Domain Switching on the Pareto Front: Multi-Objective Deep Kernel Learning in Automated Piezoresponse Force Microscopy

Ching-Che Lin; Hiroshi Funakubo; Jaegyu Kim; Kamyar Barakati; Lane W. Martin; Sergei V. Kalinin; Utkarsh Pratiush; Yu Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 7 references

Domain Switching on the Pareto Front: Multi-Objective Deep Kernel Learning in Automated Piezoresponse Force Microscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper seeks to establish that a multi-objective Bayesian optimization workflow with deep kernel learning can drive automated piezoresponse force microscopy, selecting measurement sites so that the Pareto front of ferroelectric…

desk verdict A well-executed autonomous PFM demonstration whose headline generalization claim still needs a proper held-out test; worth a serious referee, but the in-sample validation makes me hold off on full endorsement. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08073 v1 pith:7QJXOPQG submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallcs.AIcs.LG

Yu Liu , Utkarsh Pratiush , Kamyar Barakati , Hiroshi Funakubo , Ching-Che Lin , Jaegyu Kim , Lane W. Martin , Sergei V. Kalinin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hallcs.AIcs.LG

keywords multi-objectiveBayesianoptimizationdeepkernellearningpiezoresponseforcemicroscopyferroelectricdomainswitchingactiveParetofrontstructure-propertyrelationshipsautomatedexperimentation

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 seeks to establish that a multi-objective active-learning workflow, Bayesian optimization with deep kernel learning, can replace dense grid measurements in piezoresponse force microscopy and still recover the structure–property rules behind ferroelectric domain switching. The method crops a global piezoresponse map into small patches, measures three rewards at selected patch centers (local piezoresponse, switched-domain size, and switched-domain symmetry), and trains a convolutional feature extractor together with one Gaussian process per reward so that the next measurement site is chosen to expand the Pareto front. If the central claim is right, experiments that would take months of grid scanning can be compressed into hours of automated measurement, with the added benefit that the measurement is less destructive to the very structure being studied.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the joint CNN-GP deep kernel model, with one convolutional feature extractor and one Gaussian process per reward, trained jointly so that image features align with measured rewards, together with the q-Expected Hypervolume Improvement (qEHVI) acquisition function, which selects the next patch by the expected gain in the volume of the Pareto front. The unit of structure is the 16 by 16 patch cropped from the global piezoresponse map, and rewards are measured at patch centers, so the argument rests on that patch being a sufficient description of the local switching environment. The loop is closed by reacquiring the global map every ten steps to correct for drift and measurement-induced changes.

What would settle it

Take the set of already-measured locations, train MOBO-DKL on a random 80% of them, and predict the rewards of the remaining 20%; if held-out poled-domain-size predictions do not match measurements to roughly the same accuracy as the linecut agreement shown in the paper, the claim that structure alone determines switching is falsified. A second check would compare measured poled-domain size at the same nominal structure before and after a neighboring pulse, to see whether pulse history changes the outcome beyond the patch content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that multi-objective deep kernel learning (MOBO-DKL) learns the relationship between local domain-wall configurations and switching behavior well enough to predict, from the before-pulse image alone, how large and how symmetric a poled domain will be after a voltage pulse. In the PTKTO film, the model's predicted poled-domain size as a function of distance to the nearest domain boundary agrees with directly measured values in magnitude and spatial trend, and the predicted maps reproduce the observed progression from boundary shifting to large, symmetric switched domains. The paper also claims a mechanistic ranking of switching ease: domain boundaries switch most easily, followed by positive domains, negative domains, and in-plane domains, consistent with manual segmentation. A control experiment on a nearly uniform PZTO film produces a random-looking exploration trajectory, which the authors interpret as evidence that the algorithm does not invent structure-dependence where none exists.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the switching outcome at any location is fully determined by the local pre-pulse structure within a 16 by 16 patch, so rewards measured at patch centers transfer to unmeasured locations; the paper does not test this premise with a held-out split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, a 210-step automated run (about seven hours) can substitute for an estimated three months of full-grid measurements while still mapping the Pareto front of switching behavior.
The trained model's predicted poled-domain size versus distance-to-boundary curves match measured values, so quantitative structure–property trends can be extracted from structural maps alone.
The exploration trajectory and predicted reward distributions sort local structures by switching ease, giving an interpretable mechanistic ranking: domain boundaries, positive domains, negative domains, then in-plane domains.
The averaged-piezoresponse reward behaves as a surrogate for distance to the nearest domain boundary, so an abstract reward can double as a physical descriptor that guides exploration toward informative structures.
On uniformly structured samples, the acquisition becomes effectively random, providing a null-result check that the model exploits structure only when structure actually matters.

Reading between the lines

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

Not claimed in the paper: the same loop should transfer to any setting where a structural image is cheap and the functional measurement is expensive or destructive, since the only requirements are cropped patches and measurable rewards; this could be tested in electron microscopy or molecular discovery.
The patch-based assumption suggests a testable extension: adding pulse history or tip-state features as auxiliary inputs and checking whether held-out prediction improves would reveal whether sequential-poling memory matters.
A natural next step, flagged by the authors, is to replace the scalar symmetry reward with the orientation of the poled domain's principal axis, converting the Pareto map into a directional map that encodes crystallographic anisotropy.
Because the model outputs reward distributions over every patch of the global map, the same workflow could flag rare microstructures whose predicted rewards lie far from the Pareto front, i.e., candidates for unusual switching physics, before any additional measurement is taken.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zoe, here's my read on the MOBO-DKL PFM paper. What's genuinely new: they've wired a multi-objective Bayesian optimization loop (DKL + qEHVI) into a fully automated PFM system and run it on two real materials, PTKTO and PZTO. The PZTO control is good—same algorithm on a uniform sample behaves like random exploration, which tells you the method isn't just clustering structure blindly. The Pareto scatter plots and the predicted distribution maps are also a nice way to visualize the structure–switching relationships, and the physical trends they extract (boundaries switch easiest, positive domains easier than negative, in-plane domains hardest) are consistent with ferroelectric intuition. So as an engineering demonstration, this is solid.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says: the quantitative validation in Fig. 5e is in-sample. The measured poled-domain sizes used there are the same 210 active-learning measurements the model was trained on. qEHVI deliberately concentrates queries near boundaries, so interpolation among training points will look great. To support the claim that the model "can reliably predict complex material responses based solely on structural information," you need a held-out spatial split or a temporally separate test set. The paper does not show that.

Two other things, both acknowledged or minor. First, the authors state in the conclusion that they didn't compare against simpler dimensionality-reduction baselines like PCA + multi-output GP. For a paper whose pitch is "deep kernel learning" architecture, that's a real omission, though they're upfront about it. Second, they say "we release our datasets openly" but I don't see a link or dataset DOI in the manuscript—just the notebook for a simulated experiment. The efficiency claim (7 hours vs. 3 months) is an estimate; fine as context, but not a measured baseline.

My overall take: this is a capable group doing careful work, and the paper is honest about several limitations. The missing out-of-sample validation is the one load-bearing gap. It's fixable—retrain on 80% of locations, test on 20%, or run a small withheld grid at the end. Once that's done, the central claim would be properly supported.

I'd send it to peer review. It's a good candidate for a materials-informatics or instrumentation journal, and the referees should push for the held-out test and a baseline. I'd also bring it to our reading group—it's a useful case study in how autonomous-experiment papers should (and shouldn't) validate their predictions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a multi-objective Bayesian optimization with deep kernel learning (MOBO-DKL) workflow for automated piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM). A convolutional neural network extracts features from 16×16 structural patches of a global PFM map, and separate Gaussian processes map those features to three reward objectives: average piezoresponse, poled-domain size, and poled-domain symmetry. A joint qEHVI acquisition function selects the next measurement location, enabling fully automated active learning. The workflow is demonstrated on two ferroelectric films: PTKTO, where switching behavior depends strongly on local domain structure, and PZTO, a more uniform control sample. The paper reports that the model predicts poled-domain size as a function of distance to the nearest domain boundary, that exploration preferentially targets domain boundaries and positive domains, and that the PZTO null experiment shows random exploration when no structure–property correlation exists. The authors conclude that MOBO-DKL reliably predicts complex material responses from structural maps and efficiently maps Pareto fronts of switching behavior.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical problem: reducing the number of expensive and destructive PFM measurements needed to map local structure–property relationships in ferroelectrics. The strengths include a fully automated closed-loop experiment that ran 210 steps in about 7 hours, an open-source instrument-control interface (AESPM), a null experiment on uniform PZTO that validates the algorithm's behavior when no correlation exists, and physically plausible mechanistic interpretations (e.g., switching ease ranking boundaries > positive domains > negative domains > in-plane domains). The release of code and data is commendable. However, the central claim of reliable prediction at unmeasured locations rests on the agreement in Fig. 5e, which is an in-sample comparison; the significance of the work would be substantially higher if out-of-sample predictive accuracy were demonstrated.

major comments (3)

[II (Figure 5e)] The validation of predicted versus measured poled-domain size in Fig. 5e uses the same 210 active-learning measurements that were used to train the MOBO-DKL model. This is an in-sample comparison; it cannot establish the central claim that the model reliably predicts responses at unmeasured locations. The authors should provide a held-out spatial or temporal split (e.g., excluding a random subset of the measured locations from training and evaluating predictions on them) and report out-of-sample predictive error. Without this, the agreement in Fig. 5e may reflect interpolation among training points rather than generalization.
[II (paragraph on experimental time)] The claimed efficiency gain of 'approximately 7 hours for 210 total steps' versus 'an estimated three months' for a full-grid measurement is presented without any derivation of the three-month estimate. Since this efficiency claim motivates the entire active-learning approach, the authors should provide a transparent estimate: the number of grid points in a full 256×256 measurement, the per-measurement time (including the pre-pulse and post-pulse scans), and any assumptions about duty cycle. The statement should also acknowledge that a full-grid experiment would be destructive and non-stationary, so the comparison is conceptual rather than a direct time saving.
[III (Conclusion)] The paper asserts that MOBO-DKL 'efficiently maps the Pareto front' and 'captures the structure–property relationships across multiple reward metrics,' but it provides no quantitative comparison to baselines such as random sampling, single-objective DKL, or a standard Gaussian process with the same CNN features. Without such a comparison, the specific benefit of the multi-objective active-learning strategy over simpler exploration policies is not demonstrated. A simulation using the released data or a post-hoc comparison of the acquired trajectory against random exploration would strengthen this claim.

minor comments (4)

[II (Reward definitions)] In Reward 1, the notation \(\exp(-\vec r/w)\) is dimensionally inconsistent; it should be \(\exp(-|\vec r|/w)\), where \(|\vec r|\) is the distance from the pulse center.
[II (Reward definitions)] The description of Reward 3 as 'how far the poled domain has deviated from a perfect cycle' is opposite to the formula \(\overline{r_i^0}/\sigma(r_i^0)\), which is large for a circularly symmetric domain and small for a distorted one. This should be reworded as a measure of closeness to a perfect circle.
[III (Data availability)] The text states 'we release our datasets openly,' but no dataset repository or DOI is provided; only the code notebook and AESPM link are given. Please add a link to the experimental datasets.
[Figure 5e] The comparison in Fig. 5e would be clearer if the number of measured points, their error bars, and whether any points were excluded in the linecut construction were reported.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central generalization claim is supported by an in-sample comparison: Fig. 5e validates predictions against the same measured poled-domain sizes used as training rewards, with no held-out spatial or temporal split.

fitted input called prediction [Section II, 'Quantitative interpretation of MOBO-DKL predictions' (Fig. 5e); cf. Fig. 2i and the workflow paragraph on training on measured patches]
"To validate the reliability of the MOBO-DKL predictions, we extracted the measured poled-domain size as a function of the minimum distance between the voltage-pulse locations and their nearest domain boundaries ... A direct comparison of predicted and measured poled-domain sizes (Fig. 5e) demonstrates good agreement in both magnitude and spatial dependence. This agreement confirms that the MOBO-DKL model can reliably predict complex material responses based solely on structural information extracted from global maps."

The 'measured poled-domain sizes' in Fig. 5e are Reward 2, computed at the 210 active-learning locations, and the workflow states that 'the MOBO-DKL model is trained between all the measured patches and their rewards' (Fig. 2i). The predicted linecut in Fig. 5e is produced by the same model trained on those rewards, and no held-out spatial or temporal split is reported; the global map is even reacquired every 10 steps. Consequently, the Fig. 5e agreement chiefly demonstrates in-sample fit or interpolation, not independent prediction at unmeasured locations, yet it is the quantitative support for the claim that the model can 'reliably predict complex material responses based solely on structural information extracted from global maps.'

full rationale

No equation-level circularity was found: the rewards are measured physical quantities (Gaussian-weighted piezoresponse, sqrt(N_switched/pi), and r0/sigma(r0)), and the CNN-GP mapping from patches to rewards is learned rather than algebraically forced. The Pareto fronts and predicted reward maps are standard outputs of the fitted surrogate. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 19-24, 39-41) are contextual and not load-bearing; the DKL architecture is credited to external work (Wilson et al., GPyTorch, BoTorch). The only substantial circularity is in validation: Fig. 5e compares model outputs with the same active-learning measurements used as training rewards, and no held-out split is reported, so the central out-of-sample generalization claim is not independently established. The PZTO null experiment and qualitative agreement with known ferroelectric trends are supportive but do not remediate the in-sample comparison. Score 4 rather than 6 because the model's predictions over the global map include unmeasured patches, so the central claim has independent content that is simply not yet validated out of sample.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or particles. The free parameters are experimental and modeling choices. The two domain assumptions about locality and stationarity are load-bearing for all spatial predictions, and the reward definitions carry physical interpretation that is only partially validated. The ledger is small because the central claim is an experimental method demonstration rather than a derivation or new law.

free parameters (3)

Gaussian mask width w in Reward 1 = not specified
Hand-chosen width for averaging piezoresponse in the patch; it directly sets the values of Reward 1 and therefore changes the Pareto positions.
Histogram-based domain classification thresholds = not specified
Peaks in Fig. S1 are used to segment positive, negative, and in-plane domains; the thresholds are manual and affect the physical interpretations.
CNN and GP training hyperparameters = learning rate 0.01, 50 to 100 epochs, two conv layers
Those choices affect model predictions and acquisition behavior, though they are conventional rather than tuned to force a specific result.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The switching response at a location is determined by the local pre-pulse structure captured in a 16x16 patch.
The whole workflow crops patches and assigns rewards measured at the patch center; if switching depends on history, tip state, or long-range structure, the model's predictions are confounded. See Section II and Fig. 2.
domain assumption The mapping from patches to rewards is stable over the experiment despite repeated pulses and map re-acquisition.
The global map is reacquired every 10 steps 'to compensate for drift and measurement-induced changes,' but the model assumes the patch-reward relationship does not shift materially; Section II.
domain assumption The three reward definitions faithfully represent physically meaningful objectives: neighboring structure, switching ease, and switching symmetry.
The paper interprets Reward 2 as switching ease and Reward 3 as disorder/anisotropy; the authors themselves note the symmetry reward is a rough estimator and could be improved, Section II.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain Switching on the Pareto Front: Multi-Objective Deep Kernel Learning in Automated Piezoresponse Force Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QJXOPQG

@misc{pith2026250608073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain Switching on the Pareto Front: Multi-Objective Deep Kernel Learning in Automated Piezoresponse Force Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QJXOPQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08073}
}

read the original abstract

Ferroelectric polarization switching underpins the functional performance of a wide range of materials and devices, yet its dependence on complex local microstructural features renders systematic exploration by manual or grid-based spectroscopic measurements impractical. Here, we introduce a multi-objective kernel-learning workflow that infers the microstructural rules governing switching behavior directly from high-resolution imaging data. Applied to automated piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM) experiments, our framework efficiently identifies the key relationships between domain-wall configurations and local switching kinetics, revealing how specific wall geometries and defect distributions modulate polarization reversal. Post-experiment analysis projects abstract reward functions, such as switching ease and domain symmetry, onto physically interpretable descriptors including domain configuration and proximity to boundaries. This enables not only high-throughput active learning, but also mechanistic insight into the microstructural control of switching phenomena. While demonstrated for ferroelectric domain switching, our approach provides a powerful, generalizable tool for navigating complex, non-differentiable design spaces, from structure-property correlations in molecular discovery to combinatorial optimization across diverse imaging modalities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08073 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

(1) Zhu, J.; Hersam, M. C. Assembly and Electronic Applications of Colloidal Nanomaterials. Advanced Materials 2017, 29 (4), 1603895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201603895. (2) Capek, I. Nanocomposite structures and dispersions; Elsevier,

work page doi:10.1002/adma.201603895 2017
[7]

Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement

(48) Daulton, S.; Balandat, M.; Bakshy, E. Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement. 2021; p arXiv:2105.08195. (49) Daulton, S.; Balandat, M.; Bakshy, E. Differentiable Expected Hypervolume Improvement for Parallel Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. 2020; p arXiv:2006.05078

arXiv 2021
[31]

R.; Daulton, S.; Letham, B.; Wilson, A

(43) Balandat, M.; Karrer, B.; Jiang, D. R.; Daulton, S.; Letham, B.; Wilson, A. G.; Bakshy, E. BoTorch: A Framework for Efficient Monte-Carlo Bayesian Optimization. 2019; p arXiv 1910.06403. (44) Liu, Y .; Pratiush, U.; Bemis, J.; Proksch, R.; Emery, R.; Rack, P . D.; Liu, Y .-C.; Yang, J.-C.; Udovenko, S.; Trolier-McKinstry, S.; et al. Integration of sc...

arXiv 2019
[995]

(14) Low, A.; Lim, Y .-F .; Hippalgaonkar, K.; Vissol-Gaudin, E

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28580-6. (14) Low, A.; Lim, Y .-F .; Hippalgaonkar, K.; Vissol-Gaudin, E. Mapping pareto fronts for efficient multi-objective materials discovery. Authorea Preprints

doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28580-6
[2019]

Domain-wall engineering and topological defects in ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials

(3) Nataf, G.; Guennou, M.; Gregg, J.; Meier, D.; Hlinka, J.; Salje, E.; Kreisel, J. Domain-wall engineering and topological defects in ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials. Nature Reviews Physics 2020, 2 (11), 634-648. (4) Chen, S.; Yuan, S.; Hou, Z.; Tang, Y .; Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Li, K.; Zhao, W.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.; et al. Recent Progress on Topol...

work page arXiv 2020
[2022]

(15) Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A.; Pilania, G.; Ramprasad, R.; Lookman, T.; Gubernatis, J. E. Multi-objective optimization techniques to design the Pareto front of organic dielectric polymers. Computational Materials Science 2016, 125, 92-99. (16) Rodriguez, B. J.; Nemanich, R. J.; Kingon, A.; Gruverman, A.; Kalinin, S. V .; Terabe, K.; Liu, X. Y .; Kitamura,...

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[3120]

Building Workflows for Interactive Human in the Loop Automated Experiment (hAE) in STEM-EELS

(38) Lin, C.-C.; Hu, Y .; Kim, J.; Lou, D.; Bhat, A.; Kavle, P .; Kim, T. Y .; Dames, C.; Liu, S.; Martin, L. W. Domain-Wall Enhanced Pyroelectricity. Physical Review X 2025, 15 (1), 011063. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011063. (39) Pratiush, U.; Roccapriore, K. M.; Liu, Y .; Duscher, G.; Ziatdinov, M.; Kalinin, S. V . Building Workflows for Interactive Human...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(1) Zhu, J.; Hersam, M. C. Assembly and Electronic Applications of Colloidal Nanomaterials. Advanced Materials 2017, 29 (4), 1603895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201603895. (2) Capek, I. Nanocomposite structures and dispersions; Elsevier,

work page doi:10.1002/adma.201603895 2017

[2] [7]

Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement

(48) Daulton, S.; Balandat, M.; Bakshy, E. Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement. 2021; p arXiv:2105.08195. (49) Daulton, S.; Balandat, M.; Bakshy, E. Differentiable Expected Hypervolume Improvement for Parallel Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization. 2020; p arXiv:2006.05078

arXiv 2021

[3] [31]

R.; Daulton, S.; Letham, B.; Wilson, A

(43) Balandat, M.; Karrer, B.; Jiang, D. R.; Daulton, S.; Letham, B.; Wilson, A. G.; Bakshy, E. BoTorch: A Framework for Efficient Monte-Carlo Bayesian Optimization. 2019; p arXiv 1910.06403. (44) Liu, Y .; Pratiush, U.; Bemis, J.; Proksch, R.; Emery, R.; Rack, P . D.; Liu, Y .-C.; Yang, J.-C.; Udovenko, S.; Trolier-McKinstry, S.; et al. Integration of sc...

arXiv 2019

[4] [995]

(14) Low, A.; Lim, Y .-F .; Hippalgaonkar, K.; Vissol-Gaudin, E

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28580-6. (14) Low, A.; Lim, Y .-F .; Hippalgaonkar, K.; Vissol-Gaudin, E. Mapping pareto fronts for efficient multi-objective materials discovery. Authorea Preprints

doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28580-6

[5] [2019]

Domain-wall engineering and topological defects in ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials

(3) Nataf, G.; Guennou, M.; Gregg, J.; Meier, D.; Hlinka, J.; Salje, E.; Kreisel, J. Domain-wall engineering and topological defects in ferroelectric and ferroelastic materials. Nature Reviews Physics 2020, 2 (11), 634-648. (4) Chen, S.; Yuan, S.; Hou, Z.; Tang, Y .; Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Li, K.; Zhao, W.; Liu, X.; Chen, L.; et al. Recent Progress on Topol...

work page arXiv 2020

[6] [2022]

(15) Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A.; Pilania, G.; Ramprasad, R.; Lookman, T.; Gubernatis, J. E. Multi-objective optimization techniques to design the Pareto front of organic dielectric polymers. Computational Materials Science 2016, 125, 92-99. (16) Rodriguez, B. J.; Nemanich, R. J.; Kingon, A.; Gruverman, A.; Kalinin, S. V .; Terabe, K.; Liu, X. Y .; Kitamura,...

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[7] [3120]

Building Workflows for Interactive Human in the Loop Automated Experiment (hAE) in STEM-EELS

(38) Lin, C.-C.; Hu, Y .; Kim, J.; Lou, D.; Bhat, A.; Kavle, P .; Kim, T. Y .; Dames, C.; Liu, S.; Martin, L. W. Domain-Wall Enhanced Pyroelectricity. Physical Review X 2025, 15 (1), 011063. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011063. (39) Pratiush, U.; Roccapriore, K. M.; Liu, Y .; Duscher, G.; Ziatdinov, M.; Kalinin, S. V . Building Workflows for Interactive Human...

work page Pith review arXiv 2025