1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: \documentclass{modified}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8:
9: \title{LINE SHAPE ANALYSIS OF LINEAR X RAY MAGNETIC\\
10: SCATTERING COPT THIN FILMS
11: }
12:
13: \author{\footnotesize E.V.R.CHAN}
14:
15:
16: \address{ University of Washington,Box 351560\\
17: Seattle, Washington, 98195-2420, United States.\\
18: evr@u.washington.edu}
19:
20: \maketitle
21:
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Data analysis of the CCD files from x ray magnetic
25: resonance scattering linearly polarized in transmission
26: geometry produces information about the radial and
27: azimuthal intensities. In a series of measurements
28: of increasing photon energies trends in data are
29: analyzed.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33:
34: Magnetic thin film systems and multilayer systems have
35: been studies very actively because of their magnetic
36: properties and possible application for practical
37: devices, such as magnetic recording media technologies.
38:
39: \section{Experiment}
40:
41: Samples were grown on smooth, low-stress, 160 nm. thick
42: SiNx membranes by magnetron sputtering; they all had
43: 20 nm. thick Pt buffer layers and 3 nm. thick Pt caps.
44: Between the buffer layer and the cap, the samples had
45: 50 repeating units of a 0.4 nm. thick Cobalt layer and
46: a 0.7 nm. thick Pt layer. Experiments used linearly
47: polarized x rays from the Advanced Light Source at
48: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (supported by USDOE),
49: the thirteenth harmonic of the beamline 9, undulator
50: gap of 54 mm. near the resonant Cobalt L edge.
51: To achieve transverse coherence, the raw
52: undulator beam was passed through a 35 micron diameter
53: pinhole before being scattered in transmission by
54: the sample. The distance from the sample to the CCD
55: is 118 cm. The resonant magnetic scattering was
56: collected by the Princeton soft x-ray CCD camera
57: 1024 X 1024 pixels in an area one inch by one
58: inch. The intensity of the raw undulator beam
59: was 2 X 10 \verb_**_ 14 photons/sec., the intensity of the
60: coherent beam was 2 X 10 \verb_**_ 12 photons/sec., and
61: the intensity of the scattered beam, was 2 X 10 \verb_**_ 7
62: photons/sec. Each speckle pattern was measured
63: for 30 to 100 seconds, so the total number of
64: photons in each CCD image 1024 X 1024 pixels
65: is about 10 \verb_**_ 9. The speckle patterns may
66: be used to reconstruct the magnetic domain
67: structure of the sampl$e^{1-3}$;
68: this is but one of a general class of the old
69: inverse or phase retrieval problem$s^4$.
70:
71:
72:
73: \begin{figure}[th]
74: \centerline{\psfig{file=evrFig1.eps,width=11cm}}
75: \vspace*{8pt}
76: \caption{(left) Average intensity versus filenumber
77: for the series of images.
78: (right) Azimuthally averaged
79: radial intensity of image file 122.}
80: \end{figure}
81:
82:
83: \section{Data Analysis}
84:
85: The data appears as a series of CCD image files
86: 726Axxx.SPE (of increasing photon energy) that
87: is read into the data processing computer program.
88: The file numbers can be converted to photon energy
89: since the difference between the two maxima files 122
90: (photon energy 779.2 eV.) and 145 is 15.8 eV.
91: Figure~1 (left) shows the magnetic resonance has
92: two peaks. Each piece of data has an image file
93: associated and that file has a 1024 X 1024 matrix
94: containing intensity values ( if plotted in 3D
95: it has the shape of a centered crown ).
96: The Princeton CCD camera
97: file is read into the freely available Matlab
98: data analysis program by the following code
99: fragment:
100: \begin{verbatim}
101: %auto-ignore
102: fid=fopen('nameOfFile.SPE','r');
103: header=fread(fid,2050,'uinit16'); %half of 4100 bytes
104: ImMat=fread(fid,1024*1024,'uint16');
105: Z=reshape(ImMat,1024,1024);
106: fclose(fid);Z=double(Z);
107: [X,Y]=meshgrid(1:1024,1:1024);
108: mesh(X,Y,Z); %display 3D plot
109: axis square; axis tight; view(90,90);
110: print -djpeg99 nameOfFile.jpg %highest resolution saved
111: %send email evr@u.washington.edu
112: \end{verbatim}
113: Figure~1(right) shows the variation of the intensity in
114: file 122 in the radial direction that has been
115: azimuthally averaged (consider slicing through
116: the center out past the edge of the crown). The
117: data analysis calculates the radius of each pixel,
118: places it into appropriate bins and finds the
119: average intensity; since each bin is only one
120: pixel wide the bin number is the radius rounded
121: to integer. The profile was fitted to a gaussian
122: using non-linear Levenberg-Marquardt least squares.
123: The difference between the maximum and minimum
124: calculated values is the height, the distance of
125: the maximum from the origin is called the peak
126: center, and the FWHM (full width at half maximum)
127: is called the width. More about the variation
128: of the height, width and center with filenumber
129: will appear at the end.
130:
131:
132: \section{Results and Discussion}
133:
134: The series of files 726Axxx.SPE are analysed for normalized
135: cross-correlatio$n^5$ using 2D matrices of the image
136: files from which the average pixel values have been subtracted.
137: The sum of the product of pixel values from two images divided
138: by the square root of the product of the sum of the pixel values
139: squared of each image (makes it normalized) is gamma
140: (normalized cross-correlation) of the two images. If
141: gamma is 1 they are correlated, if zero uncorrelated
142: and if -1 anti-correlated. The normalized
143: cross-correlation function, gamma, is related to the
144: coherence functio$n^6$. Table 1 shows the values of
145: gamma for four of the files selected as file
146: 117(middle of first peak), file 122 (top of first peak),
147: file 133 (minimum between the two peaks) and file 145
148: (top of second peak).
149:
150:
151:
152:
153: \begin{table}[pt]
154: \tbl{ Normalized Cross-Correlation}
155: {\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc@{}}\toprule
156: & 117 & 122 & 133 & 145 \\
157: \colrule
158: 117 & 1.0 & 0.8 &
159: -0.8 & -0.8 \\
160: 122 & 0.8 & 1.0 &
161: -0.9 & -0.9 \\
162: 133 & -0.8 & -0.9 & 1.0 &
163: \hphantom{0}0.9 \\
164: 145 & -0.8 & -0.9 & 0.9 & \hphantom{0}1.0\\ \botrule
165: \end{tabular}}
166: \end{table}
167:
168:
169:
170:
171: The CCD images were processed so as to remove the burns,
172: remove anomalous charge scattering, remove the blocker arm,
173: centered in the image and the central disk darkened to
174: remove the burns in that area also. The bright spots on
175: the image are fixed burns in the CCD camera that cause a
176: few pixels to be unusable; these are the ones that
177: appear very bright. At the end of a series of SPE image
178: files a CCD burns only image was taken and a burns and
179: anomalous charge scattering image was taken. The difference
180: of these two images was used to subract off the anomalous
181: charge scattering pisels from each image file pixels
182: (provided they are above the minimum background value
183: of the image). After the anomalous charge scattering is
184: removed, the burns (or hot spots) are removed. The hot
185: spots are masked off, and after rotating around the
186: middle of the 1024 X 1024 image, new background replaces
187: the hot spots. Next, the circle of maximum intensity is
188: found by having an imaginary turtle going out from beyond
189: the edge of the blocker disc in rays every 1 degree
190: finding maximum intensity. The intensities are sorted,
191: the lowest 20 points out of 360 dropped and a least
192: squares fit of the 340 points is done yielding the circle
193: of maximum intensity. The approximate edges of the
194: blocker arm (about 7 degrees) are located by finding
195: those points on the circle of maximum intensity where
196: the second derivative changes sign. A mask is created,
197: a rotation picks up a patch, and the pixels of the
198: blocker arm are replaced. Missing background is fille
199: in on the edges to make 1024 X 1024. All pixels further
200: out from the center, beyond the circle of maximum
201: intensity were used to find the centroid and then the
202: whole pattern was relocated to the center of the image
203: matrix.
204:
205:
206:
207:
208:
209: \begin{figure}[th]
210: \centerline{\psfig{file=evrFig2.eps,width=11cm}}
211: \vspace*{8pt}
212: \caption{(upper left)Polar plot of average azimuthal angular
213: intensity looking down the z axis at file 122 (lower left)
214: azimuthal angular intensity of file 122 (upper right )
215: V1 versus filenumber where V1 is the difference between the
216: first maximum azimuthal radially averaged intensity and the
217: lowest minimum (lower right) V2 versus filenumber where V2
218: is the difference between the second maximum azimuthal
219: radially averaged intensity and the lowest minimum}
220: \end{figure}
221:
222:
223:
224:
225: Due to the use of coherent light from synchrotron radiation,
226: the scattering patterns produced are highly speckled.
227: Each speckle is the sum of light scattered from all
228: the illuminated magnetic domains. So small changes
229: in the microscopic orientation of the magnetic domains
230: can have a large effect on the speckle pattern. The bulk
231: magnetization of Cobalt usually is in the x-y plane
232: but when there are only a few Cobalt atoms in the layer
233: the magnetication becomes perpendicular to the plane of
234: the layers. The observed intensity is related to the
235: charge density, polarization, photon energy, magnetization,
236: atomic scattering factor and scattering geometry; there are
237: terms due to magnetic resonance and electronic structur$e^7$.
238:
239:
240: The azimuthal variation of intensity is calculated by
241: looking at the angle from the center for each pixel,
242: classifying it as belonging to bins (1 to 360) and
243: finding the average of each bin; this is plotted
244: versus the bin number with each bin being one degree
245: wide. In Fig.~2 the difference between the maxima and the
246: lowest minimum is V1, V2. The azimuthal variation of the
247: intensity is described by an equation for magneto-crystalline
248: anisotropy energy that includes a term proportional to
249: the sine of twice the azimuthal angle square$d^8$.
250: The amplitude has real and imaginary charge and magnetic
251: anomalous scattering factors which are tensors in the
252: general cas$e^9$.
253:
254: The right side of Fig.~2 pretty much follows the shape of
255: average intensity versus file number in Fig.~1(left)
256: and illustrates the variation of the magnetic anisotropy
257: difference (maximum minus lowest minimum) with photon
258: energy(increases with file number). The average of
259: the value of first maximum and second maximum would be
260: a reasonable estimate of the variable. The reason the
261: magnetic anistropy has these variations is because
262: the atomic factor is a tenso$r^{10}$.
263:
264:
265:
266:
267:
268:
269: \begin{figure}[th]
270: \centerline{\psfig{file=LevrFig3.eps,width=11cm}}
271: \vspace*{8pt}
272: \caption{(upper left)contour plot of autocorrelation
273: file 117 halfway up first peak, (lower left)
274: contour plot of autocorrelation file 133 minimum
275: between peaks, (upper right )contour plot of autocorrelation
276: file 122 tope of first peak, (lower right)
277: contour plot of autocorrelation file 145 top of second peak}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280:
281:
282:
283:
284:
285:
286: The autocorrelation has a maximum at the origin. You
287: could think of it as the convolution of the complex
288: conjugate of f(-x,-y) and f(x,y). If f(x,y) has a
289: Fourier transform F(s,r), then its autocorrelation
290: function has the transform absolute value squared of
291: F(s,r) and has no phase information(Wiener-Khinchin
292: theorem). In the data analysis, the autocorrelation
293: is evaluated by taking the Fourier transform of the
294: reverse complex conjugate of the image and the Fourier
295: transform of the image, then taking the real part
296: of the inverse Fourier transform of the product of
297: these two Fourier transforms. The three dimensional
298: plot of the autocorrelation looks like a mountain with
299: a narrow spike in the middle. The threshholded (25-30\%)
300: contours(5) in the x-y plane of the different files
301: show more variation and different symmetries.
302: Figure~3(upper left) File 117, halfway up the first
303: peak, looks like it has four 2-fold axes.
304: Figure~3(upper right) File 122, at the top of the
305: first peak, may have one 4-fold and two 2-fold axes.
306: Figure~3(lower left) File 133, the minimum between
307: the peaks, appears to have one 4-fold axis and two
308: 2-fold axes. Figure~3(lower right) File 145, top
309: of the second peak, seems to have four 2-fold axes.
310:
311:
312:
313: \begin{figure}[th]
314: \centerline{\psfig{file=evrFig4.eps,width=11cm}}
315: \vspace*{8pt}
316: \caption{(top) Peak height from the fitted gaussian versus
317: filenumber (middle) Inverse of the full width at half
318: maximum versus filenumber (bottom) Inverse of center of
319: peak versus filenumber}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322:
323:
324: In Fig.~4(top), the height of the peak verus file number is
325: plotted and is in agreement with Fig.~1(left). The correlation
326: length is related to the inverse of the width. In
327: Fig.~4(bottom), the inverse of the peak center is plotted
328: versus file number; the spacing of the magnetic domains is
329: inverse to the peak center. In all cases the curves
330: follow Fig.~1(left) more or less; the last one doesn't
331: follow the second peak very well.
332:
333:
334:
335:
336:
337: \section{Conclusions}
338:
339: It is possible to see azimuthal intensity variation
340: through data anaylsis of CCD images. Because of the odd
341: behavior of the second peak and the differences in the
342: autocorrelation functions(reflecting differences in
343: electronic configurations) of the first and second peaks,
344: there appears to be a difference in the nature of the
345: first and second peaks.
346:
347:
348:
349:
350:
351: %\section{References}
352:
353:
354: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
355: \bibitem{1}
356: T. O. Mentes, C. Sanchez-Hanke and C. C. Kao,
357: {\it J. Sync. Rad.} {\bf 9}, 90 (2002).
358: %J. Callaway, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf B35}, 8723 (1987).
359:
360: \bibitem{2}
361: %M. Tinkham, {\it Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics}
362: %(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964).
363: F. Yakhou, A. Letoublon, F. Livet, M. de Boissieu and
364: F. Bley, {\it J. Magn. Magn. Mater} {\bf 233}, 119 (2001).
365: \bibitem{3}
366: %T. Tel, in {\it Experimental Study and Characterization of
367: %Chaos}, ed. Hao Bailin (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), p.
368: %149.
369: A. Rahmim, M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver,
370: 2001.
371:
372: \bibitem{4}
373: %P. P. Edwards, in {\it Superconductivity and Applications
374: %--- Proc. Taiwan Int. Symp. on Superconductivity}, ed. P. T. Wu
375: %{\it et al.} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), p. 29.
376: N. E. Hunt, {\it Phase Retrieval and Zero Crossings:
377: Mathematical Methods in Image Reconstruction} (Kluwer,
378: Dordrecht, 1989).
379:
380: \bibitem{5}
381: A. Rahmim, S. Tixier, T. Tiedje, S. Eisebitt,
382: M. Lorgen, R. Scherer, W. Eberhardt, J. Luning
383: and A. Scholl, {\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf B65},
384: 235421 (2002).
385:
386: \bibitem{6}
387: %W. J. Johnson, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968.
388: J. Benesty, D. R. Morgan and J. H. Cho, {\it IEEE Transactions
389: on Speech and Audio Processing} {\bf 8}, 168 (2000).
390:
391: \bibitem{7}
392: %P. F. Marteau and H. D. I. Arbabanel, ``Noise reduction in
393: %chaotic time series using scaled probabilistic methods'',
394: %UCSD/INLS preprint, October 1990.
395: M. Blume, in {\it Resonant Anomalous X-ray Scattering}, ed.
396: G. Materlik {\it et al.} (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1994),
397: p. 495.
398:
399: \bibitem{8}
400: R. C. O'Handley, {\it Modern Magnetic Materials}
401: (Wiley, New York, 2000).
402:
403: \bibitem{9}
404: D. H. Templeton, {\it Acta Cryst.} {\bf A54}, 158 (1998).
405:
406: \bibitem{10}
407: S. Di Matteo, Y. Joly, A. Bombardi, L. Paolasini, F. de
408: Bergevin and C. R. Natoli, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
409: {\bf 91}, 257402-1, (2003).
410:
411:
412:
413: \end{thebibliography}
414:
415: \end{document}
416:
417:
418: