
metals, such as V, Ti, Mn, Fe, and Ni5-8. For example, using the near edge fine structures
in the Mn L2,3 edges, the oxidation states of Mn ions in a material can be determined by
decomposing the spectrum into a linear combination of Mn2+, Mn3+, and Mn4+ reference
spectra9,10. This decomposition, in principle, is simple but in reality, it is non-trivial because
the energy axis is not always calibrated, and the instrument/beamline does not always have
the instrumental broadening. Without proper calibration, an energy offset is present
between the experimental spectrum and the references which prevents accurate oxidation
states decomposition. In order to avoid the problem, standard reference samples such as
MnO, Mn2O3, MnO2 need to be measured in the same experimental session to avoid any
energy offsets as well as change in instrumental broadening9,11. Still with this procedure,
there are other factors that could prevent the proper energy axis calibration for example
temperature fluctuations would result in an energy shift in the monochromator. Basically,
if the XAS measurements are separated multiple hours in time, the spectra taken could have
a slight energy offset. In EELS, the energy offset could change more rapidly and is more
unpredictable than XAS. Typically, the energy offset is very sensitive to the DC stray field.
For example, the passing of a truck or the movement of a nearby elevator, all could change
the energy offset if the TEM is not fully shielded. This problem is now mitigated with the
dualEELS instruments but there are still many single EELS instruments under active
service. Moreover, all historical data were acquired without the dualEELS correction. In
addition, nonlinearity of parallel EELS spectrometer is present in EELS in a nontrivial way
because the nonlinearity is not only present in the dispersion device, i.e. the magnetic prism.
There is another complex nonlinearity present in the magnification lenses, a series of
quadrupole. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to calibrate the energy onset of EELS edges
unless strict protocols are followed as described by Tan et al11.
Another complication is that EELS’ near-edge fine structures change with sample thickness
due to plural scattering. As the sample gets thicker, signals close to the edge onset would
be multiple scattered to higher energy losses. This would result in a shape change of the
spectrum11. For example, for latter 3d transition metals’s L2,3 edges, as the sample gets
thicker, the L2/L3 ratio increases—this problem has rendered the reference-free L2,3 ratio
method inaccurate for EELS11. In addition, for XAS, the background and the near edge
structures could be different between the TEY and TFY modes. That also renders the L2,3
ratio method unreliable. Moreover, for early 3d transition metals, there are no established
reference-free methods because of the L2,3 anomaly.
For both EELS and XAS spectroscopy, one interesting observation is that human operators
with sufficient training can identify spectral features and assign oxidation states to
transition metal L2,3 edges with high confidence. This points to the direction that deep
learning could be successful in solving the L2,3 oxidation state decomposition problem.
Pate et al in 2021 discussed using deep learning to denoise high frame rate spectra.12
Chatzidakis and Botton in 2019 introduced the idea of translation-invariance for classifying
EELS edges.13 They built a convolutional neural network (CNN) for oxidation state
classification and showed that with a translation-invariant training, moving the energy axis
does not change the Mn 2+, 3+, 4 oxidation state classification. This is a very important
step in demonstrating that spectral features are like spatial features in images—they can be
classified by a CNN network regardless of their absolute energy positions in the spectrum.