Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Magnetisation in a Nanowire Structure Using Electron Holographic Vector Field Tomography

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Model-based iterative reconstruction recovers the 3D magnetisation vector field inside a cobalt nanowire from electron holography, resolving magnetic domains down to about 50 nanometres.

desk verdict First experimental quantitative 3D M reconstruction from EH-VFT – real novelty, solid diagnostics, but the 50 nm accuracy claim depends on an unvalidated geometric mask. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15323 v4 pith:NNK66ZVV submitted 2024-11-22 cond-mat.mes-hall

Aurys Silinga , András Kovács , Stephen McVitie , Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski , Kayla Fallon , Trevor P. Almeida This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords off-axiselectronholographytomographymodel-basediterativereconstructionmagnetisationvectorfield3DmagneticimagingFEBIDcobaltnanowirevortexdomainwallLorentzmicroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) can recover the three-dimensional magnetisation vector field $\vec{M}$ inside a real nanostructure from electron holographic phase measurements, rather than only the magnetic induction $\vec{B}$ as in previous electron holographic vector field tomography. The method is applied to an L-shaped cobalt nanowire grown by focused electron beam induced deposition, and the reconstruction reveals multiple magnetic domains and a curved vortex domain wall at the wire intersection. The reconstruction is quantitative, with a per-voxel precision of 0.01 T, and is stated to be accurate for magnetic domains larger than approximately 50 nm. If correct, this provides a direct TEM-based route to 3D magnetisation mapping in nanoscale magnetic devices, where the local magnetisation governs switching and domain-wall behaviour.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) loop: a forward model simulates the magnetic electron phase shift that a trial 3D vector field $\vec{M}$ would produce; a cost function $C = \sum_i (\phi_{i,\mathrm{meas}} - \phi_{i,\mathrm{sim}}(\vec{M}))^2 + \lambda_1 \sum_j (\vec{\nabla} M_j \cdot \vec{\nabla} M_j) + \lambda_2 \mathrm{var}(|\vec{M}|)$ is minimised by conjugate gradient, with regularisers that favour ferromagnetic order and uniform magnetisation magnitude. The magnetic phase is separated from the electrostatic phase by flipping the specimen 180°, and a 3D geometrical mask, built by back-projecting thresholded electrostatic phase images and cropping to SEM dimensions, defines where magnetic material is assumed to sit. Alignment of the tilt series uses a common-lines symmetry method and affine distortion corrections. The paper also stresses the role of null spaces — magnetisation configurations that produce no phase shift in any projection — which limit reconstructibility but are absent in this sample.

What would settle it

Image a uniformly magnetised FEBID cobalt nanowire with known saturation magnetisation and compare the MBIR reconstruction to that known value: if the reconstructed $\mu_0 M_s$ varies spatially or deviates from the known value, or if eroding or dilating the geometrical mask by 10% materially changes the reconstructed domain structure, the method's central claim would be called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports an experimental reconstruction of a 3D magnetisation distribution $\vec{M}_{\mathrm{rec}}$ from an electron holographic vector field tomography dataset, using MBIR to find the $\vec{M}$ that best fits 16 magnetic phase images recorded over two tilt arcs (up to $\pm 60^\circ$ and $-60^\circ$ to $0^\circ$). The reconstruction of the L-shaped FEBID cobalt nanowire shows single-domain regions in the two arms with $\mu_0 M_s$ values consistent with the measured cobalt content, and a U-shaped vortex domain wall occupying the full intersection volume. The point spread function of the reconstruction has a FWHM of 43 nm, and a Fourier shell correlation indicates features above 14.8 nm have sufficient signal-to-noise; the authors therefore state that the reconstruction is accurate for domains larger than about 50 nm.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction is only as good as the 3D geometrical model that defines where magnetic material sits; that model is built from thresholded electrostatic phase images and SEM cropping, and the paper's error analysis assumes a 10% volume mismatch between model and sample, so if the mask is wrong the forward model and reconstructed magnetisation are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reconstruction is correct, TEM phase measurements can now deliver the full 3D magnetisation vector, not just the projected induction, giving a compact local descriptor of magnetic order inside a nanostructure.
  • The method should apply to other Lorentz microscopy techniques (differential phase contrast, ptychography) because they all sense the same magnetic phase shift.
  • For samples with no null spaces, two complete tilt arcs are sufficient; the paper's simulation-based error analysis states that a 10% volume mismatch between model and sample leads on average to less than 10% error per voxel in $\vec{M}$.
  • The demonstrated accuracy for domains above roughly 50 nm sets a benchmark; sub-50 nm textures would require smaller voxels, better alignment, and more advanced algorithms, which the paper argues could ultimately approach the atomic scale.
  • The ability to measure $\mu_0 M_s$ locally allows direct correlation between reconstructed magnetisation and chemical composition maps (e.g., from energy-loss spectroscopy).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dependence of the reconstruction on the geometrical mask suggests that combining MBIR with an independent structural measurement (e.g., atomic-scale STEM tomography or EELS-based volume segmentation) could eliminate the main source of systematic bias identified in the paper.
  • The null-space analysis implies that the method will struggle with Néel-type walls or certain spin textures that produce no phase signal; a testable extension would be to reconstruct a sample known to contain such a texture and compare the result with micromagnetic simulations.
  • Since the paper shows the regulariser weights can vary over three orders of magnitude without changing the solution, the reconstruction is measurement-dominated; this suggests that phase-resolved tomographic data alone may be enough to constrain $\vec{M}$ when the geometry is known, which is useful for automated pipelines.
  • The 50 nm accuracy bound is tied to this dataset's alignment and voxel size; the paper's own reasoning implies that with 1 nm voxels and improved distortion correction, a 3 nm resolution is in reach, making MBIR competitive with X-ray laminography.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The authors present an experimental application of model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) to off-axis electron holographic vector field tomography (EH-VFT) data from an L-shaped FEBID cobalt nanowire. They record two tilt arcs of holograms, separate magnetic and electrostatic phase contributions, align the images, and generate a 3D geometrical mask from back-projected electrostatic phase images cropped to SEM dimensions. An inverse regularised forward model (Eq. 5) is minimised against the measured magnetic phase images to obtain a 3D magnetisation vector field, revealing a U-shaped vortex domain wall at the nanowire intersection. The paper reports diagnostics including a Fourier shell correlation, a point-spread/averaging-kernel analysis, residual analysis, and comparison of reconstructed µ0Ms with EELS cobalt composition, and claims that the reconstructed magnetisation is accurate for magnetic domains larger than about 50 nm.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a notable step beyond earlier EH-VFT reconstructions of the B field: it is a quantitative 3D reconstruction of M from TEM phase data, with publicly available data and a realistic discussion of null-space limitations. The paper's strengths include a careful phase-separation protocol, explicit error diagnostics (FSC, averaging kernel, residual analysis), robustness of the reconstruction to regulariser weights over three orders of magnitude, and consistency between reconstructed Ms and EELS composition. The main weakness is that the quantitative accuracy claim rests on assumptions about the 3D geometric mask and on simulations and comparisons with similar, rather than identical, samples, rather than on a direct validation of the same sample.

major comments (3)
  1. [Alignment of phase images / Three-dimensional reconstruction of M (Fig. 5d, Eq. 5)] The 3D mask generated by back-projecting thresholded electrostatic phase masks and cropping to SEM dimensions defines the support of the reconstructed magnetisation, so mask errors enter the reconstruction directly. EELS shows a nonmagnetic carbon shell, yet the mask threshold was refined after the first reconstruction 'so that similar amounts of over- and underestimating surface artefacts were present' (Results, Uniform region reconstruction). The only quantitative geometry-error estimate cited is the 10% volume-mismatch assumption in Supplementary Material S1; a 10% global volume error does not exclude a spatially structured misassignment, such as including part of the carbon shell or excluding a magnetic protrusion. Because the phase residual RMS is 0.38 rad, the phase data do not independently validate the mask. I request a mask-sensitivity analysis (for example, dilate and erode the mask by several nanometres, or re-run the reconstruction with independent threshold choices) and, if such an analysis is not possible, an explicit statement that the 50-nm accuracy claim is conditional on the geometrical model.
  2. [Diagnostics of the reconstruction (Eq. 6, Fig. 8)] The stated precision of 0.01 T per pixel is obtained by propagating the 0.016 rad phase-noise floor through the error gain matrix G. The actual reconstruction residual has an RMS of 0.38 rad, about 24 times larger, and is not shown to be random. If the residual arises from mask error, residual misalignment, or missing-wedge artefacts, the linear error propagation underestimates the systematic uncertainty in µ0Ms and in the 50-nm accuracy claim. The authors should either demonstrate that the residual becomes compatible with the noise floor once model errors are accounted for, or propagate the residual structure explicitly (for example, by adding the residual field to the measured phases and re-running the reconstruction) to estimate a model-error contribution.
  3. [Discussion / Conclusions] The external validation is made against X-ray laminography and micromagnetic simulations of similar, but not identical, FEBID cobalt nanostructures. The reconstructed vortex and the Ms values are consistent with that body of work, but this consistency does not by itself quantify the accuracy of the particular reconstruction presented here, especially for the 50-nm-domain claim. I recommend that the paper separate internal diagnostics (FSC, averaging kernel, residual analysis, EELS correlation) from external comparison, and state explicitly which components of the accuracy claim each type of evidence supports. Without this separation, the abstract's claim that the reconstruction 'is shown to be accurate' is stronger than the evidence in the paper.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Results / Diagnostics (Fig. 7)] The Fourier shell correlation is computed by randomly halving the 3D reconstruction and interpolating missing values, which is not the standard split-dataset FSC and may overestimate the correlation because the interpolated values are not independent. The 14.8 nm figure should be treated with caution, or the analysis should be replaced by an FSC calculated from two independent reconstructions (for example, from odd and even tilt angles).
  2. [Materials and methods / Abstract / Outlook] The tilt ranges are stated inconsistently: the acquisition ranges are given as -60° to 30° and -60° to 0° in the Materials and methods, while the abstract and Outlook refer to ±60° tilt arcs. Please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Throughout] Please correct typographical errors, including 'cotains' (Results), 'inflluece' (Diagnostics), 'show in Fig. 3b' (Materials and methods), and 'I addition' (Outlook).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction is an inverse fit to measured phase data, and the cited prior work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result is obtained by minimising the cost function in Eq. 5 against measured magnetic phase images, using a forward model for the phase that follows from Eq. 2 and the curl(M) Amperian-current relation, not from the reconstructed M itself. The 3D mask that defines the support of M is built from the electrostatic phase and SEM dimensions, and the regulariser weights were varied over three orders of magnitude with stable features, so the solution is not defined by its inputs. The diagnostics used to support the accuracy claim (Fourier shell correlation, averaging kernel, error gain matrix, and comparison with EELS-derived composition) are independent of the fitted parameters. The citations to Caron's thesis supply the MBIR forward model and null-space analysis, but they do not by themselves certify the experimental reconstruction; the experimental claims rest on the measured data and the independent diagnostics. The mask-threshold refinement after the first reconstruction and the assumed 10% volume mismatch in Supplementary Material [S1] are limitations that make the accuracy claim conditional on the geometric model, but they are not circular steps: no prediction in the paper is equal by construction to a fitted input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reconstruction depends on the forward model and regularisation from prior work (Caron's thesis), on the assumed absence of null spaces, and on the accuracy of the geometrical mask. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted choices are the regulariser weights and the mask threshold, both of which are tested for stability.

free parameters (5)
  • λ1 (gradient regulariser weight) = 1
    Chosen as the minimum value needed to lift degeneracy between ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic order. The paper states the reconstruction is stable over three orders of magnitude of this weight.
  • λ2 (variance regulariser weight) = 0.1
    Chosen to reduce surface artefacts without affecting the rest of the reconstruction.
  • Geometrical model threshold = Not specified (refined post hoc)
    Threshold used to create the binary mask for the 3D geometrical model. It was refined after the first reconstruction to balance over- and underestimating surface artefacts.
  • Voxel size = 10.2 nm
    Chosen as the smallest voxel size that does not degrade resolution due to noise and misalignment; features below 10 nm cannot be resolved.
  • Sample orientation parameters (α0, φ, θ0) = Not reported numerically
    Determined by solving the common-lines system (Eq. 4) via multivariate minimisation to align the tilt series.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The electron phase shift is related to the magnetic induction by the Aharonov-Bohm relation (Eq. 2).
    Standard physics underlying all Lorentz microscopy phase measurements.
  • domain assumption The measured magnetic phase shift is solely due to the magnetisation M, with no external magnetic fields, conduction currents, or displacement currents.
    Stated in the Discussion as a condition for the reconstruction to be valid; also assumed in the forward model.
  • domain assumption The sample is ferromagnetic, so the micromagnetic exchange energy expressions are valid when neighbouring spin angles are below 30 degrees.
    Used to justify the low-gradient regulariser and to interpret the reconstructed spin angles.
  • domain assumption The forward model that simulates the magnetic phase from a given M (from Caron's thesis) is an accurate description of the measurement.
    The entire MBIR inversion relies on this model; it is tested on simulations in the cited thesis, not independently for this sample.
  • domain assumption The sample's magnetic configuration contains no null spaces, so the measured projections contain all information needed for reconstruction.
    The paper asserts 'null spaces are not present in the experimental reconstruction described in this paper' without directly demonstrating it for this sample.
  • domain assumption The 3D geometrical model derived from back-projecting electrostatic phase masks, cropped to SEM dimensions, accurately defines the sample volume.
    The forward model computes phase only within this mask; the paper's own error analysis assumes a 10% volume mismatch to estimate reconstruction error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Magnetisation in a Nanowire Structure Using Electron Holographic Vector Field Tomography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNK66ZVV

@misc{pith2026241115323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional Magnetisation in a Nanowire Structure Using Electron Holographic Vector Field Tomography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNK66ZVV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15323}
}
abstract

Methods for characterisation of 3D magnetic spin structures are necessary to advance the performance of 3D magnetic nanoscale technologies. However, as the component dimensions approach the nanometre range, it becomes more challenging to analyse 3D magnetic configurations with the appropriate spatial resolution. In this paper, we present a method based on Lorentz transmission electron microscopy in which model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) is used to reconstruct the most probable magnetisation in an exemplar nanostructure. This method is based on relating electron phase measurements to the magnetic configuration of the nanostructure, and therefore, the method is subject to certain limitations. In this proof-of-concept experiment, MBIR was tested on an L-shaped ferromagnetic cobalt nanowire, fabricated using focused electron beam induced deposition. Off-axis electron holography was used to acquire a tomographic tilt series of electron holograms, which were analysed to measure magnetic electron phase shift over two tilt arcs with up to $ \pm 60$ degree tilt range. Then, a 3D magnetisation vector field consistent with the tomographic phase measurements was reconstructed, revealing multiple magnetic domains within the nanowire. The reconstructed magnetisation is accurate for magnetic domains larger than 50 nm, and higher resolution can be achieved by the continued development of tomographic reconstruction algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15323 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow for 3D magnetisation reconstruction. The red boxes indicate the primary processing steps: alignment, reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FEBID in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Cobalt is deposited locally where the electron beam interacts with solid material. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dimensions, morphology and chemical analysis of an L-shaped cobalt nanostructure fabricated using FEBID.(a) Bright-field TEM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Off-axis electron holograms and alignment of phase images. (a) Off-axis electron hologram formed by the interference of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Alignment of tilt series of phase images and generation of a 3D geometrical model of the sample. (a) Schematic diagram showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstructed 3D magnetisation distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fourier shell correlation evaluation, showing that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Magnetic phase shift reconstruction for a sample tilt angle of -3.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of magnitudes of the reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kiselev, Filipp N

    Fengshan Zheng, Nikolai S. Kiselev, Filipp N. Rybakov, Luyan Yang, Wen Shi, Stefan Blügel, and Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski. Hopfion rings in a cubic chiral magnet. Nature, 623 0 (7988): 0 718--723, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Stuart S. P. Parkin, Masamitsu Hayashi, and Luc Thomas. Magnetic Domain - Wall Racetrack Memory . Science, 320 0 (5873): 0 190--194, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Matthew O. A. Ellis, Alexander Welbourne, Stephan J. Kyle, Paul W. Fry, Dan A. Allwood, Thomas J. Hayward, and Eleni Vasilaki. Machine learning using magnetic stochastic synapses. Neuromorph. Comput. Eng., 3 0 (2): 0 021001, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Nikonov, George I

    Dmitri E. Nikonov, George I. Bourianoff, and Paolo A. Gargini. Power Dissipation in Spintronic Devices Out of Thermodynamic Equilibrium . J Supercond, 19 0 (6): 0 497--513, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Ke Gu, Yicheng Guan, Binoy Krishna Hazra, Hakan Deniz, Andrea Migliorini, Wenjie Zhang, and Stuart S. P. Parkin. Three-dimensional racetrack memory devices designed from freestanding magnetic heterostructures. Nat. Nanotechnol., 17 0 (10): 0 1065--1071, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Heyderman, Manuel Guizar-Sicairos, and Jörg Raabe

    Claire Donnelly, Simone Finizio, Sebastian Gliga, Mirko Holler, Aleš Hrabec, Michal Odstrčil, Sina Mayr, Valerio Scagnoli, Laura J. Heyderman, Manuel Guizar-Sicairos, and Jörg Raabe. Time-resolved imaging of three-dimensional nanoscale magnetization dynamics. Nat. Nanotechnol., 15 0 (5): 0 356--360, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Heyderman

    Claire Donnelly, Manuel Guizar-Sicairos, Valerio Scagnoli, Sebastian Gliga, Mirko Holler, Jörg Raabe, and Laura J. Heyderman. Three-dimensional magnetization structures revealed with X -ray vector nanotomography. Nature, 547 0 (7663): 0 328--331, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Three-dimensional tomographic imaging of the magnetization vector field using Fourier transform holography

    Marisel Di Pietro Martínez, Alexis Wartelle, Carlos Herrero Martínez, Farid Fettar, Florent Blondelle, Jean-François Motte, Claire Donnelly, Luke Turnbull, Feodor Ogrin, Gerrit van der Laan, Horia Popescu, Nicolas Jaouen, Flora Yakhou-Harris, and Guillaume Beutier. Three-dimensional tomographic imaging of the magnetization vector field using Fourier trans...

    work page 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Complex free-space magnetic field textures induced by three-dimensional magnetic nanostructures

    Claire Donnelly, Aurelio Hierro-Rodríguez, Claas Abert, Katharina Witte, Luka Skoric, Dédalo Sanz-Hernández, Simone Finizio, Fanfan Meng, Stephen McVitie, Jörg Raabe, Dieter Suess, Russell Cowburn, and Amalio Fernández-Pacheco. Complex free-space magnetic field textures induce...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Vector field electron tomography of magnetic materials: Theoretical development

    Charudatta Phatak, Marco Beleggia, and Marc De Graef. Vector field electron tomography of magnetic materials: Theoretical development. Ultramicroscopy, 108 0 (6): 0 503--513, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Petford-Long, and Marc De Graef

    Charudatta Phatak, Amanda K. Petford-Long, and Marc De Graef. Three- Dimensional Study of the Vector Potential of Magnetic Structures . Phys. Rev. Lett., 104 0 (25): 0 253901, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Holographic vector field electron tomography of three-dimensional nanomagnets

    Daniel Wolf, Nicolas Biziere, Sebastian Sturm, David Reyes, Travis Wade, Tore Niermann, Jonas Krehl, Benedicte Warot-Fonrose, Bernd Büchner, Etienne Snoeck, Christophe Gatel, and Axel Lubk. Holographic vector field electron tomography of three-dimensional nanomagnets. Commun. ...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Donahue and Robert D

    Michael J. Donahue and Robert D. McMichael. Exchange energy representations in computational micromagnetics. Physica B, 233 0 (4): 0 272--278, 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    Dunin-Borkowski, Jiadong Zang, and Haifeng Du

    Boyao Lyu, Shihua Zhao, Yibo Zhang, Weiwei Wang, Fengshan Zheng, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Jiadong Zang, and Haifeng Du. Three-dimensional magnetization reconstruction from electron optical phase images with physical constraints. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 67 0 (11): 0 11...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Model-based reconstruction of magnetisation distributions in nanostructures from electron optical phase images

    Jan Caron. Model-based reconstruction of magnetisation distributions in nanostructures from electron optical phase images. PhD thesis. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag, Jülich, 2018 a

    2018

  8. [16]

    Differential phase contrast: An integral perspective

    Axel Lubk and Josef Zweck. Differential phase contrast: An integral perspective. Phys. Rev. A, 91 0 (2): 0 023805, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Experimental evaluation of the ‘transport-of-intensity’ equation for magnetic phase reconstruction in Lorentz transmission electron microscopy

    Amit Kohn, Avihay Habibi, and Martin Mayo. Experimental evaluation of the ‘transport-of-intensity’ equation for magnetic phase reconstruction in Lorentz transmission electron microscopy. Ultramicroscopy, 160: 0 44--56, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Pixelated detectors and improved efficiency for magnetic imaging in STEM differential phase contrast

    Matus Krajnak, Damien McGrouther, Dzmitry Maneuski, Val O' Shea, and Stephen McVitie. Pixelated detectors and improved efficiency for magnetic imaging in STEM differential phase contrast. Ultramicroscopy, 165: 0 42--50, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Dunin-Borkowski, and Andrew M

    Shengbo You, Peng-Han Lu, Thomas Schachinger, András Kovács, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, and Andrew M. Maiden. Lorentz near-field electron ptychography. Appl. Phys. Lett., 123 0 (19): 0 192406, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Antiferromagnetic imaging via ptychographic phase retrieval

    Jizhe Cui, Haozhi Sha, Wenfeng Yang, and Rong Yu. Antiferromagnetic imaging via ptychographic phase retrieval. Sci. Bull., 69 0 (4): 0 466--472, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory

    Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm. Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory . Phys. Rev., 115 0 (3): 0 485--491, 1959

    1959

  14. [22]

    Stephen McVitie and Gordon S. White. Imaging Amperian currents by Lorentz microscopy. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 37 0 (2): 0 280, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Dunin-Borkowski, Joshua M

    Friederike Junginger, Mathias Kläui, Dirk Backes, Stephen Krzyk, Ulrich Rüdiger, Takeshi Kasama, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Joshua M. Feinberg, Richard J. Harrison, and Laura J. Heyderman. Quantitative determination of vortex core dimensions in head-to-head domain walls using o...

    2008

  16. [24]

    Magnetisation reconstruction in three dimensions

    Jan Caron. Magnetisation reconstruction in three dimensions. In Model-based reconstruction of magnetisation distributions in nanostructures from electron optical phase images, pages 119--140. PhD thesis. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag, Jülich, 2018 b

    2018

  17. [25]

    Dunin-Borkowski

    Patrick Diehle, András Kovács, Thomas Duden, Rolf Speen, Kristina Žagar Soderžnik, and Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski. A cartridge-based turning specimen holder with wireless tilt angle measurement for magnetic induction mapping in the transmission electron microscope. Ultramicrosco...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kadri Aditya Mohan, KC Prabhat, Charudatta Phatak, Marc De Graef, and Charles A. Bouman. Model- Based Iterative Reconstruction of Magnetization Using Vector Field Electron Tomography . IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging, 4 0 (3): 0 432--446, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Computation of electron diffraction patterns in Lorentz electron microscopy of thin magnetic films

    Masud Mansuripur. Computation of electron diffraction patterns in Lorentz electron microscopy of thin magnetic films. J. Appl. Phys., 69 0 (4): 0 2455--2464, 1991

    1991

  20. [28]

    Reconstructibility and null spaces

    Jan Caron. Reconstructibility and null spaces. In Model-based reconstruction of magnetisation distributions in nanostructures from electron optical phase images, pages 74--82. PhD thesis. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag, Jülich, 2018 c

    2018

  21. [29]

    Stephen McVitie, Stephen Hughes, Kayla Fallon, Sam McFadzean, Damien McGrouther, Matus Krajnak, William Legrand, Davide Maccariello, Sophie Collin, Karin Garcia, Nicolas Reyren, Vincent Cros, Albert Fert, Katharina Zeissler, and Christopher H. Marrows. A transmission electron ...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Layer-by- Layer Growth of Complex - Shaped Three - Dimensional Nanostructures with Focused Electron Beams

    Luka Skoric, Dédalo Sanz-Hernández, Fanfan Meng, Claire Donnelly, Sara Merino-Aceituno, and Amalio Fernández-Pacheco. Layer-by- Layer Growth of Complex - Shaped Three - Dimensional Nanostructures with Focused Electron Beams . Nano Lett., 20 0 (1): 0 184--191, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Focused- Electron - Beam Engineering of 3D Magnetic Nanowires

    César Magén, Javier Pablo-Navarro, and José María De Teresa. Focused- Electron - Beam Engineering of 3D Magnetic Nanowires . Nanomaterials, 11 0 (2): 0 402, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ultrasmall Functional Ferromagnetic Nanostructures Grown by Focused Electron - Beam - Induced Deposition

    Luis Serrano-Ramón, Rosa Córdoba, Luis Alfredo Rodríguez, César Magén, Etienne Snoeck, Christophe Gatel, Inés Serrano, Manuel Ricardo Ibarra, and José María De Teresa. Ultrasmall Functional Ferromagnetic Nanostructures Grown by Focused Electron - Beam - Induced Deposition . AC...

    2011

  25. [33]

    Dunin-Borkowski, András Kovács, Takeshi Kasama, Martha R

    Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, András Kovács, Takeshi Kasama, Martha R. McCartney, and David J. Smith. Electron Holography . In Peter W. Hawkes and John C. H. Spence, editors, Springer Handbook of Microscopy , pages 767--818. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    David R. G. Mitchell and Bernhard Schaffer. Scripting-customised microscopy tools for Digital Micrograph ™. Ultramicroscopy, 103 0 (4): 0 319--332, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Off-axis electron holography combining summation of hologram series with double-exposure phase-shifting: Theory and application

    Victor Boureau, Robert McLeod, Benjamin Mayall, and David Cooper. Off-axis electron holography combining summation of hologram series with double-exposure phase-shifting: Theory and application. Ultramicroscopy, 193: 0 52--63, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Electron Tomography

    Matthew Weyland and Paul Midgley. Electron Tomography . In C. Barry Carter and David B. Williams, editors, Transmission Electron Microscopy : Diffraction , Imaging , and Spectrometry , pages 343--376. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Schönberger, Juan Nunez-Iglesias, François Boulogne, Joshua D

    Stéfan van der Walt, Johannes L. Schönberger, Juan Nunez-Iglesias, François Boulogne, Joshua D. Warner, Neil Yager, Emmanuelle Gouillart, and Tony Yu. scikit-image: image processing in Python . PeerJ, 2: 0 e453, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    MacArthur, Mike Sarahan, Duncan N

    Francisco de la Peña, Eric Prestat, Vidar Tonaas Fauske, Pierre Burdet, Petras Jokubauskas, Magnus Nord, Tomas Ostasevicius, Katherine E. MacArthur, Mike Sarahan, Duncan N. Johnstone, Joshua Taillon, Jonas Lähnemann, Vadim Migunov, Alberto Eljarrat, Jan Caron, Thomas Aarholt, ...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Fast Pixelated Detectors in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy

    Gary W Paterson, Robert W H Webster, Andrew Ross, Kirsty A Paton, Thomas A Macgregor, Damien McGrouther, Ian MacLaren, and Magnus Nord. Fast Pixelated Detectors in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy . Part II : Post - Acquisition Data Processing , Visualization , and St...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Penczek, Jun Zhu, and Joachim Frank

    Pawel A. Penczek, Jun Zhu, and Joachim Frank. A common-lines based method for determining orientations for N 3 particle projections simultaneously. Ultramicroscopy, 63 0 (3): 0 205--218, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020

  34. [42]

    A forward model for the calculation of the magnetic phase

    Jan Caron. A forward model for the calculation of the magnetic phase. In Model-based reconstruction of magnetisation distributions in nanostructures from electron optical phase images, pages 21--57. PhD thesis. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag, Jülich, 2018 d

    2018

  35. [43]

    Wright, editors

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright, editors. Numerical Optimization. Springer New York, 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    Fourier shell correlation threshold criteria

    Marin van Heel and Michael Schatz. Fourier shell correlation threshold criteria. J. Struct. Biol., 151 0 (3): 0 250--262, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Towards a 3- D tomographic retrieval for the air-borne limb-imager GLORIA

    Joern Ungermann, Martin Kaufmann, Lars Hoffmann, Peter Preusse, Hermann Oelhaf, Felix Friedl-Vallon, and Martin Riese. Towards a 3- D tomographic retrieval for the air-borne limb-imager GLORIA . Atmos. Meas. Tech., 3 0 (6): 0 1647--1665, 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    Purified and Crystalline Three - Dimensional Electron - Beam - Induced Deposits : The Successful Case of Cobalt for High - Performance Magnetic Nanowires

    Javier Pablo-Navarro, César Magén, and José María de Teresa. Purified and Crystalline Three - Dimensional Electron - Beam - Induced Deposits : The Successful Case of Cobalt for High - Performance Magnetic Nanowires . ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 1 0 (1): 0 38--46, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    De Teresa, Amalio Fernández-Pacheco, Rosa Córdoba, Luis Serrano-Ramón, Soraya Sangiao, and Manuel R

    Jose M. De Teresa, Amalio Fernández-Pacheco, Rosa Córdoba, Luis Serrano-Ramón, Soraya Sangiao, and Manuel R. Ibarra. Review of magnetic nanostructures grown by focused electron beam induced deposition ( FEBID ). J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 49 0 (24): 0 243003, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Refinement procedure for the image alignment in high-resolution electron tomography

    Lothar Houben and Maya Bar Sadan. Refinement procedure for the image alignment in high-resolution electron tomography. Ultramicroscopy, 111 0 (9): 0 1512--1520, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Electron holography observation of individual ferrimagnetic lattice planes

    Toshiaki Tanigaki, Tetsuya Akashi, Takaho Yoshida, Ken Harada, Kazuo Ishizuka, Masahiko Ichimura, Kazutaka Mitsuishi, Yasuhide Tomioka, Xiuzhen Yu, Daisuke Shindo, Yoshinori Tokura, Yasukazu Murakami, and Hiroyuki Shinada. Electron holography observation of individual ferrimag...

    2024

  42. [50]

    3D reconstruction of the magnetic vector potential using model based iterative reconstruction

    KC Prabhat, Kadri Aditya Mohan, Charudatta Phatak, Charles Bouman, and Marc De Graef. 3D reconstruction of the magnetic vector potential using model based iterative reconstruction. Ultramicroscopy, 182: 0 131--144, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Lewis, Daniel Wolf, Axel Lubk, Emilie Ringe, and Paul A

    George R. Lewis, Daniel Wolf, Axel Lubk, Emilie Ringe, and Paul A. Midgley. WRAP : A wavelet-regularised reconstruction algorithm for magnetic vector electron tomography. Ultramicroscopy, 253: 0 113804, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Savchenko, Nikolai S

    András Kovács, Jan Caron, Andrii S. Savchenko, Nikolai S. Kiselev, Kiyou Shibata, Zi-An Li, Naoya Kanazawa, Yoshinori Tokura, Stefan Blügel, and Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski. Mapping the magnetization fine structure of a lattice of Bloch -type skyrmions in an FeGe thin film. Appl....

    2017

  45. [53]

    Dunin-Borkowski

    Dongsheng Song, Zi-An Li, Jan Caron, András Kovács, Huanfang Tian, Chiming Jin, Haifeng Du, Mingliang Tian, Jianqi Li, Jing Zhu, and Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski. Quantification of Magnetic Surface and Edge States in an FeGe Nanostripe by Off - Axis Electron Holography . Phys. Rev...

    2018

  46. [54]

    Rößler, András Kovács, Marcus Schmidt, Rafal E

    Daniel Wolf, Sebastian Schneider, Ulrich K. Rößler, András Kovács, Marcus Schmidt, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Bernd Büchner, Bernd Rellinghaus, and Axel Lubk. Unveiling the three-dimensional magnetic texture of skyrmion tubes. Nat. Nanotechnol., 17 0 (3): 0 250--255, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Tensorial neutron tomography of three-dimensional magnetic vector fields in bulk materials

    André Hilger, Ingo Manke, Nikolay Kardjilov, Markus Osenberg, Henning Markötter, and John Banhart. Tensorial neutron tomography of three-dimensional magnetic vector fields in bulk materials. Nat. Commun., 9 0 (1): 0 4023, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.