Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 170 references

Advancing atomic electron tomography with neural networks

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review claims that convolutional neural networks guided by the atomicity prior recover missing tomographic data and sharpen atomic electron tomography to picometer-level precision, making surface atom positions in nanoparticles…

desk verdict A useful and mostly faithful review of neural network AET, but the headline precision numbers are simulation benchmarks and the experimental validation is a consistency metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16104 v1 pith:WAMLTIWS submitted 2025-06-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cs.LG

Juhyeok Lee , Yongsoo Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scics.LG
keywords atomicelectrontomographyconvolutionalneuralnetworksmissingwedgeatomicityprior3DU-Netimageinpaintingnanoparticlesurfacestructureptychography
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

Atomic electron tomography (AET) reconstructs 3D atomic positions from a series of 2D electron-microscope images, but geometric tilt limits create a missing wedge of data that smears and distorts the result, especially at surfaces. This review argues that convolutional neural networks inserted into the reconstruction pipeline, whether as sinogram inpainting, tomogram refinement, or pre-reconstruction background removal, can recover much of that missing information and sharpen atomic maps to picometer precision. The payoff is concrete: in the showcase study, atom identification in a platinum nanoparticle rose from about 96.5% to 98.8%, coordinate precision improved from 26.1 pm to 15.1 pm, and the R-factor dropped from 19.2% to 17.4%. Because surface atomic arrangements control catalytic activity, adhesion, and corrosion resistance, making surface 3D structure reliably measurable would directly serve rational nanomaterial design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the atomicity prior encoded in a 3D U-Net: a trained network that maps blurred density distributions to well-separated Gaussian-like atomic peaks, acting as a post-reconstruction filter on tomograms produced by iterative algorithms such as GENFIRE. Alongside it, the review presents two complementary machinery pieces: a generative adversarial network that inpaints missing tilt angles directly in the sinogram domain to fill the missing wedge before reconstruction, and an ensemble cross U-Net transformer with attention in both encoder and decoder to capture long-range spatial dependencies and suppress residual artifacts. For supported nanoparticles, a CNN-based image inpainting step isolates the particle signal from the support background before reconstruction. Together these components carry the argument that the information lost to geometric and dose constraints is recoverable through learned priors.

What would settle it

Take a tomogram of a known amorphous or highly disordered structure, such as a simulated metallic glass, run the trained U-Net augmentation, and count whether refined volumes show new well-resolved atomic peaks where the ground-truth density is continuous; a nonzero false-peak rate, or an R-factor that improves while the coordinates diverge from a simultaneously obtained ptychographic reconstruction, would indicate the network is imposing atomicity rather than recovering structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a neural network trained with the atomicity constraint, the assumption that a sample is composed only of discrete atomic potentials, can transform a blurred, missing-wedge-distorted tomogram into a volume of well-isolated atomic peaks, and that it does so even for structures entirely different from its training set. Applying a 3D U-Net as a post-reconstruction augmentation step recovers low-coordination surface atoms that standard iterative reconstruction such as GENFIRE misses, and the resulting coordinates pass a consistency check via R-factor comparison with the original experimental tilt series. The same logic extends to the tilt series itself: a GAN-based two-step model fills the missing-wedge sinogram before reconstruction, coping with more than 80 percent missing tilt range, and a transformer-based ensemble model (EC-UNETR) further reduces root-mean-square error by 5.5 percent. In a separate move, CNN inpainting removes the support-material background from tilt series, enabling 3D atomic reconstruction of a supported palladium nanoparticle and revealing facet-dependent strain and disorder at the oxide interface. These advances are the basis for the review's conclusion that neural-network-assisted AET is becoming a data-driven platform for atomic-scale materials characterization.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing assumption is that the neural network's refined tomograms recover true atomic positions rather than imposing its learned atomicity picture, so the reported precision and R-factor gains reflect the real structure of a sample whose surface atoms may be diffusing on a $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-7}$ second timescale under an intense electron beam.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surface 3D atomic structures of nanoparticles, previously the weak point of AET due to missing-wedge elongation, can be determined at single-atom level, enabling facet-resolved strain mapping and interface analysis.
  • Neural-network-refined coordinates can be fed directly into density functional theory calculations, linking observed strain to catalytic activity, as demonstrated for oxygen reduction on strained platinum facets.
  • The missing-wedge problem loses much of its sting: with sinogram inpainting, reconstruction remains high-fidelity even when more than 80% of the tilt range is unavailable.
  • Supported catalysts become tractable, as CNN inpainting removes the support signal that otherwise swamps the nanoparticle.
  • Combined with 4D-STEM ptychography and multislice methods, the same neural-network tools are expected to extend atomic-resolution 3D imaging to light elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The review does not test whether the atomicity prior invents peaks in genuinely amorphous samples; a check would be to run the same trained U-Net on simulated amorphous tomograms and count newly resolved atomic peaks where the ground-truth density is continuous.
  • The reported precision gain from 26.1 to 15.1 pm is measured against a known ground truth in simulation; an experimental cross-validation against an independent technique such as 4D-STEM ptychography on the same particle would separate true recovery from learned polishing.
  • Because the review notes surface atoms diffuse on $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-7}$ second timescales, the same networks could be repurposed as uncertainty quantifiers, flagging atoms whose positions vary between repeated tilt-series passes rather than reporting a single static structure.
  • If network refinement systematically biases toward Gaussian peak shapes, subtle anharmonic or delocalized electron density at defects may be smoothed away; comparing refined tomograms against multislice simulations of known defect configurations would reveal the bias.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review article surveys recent applications of convolutional neural networks to atomic electron tomography (AET). It covers three broad strategies: deep-learning-based recovery of missing-wedge data, neural-network augmentation of tomograms under an 'atomicity' prior, and CNN-based image inpainting of support signals. The authors report quantitative gains from the primary literature, including atom detection improving from 96.5% to 98.8%, coordinate RMSD decreasing from 26.1 pm to 15.1 pm, R-factor improving from 19.2% to 17.4%, a 5.5% RMSE reduction for an ensemble transformer model, and 0.7 Å resolution for a deep-learning-aided reconstruction. The showcase applications are Pt and Pd nanoparticles, with emphasis on surface structure, strain, and catalytic activity. The review also discusses future directions in 4D-STEM ptychography, multislice tomography, low-dose imaging, and uncertainty quantification.

Significance. If the central claims are taken at face value, the review provides a useful and well-organized synthesis of an active area, and the authors are well placed to write it given their direct contributions to several of the key papers. The manuscript is readable and mostly accurate in reporting numbers from the cited studies, and it explicitly acknowledges limitations such as surface atom mobility and the lack of universally validated ground truth. The main weakness is that the most impressive quantitative claims—pm-level precision, near-perfect detection rates—are simulation benchmarks, while the experimental validation is a single consistency metric (R-factor) that can be partly satisfied by the very prior the network is trained to impose. The review should make this distinction explicit. With that clarification, it would be a valuable resource for newcomers and practitioners alike.

major comments (2)
  1. [Fig. 3 and §'Precise determination of Pt nanoparticle surfaces and interface structures'] The quantitative gains that anchor the showcase—atom detection rising from 96.5% to 98.8% and coordinate RMSD decreasing from 26.1 pm to 15.1 pm—come from a simulation with known ground truth, as stated in the Fig. 3 caption, but the body text presents them without this qualification. The only experimental validation offered is the R-factor improvement from 19.2% to 17.4%, computed by comparing the experimental tilt series to projections of the reconstructed atomic model. This metric is not an independent check on atomic positions: the network was trained to impose the atomicity prior, so sharper, more atom-like peaks can lower the R-factor even if individual atoms are misplaced. Please state explicitly that the precision and detection figures are simulation benchmarks, and add a sentence explaining what the R-factor does and does not validate, or cite additional experimental validation from the primary sources.
  2. [Summary and Outlook] The statement that these methods 'generalize across diverse structural types' is stronger than the evidence assembled in the review. The experimental cases shown are predominantly Pt and Pd nanoparticles, plus one nanoporous-gold example, and most of the quantitative generalization evidence is simulation-based. Please qualify this claim, or provide a systematic cross-structure benchmark or reference to one, so that readers do not over-interpret the breadth of demonstrated experimental applicability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General / figure availability] The version under review omits the actual figure images while the text refers to specific panels (e.g., Fig. 3a–i). Since the figures are central to a review of this type, please ensure the published version includes all figures and panels, or clearly indicate how readers can access the complete figure set.
  2. [Fig. 3 / R-factor] Please define the R-factor or provide a reference for its computation and expected range, so that the numerical change from 19.2% to 17.4% can be interpreted by readers who are not specialists in electron tomography.
  3. [Abstract and 'Precise determination...' paragraph] Use superscript notation for the timescale and dose expressions: '10^-4–10^-7 s' and '10^5 e Å^-2'. Also fix the spacing glitches in the abstract ('st rain' → 'strain', 're solution' → 'resolution').
  4. [Deep learning for missing wedge recovery] Reference 130 (UsiNet) is cited but not discussed in the text; a brief sentence describing this unsupervised sinogram-inpainting approach would make the survey more complete and better balanced.
  5. [References] The reference list has formatting inconsistencies (e.g., refs. 49 and 56) and includes a preprint (ref. 161); please check the journal style for these entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Review article with no original derivation; claims rest on published simulation benchmarks and independent studies, so no circular chain exists.

full rationale

This paper is a review, not a derivation. It makes no new predictions and contains no equations. The headline quantitative claims (96.5% to 98.8% detection and 26.1 to 15.1 pm RMSD) are reported as simulation results with known ground truth, while the experimental validation via R-factor (19.2% to 17.4%) is explicitly presented as a consistency check, and the authors themselves warn that surface diffusion and beam effects mean the structures 'should not be interpreted as perfectly accurate representations of static configurations.' The performance improvements cited for the U-Net augmentation come from the authors' own prior work (Ref. 108), but the same section also draws on independent studies (Ding et al., Yu et al., Iwai et al.), and the review's central claim that CNNs mitigate missing-wedge artifacts is corroborated by external publications. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from self-citations, and no ansatz smuggled in via a self-citation; the atomicity prior is stated directly as an assumption. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

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

The review's conclusions rest on assumptions imported from the cited primary papers: the atomicity prior that samples are discrete atomic potentials, the premise that simulation-trained networks transfer to experimental tomograms, the correctness of standard iterative reconstructions, and the interpretation of network-cleaned peaks as true atomic sites. These are domain assumptions, not derived in this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Sample is composed of discrete atomic potentials (atomicity principle)
    Invoked in the deep learning augmentation of Ref 108; the network learns to turn blurred density into atomic peaks under this prior.
  • domain assumption Missing wedge causes systematic artifacts that can be learned and corrected by neural networks trained on simulated data
    The review's central premise; training relies on simulations of AET, and experimental transfer is assumed.
  • standard math Fourier slice theorem and iterative reconstruction algorithms (WBP, SART, GENFIRE) provide correct initial tomograms
    The reconstruction pipeline relies on these standard methods; mentioned in Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Neural network-refined tomograms approximate the true atomic structure
    The review's headline precision values (15.1 pm) interpret network outputs as positions; the review itself flags surface diffusion and beam damage as caveats.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Advancing atomic electron tomography with neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAMLTIWS

@misc{pith2026250616104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Advancing atomic electron tomography with neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAMLTIWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16104}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate determination of three-dimensional (3D) atomic structures is crucial for understanding and controlling the properties of nanomaterials. Atomic electron tomography (AET) offers non-destructive atomic imaging with picometer-level precision, enabling the resolution of defects, interfaces, and strain fields in 3D, as well as the observation of dynamic structural evolution. However, reconstruction artifacts arising from geometric limitations and electron dose constraints can hinder reliable atomic structure determination. Recent progress has integrated deep learning, especially convolutional neural networks, into AET workflows to improve reconstruction fidelity. This review highlights recent advances in neural network-assisted AET, emphasizing its role in overcoming persistent challenges in 3D atomic imaging. By significantly enhancing the accuracy of both surface and bulk structural characterization, these methods are advancing the frontiers of nanoscience and enabling new opportunities in materials research and technology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stamenkovic, V. R. et al. Improved Oxygen Reduction Activity on Pt3Ni(111) via Increased Surface Site Availability. Science 315, 493–497 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    & Chen, M

    Ding, Y. & Chen, M. Nanoporous Metals for Catalytic and Optical Applications. MRS Bull. 34, 569–576 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    Lim, B. et al. Pd-Pt Bimetallic Nanodendrites with High Activity for Oxygen Reduction. Science 324, 1302–1305 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Huang, X. et al. High-performance transition metal–doped Pt3Ni octahedra for oxygen reduction reaction. Science 348, 1230–1234 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Sharma, N., Ojha, H., Bharadwaj, A., Pathak, D. P. & Sharma, R. K. Preparation and catalytic applications of nanomaterials: a review. RSC Adv. 5, 53381–53403 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Gawande, M. B. et al. Cu and Cu-Based Nanoparticles: Synthesis and Applications in Catalysis. Chem. Rev. 116, 3722–3811 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Lin, L. et al. Low-temperature hydrogen production from water and methanol using Pt/α-MoC catalysts. Nature 544, 80–83 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Introduction: Nanoparticles in Catalysis

    Astruc, D. Introduction: Nanoparticles in Catalysis. Chem. Rev. 120, 461–463 (2020)

    2020

Show all 170 references
  1. [9]

    Lee, S. et al. A measure of active interfaces in supported catalysts for high-temperature reactions. Chem 8, 815–835 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    & Yang, P

    Law, M., Goldberger, J. & Yang, P. SEMICONDUCTOR NANOWIRES AND NANOTUBES. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 34, 83–122 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Tian, B. et al. Coaxial silicon nanowires as solar cells and nanoelectronic power sources. Nature 449, 885–889 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    & Hone, J

    Akinwande, D., Petrone, N. & Hone, J. Two-dimensional flexible nanoelectronics. Nat. Commun. 5, 5678 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Dou, L. et al. Atomically thin two-dimensional organic-inorganic hybrid perovskites. Science 349, 1518–1521 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    & Duan, X

    Jia, C., Lin, Z., Huang, Y. & Duan, X. Nanowire Electronics: From Nanoscale to Macroscale. Chem. Rev. 119, 9074– 9135 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hossain, N. et al. Advances and significances of nanoparticles in semiconductor applications – A review. Results Eng. 19, 101347 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    S., Bruce, P., Scrosati, B., Tarascon, J.-M

    Aricò, A. S., Bruce, P., Scrosati, B., Tarascon, J.-M. & van Schalkwijk, W. Nanostructured materials for advanced energy conversion and storage devices. Nat. Mater. 4, 366–377 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    & Ceder, G

    Kang, B. & Ceder, G. Battery material s for ultrafast charging and discharging. Nature 458, 190–193 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., Warta, W

    Green, M. A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., Warta, W. & Dunlop, E. D. Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 45). Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 23, 1–9 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    & Gogotsi, Y

    Pomerantseva, E., Bonaccorso, F., Feng, X., Cui, Y. & Gogotsi, Y. Energy storage: The future enabled by nanomaterials. Science 366, eaan8285 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Sun, H. et al. Hierarchical 3D electrodes for electrochemical energy storage. Nat. Rev. Mater. 4, 45–60 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Gohar, O. et al. Nanomaterials for advanced energy applications: Recent advancements and future trends. Mater. Des. 241, 112930 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    F., Wiggins, J

    Mohammed, H., Mia, M. F., Wiggins, J. & Desai, S. Nanomaterials for Energy Storage Systems—A Review. Molecules 30, 883 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Qian, X., Liu, J., Fu, L. & Li, J. Quantum spin Hall effect in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides. Science 346, 1344–1347 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Liu, P., Williams, J. R. & Ch a, J. J. Topological nanomaterials. Nat. Rev. Mater. 4, 479–496 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Hersam, M

    Liu, X. & Hersam, M. C. 2D mate rials for quantum information science. Nat. Rev. Mater. 4, 669–684 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    A., Puthirath, A

    Iyengar, S. A., Puthirath, A. B. & Swaminathan, V. Realizing Quantum Technologies in Nanomaterials and Nanoscience. Adv. Mater. 35, 2107839 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Malik, S. et al. Nanomaterials-based biosensor and their applications: A review. Heliyon 9, e19929 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    R.-P., Bar bone, M., Aharonovich, I., Atatüre, M

    Montblanch, A. R.-P., Bar bone, M., Aharonovich, I., Atatüre, M. & Ferrari, A. C. Layered materials as a platform for quantum technologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 555–571 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wang, Y., Chen, M., Zhou, F. & Ma, E. High tensile ductility in a nanostructured metal. Nature 419, 912–915 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    & Alva rez, P

    Lee, J., Mahendra, S. & Alva rez, P. J. J. Nanomaterials in the Construction Industry: A Review of Their Applications and Environmental Health and Safety Considerations. ACS Nano 4, 3580–3590 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Gludovatz, B. et al. A fracture-resistant high-entropy alloy for cryogenic applications. Science 345, 1153–1158 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Lilleodden, E. T. & Voor hees, P. W. On the topological, morphological, and microstructural characterization of nanoporous metals. MRS Bull. 43, 20–26 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Mohajerani, A. et al. Nanoparticles in Construction Materials and Other Applications, and Implications of Nanoparticle Use. Materials 12, 3052 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Macías-Silva, M. A. et al. Nanomaterials in construction industry: An overview of their properties and contributions in building house. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 10, 100863 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Rosi, N. L. & Mirkin, C. A. Nanostructures in Biodiagnostics. Chem. Rev. 105, 1547–1562 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    D., Chandrawati, R

    Howes, P. D., Chandrawati, R. & Stevens, M. M. Co lloidal nanoparticles as advanced biological sensors. Science 346, 1247390 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    & Kianfar, E

    Huang, X., Zhu, Y. & Kianfar, E. Nano Biosensors: Properties, applications and electrochemical techniques. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 12, 1649–1672 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Altug, H., Oh, S.-H., Maier, S. A. & Homola, J. Advances and applications of nanophotonic biosensors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 5–16 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ding, Y. et al. Gold Nanoparticles for Nucleic Acid Delivery. Mol. Ther. 22, 1075–1083 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Mitchell, M. J. et al. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20, 101–124 (2021). 9

    2021

  33. [41]

    Sultana, A., Zare, M., Thomas, V., Kumar, T. S. S. & Ramakrishna, S. Nano-based drug delivery systems: Conventional drug delivery routes, recent developments and future prospects. Med. Drug Discov. 15, 100134 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Yusuf, A., Almotairy, A. R. Z., Henidi, H., Alshehri, O. Y. & Aldughaim, M. S. Nanoparticles as Drug Delivery Systems: A Review of the Implication of Nanoparticles’ Physicochemical Properties on Responses in Biological Systems. Polymers 15, 1596 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    & Billinge, S

    Miao, J., Ercius, P. & Billinge, S. J. L. Atomic electron tomography: 3D structures without crystals. Science 353, aaf2157 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Chen, C.-T., Chrzan, D. C. & Gu, G. X. Nano-topology opt imization for materials design with atom-by-atom control. Nat. Commun. 11, 3745 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Munkhbat, B. et al. Transition metal dichalcogenide metamaterials with atomic precision. Nat. Commun. 11, 4604 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    & Wang, D

    Ji, S., Jun, C., Chen, Y. & Wang, D. Precise Synthesis at the Atomic Scale. Precis. Chem. 1, 199–225 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Haider, M. et al. Electron microscopy image enhanced. Nature 392, 768–769 (1998)

    1998

  40. [48]

    L., Dellby, N

    Krivanek, O. L., Dellby, N. & Lupini , A. R. Towards sub-Å electron beams. Ultramicroscopy 78, 1–11 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    & and Whelan, M

    Hirsch, P., Cockayne ,D., Spence ,J. & and Whelan, M. 50 Years of TEM of dislocations: Past, present and future. Philos. Mag. 86, 4519–4528 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

    Smith, D. J. Development of Abe rration-Corrected Electron Microscopy. Microsc. Microanal. 14, 2–15 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Rose, H. H. Historical as pects of aberration correction. J. Electron Microsc. (Tokyo) 58, 77–85 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    D., Kisielowsk i, C

    Erni, R., Rossell, M. D., Kisielowsk i, C. & Dahmen, U. Atomic-Resolution Imaging with a Sub-50-pm Electron Probe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 096101 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    & Midgley, P

    Saghi, Z. & Midgley, P. A. Elec tron Tomography in the (S)TEM: From Nanoscale Morphological Analysis to 3D Atomic Imaging. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 42, 59–79 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    , Takayanagi, K

    Hosokawa, F., Sawada, H., Kondo, Y. , Takayanagi, K. & Suenaga, K. Development of Cs and Cc correctors for transmission electron microscopy. Microscopy 62, 23–41 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Midgley, P. A. & Dunin-Borkowski, R. E. Elec tron tomography and holography in materials science. Nat. Mater. 8, 271–280 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Williams, D. B. & Carter, C. B. Transmission Electron Microscopy. (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009). doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76501-3

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    Ze čević, J., de Jong, K. P. & de Jongh, P. E. Progress in electron tomography to assess the 3D nanostructure of catalysts. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 17, 115–125 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Ercius, P., Alaidi, O., Rame s, M. J. & Ren, G. Electron Tomography: A Three-Dimensional Analytic Tool for Hard and Soft Materials Research. Adv. Mater. 27, 5638–5663 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Electron tomography—a tool for ultrastructural 3D visualization in cell biology and histology

    Neumüller, J. Electron tomography—a tool for ultrastructural 3D visualization in cell biology and histology. Wien. Med. Wochenschr. 168, 322–329 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    & Yang, Y

    Lee, J., Jeong, C., Lee, T., Ryu, S. & Yang, Y. Direct Observation of Three-Dimensional Atomic Structure of Twinned Metallic Nanoparticles and Their Catalytic Properties. Nano Lett. 22, 665–672 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    & Hamann, D

    Tersoff, J. & Hamann, D. R. Theo ry of the scanning tunneling microscope. Phys. Rev. B 31, 805–813 (1985)

    1985

  54. [62]

    A., Foster, A

    Hofer, W. A., Foster, A. S. & Shluger, A. L. Theori es of scanning probe microscopes at the atomic scale. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1287–1331 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Giessibl, F. J. Advances in atomic force microscopy. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 949–983 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    & Laxminarayana, K

    Jalili, N. & Laxminarayana, K. A review of atomic fo rce microscopy imaging systems: application to molecular metrology and biological sciences. Mechatronics 14, 907–945 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    Su, S., Zhao, J. & Ly, T. H. Scanning Probe Micr oscopies for Characterizations of 2D Materials. Small Methods 8, 2400211 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Barberán, J. R. M. Scanning Tunneling Microscopy: A Review. Nanotechnol. Percept. 1994–2006 (2024) doi:10.62441/nano-ntp.vi.3063

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    & Palmer, R

    Ladd, M. & Palmer, R. Structure Determination by X-Ray Crystallography. (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2003). doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0101-5

    2003 doi

  60. [68]

    (Springer, New York, NY, 2007)

    Principles of Protein X-Ray Crystallography. (Springer, New York, NY, 2007). doi:10.1007/0-387-33746-6

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    & Knowles, K

    Kelly, A. & Knowles, K. M. Crystallography and Crystal Defects. (Wiley, MA, Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, 2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    McNally, P. J. 3D imaging of crystal defects. Nature 496, 37–38 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Gemmi, M. et al. 3D Electron Diffraction: The Nanocrystallography Revolution. ACS Cent. Sci. 5, 1315–1329 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Losko, A. S. & Vogel, S. C. 3D isotope density measurements by energy-resolved neutron imaging. Sci. Rep. 12, 6648 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    F., Wint her, G., Sørensen, H

    Kutsal, M., Poulsen, H. F., Wint her, G., Sørensen, H. O. & Detlefs, C. High-resolution 3D X-ray diffraction microscopy: 3D mapping of deformed metal microstructures. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 55, 1125–1138 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    & Bacon, D

    Hull, D. & Bacon, D. J. Introduction to Dislocations. (Elsevier, 2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    & Sayre, D

    Miao, J., Charalambous, P., Kirz, J. & Sayre, D. Extending the methodology of X-ray crystallography to allow imaging of micrometre-sized non-crystalline specimens. Nature 400, 342–344 (1999)

    1999

  68. [76]

    V., Dyck, D

    Aert, S. V., Dyck, D. V. & Dekker, A. J. den. Resoluti on of coherent and incoherent imaging systems reconsidered - Classical criteria and a statistical alternative. Opt. Express 14, 3830–3839 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    Huang, W. J. et al. Coordination-dependent surface atomic contraction in nanocrystals revealed by coherent diffraction. Nat. Mater. 7, 308–313 (2008)

    2008

  70. [78]

    & Harder, R

    Robinson, I. & Harder, R. Coherent X-ray di ffraction imaging of strain at the nanoscale. Nat. Mater. 8, 291–298 (2009). 10

    2009

  71. [79]

    Miao, J., Ishikawa, T., Robinson, I. K. & Murnane, M. M. Beyond crystallography: Diffractive imaging using coherent x-ray light sources. Science 348, 530–535 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Aidukas, T. et al. High-performance 4-nm-resolution X-ray tomography using burst ptychography. Nature 632, 81–88 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Computational microscopy with coherent diffractive imaging and ptychography

    Miao, J. Computational microscopy with coherent diffractive imaging and ptychography. Nature 637, 281–295 (2025)

    2025

  74. [82]

    Kelly, T. F. & Miller, M. K. Atom probe tomography. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 78, 031101 (2007)

    2007

  75. [83]

    K., Kelly, Thomas

    Miller, M. K., Kelly, Thomas. F., Rajan, K. & Ringer, S. P. The future of atom probe tomography. Mater. Today 15, 158–165 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    Moody, M. P. et al. Atomically resolved tomography to directly inform simulations for structure–property relationships. Nat. Commun. 5, 5501 (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    Peng, Z. et al. On the detection of multiple events in atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 189, 54–60 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Gault, B. et al. Atom probe tomography. Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 1, 1–30 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    De Rosier, D. J. & Klug, A. Reconstruction of Three Dimensional Structures from Electron Micrographs. Nature 217, 130–134 (1968)

    1968

  80. [88]

    & Poppe, Ch

    Hoppe, W., Langer, R., Knesch, G. & Poppe, Ch. Pr otein-Kristallstrukturanalyse mit Elektronenstrahlen. Naturwissenschaften 55, 333–336 (1968)

    1968

  81. [89]

    Hart, R. G. Electron Microscopy of Unstai ned Biological Material: The Polytropic Montage. Science 159, 1464–1467 (1968)

    1968

  82. [90]

    Scott, M. C. et al. Electron tomography at 2.4-ångström resolution. Nature 483, 444–447 (2012)

    2012

  83. [91]

    Goris, B. et al. Measuring Lattice Strain in Three Dimensions through Electron Microscopy. Nano Lett. 15, 6996–7001 (2015)

    2015

  84. [92]

    Haberfehlner, G. et al. Formation of bimetallic clusters in superfluid helium nanodroplets analysed by atomic resolution electron tomography. Nat. Commun. 6, 8779 (2015)

    2015

  85. [93]

    Xu, R. et al. Three-dimensional coordinates of individual atoms in materials revealed by electron tomography. Nat. Mater. 14, 1099–1103 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    & Levi, O

    Miao, J., Förster, F. & Levi, O. Equally sl oped tomography with oversampling reconstruction. Phys. Rev. B 72, 052103 (2005)

    2005

  87. [95]

    Yang, Y. et al. Deciphering chemical order/disorder and material properties at the single-atom level. Nature 542, 75–79 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    Wang, C. et al. Three-Dimensional Atomic Structure of Grain Boundaries Resolved by Atomic-Resolution Electron Tomography. Matter 3, 1999–2011 (2020)

    2020

  89. [97]

    Chen, C.-C. et al. Three-dimensional imaging of dislocations in a nanoparticle at atomic resolution. Nature 496, 74–77 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    Sun, Z. et al. Strain release by 3D atomic misfit in fivefold twinned icosahedral nanoparticles with amorphization and dislocations. Nat. Commun. 16, 1595 (2025)

    2025

  91. [99]

    Tian, X. et al. Correlating the three-dimensional atomic defects and electronic properties of two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides. Nat. Mater. 19, 867–873 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    Tian, X. et al. Capturing 3D atomic defects and phonon localization at the 2D heterostructure interface. Sci. Adv. 7, eabi6699

  93. [101]

    Jeong, C. et al. Revealing the three-dimensional arrangement of polar topology in nanoparticles. Nat. Commun. 15, 3887 (2024)

    2024

  94. [102]

    Hong, J. et al. Metastable hexagonal close-packed palladium hydride in liquid cell TEM. Nature 603, 631–636 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Jo, H. et al. Direct strain correlations at the single-atom level in three-dimensional core-shell interface structures. Nat. Commun. 13, 5957 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    Li, Z. et al. Probing the atomically diffuse interfaces in Pd@Pt core-shell nanoparticles in three dimensions. Nat. Commun. 14, 2934 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    Zhang, Y. et al. Three-dimensional atomic insights into the metal-oxide interface in Zr-ZrO2 nanoparticles. Nat. Commun. 15, 7624 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    Yang, Y. et al. Determining the three-dimensional atomic structure of an amorphous solid. Nature 592, 60–64 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Yuan, Y. et al. Three-dimensional atomic packing in amorphous solids with liquid-like structure. Nat. Mater. 21, 95– 102 (2022)

    2022

  100. [108]

    & Yang, Y

    Lee, J., Jeong, C. & Yang, Y. Single -atom level determination of 3-dimensional surface atomic structure via neural network-assisted atomic electron tomography. Nat. Commun. 12, 1962 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    Yang, Y. et al. Atomic-scale identification of active sites of oxygen reduction nanocatalysts. Nat. Catal. 7, 796–806 (2024)

    2024

  102. [110]

    Kim, B. H. et al. Critical differences in 3D atomic structure of individual ligand-protected nanocrystals in solution. Science 368, 60–67 (2020)

    2020

  103. [111]

    Zhou, J. et al. Observing crystal nucleation in four dimensions using atomic electron tomography. Nature 570, 500–503 (2019)

    2019

  104. [112]

    Kang, S. et al. Time-resolved Brownian tomography of single nanocrystals in liquid during oxidative etching. Nat. Commun. 16, 1158 (2025)

    2025

  105. [113]

    & Miao, J

    Zhou, J., Yang, Y., Ercius, P. & Miao, J. Atomic electron tomography in three and four dimensions. MRS Bull. 45, 290–297 (2020)

    2020

  106. [114]

    J., Rosse ll, M

    Van Aert, S., Batenburg, K. J., Rosse ll, M. D., Erni, R. & Van Tendeloo, G. Three-dimensional atomic imaging of crystalline nanoparticles. Nature 470, 374–377 (2011)

    2011

  107. [115]

    Goris, B. et al. Three-Dimensional Elemental Mapping at the Atomic Scale in Bimetallic Nanocrystals. Nano Lett. 13, 4236–4241 (2013). 11

    2013

  108. [116]

    Dai, Y. et al. Mapping Surface and Subsurface Atomic Structures of Au@Pd Core–Shell Nanoparticles in Three Dimensions. ACS Nano 19, 9006–9016 (2025)

    2025

  109. [117]

    Leary, R. K. & Midgley, P. A. Elec tron Tomography in Materials Science. in Springer Handbook of Microscopy (eds. Hawkes, P. W. & Spence, J. C. H.) 1279–1329 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3- 030-00069-1_26

    2019 doi

  110. [118]

    missing wedge

    Kawase, N., Kato, M., Nishioka, H. & Jinnai, H. Transmission electron microtomography without the “missing wedge” for quantitative structural analysis. Ultramicroscopy 107, 8–15 (2007)

    2007

  111. [119]

    E., Verkle ij, A

    Friedrich, H., de Jongh, P. E., Verkle ij, A. J. & de Jong, K. P. Electron Tomography for Heterogeneous Catalysts and Related Nanostructured Materials. Chem. Rev. 109, 1613–1629 (2009)

    2009

  112. [120]

    & Wang, X

    Ni, B. & Wang, X. Face the Edges: Ca talytic Active Sites of Nanomaterials. Adv. Sci. 2, 1500085 (2015)

    2015

  113. [121]

    Lin, Y. et al. Adhesion and Atomic Structures of Gold on Ceria Nanostructures: The Role of Surface Structure and Oxidation State of Ceria Supports. Nano Lett. 15, 5375–5381 (2015)

    2015

  114. [122]

    & Sun, J

    Liu, F., Wu, C., Ding, X. & Sun, J. Atomic modification of Mo(1 0 0) surface for corrosion resistance. Appl. Surf. Sci. 610, 155509 (2023)

    2023

  115. [123]

    & Nagao, T

    Hasegawa, S., Tong, X., Ta keda, S., Sato, N. & Nagao, T. Structures and electronic transport on silicon surfaces. Prog. Surf. Sci. 60, 89–257 (1999)

    1999

  116. [124]

    Kolmer, M. et al. Electronic transport in planar atomic-scale structures measured by two-probe scanning tunneling spectroscopy. Nat. Commun. 10, 1573 (2019)

    2019

  117. [125]

    Wang, Z. L. Transmission Electr on Microscopy of Shape-Controlled Nanocrystals and Their Assemblies. J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 1153–1175 (2000)

    2000

  118. [126]

    Tian, Y. et al. Fast coalescence of metallic glass nanoparticles. Nat. Commun. 10, 5249 (2019)

    2019

  119. [127]

    Yang, W. et al. Deep Learning for Single Image Super-Resolution: A Brief Review. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 21, 3106– 3121 (2019)

    2019

  120. [128]

    Yang, S.-H. et al. Deep Learning-Assisted Quantification of Atomic Dopants and Defects in 2D Materials. Adv. Sci. 8, 2101099 (2021)

    2021

  121. [129]

    Cho, I. et al. Deep-learning-based gas identification by time-variant illumination of a single micro-LED-embedded gas sensor. Light Sci. Appl. 12, 95 (2023)

    2023

  122. [130]

    & Chen, Q

    Yao, L., Lyu, Z., Li, J. & Chen, Q. No ground truth ne eded: unsupervised sinogram inpainting for nanoparticle electron tomography (UsiNet) to correct missing wedges. Npj Comput. Mater. 10, 1–14 (2024)

    2024

  123. [131]

    Kim, J. et al. Self-supervised machine learning framework for high-throughput electron microscopy. Sci. Adv. 11, eads5552 (2025)

    2025

  124. [132]

    & Xin, H

    Ding, G., Liu, Y., Zhang, R. & Xin, H. L. A joint deep learning model to recover information and reduce artifacts in missing-wedge sinograms for electron tomography and beyond. Sci. Rep. 9, 12803 (2019)

    2019

  125. [133]

    & Xin, H

    Wang, C., Ding, G., Li u, Y. & Xin, H. L. 0.7 Å Resolution Electron Tomography Enabled by Deep‐Learning‐Aided Information Recovery. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2, 2000152 (2020)

    2020

  126. [134]

    Yu, Y. et al. Ensemble Cross UNet Transformers for Augmentation of Atomic Electron Tomography. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 73, 1–14 (2024)

    2024

  127. [135]

    Iwai, H. et al. Atomic‐Scale 3D Structure of a Supported Pd Nanoparticle Revealed by Electron Tomography with Convolution Neural Network‐Based Image Inpainting. Small Methods 8, 2301163 (2024)

    2024

  128. [136]

    Weighted Back-projection Methods

    Radermacher, M. Weighted Back-projection Methods. in Electron Tomography: Methods for Three-Dimensional Visualization of Structures in the Cell (ed. Frank, J.) 245–273 (Springer, New York, NY, 2006). doi:10.1007/978-0- 387-69008-7_9

    2006 doi

  129. [137]

    Andersen, A. H. & Kak, A. C. Simultaneous Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (SART): A superior implementation of the ART algorithm. Ultrason. Imaging 6, 81–94 (1984)

    1984

  130. [138]

    S., Brox, T

    Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S. S., Brox, T. & Ronneberger, O. 3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation. in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2016 (eds. Ourselin, S., Joskowicz, L., Sabuncu, M. R., Unal, ...

    2016

  131. [139]

    Pryor, A. et al. GENFIRE: A generalized Fourier iterative reconstruction algorithm for high-resolution 3D imaging. Sci. Rep. 7, 10409 (2017)

    2017

  132. [140]

    & Rellinghaus, B

    Schneider, S., Surrey, A., Pohl, D ., Schultz, L. & Rellinghaus, B. Atomic surface diffusion on Pt nanoparticles quantified by high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. Micron 63, 52–56 (2014)

    2014

  133. [141]

    Lee, J.-W. et al. Conducting interfaces between LaAlO3 and thick homoepitaxial SrTiO3 films for transferable templates. Appl. Surf. Sci. 582, 152480 (2022)

    2022

  134. [142]

    Kim, H.-S., An, J.-S., Bae, H. B. & Chung, S.-Y. Atomic-scale observation of premelting at 2D lattice defects inside oxide crystals. Nat. Commun. 14, 2255 (2023)

    2023

  135. [143]

    Yu, I. C. et al. Study on microscopic origin of spin excitation in TmFeO3 by time-resolved multicolor optical pump- probe spectroscopy. Curr. Appl. Phys. 62, 54–59 (2024)

    2024

  136. [144]

    & Cist on, J

    Ophus, C., Ercius, P., Sarahan, M., Czarnik, C. & Cist on, J. Recording and Using 4D-STEM Datasets in Materials Science. Microsc. Microanal. 20, 62–63 (2014)

    2014

  137. [145]

    Four-Dimensional Sc anning Transmission Electron Microscopy (4D-STEM): From Scanning Nanodiffraction to Ptychography and Beyond

    Ophus, C. Four-Dimensional Sc anning Transmission Electron Microscopy (4D-STEM): From Scanning Nanodiffraction to Ptychography and Beyond. Microsc. Microanal. 25, 563–582 (2019)

    2019

  138. [146]

    Jiang, Y. et al. Electron ptychography of 2D materials to deep sub-ångström resolution. Nature 559, 343–349 (2018)

    2018

  139. [147]

    Chen, Z. et al. Mixed-state electron ptychography enables sub-angstrom resolution imaging with picometer precision at low dose. Nat. Commun. 11, 2994 (2020)

    2020

  140. [148]

    Chen, Z. et al. Electron ptychography achieves atomic-resolution limits set by lattice vibrations. Science 372, 826–831 (2021). 12

    2021

  141. [149]

    Yang, W., Sha, H., Cui, J., Mao, L. & Yu, R. Lo cal-orbital ptychography for ultrahigh-resolution imaging. Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 612–617 (2024)

    2024

  142. [150]

    Dong, Z. et al. Visualization of oxygen vacancies and self-doped ligand holes in La3Ni2O7−δ. Nature 630, 847–852 (2024)

    2024

  143. [151]

    Ribet, S. M. et al. Uncovering the three-dimensional structure of upconverting core–shell nanoparticles with multislice electron ptychography. Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 240601 (2024)

    2024

  144. [152]

    Dong, Z. et al. Sub-nanometer depth resolution and single dopant visualization achieved by tilt-coupled multislice electron ptychography. Nat. Commun. 16, 1219 (2025)

    2025

  145. [153]

    & Koch, C

    Van den Broek, W. & Koch, C. T. Me thod for Retrieval of the Three-Dimensional Object Potential by Inversion of Dynamical Electron Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 245502 (2012)

    2012

  146. [154]

    & Koch, C

    Van den Broek, W. & Koch, C. T. General framework fo r quantitative three-dimensional reconstruction from arbitrary detection geometries in TEM. Phys. Rev. B 87, 184108 (2013)

    2013

  147. [155]

    Chang, D. J. et al. Ptychographic atomic electron tomography: Towards three-dimensional imaging of individual light atoms in materials. Phys. Rev. B 102, 174101 (2020)

    2020

  148. [156]

    & Yang, Y

    Lee, J., Lee, M., Park, Y., Ophus, C. & Yang, Y. Multislice Electron Tomography Using Four-Dimensional Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy. Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054062 (2023)

    2023

  149. [157]

    Pelz, P. M. et al. Solving complex nanostructures with ptychographic atomic electron tomography. Nat. Commun. 14, 7906 (2023)

    2023

  150. [158]

    G., Scott, M

    Romanov, A., Cho, M. G., Scott, M. C. & Pelz, P. Multi-slice electron ptychographic tomography for three- dimensional phase-contrast microscopy beyond the depth of focus limits. J. Phys. Mater. 8, 015005 (2024)

    2024

  151. [159]

    & Pelz, P

    You, S., Romanov, A. & Pelz, P. M. Near-isotropic sub-Ångstrom 3d resolution phase contrast imaging achieved by end-to-end ptychographic electron tomography. Phys. Scr. 100, 015404 (2024)

    2024

  152. [160]

    & Waller, L

    Ren, D., Ophus, C., Chen, M. & Waller, L. A multiple scattering algorithm for three dimensional phase contrast atomic electron tomography. Ultramicroscopy 208, 112860 (2020)

    2020

  153. [161]

    Lee, J. et al. PhaseT3M: 3D Imaging at 1.6 Å Resolution via Electron Cryo-Tomography with Nonlinear Phase Retrieval. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.16332 (2025)

    2025 doi

  154. [162]

    Jeong, C. et al. Atomic-scale 3D structural dynamics and functional degradation of Pt alloy nanocatalysts. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.01727 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  155. [163]

    Electron beam induced damage of organic solids: Implications for analytical electron microscopy

    Isaacson, M. Electron beam induced damage of organic solids: Implications for analytical electron microscopy. Ultramicroscopy 4, 193–199 (1979)

    1979

  156. [164]

    Zhang, D. et al. Atomic-resolution transmission electron microscopy of electron beam–sensitive crystalline materials. Science 359, 675–679 (2018)

    2018

  157. [165]

    Xu, X. et al. Unravelling nonclassical beam damage mechanisms in metal-organic frameworks by low-dose electron microscopy. Nat. Commun. 16, 261 (2025)

    2025

  158. [166]

    Karniadakis, G. E. et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440 (2021)

    2021

  159. [167]

    & Jeong, H

    Ha, S. & Jeong, H. Unraveling hidden interact ions in complex systems with deep learning. Sci. Rep. 11, 12804 (2021)

    2021

  160. [168]

    & Gadsden, S

    Wu, Y., Sicard, B. & Gadsden, S. A. Physics-informed machine learning: A comprehensive review on applications in anomaly detection and condition monitoring. Expert Syst. Appl. 255, 124678 (2024)

    2024

  161. [169]

    & Antul ov-Fantulin, N

    Vasiliauskaite, V. & Antul ov-Fantulin, N. Generalization of neural network models for complex network dynamics. Commun. Phys. 7, 1–10 (2024)

    2024

  162. [170]

    & Ghosh, P

    Pateras, J., Zhang, C., Majumdar, S., Pal, A. & Ghosh, P. Physics-informed machine learning for automatic model reduction in chemical reaction networks. Sci. Rep. 15, 7980 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.