Amplitude Dependence of Resonance Frequency and its Consequences for Scanning Probe Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With recent advances in scanning probe microscopy (SPM), it is now routine to determine the atomic structure of surfaces and molecules while quantifying the local tip-sample interaction potentials. Such quantitative experiments using noncontact frequency modulation atomic force microscopy is based on the accurate measurement of the resonance frequency shift due to the tip-sample interaction. Here, we experimentally show that the resonance frequency of oscillating probes used for SPM experiments change systematically as a function of oscillation amplitude under typical operating conditions. This change in resonance frequency is not due to tip-sample interactions, but rather due to the cantilever strain or geometric effects and thus the resonance frequency is a function of the oscillation amplitude. Our numerical calculations demonstrate that the amplitude dependence of the resonance frequency is an additional yet overlooked systematic error source that can result in nonnegligible errors in measured interaction potentials and forces. Our experimental results and complementary numerical calculations reveal that the frequency shift due to this amplitude dependence needs to be corrected even for experiments with active oscillation amplitude control to be able to quantify the tip-sample interaction potentials and forces with milli-electron volt and pico-Newton resolutions.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".