arxiv: 2605.12478 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: no theorem link

Automated multiphase identification and refinement in powder diffraction using mismatch-tolerant machine learning

Lalit Yadav, Mathieu Doucet, Yongqiang Cheng

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 03:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

keywords powder diffractionphase identificationmachine learningneutron diffractionRietveld refinementmultiphase analysisX-ray diffraction

0 comments

The pith

RADAR-PD automates multiphase identification and refinement in X-ray and neutron powder diffraction with a mismatch-tolerant neural network.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Powder diffraction serves as a core tool for determining material structures, yet phase identification has remained a manual bottleneck that limits autonomous materials discovery. This paper introduces RADAR-PD, a framework that applies a neural network tolerant to mismatches on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints to propose dominant phases from elemental constraints, followed by automated lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification to isolate secondary phases recursively. The approach outperforms DARA on an experimental RRUFF PXRD benchmark and extends to complex neutron datasets where comparable automation has been absent. If correct, these steps would reduce reliance on search-match heuristics and enable instrument-agnostic workflows for structural characterization.

Core claim

RADAR-PD couples a mismatch-tolerant neural network operating on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints with automated lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification. This enables dominant-phase hypotheses to be generated from elemental constraints and secondary phases to be isolated recursively. On an experimental RRUFF PXRD benchmark, RADAR-PD outperforms DARA in recovering the reference phase. RADAR-PD further provides robust multiphase analysis on complex time-of-flight and constant-wavelength neutron datasets.

What carries the argument

Mismatch-tolerant neural network on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints, paired with automated lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network can reliably generate dominant-phase hypotheses from elemental constraints and coarse fingerprints such that the subsequent Rietveld verification corrects any mismatches without introducing uncorrectable systematic errors.

What would settle it

RADAR-PD failing to outperform DARA in reference phase recovery on the RRUFF PXRD benchmark or producing inaccurate multiphase quantifications on time-of-flight or constant-wavelength neutron datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12478 by Lalit Yadav, Mathieu Doucet, Yongqiang Cheng.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Workflow for the RADAR-PD. A stable baseline refinement of the main phase is used to compute a residual curve. Element-constrained database retrieval and ML ranking produce a shortlist of impurity hypotheses. Candidates are lattice-nudged to mitigate peak-position mismatch and then verified and quantified by staged multiphase refinement in GSAS-II. The loop can be repeated to explain additional residual in… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Residual-histogram ranking model evaluated on held-out synthetic data. (a) Parity plot comparing predicted and true scale coefficients for candidates present in synthetic mixtures. (b) Predicted probability distributions for positive and negative examples. (c,d) Representative residual fingerprints (black) and candidate fingerprints scaled by the predicted coefficient (green). 2.3. Lattice nudging and refi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Representative GSAS-II fit plots produced by the pipeline. Black points: observed intensity; red: calculated profile; green: difference; tick marks: Bragg positions. (a) POWGEN LK-99: refined phases include LK-99, Cu and a Cu2S-family phase. (b) POWGEN oxide mixture: refined phases include CeO2, Cr2O3, rutile-TiO2 and ZnO, with an additional minor phase. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Graphical user interface (GUI) for RADAR-PD. Left: configuration and live pipeline progress during a run, including radiation-source selection, database readiness, logs, and sequential discovery stages. Center: results view showing ML ranker diagnostics and generated phase-fraction summaries. Right: interactive plots and run-file browser for inspecting candidate-screening histograms, refinement artifacts, … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Powder diffraction is a primary structural characterization tool in materials science, yet automated phase identification remains a major bottleneck for autonomous discovery. Existing workflows rely heavily on search--match heuristics and manual Rietveld refinement, and broadly usable end-to-end automation is especially limited for neutron powder diffraction, where comparable tools are largely absent. Here we introduce RADAR-PD, a modality-aware machine learning framework for phase identification and quantification across both X-ray and neutron powder diffraction. RADAR-PD couples a mismatch-tolerant neural network operating on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints with automated lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification, enabling dominant-phase hypotheses to be generated from elemental constraints and secondary phases to be isolated recursively. On an experimental RRUFF PXRD benchmark, RADAR-PD outperforms DARA in recovering the reference phase. RADAR-PD further provides robust multiphase analysis on complex time-of-flight and constant-wavelength neutron datasets, addressing an important unmet need in automated neutron diffraction analysis. These results establish RADAR-PD as an auditable, instrument-agnostic framework for autonomous structural discovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

RADAR-PD ties a mismatch-tolerant NN on coarse fingerprints to recursive Rietveld refinement for multiphase ID in both X-ray and neutron powder data, but the abstract gives no numbers to judge how much the ML part actually helps.

read the letter

The key takeaway is that RADAR-PD integrates a mismatch-tolerant neural network on momentum-transfer fingerprints with automated lattice adjustment and recursive Rietveld refinement to identify and quantify phases in powder diffraction data. It handles both X-ray and neutron sources in one framework, which fills a gap since neutron-specific automation has been limited. The paper does a good job grounding the ML outputs in physical constraints rather than treating the model as a black box. The recursive approach for isolating secondary phases from dominant ones, combined with elemental constraints for hypothesis generation, shows thoughtful design for real experimental data. Outperforming DARA on the RRUFF benchmark for reference phase recovery is a clear point in its favor, and demonstrating robustness on time-of-flight and constant-wavelength neutron sets addresses a practical need in the field. Where it falls short is in the presentation of results. The abstract mentions outperformance and robustness but skips quantitative details like accuracy percentages, how the splits were handled, or any error analysis. This makes it difficult to gauge whether the mismatch tolerance truly adds value or if the downstream verification carries most of the load. The assumption that the neural network's errors remain correctable by Rietveld needs explicit testing in the methods section to hold up. Overall, this targets researchers in materials science who deal with high-volume powder diffraction experiments and want to reduce the manual effort in phase identification. Someone working on autonomous discovery pipelines or neutron facilities would find the instrument-agnostic angle relevant. I would recommend sending it to peer review. The core approach seems sound and the problem it tackles is genuine, so referees can help tighten the evidence around the performance claims.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces RADAR-PD, a modality-aware machine learning framework for automated multiphase identification and quantification in powder X-ray and neutron diffraction. It couples a mismatch-tolerant neural network operating on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints with automated lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification. Dominant-phase hypotheses are generated from elemental constraints, with secondary phases isolated recursively. The central claims are that RADAR-PD outperforms DARA on an experimental RRUFF PXRD benchmark in recovering the reference phase and delivers robust multiphase analysis on complex time-of-flight and constant-wavelength neutron datasets, establishing an auditable, instrument-agnostic tool for autonomous structural discovery.

Significance. If the performance claims hold with supporting quantitative evidence, RADAR-PD would address a clear gap in automated tools for neutron powder diffraction while advancing end-to-end automation for X-ray data. The integration of ML hypothesis generation with downstream physics-based verification, the recursive isolation strategy, and the explicit handling of modality differences represent genuine strengths that could support broader adoption in high-throughput materials characterization workflows.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The claim that RADAR-PD 'outperforms DARA in recovering the reference phase' on the RRUFF benchmark is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet no quantitative metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, or statistical significance), dataset size, or details on training/validation splits are provided. This omission prevents evaluation of the reported improvement.
[Results] The robustness claim for neutron datasets (time-of-flight and constant-wavelength) rests on the assumption that any errors from the coarse-fingerprint neural network are reliably corrected by subsequent Rietveld verification. No specific error analysis, failure cases, or quantitative assessment of this correction step is given, which is central to the instrument-agnostic assertion.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by explicitly stating the number of phases, samples, or patterns in the RRUFF benchmark and the precise comparison protocol against DARA.
[Methods] Notation for the momentum-transfer fingerprints and the mismatch-tolerance mechanism could be clarified with a brief equation or pseudocode in the methods section to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The two major comments identify areas where additional quantitative detail would strengthen the manuscript. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested information.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that RADAR-PD 'outperforms DARA in recovering the reference phase' on the RRUFF benchmark is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet no quantitative metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, or statistical significance), dataset size, or details on training/validation splits are provided. This omission prevents evaluation of the reported improvement.

Authors: We agree that the abstract should be self-contained with respect to the central performance claim. Although the full quantitative comparison (accuracy, precision, recall, statistical significance, dataset size, and train/validation splits) appears in the Results and Methods sections, we have revised the abstract to include the key metrics supporting the outperformance statement. This change directly addresses the evaluability concern without altering the manuscript's technical content. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] The robustness claim for neutron datasets (time-of-flight and constant-wavelength) rests on the assumption that any errors from the coarse-fingerprint neural network are reliably corrected by subsequent Rietveld verification. No specific error analysis, failure cases, or quantitative assessment of this correction step is given, which is central to the instrument-agnostic assertion.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit error analysis of the verification step would better substantiate the instrument-agnostic claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Results section that quantifies the correction efficacy (pre- versus post-verification mismatch rates on the neutron datasets), enumerates representative failure cases, and reports the success rate of the physics-constrained Rietveld step in recovering accurate phases. This addition provides the requested quantitative assessment while preserving the original recursive workflow description. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes RADAR-PD as an ML pipeline coupling a mismatch-tolerant neural network on coarse momentum-transfer fingerprints with lattice nudging and physics-constrained Rietveld verification. Claims of outperforming DARA on the RRUFF benchmark and handling neutron datasets rest on external empirical validation rather than any internal equations, self-definitional reductions, or fitted inputs renamed as predictions. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked that collapse the central performance assertions back to the inputs by construction. The framework is presented as instrument-agnostic and falsifiable via benchmarks, rendering the derivation chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the trained neural network's ability to tolerate mismatches and on the assumption that elemental constraints plus Rietveld verification suffice to isolate phases. No explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1195 out tokens · 64993 ms · 2026-05-13T03:22:11.396795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Bluesky’sahead: Amulti- facility collaboration for an a la carte software project for data acquisition and management

DanielAllan, ThomasCaswell, StuartCampbell, andMaksimRakitin. Bluesky’sahead: Amulti- facility collaboration for an a la carte software project for data acquisition and management. Synchrotron Radiation News, 32(3):19–22, 2019. doi: 10.1080/08940886.2019.1608121. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2019.1608121

work page doi:10.1080/08940886.2019.1608121 2019
[2]

Savici, Mathieu Doucet, Efrain E

Austin McDannald, Matthias Frontzek, Andrei T. Savici, Mathieu Doucet, Efrain E. Rodriguez, Kate Meuse, Jessica Opsahl-Ong, Daniel Samarov, Ichiro Takeuchi, William Ratcliff, and A. Gilad Kusne. On-the-fly autonomous control of neutron diffraction via physics-informed bayesian active learning.Applied Physics Reviews, 9(2):021408, 2022. doi: 10.1063/5.0082...

work page doi:10.1063/5.0082956 2022
[3]

LCLStream

Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. LCLStream. 16 Web page, 2026. URLhttps://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/depts/data-systems/projects/ lclstream. Accessed 2026-03-23

work page 2026
[4]

ILLUMINE

Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. ILLUMINE. Web page, 2026. URLhttps://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/depts/data-systems/projects/ illumine. Accessed 2026-03-23

work page 2026
[5]

Standing up the nation’s supercomputing pipeline for streaming big data in real time

Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF). Standing up the nation’s supercomputing pipeline for streaming big data in real time. Web page, 2024. URL https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2024/10/14/ standing-up-the-nations-supercomputing-pipeline-for-streaming-big-data-in-real-time/ . Accessed 2026-03-23

work page 2024
[6]

H. M. Rietveld. A profile refinement method for nuclear and magnetic structures.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 2(2):65–71, 1969. doi: 10.1107/S0021889869006558. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1107/S0021889869006558

work page doi:10.1107/s0021889869006558 1969
[7]

L. B. McCusker, R. B. Von Dreele, D. E. Cox, D. Louër, and P. Scardi. Rietveld refinement guide- lines.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 32(1):36–50, 1999. doi: 10.1107/S0021889898009856. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889898009856

work page doi:10.1107/s0021889898009856 1999
[8]

R. J. Hill and C. J. Howard. Quantitative phase analysis from neutron powder diffraction data using the rietveld method.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 20(6):467–474, 1987. doi: 10.1107/S0021889887086199. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889887086199

work page doi:10.1107/s0021889887086199 1987
[9]

Toby and Robert B

Brian H. Toby and Robert B. Von Dreele. GSAS-II: the genesis of a modern open-source all pur- pose crystallography software package.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 46(2):544–549, 2013. doi: 10.1107/S0021889813003531. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889813003531

work page doi:10.1107/s0021889813003531 2013
[10]

O’Donnell, Robert B

Jackson H. O’Donnell, Robert B. Von Dreele, Maria K. Y. Chan, and Brian H. Toby. A scripting interface for GSAS-II.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 51(4):1244–1250, 2018. doi: 10.1107/S1600576718008075. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576718008075

work page doi:10.1107/s1600576718008075 2018
[11]

Kabekkodu, Anja Dosen, and Thomas N

Soorya N. Kabekkodu, Anja Dosen, and Thomas N. Blanton. PDF-5+: a comprehensive powder diffraction file™for materials characterization.Powder Diffraction, 39(2):47–59, 2024. doi: 10.1017/S0885715624000150. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0885715624000150

work page doi:10.1017/s0885715624000150 2024
[12]

Match! – phase analysis using powder diffraction

Crystal Impact. Match! – phase analysis using powder diffraction. Computer software, 2003. URLhttps://www.crystalimpact.com/match/

work page 2003
[13]

The highscore suite.Powder Diffraction, 29(S2):S13–S18, 2014

Thomas Degen, Mustapha Sadki, Egbert Bron, Uwe König, and Gwilherm Nénert. The highscore suite.Powder Diffraction, 29(S2):S13–S18, 2014. doi: 10.1017/S0885715614000840. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0885715614000840

work page doi:10.1017/s0885715614000840 2014
[14]

The inorganic crystal structure database (ICSD)—present and future

Mariette Hellenbrandt. The inorganic crystal structure database (ICSD)—present and future. Crystallography Reviews, 10(1):17–22, 2004. doi: 10.1080/08893110410001664882. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1080/08893110410001664882. 17

work page doi:10.1080/08893110410001664882 2004
[15]

Zagorac, H

D. Zagorac, H. Müller, S. Ruehl, J. Zagorac, and S. Rehme. Recent developments in the inorganic crystal structure database: theoretical crystal structure data and related features. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 52(5):918–925, 2019. doi: 10.1107/S160057671900997X. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S160057671900997X

work page doi:10.1107/s160057671900997x 2019
[16]

Serebryanaya, Peter Moeck, Robert T

Saulius Gražulis, Adriana Daškevič, Andrius Merkys, Daniel Chateigner, Luca Lutterotti, Miguel Quirós, Nadezhda R. Serebryanaya, Peter Moeck, Robert T. Downs, and Armel Le Bail. Crystallography open database (COD): an open-access collection of crystal structures and platform for world-wide collaboration.Nucleic Acids Research, 40(D1):D420–D427, 2012. doi:...

work page doi:10.1093/nar/gkr900 2012
[17]

Anubhav Jain, Shyue Ping Ong, Geoffroy Hautier, Wei Chen, William Davidson Richards, Stephen Dacek, Shreyas Cholia, Dan Gunter, David Skinner, Gerbrand Ceder, and Kristin A. Persson. Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation.APL Materials, 1(1):011002, 2013. doi: 10.1063/1.4812323. URL https://doi....

work page doi:10.1063/1.4812323 2013
[18]

Full-profile search–match by the rietveld method.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 52 (3):587–598, 2019

Luca Lutterotti, Henry Pillière, Christophe Fontugne, Philippe Boullay, and Daniel Chateigner. Full-profile search–match by the rietveld method.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 52 (3):587–598, 2019. doi: 10.1107/S160057671900342X. URL https://doi.org/10.1107/ S160057671900342X

work page doi:10.1107/s160057671900342x 2019
[19]

XERUS: An open-source tool for quick XRD phase identification and refinement automation.Advanced Theory and Simulations, 5(5), 2022

Pedro Baptista de Castro, Kensei Terashima, Miren Garbine Esparza Echevarria, Hiroyuki Takeya, and Yoshihiko Takano. XERUS: An open-source tool for quick XRD phase identification and refinement automation.Advanced Theory and Simulations, 5(5), 2022. doi: 10.1002/adts. 202100588. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1002/adts.202100588

work page doi:10.1002/adts 2022
[20]

McDermott, Christopher L

Yuxing Fei, Matthew J. McDermott, Christopher L. Rom, Shilong Wang, and Gerbrand Ceder. Dara: Automated multiple-hypothesis phase identification and refinement from powder x-ray diffraction.Chemistry of Materials, 38(3):1364–1376, 2026. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.5c02820. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.5c02820

work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.5c02820 2026
[21]

Butler, Dorota Matras, Stephen W

Hongyang Dong, Keith T. Butler, Dorota Matras, Stephen W. T. Price, Yaroslav Odarchenko, Rahul Khatry, Andrew Thompson, Vesna Middelkoop, Simon D. M. Jacques, Andrew M. Beale, and Antonis Vamvakeros. A deep convolutional neural network for real-time full profile analysis of big powder diffraction data.npj Computational Materials, 7(1):74, 2021. doi: 10.10...

work page doi:10.1038/s41524-021-00542-4 2021
[22]

Crystallographic phase identifier of a convolutional self-attention neural network (CPICANN) on powder diffraction patterns.IUCrJ, 11(4):634–642, 2024

Shouyang Zhang, Bin Cao, Tianhao Su, Yue Wu, Zhenjie Feng, Jie Xiong, and Tong-Yi Zhang. Crystallographic phase identifier of a convolutional self-attention neural network (CPICANN) on powder diffraction patterns.IUCrJ, 11(4):634–642, 2024. doi: 10.1107/S2052252524005323. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252524005323

work page doi:10.1107/s2052252524005323 2024
[23]

XQueryer: an intelligent crystal structure identifier for powder x-ray diffraction.National Science Review, 12(12), 2025

Bin Cao, Zinan Zheng, Yang Liu, Longhan Zhang, Lawrence W-Y Wong, Lu-Tao Weng, Jia Li, Haoxiang Li, and Tong-Yi Zhang. XQueryer: an intelligent crystal structure identifier for powder x-ray diffraction.National Science Review, 12(12), 2025. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf421. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaf421. 18

work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaf421 2025
[24]

A deep-learning technique for phase identification in multiphase inorganic compounds using synthetic XRD powder patterns.Nature Communications, 11(1):86, 2020

Jin-Woong Lee, Woon Bae Park, Jin Hee Lee, Satendra Pal Singh, and Kee-Sun Sohn. A deep-learning technique for phase identification in multiphase inorganic compounds using synthetic XRD powder patterns.Nature Communications, 11(1):86, 2020. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-019-13749-3. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13749-3

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13749-3 2020
[25]

Enhancing deep-learning training for phase identification in powder x-ray diffractograms.IUCrJ, 8(3):408–420, 2021

Jan Schuetzke, Alexander Benedix, Ralf Mikut, and Markus Reischl. Enhancing deep-learning training for phase identification in powder x-ray diffractograms.IUCrJ, 8(3):408–420, 2021. doi: 10.1107/S2052252521002402. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252521002402

work page doi:10.1107/s2052252521002402 2021
[26]

Calder, K

S. Calder, K. An, R. Boehler, C. R. Dela Cruz, M. D. Frontzek, M. Guthrie, B. Haberl, A. Huq, S. A. J. Kimber, J. Liu, J. J. Molaison, J. Neuefeind, K. Page, A. M. dos Santos, K. M. Taddei, C. Tulk, and M. G. Tucker. A suite-level review of the neutron powder diffraction instruments at oak ridge national laboratory.Review of Scientific Instruments, 89(9):...

work page doi:10.1063/1.5033906 2018
[27]

V. O. Garlea, B. C. Chakoumakos, S. A. Moore, G. B. Taylor, T. Chae, R. G. Maples, R. A. Riedel, G. W. Lynn, and D. L. Selby. The high-resolution powder diffractometer at the high flux isotope reactor.Applied Physics A, 99(3):531–535, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s00339-010-5603-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-010-5603-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00339-010-5603-6 2010
[28]

Peterson, Jason P

Ashfia Huq, Melanie Kirkham, Peter F. Peterson, Jason P. Hodges, Pamela S. Whitfield, Katharine Page, Thomas Hügle, Erik B. Iverson, Andre Parizzi, and George Rennich. POWGEN: rebuild of a third-generation powder diffractometer at the spallation neutron source.Journal of Applied Crystallography, 52(5):1189–1201, 2019. doi: 10.1107/S160057671901121X. URL h...

work page doi:10.1107/s160057671901121x 2019
[29]

Joseph A. M. Paddison, Stuart Calder, Danielle R. Yahne, Malcolm J. Cochran, Si Athena Chen, Matthias D. Frontzek, and Yuanpeng Zhang. A planning tool for neutron powder diffraction experiments.Review of Scientific Instruments, 96(11):113901, 2025. doi: 10.1063/5.0283549. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0283549

work page doi:10.1063/5.0283549 2025
[30]

Keum, Zhiqiang Mao, and Matthew B

Qiang Zhang, Yingdong Guan, Yongqiang Cheng, Lujin Min, Jong K. Keum, Zhiqiang Mao, and Matthew B. Stone. Structure and lattice excitations of the copper substituted lead oxyapatite Pb9.06(7)Cu0.94(6)(PO3.92(4))6O0.96(3).Physical Review Materials, 8(1):014605, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.8.014605. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.8. 014605

work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials.8.014605 2024
[31]

Chevrier, Kristin A

Shyue Ping Ong, William Davidson Richards, Anubhav Jain, Geoffroy Hautier, Michael Kocher, Shreyas Cholia, Dan Gunter, Vincent L. Chevrier, Kristin A. Persson, and Gerbrand Ceder. Python materials genomics (pymatgen): A robust, open-source python library for materials analysis.Computational Materials Science, 68:314–319, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.201...

work page doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2012 2013