Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Sequential tilting 4D-STEM for improved momentum-resolved STEM field mapping

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Recording a full diffraction pattern for each beam tilt lets users detect and downweight beam directions corrupted by dynamical diffraction, improving nanoscale electric-field maps across junctions.

desk verdict Solid acquisition/calibration work with a clear caveat: the systematic-row improvement rests on a partially circular weighting scheme and post hoc choice of epsilon, so the strongest claim needs validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23533 v1 pith:J2ZTNYYP submitted 2025-05-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-phphysics.ins-det

Christoph Flathmann , Ulrich Ross , Jürgen Belz , Andreas Beyer , Kerstin Volz , Michael Seibt , Tobias Meyer This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.ins-det
keywords 4D-STEMmomentum-resolvedSTEMdifferentialphasecontrastprecessionelectrondiffractiondynamicalelectricfieldmappingAlGaAs/GaAsheterojunctioncenter-of-massanalysis
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 tries to show that momentum-resolved scanning transmission electron microscopy (MRSTEM) can map nanoscale electric fields more reliably if, instead of continuously precessing the beam and averaging diffraction patterns, the beam is tilted through a sequence of discrete directions and a full diffraction pattern is saved for every tilt at every scan position. The extra information, which beam directions suffer from dynamical diffraction, can then be used to reweight or discard corrupted measurements. On AlGaAs/GaAs heterojunctions the authors show that for a systematic-row crystal orientation, weighting beam tilts by the residual center-of-mass shift of field-free regions removes a spurious sloping potential and reproduces the profile obtained under weak diffraction conditions. The significance is that the improvement is inaccessible to prior MRSTEM techniques that only record an averaged diffraction pattern, and the approach requires no hardware modification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the six-dimensional sequential-tilting data set, a full diffraction pattern at each scan position and each incident-beam tilt. From it the paper constructs a virtual large-angle convergent beam electron diffraction (vLACBED) pattern by shifting each tilt's diffraction pattern by its tilt angle, which visualizes HOLZ lines and Bragg deficiency lines and checks calibration, and a position- and tilt-resolved residual center of mass $\delta C(r,K)$ that isolates center-of-mass changes due to fields from those due to changing diffraction conditions. The decisive processing step is a tilt-dependent weighting $a(r,K)$; intensity weighting reproduces the implicit weighting of precession MRSTEM, while residual-center-of-mass weighting $a(K)=1/(|\langle p\rangle_{\mathrm{GaAs}}-\langle p\rangle_{\mathrm{AlGaAs}}|+\epsilon)$ suppresses tilts whose field-free center of mass differs strongly across the junction.

What would settle it

Take the same AlGaAs/GaAs lamella in the systematic-row orientation and split the field-free AlGaAs side into two disjoint regions, using one to build the residual-center-of-mass weights and the other only to evaluate the resulting potential profile; if the held-out region still shows a linear slope, the flattening is produced by the tuning of $\epsilon$ rather than by a genuine suppression of dynamical diffraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that acquiring a complete six-dimensional data set, a full diffraction pattern at every scan position for every beam tilt, makes MRSTEM field mapping more reliable under dynamical diffraction than precession-averaged MRSTEM, because the per-tilt information reveals which beam directions are corrupted and allows them to be downweighted or excluded. Using AlGaAs/GaAs heterojunctions, it demonstrates that with no weighting or with intensity weighting, the systematic-row orientation shows a spurious linear potential slope on the AlGaAs side, whereas weighting by the residual center of mass of field-free regions, with a regularization parameter near one microradian, removes that slope and reproduces the off-axis potential profile. For the zone-axis orientation, no weighting scheme improves on simple averaging because all tilts are strongly affected, and intensity weighting fails because the correlation between direct-disc intensity and dynamical artifact is absent. The contribution is therefore not a new detector or hardware but a data-acquisition and post-processing strategy that exploits the per-tilt diffraction information.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed improvement depends on assuming that the shift of the diffraction-pattern center between two field-free regions faithfully measures how badly each beam tilt is corrupted by dynamical diffraction, and on choosing the weighting parameter $\epsilon\approx1\,\mu\mathrm{rad}$ from the same data used to judge the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For weak diffraction conditions, such as the off-axis orientation, sequential tilting MRSTEM gives reliable potential profiles under all tested weighting schemes, validating the technique as a baseline.
  • For medium diffraction conditions, such as the systematic-row orientation, per-tilt residual-center-of-mass weighting can recover a potential profile that matches the off-axis result, something not accessible to precession MRSTEM with only averaged intensity information.
  • Intensity weighting helps in the systematic-row geometry because direct-disc intensity decreases for tilts with strong diffraction, but in the zone-axis geometry it does not help because that correlation is absent.
  • The acquisition concept requires no hardware modification and can be transferred to other 4D-STEM applications such as strain, domain, or magnetic field mapping.
  • The calibration procedure reduces residual tilt-induced diffraction shift to about four microradians and tilt-induced beam shift to about one nanometer, smaller than the probe size, enabling precise arbitrary tilt patterns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension of the paper's logic suggests that on samples without clear field-free regions on both sides of a junction, the same residual-center-of-mass weighting could be built from a robust local baseline or an iterative estimation procedure, though the paper does not develop this.
  • Because the data set contains the full diffraction pattern per tilt, one could go beyond scalar center-of-mass weights and use pattern-level dissimilarity or learned classifiers to identify dynamical diffraction corruption without assuming field-free regions, an avenue the paper leaves open.
  • The data-dependent choice of the regularization parameter implies that a validation protocol with held-out field-free regions would strengthen the method before it becomes a turnkey quantitative tool for arbitrary samples.
  • The same six-dimensional acquisition could, in principle, separate electric and magnetic field contributions by exploiting symmetry of the center-of-mass signal under tilt reversal, which the paper does not address.
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 introduces a sequential-tilting variant of momentum-resolved STEM in which a full diffraction pattern is acquired for each beam tilt and scan position, yielding 6D datasets. The authors describe a two-step calibration procedure for beam tilt, detilt, and tilt-induced beam shift, and demonstrate residual diffraction shifts of about 4 µrad and beam shifts of about 1 nm. They use the per-tilt diffraction information to construct virtual LACBED patterns and per-tilt residual-COM maps, and they propose weighted tilt-averaging schemes, including a residual-COM weight in Eq. (3), to suppress dynamical diffraction artifacts. The method is tested on an AlGaAs/GaAs heterojunction at three specimen orientations: off-axis, systematic-row, and zone-axis. The main claim is that sequential tilting MRSTEM improves field mapping under medium and strong diffraction conditions, with the systematic-row orientation as the key demonstration.

Significance. If the improvement is real, the acquisition concept is a valuable, hardware-free extension of precession MRSTEM, and the per-tilt diagnostics (vLACBED continuity, residual-COM maps, tilt-dependent total intensity) are genuinely useful for data-quality assessment. The calibration results are a clear strength: the residual tilt-induced diffraction shift of about 4 µrad and the tilt-induced beam shift of about 1 nm, smaller than the probe size, are quantitative and convincing. The claim of improved field mapping under dynamical diffraction, however, rests on a weighting scheme whose construction shares the same field-free regions used for evaluation and on a regularization parameter chosen after seeing the data. The zone-axis result further limits the demonstrated regime. The paper is therefore a solid methods contribution whose central quantitative improvement still needs independent validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3), Fig. 5h] The residual-COM weight a(K) = 1/(|<p>_GaAs - <p>_AlGaAs| + epsilon) is constructed from the same field-free regions on the two sides of the junction that are later used to judge the flatness of the systematic-row potential. For small epsilon, this weighting selectively suppresses tilts for which the AlGaAs field-free COM differs from the GaAs reference, so the weighted average in the AlGaAs field-free region is biased toward the GaAs value. Consequently, the observed flattening of the AlGaAs side in Fig. 5h is partly a consequence of the weighting scheme rather than an independent confirmation that the diffraction artifact has been removed. Please validate the approach with weights fixed on one scan or region and evaluated on an independent scan or region, or with a hold-out field-free region.
  2. [Sec. 3.3, Fig. 5h] The paper does not specify how epsilon ≈ 1 µrad is selected, and the phrase "with the proper choice of epsilon" indicates a post hoc choice made after inspecting the data to make the field-free regions agree. Because the unweighted and intensity-weighted systematic-row profiles in Fig. 5b and 5e show a clear linear artifact on the AlGaAs side, the claimed improvement is contingent on this tuned parameter. Please provide an a priori or cross-validated selection rule for epsilon, and show a quantitative flatness metric (for example, the residual slope in the field-free AlGaAs region) as a function of epsilon so the sensitivity of the conclusion can be assessed.
  3. [Sec. 4 (Conclusion), Sec. 3.3, Fig. 5i] The conclusion that "for medium and strong diffraction conditions, we improved the sequential tilting MRSTEM results" overstates the demonstrated regime. For the zone-axis orientation, the authors themselves show that no weighting improves on simple averaging and that the residual-COM weighting with large epsilon reduces to equal weights. Thus the demonstrated improvement is limited to one systematic-row orientation with a tuned weight. Please narrow the claim accordingly or add additional medium- and strong-diffraction examples, otherwise the central claim is broader than the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1, Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.2] There are several typos: "approache" at the end of Sec. 1, "high-resoltuion" in Sec. 2.2, and "convetional" in Sec. 3.2.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The regularization constant epsilon is quoted in µrad, but the denominator is a COM difference, which is in momentum or detector units; please specify the units of <p> and the conversion used so that Eq. (3) is dimensionally consistent.
  3. [Eq. (3), Fig. 4] The field-free region on the AlGaAs side used to define <p>_AlGaAs in Eq. (3) is not specified in the text; please state its coordinate range or mark it in Fig. 4, just as the GaAs reference region is described as -30 to -20 nm.
  4. [Fig. 5] No error bars or repeat measurements are shown for the potential profiles, despite the 30 nm position averaging perpendicular to the scan direction; a statement of the measurement uncertainty or noise floor would make the quantitative comparison to the expected potential more convincing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Systematic-row improvement is partly constructed: Eq. (3) weights are built from the same field-free regions used to judge flatness, with ε≈1 µrad chosen post hoc.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eq. (3) and Fig. 5h]
    "a(KKK) = 1 / (|⟨ppp⟩(KKK) GaAs − ⟨ppp⟩(KKK) AlGaAs|+ϵ) (3) ... where ⟨ppp⟩(KKK) GaAs and ⟨ppp⟩(KKK) AlGaAs are averaged over field free regions on the GaAs and AlGaAs side respectively and ϵ is a small regularization constant to avoid diverging weights."

    The weights are high only for tilts whose COM in the two field-free regions already agrees. The systematic-row success is then judged by flatness on the AlGaAs field-free side: 'constructing the weights from the residual COM with the proper choice of ϵ, in this case ϵ≈1µrad, yields a significantly improved result.' With small ε, the weighted average in the AlGaAs field-free region is pulled toward the GaAs reference value, so the reported flattening is partly imposed by Eq. (3) rather than independently predicted. The regularization parameter is chosen post hoc ('proper choice'), and no error bars or independent evaluation regions are provided.

full rationale

I found one partly circular step. The acquisition and calibration chain is self-contained and externally validated (vacuum references, cross-correlation checks, RMS shifts of ~4 µrad and ~1 nm), and the off-axis orientation provides an independent, non-fitted comparison. However, the flagship improvement under systematic-row conditions is evaluated on the same field-free regions used to define the residual-COM weights in Eq. (3), and the regularization constant ε≈1 µrad is selected after inspecting the result. The observed flattening of the AlGaAs field-free side is therefore largely built into the weighting scheme rather than being an independent prediction. This is partial circularity, not a complete reduction of the method to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on standard MRSTEM theory plus a field-constant assumption. The only tuned numeric parameter is epsilon, and the thickness is an assumed input. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon regularization constant = approximately 1 micro rad for systematic-row orientation
    In Eq. (3), the weighting uses 1/(|Delta COM| + epsilon); epsilon is chosen post hoc to minimize artifacts in the AlGaAs field-free region, as stated in Section 3.3.
  • Lamella thickness = 330 nm
    Used to convert tilt-averaged COM to electric field; measured by EELS log-ratio assuming an inelastic mean free path of 145 nm, which is an assumed input (Section 2.3).
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The lateral gradient of the projected potential convolved with the probe intensity is proportional to the COM shift of the diffraction pattern.
    Invoked in Section 1 and used to compute electric fields and potentials from the measured COM.
  • domain assumption The electric field is constant along the electron beam direction within the lamella.
    Stated in Section 3.3: 'assuming the field is constant along the electron beam direction'.
  • domain assumption The relationship between the desired and actual beam tilts is linear.
    Used in the fine calibration in Section 2.1 to solve a system of linear equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential tilting 4D-STEM for improved momentum-resolved STEM field mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2ZTNYYP

@misc{pith2026250523533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential tilting 4D-STEM for improved momentum-resolved STEM field mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2ZTNYYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23533}
}
read the original abstract

Momentum-resolved scanning transmission electron microscopy (MRSTEM) is a powerful phase-contrast technique that can map lateral magnetic and electric fields ranging from the micrometer to the subatomic scale. Resolving fields ranging from a few nanometers to a few hundred nanometers, as well as across material junctions, is particularly important since these fields often determine the functional properties of devices. However, it is also challenging since they are orders of magnitude smaller than atomic electric fields. Thus, subtle changes in diffraction conditions lead to significant changes in the measured MRSTEM signal. One established approach to partially overcome this problem is precession electron diffraction, in which the incident electron beam is continuously precessed while precession-averaged diffraction patterns are acquired. Here, we present an alternative approach in which we sequentially tilt the incident electron beam and record a full diffraction pattern for each tilt and spatial position. This approach requires no hardware modification of the instrument and enables the use of arbitrary beam tilt patterns that can be optimized for specific applications. Furthermore, recording diffraction patterns for every beam tilt allows access to additional information. In this work, we use this information to create virtual large-angle convergent beam electron diffraction (vLACBED) patterns to assess MRSTEM data quality and improve field measurements by applying different data analysis methods beyond simple averaging. The presented data acquisition concept can readily be applied to other 4D-STEM applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Beam tilt and detilt: a) shows the beam path without tilt. b) shows the beam path with tilt. c) shows the beam path with tilt, detilt and tilt induced shift correction. The relevant shifts are highlighted in the images. quantifiability of MRSTEM results. 2 Experimental 2.1 Calibration procedure To achieve precise beam tilts without hardware modifications, we imple￾mented a custom-developed calibration and acquisitio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Beam tilt pattern and diffraction patterns: Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Calibrations of beam tilt and tilt-induced beam shift: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residual COM and total intensity of the acquired diffraction pat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Potential distributions across the AlGaAs/GaAs junction for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. J. Baliga, Fundamentals of power semiconductor devices, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    W¨ urfel, U

    P. W¨ urfel, U. W¨ urfel, Physics of solar cells: from basic principles to advanced concepts, John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Iriyama, T. Asaka, T. Hirayama, H. Fujita, C. A. Fisher, K. Nonaka, Y. Sugita, Z. Ogumi, Dynamic visualization of the electric potential in an all-solid-state rechargeable lithium battery, Angew. Chem 49 (26) (2010) 4414–4417

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Haruyama, K

    J. Haruyama, K. Sodeyama, L. Han, K. Takada, Y. Tateyama, Space– charge layer effect at interface between oxide cathode and sulfide elec- trolyte in all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, Chemistry of Materials 26 (14) (2014) 4248–4255

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    L. Wang, R. Xie, B. Chen, X. Yu, J. Ma, C. Li, Z. Hu, X. Sun, C. Xu, S. Dong, et al., In-situ visualization of the space-charge-layer effect on interfacial lithium-ion transport in all-solid-state batteries, Nature Com- munications 11 (1) (2020) 5889

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Tonomura, Applications of electron holography, Reviews of modern physics 59 (3) (1987) 639

    A. Tonomura, Applications of electron holography, Reviews of modern physics 59 (3) (1987) 639

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    Lichte, P

    H. Lichte, P. Formanek, A. Lenk, M. Linck, C. Matzeck, M. Lehmann, P. Simon, Electron holography: Applications to materials questions, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 37 (1) (2007) 539–588

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Frabboni, G

    S. Frabboni, G. Matteucci, G. Pozzi, M. Vanzi, Electron holographic observations of the electrostatic field associated with thin reverse-biased p- n junctions, Physical review letters 55 (20) (1985) 2196. 15

    work page 1985

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    W. Rau, P. Schwander, F. Baumann, W. H¨ oppner, A. Ourmazd, Two- dimensional mapping of the electrostatic potential in transistors by elec- tron holography, Physical Review Letters 82 (12) (1999) 2614

    1999

  2. [10]

    Twitchett, R

    A. Twitchett, R. Dunin-Borkowski, P. Midgley, Quantitative electron holography of biased semiconductor devices, Physical review letters 88 (23) (2002) 238302

    2002

  3. [11]

    Cooper, Off-axis electron holography for the measurement of active dopants in silicon semiconductor devices, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49 (47) (2016) 474001

    D. Cooper, Off-axis electron holography for the measurement of active dopants in silicon semiconductor devices, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 49 (47) (2016) 474001

    2016

  4. [12]

    Sasaki, S

    H. Sasaki, S. Otomo, R. Minato, K. Yamamoto, T. Hirayama, Direct observation of dopant distribution in GaAs compound semiconductors using phase-shifting electron holography and Lorentz microscopy, Jour- nal of Electron Microscopy 63 (3) (2014) 235–242

    2014

  5. [13]

    Anada, K

    S. Anada, K. Yamamoto, H. Sasaki, N. Shibata, M. Matsumoto, Y. Hori, K. Kinugawa, A. Imamura, T. Hirayama, Accurate measurement of electric potentials in biased GaAs compound semiconductors by phase- shifting electron holography, Microscopy 68 (2) (2019) 159–166

    2019

  6. [14]

    Cooper, V

    D. Cooper, V. Fan Arcara, B. Damilano, L. Amichi, A. Mavel, N. Rochat, G. Feuillet, A. Courville, S. V´ ezian, J. Duboz, Mapping of the electrostatic potentials in MOCVD and hybrid GaN tunnel junc- tions for InGaN/GaN blue emitting light emitting diodes by off-axis electron ho...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Cooper, C

    D. Cooper, C. Licitra, Y. Boussadi, B. Ben-Bakir, B. Masenelli, Mapping of the Electrostatic Potentials in a Fully Processed Led Device with nm-Scale Resolution by In Situ off-Axis Electron Holography, Small Methods 7 (9) (2023) 2300537

    2023

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller, F

    K. M¨ uller, F. F. Krause, A. B´ ech´ e, M. Schowalter, V. Galioit, S. L¨ offler, J. Verbeeck, J. Zweck, P. Schattschneider, A. Rosenauer, Atomic elec- tric fields revealed by a quantum mechanical approach to electron pi- codiffraction, Nature communications 5 (1) (2014) 5653. 16

    2014

  9. [17]

    Winkler, J

    F. Winkler, J. Barthel, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, K. M¨ uller-Caspary, Di- rect measurement of electrostatic potentials at the atomic scale: A con- ceptual comparison between electron holography and scanning transmis- sion electron microscopy, Ultramicroscopy 210 (2020) 112926

    2020

  10. [18]

    Shibata, S

    N. Shibata, S. D. Findlay, H. Sasaki, T. Matsumoto, H. Sawada, Y. Kohno, S. Otomo, R. Minato, Y. Ikuhara, Imaging of built-in elec- tric field at a pn junction by scanning transmission electron microscopy, Scientific reports 5 (1) (2015) 10040

    2015

  11. [19]

    T. Seki, G. S´ anchez-Santolino, R. Ishikawa, S. D. Findlay, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Quantitative electric field mapping in thin specimens using a segmented detector: Revisiting the transfer function for differential phase contrast, Ultramicroscopy 182 (2017) 258–263

    2017

  12. [20]

    Clark, H

    L. Clark, H. Brown, D. Paganin, M. Morgan, T. Matsumoto, N. Shi- bata, T. Petersen, S. Findlay, Probing the limits of the rigid-intensity- shift model in differential-phase-contrast scanning transmission electron microscopy, Physical Review A 97 (4) (2018) 043843

    2018

  13. [21]

    Haas, J.-L

    B. Haas, J.-L. Rouviere, V. Boureau, R. Berthier, D. Cooper, Direct comparison of off-axis holography and differential phase contrast for the mapping of electric fields in semiconductors by transmission electron microscopy., Ultramicroscopy 198 (2019) 58–72

    2019

  14. [22]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, S. Anada, H. Sasaki, K. Yamamoto, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Quantitative electric field mapping of ap–n junction by DPC STEM, Ultramicroscopy 216 (2020) 113033

    2020

  15. [23]

    Bruas, V

    L. Bruas, V. Boureau, A. Conlan, S. Martinie, J.-L. Rouviere, D. Cooper, Improved measurement of electric fields by nanobeam pre- cession electron diffraction, Journal of Applied Physics 127 (20) (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Beyer, M

    A. Beyer, M. S. Munde, S. Firoozabadi, D. Heimes, T. Grieb, A. Rose- nauer, K. M¨ uller-Caspary, K. Volz, Quantitative characterization of nanometer-scale electric fields via momentum-resolved STEM, Nano let- ters 21 (5) (2021) 2018–2025

    2021

  17. [25]

    B. C. da Silva, Z. Sadre Momtaz, E. Monroy, H. Okuno, J.-L. Rouviere, D. Cooper, M. I. Den Hertog, Assessment of Active Dopants and p– 17 n Junction Abruptness Using In Situ Biased 4D-STEM, Nano Letters 22 (23) (2022) 9544–9550

    2022

  18. [26]

    V. S. Chejarla, S. Ahmed, J. Belz, J. Scheunert, A. Beyer, K. Volz, Measuring Spatially-Resolved Potential Drops at Semiconductor Hetero- Interfaces Using 4D-STEM, Small Methods 7 (9) (2023) 2300453

    2023

  19. [27]

    C. Mahr, T. Grieb, F. F. Krause, M. Schowalter, A. Rosenauer, Towards the interpretation of a shift of the central beam in nano-beam electron diffraction as a change in mean inner potential, Ultramicroscopy 236 (2022) 113503

    2022

  20. [28]

    Heimes, V

    D. Heimes, V. S. Chejarla, S. Ahmed, F. H¨ uppe, A. Beyer, K. Volz, Impact of beam size and diffraction effects in the measurement of long- range electric fields in crystalline samples via 4DSTEM, Ultramicroscopy 253 (2023) 113821

    2023

  21. [29]

    Mawson, A

    T. Mawson, A. Nakamura, T. Petersen, N. Shibata, H. Sasaki, D. Pa- ganin, M. Morgan, S. Findlay, Suppressing dynamical diffraction arte- facts in differential phase contrast scanning transmission electron mi- croscopy of long-range electromagnetic fields via precession, Ultram...

    2020

  22. [30]

    P. A. Midgley, A. S. Eggeman, Precession electron diffraction–a topical review, IUCrJ 2 (1) (2015) 126–136

    2015

  23. [31]

    Cooper, L

    D. Cooper, L. Bruas, M. Bryan, V. Boureau, Measuring electrical prop- erties in semiconductor devices by pixelated STEM and off-axis electron holography (or convergent beams vs. plane waves)., Micron 179 (2024) 103594

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y. O. Murakami, T. Seki, A. Kinoshita, T. Shoji, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Magnetic-structure imaging in polycrystalline materials by specimen-tilt series averaged DPC STEM, Microscopy 69 (5) (2020) 312–320

    2020

  25. [33]

    Kohno, A

    Y. Kohno, A. Nakamura, S. Morishita, N. Shibata, Development of tilt- scan system for differential phase contrast scanning transmission elec- tron microscopy, Microscopy 71 (2) (2022) 111–116. 18

    2022

  26. [34]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, Y. Kanitani, Y. Kudo, S. Tomiya, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Quantitative electric field mapping in semiconductor het- erostructures via tilt-scan averaged DPC STEM, Ultramicroscopy 238 (2022) 113538

    2022

  27. [35]

    Toyama, T

    S. Toyama, T. Seki, Y. Kanitani, Y. Kudo, S. Tomiya, Y. Ikuhara, N. Shibata, Real-space observation of a two-dimensional electron gas at semiconductor heterointerfaces, Nature Nanotechnology 18 (5) (2023) 521–528

    2023

  28. [36]

    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 (1) (2025) 27– 41

    2025

  29. [37]

    Nordahl, L

    G. Nordahl, L. Jones, E. F. Christiansen, K. A. Hunnestad, M. Nord, Correcting for probe wandering by precession path segmentation, Ultra- microscopy 248 (2023) 113715

    2023

  30. [38]

    Iakoubovskii, K

    K. Iakoubovskii, K. Mitsuishi, Y. Nakayama, K. Furuya, Thickness mea- surements with electron energy loss spectroscopy, Microscopy research and technique 71 (8) (2008) 626–631

    2008

  31. [39]

    T. Meyer, Structural and electronic investigation of strongly correlated transition metal oxide perovskite thin films and interfaces using in-situ transmission electron microscopy, Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation, G¨ ottingen, Georg-August Universit¨ at, 2020 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Meyer, D

    T. Meyer, D. A. Ehrlich, P. Pichler, V. Titova, C. Flathmann, J. Schmidt, M. Seibt, Tracing the boron diffusion into a textured silicon solar cell by combining boron diffusion simulation with experimental and simulated scanning transmission electron beam induced current, arXiv...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.