Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated image segmentation of scanning electron microscopy images of graphene using U-Net Neural Network

Shah, Aagam, Schiller, Joshua A., Ramos, Isiah, Serrano, James, Adams, Darren K., Tawfick, Sameh, Ertekin, Elif·2023·Materials Today Communications

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is one of the most common approaches to the characterization of synthesized 2D materials such as graphene. Images from SEM contain detailed information about crystalline properties, domain size, and nucleation density, but typically are analyzed through a laborious, serial process that relies on the trained eye of synthesis experts. In this work, we demonstrate an image segmentation neural network that automatically distinguishes between pixels in SEM images that correspond to regions where graphene is and is not present. We utilize the U-Net architecture to learn on a training data set of more than 90 pre-labeled images coupled with moderate image augmentation. Comparing the performance of models trained on smaller high fidelity data set to those trained on larger low fidelity data sets, we find that higher quality is more valuable than higher quantity for achieving good performance. When neural network hyperparameters such as batch size and learning rate are properly tuned, the learned model shows an accuracy for classification of over 90% and an F1 score over 80%. The neural network trained on SEM images of graphene shows reasonable performance when directly applied to other 2D materials, suggesting the possibility of use in transfer learning. Detailed analysis of the inner workings of the model reveals that the domain edges are most critical for making classifications when segmenting the image. We also show the use of a post processing t…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.106127

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Frank, 2007, Mechanical properties of suspended graphene sheets, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B, 25, 2558, 10.1116/1.2789446 · DOI
  2. Papageorgiou, 2017, Mechanical properties of graphene and graphene-based nanocomposites, Prog. Mater. Sci., 90, 75, 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.07.004 · DOI
  3. Cao, 2015, Ultrathin graphene: electrical properties and highly efficient electromagnetic interference shielding, J. Mater. Chem. C, 3, 6589, 10.1039/C5TC01354B · DOI
  4. Das, 2008, Monitoring dopants by Raman scattering in an electrochemically top-gated graphene transistor, Nature Nanotechnol., 3, 210, 10.1038/nnano.2008.67 · DOI
  5. Avouris, 2010, Graphene: electronic and photonic properties and devices, Nano Lett., 10, 4285, 10.1021/nl102824h · DOI
  6. Kawamoto, 2017, Green processing of carbon nanomaterials, Adv. Mater., 29, 10.1002/adma.201602423 · DOI
  7. Neumaier, 2019, Integrating graphene into semiconductor fabrication lines, Nature Mater., 18, 525, 10.1038/s41563-019-0359-7 · DOI
  8. Lin, 2019, Synthesis challenges for graphene industry, Nature Mater., 18, 520, 10.1038/s41563-019-0341-4 · DOI
  9. Choi, 2022, Large-scale synthesis of graphene and other 2D materials towards industrialization, Nature Commun., 13, 1, 10.1038/s41467-022-29182-y · DOI
  10. Li, 2022, Wafer-scale single-crystal monolayer graphene grown on sapphire substrate, Nature Mater., 21, 740, 10.1038/s41563-021-01174-1 · DOI
  11. Hiura, 2010, Determination of the number of graphene layers: Discrete distribution of the secondary electron intensity stemming from individual graphene layers, Appl. Phys. Express, 3, 10.1143/APEX.3.095101 · DOI
  12. Han, 2020, Deep-learning-enabled fast optical identification and characterization of 2D materials, Adv. Mater., 32, 10.1002/adma.202000953 · DOI
  13. Masubuchi, 2020, Deep-learning-based image segmentation integrated with optical microscopy for automatically searching for two-dimensional materials, Npj 2D Mater. Appl., 4, 1, 10.1038/s41699-020-0137-z · DOI
  14. Zhu, 2022, Artificial neuron networks enabled identification and characterizations of 2D materials and van der waals heterostructures, ACS Nano, 16, 2721, 10.1021/acsnano.1c09644 · DOI
  15. Dong, 2021, 3D deep learning enables accurate layer mapping of 2d materials, ACS Nano, 15, 3139, 10.1021/acsnano.0c09685 · DOI
  16. Sterbentz, 2021, Universal image segmentation for optical identification of 2D materials, Sci. Rep., 11, 1, 10.1038/s41598-021-85159-9 · DOI
  17. He, 2021, Insights into optical detection and three-dimensional characterization of monolayer molybdenum disulfide thin films based on machine learning, Appl. Surf. Sci., 565, 10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.150530 · DOI
  18. Li, 2021, Quantifying the CVD-grown two-dimensional materials via image clustering, Nanoscale, 13, 15324, 10.1039/D1NR03802H · DOI
  19. Ushiba, 2021, Deep-learning-based semantic image segmentation of graphene field-effect transistors, Appl. Phys. Express, 14, 10.35848/1882-0786/abe3db · DOI
  20. Yang, 2022, Modified UNet++ with attention gate for graphene identification by optical microscopy, Carbon, 195, 246, 10.1016/j.carbon.2022.03.035 · DOI
  21. Sanchez-Juarez, 2022, Automated system for the detection of 2D materials using digital image processing and deep learning, Opt. Mater. Express, 12, 1856, 10.1364/OME.454314 · DOI
  22. Horwath, 2020, Understanding important features of deep learning models for segmentation of high-resolution transmission electron microscopy images, Npj Comput. Mater., 6, 1, 10.1038/s41524-020-00363-x · DOI
  23. Aziz Ezzat, 2020, Machine learning for revealing spatial dependence among nanoparticles: Understanding catalyst film dewetting via gibbs point process models, J. Phys. Chem. C, 124, 27479, 10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c07765 · DOI
  24. Faraz, 2022, Deep learning detection of nanoparticles and multiple object tracking of their dynamic evolution during in situ ETEM studies, Sci. Rep., 12, 1, 10.1038/s41598-022-06308-2 · DOI
  25. Jacobs, 2023, Materials swelling revealed through automated semantic segmentation of cavities in electron microscopy images, Scientific Reports, 13, 5178, 10.1038/s41598-023-32454-2 · DOI
  26. Shen, 2021, Multi defect detection and analysis of electron microscopy images with deep learning, Comput. Mater. Sci., 199, 10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110576 · DOI
  27. Jacobs, 2022, Performance and limitations of deep learning semantic segmentation of multiple defects in transmission electron micrographs, Cell Rep. Phys. Sci., 3
  28. Jacobs, 2022, Deep learning object detection in materials science: Current state and future directions, Comput. Mater. Sci., 211, 10.1016/j.commatsci.2022.111527 · DOI
  29. Bals, 2023, Deep learning for automated size and shape analysis of nanoparticles in scanning electron microscopy, RSC Adv., 13, 2795, 10.1039/D2RA07812K · DOI · Paper page
  30. Kavuran, 2021, SEM-Net: Deep features selections with binary particle swarm optimization method for classification of scanning electron microscope images, Mater. Today Commun., 27
  31. Modarres, 2017, Neural network for nanoscience scanning electron microscope image recognition, Sci. Rep., 7, 1, 10.1038/s41598-017-13565-z · DOI
  32. Falk, 2019, U-net: deep learning for cell counting, detection, and morphometry, Nature Methods, 16, 67, 10.1038/s41592-018-0261-2 · DOI
  33. Cao, 2018, Deep learning and its applications in biomedicine, Genom. Proteom. Bioinform., 16, 17, 10.1016/j.gpb.2017.07.003 · DOI
  34. Oliveira, 2016, Computational methods for the image segmentation of pigmented skin lesions: a review, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., 131, 127, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.03.032 · DOI
  35. Schiller, 2020, Crowd-sourced data and analysis tools for advancing the chemical vapor deposition of graphene: Implications for manufacturing, ACS Appl. Nano Mater., 3, 10144, 10.1021/acsanm.0c02018 · DOI
  36. de Mariscal, 2021, DeepImageJ: A user-friendly environment to run deep learning models in ImageJ, Nature Methods, 18, 1192, 10.1038/s41592-021-01262-9 · DOI
  37. Canny, 1986, A computational approach to edge detection, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., PAMI-8, 679, 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 · DOI · Paper page
  38. J. Matas, C. Galambos, J. Kittler, Progressive Probabilistic Hough Transform, in: British Machine Vision Conference, 1998. · DOI
  39. Gupta, 2015, Recent development in 2D materials beyond graphene, Prog. Mater. Sci., 73, 44, 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.02.002 · DOI
  40. Weiss, 2016, A survey of transfer learning, J. Big Data, 3, 10.1186/s40537-016-0043-6 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Dayhoff, 2001, Artificial neural networks, Cancer, 91, 1615, 10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8+<1615::AID-CNCR1175>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI
  42. Marr, 1980, Theory of edge detection, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci., 207, 187

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 23

Metadata

Authors
Shah, A., Schiller, J. A., Ramos, I., Serrano, J., Adams, D. K., Tawfick, S., & Ertekin, E.
Venue
Materials Today Communications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
35
Pages
106127
ISSN
2352-4928
Cited by
23
References
1
Language
en
Funders
National Science Foundation (1720701, 1922758, ASC190029, MAT220011)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review