MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diffraction holography for the phase retrieval of vortex beams

2016· other· en· W4234125574 on OpenAlexaff
Federico Venturi, Vincenzo Grillo, Ebrahim Karimi, R. Balboni, Gian Carlo Gazzadi, Marco Campanini, Stefano Frabboni, Robert W. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: Proceedings · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase retrievalDiffractionOpticsOptical vortexHolographyPhysicsPhase (matter)Reference beamElectron holographyElectron diffractionBeam (structure)Fourier transformQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of phase retrieval in electron microscopy is generally related to the characterization of electric and magnetic fields in materials, to the retrieval of crystallographic structure or to the imaging of very weakly scattering objects. Recently, increasing attention is payed to the phase retrieval of electron vortex beams (EVB) i.e. beams carrying orbital angular momentum (OAM) [1] [2] [3]. The difficulty in this case arises due to the presence of an inherent phase singularity. There exist various kinds of phase retrieval schemes, and they mainly divide into off‐ and on‐axis, whether the electron beam is displaced from the electro‐optical axis or not. Furthermore, they can be computational (iterative or deterministic) or interferential. In this work, we use interferometry with synthetic beam shaping [4] to retrieve the phase of an EVB. In particular, we use an off‐axis interferential method, where a reference beam interferes with a vortex beam in the diffraction plane. From the interference pattern it is then possible to retrieve the phase with Fourier methods. This method overcomes the difficulties on in‐line methods and can be applied to the diffraction of many nanometer‐sized features. For this experiment, two holograms have been closely spaced and imprinted with focused ion beam (FIB) on a Si 3 N 4 membrane [5]. The two holograms are fabricated close to each other in the same membrane window, and their diffraction patterns superimpose in the diffraction plane. The first produces the aimed EVB in the form of a Laguerre Gauss with topological charge 10, and the other one is a hologram with a parabolic modulation that produces the reference wave. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the two holograms can be observed in figure 1a (the parabolic hologram is on top and the LG hologram is at the bottom). Their separate diffractions are shown in figure 1b and 1c.The EVB shows the expected circular symmetry and the dark region in the central region. Conversely, the parabolic beam is characterized by a fully circular diffraction. The visible set of fringes here come from the interference with the 0 th order background. An image of superposition diffraction pattern is shown in figure 2. The parabolic wave hologram has the effect of adding a uniform phase ramp to the phase of the LG hologram, resulting in a pitchfork pattern typical of the superposition of beams with an azimuthal and linear phase ramp. The phase reconstruction then proceeds as in conventional holography: the interference (figure 3a) is Fourier transformed (figure 3b), a sideband is isolated and back Fourier transformed to obtain the phase shift as in figure 3c. Here the spiralling phase is visible, winding up by 10 x 2π in a cycle as expected for this EVB. The parabolic phase effect can be easily removed but does not alter the topologic charge consideration. This case study opens the way to a reliable solution of the phase problem in low angle electron diffraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: ProceedingsSame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207