J. Verbeeck, Development of a fast electromagnetic beam blanker for compressed sensing in scanning transmission electron microscopy, Applied Physics Letters 108 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Kumar, J

    V. Kumar, J. Radecke, C. K.V., I. Mohammed, R.C. Guerrero-Ferreira, D. Harder, D. Fotiadis, H. Stahlberg, Pulsed-electron illumination does not reduce beam damage for imaging biological macromolecules, Nature Communications (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-74316-1. K...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.