Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Programmable Beam Control for Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy and Ptychography

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Non-raster beam paths spread dose unevenly, but ptychography keeps atomic resolution from jumpy scans that leave EELS elemental maps patchy.

desk verdict Useful direct multimodal comparison of scan trajectories for EELS vs ptychography; the central claim is plausible, but residual thickness/defocus variation is a real confound and the support is qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10726 v1 pith:CQ3Z2254 submitted 2025-09-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mariana Palos , Liam Spillane , Geri Topore , Yaqi Li , David Pesquera , Colin Ophus , Stephanie M. Ribet , Michele Shelly Conroy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords programmablebeamscanning4D-STEMelectronenergy-lossspectroscopyptychographylow-dosemicroscopyscanartifactscryo-STEMperovskitethinfilms
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 replacing the standard raster electron-beam scan with programmable paths—spirals and multi-pass sequential blocks—can make low-dose electron microscopy more dose-efficient and artifact-free. Using DyScO3 as a model oxide, the authors compare the same scan paths across three readouts: annular dark-field imaging, electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) elemental mapping, and ptychographic phase reconstruction. The central result is a split: ptychography stays sharp (~0.7 Å) even when scan jumps are large and the trajectory is irregular, while atomic-resolution EELS maps develop patchy, non-uniform elemental contrast under the same conditions. Spiral scanning removes the line-by-line flyback artifacts of raster scans and, in cryogenic BaTiO3, resolves oxygen columns that raster scans miss. If right, the paper gives practical guidance: match the scan trajectory to the modality—flexible paths for ptychography, temporally uniform illumination for quantitative EELS.

What carries the argument

The central object is the programmable scan trajectory—raster line-by-line, inward/outward spiral, and N×N block-sequential paths—and how each one distributes probe position errors and dose over time. The argument's load-bearing contrast is between direct imaging (ADF/EELS), where each pixel's intensity is assigned to a commanded position so positional errors become visible artifacts, and iterative ptychography, which reconstructs the object from overlapping, redundant diffraction patterns and can absorb or correct moderate scan-path irregularities. The paper also uses Fourier transforms of ADF images as a diagnostic: replicated Bragg peaks mark large-jump settling errors, vertical streaks m

What would settle it

Re-acquire the same DyScO3 region with raster, spiral, and N=8 sequential scans, interleaved under fixed thickness and defocus, and check whether EELS patchiness and ptychography robustness persist; also lower the dose for N=8 to see whether ptychography still reaches ~0.7 Å resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the scan trajectory itself, not just the total electron dose, determines data quality in atomic-resolution STEM, and that the two measurement modalities sit at opposite ends of sensitivity. For ptychography, iterative recovery from overlapping diffraction patterns absorbs large probe-position jumps: N=2, 4, and 8 sequential scans all give phase reconstructions with Bragg peaks visible to about 0.7 Å, even though ADF images from the same datasets show discontinuities and replicated Bragg reflections. For EELS, the elemental maps depend on precise spatial registration and uniform temporal illumination, so high-N sequential and some spiral scans produce non-uni

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that differences in sample thickness and defocus between datasets were small enough not to cause the observed scan-mode differences; the paper says these variations were 'minimized, but not eliminated'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ptychographic reconstructions can be paired with non-raster trajectories that spread dose, without sacrificing the ~0.7 Å resolution demonstrated in DyScO3.
  • EELS elemental maps from large-jump scans (N=8 sequential) show non-uniform contrast and replicated Bragg artifacts; users should avoid large jumps when quantitative spectra are needed.
  • Spiral scans suppress flyback streaks and produce cleaner Fourier-space data than raster; the mild radial dose gradient is a secondary trade-off.
  • At cryogenic temperature, outward spiral scans recover oxygen-column contrast in BaTiO3 that raster scans miss, enabling detection of subtle displacements.
  • FFT inspection of ADF frames is a useful diagnostic: replicated peaks indicate probe-settling or large jumps; vertical streaks indicate flyback.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested extension: random or interleaved trajectories may inherit the same ptychographic robustness, but only if positional metadata remains reliable; at very low dose, ptychographic convergence could fail.
  • The EELS sensitivity implies that quantitative atomic-scale spectroscopy with programmable scans should be validated with dose-uniformity metrics, such as per-pixel exposure histograms, before relying on elemental ratios.
  • The cryo-BaTiO3 oxygen shifts are consistent with a polar phase, but since ptychography is a 2D projection, full 3D displacement vectors would need multislice or tilt-series ptychography.
  • If the temporal-dose argument generalizes, spiral or block-sequential scans may delay radiolysis in organic or biological materials; this is a direct, testable prediction beyond the oxides studied here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic comparison of programmable STEM scan trajectories (raster, inward/outward spiral, and N-sequential) applied to electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS), annular dark-field (ADF) imaging, and ptychography. Using DyScO3 as a model perovskite, the authors evaluate atomic-resolution EELS maps, ADF-derived FFTs, and ptychographic phase reconstructions. They conclude that ptychography is largely robust to large probe jumps and non-raster trajectories, whereas EELS and ADF are sensitive to trajectory-induced artifacts such as probe-settling delays, flyback streaks, and non-uniform dose delivery. A cryogenic BaTiO3 experiment is used to argue that outward spiral scanning improves oxygen-column visibility and reveals subtle oxygen displacements consistent with a low-temperature ferroelectric phase. The paper proposes practical guidelines for choosing scan strategies in low-dose 4D-STEM.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides useful practical guidance for the growing use of programmable scan trajectories in dose-sensitive electron microscopy. The claim that ptychography tolerates large scan jumps while EELS requires precise, temporally uniform illumination is of broad interest and would help experimentalists allocate dose and choose scan patterns. The use of py4DSTEM for reconstructions and the focus on cryogenic low-dose conditions are strengths. However, the support is primarily qualitative: resolution is judged from visual inspection of FFT peaks, EELS maps come from single acquisitions without error bars, and the Methods explicitly acknowledge residual sample-thickness and defocus variations across scan-pattern datasets. These limitations are load-bearing for the central attribution of observed differences to scan trajectory. The paper also gives limited side-by-side ptychographic comparisons for raster and spiral scans in the same material system, so the strongest claim of general ptychographic robustness is only partially supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Materials and Methods, 4D-STEM Data Acquisition] The Methods state: 'Variations in sample thickness and defocus were minimized, but not eliminated, across the different scan pattern datasets.' This residual variation is a direct confound for the central claim that observed differences in EELS, ADF, and ptychography arise from the scan trajectory. Since each scan-pattern dataset is acquired at a different location with manually optimized defocus (10–20 nm), systematic thickness or defocus differences could produce exactly the reported pattern: ptychography, which reconstructs the probe via mixed-state multislice, would appear robust, while EELS/ADF would show non-uniform contrast or replicated features. The authors need to provide per-dataset thickness/defocus estimates, repeat acquisitions, or otherwise demonstrate that these variations are uncorrelated with scan mode.
  2. [Fig. 4 and discussion of ptychographic resolution] The claim that 'Bragg peaks remained visible to ~0.7 Å' and that ptychographic reconstructions show 'minimal differences in achievable resolution' is based solely on visual inspection of FFTs. No quantitative resolution metric (e.g., Fourier ring correlation, peak width, or signal-to-noise threshold) is provided, and no uncertainty estimate is given. Furthermore, Fig. 4 compares only N=2, N=4, and N=8 sequential scans; raster and spiral ptychography of DyScO3 are not shown in the main text. Thus the paper's headline conclusion that 'ptychography tolerates large pixel jumps' and is robust across trajectory types is only directly demonstrated for one family of trajectories (N-sequential) in the primary benchmarking material. The cryogenic BaTiO3 comparison (Fig. 5) is a single raster vs. spiral pair and is also not quantitatively assessed.
  3. [EELS Data Acquisition and Fig. 3] The EELS elemental maps are presented from single acquisitions (15 passes with drift correction between passes) with no repeat measurements, no error bars, and no quantitative measure of contrast non-uniformity. The conclusion that sequential and spiral scans 'introduce non-uniform elemental contrast' is inferred visually. Drift correction between passes, which may itself vary with scan pattern, could generate patchiness or discontinuities that are then attributed to the trajectory. The authors should provide either repeated acquisitions with variance estimates or a quantitative metric of map uniformity across the different scan modes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption lists 'raster, random, N=8, N=4, N=2 sequential, and spiral' scan modes, but the Materials and Methods state that programmable scan patterns scripted were 'raster, spiral (inward and outward), and N-sequential scans (N = 2, 4, 8)'. There is no description of a 'random' scan mode in the methods. Please clarify whether a random trajectory was used and, if so, provide details; if not, correct the caption.
  2. [Materials and Methods, EELS Data Acquisition and Fig. 3] The ADF images used for FFT analysis were processed with 'Hanning filtering, quartile-based thresholding, and cropping' before the FFTs were computed. These operations can alter periodic features and introduce or suppress artifacts. Showing the raw or minimally processed FFTs, or discussing the impact of these filters, would strengthen the interpretation of the FFT features.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption vs. Materials and Methods, Ptychographic Reconstructions] The Fig. 4 caption states '2 probe modes, 18 slices, 2 nm thickness, 20 nm defocus', whereas the Methods state '10–20 slices (2 nm per slice)' and 'defocus was varied between 10 and 20 nm, optimized manually for each dataset'. Please reconcile these numbers and report the actual parameters for each reconstruction, including the number of slices and defocus used for the N=2, N=4, and N=8 datasets.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a data availability statement and a list of the exact code and versions used (e.g., py4DSTEM version) to facilitate reproducibility. The current text only names the software package.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; experimental benchmarking is self-contained.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental benchmark rather than a derivation-based claim. It contains no fitted parameters that are later called predictions, no equations whose outputs equal their inputs, and no uniqueness theorems invoked from self-citations. The central claim—that ptychography tolerates non-raster trajectories while EELS/ADF do not—is supported directly by the reconstructions, ADF FFTs, and EELS maps in Figures 3–5. The py4DSTEM package and related algorithm papers by co-authors are cited as tools and background, but the resilience of ptychography is not deduced from those citations; it is evidenced by the N=2, 4, and 8 sequential-scan reconstructions retaining Bragg peaks to ~0.7 Å. The acknowledged limitation in Materials and Methods ('Variations in sample thickness and defocus were minimized, but not eliminated, across the different scan pattern datasets.') is a possible confound for attributing all observed differences to scan trajectory, but that is an experimental validity concern, not circularity: no step reduces by definition to its own input. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measured images and the chosen reconstruction settings; there are no free parameters fitted to a target result beyond the manual reconstruction choices listed, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Defocus = 10 to 20 nm, manually optimized per dataset
    Used for ptychographic reconstructions; set by the operator for each scan-pattern dataset, not measured, and affects reconstructed resolution.
  • Number of probe modes = 2 modes (DyScO3), 6 modes (BaTiO3)
    Chosen in the multislice mixed-state ptychography fit; varies by dataset and influences the reconstruction quality.
  • Slice thickness = 2 nm per slice, 10 to 20 slices
    Assumed for the multislice model; not independently measured; affects depth sampling of the reconstruction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mixed-state multislice ptychography algorithm as implemented in py4DSTEM produces an accurate real-space potential at the claimed resolution.
    The central resolution claims (Bragg peaks to about 0.7 Å) rely on the algorithm's correctness; no simulation or ground-truth validation is presented.
  • domain assumption Replicated Bragg peaks in ADF FFTs arise from probe-settling delays during large jumps.
    The text states these "likely arise" from probe-settling delays (Results, Fig. 3); this attribution underpins the artifact analysis but is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Residual thickness and defocus variations between scan-pattern datasets are small enough not to affect the cross-pattern comparisons.
    Methods state these were "minimized, but not eliminated"; the conclusions assume they do not dominate.
  • domain assumption FFT Bragg-peak visibility is a valid proxy for spatial resolution.
    Used to compare resolutions across scan modes; no quantitative criterion (e.g., FRC) is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Programmable Beam Control for Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy and Ptychography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ3Z2254

@misc{pith2026250910726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Programmable Beam Control for Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy and Ptychography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ3Z2254}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10726}
}
read the original abstract

Programmable electron-beam scanning offers new opportunities to improve dose efficiency and suppress scan-induced artifacts in scanning transmission electron microscopy. Here, we systematically benchmark the impact of non-raster trajectories, including spiral and multi-pass sequential patterns, on two dose sensitive techniques: electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) and ptychography. Using DyScO3 as a model perovskite, we compare spatial resolution, spectral fidelity, and artifact suppression across scan modes. Ptychographic phase reconstructions consistently achieve atomic resolution and remain robust to large jumps in probe position. In contrast, atomic-resolution EELS maps show pronounced sensitivity to probe motion, with sequential and spiral scans introducing non-uniform elemental contrast. Finally, spiral scanning applied under cryogenic conditions in BaTiO3 thin films improves dose uniformity and mitigates drift related distortions. These results establish practical guidelines for the implementation of programmable scan strategies in low-dose 4D-STEM and highlight the inherent resilience of ptychography to trajectory-induced artifacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10726 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the 4D-STEM experimental setup used in this study. A defocused electron probe is scanned across the sample, while 2D diffraction patterns are recorded at each probe position using a pixelated detector (Gatan K3) (b) Examples of programmable scan trajectories include raster, spiral (inward/outward), and N-sequential scan patterns. (c) Illustration of a multislice ptychography reconstruction, with a s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of scan path variations: (a) raster, (b) inward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ptychographic phase reconstructions of DyScO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of HAADF (a) and ptychographic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R.F. Egerton. New techniques in electron energy - loss spectroscopy and energy -filtered imaging. Micron, 34(3–5):127–139, Apr 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Egoavil, N

    R. Egoavil, N. Gauquelin, G.T. Martinez, S. Van Aert, G. Van Tendeloo, and J. Verbeeck. Atomic resolution mapping of phonon excitations in stem -eels experiments. Ultramicroscopy , 147:1–7, Dec 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    Verbeeck and S

    J. Verbeeck and S. Van Aert. Model based quantification of eels spectra. Ultramicroscopy , 101(2):207 –224, 2004

    2004

  4. [4]

    Four -dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy (4d -stem): From scanning nanodiffraction to ptychography and beyond

    Colin Ophus. Four -dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy (4d -stem): From scanning nanodiffraction to ptychography and beyond. Microscopy and Microanalysis , 25(3):563 –582, 06 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Quantitative scanning transmission electron microscopy for materials science: Imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy, and tomography

    Colin Ophus. Quantitative scanning transmission electron microscopy for materials science: Imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy, and tomography. Annual Review of Materials Research , 53(1):105 –141, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    py4dstem: A software package for four - dimensional scanning transmission electron microscopy data analysis

    Benjamin H Savitzky, Steven E Zeltmann, Lauren A Hughes, Hamish G Brown, Shiteng Zhao, Philipp M Pelz, Thomas C Pekin, Edward S Barnard, Jennifer Donohue, Luis Rangel DaCosta, Ellis Kennedy, Yujun Xie, Matthew T Janish, Matthew M Schneider, Patrick Herring, Chirranjeevi Gopal, Abraham Anapolsky, Rohan Dhall, Karen C Bustillo, Peter Ercius, Mary C Scott, J...

    2021

  7. [7]

    Iterative phase retrieval algorithms for scanning transmission electron microscopy

    Georgios Varnavides, Stephanie M Ribet, Steven E Zeltmann, Yue Yu, Benjamin H Savitzky, Dana O Byrne, Frances I Allen, Vinayak P Dravid, Mary C Scott, and Colin Ophus. Iterative phase retrieval algorithms for scanning transmission electron microscopy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05250 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Velazco, A

    A. Velazco, A. B´ech´e, D. Jannis, and J. Verbeeck. Reducing electron beam damage through alternative stem scanning strategies, part i: Experimental findings. Ultramicroscopy , 232:113398, Jan 2022

    2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Jannis, A

    D. Jannis, A. Velazco, A. B´ech´e, and J. Verbeeck. Reducing electron beam damage through alternative stem scanning strategies, part ii: Attempt towards an empirical model describing the damage process. Ultramicroscopy , 240:113568, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Velazco, M

    A. Velazco, M. Nord, A. B´ech´e, and J. Verbeeck. Evaluation of different rectangular scan strategies for stem imaging. Ultramicroscopy, 215:113021, Aug 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Goodge, Elisabeth Bianco, Noah Schnitzer, Henny W

    Berit H. Goodge, Elisabeth Bianco, Noah Schnitzer, Henny W. Zandbergen, and Lena F. Kourkoutis. Atomic -resolution cryo - stem across continuously variable temperatures. Microscopy and Microanalysis , 26(3):439 –446, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Kim, Emanuela Liberti, Yiming Hu, Takeo Sasaki, Peter D

    Xudong Pei, Liqi Zhou, Chen Huang, Mark Boyce, Judy S. Kim, Emanuela Liberti, Yiming Hu, Takeo Sasaki, Peter D. Nellist, Peijun Zhang, David I. Stuart, Angus I. Kirkland, and Peng Wang. Cryogenic electron ptychographic single particle analysis with wide bandwidth information t...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Savitzky, Ismail El Baggari, Colin B

    Benjamin H. Savitzky, Ismail El Baggari, Colin B. Clement, Emily Waite, Berit H. Goodge, David J. Baek, John P. Sheckelton, Christopher Pasco, Hari Nair, Nathaniel J. Schreiber, Jason Hoffman, Alemayehu S. Admasu, Jaewook Kim, Sang -Wook Cheong, Anand Bhattacharya, Darrell G. ...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Lupini, Raymond R

    Xiahan Sang, Andrew R. Lupini, Raymond R. Unocic, Miaofang Chi, Albina Y. Borisevich, Sergei V. Kalinin, Eirik Endeve, Richard K. Archibald, and Stephen Jesse. Dynamic scan control in stem: Spiral scans. Advanced Structural and Chemical Imaging , 2(1), Jun 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Lupini, Jilai Ding, Sergei V

    Xiahan Sang, Andrew R. Lupini, Jilai Ding, Sergei V. Kalinin, Stephen Jesse, and Raymond R. Unocic. Precision controlled atomic resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy using spiral scan pathways. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Mar 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Ede and Richard Beanland

    Jeffrey M. Ede and Richard Beanland. Partial scanning transmission electron microscopy with deep learning. Scientific Reports, 10(1), May 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Ortega, D

    E. Ortega, D. Nicholls, N. D. Browning, and N. de Jonge. High temporal -resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy using sparse -serpentine scan pathways. Scientific Reports , 11:24301, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Woo, Anna Tararan, Luiz H.G

    Alberto Zobelli, Steffi Y. Woo, Anna Tararan, Luiz H.G. Tizei, Nathalie Brun, Xiaoyan Li, Odile St´ephan, Mathieu Kociak, and Marcel Tenc´e. Spatial and spectral dynamics in stem hyperspectral imaging using random scan patterns. Ultramicroscopy, 212:112912, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    B´ech´e, B

    A. B´ech´e, B. Goris, B. Freitag, and J. Verbeeck. Development of a fast electromagnetic beam blanker for compressed sensing in scanning transmission electron microscopy. Applied Physics Letters, 108(9), Feb 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Turner, M

    R. Turner, M. Nord, A. Velazco, and J. Verbeeck. Optimal scanning strategies for high -fidelity stem imaging. Ultramicroscopy, 218:113085, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Using your beam efficiently: Reducing electron dose in the stem via flyback compensation

    Tiarnan Mullarkey, Jonathan J P Peters, Clive Downing, and Lewys Jones. Using your beam efficiently: Reducing electron dose in the stem via flyback compensation. Microscopy and Microanalysis , 28(4):1428 –1436, 08 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Peters, Bryan W

    Jonathan J. Peters, Bryan W. Reed, Yu Jimbo, Kanako Noguchi, Karin H. Mu¨ller, Alexandra Porter, Daniel J. Masiel, and Lewys Jones. Event-responsive scanning transmission 9 electron microscopy. Science , 385(6708):549 –553, Aug 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jannis, C

    D. Jannis, C. Hofer, C. Gao, X. Xie, A. B´ech´e, T.J. Pennycook, and 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 , 233:113423, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    T. Susi, J. C. Meyer, and J. Kotakoski. Manipulating low - dimensional materials down to the level of single atoms with electron irradiation. Nature Reviews Materials

  17. [25]

    Flexible metallic nanowires with self -adaptive contacts to semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers

    Junhao Lin, Ovidiu Cretu, Wu Zhou, Kazu Suenaga, Dhiraj Prasai, Kirill I Bolotin, Nguyen Thanh Cuong, Minoru Otani, Susumu Okada, Andrew R Lupini, et al. Flexible metallic nanowires with self -adaptive contacts to semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers. Natu...

    2014

  18. [26]

    Atom-by-atom fabrication with electron beams

    Ondrej Dyck, Maxim Ziatdinov, David B Lingerfelt, Raymond R Unocic, Bethany M Hudak, Andrew R Lupini, Stephen Jesse, and Sergei V Kalinin. Atom-by-atom fabrication with electron beams. Nature Reviews Materials , 4(7):497–507, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Probing the dynamics of topologically protected charged ferroelectric domain walls with the electron beam at the atomic scale

    Michele Conroy, Kalani Moore, Eoghan O’Connell, Lewys Jones, Clive Downing, Roger Whamore, Alexei Gruverman, Marty Gregg, and Ursel Bangert. Probing the dynamics of topologically protected charged ferroelectric domain walls with the electron beam at the atomic scale. Microscop...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Contact-free reversible switching of improper ferroelectric domains by electron and ion irradiation

    Erik D Roede, Aleksander B Mosberg, Donald M Evans, Edith Bourret, Zewu Yan, Antonius TJ van Helvoort, and Dennis Meier. Contact-free reversible switching of improper ferroelectric domains by electron and ion irradiation. APL Materials, 9(2), 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Electron-beam-induced ferroelectric domain behavior in the transmission electron microscope: Toward deterministic domain patterning

    James L Hart, Shi Liu, Andrew C Lang, Alexander Hubert, Andrius Zukauskas, Carlota Canalias, Richard Beanland, Andrew M Rappe, Miryam Arredondo, and Mitra L Taheri. Electron-beam-induced ferroelectric domain behavior in the transmission electron microscope: Toward deterministi...

    2016

  22. [30]

    Formation and manipulation of domain walls with 2 nm domain periodicity in batio 3 without contact electrodes

    Maya Barzilay and Yachin Ivry. Formation and manipulation of domain walls with 2 nm domain periodicity in batio 3 without contact electrodes. Nanoscale , 12(20):11136 –11142, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Domain structure formation by electron beam irradiation in lithium niobate crystals at elevated temperatures

    DS Chezganov, EO Vlasov, EA Pashnina, MA Chuvakova, AA Esin, ED Greshnyakov, and V Ya Shur. Domain structure formation by electron beam irradiation in lithium niobate crystals at elevated temperatures. Applied Physics Letters, 115(9), 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Electron-beam domain patterning in sr0

    Tatyana R Volk, Lyudmila S Kokhanchik, Yadviga V Bodnarchuk, Radmir V Gainutdinov, Eugene B Yakimov, and Lyudmila I Ivleva. Electron-beam domain patterning in sr0. 61ba0. 39nb2o6 crystals. Coatings, 10(3):299, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Correcting nonlinear drift distortion of scanning probe and scanning transmission electron microscopies from image pairs with orthogonal scan directions

    Colin Ophus, Jim Ciston, and Chris T Nelson. Correcting nonlinear drift distortion of scanning probe and scanning transmission electron microscopies from image pairs with orthogonal scan directions. Ultramicroscopy , 162:1–9, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Scanning distortion correction in stem images

    Shoucong Ning, Takeshi Fujita, Anmin Nie, Ziqian Wang, Xiandong Xu, Jianghua Chen, Mingwei Chen, Shuhuai Yao, and Tong -Yi Zhang. Scanning distortion correction in stem images. Ultramicroscopy , 184:274–283, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Increasing spatial fidelity and snr of 4d-stem using multi-frame data fusion

    Colum M O’Leary, Benedikt Haas, Christoph T Koch, Peter D Nellist, and Lewys Jones. Increasing spatial fidelity and snr of 4d-stem using multi-frame data fusion. Microscopy and Microanalysis , 28(4):1417 –1427, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Atomic resolution cryogenic 4d - stem imaging via robust distortion correction

    Jacob Smith, Zhennan Huang, Wenpei Gao, Guannan Zhang, and Miaofang Chi. Atomic resolution cryogenic 4d - stem imaging via robust distortion correction. ACS nano , 17(12):11327 –11334, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    R.F. Egerton. Control of radiation damage in the tem. Ultramicroscopy , 127:100 –108, 2013. Frontiers of Electron Microscopy in Materials Science

    2013

  30. [38]

    Konijnenberg, S.F

    Priya Dwivedi, A.P. Konijnenberg, S.F. Pereira, and H.P. Urbach. Lateral position correction in ptychography using the gradient of intensity patterns. Ultramicroscopy , 192:29 –36, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bull, Christopher J

    Craig L. Bull, Christopher J. Ridley, Kevin S. Knight, Nicholas P. Funnell, and Alexandra S. Gibbs. Comprehensive determination of the high -pressure structural behaviour of batio3. Mater. Adv. , 2:6094–6103, 2021. 10 Palos et al. Supplementary Information Fig. S1: Elemental E...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.