Electron beam lithography for the realization of electron beam vortices with large topological charge ( L=1000ħ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron vortex beams (EVBs) are an appealing topic, both in fundamental science and for practical applications in electron microscopy [1, 2]. Some of the most promising applications require beams that have large orbital angular momentum (OAM) [2, 3, 4]. Here, we demonstrate the largest (L=1000 ħ) high quality EVB by using electron beam lithography (EBL) to fabricate a phase hologram. EBL provides superior fabrication quality and a larger number of addressable points when compared with focused ion beam (FIB) milling. We measure the OAM of the generated EVB through propagation after a hard aperture cut [5]. Comparisons with simulations confirm an average OAM of (960±120)ħ , which is consistent with the intended value. A clear improvement when compared with a FIB‐nanofabricated hologram is demonstrated in terms of 1) the maximum OAM that can be reached; 2) the minimum feature size (33 nm in the present study); 3) the improved uniformity of the frequency response; 4) the better suppression of higher order diffraction due to a nearly perfect rectangular groove profile. We believe that EBL will be the fabrication technique of choice for most new diffractive optics with electrons in the future, permitting more complex holograms and new applications in material science.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".