BNL-112623-2016-JA

File # 93555

Recent Applications of Hard X-ray

Photoelectron Spectroscopy (HAXPES)

Conan Weiland, Abdul K. Rumaiz, Piero Pianetta, Joseph C. Woicik

Submitted to Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A

May 2016

Photon Sciences Department

Brookhaven National Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

USDOE Office of Science (SC),
Basic Energy Sciences (BES) (SC-22)

Notice: This manuscript has been authored by employees of Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC under
Contract No. DE- SC0012704 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The publisher by accepting the
manuscript for publication acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up,
irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others
to do so, for United States Government purposes.
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors,
subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any
third party’s use or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product,
or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service
by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
 Recent Applications of Hard X-ray Photoelectron
Spectroscopy (HAXPES)

Conan Weiland
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Abdul K. Rumaiz
National Synchrotron Light Source II, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Piero Pianetta
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Joseph C. Woicik
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Abstract

Recent applications of hard x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (HAXPES) demonstrate its many
capabilities in addition to several of its limitations. Examples are given, including measurement of buried
interfaces and materials under in-situ or in-operando conditions, as well as measurements under x-ray
standing-wave and resonant excitation. Physical considerations that differentiate HAXPES from
photoemission measurements utilizing soft and ultraviolet x rays are also presented.

Corresponding Author: [email protected]

 I. Introduction

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), also referred to as ESCA (electron spectroscopy for
chemical analysis), is a highly developed technique for studying the chemical and electronic structure of
materials, with applications in both academic and industrial research. Traditionally, XPS has been
performed using either ultraviolet (UV) or soft x-ray excitation sources such as He discharge lamp (21.2
eV for He I and 40.8 eV for He II), Al Kα (1486.6 eV), and Mg Kα (1253.7 eV) sources, as well as
synchrotron UV and soft x-ray beamlines with tunable energy ranges. However, in recent years,
significant interest has turned to hard x-ray XPS, or HAXPES (sometimes referred to HXPS or HX-PES),
defined here as XPS with photon energy, hν, greater than 2140 eV, which is the lowest energy typically
accessible using a Si (111) double-crystal monochromator. This review will discuss several capabilities
of HAXPES, focusing on recent scientific achievements.
While interest in HAXPES has expanded significantly within the last decade, hard x-rays have
been used for XPS since its inception: The early work of Siegbahn measuring binding energies [1] and
chemical shifts in oxidized copper [2] were performed using Mo Kα radiation (17,000 eV). However, the
low count rates due to low photoionization cross sections (see, e.g. [3]) and the desire for high-energy
resolution led to the adoption of lower-energy x-ray sources such as Al and Mg Kα. Synchrotron sources,
however, are capable of providing higher count rates due to their high photon flux, simultaneously with
better energy resolution. The use of synchrotron-source hard x rays for XPS was demonstrated by Lindau
et al. using parasitic radiation from Stanford's SPEAR synchrotron [4] to measure the intrinsic linewidth
of the Au 4f orbitals [5]. However, even here the count rate was deemed too low for low cross-section
orbitals, particularly those in the valence region of the spectrum [4]. With the development of second and
higher-generation synchrotron-light sources, however, HAXPES measurements have become extremely
practical, especially with the advent of commercial hemispherical analyzers dedicated to HAXPES.
This critical review describes the physics necessary for HAXPES analysis, and especially how it
differs from lower-energy XPS. Recent experimental results which demonstrate the utility of HAXPES
for materials measurements, including the measurement of buried interfaces, measurements of “real” (i.e.
without surface preparation) and in-operando samples, site and interface specific measurements using
standing waves, and measurement of electron-orbital structures using resonant XPS follow. The review
will conclude with exciting new developments in time-dependent HAXPES and hard x-ray photoelectron
microscopy.
II. Physics of HAXPES

Photoelectron spectroscopy is based on the photoelectric effect: When photons of sufficient

energy strike an atom, they can be absorbed, and photoelectrons emitted. The kinetic energy of a
photoelectron, Ek, is equal to the difference between hν, the photon energy, and the sum of the electron
binding energy, EB, and material work function, φ, according to Einstein’s famous equation:

𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘 = ℎ𝜈𝜈 − (𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵 + 𝜑𝜑). (1)

It is this conservation of energy that gives photoemission the unique ability to directly measure the
electronic and chemical structure of atoms, molecules, and solids.
In a photoemission experiment, the peak intensity, IA, of an electronic core level “A”, may be
written as:

𝑑𝑑𝜎𝜎𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧 (2)
𝐼𝐼𝐴𝐴 = 𝐶𝐶 ∫ Φ𝜌𝜌 𝑑𝑑Ω
exp �− 𝜆𝜆 sin 𝜃𝜃� Ω𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑.
𝐴𝐴

Here C is a constant that accounts for instrumental effects such as the electron-detector transmission
𝑑𝑑𝜎𝜎𝐴𝐴
function, Φ is the incident x-ray flux, 𝑑𝑑Ω
is the differential photoionization cross section of the core level,

z is the electron-emission depth defined from 0 at the surface increasing into the bulk, λA is the electron-
attenuation length (discussed further below), θ is the electron-emission angle, Ω is the spectrometer
acceptance solid angle, and dτ is the volume element.
The underlying physics of HAXPES is general to conventional photoelectron spectroscopy, and
this physics is well established (see, e.g. [6]). However, as hν increases from the ultraviolet and soft x-ray
ranges to higher energies, the practical effects of some of the physics changes, which leads to both unique
capabilities and necessary considerations for HAXPES.

A. Depth Sensitivity
The most obvious difference between HAXPES and conventional photoelectron spectroscopy is
the enhanced probing depth achievable with HAXPES. Because the x-ray absorption length is typically
much longer than the photoelectron inelastic mean free path (IMFP), the information depth (ID) is
restricted solely by the IMFP. The calculated IMFP vs photon-energy curve for the Si 2p core level in
elemental Si is shown in Figure 1. Above a certain low-energy threshold, as hν increases, so does the
IMFP and hence ID. For example, the Si 2p IMFP approximately doubles between 1486 eV (Al Kα) and
5000 eV excitation energy (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The IMFP for Si 2p photoelectrons in Si as a function of photon energy.

The IMFP may be calculated semi-empirically by the Tanuma-Powell-Penn equation (TPP-

2M) [7], which depends on the material molecular mass (M), band gap (Eg), density (ρ), and number of
free valence electrons (NV). IMFP predictions using TPP-2M are accurate to within 10% with respect to
optical data [8]. An alternative approach by Seah [9] utilizes a power law with reduced parameters, the
‘atomic volume’, a, and atomic number, Z:

1.7
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = �4 + 0.44𝑍𝑍 0.5 + 0.104𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘0.872 � 𝑎𝑎 � 0.3 . (3)
𝑍𝑍

Here, a is given by:

1021 𝑀𝑀
𝑎𝑎3 = , (4)
𝜌𝜌𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴

where NA is Avogadro’s number. Accuracies for this equation are similar to TPP-2M. A further
simplified equation with only one parameter was also given by Seah [9], albeit with slightly lower
accuracy:

�0.73 + 0.0095𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘0.872 ��
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = .
𝑍𝑍 0.3 (5)
Equation 3 and Equation 5 determine the IMFP in nm.
While the IMFP provides a first-order estimate of the depth sensitivity realized by HAXPES,
elastic scattering also plays a significant role. The effective attenuation length (EAL), to be used in place
of λA in Equation 2, is constructed to take elastic scattering into account [10] and is modeled as a linear
relationship with the IMFP and the single-scattering albedo, ω, for photoelectron energies up to 5000
eV [11]:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(1 − 0.738𝜔𝜔) sin 𝜃𝜃. (6)

The single-scattering albedo depends on the IMFP and the transport mean free path; it can be fitted
according to the following exponential [12]:

𝜔𝜔 = exp�∑4𝑖𝑖=1 𝐵𝐵𝑖𝑖 (ln 𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘 )𝑖𝑖 �. (7)

A list of the fitted coefficients, Bi, for elemental solids is given in Ref. [12].
The information depth (ID) in an XPS measurement is defined as the depth normal to the surface
from which useful information can be obtained [10]. The ID is specified as the percent of detected signal,
P, from within that depth, e.g. the depth from which 90% of the total signal derives. The IDs for a number
of materials were calculated by Jablonski and Powell [13] and found to follow a trend similar to the EAL:

1
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(1 − 0.787𝜔𝜔) sin 𝜃𝜃 ln �1−�𝑃𝑃 �. (8)
�100�

A comparison of the IMFP calculated by the TPP-2M equation, the EAL (Equation 6), and ID for 90%
(ID-90) and 99% (ID-99) of the signal (Equation 8) is shown in Figure 2. Calculations were made for
SiO2 measured at an 85° takeoff angle. At low photelectron Ek, the EAL and IMFP differ significantly,
but as Ek increases, elastic scattering effects are minimized and the EAL and IMFP become equivalent.
90% of the photoemission signal arises from within approximately twice the EAL, and 99% of the signal
from within four times the EAL.
 Figure 2: Comparison of IMFP, EAL, and ID for 90% and 99% of information (ID-90 and ID-99, respectively) calculated
for SiO2 measured at an 85° electron takeoff angle.

B. Bulk vs Surface Sensitivity

The increased IDs in HAXPES permit the analysis of bulk electronic structure, buried interfaces,
and depth profiling through modeling based on Equation 2, as shown schematically in Figure 3. IDs
greater than 50 nm have been measured [14]. From Equation 1, it is also evident that HAXPES permits
the measurements of deeper core levels: Only photoelectrons with 𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘 > 0 can be measured; thus with
higher hν, higher EB core levels can be studied, such as the 1s states for elements with Z > 15 that are not
accessible with either UV or soft x-ray sources. Clearly, access to these additional core levels allows the
investigation of new physics. For example, measurement of the Fe 1s core level combined with charge-
transfer multiplet calculations gives an estimate of charge-transfer parameters in Fe2O3 [15]. Also,
resonant photoemission measurements around the Ti 1s to 3d transition has been used to determine the
nature of charge transfer in SrTiO3 [16] (which will be discussed further below).

Figure 3: Schematic of the information depth (ID) of the photoemission process using soft (left) and hard (right) x-ray
excitation for a surface/interface/bulk system.
 The accessibility of deeper core levels also allows the simultaneous measurement of “bulk” and
“surface” sensitive structural information. In the Si example below, at hν = 2500 eV, the IMFP of the Si
2p core level is 4.9 nm, while for the Si 1s (𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵 = 1840 eV) it is only 2.2 nm, corresponding to a 99% ID
of 22.5 and 8.7 nm, respectively. Figure 4 shows the Si 1s and 2p core levels for a 4 nm thick Nb2O5 film
deposited on silicon. An interfacial SiOx interlayer is evident in both; however, the large difference in
surface sensitivity can be seen by the different sensitivity to the interfacial SiOx: In the bulk sensitive Si
2p spectrum, the SiOx contribution is minor, whereas it dominates the surface sensitive 1s spectrum.

Figure 4: Si 1s and 2p for a 4 nm Nb2O5 film deposited on Si. The different probe depths for the two core levels is
evident from the difference in the relative intensities of the interfacial SiOx and the substrate Si contributions. Data were
collected with photon energy hν = 2500 eV.

Such multi-core-level analysis is only possible, however, for certain photon energy/material
combinations. For example, measurements of lighter elements such as C and O, with EB for all core levels
less than 1000 eV, will always be relatively bulk-sensitive in HAXPES. Hence it is essential to consider
the relevant material depths, IMFPs, core-level binding energies EB, and available photon energies in the
experimental design to ensure meaningful data. This situation can be realized by considering a simple
three-layer model consisting of a 3 nm-thick surface, an interface with varying thickness, and an infinite
bulk substrate (Figure 3). The calculated relative contributions to the overall signal from the three regions
are shown in Figure 5 as a function of photon energy for two interface thicknesses equal to 3 nm and 0.5
nm, respectively. A core-level binding energy of 30 eV (equivalent to the Ge 3d core line) was assumed.
As expected, at the lowest photon energies the signal is dominated by the surface; i.e., the ID is smaller
than the surface-layer thickness. As the photon energy increases, the surface contribution decays
exponentially while the interface contribution increases with photon energy until it hits its maximum,
after which it decays. Note that the photon energy corresponding to the interface maximum increases
with layer thickness, and the contribution from the bulk component increases monotonically with photon
energy. An obvious benefit of HAXPES as seen from this analysis is that the signals from the different
layers can be maximized by the judicious choice of photon energy.
 Figure 5: Calculations of individual contributions from a 3nm-thick surface, an interface, and a bulk component to the
total signal from a three-layer model system. Contributions for 2 interlayer thicknesses are displayed: 0.5 nm (open symbols)
and 3 nm (filled symbols).

The enhanced depth sensitivity of HAXPES over lower photon-energy measurements and its
unique ability to depth profile does not, however, come without a cost. Figure 6 shows data from an
Al2O3/Ge film system recorded with both soft and hard x rays. The study was designed to assess the
passivation of interface defects at the GeO2/Ge interface [17]. The soft x-ray spectrum shows a
significant contribution from germanium oxides. The HAXPES spectrum, on the other hand, shows no
such measurable oxide, because for photon energy hν = 4000 eV the bulk Ge signal overwhelms the
signal from the thin interfacial oxide. Clearly, the deeper an interface lies within a given structure, for a
measurement to be successful, the “thicker” its affect must be (~ 1/10 times the electron escape depth for
the choice of core level and photon energy).
 Figure 6: Ge 3d spectra for p-type Ge with Al2O3 overlayer, collected at hν = 120 eV (left) and hν = 4000 eV (right). The
Al2O3 film thickness was 1 nm in the left panel and 2.5 nm in the right panel, but the ratio of GeOx to Ge is assumed equal for
both. Figure from [17].

C. Recoil
While HAXPES offers various advantages over UV and soft x-ray photoemission, care must be
taken in data analysis due to the possibility of recoil effects at the high kinetic energies [18–21]. Recoil is
present in all photoemission processes, as momentum is transferred from the photoelectron to the emitting
atom. Using a classical model of an atom at rest in vacuum, the recoil energy, ΔE, defined as the loss in
photoelectron kinetic energy due to recoil, is dependent on the photoelectron kinetic energy and the ratio
of the electron mass, me, and the mass of the emitting atom, M:

𝑚𝑚
∆𝐸𝐸 = 𝐸𝐸𝑘𝑘 � 𝑒𝑒�𝑀𝑀�. (9)

In a solid, the recoil energy is absorbed through the generation of phonons. From Equation 9, it is clear
that the recoil effect will be more prominent for lighter elements and higher photoelectron kinetic
energies. For example, for C 1s emission at 5000 eV, the recoil energy will be over 0.2 eV – easily
resolvable in a modern HAXPES measurement.
 Takata et al. [18] demonstrated recoil effects in graphite, as shown in Figure 7, that compares C
1s data collected at different photon energies. At HAXPES photon energies, the C 1s peak shifts to
higher binding energies, demonstrating the recoil loss; it also exhibits an asymmetric broadening. (The
shift to lower binding energy observed between hν = 340 and 870 eV is attributed to surface vs bulk
effects.) Similar recoil effects were observed for Al at the Fermi level [19] and also for the valence bands
of vanadium oxides [20]. In the case of Al, that is usually assumed to be a “free-electron” metal, the
presence of recoil at the Fermi level suggests strong electron coupling to the crystal lattice. At first, this
observation may seem surprising, but it is important to remember that photoemission only occurs in the
vicinity of an electronic core [22] (i.e. a truly free electron cannot photo-emit as the atomic core is
required to absorb the photon momentum). For vanadium oxides, the extent of the recoil shift was
dependent on the specific oxide (VO2, LiV2O4, V5O9, or V2O3) and on the relative contribution of the O
2p states to the valence band [20]. These results demonstrate that the recoil effect must be considered for
the accurate interpretation of HAXPES data, especially in the case of the valence bands of light atoms and
complex materials where different elements may show significantly different recoil shifts.
 Figure 7: (Color online) Recoil effect in graphite: experiment (a) and theory (b). Figure from [18].

D. Photoionization cross sections

The photoionization cross section; i.e., the probability of a photon causing ionization of an atomic
core level, must also be considered in the analysis of HAXPES data. For a fixed-energy laboratory source,
relative sensitivity factors are easily obtained (e.g. [23]). However, as the photoionization cross sections
depend strongly on the photon energy, for tunable-energy-source experiments they must be properly
accounted for. Indeed, in the HAXPES regime, photoionization cross sections decay rapidly with
increasing hν; this decay is even more pronounced for higher-orbital angular-momentum
subshells [3,24,25]. Low photoionization cross sections are one reason why HAXPES is typically only
performed at synchrotron facilities, where the high brightness of the photon source can overcome this
limitation.
Angular anisotropy of the differential photoionization cross section is also observed in the
HAXPES regime. In the dipole approximation, the differential photoionization cross section is
cylindrically symmetric about the photon polarization; first- and second-order corrections to the dipole
approximation are necessary to more accurately represent HAXPES cross sections and hence
intensities [26,27]. In one parameterization [3], the differential photoionization cross section for linearly
polarized radiation is given as:

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜎𝜎
= [1 + 𝛽𝛽𝑃𝑃2 (cos 𝜃𝜃) + (𝛾𝛾cos2 𝜃𝜃 + 𝛿𝛿) sin 𝜃𝜃 cos 𝜑𝜑] (10)
𝑑𝑑Ω 4𝜋𝜋

The dipole parameter β and the non-dipole parameters γ and δ have been tabulated [3,25,28]. θ is defined
as the angle between the photon-polarization vector and the photoelectron-momentum vector, and φ is
defined as the angle between the projection of the photoelectron momentum orthogonal to the photon
polarization and the photon-propagation vector. Recent Monte-Carlo calculations of photoelectron
transport showed large deviations between the dipole approximation and these first order corrections,
while there were smaller differences between first- and higher-order corrections [27].

III. Applications of HAXPES

 A. In Situ Measurements
Perhaps the most obvious and important “new” practical application of HAXPES is the ability to
chemically analyze “real” samples; i.e., samples that have been taken directly from air with no in-situ
surface or other ultra-high vacuum preparation, as well as the ability to measure real samples under in-
operando conditions; i.e., under actual device and/or catalytic-reaction conditions. This is made possible
by HAXPES due to the large photoelectron IMFPs that assure significant signal from the bulk of the
sample itself [29,30]. The enhanced bulk sensitivity also leads to the ability to study samples with
intentional surface and/or overlayer modification, either for chemical protection (see, e.g. [31], where a
passive SiN capping layer was used to prevent oxidation of Ni films deposited on InGaAs), or for in-situ
and in-operando measurements.
Another example is the HAXPES-based electrical characterization of metal-oxide-semiconductor
structures on both silicon [32] and GaAs [33]. Direct measurement of band bending via HAXPES can be
advantageous in materials with high densities of interface defects, due to the complex interpretation
required by capacitance-voltage measurements. In these works, Fermi-level shifting was achieved by the
deposition of high work-function (Ni) and low work-function (Al) metals on substrates with oxide
interfaces. The different work-function metals act as a built-in bias that shifts the semiconductor and
oxide bands. In the case of Si with SiO2 as the oxide layer, the different metals shift the work function as
expected, but partial Fermi-level pinning was also observed and attributed to defects at the untreated
Si/SiO2 interface. For GaAs, Al2O3 was used as the oxide layer. Here again, partial Fermi-level pinning
was observed and attributed to a high density of interfacial defect states.
The ability to measure substrate core levels through metal/oxide systems also allows HAXPES to
study samples under the condition of in-situ electrical biasing. In these cases, the metal electrode
deposited over the analysis area must be thick enough to ensure both continuity and low sheet resistance
to avoid a potential drop across the sample. Such measurements have been performed to determine
interface defect-state densities at SiO2/Si interfaces [34] and the chemical and electronic modifications
responsible for the resistive switching in resistive random-access memory (ReRAM) [35–38]. In the
latter application, films of Pt/Zr/HfOx/Si were studied by HAXPES with in situ biasing [38]. Ex situ
electrical characterization showed switching between high and low resistive states; i.e., ‘OFF’ and ‘ON,’
respectively, with applied bias. HAXPES of the as-deposited films showed significant Zr oxidation and a
small presence of metallic Hf suggesting a reaction between Zr and Hf at the interface. With in situ
biasing to the “ON” state, subtle changes were found, as shown in Figure 8. Specifically, the ratio of
ZrOx to metallic Zr increased, while the ratio of HfOx to metallic Hf decreased. The authors therefore
attributed the resistive switching to the formation of oxygen vacancies in the HfOx layer.
 Figure 8: (Color online) Zr 2p3/2 and Hf 4f spectra for Pt/Zr/HfOx/Si film stacks. As-deposited films show a high-
resistivity state (“OFF”). With in situ biasing, the films are switched to a low-resistivity state (“ON”). Data were collected at hν =
6000 eV. Figure from [38].

The large photoelectron IMFPs in HAXPES also allow in-situ measurements of materials at
significantly higher pressures than ultra-high vacuum; i.e., ambient-pressure photoelectron spectroscopy
(AP-XPS) [39]. Problems associated with high pressures and gas discharge into the electrostatic lens of
the hemispherical analyzer have been mitigated by multi-stage differential pumping [40], and the problem
of photon-electron interaction with the gas can be addressed by minimizing the working distance between
the sample surface and the analyzer aperture. The technique is ideally suited for the development of
novel catalysts that requires the direct observation of electronic-structure changes during in-operando
chemical reactions. HAXPES based measurements therefore overcome the limitations of lower-energy
AP-XPS that arise from the surface sensitivity of the measurement.
 An interesting and technologically relevant applications towards the study of catalysis focuses on
behavior at liquid/solid interfaces. Such measurements pose additional complications with their biggest
challenge currently the preparation of liquid/solid interfaces that are accessible to electron spectroscopy.
Experiments require either the preparation of very thin (~10 nm) solution layers or the use of ultra-thin
solid films through which the electrons from the liquid/solid interface may be detected. HAXPES has
succeeded in studying a liquid/solid interface using a microcell with an ultra-thin silicon membrane to
separate the liquid from the vacuum as shown in Figure 9 [41]. By applying a potential across the
microcell, the evolution of SiO2 at the silicon-water interface was studied as a function of the applied bias
(Figure 10).

Figure 9: (Color online) Schematic illustration of microcell and experimental set up for AP-XPS. Figure from [41].

Figure 10: (Color online) Si 2p photoelectron spectra measured as a function of applied bias. Data collected at hν =
6000 eV. Figure from [41].
 B. Standing Waves
In 1964, Batterman used the Ge K-fluorescence emission from a Ge single crystal to
experimentally demonstrate that dynamical-diffraction theory not only predicts the energy reflected by a
crystal, but also the distribution of this energy inside the crystal with respect to the scattering planes of
atoms [42]. Since then, the x-ray standing-wave technique has developed as a crystallographic tool for
the study of numerous topics relevant to single-crystal physics: surface adsorbed layers [43], overlayer
structure [44], surface reconstruction [45], strain accommodation [46], and chemical bonding [47]. A
review of the x-ray standing-wave technique can be found in Ref. [48]. These applications have
historically utilized hard x-ray wavelengths where the wavelength is equal to the crystallographic spacing
of the unit cell (single-crystal Bragg diffraction as in Figure 11), but it has also been demonstrated that
multi-layered thin-film structures [49,50] and total external reflection from polished surfaces [51] can be
used to generate x-ray standing waves, thereby opening the technique to arbitrary energy [52].
Unlike early standing-wave studies that utilized fluorescence detection to monitor the x-ray
standing-wave interference field, more recent work has focused on the high-energy-resolution analysis of
the photo-emitted electrons [47,52,53]. By combining both x-ray standing waves and high-energy-
resolution photoelectron spectroscopy to create standing-wave photoelectron spectroscopy (XSW-XPS),
spatially and chemically resolved atomic and electronic structural information may be directly obtained
by this unique, non-destructive probe.

Figure 11: (Color online) Bragg reflection from of a plane wave, characterized by momentum k0 and electric field E0
with the reflected wave kh and Eh. The formation of a standing wave can be seen in the overlap region. Figure from [54].
Site-specific atomic and electronic structure
A unique application of XSW-XPS is its ability to determine site-specific valence electronic
structure. Because the photoemission process conserves both energy and angular momentum, the valence
photocurrent from a solid can be written as [55]:

𝐼𝐼(𝐸𝐸, ℎ𝜐𝜐) ∝ ∑𝑖𝑖,𝑙𝑙 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖,𝑙𝑙 (𝐸𝐸)𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖,𝑙𝑙 (𝐸𝐸, ℎ𝜐𝜐). (11)

Here E is the photoelectron binding energy, hυ is the x-ray photon energy, 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖,𝑙𝑙 (𝐸𝐸) are the individual,
angular momentum l-resolved electronic single-particle partial densities of states of the ith atom of the
crystalline unit cell, and 𝜎𝜎𝑖𝑖,𝑙𝑙 (𝐸𝐸, ℎ𝜐𝜐) are the angle integrated, angular momentum dependent
photoionization cross sections. By systematically placing the maximum and minimum of the x-ray
standing-wave interference field on the different atoms within the unit cell of a heteropolar crystal, the
dipole approximation may be used to extract the individual partial densities of states [56].
Figure 12 shows the photoelectron spectra of rutile TiO2 (110) recorded at two different photon
energies (and hence phase conditions) within the photon-energy width of the TiO2 (200) Bragg back-
reflection condition. The standing-wave field clearly modulates the intensity of emission from the Ti and
O atoms, as well as the crystal valence band.

Figure 12: Photoelectron spectra from rutile TiO2 surface. The spectra are collected within the photon energy width of
TiO2 (200) Bragg reflection condition. The photon energies were chosen to maximize electric field on either Ti (solid curve) or O
(dotted curve) atomic plane. Figure from [47].

Figure 13 shows the standing-wave decomposition of the valence band; the experimental data has
been compared with theoretical Ti and O partial density of states weighted by the relative photoionization
cross sections of the different orbital components (Equation 11). It is commonly understood that
stoichiometric TiO2 has a formal Ti4+ charge state with its valence band consisting primarily of O 2p-
derived states [57]. However, a significant amount of Ti 3d ad-mixing is clearly observed in the valence
band. Note that excellent agreement is found between the experimental data and theoretical density of
states once the photoionization cross sections have been properly taken into account.
This technique was later used to analyze the SrTiO3 valence band [58]. It was determined that
the dominant weight of the valence band signal arises from the Sr and Ti levels. Comparison of the site-
specific HAXPES valence-band spectra with theoretical partial density of states demonstrated that
broadening was different for the O and metal states, consistent with earlier work [59]. The binding
energy of the Ti states was found to be higher for SrTiO3 than for TiO2 [47] and attributed to the more
perfect octahedral TiO6 symmetry around the Ti atoms of SrTiO3 versus TiO2.

Figure 13: Theoretical partial density of states corrected for individual angular-momentum photoelectron cross
sections and the experimental data. Figure from [47].

XSW-XPS can also determine the bonding geometry of chemically distinct species to a local
adsorption structure. This approach has been used, for example, to study the chemical reaction of CH3SH
on Cu(111) [53] as well as more recently the structure of epitaxial graphene on SiC surfaces [60].
Probing buried interfaces
As mentioned above, synthetic multilayer mirrors can be used to produce standing waves [52].
This approach has been used to elucidate structure and inter-mixing in a variety of systems, such as
ambient-pressure measurements of hydrated NaOH and CsOH on α-Fe2O3 [61] and La0.7Sr0.3MnO3/SrTiO3
interfaces for magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) applications [62].
An illustrative example can be found in the XSW-XPS study of the interface properties of
MgO/Au (monolayer)/ Fe tri-layer system [63]. MgO-based MTJs have shown remarkably high magneto-
resistance; however, to achieve this high magneto-resistance high-temperature annealing is required. The
post-growth anneal and the evolution of crystalline and electronic structure of different constituents of
tunnel junctions have been extensively studied [64–67], but the nature of the interface of CoFeB with
MgO is still debated. The formation of an Fe or Co oxide at the MgO interface can lead to a significant
drop in the tunneling magneto-resistance (TMR). It has been assumed that an ultra-thin layer of a noble
metal on the metal electrode can reduce the possibility of oxide formation and hence enhance TMR [68].
XSW-XPS was used to investigate the possibility of oxide formation in a model Au-decorated Fe/MgO
structure. The chemical sensitivity of XPS combined with the position sensitivity of XSW allows precise
characterization of this complex tri-layer system.
The sample structure consisted of a MgO film atop a monolayer of Au on a wedge of Fe; all
layers were deposited on a multi-layer mirror. The intensities of the Fe 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 spin-orbit doublet
were measured about the rocking-curve at a given position on the sample. Similar measurements were
performed for Mg and O 1s core levels. The incidence angle was tuned to the first order Bragg angle; the
sample was then moved laterally along the Fe wedge. Thus by locking the phase of the standing wave,
scanning of the sample essentially leads to the movement of the different layers through the standing-
wave. By recording the XPS signals of each element along the scan, a detailed model of the tri-layer
structure can be extracted. Figure 14 shows the modulation of the three layers along the wedge compared
to a simulated structure. It was concluded from the work that the inclusion of Au between Fe and MgO
hinders the formation of FeO.
 Figure 14: (Color online) Wedge scan of Fe 2p, Au 4d, and O 1s measured at hυ = 4000 eV. Figure from [63].

C. Analysis of Buried Interfaces:

A major technical application of HAXPES is the measurement of the chemical and electronic
structure at buried interfaces. Interfaces are key components of modern electronic devices with
applications including complimentary metal-oxide-semiconductor structures (CMOS), the basis of
modern computers, and p-n junctions for solar-energy applications. The ability to engineer interfacial
materials, through chemistry, alloying, and strain gives the device designer the ability to tailor important
electronic properties such as carrier mobility and band gap. Thus the overall understanding of the
chemistry and electronic structure of interfaces is paramount for modern device design. Soft x-ray and
UV photoelectron spectroscopy has made significant contributions to this field; however, due to the
limited electron escape depths present in these measurements, these techniques are applicable only to
surfaces and ultra-thin films, often requiring significant in-situ preparation that can significantly alter their
atomic and electronic structures.

Band Alignment at semiconductor interfaces

An important physical parameter is the band alignment between two interface layers of a device.
How the valence and conduction bands align across an interface is responsible for both charge transfer
and leakage current. HAXPES measurements of band alignment are therefore becoming more and more
important to understand and optimize hetero-structures [69]; a brief overview of the underlying theory
behind the technique as well as several examples will be presented below.
One of the earliest and still frequently employed theoretical models of interfacial band alignment
is the “Anderson” or “electron-affinity” rule [70]. In this model, the natural conduction-band alignment is
determined by the difference between the electron affinities of the two materials; i.e. across the two
materials the vacuum level is assumed constant. The valence-band offset can then be found from the
band gaps of the two materials. Other electrostatic models were later developed that take the intrinsic
Fermi level to be constant [71], or the conduction band to be continuous [72]. Ab initio approaches were
also applied to the problem [73–76], but these were often limited by the lack of a common theoretical
energy reference between the two materials. To overcome this limitation, multilayer calculations were
used, wherein the average potential on either side of the interface is used to reference the valence and
conduction bands [77], leading to the concept of a “model surface,” where a common absolute energy
scale was determined from bulk calculations of different materials [78]. A further approach was also
developed, considering the formation and alignment of gap states when the interface is formed [79].
While considerable effort has been made to develop a theoretical model for interfacial band alignment, no
single approach is universally consistent with experimental data, and this situation is likely due to the
complex chemical and morphological interactions that occur at interfaces, and especially for the more
complex interfaces that are now utilized in modern technologies.
Photoelectron spectroscopy can directly probe valence-band states, allowing for a straightforward
measurement of band alignment, as was elegantly demonstrated by Katnani and Margaritondo [80] in
Figure 15. Si was deposited at various coverages on a clean CdS sample. At lower coverages, the
valence-band maxima from both CdS and Si are clearly seen, allowing for the direct measurement of the
valence-band alignment between the two materials, as well as the observation of band bending in the CdS
with Si coverage. However, it is also evident that such measurements are only so straightforward when:
(1) samples are deposited in situ, and (2) a large offset exists between the two valence bands. Kraut’s
method [81] overcomes these limitations by allowing valence-band alignment measurements via the
measurement of core-level shifts. This method is predicated on the fact that, for a semiconductor, the
energy difference between a core level and its valence-band maximum are physically fixed, analogous to
a core level and its vacuum level for a gas; thus by measuring this energy difference in reference
materials, the valence-band alignment for a layered structure can be measured simply from the energy
difference between the respective core levels as shown in Figure 16. At HAXPES photon energies, core
levels of several buried layers can be measured, making Kraut’s method with HAXPES a widely
applicable tool for band-alignment measurements.
 Figure 15: Photoemission valence-band measurements of Si on CdS. Figure from [80].

Figure 16: Diagram of energy levels for semiconductors A and B and metal. Figure from [69].

For semiconductor/semiconductor interfaces, the valence-band alignment, ΔEV, is given by:

𝐴𝐴
∆𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉 = �𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 − 𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝐴𝐴 � − (𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝐵𝐵
− 𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵 ) − �𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵
− 𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 �, (12)

while for metals, the Schottky-barrier height, φB is:

 𝐵𝐵
𝜑𝜑𝐵𝐵 = (𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 − 𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵 ) − (𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝑀𝑀 𝐵𝐵
− 𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹 ) − (𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑀𝑀 ).
− 𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (13)

𝑖𝑖
Here, 𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 and 𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 are the core-level and valence-band energies, respectively, for material ‘i’, and 𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹 is the
metal Fermi level. Conduction-band alignment can then be determined from the known band gaps.
An important aspect of Kraut’s method is the accurate determination of the valence-band
maximum from comparison of the theoretically derived density of states with the experimental valence-
band spectrum. Due to the different energy dependences of the photoionization cross sections for
different electron energy levels (see above and [3,25]), the density of states must be modulated by the
cross section and broadened to account for experimental effects as in Equation 11. As illustrated for the
diamond valence band [82] in Figure 17. After accounting for the C 2s and 2p photoionization cross
sections [3], convolution with a Gaussian (full width at half maximum of 0.3 eV to account for
experimental broadening) produces a theoretical density of states that matches the experimental valence-
band measurement. The valence-band maximum is found by aligning the experimental and theoretical
curves. It can be seen from the inset in Figure 17 that a simple linear extrapolation would produce an
erroneous valence-band maximum that is several eV lower than that determined by this procedure.

Figure 17: Theoretical partial and total density of states for the diamond valence band (a). HAXPES valence band (hν =
2140 eV) and reconstructed weighted density of states (b). See text for details. Figure from [82].

HAXPES and Kraut’s method have been used for band-alignment measurements of many
materials systems, including Pt and Ag contacts on diamond for high-flux beamline monitors [82],
Pt/BaTiO3/Cr film stacks for ferroelectric tunnel junctions [83], Ge/high dielectric constant oxide
interfaces [84,85], and diamond/Cu(InGa)Se2 [86] and poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl)/ZnO [87]
interfaces for applications in photovoltaics.
Band alignment at Fe-doped SrTiO3 (STFO) interfaces with metal contacts was investigated for
applications in “memristive” devices [88]. Memristors (memory resistors) provide non-volatile memory
through changes in resistance. With STFO, this is accomplished through current-induced changes in the
oxygen stoichiometry, which leads to conductive oxygen-deficient filaments [89–91] to allow conduction
between the top metal contact and the underlying film, in this case Nb-doped SrTiO3 (STO). The
behavior of these systems, however, can be different according to the choice of metal contact. Thus
investigating the metal/STFO band alignment is imperative to reach a fundamental understanding of these
systems. After deposition of a Pt electrode, the STFO was initially in a high resistivity state and shows
rectifying behavior. HAXPES results showed an STFO conduction-band to Pt Fermi-level offset of 0.9
eV, suggesting a significant conduction barrier between the underlying STO and Pt. With the insertion of
a thin (5 nm) Ti layer between STFO and Pt, however, the system is found to be initially in a lower
resistive state and non-rectifying. With a thicker (20 nm) Ti layer, ohmic behavior is observed. In these
cases, HAXPES showed no gap (within experimental uncertainty) between the STFO conduction band
and the Pt Fermi level; that is, the implied barrier between STO and Pt contacts is nearly eliminated.
These results suggest that charge transport in the low-resistivity cases is determined by the different
alignment of the energy levels.
HAXPES was also used to probe the band alignment and band bending at the interface of STO
and spinel γ-Al2O3 [92]. Interest in this interface has arisen due to the electrical conductivity observed at
similar interfaces of insulating materials such as STO and LaAlO3 (LAO) [93]. HAXPES studies of these
interfaces will be discussed in the next subsection. This research has led to the observation of a two-
dimensional electron system at the γ-Al2O3/STO interface [94,95]. Understanding the band alignment
may help elucidate the formation of the conductive interface. Using HAXPES [92], a 0.6 eV valence-
band offset between STO and γ-Al2O3 was found. The γ-Al2O3 bands were found to be flat, but a small
amount of band-bending was observed in the STO, determined from peak shifts with takeoff angle. The
resulting band diagram is shown in Figure 18. The band bending measured leads the STO conduction
band to dip below the Fermi level, consistent with the electron confinement at the interface. This electron
confinement at the interfacial STO layers leads to the observed interfacial conductivity.
 Figure 18: (Color online) Band diagram for STO/γ-Al2O3 system as determined by HAXPES. Figure from [92].

Novel Interfacial Properties: LaAlO3/SrTiO3 Interfaces

In addition to the band alignment problem just discussed, HAXPES is uniquely suited to study
novel interface phenomena. An example that has been heavily studied is the formation of a thin
conductive layer (or “2 dimensional electron gas”) at the interface between LAO and STO, two band
insulators [93]. Conductivity only occurs when the LAO film is deposited on TiO2-terminated STO and
when it is above a critical thickness of about 4 unit cells [93,96,97]. Multiple mechanisms have been
proposed to describe the conductivity seen at the interface, the earliest of which was the presence of an
electronic reconstruction driven by the polar discontinuity at the interface [93,96,97]. In this model, an
electric field is present in the LAO, increasing with thickness until the LAO valence band is iso-energetic
with the STO Fermi level; at this point charge can flow from the LAO surface to the interface and the Ti
3d bands become populated. The electronic reconstruction may also be effected in part by off-
stoichiometry related defects in the LAO film [98]. In this work it was seen that conductive interfaces
only occur when the LAO film was Al-rich. First principles calculations demonstrated that interfacial
defects in stoichiometric and La-rich LAO films screened the charge present due to the polar
discontinuity, thereby removing the built-in potential. In the case of Al-rich LAO, however, the charge is
only partially screened, leading to a (reduced) electric field in the LAO and eventual electronic
reconstruction from electron-rich LAO surface states.
 Alternative mechanisms for the conductivity at LAO/STO interfaces involve oxygen vacancies,
either in the interfacial STO layer [99,100], or at the LAO surface [101]. In the former case, the electrons
liberated from the oxygen vacancies populate the Sr 3d bands leading to conductivity. In the latter case,
the charge liberated at the LAO surface is transferred to the interface. Another potential mechanism for
interfacial conductivity involves the diffusion of ionic La into the STO layer [102], leading to a thin layer
of La-doped STO, which is known to be conductive [103]. HAXPES has been applied by multiple
research groups to LAO/STO systems in an attempt to elucidate the precise mechanism of conductivity.
While this research has not unambiguously determined a mechanism, and in fact finds contradictory
results in some instances demonstrating some of the limitations of HAXPES, it has still made significant
contributions to the understanding of the LAO/STO system.
Angle-resolved HAXPES [104] was used to study the spatial distribution of the conductive layer
and to estimate the carrier density from the Ti3+:Ti4+ ratio, using the Ti3+ as a proxy for the conductive
layer. Comparing samples with different thicknesses of LAO that were prepared under different
conditions, the thickness of the conductive layer was estimated to be between one and ten STO unit cells.
The carrier density showed a clear increasing trend from 2.1 × 1013 cm-2 at 2 unit cells of LAO to
11.1 × 1013 cm-2 at 6 unit cells. The results were considered to be consistent with the electronic
reconstruction model due to the confinement of the conductivity to within perhaps one unit cell of the
interface, albeit with a lower than expected carrier density. Grazing incidence/total external reflection
HAXPES [105] was also used to measure the distribution of charge carriers (below a critical angle the
incident x-rays form evanescent waves along the sample surface and do not propagate into the bulk). This
technique permits a highly interface-sensitive measurement. Here the Ti3+ distribution was determined to
extend to about 12 unit cells into the STO, and a higher carrier density was found, 1.4× 1014 cm-2. Again
the results were considered to be in agreement with the electronic reconstruction model, with the
consideration of both localized and non-localized Ti 3d electrons, which had been previously discussed in
theoretical works [106,107]. Neither study, however, explicitly considered the possibility of oxygen
defects, which could potentially account for the observed differences in the depth distribution of Ti3+
which may arise due to subtle differences in the sample processing.
HAXPES has also measured the band alignment between STO and LAO films between 4 and 20
unit cells thick [108]. A valence-band offset of 0.35 ± 0.10 eV was found for all film thicknesses.
Importantly, the LAO bands were found to be flat; i.e. no electric field was observed in the LAO film,
contradicting the expectation of the electronic reconstruction model. However, the results were again
discussed only in relation to this model, with added considerations for photo-induced charge carriers and
defects which may offset the electric field. In contrast, a small but measurable electric field exists in Al-
rich LAO deposited on STO as shown in Figure 19 [109]; such a field had also been observed in cross
sectional STM [110] and electrical measurements [111]. The electric field was observed in the valence
band region only. Due to the probing depth and natural resolution limits of XPS, such a small field could
not be observed in the core levels, which may explain the contrast with prior measurements. No electric
field was found by the authors for stoichiometric and La-rich LAO. The distributions of La, Al, and Sr
with depth were also probed for the stoichiometric and off-stoichiometric films. In the stoichiometric and
La-rich films, La and Al enrichment were observed at the interface and surface respectively. The Al-rich
film showed a more consistent La:Al ratio throughout the LAO film. These results were found to be
consistent with the off-stoichiometry defect-driven electronic reconstruction [98].

Figure 19: (Color online) Valence band of 10 unit cell LAO on STO. Theoretical valence bands reconstructed from the
cross section weighted and broadened partial density of states shows the Al-rich valence band to be narrower than the
stoichiometric and La-rich valence bands, while the experiment shows a broader feature, suggestive of a small electric field in
the Al-rich film. Figure from [109].

While the HAXPES results described above do not definitively settle on a mechanism for the
nature of the conductivity at LAO/STO interfaces, it is important to emphasize the commonalities of the
measurements. First, HAXPES finds that the conductive layer is confined to the interface. Second, the
built-in electric field is considerably smaller than the 0.4 eV per unit cell predicted by the simple
electronic-reconstruction model [108].
 D. Non-destructive depth profiling
The enhanced bulk sensitivity of HAXPES combined with the tunable photon energy of a
synchrotron source provides the opportunity for non-destructive depth-dependent measurements through
variable kinetic energy XPS (VKE-XPS). VKE-XPS extracts depth-dependent information from
HAXPES spectra collected at different photon energies. The information depth in HAXPES with photon
energies between 1500 and 15000 eV range from less than 10 nm to more than 50 nm [14]. VKE-XPS is
also suitable for depth profiling of materials with non-planar geometries, as compared with angle-resolved
XPS, where changes in analysis geometry can lead to shadowing or other effects not typically accounted
for [112].
The VKE-XPS measurement is elegantly illustrated in the study of a buried SiO2 layer between
HfO2 and Si [113], as displayed in Figure 20. Here the Si 1s core level was probed with photon energies
ranging from 2140 eV to 3500 eV. At 2140 eV, the most surface-sensitive photon energy for this core
level, the spectrum is dominated by a single peak from the oxidized interlayer. By hν = 2500 eV, bulk Si
from the substrate is also observed. As hν increases further, the signal from the substrate increases
dramatically with respect to the interfacial oxide showing the increasing probe depth. From the subtle
shift in the Si-oxide seen at the most surface-sensitive photon energies, the authors [113] determined that
a sub-stoichiometric oxide exists at the HfO2/SiO2 interface, due to the HfO2 layer gettering oxygen from
the SiO2 interlayer.

Figure 20: Si 1s VKE-XPS spectra of a Si/2nm SiO2/3nm HfO2 heterostructure. Figure from [113].
 Similar VKE-XPS measurements were applied to the study of the thermal stability of
InGaAs/Al2O3 interfaces [114]. High-mobility semiconductors such as InGaAs and high dielectric-
constant oxides such as Al2O3 are important component materials for current and next generation metal-
oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) that power modern computers. MOSFETs built
from these materials must have excellent thermal stability under expected processing conditions to avoid
degradation of ultimate device behavior during processing. To study the thermal stability of high-
mobility semiconductor/high-dielectric constant oxides, identical Al2O3 blanket films were deposited on
InGaAs and annealed at various temperatures under N2 atmosphere and studied by VKE-XPS. The use of
a non-destructive depth-profiling technique such as VKE-XPS is essential in these measurements as the
energetic ions in other profiling techniques may cause changes in the chemical structure of the analyzed
films. HAXPES core levels were recorded for each constituent species at both surface-sensitive (2200 eV)
and bulk-sensitive (4000 eV) photon energies. With the exception of the Ga 2p3/2 core level, peak shapes
showed little variation after annealing suggesting that no chemical changes occurred. However, the Ga
2p3/2 core level showed increasing oxidation with increasing annealing temperature, especially at the
surface-sensitive photon energy, demonstrating the interfacial oxidation of Ga.
The elemental distribution was probed by comparing the surface-sensitive and bulk-sensitive
core-level intensities. Core-level intensity ratios, corrected for photoionization cross sections [3,25] and
IMFPs and referenced to the intensity of either the Al or O 1s core level from the Al2O3 layer, are shown
in Figure 21. The Ga 2p3/2 intensity ratio shows a clear increase with increasing anneal temperature,
demonstrating the up-diffusion of Ga into the Al2O3 layer. A smaller increase is observed for the As
2p3/2, while a hint of a decrease is observed for In 3d5/2. From these trends, a model structure was
developed: with deposition, a thin interlayer primarily of Ga and As oxide forms. As the film is annealed,
this interlayer thickness increases, leading to the subtle attenuation of the In signal. At the highest
temperatures, Ga up-diffuses further into the Al2O3 layer.
 Figure 21: (Color online) Core-level intensity ratios (hν = 2200 eV / hν = 4000 eV). For each core level, this intensity
ratio reflects the depth-distributions of the element. Figure from [114].

Quantitative depth analysis

The above analysis demonstrates the use of VKE-XPS for qualitative depth profiling; for
quantitative depth profiles, modeling and statistical methods can be used. The Simulation of Electron
Spectra for Surface Analysis (SESSA) software [115,116] offered by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology is a powerful package for modeling of photoelectron spectra in the HAXPES energy
range. SESSA contains numerous databases of relevant parameters for the simulation of HAXPES data,
including IMFP’s, attenuation lengths, and photoionization cross sections. SESSA simulates the
trajectories of electrons considering both inelastic and elastic scattering effects and from these trajectories
constructs the intensity and peak shapes for photoemission and Auger. SESSA is capable of simulating
spectra for numerous sample morphologies and has been found to provide results in excellent agreement
with experiment [117].
Another modeling approach [118,119] involves the consideration of the ratio of experimental
peaks integrated over a sample volume (see Equation 2). This approach allows for the consideration of
sample structures, such as spheres or cylinders, from the integration coordinates. For example, this
approach was used to determine the structures of 3nm diameter spherical CdS/CdSe and CdSeS core/shell
nanocrystals [118]. Here, the Se 3p to S 2p intensity ratio was tracked over a broad range of photon
energies. A 3-layer nanocrystal model was constructed, with an inner core from r = 0 to r1, a second-
alloy layer between r1, and r2, and finally a surface layer between r2 and r3. By fitting the model to the
measured intensity ratios, it was determined that the nanostructures contained a core and single shell; i.e.
r2 = r3. A similar approach, but considering two dimensional film layers, was used to determine the role
of B-diffusion in CoFeB/MgO magnetic tunnel junctions [119]. B diffusion was found to be controlled
by the capping Ta layer.
 SESSA and other simulations can determine quantitative depth distributions from HAXPES and
VKE-XPS data; however, such techniques require user input. Such user input may inadvertently lead to
operator bias in model selection, especially where multiple models may produce similar simulated
spectra. By applying statistical methods for selection of a depth profile model, the user input can be
minimized, thereby reducing the risk of operator bias. It is important to note, however, that statistical
methods do not provide the “correct” depth profile, but instead the most likely depth profile given the
input assumptions about the data. The maximum entropy method (MEM) is one such statistical method
which has been applied to angle-resolved XPS (see, e.g. [120–123]); it has also recently been adapted for
VKE-XPS [124]. MEM works by maximizing a functional, Q, defined as:

𝜒𝜒 2�
𝑄𝑄 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼 − 2. (14)

Here χ2 is the weighted difference between the measured and simulated data squared, and α is a
regularization parameter. The entropy functional, S, is used to minimize the amount of ‘additional’
information introduced above input values, though other S functions may also be used (see for
example [125]).
VKE-XPS data from 2.5 nm and 25 nm atomic layer deposited TiO2 films on Si is shown in
Figure 22. Film thicknesses were measured by spectroscopic ellipsometry prior to the VKE-XPS
measurements. HAXPES spectra for Ti 2p, O 1s, C 1s, and Si 1s were collected at 2500, 3000, 3500,
4000, and 4500 eV photon energy. The core-level intensities were measured after background
subtraction, and referenced to the IMFPs and photoionization cross sections. Data were collected in a
‘multiplex’ mode, so that any drifts in beam intensity were averaged across all core levels. For the 2.5 nm
film, a clear increase in the Si substrate signal is observed with increasing hν while the O signal
decreases. For the 25 nm film, only subtle changes are observed with hν, due to the fact that even at the
highest photon energies the TiO2 film makes up the bulk of the analysis depth. However, a small Si
signal is observed at the highest photon energies, allowing for the calculation of the depth profile. For
MEM regularization, an initial model was used that consists of a homogeneous mixed C, Ti, O, and Si-O
film of the thickness measured by ellipsometry on top of a Si substrate. The resulting depth profile for
the 25 nm film shows the C to mainly exist at the surface, while the Si-O is fixed at the interface, as
expected because the deposition was performed on un-etched Si wafers. For the 2.5 nm film, a mainly
mixed film is observed, although the mixing may be a due to limited depth resolution or non-planar
morphology and cannot be determined from these measurements alone.
 Figure 22: (Color online): VKE-XPS data for 2.5 nm and 25 nm TiO2 films deposited on Si (top). Error bars were
estimated from the signal-to-noise ratios. A maximum-entropy method algorithm was applied to the VKE-XPS data to
reconstruct the concentration vs depth profiles (bottom). The dashed lines show the initial model. Figure from [124].

E. Resonant Photoemission

Resonant photoelectron spectroscopy (ResPES), the tracking of changes in photoemission or

Auger peaks as the photon energy is scanned through an absorption edge, has been used to study a variety
of material systems. By applying hard x-rays, deeper core levels can be analyzed; some examples can be
found in Ref. [126]. Recently, ResPES has been used to study dynamical processes, and these
measurements have been referred to as “core-hole clock spectroscopy” [127–129]. In this technique, the
core-hole lifetime is used as an internal reference clock to study electron dynamics. The charge-transfer
time scale can be studied by probing the electron resonantly excited to unoccupied state from a localized
core level. The accompanying autoionization due to the core-hole decay has two channels: Raman
autoionization and charge transfer. The ratio of the two channels is a measure of the charge-transfer time
through a simple exponential model, and we note that the dispersive energy shift observed in resonant
Auger has been used to study electron dynamics in adsorbed systems [127].
ResPES can also be used to study the fundamental physics of photoionization, such as inter-
channel coupling [130]. The photoionization cross section is typically considered to be dominated by
single-electron transitions, especially for deep core levels [131]; consequently, a single-particle
approximation is typically used to model the photoemission processes (see e.g. [22]). However, the
single-particle approximation breaks down due to electron correlations and inter-channel coupling.
Changes in the photoionization cross sections above threshold have been noted [132], but the overall
“shape” of the cross sections were not tracked. Recent use of ResPES to track the Ag 3d core levels at
excitation energies near the L thresholds has exposed the inter-channel coupling effects on the
photoionization cross section well above threshold [130].
Accurate Ag 3d5/2 and 3d3/2 intensities from a Ag foil were measured as a function of photon
energy between hν = 3000 and 4000 eV. To account for changes in x-ray flux, the intensities were
normalized to a Cu 2p3/2 core line collected immediately before and after each Ag spectrum. Ag spectra
collected at the L3 and L2 edges (3351 eV and 3524 eV respectively) and at 3450 eV are shown in Figure
23. Changes are observed in both the absolute and relative core-level intensities, and these changes are
especially evident by following the intensity trends of the two spin-orbit split components: The Ag 3d3/2
intensity increases with increasing hν, while the Ag 3d5/2 first shows an increase between 3351 and 3450
eV, but then decreases between 3450 and 3524 eV. The Ag intensities were further tracked across a 1000
eV range of photon energies and compared to calculated intensities from the relativistic random-phase
approximation (RRGA) that included different coupling channels. The significant structures in the cross
sections were only observed when coupling with the 2p and 2s photoionization channels were included,
successfully demonstrating inter-channel coupling.

Figure 23: (Color online) Ag 3d spectra collected with photon energy at the L2 edge, between the L2 and L3 edges, and
at the L3 edge. Figure from [130].

Energy-loss satellite structure can also be studied by ResPES [16,133]. Photoemission satellites
are typically small features that occur on the high binding-energy side of the main photoelectron
transition and are a measure of the electron correlations present. The Ti satellite structure in tetravalent
STO and TiO2 has been well studied [134–140], but characterization of the satellite features has relied to a
large extent on fitting parameters from ad hoc theoretical models to experimental data. The fact that new
theoretical approaches [140] are being developed for the characterization of these satellites demonstrates
that the problem has not been satisfactorily solved.
The Ti 2p spectrum from STO shows two dominant spin-orbit split components that are
accompanied by smaller intensity satellites each located approximately 13 eV below the main features, as
seen in Figure 24. An additional satellite at approximately 5 eV binding energy relative to the main lines
has been suggested, but not directly observed [136] in either the Ti 2p spectrum due to its overlap with the
Ti 2p spin-orbit split component or in the Ti 2s spectrum due to the anomalously large Coster-Kronig
width of the Ti 2s peak [141]. However, by using HAXPES, the Ti 1s transition can be measured un-
hindered by spin-orbit splitting, and the 5 eV satellite is clearly observed in the spectrum (Figure 24) [16].

Figure 24: (Color online) Ti 1s and 2p core levels for STO showing 5eV and 13 eV satellite features. Figure from [16].

Measuring the Ti K-L2L3 Auger line with photon energies around and above the Ti K edge gives
direct insight into the nature of the two satellites. Figure 25 shows the primary contribution to the Auger
decay collected with photon energy set to the 1s to 4p resonance and with excess energies above it. The
peak is narrowest at resonance as expected [142]; at 5 eV above resonance, a high-kinetic-energy
shoulder “turns on.” The position and relative intensity of this shoulder remain constant until the excess
photon energy reaches the binding energy of the second satellite upon whence its intensity again
increases. Above this energy, however, its intensity remains constant. The difference spectrum, shown in
the inset of Figure 25, indicates that the new feature is located 2 eV higher kinetic energy relative to the
main Auger line; this energy is equivalent to that measured for the Auger decay when the photon energy
is set to either the 1s to t2g or 1s to eg 3d resonances, i.e. when the core hole is screened by a spectator
electron in a Ti 3d orbital [16]. These observations demonstrate that the high-energy Auger feature arises
from the additional screening of the core hole due to charge transfer from the oxygen ligand. Analysis of
the positions and intensities of the two satellites suggests that the 5 eV satellite is due to O 2p t2g to Ti 3d
t2g charge transfer, while the 13 eV satellite is due to O 2p eg to Ti 3d eg charge transfer [16].

Figure 25: (Color online) Ti KLL Auger spectra from STO recorded with photon energy set to the Ti 1s to 4p resonance
and with excess photon energies above it as indicated. Figure from [16].

IV. Future Directions

While HAXPES has emerged as a powerful tool that has general applicability to the study the true
bulk and buried interface properties of complex materials systems, further advances in instrumentation are
leading it into new research areas. Two examples of new HAXPES-based capabilities, time-resolved
HAXPES and hard x-ray photoemission electron microscopy (HAXPEEM), increase the depth of analysis
by adding new dimensions to HAXPES.

A. Time resolved HAXPES

The progress in the development of x-ray free electron lasers (FEL) is playing a significant role in
the ongoing development of HAXPES. The Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center and the Spring-8 Angstrom Compact Free Electron Laser (SACLA) at Spring-8,
amongst other FEL’s, now have active experimental programs. The high-intensity, ultra-fast x-ray pulses
of FEL’s provide direct information in real time on the dynamics of the electronic structure of materials.
As mentioned above, dynamical information such as charge transfer and ultra-fast electron delocalization
has been studied by core-hole clock methods [127–129,143,144], but these measurements are limited to
the time range set by the lifetime of the core-excited states. Attempts to study dynamics of electronic
structure in a laboratory environment have led to the development of the pump-probe technique known as
2-photon photoemission spectroscopy (2PPE) [145,146]. In this technique, a first laser pulse excites an
electron into an intermediate state and a second pulse photo-emits the excited electron from that state. By
controlling the temporal delay between the pulses, decay times have been reliably measured to a few
femtoseconds. This technique, however, limits the wavelength available to the harmonics of the laser
used.
The use of ultra-fast, tunable-energy FELs can overcome this limitation. However, a significant problem
facing all FEL-based time-resolved XPS measurements is vacuum space-charge effects; i.e., the multi-
electron emission due to the pump and probe pulses can cause both shifts and peak broadening.
Significant progress, however, has been made in theoretical understanding of space charges [147,148] as
recently demonstrated by time-resolved HAXPES measurement at SACLA [149]. In these measurements,
an 8000 eV FEL was used to probe the vacuum space-charge effects on V 1s spectra from VO2 and the Ti
1s spectra from SrTiO3. Figure 26 shows a schematic illustration of the experimental design, and Figure
27 shows the extracted peak shifts and broadening of the V 1s and the Ti 1s core levels as a function of
pulse energy. The peaks were fit with Voigt functions and the experimental data was compared with
numerical simulations. It was observed that broadening due to space charge was less than the intrinsic
core-level widths. Additionally, the possibility of modelling the space-charge effects offers the advantage
of isolating these effects from intrinsic dynamics in the electronic structure.

Figure 26: (Color online) Experimental setup for time resolved HAXPES at SACLA. Figure from [149].
 Figure 27: (Color online) (a) Spectral shift (b) spectral broadening of Ti 1s and V 1s as a function of FEL pulse energy.
Figure from [149].

B. HAXPEEM

Photoemission-electron microscopy (PEEM) using hard x rays (HAXPEEM) is an emerging

experimental technique that combines the benefits of sub-micron imaging resolution with greater depth
sensitivity than available using traditional PEEM. The combination of HAXPEEM with the non-
destructive depth profiling techniques discussed above should also provide semi-quantitative three-
dimensional chemical- and electronic-structure maps of materials. Considering the current trends in
device miniaturization and nanoscale engineering, HAXPEEM should become an integral research tool
for such study.
PEEM can be operated under various spectral modes. For example, in a fixed electron-detection
energy mode, the photon energy is scanned to provide chemical contrast (i.e. NEXAFS imaging). In a
fixed photon-energy mode, the detector energy is scanned for chemical contrast (XPS imaging). These
two modes provide different but complimentary chemical information; e.g., occupied vs unoccupied state
densities, due to the different underlying spectral techniques (i.e. XPS vs NEXAFS); and indeed most
PEEM systems can operate in either mode. However, in HAXPEEM it is the fixed photon-energy mode
that takes full advantage of the increased bulk sensitivity of HAXPES.
Initial work in HAXPEEM has focused on the NEXAFS imaging mode [150,151]. Images were
recorded of SbTe amorphous/crystalline patterned samples from recordable digital video discs (DVDs),
and the ability to distinguish the amorphous vs crystalline regions in a 200x200 nm2 area was
demonstrated [150]. Later, using a Cr-patterned Au film, the probe depth of HAXPEEM was determined
to be about ten times longer than with soft x-rays, with better than 106 nm resolution in the HAXPEEM
measurement [151]. The increased depth sensitivity of HAXPEEM is due to the higher kinetic energies
of the Auger transitions associated with the NEXAFS absorption as well as the measurement of the
inelastically scattered electrons that have travelled farther within the sample.
The probe depth of NEXAFS-mode HAXPEEM depends on the core-level energies of the
materials studied; lighter elements such as carbon and oxygen, for example, will always be more surface
sensitive as their deepest Auger levels lie at lower kinetic energy. However, in XPS imaging mode,
where the kinetic energy of the analyzed photoelectrons can be tuned by the incident photon energy, this
limitation is not present. This mode has been developed using an electrostatic immersion lens and a
double-hemisphere analyzer design [152–155]. For the imaging of high-kinetic-energy electrons, the
electron optical design was modified, and a sample bias was used to define the imaged electron
energy [155], as shown in Figure 28. With this design, sub-μm level imaging resolutions can be achieved.

Figure 28: (Color online) Analyzer design modified for HAXPEEM measurements. Figure from [155].

The probing of buried films was demonstrated through the analysis of a film stack consisting of 7
nm pads of Au deposited on 20 nm Fe-doped SrTiO3 on Nb-doped SrTiO3 [152]. Data is shown in Figure
29. The upper right inset shows a Sr 2p3/2 image; the Au pads (lower Sr intensity) show up as dark
squares. Two regions of interest are highlighted in the image: one on the Au pad and the other on the film
itself. The extracted HAXPES spectra from these two regions are shown in the main portion of the figure.
There is a clear difference in Sr 2p3/2 intensity between the two regions, with the bare-film region showing
significantly more intensity than that under the pad – as expected due to the attenuation from the Au
overlayer. However, the Sr signal is still visible even underneath 7 nm of Au, demonstrating the
applicability of this HAXPEEM method for the imaging of buried films.
 Figure 29: (Color online) Extracted spectra from HAXPEEM image of Au pad deposited on SrTiO3 and bare SrTiO3 film.
Regions of interest are shown the in top right. Sample structure shown in left inset. Figure from [152].

V. Summary

HAXPES has emerged as a technique that permits the chemical and electronic characterization of
a full range of materials systems previously inaccessible to low-energy XPS. While the underlying
physics of HAXPES and traditional XPS are the same, the higher photon energies used for HAXPES
measurements lead to longer photoelectron IMFPs. Some care, however, must be taken in the
interpretation of HAXPES spectra as non-dipole effects in the photoionization cross sections and
electron-recoil effects become more important. The greater penetration depth achievable with HAXPES
permits the measurement of a range of materials with length scales relevant to modern science and
engineering, including the measurement of “real” samples taken directly from air with no prior surface or
ultra-high vacuum preparation in addition to in-situ measurements of liquid/solid interfaces and of
samples with capping electrodes for measurements under electrical bias. Also extremely practical is the
measurement of buried interfaces and “true” bulk electronic structure. Additionally, HAXPES can be
made site and depth specific through the use of x-ray standing-wave excitation. While the technique has
been extensively used in these and other applications, it is still being developed into a multi-dimensional
technique via time-resolved measurements and photoelectron microscopy.
References:
[1] C. Nordling, E. Sokolowski, and K. Siegbahn, Phys. Rev. 105, 1676 (1957).
[2] E. Sokolowski, C. Nordling, and K. Siegbahn, Phys. Rev. 110, 776 (1958).
[3] M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, V. I. Nefedov, and V. G. Yarzhemsky, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 77, 97
(2001).
[4] I. Lindau, P. Pianetta, S. Doniach, and W. E. Spicer, Nature 250, 214 (1974).
[5] I. Lindau, P. Pianetta, K. Yu, and W. E. Spicer, Phys. Lett. A 54, 47 (1975).
[6] Hüfner, Stephan, Photoelectron Spectroscopy - Principles and Applications (Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 1996).
[7] S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. 35, 268 (2003).
[8] C. J. Powell and A. Jablonski, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers
Detect. Assoc. Equip. 601, 54 (2009).
[9] M. P. Seah, Surf. Interface Anal. 44, 497 (2012).
[10] ISO 18115-1 Surface Chemical Analysis - Vocabulary - Part 1, General terms and terms
used in spectroscopy, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2013).
[11] A. Jablonski and C. J. Powell, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 199, 27 (2015).
[12] A. Jablonski, J. Phys. Appl. Phys. 48, 075301 (2015).
[13] A. Jablonski and C. J. Powell, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 27, 253 (2009).
[14] J. Rubio‐Zuazo and G. R. Castro, Surf. Interface Anal. 40, 1438 (2008).
[15] P. S. Miedema, F. Borgatti, F. Offi, G. Panaccione, and F. M. F. de Groot, J. Electron Spectrosc.
Relat. Phenom. 203, 8 (2015).
[16] J. C. Woicik, C. Weiland, and A. K. Rumaiz, Phys. Rev. B 91, 201412 (2015).
[17] L. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Guo, K. Tang, J. Woicik, J. Robertson, and P. C. McIntyre, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces 7, 20499 (2015).
[18] Y. Takata, Y. Kayanuma, M. Yabashi, K. Tamasaku, Y. Nishino, D. Miwa, Y. Harada, K. Horiba,
S. Shin, S. Tanaka, E. Ikenaga, K. Kobayashi, Y. Senba, H. Ohashi, and T. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. B
75, 233404 (2007).
[19] Y. Takata, Y. Kayanuma, S. Oshima, S. Tanaka, M. Yabashi, K. Tamasaku, Y. Nishino, M.
Matsunami, R. Eguchi, A. Chainani, M. Oura, T. Takeuchi, Y. Senba, H. Ohashi, S. Shin, and T.
Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 137601 (2008).
[20] S. Suga, A. Sekiyama, H. Fujiwara, Y. Nakatsu, T. Miyamachi, S. Imada, P. Baltzer, S. Niitaka, H.
Takagi, K. Yoshimura, M. Yabashi, K. Tamasaku, A. Higashiya, and T. Ishikawa, New J. Phys. 11,
073025 (2009).
[21] Y. Kayanuma, I. Fukahori, S. Tanaka, and Y. Takata, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 184,
468 (2011).
[22] J. C. Woicik, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip.
547, 227 (2005).
[23] J. F. Moulder, W. F. W. Stickle, P. E. Sobol, and K. D. Bomben, Handbook of X-Ray Photoelectron
Spectroscpy (Perkin Elmer Corp, 1978).
[24] J. J. Yeh and I. Lindau, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 32, 1 (1985).
[25] M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, V. I. Nefedov, and V. G. Yarzhemsky, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 82, 257
(2002).
[26] R. Guillemin, O. Hemmers, D. W. Lindle, and S. T. Manson, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 75, 2258 (2006).
[27] A. Jablonski, Appl. Surf. Sci. 346, 503 (2015).
[28] M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, V. K. Nikulin, V. I. Nefedov, and V. G. Yarzhemsky, At. Data Nucl. Data
Tables 92, 245 (2006).
[29] C. Weiland, A. K. Rumaiz, P. Lysaght, B. Karlin, J. C. Woicik, and D. Fischer, J. Electron
Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 190, Part B, 193 (2013).
[30] M. Gorgoi, N. Mårtensson, and S. Svensson, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 200, 40 (2015).
[31] L. A. Walsh, G. Hughes, C. Weiland, J. C. Woicik, R. T. P. Lee, W.-Y. Loh, P. Lysaght, and C.
Hobbs, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2, 064010 (2014).
[32] L. A. Walsh, G. Hughes, P. K. Hurley, J. Lin, and J. C. Woicik, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 241602
(2012).
[33] L. A. Walsh, G. Hughes, J. Lin, P. K. Hurley, T. P. O’Regan, E. Cockayne, and J. C. Woicik, Phys.
Rev. B 88, 045322 (2013).
[34] Y. Yamashita, K. Ohmori, S. Ueda, H. Yoshikawa, T. Chikyow, and K. Kobayashi, E-J. Surf. Sci.
Nanotechnol. 8, 81 (2010).
[35] T. Nagata, M. Haemori, Y. Yamashita, H. Yoshikawa, Y. Iwashita, K. Kobayashi, and T. Chikyow,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 223517 (2011).
[36] Y. Matveyev, A. Zenkevich, Y. Lebedinskii, S. Thiess, and W. Drube, Microelectron. Eng. 88, 1353
(2011).
[37] T. Bertaud, M. Sowinska, D. Walczyk, S. Thiess, A. Gloskovskii, C. Walczyk, and T. Schroeder,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 143501 (2012).
[38] A. Zenkevich, Y. Matveyev, M. Minnekaev, Y. Lebedinskii, S. Thiess, and W. Drube, J. Electron
Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 190, Part B, 302 (2013).
[39] Liu, Z. and Bluhm, H., in Hard X-Ray Photoelectron Spectrosc. HAXPES, edited by Woicik, J.C.
(Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016).
[40] D. F. Ogletree, H. Bluhm, G. Lebedev, C. S. Fadley, Z. Hussain, and M. Salmeron, Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 73, 3872 (2002).
[41] T. Masuda, H. Yoshikawa, H. Noguchi, T. Kawasaki, M. Kobata, K. Kobayashi, and K. Uosaki,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 111605 (2013).
[42] B. W. Batterman, Phys. Rev. 133, A759 (1964).
[43] P. L. Cowan, J. A. Golovchenko, and M. F. Robbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1680 (1980).
[44] J. R. Patel, P. E. Freeland, M. S. Hybertsen, D. C. Jacobson, and J. A. Golovchenko, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 59, 2180 (1987).
[45] J. C. Woicik, T. Kendelewicz, K. E. Miyano, P. L. Cowan, C. E. Bouldin, B. A. Karlin, P. Pianetta,
and W. E. Spicer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 341 (1992).
[46] J. C. Woicik, J. G. Pellegrino, S. H. Southworth, P. S. Shaw, B. A. Karlin, C. E. Bouldin, and K. E.
Miyano, Phys. Rev. B 52, R2281 (1995).
[47] J. C. Woicik, E. J. Nelson, L. Kronik, M. Jain, J. R. Chelikowsky, D. Heskett, L. E. Berman, and G.
S. Herman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 077401 (2002).
[48] Zegenhagen, J. and Kazimirov, A., editors , The X-Ray Standing Wave Technique (World Scientific
Publishing Company, 2013).
[49] J. H. Underwood and T. W. Barbee, Appl. Opt. 20, 3027 (1981).
[50] J. B. Kortright and A. Fischer‐Colbrie, J. Appl. Phys. 61, 1130 (1987).
[51] M. J. Bedzyk, G. M. Bommarito, and J. S. Schildkraut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1376 (1989).
[52] S.-H. Yang, B. S. Mun, A. W. Kay, S.-K. Kim, J. B. Kortright, J. H. Underwood, Z. Hussain, and C.
S. Fadley, Surf. Sci. 461, L557 (2000).
[53] G. J. Jackson, D. P. Woodruff, R. G. Jones, N. K. Singh, A. S. Y. Chan, B. C. C. Cowie, and V.
Formoso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 119 (2000).
[54] Zegenhagen, J., in Hard X-Ray Photoelectron Spectrosc. HAXPES, edited by Woicik, J.C. (Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016).
[55] U. Gelius, C. J. Allan, G. Johansson, H. Siegbahn, D. A. Allison, and K. Siegbahn, Phys. Scr. 3, 237
(1971).
[56] J. C. Woicik, E. J. Nelson, T. Kendelewicz, P. Pianetta, M. Jain, L. Kronik, and J. R. Chelikowsky,
Phys. Rev. B 63, 041403 (2001).
[57] Henrich, V. E. and Cox, P. A., The Surface Science of Metal Oxides (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1994).
[58] S. Thiess, T.-L. Lee, F. Bottin, and J. Zegenhagen, Solid State Commun. 150, 553 (2010).
[59] S. A. Chambers, T. Droubay, T. C. Kaspar, M. Gutowski, and M. van Schilfgaarde, Surf. Sci. 554,
81 (2004).
[60] J. D. Emery, B. Detlefs, H. J. Karmel, L. O. Nyakiti, D. K. Gaskill, M. C. Hersam, J. Zegenhagen,
and M. J. Bedzyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 215501 (2013).
[61] S. Nemšák, A. Shavorskiy, O. Karslioglu, I. Zegkinoglou, A. Rattanachata, C. S. Conlon, A. Keqi,
P. K. Greene, E. C. Burks, F. Salmassi, E. M. Gullikson, S.-H. Yang, K. Liu, H. Bluhm, and C. S.
Fadley, Nat. Commun. 5, (2014).
[62] A. X. Gray, C. Papp, B. Balke, S.-H. Yang, M. Huijben, E. Rotenberg, A. Bostwick, S. Ueda, Y.
Yamashita, K. Kobayashi, E. M. Gullikson, J. B. Kortright, F. M. F. de Groot, G. Rijnders, D. H. A.
Blank, R. Ramesh, and C. S. Fadley, Phys. Rev. B 82, 205116 (2010).
[63] S. Döring, F. Schönbohm, U. Berges, D. E. Bürgler, C. M. Schneider, M. Gorgoi, F. Schäfers, and
C. Westphal, J. Phys. Appl. Phys. 46, 375001 (2013).
[64] W. G. Wang, J. Jordan-sweet, G. X. Miao, C. Ni, A. K. Rumaiz, L. R. Shah, X. Fan, P. Parsons, R.
Stearrett, E. R. Nowak, J. S. Moodera, and J. Q. Xiao, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 242501 (2009).
[65] A. K. Rumaiz, J. C. Woicik, W. G. Wang, J. Jordan-Sweet, G. H. Jaffari, C. Ni, J. Q. Xiao, and C.
L. Chien, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 112502 (2010).
[66] A. K. Rumaiz, C. Jaye, J. C. Woicik, W. Wang, D. A. Fischer, J. Jordan-Sweet, and C. L. Chien,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 222502 (2011).
[67] R. Stearrett, W. G. Wang, X. Kou, J. F. Feng, J. M. D. Coey, J. Q. Xiao, and E. R. Nowak, Phys.
Rev. B 86, 014415 (2012).
[68] J. Mathon and A. Umerski, Phys. Rev. B 71, 220402 (2005).
[69] Weiland, C., Rumaiz, A.K., and Woicik, J.C., in Hard X-Ray Photoelectron Spectrosc. HAXPES,
edited by Woicik, J.C. (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016).
[70] R. L. Anderson, Solid-State Electron. 5, 341 (1962).
[71] M. J. Adams and A. Nussbaum, Solid-State Electron. 22, 783 (1979).
[72] O. von Ross, Solid-State Electron. 23, 1069 (1980).
[73] W. R. Frensley and H. Kroemer, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 13, 810 (1976).
[74] W. R. Frensley and H. Kroemer, Phys. Rev. B 16, 2642 (1977).
[75] G. A. Baraff, J. A. Appelbaum, and D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 237 (1977).
[76] W. A. Harrison, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 14, 1016 (1977).
[77] C. G. Van de Walle and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 34, 5621 (1986).
[78] C. G. Van de Walle and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8154 (1987).
[79] J. Tersoff, Phys. Rev. B 30, 4874 (1984).
[80] A. D. Katnani and G. Margaritondo, Phys. Rev. B 28, 1944 (1983).
[81] E. A. Kraut, R. W. Grant, J. R. Waldrop, and S. P. Kowalczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1620 (1980).
[82] M. Gaowei, E. M. Muller, A. K. Rumaiz, C. Weiland, E. Cockayne, J. Jordan-Sweet, J. Smedley,
and J. C Woicik, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 201606 (2012).
[83] A. Zenkevich, M. Minnekaev, Y. Matveyev, Y. Lebedinskii, K. Bulakh, A. Chouprik, A. Baturin,
K. Maksimova, S. Thiess, and W. Drube, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 062907 (2013).
[84] A. K. Rumaiz, J. C. Woicik, G. A. Carini, D. P. Siddons, E. Cockayne, E. Huey, P. S. Lysaght, D.
A. Fischer, and V. Genova, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 242108 (2010).
[85] A. K. Rumaiz, J. C. Woicik, C. Weiland, Q. Xie, D. P. Siddons, G. H. Jaffari, and C. Detavernier,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 222110 (2012).
[86] M. Kapilashrami, G. Conti, I. Zegkinoglou, S. Nemšák, C. S. Conlon, T. Törndahl, V. Fjällström, J.
Lischner, S. G. Louie, R. J. Hamers, L. Zhang, J.-H. Guo, C. S. Fadley, and F. J. Himpsel, J. Appl.
Phys. 116, 143702 (2014).
[87] T. Nagata, S. Oh, Y. Yamashita, H. Yoshikawa, N. Ikeno, K. Kobayashi, T. Chikyow, and Y.
Wakayama, Thin Solid Films 554, 194 (2014).
[88] C. Lenser, A. Köhl, M. Patt, C. M. Schneider, R. Waser, and R. Dittmann, Phys. Rev. B 90, 115312
(2014).
[89] R. Muenstermann, T. Menke, R. Dittmann, and R. Waser, Adv. Mater. 22, 4819 (2010).
[90] C. Lenser, A. Kuzmin, J. Purans, A. Kalinko, R. Waser, and R. Dittmann, J. Appl. Phys. 111,
076101 (2012).
[91] A. Koehl, H. Wasmund, A. Herpers, P. Guttmann, S. Werner, K. Henzler, H. Du, J. Mayer, R.
Waser, and R. Dittmann, APL Mater. 1, 042102 (2013).
[92] P. Schütz, F. Pfaff, P. Scheiderer, Y. Z. Chen, N. Pryds, M. Gorgoi, M. Sing, and R. Claessen, Phys.
Rev. B 91, 165118 (2015).
[93] A. Ohtomo and H. Y. Hwang, Nature 427, 423 (2004).
[94] Y. Z. Chen, N. Bovet, F. Trier, D. V. Christensen, F. M. Qu, N. H. Andersen, T. Kasama, W.
Zhang, R. Giraud, J. Dufouleur, T. S. Jespersen, J. R. Sun, A. Smith, J. Nygård, L. Lu, B. Büchner,
B. G. Shen, S. Linderoth, and N. Pryds, Nat. Commun. 4, 1371 (2013).
[95] Y. Z. Chen, N. Bovet, T. Kasama, W. W. Gao, S. Yazdi, C. Ma, N. Pryds, and S. Linderoth, Adv.
Mater. 26, 1462 (2014).
[96] N. Nakagawa, H. Y. Hwang, and D. A. Muller, Nat. Mater. 5, 204 (2006).
[97] S. Thiel, G. Hammerl, A. Schmehl, C. W. Schneider, and J. Mannhart, Science 313, 1942 (2006).
[98] M. P. Warusawithana, C. Richter, J. A. Mundy, P. Roy, J. Ludwig, S. Paetel, T. Heeg, A. A.
Pawlicki, L. F. Kourkoutis, M. Zheng, M. Lee, B. Mulcahy, W. Zander, Y. Zhu, J. Schubert, J. N.
Eckstein, D. A. Muller, C. S. Hellberg, J. Mannhart, and D. G. Schlom, LaAlO3 Stoichiometry
Found Key to Electron Liquid Formation at LaAlO3/SrTiO3 Interfaces (2013).
[99] A. Kalabukhov, R. Gunnarsson, J. Börjesson, E. Olsson, T. Claeson, and D. Winkler, Phys. Rev. B
75, 121404 (2007).
[100] W. Siemons, G. Koster, H. Yamamoto, W. A. Harrison, G. Lucovsky, T. H. Geballe, D. H. A.
Blank, and M. R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 196802 (2007).
[101] L. Yu and A. Zunger, Nat. Commun. 5, (2014).
[102] S. A. Chambers, Surf. Sci. 605, 1133 (2011).
[103] J. Son, P. Moetakef, B. Jalan, O. Bierwagen, N. J. Wright, R. Engel-Herbert, and S. Stemmer, Nat.
Mater. 9, 482 (2010).
[104] M. Sing, G. Berner, K. Goß, A. Müller, A. Ruff, A. Wetscherek, S. Thiel, J. Mannhart, S. A. Pauli,
C. W. Schneider, P. R. Willmott, M. Gorgoi, F. Schäfers, and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,
176805 (2009).
[105] Y. Y. Chu, Y. F. Liao, V. T. Tra, J. C. Yang, W. Z. Liu, Y. H. Chu, J. Y. Lin, J. H. Huang, J.
Weinen, S. Agrestini, K.-D. Tsuei, and D. J. Huang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 262101 (2011).
[106] Z. S. Popović, S. Satpathy, and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 256801 (2008).
[107] P. Delugas, A. Filippetti, V. Fiorentini, D. I. Bilc, D. Fontaine, and P. Ghosez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,
166807 (2011).
[108] G. Berner, A. Müller, F. Pfaff, J. Walde, C. Richter, J. Mannhart, S. Thiess, A. Gloskovskii, W.
Drube, M. Sing, and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. B 88, 115111 (2013).
[109] C. Weiland, G. E. Sterbinsky, A. K. Rumaiz, C. S. Hellberg, J. C. Woicik, S. Zhu, and D. G.
Schlom, Phys. Rev. B 91, 165103 (2015).
[110] B.-C. Huang, Y.-P. Chiu, P.-C. Huang, W.-C. Wang, V. T. Tra, J.-C. Yang, Q. He, J.-Y. Lin, C.-S.
Chang, and Y.-H. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 246807 (2012).
[111] G. Singh-Bhalla, C. Bell, J. Ravichandran, W. Siemons, Y. Hikita, S. Salahuddin, A. F. Hebard, H.
Y. Hwang, and R. Ramesh, Nat. Phys. 7, 80 (2011).
[112] N. Isomura, K. Kataoka, K. Horibuchi, K. Dohmae, H. Oji, Y.-T. Cui, J.-Y. Son, K. Kitazumi, N.
Takahashi, and Y. Kimoto, Surf. Interface Anal. 47, 265 (2015).
[113] P. S. Lysaght, J. Barnett, G. I. Bersuker, J. C. Woicik, D. A. Fischer, B. Foran, H.-H. Tseng, and R.
Jammy, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 024105 (2007).
[114] C. Weiland, P. Lysaght, J. Price, J. Huang, and J. C. Woicik, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 061602 (2012).
[115] W. Smekal, W. S. M. Werner, and C. J. Powell, Surf. Interface Anal. 37, 1059 (2005).
[116] http://www.nist.gov/srd/nist100.cfm
[117] W. S. M. Werner, W. Smekal, T. Hisch, J. Himmelsbach, and C. J. Powell, J. Electron Spectrosc.
Relat. Phenom. 190, Part B, 137 (2013).
[118] S. Mukherjee, A. Hazarika, P. K. Santra, A. L. Abdelhady, M. A. Malik, M. Gorgoi, P. O’Brien, O.
Karis, and D. D. Sarma, J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 15534 (2014).
[119] S. Mukherjee, R. Knut, S. M. Mohseni, T. N. Anh Nguyen, S. Chung, Q. Tuan Le, J. Åkerman, J.
Persson, A. Sahoo, A. Hazarika, B. Pal, S. Thiess, M. Gorgoi, P. S. Anil Kumar, W. Drube, O.
Karis, and D. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. B 91, 085311 (2015).
[120] J. P. Chang, M. L. Green, V. M. Donnelly, R. L. Opila, J. Eng, J. Sapjeta, P. J. Silverman, B. Weir,
H. C. Lu, T. Gustafsson, and E. Garfunkel, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 4449 (2000).
[121] A. Herrera‐Gomez, J. T. Grant, P. J. Cumpson, M. Jenko, F. S. Aguirre‐Tostado, C. R. Brundle, T.
Conard, G. Conti, C. S. Fadley, J. Fulghum, K. Kobayashi, L. Kövér, H. Nohira, R. L. Opila, S.
Oswald, R. W. Paynter, R. M. Wallace, W. S. M. Werner, and J. Wolstenholme, Surf. Interface
Anal. 41, 840 (2009).
[122] E. H. Lock, D. Y. Petrovykh, P. Mack, T. Carney, R. G. White, S. G. Walton, and R. F. Fernsler,
Langmuir 26, 8857 (2010).
[123] R. W. Paynter and D. Roy‐Guay, Plasma Process. Polym. 4, 406 (2007).
[124] C. Weiland, J. Krajewski, R. Opila, V. Pallem, C. Dussarrat, and J. C. Woicik, Surf. Interface Anal.
46, 407 (2014).
[125] R. W. Paynter and M. Rondeau, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 184, 43 (2011).
[126] W. Drube, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip.
547, 87 (2005).
[127] O. Björneholm, A. Nilsson, A. Sandell, B. Hernnäs, and N. Mrtensson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1892
(1992).
[128] A. Föhlisch, P. Feulner, F. Hennies, A. Fink, D. Menzel, D. Sanchez-Portal, P. M. Echenique, and
W. Wurth, Nature 436, 373 (2005).
[129] S. Lizzit, G. Zampieri, K. L. Kostov, G. Tyuliev, R. Larciprete, L. Petaccia, B. Naydenov, and D.
Menzel, New J. Phys. 11, 053005 (2009).
[130] W. Drube, T. M. Grehk, S. Thieß, G. B. Pradhan, H. R. Varma, P. C. Deshmukh, and S. T. Manson,
J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46, 245006 (2013).
[131] E. B. Saloman, J. H. Hubbell, and J. H. Scofield, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 38, 1 (1988).
[132] E. W. B. Dias, H. S. Chakraborty, P. C. Deshmukh, S. T. Manson, O. Hemmers, P. Glans, D. L.
Hansen, H. Wang, S. B. Whitfield, D. W. Lindle, R. Wehlitz, J. C. Levin, I. A. Sellin, and R. C. C.
Perera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4553 (1997).
[133] L. Kövér, Z. Berényi, I. Cserny, L. Lugosi, W. Drube, T. Mukoyama, and V. R. R. Medicherla,
Phys. Rev. B 73, 195101 (2006).
[134] I. Ikemoto, K. Ishii, H. Kuroda, and J. M. Thomas, Chem. Phys. Lett. 28, 55 (1974).
[135] K. S. Kim and N. Winograd, Chem. Phys. Lett. 31, 312 (1975).
[136] S. K. Sen, J. Riga, and J. Verbist, Chem. Phys. Lett. 39, 560 (1976).
[137] K. Okada and A. Kotani, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 62, 131 (1993).
[138] A. E. Bocquet, T. Mizokawa, K. Morikawa, A. Fujimori, S. R. Barman, K. Maiti, D. D. Sarma, Y.
Tokura, and M. Onoda, Phys. Rev. B 53, 1161 (1996).
[139] R. Zimmermann, P. Steiner, R. Claessen, F. Reinert, S. Hüfner, P. Blaha, and P. Dufek, J. Phys.
Condens. Matter 11, 1657 (1999).
[140] J. J. Kas, F. D. Vila, J. J. Rehr, and S. A. Chambers, Phys. Rev. B 91, 121112 (2015).
[141] M. O. Krause and J. H. Oliver, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 8, 329 (1979).
[142] P. Eisenberger, P. M. Platzman, and H. Winick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 623 (1976).
[143] W. Wurth and D. Menzel, Chem. Phys. 251, 141 (2000).
[144] P. A. Brühwiler, O. Karis, and N. Mårtensson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 703 (2002).
[145] M. Drescher, M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, M. Uiberacker, V. Yakovlev, A. Scrinzi, T.
Westerwalbesloh, U. Kleineberg, U. Heinzmann, and F. Krausz, Nature 419, 803 (2002).
[146] T. Remetter, P. Johnsson, J. Mauritsson, K. Varjú, Y. Ni, F. Lépine, E. Gustafsson, M. Kling, J.
Khan, R. López-Martens, K. J. Schafer, M. J. J. Vrakking, and A. L’Huillier, Nat. Phys. 2, 323 (2006).
[147] A. Pietzsch, A. Föhlisch, M. Beye, M. Deppe, F. Hennies, M. Nagasono, E. Suljoti, W. Wurth, C.
Gahl, K. Döbrich, and A. Melnikov, New J. Phys. 10, 033004 (2008).
[148] J. Barnes and P. Hut, Nature 324, 446 (1986).
[149] L.-P. Oloff, M. Oura, K. Rossnagel, A. Chainani, M. Matsunami, R. Eguchi, T. Kiss, Y. Nakatani,
T. Yamaguchi, J. Miyawaki, M. Taguchi, K. Yamagami, T. Togashi, T. Katayama, K. Ogawa, M.
Yabashi, and T. Ishikawa, New J. Phys. 16, 123045 (2014).
[150] H. Yasufuku, H. Yoshikawa, M. Kimura, K. Ito, K. Tani, and S. Fukushima, Surf. Interface Anal.
36, 892 (2004).
[151] T. Wakita, T. Taniuchi, K. Ono, M. Suzuki, N. Kawamura, M. Takagaki, H. Miyagawa, F. Guo, T.
Nakamura, T. Muro, H. Akinaga, T. Yokoya, M. Oshima, and K. Kobayashi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 45,
1886 (2006).
[152] C. Wiemann, M. Patt, S. Cramm, M. Escher, M. Merkel, A. Gloskovskii, S. Thiess, W. Drube, and
C. M. Schneider, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 223106 (2012).
[153] M. Escher, N. Weber, M. Merkel, C. Ziethen, P. Bernhard, G. Schönhense, S. Schmidt, F. Forster,
F. Reinert, B Krömker, and D. Funnemann, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 17, S1329 (2005).
[154] C. M. Schneider, C. Wiemann, M. Patt, V. Feyer, L. Plucinski, I. P. Krug, M. Escher, N. Weber, M.
Merkel, O. Renault, and N. Barrett, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 185, 330 (2012).
[155] M. Patt, C. Wiemann, N. Weber, M. Escher, A. Gloskovskii, W. Drube, M. Merkel, and C. M.
Schneider, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 113704 (2014).