Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Probing valence electron and hydrogen dynamics using charge-pair imaging with ultrafast electron diffraction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MeV ultrafast electron diffraction with charge-pair analysis resolves simultaneous valence-electron and hydrogen motion in photoexcited ammonia.

desk verdict A solid feasibility study of CPDF on gas-phase ammonia UED, but the time-zero electronic assignment needs a convolved decomposition to fully land. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21047 v1 pith:7MKA6FHH submitted 2025-06-26 physics.chem-ph physics.atm-clusphysics.atom-phphysics.optics

Tianyu Wang , Hui Jiang , Ming Zhang , Xiao Zou , Pengfei Zhu , Feng He , Zheng Li , Dao Xiang This is my paper
classification physics.chem-phphysics.atm-clusphysics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords charge-pairdistributionfunctionultrafastelectrondiffractionvalencedynamicsammoniaphotodissociationreal-timeimagingfemtosecondnonadiabaticconicalintersection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper seeks to establish that a charge-pair distribution function (CPDF) analysis of mega-electron-volt ultrafast electron diffraction data can separate, in real space and real time, the motions of valence electrons from those of hydrogen nuclei during a photochemical reaction. Using ammonia photodissociation as the test case, the authors show that with roughly 130-femtosecond temporal resolution the full scattering signal, elastic and inelastic, can be inverted into three charge-pair components: electron-nucleus, nucleus-nucleus, and electron-electron. Because electrons and hydrogen nuclei carry the same unit charge, the electron-scattering signal carries comparable sensitivity to both species, which is what makes simultaneous imaging possible. If correct, the approach turns UED from a structure-only probe into a tool for watching electronic and nuclear dynamics as they couple in real time.

What carries the argument

The charge-pair distribution function (CPDF), defined as $\mathrm{CPDF}(r) = \sum_{uv} Z_u Z_v P_{uv}(r)$, where the sum runs over electron-nucleus, nucleus-nucleus, and electron-electron pairs, is the central object. It generalizes the pair distribution function by including electron-nucleus and electron-electron pairs alongside nucleus-nucleus pairs, and it is recovered from the measured scattering intensity by a Fourier sine transform over the full $s$ range with a damping term. The key property exploited in this work is that electron and hydrogen-nucleus charges are equal in magnitude, making the scattering signal comparably sensitive to valence-electron and hydrogen motion, so that the three CPDF components can be separated by simulation and assigned to distinct reaction stages.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to repeat the measurement on deuterated ammonia (ND3) under the same 130-fs instrument response: if the 2-4 Å negative band at time zero is caused solely by the diffusing electron cloud, it should appear with nearly the same magnitude and decay in ND3; if it shifts or diminishes because the heavier deuterons move more slowly, a nuclear contribution would be exposed. Alternatively, a frozen-nucleus ab initio calculation of the ΔCPDF at time zero, with all atoms held at their ground-state equilibrium positions, should reproduce the observed band if the electronic assignment is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a molecule as light as ammonia, the time-resolved percent-difference electron diffraction signal can be inverted into a CPDF that exhibits distinct, assignable features for valence-electron motion and hydrogen dynamics. The experiment captures, in succession, the redistribution of the excited electron cloud in the Franck-Condon region, the umbrella-mode vibration of the hydrogens, the breaking of the N-H bond along adiabatic and non-adiabatic dissociation pathways, and the vibration of hot ground-state molecules. The assignment of the early-time negative CPDF band at 2-4 Å to the diffusing excited electron cloud rests on the fact that nuclei are still at their equilibrium positions at time zero, so only new electron-nucleus pairs can create long-range negative signals. The authors further show that an independent-atom-model PDF analysis fails to reproduce the measured low-angle enhancement, while the ab initio CPDF calculation reproduces both the momentum-space and real-space features, supporting the claim that valence-electron information is being retrieved.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation of the early-time negative signal at 2-4 Å as purely electronic assumes that the hydrogen nuclei have not yet moved appreciably within the first 100 femtoseconds, so that no new nucleus-nucleus pairs exist at those distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For molecules where valence-electron redistribution is strong and light atoms dominate the nuclear motion, independent-atom-model PDF analysis fails; the CPDF route extends ultrafast electron diffraction to such systems.
  • The retrieved time-zero electron signal and its roughly 96 fs decay provide a direct measure of the S1 state lifetime in ammonia, comparable to velocity-map imaging values.
  • Because the electron-electron CPDF equals the difference in radial distribution measured by x-ray scattering, electron and x-ray experiments on the same system could isolate the eN and NN contributions.
  • The observed excess in the 2.5-4 Å region after about 200 fs indicates that surface-hopping simulations underestimate the ground-state recovery channel, giving a quantitative target for theory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the electronic assignment of the early band is correct, the same analysis applied to a series of photoexcited hydrides such as water or methane should show a similar time-zero negative eN feature whose range reflects the size of the excited orbital, which could be checked with existing UED data.
  • Combining CPDF analysis with coincident ion or fluorescence detection could tag the reaction channel per event and verify the channel-decomposed CPDFs predicted by the simulation.
  • The method implicitly assumes that the independent-atom form factor model is inadequate for light molecules; a quantitative comparison of CPDF-derived electron densities with quantum-chemistry densities would turn the claim into a calibrated measurement of excited-state charge distributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports a MeV ultrafast electron diffraction (UED) study of the photodissociation of NH3 with an instrument response of approximately 130 fs FWHM. The authors use a charge-pair distribution function (CPDF) analysis, which retains the full scattering signal including inelastic contributions, and invert it to obtain time-resolved difference CPDF maps. They compare the experimental maps with ab initio fewest-switches surface-hopping simulations and with independent-atom-model PDF calculations. The central claim is that the CPDF analysis allows simultaneous real-space, real-time tracking of valence-electron and hydrogen dynamics: a negative ΔCPDF band at 2–4 Å near time zero is assigned to the diffuse excited electron cloud before nuclear motion, and later features are assigned to umbrella vibration, N–H bond breaking, and ground-state recovery.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant methodological advance. The use of CPDF to incorporate inelastic electron scattering and electron-density redistribution addresses a known limitation of standard PDF analysis for low-Z molecules. The enhanced temporal resolution allows the authors to observe the dynamics of NH3, a benchmark system, without deuteration. The comparison with independent ab initio MD simulations, using no fitted parameters to force agreement, is a genuine strength, and the decomposition into ee, eN, and NN contributions is a valuable theoretical tool. The conclusions, however, depend on quantitative support that the manuscript currently lacks in several places, most importantly the attribution of the time-zero 2–4 Å feature to electron motion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4(a) and End Matter on CPDF inversion and IRF] The interpretation of the time-zero negative band at 2–4 Å as electron motion assumes that 'the nuclei has not yet moved' and hence that the NN contribution is zero. However, the measured ΔCPDF in Fig. 3(a) and the theoretical ΔCPDF in Fig. 3(b) are necessarily averaged over the ~130 fs FWHM instrument response, and the paper's own analysis requires an N–H bond length near 1.28 Å at 70 fs to reproduce the predissociation feature (Fig. 2(c)–(d)). Early N–H elongation within the IRF therefore contributes to the convolved signal at nominal t=0, so the instantaneous Franck–Condon decomposition in Fig. 4(a) does not by itself prove that the NN part of the convolved ΔCPDF is negligible in the 2–4 Å window. Please provide the ee/eN/NN decomposition of the convolved theoretical ΔCPDF at time zero, with an uncertainty estimate for the NN contribution; without this, the assignment of the 2–4 Å negative band to valence-electron motion is not uniquely supported.
  2. [Fig. 3(a) and comparison with Fig. 3(b)] The experimental ΔCPDF is presented without error bars or a noise-level threshold, and the claimed 'excellent agreement' is not quantified. The central real-space evidence is a small negative band at 2–4 Å near time zero, so the reader cannot judge whether this feature is statistically significant relative to scan-to-scan fluctuations. Please report the uncertainty of the experimental ΔCPDF (e.g., standard error propagated from the 4700 scans) and a quantitative agreement metric (e.g., a noise-weighted residual between experiment and ab initio ΔCPDF).
  3. [End Matter, Eq. (3)] The CPDF inversion uses a fixed s-range (1–10 Å⁻¹) and damping parameter α=0.08 Ų, but no validation is shown that this inversion faithfully recovers the true CPDF of NH3 without truncation artifacts. Because both experimental and theoretical maps are processed identically, the differential comparison is internally consistent, but the real-space distances and the relative signs of the bands in the 2–4 Å region, which are central to the disentanglement claim, depend on the fidelity of the inversion. A forward-model test (e.g., inverting a simulated intensity from a known CPDF with the same s-range and α) would substantiate the real-space interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that the total ΔCPDF is scaled by a factor of 6, but the text does not explain why this scaling is applied; including unscaled curves or stating the scaling explicitly would help the reader assess the relative contributions of ee, eN, and NN pairs.
  2. [End Matter, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The definitions do not specify the normalization of P_uv(r) or the charge convention for electrons (Z = −1) versus nuclei; please make these conventions explicit.
  3. [Discussion of Fig. 2(d)] The phrase 'excellent agreement' should be supplemented with a quantitative comparison, since no goodness-of-fit statistic is reported for the measured versus simulated PD curves.
  4. [Main text, summary paragraph] There is a typo: 'photexcited ammonia' should be 'photoexcited ammonia'.
  5. [Fig. 6 and End Matter on inelastic extraction] The extrapolation procedure for the elastic signal relies on a smooth low-order polynomial fit, but no uncertainty in the extrapolated values is reported; since these values are used to extract the inelastic decay constant, a brief sensitivity statement would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CPDF inversion uses fixed parameters and agreement with theory comes from independent CASSCF/MD simulations, not from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The measured ΔCPDF is obtained from the full scattering intensity through Eq. (3) with fixed inversion parameters (s-range 1–10 Å⁻¹ and damping α = 0.08 Ų), applied identically to experimental and theoretical intensities. No quantity extracted from the data (e.g., the 96 ± 22 fs decay constant) is used in the CPDF calculation or in the theoretical ΔCPDF. The theoretical signal is generated from independent potential energy surfaces (Ref. [25]) and TeraChem CASSCF calculations along MD trajectories, not from the measured ΔCPDF. The interpretation of the time-zero 2–4 Å negative band as valence-electron motion does assume that the NN contribution is zero at time zero ('Because the nuclei has not yet moved, the signal from NN pair is zero'), but this is a physical assumption supplied by the MD trajectories and explicitly stated, not a parameter fitted to the CPDF being interpreted. The paper even reports a genuine discrepancy with the MD simulation in the 2.5–4 Å region (underestimated ground-state recovery channel), which shows the comparison is not forced. The End Matter explicitly states that the elastic/inelastic separation extrapolation is 'solely used to assist in fitting the decay constant' and that the CPDF calculations use the complete original experimental data. Self-citations (DBA compressor, prior UED work) are instrumental and not load-bearing for the electron/hydrogen disentanglement claim. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derived observable is the CPDF, which is not an invented entity but a Fourier transform of measured intensity. The analysis depends on two user-chosen inversion settings (α and s-window), on standard scattering theory, and on PES and electronic-structure inputs from the literature. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • CPDF damping parameter α = 0.08 Å^2
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (3) to suppress Fourier truncation oscillations; applied identically to experiment and theory, so it should not create the observed agreement, but it is not derived from first principles.
  • CPDF inversion s-range = 1-10 Å^-1
    The Fourier inversion in Eq. (3) is limited to this measured momentum-transfer window; the same range is used for experiment and theory, but the truncation can shape the real-space CPDF features.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The diffraction intensity can be written as a sum over charge-pair distribution functions, Eq. (2), with effective charges Z_u and Z_v.
    Adapted from CPDF formalism for liquid-phase scattering [33]; assumes an isotropic, kinematical ensemble where pair correlations fully determine the scattered intensity.
  • domain assumption The gas-phase sample is isotropic and multiple-scattering effects are negligible.
    Used implicitly in the rotationally averaged scattering calculation and in Eq. (2); unstated but standard for gas-phase UED.
  • domain assumption The quasi-diabatic potential energy surfaces of Zhu and Yarkony [25] accurately describe the NH3 S0/S1 dynamics.
    The FSSH trajectories rely on these surfaces; errors in the PES would propagate into the simulated branching ratios and CPDF.
  • domain assumption CASSCF(8,8)/aug-cc-pVDZ electronic structure used in TeraChem gives reliable elastic and inelastic scattering amplitudes for excited ammonia.
    All ab initio diffraction signals are computed at this level; the dynamic electron correlation not captured by CASSCF could affect the predicted inelastic signal.
  • domain assumption In the first ~100 fs after excitation, the nuclei are effectively stationary, so the time-zero ΔCPDF changes are electronic in origin.
    Used to assign the 2-4 Å negative band to electron-nucleus pairs; supported by MD but not directly measured.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fourier inversion with damping, Eq. (3), with 1-10 Å^-1 and α=0.08 Å^2 yields a faithful CPDF without truncation artifacts.
    The same parameters are applied to experiment and theory, but no convergence or artifact analysis is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing valence electron and hydrogen dynamics using charge-pair imaging with ultrafast electron diffraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MKA6FHH

@misc{pith2026250621047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing valence electron and hydrogen dynamics using charge-pair imaging with ultrafast electron diffraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MKA6FHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21047}
}
read the original abstract

A key challenge in ultrafast science has been to directly track the coupled motions of electrons and nuclei in real-space and real-time. This study presents a significant step towards this goal by demonstrating the feasibility of time-resolved real-space tracking of valence electron and hydrogen dynamics during the photodissociation of ammonia (NH3) using MeV ultrafast electron diffraction. It is demonstrated that the enhanced temporal resolution, in conjunction with the analysis of the charge-pair distribution function, enables the disentanglement of the correlated motion of valence electrons and hydrogens in photoexcited ammonia molecule. The methodology employed in this study, which utilizes the charge-pair distribution function from ultrafast electron scattering to retrieve intertwined electron and nucleus dynamics, may open up new opportunities in the study of quantum dynamics for a wide range of molecules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of photochemical dynamics in NH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Momentum-space analysis of the diffraction signal. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Analysis of difference charge-pair distribution fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Decomposition of ∆CPDF into different reaction chann [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Time-dependent populations of different reactio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The experimental PD at 1 ps, before (blue) and after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. H. Zewail, Femtochemistry: Atomic-Scale Dynam- ics of the Chemical Bond Using Ultrafast Lasers (Nobel Lecture), Angewandte Chemie International Edition 39, 2586 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Goulielmakis, Z.-H

    E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Real-time observation of valence electron motion, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Hockett, C

    P. Hockett, C. Z. Bisgaard, O. J. Clarkin, and A. Stolow, Time-resolved imaging of purely valence-electron dynam- ics during a chemical reaction, Nature Physics 7, 612 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    P. Emma, R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bost- edt, J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Cof- fee, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding, D. Dowell, S. Edstrom, A. Fisher, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, J. Hastings, G. Hays, P. Hering, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, H. Loos, M. Messer- schmidt, A. Miahnahri, S. Moeller, H.-D. Nuhn, G. Pile, D. Ratner, J. Rzepiela, D. Schultz, T. S...

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Pellegrini, A

    C. Pellegrini, A. Marinelli, and S. Reiche, The physics of x-ray free-electron lasers, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    The corresponding reaction channels are labeled in each p anel. (f) Schematic of representative molecular structure s and the associated electronic orbitals, including the non-bondin g orbital n of N atom and the anti-bonding orbital σ∗ of N–H bond. After crossing the dissociation barrier, the molecules proceed along the dissociation pathways. As illustra...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Bostedt, S

    C. Bostedt, S. Boutet, D. M. Fritz, Z. Huang, H. J. Lee, H. T. Lemke, A. Robert, W. F. Schlotter, J. J. Turner, and G. J. Williams, Linac coherent light source: The first five years, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    E. A. Seddon, J. A. Clarke, D. J. Dunning, C. Mas- ciovecchio, C. J. Milne, F. Parmigiani, D. Rugg, J. C. H. Spence, N. R. Thompson, K. Ueda, S. M. Vinko, J. S. Wark, and W. Wurth, Short-wavelength free-electron laser sources and science: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 115901 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    S. P. Weathersby, G. Brown, M. Centurion, T. F. Chase, R. Coffee, J. Corbett, J. P. Eichner, J. C. Frisch, A. R. Fry, M. Guehr, N. Hartmann, C. Hast, R. Het- tel, R. K. Jobe, E. N. Jongewaard, J. R. Lewandowski, R. K. Li, A. M. Lindenberg, I. Makasyuk, J. E. May, D. McCormick, ...

    2015

  2. [10]

    F. Qi, Z. Ma, L. Zhao, Y. Cheng, W. Jiang, C. Lu, T. Jiang, D. Qian, Z. Wang, W. Zhang, P. Zhu, X. Zou, W. Wan, D. Xiang, and J. Zhang, Breaking 50 femtosec- ond resolution barrier in mev ultrafast electron diffrac- tion with a double bend achromat compressor, Phys. Rev. Lett. ...

    2020

  3. [11]

    A. A. Ischenko, P. M. Weber, and R. J. D. Miller, Cap- turing chemistry in action with electrons: Realization of atomically resolved reaction dynamics, Chem. Rev. 117, 11066 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Filippetto, P

    D. Filippetto, P. Musumeci, R. K. Li, B. J. Siwick, M. R. Otto, M. Centurion, and J. P. F. Nunes, Ultrafast elec- tron diffraction: Visualizing dynamic states of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045004 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    M. P. Minitti, J. M. Budarz, A. Kirrander, J. S. Robin- son, D. Ratner, T. J. Lane, D. Zhu, J. M. Glownia, M. Kozina, H. T. Lemke, M. Sikorski, Y. Feng, S. Nel- son, K. Saita, B. Stankus, T. Northey, J. B. Hastings, and P. M. Weber, Imaging molecular motion: Femtosec- ond x-ra...

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. M. Glownia, A. Natan, J. P. Cryan, R. Hartsock, M. Kozina, M. P. Minitti, S. Nelson, J. Robinson, T. Sato, T. van Driel, G. Welch, C. Weninger, D. Zhu, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Self-referenced coherent diffrac- tion x-ray movie of ˚ angstrom- and femtosecond-scale atomic motion,...

    2016

  7. [15]

    Stankus, H

    B. Stankus, H. Yong, N. Zotev, J. M. Ruddock, D. Bell- shaw, T. J. Lane, M. Liang, S. Boutet, S. Carbajo, J. S. Robinson, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, J. E. Koglin, M. P. Minitti, A. Kirrander, and P. M. Weber, Ultrafast X-ray scattering reveals vibrational coherence following Ryd...

    2019

  8. [16]

    J. M. Ruddock, H. Yong, B. Stankus, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, A. Odate, A. M. Carrascosa, D. Bellshaw, N. Zotev, M. Liang, S. Carbajo, J. Koglin, J. S. Robinson, S. Boutet, A. Kirrander, M. P. Minitti, and P. M. Weber, A deep UV trigger for ground-state ring-opening dynam- ics ...

    2019

  9. [17]

    H. Yong, N. Zotev, J. M. Ruddock, B. Stankus, M. Simmermacher, A. M. Carrascosa, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, D. Bellshaw, M. Liang, S. Carbajo, J. E. Koglin, J. S. Robinson, S. Boutet, M. P. Minitti, A. Kir- rander, and P. M. Weber, Observation of the molecular response to light ...

    2020

  10. [18]

    H. Yong, X. Xu, J. M. Ruddock, B. Stankus, A. M. Carrascosa, N. Zotev, D. Bellshaw, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, S. Boutet, S. Carbajo, J. E. Koglin, M. Liang, J. S. Robinson, A. Kirrander, M. P. Minitti, and P. M. Weber, Ultrafast X-ray scattering offers a structural view of excit...

    2021

  11. [19]

    J. Yang, M. Guehr, X. Shen, R. Li, T. Vecchione, 7 R. Coffee, J. Corbett, A. Fry, N. Hartmann, C. Hast, K. Hegazy, K. Jobe, I. Makasyuk, J. Robinson, M. S. Robinson, S. Vetter, S. Weathersby, C. Yoneda, X. Wang, and M. Centurion, Diffractive imaging of coherent nu- clear motion ...

    2016

  12. [20]

    J. Yang, X. Zhu, T. J. A. Wolf, Z. Li, J. P. F. Nunes, R. Coffee, J. P. Cryan, M. G¨ uhr, K. Hegazy, T. F. Heinz, K. Jobe, R. Li, X. Shen, T. Veccione, S. Weathersby, K. J. Wilkin, C. Yoneda, Q. Zheng, T. J. Martinez, M. Cen- turion, and X. Wang, Imaging CF 3I conical intersect...

    2018

  13. [21]

    T. Wolf, D. M. Sanchez, J. Yang, R. Parrish, J. Nunes, M. Centurion, R. Coffee, J. Cryan, M. G¨ uhr, K. Hegazy, A. Kirrander, R. K. Li, J. Ruddock, X. Shen, T. Vec- chione, S. P. Weathersby, P. M. Weber, K. Wilkin, H. Yong, Q. Zheng, X. J. Wang, M. P. Minitti, and T. J. Mart ´ ...

    2019

  14. [22]

    J. Yang, X. Zhu, J. P. F. Nunes, J. K. Yu, R. M. Parrish, T. J. A. Wolf, M. Centurion, M. G¨ uhr, R. Li, Y. Liu, B. Moore, M. Niebuhr, S. Park, X. Shen, S. Weathersby, T. Weinacht, T. J. Martinez, and X. Wang, Simultane- ous observation of nuclear and electronic dynamics by ul...

    2020

  15. [23]

    T. Wang, H. Jiang, C. Jin, X. Zou, P. Zhu, T. Jiang, F. He, and D. Xiang, Imaging the photochemical dynam- ics of cyclobutanone with MeV ultrafast electron diffrac- tion, J. Chem. Phys. 162, 184201 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    A. E. Green, Y. Liu, F. Allum, M. Graßl, P. Lenzen, M. N. R. Ashfold, S. Bhattacharyya, X. Cheng, M. Cen- turion, S. W. Crane, R. Forbes, N. A. Goff, L. Huang, B. Kaufman, M.-F. Kling, P. L. Kramer, H. V. S. Lam, K. A. Larsen, R. Lemons, M.-F. Lin, A. J. Orr-Ewing, D. Rolles, A...

    2025

  17. [25]

    E. G. Champenois, N. H. List, M. Ware, M. Britton, P. H. Bucksbaum, X. Cheng, M. Centurion, J. P. Cryan, R. Forbes, I. Gabalski, K. Hegazy, M. C. Hoffmann, A. J. Howard, F. Ji, M.-F. Lin, J. P. F. Nunes, X. Shen, J. Yang, X. Wang, T. J. Martinez, and T. J. A. Wolf, Femtosecond ...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zhu and D

    X. Zhu and D. R. Yarkony, Quasi-diabatic representa- tions of adiabatic potential energy surfaces coupled by conical intersections including bond breaking: A more general construction procedure and an analysis of the dia- batic representation, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A511 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    J. Ma, X. Zhu, H. Guo, and D. R. Yarkony, First principles determination of the NH 2/ND2( ˜A, ˜X) branch- ing ratios for photodissociation of NH 3/ND3 via full- dimensional quantum dynamics based on a new quasi- diabatic representation of coupled ab initio potential en- ergy s...

    2012

  20. [28]

    Zotev, A

    N. Zotev, A. Moreno Carrascosa, M. Simmermacher, and A. Kirrander, Excited electronic states in total isotropic scattering from molecules, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2594 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    J. D. Rodr ´ ıguez, M. G. Gonz´ alez, L. Rubio-Lago, and L. Ba˜ nares, A velocity map imaging study of the pho- todissociation of the ˜A state of ammonia, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 406 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    C. Xie, X. Zhu, J. Ma, D. R. Yarkony, D. Xie, and H. Guo, Communication: On the competition between adiabatic and nonadiabatic dynamics in vibrationally mediated ammonia photodissociation in its A band, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 091101 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    M. L. Hause, Y. H. Yoon, and F. F. Crim, Vibrationally mediated photodissociation of ammonia: The influence of N–H stretching vibrations on passage through conical intersections, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 174309 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    M. I. McCarthy, P. Rosmus, H. Werner, P. Botschwina, and V. Vaida, Dissociation of NH 3 to NH 2+H, J. Chem. Phys. 86, 6693 (1987)

    1987

  25. [33]

    Y. Q. Li and A. J. C. Varandas, Ab-Initio-based global double many-body expansion potential energy surface for the electronic ground state of the ammonia molecule, J. Phys. Chem. A 114, 6669 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    J. Yang, J. P. F. Nunes, K. Ledbetter, E. Biasin, M. Cen- turion, Z. Chen, A. A. Cordones, C. Crissman, D. P. De- ponte, S. H. Glenzer, M.-F. Lin, M. Mo, C. D. Rankine, X. Shen, T. J. A. Wolf, and X. Wang, Structure retrieval in liquid-phase electron scattering, Phys. Chem. Ch...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Cheng, H.-C

    B.-M. Cheng, H.-C. Lu, H.-K. Chen, M. Bahou, Y.-P. Lee, A. M. Mebel, L. C. Lee, M.-C. Liang, and Y. L. Yung, Absorption cross sections of NH 3, NH 2D, NHD 2, and ND 3 in the spectral range 140-220 nm and implica- tions for planetary isotopic fractionation, Astrophys. J. 647, 1...

    2006

  28. [36]

    J. Yang, R. Dettori, J. P. F. Nunes, N. H. List, E. Biasin, M. Centurion, Z. Chen, A. A. Cordones, D. P. Deponte, T. F. Heinz, et al. , Direct observation of ultrafast hydro- gen bond strengthening in liquid water, Nature 596, 531 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Centurion, T

    M. Centurion, T. J. Wolf, and J. Yang, Ultrafast imaging of molecules with electron diffraction, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 73, 21 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    K. L. Wells, G. Perriam, and V. G. Stavros, Time- resolved velocity map ion imaging study of NH 3 pho- todissociation, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 074308 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Richter, P

    M. Richter, P. Marquetand, J. Gonz´ alez-V´ azquez, I. Sola, and L. Gonz´ alez, SHARC: ab initio molecular dynamics with surface hopping in the adiabatic representation in- cluding arbitrary couplings, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 1253 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Seritan, C

    S. Seritan, C. Bannwarth, B. S. Fales, E. G. Hohen- stein, S. I. L. Kokkila-Schumacher, N. Luehr, J. Sny- der, James W., C. Song, A. V. Titov, I. S. Ufimtsev, and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, TeraChem: Accelerating electronic structure and ab initio molecular dynamics with graphi- cal pr...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.