pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21612 · v1 · pith:SR7SU4VLnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Quantifying the coupling between strain and cation valence in high entropy oxide thin films using electron microscopy

Sai Venkata Gayathri Ayyagari , Saeed SI Almishal , Debangshu Mukherjee , Kevin M. Roccapriore , Jon-Paul Maria , Nasim Alem This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords high entropy oxidesthin filmsstraincation valenceelectron microscopy4D-STEMcobalt valencesubstrate temperature
0
0 comments X

The pith

High entropy oxide thin films of identical composition develop different nanoscale strain states and cobalt valences when grown at different substrate temperatures.

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

The paper investigates how substrate temperature during growth affects local structure in high entropy oxide thin films that share the same nominal composition. It applies 4D-STEM combined with electron energy loss spectroscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to map nanoscale strain variations and link them directly to shifts in cobalt valence and minor chemical differences. A reader would care because these materials are explored for applications in thermoelectrics, magnetism, and ionic conduction, where local strain and valence strongly influence performance. The central result is that the same composition can support distinct strain and defect configurations depending on processing conditions, showing that synthesis parameters offer a practical handle on internal states.

Core claim

Advanced S/TEM techniques quantify a correlation between nanoscale strain variations and Co valence in HEO thin films grown at different substrate temperatures, demonstrating that identical HEO compositions can accommodate distinct strain and defect states in thin film form and that synthesis conditions can be leveraged to manipulate strain and Co valence.

What carries the argument

Nanoscale strain mapping from 4D-STEM diffraction patterns correlated with cobalt valence states extracted from electron energy loss spectroscopy.

If this is right

  • Identical HEO compositions can realize different strain and defect states when deposited as thin films.
  • Substrate temperature serves as a control parameter to adjust strain and cobalt valence without changing the overall film composition.
  • Functional properties tied to strain or valence can be tuned through growth conditions in high entropy oxide thin films.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same growth-temperature approach might allow property adjustment in other complex oxides where strain and cation valence affect electronic behavior.
  • Device fabrication could use temperature as a simple dial to optimize HEO films for targeted ionic or magnetic responses while keeping composition fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in strain and Co valence arise primarily from changes in substrate temperature rather than from other uncontrolled variables in the growth process or from artifacts in the electron microscopy measurements.

What would settle it

Repeated growth of films at the same substrate temperature but with the same spread of strain and valence values seen across different temperatures, or an independent valence measurement technique such as X-ray absorption spectroscopy that shows no temperature-dependent shifts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21612 by Debangshu Mukherjee, Jon-Paul Maria, Kevin M. Roccapriore, Nasim Alem, Saeed SI Almishal, Sai Venkata Gayathri Ayyagari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Motivation and overview of the 4D STEM experiment: (a) LAADF STEM image of the cross-section showing the thin film stack (~ 80 nm each), where J14Sc1 is the thin film grown at 300 °C and J14Sc2 is the thin film grown at 500 °C. (b) Magnetic exchange bias results of J14 and J14Sc grown at 500 °C, adapted from references.[8,21] (c) Schematic of 4D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cation content decreases at lower growth temperatures to adapt for charge neutrality while maintaining rock salt structure. (a) HAADF-STEM image of the cross￾section of the stacked films, where J14Sc1 is the film grown at 300 °C and J14Sc2 is the film grown at 500 °C, with insets showing the magnified images of each thin film (scalebar is 2 nm). (b) Corresponding cluster map obtained by applying principal … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High entropy oxides (HEOs) are a class of materials with vast compositional space and tunable properties, making them attractive for applications in thermoelectrics, magnetism, ionic conduction, and beyond. However, their metastable nature makes the local structure, and consequently their properties, highly sensitive to growth conditions. It is therefore essential to probe the local modulations in atomic, chemical, and electronic structure as a function of growth conditions. Here, advanced S/TEM techniques, including 4D-STEM combined with electron energy loss spectroscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy are used to investigate the effect of substrate temperature on structure and strain at the nanoscale regime in HEO thin films. We quantify how nanoscale strain variations correlate with Co valence and subtle chemical differences in the films with the same nominal composition but different growth temperatures. Our results demonstrate that identical HEO compositions can accommodate distinct strain and defect states in thin film form and highlight how synthesis conditions can be leveraged to manipulate strain and Co valence. These findings establish a framework to tailor functional properties via strain and valence control in high entropy oxide thin films.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses 4D-STEM strain mapping combined with EELS and EDX to examine high-entropy oxide thin films of identical nominal composition grown at different substrate temperatures. The central claim is that these films accommodate distinct nanoscale strain states and Co valence depending on growth temperature, demonstrating that synthesis conditions can be leveraged to manipulate strain-defect coupling in HEO thin films.

Significance. If the reported correlations are shown to be free of growth-parameter confounds and measurement artifacts, the work would be significant for the HEO field by providing direct nanoscale evidence that metastable compositions can host tunable strain and valence states. The correlative 4D-STEM/EELS approach is a clear methodological strength that enables spatially resolved structure-chemistry links not easily obtained by bulk techniques.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods, thin-film growth subsection] Methods, thin-film growth subsection: the description does not state whether oxygen partial pressure, cation flux ratios, total pressure, or post-growth cooling rates were held identical across the different substrate-temperature runs. Because the central claim attributes observed strain and Co-valence differences primarily to temperature, explicit confirmation that these other parameters were controlled (or quantitative bounds on any drift) is required to support causality.
  2. [Results, EELS Co L-edge analysis] Results, EELS Co L-edge analysis: no beam-dose estimates, exposure times, or control experiments (e.g., low-dose spectra or time-series) are reported to bound possible electron-beam reduction of Co valence. Given the known sensitivity of Co^{2+/3+} states to beam-induced reduction in oxides, this omission directly affects the reliability of the valence maps used to establish the strain-valence correlation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 and associated caption: the reference lattice used for 4D-STEM strain extraction is not specified, and the number of independent regions or films averaged for each temperature is unclear; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by including at least one quantitative value (e.g., typical strain difference or Co valence shift with uncertainty) rather than qualitative statements alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the significance of our work and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods, thin-film growth subsection] Methods, thin-film growth subsection: the description does not state whether oxygen partial pressure, cation flux ratios, total pressure, or post-growth cooling rates were held identical across the different substrate-temperature runs. Because the central claim attributes observed strain and Co-valence differences primarily to temperature, explicit confirmation that these other parameters were controlled (or quantitative bounds on any drift) is required to support causality.

    Authors: We confirm that all other growth parameters, including oxygen partial pressure, cation flux ratios, total pressure, and post-growth cooling rates, were held constant across the substrate temperature series. This information was omitted from the initial submission for brevity but will be explicitly added to the Methods section in the revised manuscript to clarify the experimental design and support the attribution of observed differences to growth temperature. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results, EELS Co L-edge analysis] Results, EELS Co L-edge analysis: no beam-dose estimates, exposure times, or control experiments (e.g., low-dose spectra or time-series) are reported to bound possible electron-beam reduction of Co valence. Given the known sensitivity of Co^{2+/3+} states to beam-induced reduction in oxides, this omission directly affects the reliability of the valence maps used to establish the strain-valence correlation.

    Authors: We agree that beam-induced reduction is a potential concern for Co valence measurements in oxides. In our experiments, we used low electron doses and short exposure times to minimize this effect. We have conducted time-series EELS measurements on representative areas showing stable Co L-edge features over the acquisition period. We will include beam-dose estimates, exposure times, and a description of these control experiments in the revised Results section to address this point. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental characterization with independent measurements

full rationale

This is an experimental characterization paper that reports nanoscale strain maps from 4D-STEM and Co valence from EELS on HEO thin films grown at different substrate temperatures. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps exist in the work. The central observations (distinct strain and valence states for nominally identical compositions) rest on direct, independent microscopy data rather than any reduction to inputs by construction, self-definition, or imported uniqueness theorems. The findings are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of spectroscopic valence determination and strain mapping from electron microscopy data plus the attribution of observed differences to substrate temperature.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in electron energy loss spectroscopy for assigning cobalt valence states from edge shapes and energy shifts
    Invoked when quantifying Co valence from EELS spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1290 out tokens · 44623 ms · 2026-05-22T08:56:54.890870+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. M. Rost, E. Sachet, T. Borman, A. Moballegh, E. C. Dickey, D. Hou, J. L. Jones, S. Curtarolo, J.-P. Maria, Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8485

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    G. N. Kotsonis, S. S. I. Almishal, F. Marques dos Santos Vieira, V. H. Crespi, I. Dabo, C. M. Rost, J.-P. Maria, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2023, 106, 5587

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    S. S. I. Almishal, J. T. Sivak, G. N. Kotsonis, Y. Tan, M. Furst, D. Srikanth, V. H. Crespi, V. Gopalan, J. T. Heron, L.-Q. Chen, C. M. Rost, S. B. Sinnott, J.-P. Maria, Acta Mater. 2024, 279, 120289

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    S. S. I. Almishal, M. Furst, Y. Tan, J. T. Sivak, G. Bejger, J. Petruska, S. V. G. Ayyagari, D. Srikanth, N. Alem, C. M. Rost, S. B. Sinnott, L.-Q. Chen, J.-P. Maria, Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 8211

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S. S. I. Almishal, P. Kezer, J. T. Sivak, Y. Iwabuchi, S. V. G. Ayyagari, S. Sarker, M. Furst, G. Bejger, B. Yang, S. Gelin, N. Alem, I. Dabo, C. M. Rost, S. B. Sinnott, V. Crespi, V. Gopalan, R. Engel-Herbert, J. T. Heron, J.-P. Maria, Adv. Sci. 2025, 12, e09868

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Sarkar, R

    A. Sarkar, R. Kruk, H. Hahn, Dalton Trans. 2021, 50, 1973

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A. R. Mazza, E. Skoropata, Y. Sharma, J. Lapano, T. W. Heitmann, B. L. Musico, V. Keppens, Z. Gai, J. W. Freeland, T. R. Charlton, M. Brahlek, A. Moreo, E. Dagotto, T. Z. Ward, Adv. Sci. 2022, 9, 2200391

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    G. N. Kotsonis, P. B. Meisenheimer, L. Miao, J. Roth, B. Wang, P. Shafer, R. Engel- Herbert, N. Alem, J. T. Heron, C. M. Rost, J.-P. Maria, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2020, 4, 100401. 15

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    N. J. Usharani, P. Arivazhagan, T. Thomas, S. S. Bhattacharya, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 2022, 283, 115847

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    L. Miao, J. T. Sivak, G. Kotsonis, J. Ciston, C. L. Ophus, I. Dabo, J.-P. Maria, S. B. Sinnott, N. Alem, ACS Nano 2024, 18, 14968

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    S. S. I. Almishal, L. Miao, Y. Tan, G. N. Kotsonis, J. T. Sivak, N. Alem, L.-Q. Chen, V. H. Crespi, I. Dabo, C. M. Rost, S. B. Sinnott, J.-P. Maria, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 108, e20223

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    J. Baek, M. D. Hossain, P. Mukherjee, J. Lee, K. T. Winther, J. Leem, Y. Jiang, W. C. Chueh, M. Bajdich, X. Zheng, Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 5936

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    L. Luo, J. Ju, Y. Wu, X. Wan, W. Li, Y. Li, H. Jiang, Y. Hu, C. Li, Adv. Mater. 2025, 37, 2418856

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Z. Zhao, A. K. Jaiswal, D. Wang, V. Wollersen, Z. Xiao, G. Pradhan, F. Celegato, P. Tiberto, M. Szymczak, J. Dabrowa, M. Waqar, D. Fuchs, X. Pan, H. Hahn, R. Kruk, A. Sarkar, Adv. Sci. 2023, 10, 2304038

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    C. M. Rost, Entropy-Stabilized Oxides: Explorations of a Novel Class of Multicomponent Materials, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    G. E. Niculescu, G. R. Bejger, J. P. Barber, J. T. Wright, S. S. I. Almishal, M. Webb, S. V. G. Ayyagari, J. Maria, N. Alem, J. T. Heron, C. M. Rost, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 108, e20171

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    S. V. G. Ayyagari, L. Miao, G. Niculescu, M. Webb, J. Barber, J. Heron, C. M. Rost, N. Alem, Microsc. Microanal. 2024, 30, ozae044.663

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    G. N. Kotsonis, C. M. Rost, D. T. Harris, J.-P. Maria, MRS Commun. 2018, 8, 1371

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Ophus, Microsc

    C. Ophus, Microsc. Microanal. 2019, 25, 563

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    T. Yoo, E. Hershkovitz, Y. Yang, F. Da Cruz Gallo, M. V. Manuel, H. Kim, Npj Comput. Mater. 2024, 10, 223

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    S. S. I. Almishal, S. V. G. Ayyagari, A. Pearre, P. Kezer, M. Furst, C. M. Rost, B. Yan, N. Alem, T. Charlton, Z. Mao, J. T. Heron, J.-P. Maria, 2026, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2603.00814

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00814 2026

  22. [22]

    Mukherjee, H

    D. Mukherjee, H. Yu, C. Wang, J. Spendelow, D. Cullen, M. Zachman, Microsc. Microanal. 2021, 27, 1440

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Mukherjee, J

    D. Mukherjee, J. T. L. Gamler, S. E. Skrabalak, R. R. Unocic, ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 5529

    work page 2020

  24. [25]

    J. H. Seo, J.-H. Kwon, Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2767

    work page 2023

  25. [26]

    Frati, M

    F. Frati, M. O. J. Y. Hunault, F. M. F. de Groot, Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 4056

    work page 2020

  26. [27]

    R. D. Shannon, Acta Crystallogr. A 1976, 32, 751

    work page 1976

  27. [28]

    de la Peña, E

    F. de la Peña, E. Prestat, J. Lähnemann, V. T. Fauske, P. Burdet, P. Jokubauskas, T. Furnival, C. Francis, M. Nord, T. Ostasevicius, K. E. MacArthur, D. N. Johnstone, M. Sarahan, J. Taillon, T. Aarholt, pquinn-dls, V. Migunov, A. Eljarrat, J. Caron, T. Nemoto, T. Poon, S. Mazzucco, sivborg, actions-user, N. Tappy, N. Cautaerts, S. Somnath, T. Slater, M. W...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14956374 2025

  28. [29]

    Mukherjee, R

    D. Mukherjee, R. Unocic, Microsc. Microanal. 2020, 26, 2960

    work page 2020

  29. [30]

    B. H. Savitzky, S. E. Zeltmann, L. A. Hughes, H. G. Brown, S. Zhao, P. M. Pelz, T. C. Pekin, E. S. Barnard, J. Donohue, L. Rangel DaCosta, E. Kennedy, Y. Xie, M. T. Janish, M. M. Schneider, P. Herring, C. Gopal, A. Anapolsky, R. Dhall, K. C. Bustillo, P. Ercius, M. C. Scott, J. Ciston, A. M. Minor, C. Ophus, Microsc. Microanal. 2021, 27, 712. 16 Supportin...

    work page 2021

  30. [31]

    Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States

    work page

  31. [32]

    Computational Sciences & Engineering Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

    work page

  32. [33]

    Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States

    work page

  33. [34]

    * Corresponding author: nua10@psu.edu 17 S1: Electron diffraction analysis Figure S1

    AtomQ, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States. * Corresponding author: nua10@psu.edu 17 S1: Electron diffraction analysis Figure S1. Selected area electron diffraction analysis. (a) Selected area corresponding to the selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern of the stacked thin films along [100] zone axis in (b). The insets in (b) show the magnified ...

    work page

  34. [35]

    Ewels, T

    P. Ewels, T. Sikora, V. Serin, C. P. Ewels, L. Lajaunie, Microsc. Microanal. 2016, 22, 717

    work page 2016