{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014107883817427386, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.737430167597766, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the resolution of subsurface atomic force microscopy and its implications for subsurface feature sizing.

Ultrasound atomic force microscopy (AFM) has received considerable interest due to its subsurface imaging capabilities, particularly for nanostructure imaging. The local contact stiffness variation due to the presence of a subsurface feature is the origin of the imaging contrast. Several research studies have demonstrated subsurface imaging capabilities with promising resolution. However, there is limited literature available about the definition of spatial resolution in subsurface AFM. The changes in contact stiffness and their link to the subsurface resolution are not well understood. We propose a quantitative approach to assess the resolution in subsurface AFM imaging. We have investigated the influences of several parameters of interest on the lateral resolution. The quantification of the subsurface feature size can be based on threshold criteria (full width at half maximum and Rayleigh criteria). Simulations and experimental measurements were compared, revealing that the optimal choice of parameter settings for surface topography AFM is suboptimal for subsurface AFM imaging.