Electronic depth profiles with atomic layer resolution from resonant soft x-ray reflectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of x-ray reflectivity data from artificial heterostructures usually relies on the homogeneity of optical properties of the constituent materials. However, when the x-ray energy is tuned to the absorption edge of a particular resonant site, this assumption may no longer be appropriate. For samples realizing lattice planes with and without resonant sites, the corresponding regions containing the sites at resonance will have optical properties very different from regions without those sites. In this situation, models assuming homogeneous optical properties throughout the material can fail to describe the reflectivity adequately. As we show here, resonant soft x-ray reflectivity is sensitive to these variations, even though the wavelength is typically large as compared to the atomic distances over which the optical properties vary. We have therefore developed a scheme for analyzing resonant soft x-ray reflectivity data, which takes the atomic structure of a material into account by 'slicing' it into atomic planes with characteristic optical properties. Using LaSrMnO 4 as an example, we discuss both the theoretical and experimental implications of this approach. Our analysis not only allows to determine important structural information such as interface terminations and stacking of atomic layers, but also enables to extract depth-resolved spectroscopic information with atomic resolution, thus enhancing the capability of the technique to study emergent phenomena at surfaces and interfaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".