Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Studying electron beam coherence using plasmon interference

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows experimentally that the angular cathodoluminescence pattern from an electron beam is an incoherent sum over the beam's lateral positions when no electron post-selection is performed, while a single electron passing…

desk verdict A correct and useful experimental paper, but the 'conclusive' wording outruns the TR data, which hinge on an externally measured coherence parameter. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10842 v1 pith:IUVMIJCX submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.mes-hall

Evelijn Akerboom , F. Javier García de Abajo , Albert Polman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords cathodoluminescenceelectronbeamcoherenceplasmoninterferencetransitionradiationwhich-pathinformationquantumeraserangle-resolvedCLevanescentfieldexcitation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to settle when the wave nature of an electron beam shows up in cathodoluminescence (CL). Its central claim is that without post-selecting the electron, the total CL excitation probability is an incoherent sum over the electron's transverse positions, weighted by the transverse electron density; different lateral parts of an extended beam do not interfere. By contrast, one electron whose evanescent field reaches two separated scatterers excites them coherently, producing interference in the far field. The authors test this with angle-resolved CL from a thin silicon nitride film (focused versus defocused beam) and with two gold nanopillars, and they propose a post-selection geometry to recover coherence. If right, it means the electron's lateral coherence does not directly transfer to the emitted light unless the electron's which-path information is erased.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nonrecoil, no-post-selection excitation probability, Eq. (2): $P \propto \int d^2R \, |\langle n|\hat{H}(R)|0\rangle|^2 \, |\psi_\perp^i(R)|^2$. Because the final transverse electron states are integrated out, cross terms between different lateral positions cancel under the Plancherel theorem, leaving an incoherent sum weighted by the transverse electron density. The complementary mechanism is the evanescent-field coupling of a single electron to two scatterers, which generates a phase difference set by the electron's time of flight between the pillars; this phase appears in the Fourier-transformed CL interferogram and is the signature of coherent excitation. For transition radiation, the coherently broadened source would shift the angular pattern toward the surface normal, a shift the experiments do not show. Together these pieces define the condition for observable CL interference: either the electron's evanescent field reaches the scatterers, or the electron's which-path information is erased.

What would settle it

In the same SEM, measure the 6-micrometer defocused beam's lateral coherence directly by electron diffraction while simultaneously recording the angular TR pattern; if the coherence length turns out to be much smaller than the assumed 150 nm, the observed insensitivity of the TR pattern to spot size would no longer discriminate between coherent and incoherent excitation, and the paper's first conclusion would lose its experimental support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, in a cathodoluminescence measurement without electron post-selection, the total excitation probability factors into an incoherent sum over the electron's lateral positions, weighted by the transverse electron density. This is a consequence of the Plancherel theorem applied to the nonrecoil interaction Hamiltonian. Hence an extended, even laterally coherent electron beam produces no CL interference between its different parts: the angular pattern from a 6-micrometer defocused beam on a thin silicon nitride film matches the incoherent sum of point-like transition-radiation sources, not the coherent superposition. The same electron, however, when passing within the evanescent field of two gold nanopillars, excites both coherently, as shown by far-field CL interferograms whose Fourier transform contains a band at the electron time of flight between the pillars. When the pillars lie outside the evanescent field and the beam is spread over both, the signal is again an incoherent sum. The paper argues that the difference is which-path information carried by the electron, and proposes a post-selection geometry (electron diffraction from a twisted bilayer of graphene) to erase it and recover CL interference.

Load-bearing premise

The transition-radiation conclusion hinges on the companion measurement that the defocused 6-micrometer beam still has a lateral coherence length of about 150 nm; if the actual coherence were much smaller, the focused and defocused TR patterns would be indistinguishable for both coherent and incoherent models, and the experiment would not discriminate them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For standard, non-post-selected CL, defocusing the electron beam does not change the angular emission pattern's shape; the pattern is the point-source pattern incoherently summed over the spot.
  • One electron passing between two pillars separated by less than the evanescent-field range yields a CL interferogram with a band at the electron time of flight, directly evidencing coherent excitation of both.
  • When two pillars are separated beyond the evanescent field and the beam is spread over both, the CL is an incoherent sum even if the beam is laterally coherent, because the electron retains which-path information.
  • Coherent CL from different lateral parts of an extended beam can be recovered by post-selecting electrons in the overlapping diffraction region of a diffractive element such as a twisted bilayer of graphene, correlating those electrons with the emitted photons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same Plancherel-theorem argument should apply to electron energy-loss spectroscopy: without post-selection, EELS spectra from an extended beam are an incoherent sum over lateral positions, so lateral coherence should not produce interference in EELS either.
  • A continuous sweep of the beam defocus in the thin-film transition-radiation experiment would provide a sharper test: the incoherent-sum prediction keeps the angular pattern fixed, while the coherent-sum prediction would progressively shift the pattern with spot size.
  • The proposed graphene-bilayer quantum eraser could be implemented with existing SEM and single-photon correlation equipment; the twist angle of the bilayer tunes the overlap of the diffraction disks and hence the strength of the which-path erasure.
  • A more general implication is that any attempt to image with CL using lateral electron coherence must either place multiple structures inside one electron's evanescent field or post-select the electron; lateral coherence alone never appears in non-post-selected far-field CL.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses whether lateral coherence of an electron beam imprints itself on cathodoluminescence (CL) angular patterns when no post-selection of the transmitted electron is performed. The theoretical claim, derived in the end matter as Eq. (2), is that the total CL excitation probability is an incoherent sum over lateral electron positions weighted by the transverse electron density, because summing over final transverse electron momenta invokes the Plancherel theorem. Experimental support is presented in two geometries: (i) transition radiation from a Si3N4 film excited by focused versus defocused beams, where the similar angular distributions are interpreted as an incoherent sum over the beam spot; and (ii) two Au nanopillars excited by a single narrow beam, where a time-of-flight component in the Fourier-transformed interferogram is interpreted as evidence for coherent excitation of both pillars. A third configuration shows that a 500-nm beam overlapping two pillars 400 nm apart produces no interference, attributed to the limited lateral coherence of the beam. A quantum-erasure scheme using a bilayer graphene grating is proposed to recover interference via electron-photon correlation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, it provides a clear and counterintuitive criterion: without electron post-selection, angle-resolved CL from an extended beam is blind to lateral electron coherence, whereas a single electron coupling within its evanescent field to multiple scatterers produces coherent far-field interference. The Plancherel derivation in the end matter is elegant, parameter-free, and machine-checkable in its mathematical steps. The two-pillar time-of-flight signature in Fig. 2(g) is a genuinely clean observable, and the proposal for a which-path eraser experiment is a useful forward-looking idea. The main weakness is that the experimental demonstration of the incoherent-sum claim in Fig. 1 is qualitative and depends on a single coherence parameter taken from a companion paper, rather than on an internal, error-quantified test.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(d) and Eqs. (7)-(8)] The central experimental evidence for the incoherent-sum claim is a qualitative comparison. The text states that the measured focused and defocused TR curves "agree well with the incoherent sum," but no incoherent-sum curve is actually plotted, no error bars are shown, and no statistical test (e.g., residual analysis or chi-square) is reported. The low-k region is excluded by attributing it to an impurity, but the impurity contribution is not modeled or subtracted. Because this figure carries the main burden of the paper's first experimental conclusion, the manuscript needs a quantitative comparison between data and both the incoherent-sum and coherent-sum predictions, including uncertainty estimates and a stated criterion for distinguishing the two scenarios.
  2. [Fig. 1(d) and ref. [30]] The discriminating power of the TR experiment depends almost entirely on the assumed lateral coherence length of the defocused beam, modeled as a Gaussian with sigma = 150 nm (5% of the 6-micron beam width) and taken from the companion paper ref. [30]. If the true coherence length at the sample were substantially smaller than 150 nm, the coherent-sum angular profile would approach the point-dipole/incoherent profile, making the focused and defocused measurements nearly indistinguishable. The manuscript provides no in-situ measurement of the coherence at the sample position and no demonstration that the angular data themselves bound sigma. Without this, the observed similarity of focused and defocused TR profiles cannot exclude an incoherently broadened source.
  3. [End matter, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) as printed, Gamma_CL proportional to |f|^2 exp[(k_parallel^0 / sigma)^2], is dimensionally inconsistent and predicts a growth of intensity with emission angle, which is opposite to the coherent narrowing described in the text. The correct Gaussian Fourier transform from Eq. (7) should produce an exponent of order -(sigma k_parallel)^2 (up to a factor of two). The authors must correct this equation and confirm that the calculated "coherent sum" curve in Fig. 1(d) was generated with the corrected expression.
  4. [Fig. 2(g) and SM Eqs. (9)-(10)] The interpretation of the t = 25 fs band as the electron time of flight between pillars is a load-bearing step for the coherent-excitation claim, but the manuscript does not quantify the uncertainty of the extracted time delay or compare the predicted dispersion slopes from SM Eqs. (9)-(10) with the measured band shapes. I recommend overlaying the predicted bands on the Fourier-transformed data and reporting the uncertainty in the height difference; this would make the two-pillar coherence evidence quantitative rather than visual.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(d)] The description "integrated over an angular range of 0.05 rad along the kx/k0 = 0 direction" is ambiguous; please specify whether this is a slice of width 0.05 in kx/k0, and clarify how the plotted curves are normalized.
  2. [End matter, Eq. (7)] The notation r is used both for the far-field position vector and its magnitude; please use a unit vector or explicit notation, e.g., k = k0 rhat, to avoid confusion in the phase factor.
  3. [Figs. 1 and 3] The assumption that the lateral coherence length scales as a fixed 5% of the beam diameter is stated without justification; if this is an empirical finding from ref. [30], it should be stated explicitly and its applicability to the different beam currents and defocus distances in the present experiments should be discussed.
  4. [Experimental setup and methods] The main text reports a beam current of 1.6 nA for the AR CL measurements, while the methods section states 0.8 nA for the Fig. 3 configuration; please reconcile these values.
  5. [Abstract and main text] The phrase "conclusive experimental evidence" is stronger than what the current quantitative analysis supports; I suggest tempering this to "evidence consistent with" until the error analysis and in-situ coherence validation requested above are provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is a Plancherel identity and the experimental parameters come from independent measurements, so the claims do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central formal result is Eq. (1) to Eq. (2): summing over all final transverse electron wave vectors Q converts the coherent amplitude integral into an incoherent integral over lateral positions weighted by |psi_i_perp(R)|^2, via the Plancherel theorem. This is an internal mathematical reduction, not a fitted or self-referential step. The TR comparison in Fig. 1 uses a Gaussian lateral-coherence distribution with sigma = 150 nm attributed to the authors' companion paper [30], but that value is obtained from a separate electron-diffraction measurement, is external to the present CL data, and is falsifiable; it is therefore independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. The two-pillar time-of-flight component at 25 fs in Fig. 2(g) is computed from the measured pillar height difference and electron velocity, not from a fitted parameter. The proposed eraser experiment is explicitly prospective. The main weakness, that the experimental discrimination between coherent and incoherent excitation depends on the beam's coherence length being large enough to make the coherent prediction distinct, is an experimental-support limitation and not a definitional circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard electron-optics approximations and on the authors' prior characterization of beam coherence; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian standard deviation for coherent e-beam spot = 150 nm (from ref [30], 5% of full beam width)
    Used in Eq. (8) to compute the coherent-sum TR curve in Fig. 1(d). Taken from the authors' companion measurement of beam coherence, not independently verified in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Nonrecoil approximation: the electron maintains its velocity during interaction
    Invoked in the SM before Eq. (1); standard for 30 keV electrons and low-energy optical excitations.
  • domain assumption No post-selection: detection integrates over all final transverse electron states
    Central to deriving Eq. (2); the TR experiment does not correlate CL with the outgoing electron state.
  • ad hoc to paper The e-beam lateral coherence is a Gaussian with sigma equal to 5% of the full beam width
    Model for the coherent-sum calculation in Fig. 1(d), based on ref [30] by the same group.
  • domain assumption A time-of-flight cross-term in the Fourier transform uniquely indicates coherent excitation of two pillars
    Used to interpret the t=25 fs band in Fig. 2(g) as interference between emissions from the two pillars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Studying electron beam coherence using plasmon interference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUVMIJCX

@misc{pith2026260810842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Studying electron beam coherence using plasmon interference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUVMIJCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10842}
}
read the original abstract

Energetic electrons create distinct cathodoluminescence (CL) angular distributions upon interaction with dielectric and plasmonic nanostructures, providing valuable information on coherences in the excitation pathways. A counterintuitive prediction is that the CL signals arising from the excitation associated with different lateral regions of an extended electron wave are mutually incoherent and do not interfere, while the signals originating from different structures within the electromagnetic field of a narrow electron beam are mutually coherent. We present conclusive experimental evidence of these effects by examining the angular CL emission profile from defocused electron-beam excitation of a thin silicon nitride film, which is shown to follow an incoherent sum of CL excitations within the electron beam spot. In contrast, CL interferences are observed for separated plasmonic scatterers excited within the evanescent field of a single electron. Coherence may be recovered through correlations between emitted light and post-selected electron states, for which we propose a measurement geometry that erases which-path information of the electron trajectory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10842 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lack of coherence in transition radiation excited by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Narrow-beam excitation of two Au pillars with different lengths horizontally displaced by 200 nm. (a) Schematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Excitation of a double pillar geometry with a laterally spread e-beam. (a) Schematic representation of the measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Coherent excitation of two Au pillars placed above each other. (a) Schematic representation of the measurement and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Calculated CL interferogram for two nanopillars with a vertical separation of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Excitation of a double pillar geometry with a laterally spread e-beam. (a-c) AR CL data from the double pillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Schematic representation of a proposed correlation experiment to remove which-path information and retrieve CL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Remez, A

    R. Remez, A. Karnieli, S. Trajtenberg-Mills, N. Shapira, I. Kaminer, Y. Lereah, and A. Arie, Observing the quan- tum wave nature of free electrons through spontaneous emission, Physical review letters123, 060401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Ruska, The development of the electron microscope and of electron microscopy, Reviews of Modern Physics 59, 627 (1987)

    E. Ruska, The development of the electron microscope and of electron microscopy, Reviews of Modern Physics 59, 627 (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [2]

    3(e) for the small (red) and large (blue) pillar

    To determine the pillar height, we take a line scan of thek ∥-space, shown in Fig. 3(e) for the small (red) and large (blue) pillar. We clearly see the interferences at low emission angles and take the Fourier transform to translate this to the spatial domain, yielding pillar heights of 1.7 and 3.3µm. Next, the e-beam is positioned between the tips and de...

    work page

  4. [3]

    U. J. Lorenz, Microsecond time-resolved cryo-electron microscopy, Current Opinion in Structural Biology87, 102840 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Nogales, The development of cryo-EM into a main- stream structural biology technique, Nature Methods13, 24 (2016)

    E. Nogales, The development of cryo-EM into a main- stream structural biology technique, Nature Methods13, 24 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    U. J. Lorenz and A. H. Zewail, Biomechanics of DNA structures visualized by 4D electron microscopy, Proceed- 6 ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110, 2822 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Henderson, Overview and future of single particle elec- tron cryomicroscopy, Archives of biochemistry and bio- physics581, 19 (2015)

    R. Henderson, Overview and future of single particle elec- tron cryomicroscopy, Archives of biochemistry and bio- physics581, 19 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Harvey and G

    K. Harvey and G. Edwards, Using benchtop scanning electron microscopy as a valuable imaging tool in various applications, Microscopy Today30, 32 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Adrian, J

    M. Adrian, J. Dubochet, J. Lepault, and A. W. Mc- Dowall, Cryo-electron microscopy of viruses, Nature308, 32 (1984)

    1984

  2. [9]

    G. P. Thomson, The diffraction of electrons by single crystals, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se- ries A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physi- cal Character133, 1 (1931)

    1931

  3. [10]

    Nasrazadani and S

    S. Nasrazadani and S. Hassani, Chapter 2 - modern ana- lytical techniques in failure analysis of aerospace, chemi- cal, and oil and gas industries, inHandbook of Materials Failure Analysis with Case Studies from the Oil and Gas Industry, edited by A. S. H. Makhlouf and M. Alio...

    2016

  4. [11]

    Schaffer, U

    B. Schaffer, U. Hohenester, A. Tr¨ ugler, and F. Hofer, High-resolution surface plasmon imaging of gold nanoparticles by energy-filtered transmission electron mi- croscopy, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics79, 041401 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    Nelayah, M

    J. Nelayah, M. Kociak, O. St´ ephan, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, M. Tenc´ e, L. Henrard, D. Taverna, I. Pastoriza- Santos, L. M. Liz-Marz´ an, and C. Colliex, Mapping sur- face plasmons on a single metallic nanoparticle, Nature Physics3, 348 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Coenen, J

    T. Coenen, J. van de Groep, and A. Polman, Resonant modes of single silicon nanocavities excited by electron irradiation, ACS nano7, 1689 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Nicoletti, F

    O. Nicoletti, F. de La Pe˜ na, R. K. Leary, D. J. Hol- land, C. Ducati, and P. A. Midgley, Three-dimensional imaging of localized surface plasmon resonances of metal nanoparticles, Nature502, 80 (2013)

    2013

  8. [15]

    Matsukata, C

    T. Matsukata, C. Wadell, N. Matthaiakakis, N. Ya- mamoto, and T. Sannomiya, Selected mode mixing and interference visualized within a single optical nanoan- tenna, ACS Photonics5, 4986 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Mignuzzi, M

    S. Mignuzzi, M. Mota, T. Coenen, Y. Li, A. P. Mi- hai, P. K. Petrov, R. F. Oulton, S. A. Maier, and R. Sapienza, Energy–momentum cathodoluminescence spectroscopy of dielectric nanostructures, ACS Photonics 5, 1381 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Barwick, D

    B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, Photon- induced near-field electron microscopy, Nature462, 902 (2009)

    2009

  11. [18]

    Sapienza, T

    R. Sapienza, T. Coenen, J. Renger, M. Kuttge, N. F. van Hulst, and A. Polman, Deep-subwavelength imaging of the modal dispersion of light, Nature Materials11, 781 (2012)

    2012

  12. [19]

    F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo and V. Di Giulio, Optical excita- tions with electron beams: Challenges and opportunities, ACS Photonics8, 945 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and M. Kociak, Multiphoton absorption and emission by interaction of swift electrons with evanescent light fields, Nano Letters 10, 1859 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, M. Sivis, and C. Ropers, Obser- vation of quantum entanglement between free electrons and photons, arXiv:2504.13047 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Di Giulio, M

    V. Di Giulio, M. Kociak, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Probing quantum optical excitations with fast electrons, Optica6, 1524 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Kazakevich, H

    E. Kazakevich, H. Aharon, and O. Kfir, Spatial electron- photon entanglement, Physical Review Research6, 043033 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Bogdanov, A

    S. Bogdanov, A. Preimesberger, H. Mishra, D. Hornof, T. Spielauer, F. Thajer, M. Maurer, P. Falb, L. St¨ oger, T. Schachinger, F. Bleicher, M. S. Seifner, I. C. Bicket, and P. Haslinger, Ghost imaging with free electron- photon pairs, arXiv:2509.14950 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Frabboni, G

    S. Frabboni, G. C. Gazzadi, and G. Pozzi, Ion and elec- tron beam nanofabrication of the which-way double-slit experiment in a transmission electron microscope, Ap- plied Physics Letters97, 263101 (2010)

    2010

  19. [26]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, and C. Ropers, Probing electron- photon entanglement using a quantum eraser, Physical Review A111, 012610 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    Koneˇ cn´ a, F

    A. Koneˇ cn´ a, F. Iyikanat, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, En- tangling free electrons and optical excitations, Science Advances8, eabo7853 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Ruimy, O

    R. Ruimy, O. Tziperman, A. Gorlach, K. Mølmer, and I. Kaminer, Many-body entanglement via ‘which-path’ information, npj Quantum Information10, 121 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    To analyze the components contributing to the observed interference, we 4 FIG

    for more details on the experiment). To analyze the components contributing to the observed interference, we 4 FIG. 3. Excitation of a double pillar geometry with a laterally spread e-beam. (a) Schematic representation of the measurement (top) and top-view SEM image of the fab...

  23. [31]

    See supplemental material, for a self-contained derivation of the theoretical formalism, as well as further details on sample fabrication and experimental measurements

  24. [32]

    Akerboom, F

    E. Akerboom, F. Kiani, G. Tagliabue, W. Albrecht, J. Etheridge, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and A. Polman, De- termining electron beam lateral coherence in a scanning electron microscope using electron diffraction (2026), arXiv:2606.28056 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Akerboom, H

    E. Akerboom, H. Sugimoto, M. Fujii, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and A. Polman, Angle-resolved cathodolumines- cence interferometry of plasmonic and dielectric scatter- ers, Nano Letters25, 14264 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Optical excitations in electron microscopy, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 209 (2010). 7 END MA TTER Lack of lateral coherent electron excitation: Theoretical insight To theoretically describe the excitation of a laterally extended e-beam we follow a fo...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.