How low can STED go? Comparison of different write-erase beam combinations for stimulated emission depletion microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare different beam combinations for stimulated emission depletion microscopy. The four considered copolarized, mutually symmetric, but complementary write + erase beam combinations are circularly polarized beam + circularly polarized vortex with charge +1 or -1, azimuthally polarized with a vortex + azimuthally polarized, and radially polarized beam + radially polarized with a vortex. The resulting fluorescent spot was calculated for plane incident pump and erase beams, for plane waves with added high NA annular ring apertures, and when both incident beams were optimized with amplitude-phase masks. For all three incident wave cases, the azimuthal polarization combination consistently produces spots 15%-30% smaller than the commonly used, circularly polarized light combination (the first from above). The two other polarization combinations produce even smaller, of the order of nanometers/0.003λ, fluorescent spots with a caveat of having nonzero erase beam intensity in the center. Nevertheless, these combinations can be advantageous when exploiting PF, i.e., using molecules that respond solely to the longitudinal (or only to transversal) component of the illuminating field.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".