Page 31 - Read Online

Hansen et al. Microstructures 2023;3:2023029 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/microstructures.2023.17 Page 9 of 17

Table 2. Euclidean, Cosine, and SSIM similarity values compared to the reference pattern, along with the reliability values, in the VO
2
on sapphire sample
Diffraction pattern Similarity method
Euclidean Cosine SSIM
A 0.707 0.841 0.045
B 0.632 0.807 0.046
C 0.678 0.804 0.033
D 0.421 0.771 0.035
Reliability 1.043 1.042 1.022

Table 3. Euclidean, Cosine, and SSIM similarity values compared to the reference pattern, along with the reliability values, in the VO
2
on sapphire sample denoised with a Gaussian filter applied (radius = 5)
Diffraction pattern Similarity method
Euclidean Cosine SSIM
A 0.910 0.919 0.846
B 0.600 0.907 0.666
C 0.723 0.903 0.718
D 0.412 0.284 0.276
Reliability 1.259 1.013 1.178

Figure 5. Crystallographic variant maps of the VO thin film on sapphire sample generated using the (A) Euclidean distance, (B) Cosine,
2
and (C) SSIM algorithms.

Figure 6. VBF image of VO thin film on sapphire (left) and the selected diffraction patterns (right) after Gaussian filtering (radius = 5)
2
for similarity quantification.

variants are very different from the Ref pattern (similarity values are 0.600 and 0.723). The difference is the
largest when comparing the vacuum diffraction pattern with the Ref pattern, which yields a similarity value