Decoupling conservative and dissipative forces in frequency modulation atomic force microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments and theoretical calculations of conservative forces measured by frequency modulation atomic force microscopy (FM-AFM) in vacuum are generally in reasonable agreement. This contrasts with dissipative forces, where experiment and theory often disagree by several orders of magnitude. These discrepancies have repeatedly been attributed to instrumental artifacts, the cause of which remains elusive. We demonstrate that the frequency response of the piezoacoustic cantilever excitation system, traditionally assumed flat, can actually lead to surprisingly large apparent damping by the coupling of the frequency shift to the drive-amplitude signal, typically referred to as the ``dissipation'' signal. Our theory predicts large quantitative and qualitative variability observed in dissipation spectroscopy experiments, contrast inversion at step edges and in atomic-scale dissipation imaging, as well as changes in the power-law relationship between the drive signal and bias voltage in dissipation spectroscopy. The magnitude of apparent damping can escalate by more than an order of magnitude at cryogenic temperatures. We present a simple nondestructive method for correcting this source of apparent damping, which will allow dissipation measurements to be reliably and quantitatively compared to theoretical models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".