Theoretical and practical aspects of the design and production of synthetic holograms for transmission electron microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beam shaping—the ability to engineer the phase and the amplitude of massive and massless particles—has long interested scientists working on communication, imaging, and the foundations of quantum mechanics. In light optics, the shaping of electromagnetic waves (photons) can be achieved using techniques that include, but are not limited to, direct manipulation of the beam source (as in x-ray free electron lasers and synchrotrons), deformable mirrors, spatial light modulators, mode converters, and holograms. The recent introduction of holographic masks for electrons provides new possibilities for electron beam shaping. Their fabrication has been made possible by advances in micrometric and nanometric device production using lithography and focused on ion beam patterning. This article provides a tutorial on the generation, production, and analysis of synthetic holograms for transmission electron microscopy. It begins with an introduction to synthetic holograms, outlining why they are useful for beam shaping to study material properties. It then focuses on the fabrication of the required devices from theoretical and experimental perspectives, with examples taken from both simulations and experimental results. Applications of synthetic electron holograms as aberration correctors, electron vortex generators, and spatial mode sorters are then presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".