Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

A simulation-based training framework for machine-learning applications in ARPES

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces aurelia, an open-source simulator that produces realistic synthetic ARPES spectra, and shows that a convolutional neural network trained only on such simulated data can assess experimental spectrum quality more accurat

desk verdict Useful open-source simulator and a sensible pipeline, but the 'beats human analysis' claim rests on a benchmark built from the same heuristics that made the training labels. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15983 v1 pith:KE225UM4 submitted 2025-08-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cs.LGphysics.comp-ph

MengXing Na , Chris Zhou , Sydney K. Y. Dufresne , Matteo Michiardi , Andrea Damascelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scics.LGphysics.comp-ph
keywords angle-resolvedphotoemissionspectroscopysyntheticdatamachinelearningconvolutionalneuralnetworkqualityassessmentaugmentationBi2Se3autonomousexperiments
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 is trying to establish that synthetic ARPES spectra can stand in for real experimental data when training deep-learning models, despite the lack of a shared experimental ARPES database. It does this by introducing aurelia, an open-source simulator that generates large numbers of labeled spectra from randomized physical and experimental parameters, and by training a convolutional neural network to predict a rule-based quality score from each spectrum. Tested on a real micro-focused ARPES grid scan across a cleaved Bi2Se3 surface, the simulation-trained network produces a quality map that the authors argue matches human judgment better than their analytical benchmark and pinpoints the optimal measurement region with sharper contrast. If this holds, the main practical consequence is that ARPES experimentalists can automate the most time-consuming part of an experiment—sample alignment and quality assessment—without waiting for large shared experimental datasets to be curated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is aurelia, an analytic simulator that turns randomized physical inputs into realistic-looking ARPES images with known ground-truth labels. Its key output is the quality score (Eq. 13), a number from 0 to 10 assembled from three simulation-derived components—band sharpness S, signal-to-background B, and electron count N—with penalties, bonuses, and a combined deduction for low B + N. These scores are the only ground truth the CNN ever sees. The CNN itself is a dual-branch network: a ResNet50 image-classification backbone (pre-trained on a large natural-image dataset) processes the 224×224 spectral images, while a small numerical branch feeds in mean and maximum pixel

What would settle it

A blind study in which several experienced ARPES experimentalists independently rank the same grid-scan spectra by quality, with their median ranking compared against both the machine-learning score and the analytical benchmark; if the human ranking agrees more with the analytical benchmark than with the MLS, the claim that the simulation-trained model assesses quality more accurately than humans is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a convolutional network trained exclusively on aurelia-generated spectra can assess the quality of experimental ARPES spectra at least as accurately as—and, in the demonstrated case, more accurately than—a human or analytical assessment. The authors build the claim in three steps. First, aurelia simulates the full measurement chain: tight-binding band structures, spectral functions with self-energy broadening, Fermi-Dirac statistics, momentum-to-angle conversion, detector resolution, backgrounds, and Poisson counting statistics, with all parameters randomly sampled so each epoch of training uses 50,000 fresh labeled spectra. Second, each synthetic spectrum is assign

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rule-based quality labels extracted from simulation parameters (sharpness, signal-to-background, electron count) match what a human experimentalist means by 'good spectrum'; the experimental benchmark score is built from the same criteria, so if that mapping is off, the model is only reproducing the authors' heuristic rather than genuinely outscoring human judgment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single simulator can produce the tens of thousands of labeled spectra needed for supervised deep learning in ARPES, removing the data-scarcity bottleneck that has limited ML applications.
  • The quality-assessment model transfers across materials: because training spectra contain many different dispersions, the network can score spectra from samples other than the Bi2Se3 used for the benchmark.
  • A score map produced by the CNN can be combined with a motorized sample stage to automate sample alignment and locate the optimal measurement region without human intervention.
  • Dynamic generation of fresh training data each epoch improves generalization: the paper reports a validation mean absolute error of 0.376 with dynamic data versus 1.130 with a fixed dataset.
  • The same simulator can be repurposed for other supervised tasks, such as recognizing flake or rotational domains, measuring energy gaps under broadening, and classifying spin or orbital texture, by changing the label definition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the benchmark score is assembled from the same three criteria that define the training labels, the headline comparison may partly measure how well the CNN reproduces the authors' heuristic. A direct test would be a blind ranking of the same grid-scan spectra by experienced experimentalists, compared against both scores.
  • Beyond the paper: since the simulator's matrix elements and backgrounds are deliberately approximate, a model trained purely on aurelia could transfer less cleanly to geometries where matrix-element suppression or analyzer artifacts dominate; fine-tuning on a few real spectra is a natural safeguard.
  • Beyond the paper: the dynamic-generation strategy is not ARPES-specific; any spectroscopy with an analytic forward model, such as XPS, RIXS, or neutron scattering, could use the same recipe to train quality or feature-extraction models without a shared experimental database.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces aurelia, an open-source simulator that generates synthetic ARPES spectra with randomized physical and experimental parameters, and uses it to train a ResNet50-based convolutional neural network to predict a quality score for ARPES spectra. The quality score is defined in Sec. III from simulation parameters via hand-crafted penalties for sharpness, signal-to-background, and electron count (Eqs. 7-13). The trained model is then applied to experimental grid-scan data on Bi2Se3, and its predictions are compared with a benchmark score (BMS) constructed from the same three criteria (Eqs. 14-16). The authors report that the machine-learning score (MLS) is more precise and 'more human-like' than the BMS, and conclude that simulated spectra are an effective proxy for experimental data in training ML models.

Significance. The aurelia simulator and the dynamic data-generation pipeline are potentially valuable contributions to a real bottleneck: the scarcity of labeled ARPES data for deep learning. The paper is also transparent about its architecture, training details, and code availability, and it addresses a practically important task (sample alignment and quality assessment). If the simulation-to-experiment transfer were convincingly validated, this would be a useful step toward AI-assisted ARPES experiments. However, the current validation does not support the headline claim that the model assesses spectra quality 'more accurately than human analysis': the experimental benchmark is built from the same heuristic criteria used to generate the training labels, and no independent human evaluation is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eqs. 14-16; Sec. III, Eq. 13] The experimental validation is circular with respect to the training target. The QS labels in Sec. III are a weighted combination of sharpness (Eq. 7), signal-to-background (Eq. 9), and electron count (Eq. 10) with the penalty schedule of Eq. 8. The BMS in Sec. V is explicitly computed from the same three criteria (Eqs. 14-16) and then 'the same procedure defined in Sec. III'. Therefore, showing that the CNN outperforms the BMS only demonstrates that the network is a more consistent estimator of the authors' quality-scoring heuristic; it does not establish agreement with human judgment. The claim in the Abstract and Sec. V that the model assesses spectra quality 'more accurately than human analysis' is unsupported because no human-scoring study is presented. The visual confirmation in Figs. 6f-j is anecdotal and performed by the authors, not by independent raters.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. 7-13] The quality score itself is not validated as a proxy for human assessment. The text states that the score aims 'to reproduce human assessment as accurately as possible,' but the score is based on simulation parameters and user-chosen weights (wS, wB, wN), penalty intervals, and bonus/deduction rules (Eqs. 8, 11, 12). No calibration against human ratings of spectra is provided. Since the CNN is trained to reproduce this rule-based score, the experimental comparison measures consistency with the authors' heuristic, not agreement with a human ground truth. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim that aurelia-generated spectra are a suitable proxy for experimental data in training ML models for this task.
  3. [Sec. V, Fig. 6] The quantitative comparison between MLS and BMS is incomplete and partly self-referential. The BMS is acknowledged to be incomplete because it fits only the left branch of the topological surface state (Sec. V), and the MLS is said to be better because it assesses the whole spectrum. Yet the conclusion that MLS is 'much more precise' and 'more human-like' is based on visual inspection of the score maps and five selected spectra, not on a quantitative metric such as agreement with human rankings, a defined optimal-region overlap, or a statistical comparison between MLS and BMS. Without an independent standard, the superiority claim is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. 14] The normalization of the experimental sharpness score S = 1 - sigma_FWHM/max(sigma_FWHM) makes the BMS dependent on the specific dataset, whereas the simulation sharpness in Eq. 7 is absolute. This mismatch should be discussed or corrected.
  2. [Eq. 16] Nmax is not defined for the experimental electron count score. The threshold Ith used in Eq. 15 is also stated only as 'Ith = 1' with no units or description of how it was chosen.
  3. [Sec. II / Sec. V] The simulator's background score B (Eq. 9) uses the maximum image intensity, whereas the experimental B (Eq. 15) uses a low-intensity threshold. These are different operationalizations of 'signal-to-background,' which further weakens the transfer argument beyond the circularity noted above.
  4. [Introduction] Typographical error: 'excercise' should be 'exercise.' Also, the phrase 'more accurately than human analysis' is used in the Abstract, but the comparison is against algorithmic BMS, not human analysis; rewording would avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Benchmark score is constructed from the same sharpness/background/count heuristics as the training labels, so the experimental validation does not establish 'more accurate than human analysis'.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, Eqs. 14-16; Sec. III, Eq. 13]
    "we can analyze the experimental spectra for the sharpness, signal-to-background, and number of electrons criteria and calculate a benchmark score (BMS) to compare with the machine-learning prediction ... These three scores used to inform the penalties incurred and the final benchmarking score (BMS) following the procedure we defined in Sec. III."

    The CNN is trained to reproduce QS labels (Eq. 13) that are computed from simulation parameters via S, B, N (Eqs. 7-10) and a hand-crafted penalty/bonus schedule (Eqs. 8, 11-12). The experimental BMS is then computed from the same three criteria (Eqs. 14-16 define experimental S, B, N) and 'following the procedure we defined in Sec. III' applies the same penalty schedule. Thus the benchmark is not an independent ground truth: it is a reimplementation of the training-label heuristic on experimental data. The claim that the MLS 'surpasses analytical performance' therefore only shows that the CNN learned a more consistent estimator of the authors' quality-scoring heuristic, not that it aligns with human judgment. No human-scored dataset is provided; the 'visual confirmation' in Figs. 6f-j use

full rationale

The paper's training labels are rule-based quality scores derived from simulation parameters (Eqs. 7-13), and the experimental benchmark score is derived from analogous sharpness, signal-to-background, and electron-count metrics using the same penalty schedule (Eqs. 14-16, 'following the procedure we defined in Sec. III'). Therefore the quantitative evaluation compares the ML model against a benchmark that encodes the same assumptions as the training target. This does not validate the claim that the model is 'more accurate than human analysis' or that synthetic spectra transfer to human-judged spectral quality, because no independent human ground truth is used. The paper itself acknowledges that the labels are 'intended to approximate human assessments' and are 'not the absolute ground truth,' which further confirms that the BMS is not an independent standard. For this reason the central demonstration is partially circular, though the simulator itself and the CNN training pipeline are independently useful and not themselves circular. No other load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness import is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a chain of modeling choices: standard ARPES intensity relations, a specific self-energy ansatz, a random matrix-element approximation, and, crucially, the hand-defined quality scoring function. Neither the simulator's realism nor the quality score's fidelity to human judgment is externally validated.

free parameters (4)
  • Quality score weights wS, wB, wN = wS=0.6, wB=1, wN=0.8
    Chosen by the authors in Sec. III (Eq. 13) to emphasize sharpness, background, and count rate; these weights define the ground-truth labels for training.
  • Nmax (electron count normalization) = 10^5
    Defines N = Ne/Nmax in Eq. 10; sets the count-rate score ceiling and is used in both simulated labels and experimental BMS.
  • Penalty intervals and bonus thresholds for quality score = Intervals in Eq. 8; bonuses N=1.0, B>0.9; deduction B+N<0.5
    Hand-set thresholds mapping continuous S, B, N to point penalties; directly shape the label distribution the CNN learns.
  • BMS background threshold Ith = Ith = 1
    Chosen in Sec. V to isolate low-intensity background in experimental Bi2Se3 data; changes the experimental benchmark score.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math ARPES intensity follows I = |M|^2 A f with Fermi-Dirac factor (Eq. 4)
    Standard photoelectron spectroscopy relation, background physics from prior literature.
  • standard math Spectral function A(k,w) as Lorentzian with self-energy (Eq. 2)
    Standard Green's function expression.
  • domain assumption Phenomenological electron-boson kink self-energy (Eq. 3)
    Chosen form with parameters (R, w0, gamma) to mimic realistic dispersion renormalization; not derived from a microscopic model.
  • domain assumption Random modulation of photoemission matrix elements captures experimental matrix-element effects (Sec. II)
    The paper deliberately forgoes accurate matrix-element modeling and replaces it with random intensity modulation with lattice symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper The rule-based quality score (Eq. 13) approximates human assessment of ARPES quality
    The labels used for training are defined by the authors' heuristic; the paper states it is 'by no means unique' and is intended to reproduce human assessment, but no human validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The BMS computed from MDC width and thresholded intensity is a valid proxy for quality in the experimental test (Eqs. 14-16)
    The experimental benchmark is constructed with similar heuristics and the paper concedes it only considers the left branch of the topological surface state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simulation-based training framework for machine-learning applications in ARPES." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE225UM4

@misc{pith2026250815983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simulation-based training framework for machine-learning applications in ARPES},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE225UM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15983}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) has advanced significantly in its ability to probe more observables and simultaneously generate multi-dimensional datasets. These advances present new challenges in data acquisition, processing, and analysis. Machine learning (ML) models can drastically reduce the workload of experimentalists; however, the lack of training data for ML -- and in particular deep learning -- is a significant obstacle. In this work, we introduce an open-source synthetic ARPES spectra simulator - aurelia - for the purpose of generating the large datasets necessary to train ML models. As a demonstration, we train a convolutional neural network to evaluate ARPES spectra quality -- a critical task performed during the initial sample alignment phase of the experiment. We benchmark the simulation-trained model against actual experimental data and find that it can assess the spectra quality more accurately than human analysis, and swiftly identify the optimal measurement region with high precision. Thus, we establish that simulated ARPES spectra can be an effective proxy for experimental spectra in training ML models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The sharpness of the bands (S)

    work page

  2. [2]

    The signal-to-background ratio (B)

    work page

  3. [3]

    use-or-regenerate

    The number of electrons collected (N). The sharpness of the bands is evaluated using the en- ergy resolution broadening ∆ E, the thermal broadening kBT , and the imaginary part of the self-energy Σ′′. These quantities are directly available from the simulation: S = 1 − p ∆E2 + (kBT )2 + min(Σ′′)2. (7) Here, the sharpness is scored on the interval [0 , 1],...

    work page

  4. [4]

    6j, while the MLS gives a score of 1

    Finally, the BMS assigns a score of 6 to Fig. 6j, while the MLS gives a score of 1. Again we can visually con- firm that the MLS is more accurate. This large discrep- ancy can be attributed to the analysis used to calcu- late the BMS. Specifically, the analysis only considers the left branch of the topological surface state. Indeed, the BMS map shown in F...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Probing the electronic structure of complex systems by ARPES

    Andrea Damascelli. Probing the electronic structure of complex systems by ARPES. Physica Scripta , 2004(T109):61, jan 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Angle- resolved photoemission studies of quantum materials.Re- views of Modern Physics , 93(2):25006, 2021

    Jonathan A Sobota, Yu He, and Zhi-Xun Shen. Angle- resolved photoemission studies of quantum materials.Re- views of Modern Physics , 93(2):25006, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Time-resolved arpes studies of quantum materials

    Fabio Boschini, Marta Zonno, and Andrea Damascelli. Time-resolved arpes studies of quantum materials. Re- views of Modern Physics , 96(1):015003, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Advancing time-and angle-resolved photoemission spec- troscopy: The role of ultrafast laser development.Physics Reports, 1036:1–47, 2023

    MengXing Na, Arthur K Mills, and David J Jones. Advancing time-and angle-resolved photoemission spec- troscopy: The role of ultrafast laser development.Physics Reports, 1036:1–47, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    A perspective on the application of spatially resolved arpes for 2d materials

    Mattia Cattelan and Neil A Fox. A perspective on the application of spatially resolved arpes for 2d materials. Nanomaterials, 8(5):284, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Recent trends in spin-resolved photoelec- tron spectroscopy

    Taichi Okuda. Recent trends in spin-resolved photoelec- tron spectroscopy. Journal of Physics: Condensed Mat- ter, 29(48):483001, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Revealing hidden orbital pseudospin texture with time- reversal dichroism in photoelectron angular distributions

    Samuel Beaulieu, Jakub Schusser, Shuo Dong, Michael Sch¨ uler, Tommaso Pincelli, Maciej Dendzik, Julian Mak- lar, Alexander Neef, Hubert Ebert, Karol Hricovini, et al. Revealing hidden orbital pseudospin texture with time- reversal dichroism in photoelectron angular distributi...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences

    Giuseppe Carleo, Ignacio Cirac, Kyle Cranmer, Lau- rent Daudet, Maria Schuld, Naftali Tishby, Leslie Vogt- Maranto, and Lenka Zdeborov´ a. Machine learning and the physical sciences. Reviews of Modern Physics , 91(4):045002, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Artificial-intelligence- driven scanning probe microscopy

    Alexander Krull, Peter Hirsch, Carsten Rother, Au- gustin Schiffrin, and C Krull. Artificial-intelligence- driven scanning probe microscopy. Communications Physics, 3(1):54, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Artificial intelligence driven exper- iments at user facilities

    Phillip M Maffettone, Daniel B Allan, Andi Barbour, Thomas A Caswell, Dmitri Gavrilov, Marcus D Han- well, Thomas Morris, Daniel Olds, Max Rakitin, Stu- art I Campbell, et al. Artificial intelligence driven exper- iments at user facilities. In Methods and Applications of Auton...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Super resolution convolutional neu- ral network for feature extraction in spectroscopic data

    Han Peng, Xiang Gao, Yu He, Yiwei Li, Yuchen Ji, Chuhang Liu, Sandy A Ekahana, Ding Pei, Zhongkai Liu, Zhixun Shen, et al. Super resolution convolutional neu- ral network for feature extraction in spectroscopic data. Review of Scientific Instruments , 91(3), 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Deep learning-based statistical noise reduction for mul- 9 tidimensional spectral data

    Younsik Kim, Dongjin Oh, Soonsang Huh, Dongjoon Song, Sunbeom Jeong, Junyoung Kwon, Minsoo Kim, Donghan Kim, Hanyoung Ryu, Jongkeun Jung, et al. Deep learning-based statistical noise reduction for mul- 9 tidimensional spectral data. Review of Scientific Instru- ments, 92(7), 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Denoising and feature extraction in photoemission spectra with variational auto-encoder neural networks

    Francisco Restrepo, Junjing Zhao, and Utpal Chatter- jee. Denoising and feature extraction in photoemission spectra with variational auto-encoder neural networks. Review of Scientific Instruments , 93(6), 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hidden self-energies as origin of cuprate superconductivity revealed by machine learning

    Youhei Yamaji, Teppei Yoshida, Atsushi Fujimori, and Masatoshi Imada. Hidden self-energies as origin of cuprate superconductivity revealed by machine learning. Physical Review Research, 3(4):043099, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Machine learning the spectral function of a hole in a quantum antiferromagnet

    Jackson Lee, Matthew R Carbone, and Weiguo Yin. Machine learning the spectral function of a hole in a quantum antiferromagnet. Physical Review B , 107(20):205132, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Machine-learning- assisted acceleration on high-symmetry materials search: Space group predictions from band structures

    Bin Xi, Kin Fai Tse, Tsz Fung Kok, Ho Ming Chan, Man Kit Chan, Ho Yin Chan, Kwan Yue Clinton Wong, Shing Hei Robin Yuen, and Junyi Zhu. Machine-learning- assisted acceleration on high-symmetry materials search: Space group predictions from band structures. The Jour- nal of Phy...

    2022

  13. [21]

    A machine learning route between band mapping and band structure

    R Patrick Xian, Vincent Stimper, Marios Zacharias, Ma- ciej Dendzik, Shuo Dong, Samuel Beaulieu, Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf, Martin Wolf, Laurenz Rettig, Christian Car- bogno, et al. A machine learning route between band mapping and band structure. Nature Computational Sci- ence, 3(...

    2023

  14. [22]

    A survey on deep learning tools dealing with data scarcity: defini- tions, challenges, solutions, tips, and applications

    Laith Alzubaidi, Jinshuai Bai, Aiman Al-Sabaawi, Jose Santamar ´ ıa, Ahmed Shihab Albahri, Bashar Sami Nayyef Al-dabbagh, Mohammed A Fadhel, Mohamed Manoufali, Jinglan Zhang, Ali H Al-Timemy, et al. A survey on deep learning tools dealing with data scarcity: defini- tions, cha...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Demystifying quantum materials with deep learning and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy

    Eric Sun. Demystifying quantum materials with deep learning and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. In 2022 IEEE MIT Undergraduate Research Technology Conference (URTC), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Detect- ing thermodynamic phase transition via explainable ma- chine learning of photoemission spectroscopy

    Xu Chen, Yuanjie Sun, Eugen Hruska, Vivek Dixit, Jin- ming Yang, Yu He, Yao Wang, and Fang Liu. Detect- ing thermodynamic phase transition via explainable ma- chine learning of photoemission spectroscopy. Newton, 1(3):100066, May 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    aurelia: An ARPES data simulator for training machine learning models

    MengXing Na and Matteo Michiardi. aurelia: An ARPES data simulator for training machine learning models. https://github.com/qmlab-ubc-ca/aurelia , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    J Jones, and Andrea Damascelli

    Sydney K Y Dufresne, Sergey Zhdanovich, Matteo Michiardi, Bradley G Guislain, Marta Zonno, V Maz- zotti, L O’Brien, S Kung, G Levy, A K Mills, Fabio Bos- chini, D. J Jones, and Andrea Damascelli. A versatile laser-based apparatus for time-resolved arpes with micro- scale spati...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Computational framework chinook for angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy.npj Quan- tum Materials , 4(1):54, 2019

    Ryan P Day, Berend Zwartsenberg, Ilya S Elfimov, and Andrea Damascelli. Computational framework chinook for angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy.npj Quan- tum Materials , 4(1):54, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Interpretation of the shirley background in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis

    JE Castle and Anna Maria Salvi. Interpretation of the shirley background in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films , 19(4):1170–1175, 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    Autonomous micro- focus angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy

    Steinn ´Ymir ´Ag´ ustsson, Alfred JH Jones, Davide Cur- cio, Søren Ulstrup, Jill Miwa, Davide Mottin, Panagi- otis Karras, and Philip Hofmann. Autonomous micro- focus angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Review of Scientific Instruments , 95(5), 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Transfer learning application of self-supervised learning in arpes

    Sandy Adhitia Ekahana, Genta Indra Winata, Yona Soh, Anna Tamai, Radovic Milan, Gabriel Aeppli, and Ming Shi. Transfer learning application of self-supervised learning in arpes. Machine Learning: Science and Tech- nology, 4(3):035021, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Marigold: Efficient k-means clustering in high dimen- sions

    Kasper Overgaard Mortensen, Fatemeh Zardbani, Mo- hammad Ahsanul Haque, Steinn Ymir Agustsson, Da- vide Mottin, Philip Hofmann, and Panagiotis Karras. Marigold: Efficient k-means clustering in high dimen- sions. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 16(7):1740– 1748, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Machine-learning approach to understanding ultrafast carrier dynamics in the three- dimensional brillouin zone of ptbi 2

    Paulina Majchrzak, Charlotte Sanders, Yu Zhang, Andrii Kuibarov, Oleksandr Suvorov, Emma Springate, Iryna Kovalchuk, Saicharan Aswartham, Grigory Shipunov, Bernd B¨ uchner, et al. Machine-learning approach to understanding ultrafast carrier dynamics in the three- dimensional b...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.