MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4401006017 · doi:10.1093/mam/ozae044.190

The Position Dependence of Electron Beam Induced Effects in 2D Materials with Deep Neural Networks

2024· article· en· W4401006017 sur OpenAlexaff
Kevin M. Roccapriore, Max Schwarzer, Joshua Greaves, Jesse Farebrother, Riccardo Torsi, Rishabh Agarwal, Colton Bishop, Igor Mordatch, Ekin D. Cubuk, Aaron Courville, Marc G. Bellemare, Joshua A. Robinson, Pablo Samuel Castro, Sergei V. Kalinin

Notice bibliographique

RevueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPosition (finance)Materials scienceCathode rayBeam (structure)Artificial neural networkElectronPhysicsOpticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBusinessNuclear physics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The electron beam in the aberration corrected scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) is routinely used to observe the nature of materials at the atomic scale, where the interaction of the electron beam with a specimen is generally a highly complex process, but it can also include structurally changing the material. Traditionally, any direct modification of a material by the electron beam is viewed as an adverse effect – aka, “beam damage” – and many efforts to avoid this entirely are actively being developed, such as more efficient direct electron detectors. A variety of damage mechanisms can be responsible for the outcome of the beam interacting with a specific material [1] – for example, knock-on damage or radiolysis, where these depend on several factors like accelerating voltage and material. It was observed in 2008 that single Au atoms could be influenced by the electron beam but uncontrollably [2]. The first efforts of controlled atom manipulation at the single atom level were the seminal works in 2017 of Dyck [3] and Susi [4] to guide a silicon impurity atom throughout the graphene lattice, but this was done by hand in both cases and consequently was a time consuming and laborious process. Significantly overlooked is the position-dependence of beam induced effects. If the atom-sized electron beam is placed directly on an atom, is the effect different than if it is instead placed directly between two atoms (i.e., on the bond), or on a different type of atom? It would appear intuitively obvious that a difference must exist, however this has been elusive to quantify experimentally because positioning the beam deterministically with respect to specific atoms has been very challenging. These questions are addressed in a data-driven approach using intelligent beam positioning to sample a large variety of different beam positions relative to specific atom columns and the possible state change that accompanies it (i.e., acquiring a fast image after beam placement). The ensemble neural network-based atomic identification and beam positioning framework developed by the present authors [5] was used for precise beam control relative to specific atomic targets (silicon), where deep neural networks were then used to extract probability maps portraying regions in space relative to a target atom (Si) that have high probability to cause a particular outcome, e.g., drive Si along a certain crystal direction. We recently demonstrated this approach to autonomously manipulate 3-fold coordinated Si throughout the graphene lattice [6] (Figure 1). We extend this further with MoS2 aiming to gain insights into beam positions that drive specific defect states. A prominent distinction from manipulating Si in graphene is that in MoS2 and other transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs), the interaction with the electron beam can cause material ejection (S vacancy generation) from the system at almost any accelerating voltage, and so the process is both dynamic and irreversible. Here there are multiple defect generation pathways dictated by how and where S vacancies form relative to one another, which can result in different defect structures (Figure 2). Beam position probability maps are extracted for these complex and multi-step scenarios with the aim of understanding the idealities required to gain highly precise selectivity and control of defect formation. Finally, these results are experimentally validated to gain more fundamental understanding and control of beam-matter interactions in 2D materials with opportunities to engineer matter and defects at the atomic scale [7]. (Left) Sampling many possible positions with the electron beam relative to Si atom and collecting cause-effect relationships (acquiring image after positioning beam) allows to determine the statistical probability distribution map for generating different outcomes – here, moving Si to position 1, 2, or 3 (center). The model is evaluated by autonomously manipulating Si throughout graphene using the learned relationships and protocols (right). Multiple defect formation pathways. All begin from pristine MoS2 (left) where the orange shaded region is sampled to determine best position to create S vacancies (center). From a single S vacancy, this is again sampled in green shaded region to determine beam placement route for each defect type.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisMême sujetAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207