MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385072531 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad067.1000

Discovering the Electron Beam Induced Transition Rates for Silicon Dopants in Graphene with Deep Neural Networks in the STEM

2023· article· en· W4385072531 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin M. Roccapriore, Max Schwarzer, Joshua Greaves, Jesse Farebrother, Rishabh Agarwal, Colton Bishop, Maxim Ziatdinov, Igor Mordatch, Ekin D. Cubuk, Aaron Courville, Pablo Samuel Castro, Marc G. Bellemare, Sergei V. Kalinin

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsOak Ridge National LaboratoryRidgeLibrary scienceSilicon valleyArt historyHistoryCartographyComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeographyPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The atom-sized electron beam in the scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM) has been used as an imaging tool for atomic structures, as an analytical tool for energy loss spectroscopy and 4D-STEM, and in far fewer scenarios, as a manipulation tool at the atomic scale. The motion of gold atoms [1] was initially observed shortly after aberration correction became available, prompting researchers into a new field of atomic manipulation. It was realized that a model system for beam control is graphene containing dopant atoms, e.g., silicon. By placing the electron beam on or near neighbor carbon atoms, the dopant atom has a probability to move throughout the lattice, by effectively exchanging places with its neighboring carbon atom. This effort was spearheaded by several groups [2,3], initially by manual placement of the electron beam, followed by more complex beam control routines, but ones that do not consider the atomic lattice (i.e., blind patterning). Up to this point, the “rules” of atomic manipulation, however, have mostly been based on physical intuition: knock-on displacement is the primary damage mechanism for damage in graphene. Therefore, it is thought that the best strategy to cause a transition of silicon to a new atomic site is by placing the electron beam directly on the center of the neighboring carbon atom of that desired new location. However, this is purely anecdotal, and the true mechanism for manipulating dopant atoms in a lattice is not well-understood, even for 3-fold coordinated substitutions. Consequently, it is unlikely to be valid for more complex silicon bonding configurations where additional topological defects are present. Here, we discuss an automated data-driven experiment where a large variety of state-action pairs are collected. The state is the image and coordinates of the atomic lattice, and the action is the location and dwell time of the electron beam relative to the silicon atom. For accurate and reliable beam placement, the coordinates of both the carbon and silicon must be known in real time, where ensemble neural networks are used to provide a robust and fast prediction of these coordinates [4]. By analyzing these causal relationships, the electron beam induced transition rates for silicon in graphene can be extracted using a deep neural network. Further, in configurations different from the pristine 3-fold coordinated silicon (e.g., 4-fold coordinated silicon, or with other topological defects present), transition rates and optimal beam positions can be discovered for these non-trivial configurations. Provided these rates, a more effective control of silicon dopant manipulation throughout graphene is envisioned [5]. Annular dark field (ADF)-STEM image of graphene with silicon dopant (a), followed by real-time predicted coordinates in (b). Distribution of possible beam locations shown around dopant atom in (b). The learned rates of 3-fold coordinated silicon (c) where center of contours show optimal beam locations to promote a transition. Scalebar in (a) 5 Å. ADF-STEM images of graphene with silicon dopant (a,b) with additional topological defects present. Real-time predicted coordinates in (c,d). Distribution of possible beam locations shown around dopant atom in (c,d). Scalebars in (a,b) 5 Å.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207