Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field II: Quantum Chemistry Calculations with Gauge Invariant Atomic Orbitals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a molecule in a static magnetic field, computing with gauge-invariant atomic orbitals makes the phase-space electronic Hamiltonian translationally and rotationally invariant, and the ground state can have nonzero electronic motion.

desk verdict The GIAO implementation and symmetry proofs are the real contribution; the headline Pi_eff_min != 0 prediction is suggestive but rests on a dropped term and an unvalidated ansatz, so treat the numerics as preliminary. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13879 v2 pith:4T4GRDCY submitted 2024-11-21 physics.chem-ph

Mansi Bhati , Zhen Tao , Xuezhi Bian , Jonathan Rawlinson , Robert Littlejohn , Joseph E. Subotnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph PACS 31.15.ae31.15.-p33.15.-e
keywords phase-spaceelectronicHamiltoniangauge-includingatomicorbitalsmagneticfieldelectrontranslationfactorsrotationalpseudomomentumconservationangularmomentumbeyondBorn-Oppenheimer
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

This paper puts the phase-space electronic Hamiltonian from Paper I into a practical atomic-orbital form by dressing the basis with gauge-including atomic orbitals (GIAOs). It proves that, even in a truncated basis, the resulting energies are independent of the magnetic gauge origin and invariant under translation and rotation. It then shows that Hamilton's equations along an eigenstate conserve total pseudomomentum and total canonical angular momentum in the field direction. The central physical result is that, for a molecule like H2O2 in a finite magnetic field, the phase-space potential energy is minimized at a nonzero effective nuclear momentum, which the authors interpret as nonzero electronic motion in the ground state even when the nuclei are stationary.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-space electronic Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{PS}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}}) = \sum_I (\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff},I})^2/(2M_I) + V_{PS}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}},G,\mathbf{B})$, whose eigenstates are parameterized by both nuclear positions and an effective nuclear momentum. The coupling between nuclear momentum and electronic motion enters through the operator $\hat{\Gamma}_I$, a sum of electron translation and rotation factors built from the electronic pseudomomentum $\hat{k}^I$ relative to each nucleus and an electronegativity-weighted projector $\hat{\Theta}_I$. Gauge-including atomic orbitals, which multiply each atomic function $\phi_\mu$ by the phase $\exp(-ie \mathbf{A}_M\cdot\mathbf{r})/\hbar$, remove the dependence on the gauge origin $G$ and make all matrix elements (including those of $\hat{\Gamma}_I$) well defined in a finite basis; the conservation proofs rest on how these phases transform under translation and rotation.

What would settle it

For the hydrogen atom in a uniform magnetic field, compute the phase-space Hamiltonian's ground-state energy and electronic current density in a large GIAO basis and compare with the exact analytical solution; the paper claims exactness for hydrogen, so any discrepancy would invalidate the $\Gamma$ ansatz or its GIAO implementation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the phase-space electronic Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{PS}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}})$, evaluated in a GIAO basis, has all one- and two-electron integrals independent of the gauge origin $G$, and that the resulting energy $E_{PS}$ is translationally and rotationally invariant. From these invariances and the explicit matrix elements of the electron translation and rotation factors $\hat{\Gamma}_I$, the authors prove that the total pseudomomentum $\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{mol}}$ and the $z$-component of the total canonical angular momentum $L^z_{\mathrm{mol}}$ are conserved during dynamics. For $\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}_2$, the phase-space potential surface at nonzero magnetic field has its minimum at $\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{min}} \neq 0$; because the true kinetic momentum vanishes at that point, the nonzero $\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is not nuclear motion but rather a signature of circulating electronic current in the ground state.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the electron translation and rotation factors, whose form is fixed by symmetry constraints and electronegativity-based parameters, correctly describe how nuclear momentum and a magnetic field affect the electrons; no exact or experimental benchmark is provided for this ansatz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum-chemistry packages can compute magnetic-field energy surfaces with the phase-space Hamiltonian using only one-electron additions to a standard Born-Oppenheimer code.
  • Molecular dynamics in magnetic fields can be run on an eigenstate of this Hamiltonian without tracking Berry forces, and the conserved pseudomomentum and angular momentum will be preserved.
  • Geometry optimizations in a magnetic field should allow the effective nuclear momentum to relax to a nonzero value, revealing electronic currents that Born-Oppenheimer calculations miss.
  • Spectroscopic observables that depend on electronic angular momentum, such as magnetic circular dichroism, can be connected to the $\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}}$-dependent terms in the phase-space potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the nonzero $\mathbf{\Pi}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{min}}$ persists in large basis sets and with the $\Gamma^2$ term included, standard Born-Oppenheimer magnetic-field calculations are missing a genuine electronic polarization that affects structure and dynamics.
  • The same GIAO phase-space machinery could be adapted to compute magnetic-field-induced currents and electronic momentum densities directly, giving a practical route to visualize electrons circulating in a molecular ground state.
  • A direct numerical test of the conservation laws (e.g., a trajectory of a diatomic in a uniform field) would either confirm the proofs or reveal a truncation artifact in the $\Gamma$ ansatz; no such test is reported here.
  • The electron rotation factors in $\Gamma''$ are constructed from the geometry of nuclear positions; applying this to nonrigid or floppy molecules may require a more flexible definition.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript implements a phase-space electronic Hamiltonian for molecules in a static magnetic field in a finite atomic-orbital basis, using gauge-including atomic orbitals (GIAOs). It derives explicit GIAO matrix elements for the electron translation/rotation operator Γ, proves gauge-origin independence and translational/rotational invariance of the phase-space energy, and proves conservation of total pseudomomentum and canonical angular momentum in the GIAO basis. Preliminary Q-Chem calculations on H2O2 show that, for magnetic fields along y or z, the phase-space energy is minimized at a nonzero effective nuclear momentum Πeff_min, which the authors interpret as evidence of nonzero electronic motion in the ground state. The paper is a companion to a theoretical paper (Paper I) and focuses on the practical GIAO formulation and a first numerical demonstration.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a practical route to beyond-Born-Oppenheimer electronic structure in magnetic fields: the new Γ terms are one-electron, the GIAO formulation removes gauge-origin artifacts, and the conservation laws are proven in a finite basis. The explicit working equations and the implementation in a standard package are valuable, and the prediction of a momentum-dependent potential surface with Πeff_min ≠ 0 is falsifiable. The main weaknesses are that the central numerical prediction is controlled by an ansatz for Γ that is constrained but not uniquely determined or independently validated, and that the momentum observables used for the physical interpretation are shown to suffer from basis-set artifacts. The specific concern that the dropped Γ² term shifts Πeff_min does not survive inspection, because that term is independent of Πeff and therefore does not change the stationarity condition; it only offsets the absolute energy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (52)-(57)] The Γ operator is introduced as a 'meaningful form' satisfying the conservation constraints (61)-(64), but it is not derived uniquely, and its weight functions Θ_I depend on σ_I fitted to electronegativity. Since the minimum condition Πeff_min = iℏ⟨Γ⟩ and the electronic-momentum expressions in Eqs. (94)-(95) are linear in Γ, the central numerical prediction is entirely controlled by this ansatz. The paper does not validate Γ against an exact limit (e.g., the hydrogen atom, for which Paper I claims exactness) or against an independent finite-basis calculation. Please add such a benchmark or at least a sensitivity analysis with respect to the σ_I parameters.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Eqs. (61)-(64)] Translational invariance of E_PS is asserted for Γ'' with the statement that the phase factor arises from transforming J and that K_J and (X_I - X0_J) are translationally invariant. This is a load-bearing identity for the pseudomomentum conservation proof in Sec. 4.2 and Appendix B. The paper should supply the derivation of Eq. (63) for both Γ' and Γ'', or an explicit appendix lemma, rather than leaving the central step as 'straightforward'.
  3. [Sec. 5, Fig. 3] The paper acknowledges that the computed ⟨π_e⟩ at Πeff = 0 deviates from the exact zero due to an incomplete basis, and that GIAOs do not cure this. Because the central interpretation ('non-zero electronic motion in the ground state') relies on momentum observables, the paper should demonstrate basis-set convergence of ⟨π_e⟩ and ⟨r × π_e⟩ (e.g., cc-pVTZ or cc-pVQZ) or otherwise quantify the artifact at the field strengths where Πeff_min is reported in Fig. 2(d). Without this, the quantitative momentum signal supporting the main claim is not yet established.
  4. [Eq. (60) and Sec. 5] The Γ² term is dropped as 'small' without quantification. Since Γ is independent of Πeff, dropping it does not change the stationarity condition for Πeff_min, so the core prediction of Fig. 2(d) is not affected by this truncation as far as the Πeff scan is concerned. However, the term does change absolute energies and would affect any geometry optimization; the paper should state this distinction explicitly and report the magnitude of the omitted term, especially for the energy curve in Fig. 2(e) and for the phrase 'minimum energy structures' in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (45)] The symbol π appears to be used for what should be the two-electron integral g in the rotational-invariance identity; please correct the notation.
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 2] The vertical shifts of the energy curves in Figs. 2(a)-(c) make it impossible to judge the magnitude of the energy variation with Πeff; please report at least one unshifted energy scale or the relevant energy differences.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eq. (48)] The text states values 1/σ² = 2.42 and 3.79 for O and H without specifying units or the fitting procedure; a reference or a short description of the electronegativity parametrization would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The phrase 'minimum energy structures' is stronger than what is computed, since only a minimum with respect to Πeff at a fixed nuclear geometry is demonstrated; please clarify that geometry optimization is not performed here.
  5. [Sec. 5 near Eq. (94)] The convention for factors of 1/(iℏ) in the relation between ⟨π_e⟩ and ⟨Γ⟩ is easy to misread; a short dimensional or notational comment would help.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline phenomenon Pi_eff_min != 0 is the completing-square minimum of the (Pi_eff - i hbar Gamma)^2 term whose Gamma ansatz is imported from the authors' Paper I; the conservation 'proofs' are consistency checks on constraints imposed to guarantee those same conservation laws.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 5, Eqs. 59-60 and Fig. 2; Gamma terms introduced in Sec. 3, Eqs. 52-54 via Paper I]
    "For the calculations below, we ignore the Γ2 term in Eq. 60 (which is small). ... From this figure, the most interesting feature that emerges is that, while the dependence of the energy on Πeff remains quadratic, for By ≠ 0 or Bz ≠ 0, we find that Πeff_min ≠ 0."

    With Γ^2 dropped, Eq. 60 gives V_PS = const + (Πeff)^2/2M - iℏ Πeff⟨Γ⟩/M. Minimizing over Πeff yields exactly Πeff_min = iℏ⟨Γ⟩. Thus the claimed prediction of a nonzero minimum is the algebraic completing-square minimum of the (Πeff - iℏΓ)^2 kinetic term inserted into Eq. 46. The nonzero Γ itself is not derived here: Eq. 52 says 'In Paper I, we have argued that a meaningful form of Γ term ... is' and Eq. 94 then identifies electronic linear momentum with the same ⟨Γ⟩. Hence 'non-zero electronic motion in the ground-state' restates the assumed ETF/ERF coupling, not an independent result.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3, after Eq. 60; conservation proofs in Secs. 4.2-4.3 and Appendix B]
    "in designing Γ′ and Γ′′ above (Eqs. 53-54), there are several constraints imposed by the need for pseudomomentum conservation and angular momentum conservation."

    The conservation proofs use constraints (Eqs. 61-64) that were imposed to guarantee pseudomomentum and angular momentum conservation. Eq. 61 cancels the Γ and k^I terms in dK/dt, and Eq. 62 cancels the same terms in dL/dt. The Γ ansatz was chosen to satisfy these very constraints, so the resulting conservation laws are self-consistency checks of the ansatz, not consequences of an independently motivated Hamiltonian.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 1, bullet list of desirable features of the Paper I Hamiltonian]
    "As demonstrated in Paper I, this Hamiltonian has many desirable features: ... The approach is exact for the hydrogen atom."

    The adoption and plausibility of the Γ ansatz, which carries the central nonzero-Πeff result, relies on the authors' own Paper I (arXiv:2411.13866). That prior demonstration is not machine-checked or independently reproduced here, and Paper I's Γ is itself an argued ansatz. No external benchmark or exact-limit check is provided for the many-electron H2O2 case, so the central physical conclusion rests substantially on this self-citation chain.

full rationale

The GIAO implementation and the explicit translational/rotational invariance proofs in Secs. 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, and 3.3 are self-contained algebra: they show that the chosen Gamma matrix elements transform with the correct phases, and these steps are not circular in themselves. The circularity lies in the physical headline. The phase-space energy (Eq. 60) is a quadratic function of Pi_eff with a linear Pi_eff*Gamma coupling; dropping the Gamma^2 term immediately gives Pi_eff_min = i hbar <Gamma>, so the central observation that the minimum occurs at nonzero Pi_eff is forced by the form of the Hamiltonian that was posited in Eq. 46. The nonzero Gamma expectation value is then equated with electronic motion through Eq. 94, making the 'prediction' a relabeling of the ETF/ERF ansatz. The conservation laws are likewise guaranteed by construction because the Gamma operator was designed to satisfy the constraints (Eqs. 61-64) that are exactly the cancelations used in the proof. This does not make the algebra wrong, but it means the paper's novel physical conclusion is not tested independently of its own ansatz; it is a model prediction inherited from the authors' companion paper. The score is therefore 6: partial circularity in the central prediction, while the technical GIAO machinery retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper rests on the phase-space Hamiltonian ansatz from Paper I, the specific Gamma operator form, and the Gaussian charge model. These are not derived from first principles but are constructed to satisfy conservation laws. The main new result, Pi_min != 0, is a consequence of the Gamma term, so the theory's novelty is tied to the validity of this ansatz.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The phase-space electronic Hamiltonian H_PS(X, Pi) (Eq. 46) with the Gamma terms (Eqs. 52-57) correctly describes the coupled electron-nuclear dynamics in a magnetic field.
    This is the central ansatz of the paper, carried over from Paper I. It is not derived from the full electron-nuclear Schrodinger equation; its accuracy is assumed and not tested against exact solutions or experiment.
  • domain assumption The electron translation/rotation factors (Gamma terms) are well-represented by the specific one-electron expressions in Eqs. 53-54, which are constructed to satisfy the constraints in Eqs. 61-64.
    The form of Gamma is chosen to enforce conservation laws, not derived uniquely. The paper notes that it is a 'meaningful form' in Sec. 3, and the choice is not unique. This is an ad hoc model assumption.
  • domain assumption The parametrization of the effective nuclear charge using Gaussian weights with sigma_I fitted to electronegativity (Eq. 48) is a valid approximation.
    This is an ad hoc parameterization, introduced in Paper I and used here. The sigma_I values are fitted to electronegativity, which is an empirical property, and the sensitivity of the results to this parametrization is not tested.
  • domain assumption The GIAO basis, which is finite, captures the essential gauge invariance and translational invariance of the exact theory.
    This is the standard assumption of GIAO calculations. The paper shows invariance holds in the finite basis, but the approximate nature of the basis is acknowledged in Sec. 5, where electronic momentum at Pi_eff=0 does not vanish for the linear momentum.
invented entities (2)
  • Gamma operator (Gamma_I = Gamma'_I + Gamma''_I)
    purpose: To include electron translation and rotation factors in the electronic Hamiltonian, coupling nuclear momentum to electronic degrees of freedom.
    The Gamma operator is a theoretical construct introduced by the authors (Refs. 24, 27-29). It has no direct experimental handle; its validity rests on the conservation laws it enforces and the eventual agreement with experiment, which is not yet demonstrated.
  • q_eff_I, the screened effective nuclear charge with Gaussian weight function Theta_I
    purpose: To account for the screening of nuclear charges by electrons in the phase-space Hamiltonian.
    This is a model-dependent approximation introduced in Paper I, with sigma_I fitted to electronegativity. It is not a directly measurable quantity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field II: Quantum Chemistry Calculations with Gauge Invariant Atomic Orbitals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4T4GRDCY

@misc{pith2026241113879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field II: Quantum Chemistry Calculations with Gauge Invariant Atomic Orbitals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4T4GRDCY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13879}
}
abstract

In a companion paper, we have developed a phase-space electronic structure theory of molecules in magnetic fields, whereby the electronic energy levels arise from diagonalizing a phase-space Hamiltonian $\hat H_{PS}(\bf{X},\bf{\Pi})$ that depends parametrically on nuclear position and momentum. The resulting eigenvalues are translationally invariant; moreover, if the magnetic field is in the $z-$direction, then the eigenvalues are also invariant to rotations around the $z-$direction. However, like all Hamiltonians in a magnetic field, the theory has a gauge degree of freedom (corresponding to the position of the magnetic origin in the vector potential), and requires either $(i)$ formally, a complete set of electronic states or $(ii)$ in practice, gauge invariant atomic orbitals (GIAOs) in order to realize such translational and rotational invariance. Here we describe how to implement a phase-space electronic Hamiltonian using GIAOs within a practical electronic structure package (in our case, Q-Chem). We further show that novel phenomena can be observed with finite $\bf{B}-$fields, including minimum energy structures with $\bf{\Pi}_{min} \ne 0$, indicating non-zero electronic motion in the ground-state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13879 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orientation of H2O2 relative to the x, y, z axes. such separation. To that end, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The phase space energy as a function of the nuclear kinetic momentum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A plot (a) ⟨πe⟩ and (b) ⟨r × πe⟩ as a function of magnetic field strength for two different nuclear kinetic momentum Πef f using phase space theory with a a cc-pvdz basis and GIAOs (and ignoring the Γ 2 term in Eq. 60). Note that, when Πef f = 0, we should find that that ⟨πe⟩ = 0; any deviation from this result (in panel (a)) arises from an incomplete basis (which cannot be saved by using GIAOs). That being said, no… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field I: Conservation of Total Pseudomomentum and Angular Momentum

    physics.chem-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A phase-space electronic Hamiltonian with screened nuclear charges and electron translation/rotation factors conserves total pseudomomentum and angular momentum in a uniform magnetic field and exactly reproduces the h...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dynamical theory of crystal lattices; Oxford university press, 1996

    Born, M.; Huang, K. Dynamical theory of crystal lattices; Oxford university press, 1996

    1996

  2. [2]

    Bernath, P. F. Spectra of Atoms and Molecules; Oxford University Press: New York, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    S.; Meyer, H.-D

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S.; Meyer, H.-D. Electronic and nuclear motion and their couplings in the presence of a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. A 1988, 38, 6066--6079

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S. On molecules and ions in strong magnetic fields. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 1991, 40, 371--385

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    S.; Meyer, H

    Schmelcher, P.; Cederbaum, L. S.; Meyer, H. D. On the validity of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation in magnetic fields. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 1988, 21, L445

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Magnetic screening of nuclei by electrons as an effect of geometric vector potential

    Yin, L.; Alden Mead, C. Magnetic screening of nuclei by electrons as an effect of geometric vector potential. The Journal of chemical physics 1994, 100, 8125--8131

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    A.; Freedman, T

    Nafie, L. A.; Freedman, T. B. Vibronic coupling theory of infrared vibrational transitions. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1983, 78, 7108--7116

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    H.; Nafie, L

    Walnut, T. H.; Nafie, L. A. Infrared absorption and the Born--Oppenheimer approximation. II. Vibrational circular dichroism. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1977, 67, 1501--1510

    work page 1977

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Velocity-dependent property surfaces and the theory of vibrational circular dichroism

    Buckingham, A.; Fowler, P.; Galwas, P. Velocity-dependent property surfaces and the theory of vibrational circular dichroism. Chemical Physics 1987, 112, 1--14

    1987

  2. [10]

    Stephens, P. J. Theory of vibrational circular dichroism. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1985, 89, 748--752

    1985

  3. [11]

    G.; Pei, Z.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J

    Duston, T.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Bhati, M.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Pei, Z.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J. E. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian For Vibrational Circular Dichroism. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2024, 20, 7904--7921, PMID: 39226223

    2024

  4. [12]

    A.; Truhlar, D

    Mead, C. A.; Truhlar, D. G. On the determination of Born--Oppenheimer nuclear motion wave functions including complications due to conical intersections and identical nuclei. The Journal of Chemical Physics 1979, 70, 2284--2296

    1979

  5. [13]

    Berry, M. V. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1984, 392, 45--57

    1984

  6. [14]

    Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems

    Kolodrubetz, M.; Sels, D.; Mehta, P.; Polkovnikov, A. Geometry and non-adiabatic response in quantum and classical systems. Physics Reports 2017, 697, 1--87

    2017

  7. [15]

    D.; Culpitt, T.; Monzel, L.; Tellgren, E

    Peters, L. D.; Culpitt, T.; Monzel, L.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Ab Initio molecular dynamics with screened Lorentz forces. II. Efficient propagators and rovibrational spectra in strong magnetic fields. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 155

    2021

  8. [16]

    Culpitt, T.; Peters, L. D. M.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Analytic calculation of the Berry curvature and diagonal Born–Oppenheimer correction for molecular systems in uniform magnetic fields. J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 156, 044121

    2022

  9. [17]

    D.; Culpitt, T.; Tellgren, E

    Peters, L. D.; Culpitt, T.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Berry Population Analysis: Atomic Charges from the Berry Curvature in a Magnetic Field. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2023, 19, 1231--1242

    2023

  10. [18]

    Tracking Berry curvature effect in molecular dynamics by ultrafast magnetic x-ray scattering

    Zhang, M.; Mi, X.; Zhang, L.; Wu, C.; Li, Z. Tracking Berry curvature effect in molecular dynamics by ultrafast magnetic x-ray scattering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06523 2023,

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Bian, X.; Tao, Z.; Wu, Y.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Total angular momentum conservation in ab initio Born-Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 108, L220304

    2023

  12. [20]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Wu, Y.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Total angular momentum conservation in Ehrenfest dynamics with a truncated basis of adiabatic states . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160, 054104

    2024

  13. [21]

    magnetic

    Miao, G.; Bellonzi, N.; Subotnik, J. An extension of the fewest switches surface hopping algorithm to complex Hamiltonians and photophysics in magnetic fields: Berry curvature and “magnetic” forces. Journal of Chemical Physics 2019, 150, 124101

    2019

  14. [22]

    Wu, Y.; Subotnik, J. E. Semiclassical description of nuclear dynamics moving through complex-valued single avoided crossings of two electronic states . Journal of Chemical Physics 2021, 154, 234101

    2021

  15. [23]

    Bian, X.; Wu, Y.; Teh, H.-H.; Subotnik, J. E. Incorporating Berry Force Effects into the Fewest Switches Surface-Hopping Algorithm: Intersystem Crossing and the Case of Electronic Degeneracy. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2022, 18, 2075--2090, PMID: 35263116

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bhati, M.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R.; Subotnik, J. E. A Phase-Space Electronic Hamiltonian for Molecules in a Static Magnetic Field I: Conservation of Total Pseudomomentum and Angular Momentum. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13866 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fatehi, S.; Alguire, E.; Shao, Y.; Subotnik, J. E. Analytic derivative couplings between configuration-interaction-singles states with built-in electron-translation factors for translational invariance . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2011, 135, 234105

    2011

  18. [26]

    B.; Russek, A

    Schneiderman, S. B.; Russek, A. Velocity-Dependent Orbitals in Proton-On-Hydrogen-Atom Collisions. Physical Review 1969, 181, 311--321

    1969

  19. [27]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Qiu, T.; Bhati, M.; Tao, Z.; Bian, X.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. A simple one-electron expression for electron rotational factors . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160, 124102

    2024

  20. [28]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Athavale, V.; Bian, X.; Tao, Z.; Wu, Y.; Qiu, T.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Surface Hopping, Electron Translation Factors, Electron Rotation Factors, Momentum Conservation, and Size Consistency. Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 159, 114120, https://dx....

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Tao, Z.; Qiu, T.; Bian, X.; Subotnik, J. E. A Basis-Free Phase Space Electronic Hamiltonian That Recovers Beyond Born-Oppenheimer Electronic Momentum and Current Density. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16918 2024,

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pulay, P.; Hinton, J. F. Shielding theory: GIAO method. eMagRes 2007,

    2007

  23. [31]

    Peters, L. D. M.; Culpitt, T.; Tellgren, E. I.; Helgaker, T. Magnetic-translational sum rule and approximate models of the molecular Berry curvature . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2022, 157, 134108

    2022

  24. [32]

    Pople, J. A. The theory of chemical shifts in nuclear magnetic resonance I. Induced current densities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1957, 239, 541--549

    1957

  25. [33]

    F.; Wolinski, K

    Pulay, P.; Hinton, J. F.; Wolinski, K. In Nuclear Magnetic Shieldings and Molecular Structure; Tossell, J. A., Ed.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 1993; pp 243--262

    1993

  26. [34]

    Th \'e orie quantique des courants interatomiques dans les combinaisons aromatiques

    London, F. Th \'e orie quantique des courants interatomiques dans les combinaisons aromatiques. J. phys. radium 1937, 8, 397--409

    1937

  27. [35]

    An electronic Hamiltonian for origin independent calculations of magnetic properties

    Helgaker, T.; Jo/rgensen, P. An electronic Hamiltonian for origin independent calculations of magnetic properties. The Journal of chemical physics 1991, 95, 2595--2601

    1991

  28. [36]

    F.; Pulay, P

    Wolinski, K.; Hinton, J. F.; Pulay, P. Efficient implementation of the gauge-independent atomic orbital method for NMR chemical shift calculations. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1990, 112, 8251--8260

    1990

  29. [37]

    Ab initio methods for the calculation of NMR shielding and indirect spin-spin coupling constants

    Helgaker, T.; Jaszunski, M.; Ruud, K. Ab initio methods for the calculation of NMR shielding and indirect spin-spin coupling constants. Chemical Reviews 1999, 99, 293--352

    1999

  30. [38]

    Effects of electron correlation in the calculation of nuclear magnetic resonance chemical shifts

    Gauss, J. Effects of electron correlation in the calculation of nuclear magnetic resonance chemical shifts. The Journal of chemical physics 1993, 99, 3629--3643

    1993

  31. [39]

    The Journal of chemical physics 2023, 158

    Wong, J.; Ganoe, B.; Liu, X.; Neudecker, T.; Lee, J.; Liang, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, J.; Rettig, A.; Head-Gordon, T.; others An in-silico NMR laboratory for nuclear magnetic shieldings computed via finite fields: Exploring nucleus-specific renormalizations of MP2 and MP3. The Journa...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Irons, T. J. P.; Zemen, J.; Teale, A. M. Efficient Calculation of Molecular Integrals over London Atomic Orbitals. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2017, 13, 3636--3649, PMID: 28692291

    2017

  33. [41]

    Szabo, A.; Ostlund, N. S. Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory; Courier Corporation, 1996

    1996

  34. [42]

    Epifanovsky, E.; Gilbert, A. T. B.; Feng, X.; Lee, J.; Mao, Y.; Mardirossian, N.; Pokhilko, P.; White, A. F.; Coons, M. P.; Dempwolff, A. L.; Gan, Z.; Hait, D.; Horn, P. R.; Jacobson, L. D.; Kaliman, I.; Kussmann, J.; Lange, A. W.; Lao, K. U.; Levine, D. S.; Liu, J.; McKenzie,...

    2021

  35. [43]

    E.; Ulrich, T

    Steiner, U. E.; Ulrich, T. Magnetic field effects in chemical kinetics and related phenomena. Chemical Reviews 1989, 89, 51--147

    1989

  36. [44]

    A.; Scott, M.; Scheurer, M.; Rehn, D

    Fedotov, D. A.; Scott, M.; Scheurer, M.; Rehn, D. R.; Dreuw, A.; Coriani, S. Magnetic circular dichroism within the algebraic diagrammatic construction scheme of the polarization propagator up to third order. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2022, 157

    2022

  37. [45]

    Barron, L. D. Molecular light scattering and optical activity; Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  38. [46]

    First-principles calculations of magnetic circular dichroism spectra

    Ganyushin, D.; Neese, F. First-principles calculations of magnetic circular dichroism spectra. The Journal of chemical physics 2008, 128

    2008

  39. [47]

    Relativistic effects in magnetic circular dichroism: Restricted magnetic balance and temperature dependence

    Sun, S.; Li, X. Relativistic effects in magnetic circular dichroism: Restricted magnetic balance and temperature dependence. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2020, 16, 4533--4542

    2020

  40. [48]

    Naaman, R.; Paltiel, Y.; Waldeck, D. H. Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity Gives a New Twist on Spin-Control in Chemistry. Accounts of Chemical Research 2020, 53, 2659--2667, PMID: 33044813

    2020

  41. [49]

    Naaman, R.; Waldeck, D. H. Chiral-Induced Spin Selectivity Effect. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2012, 3, 2178--2187, PMID: 26295768

    2012

  42. [50]

    M.; Venkataraman, L.; Waldeck, D

    Evers, F.; Aharony, A.; Bar-Gill, N.; Entin-Wohlman, O.; Hedegård, P.; Hod, O.; Jelinek, P.; Kamieniarz, G.; Lemeshko, M.; Michaeli, K.; Mujica, V.; Naaman, R.; Paltiel, Y.; Refaely-Abramson, S.; Tal, O.; Thijssen, J.; Thoss, M.; van Ruitenbeek, J. M.; Venkataraman, L.; Waldec...

    2022

  43. [51]

    A.; Harvey, S

    Kim, Y.-H.; Zhai, Y.; Lu, H.; Pan, X.; Xiao, C.; Gaulding, E. A.; Harvey, S. P.; Berry, J. J.; Vardeny, Z. V.; Luther, J. M.; others Chiral-induced spin selectivity enables a room-temperature spin light-emitting diode. Science 2021, 371, 1129--1133

    2021

  44. [52]

    Temperature-dependence of the chirality-induced spin selectivity effect—Experiments and theory

    Alwan, S.; Sarkar, S.; Sharoni, A.; Dubi, Y. Temperature-dependence of the chirality-induced spin selectivity effect—Experiments and theory. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2023, 159

    2023

  45. [53]

    Subotnik, J. E. Chiral molecules to transmit electron spin. Science 2023, 382, 160--161

    2023

  46. [54]

    Richardson, O. W. A Mechanical Effect Accompanying Magnetization. Phys. Rev. (Series I) 1908, 26, 248--253

    1908

  47. [55]

    Einstein , A.; de Haas , W. J. Experimental proof of the existence of Amp \`e re's molecular currents . Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences 1915, 18, 696--711

    1915

  48. [56]

    Quantum Einstein-de haas effect

    Ganzhorn, M.; Klyatskaya, S.; Ruben, M.; Wernsdorfer, W. Quantum Einstein-de haas effect. Nature Communications 2016, 7, 11443

    2016

  49. [57]

    Wells, T.; Horsfield, A.; Foulkes, W.; Dudarev, S. L. The microscopic Einstein-de Haas effect. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2019, 150

    2019

  50. [58]

    Rotation of Quantum Impurities in the Presence of a Many-Body Environment

    Schmidt, R.; Lemeshko, M. Rotation of Quantum Impurities in the Presence of a Many-Body Environment. Physical Review Letters 2015, 114, 203001

    2015

  51. [59]

    G.; Subotnik, J

    Tao, Z.; Qiu, T.; Bhati, M.; Bian, X.; Duston, T.; Rawlinson, J.; Littlejohn, R. G.; Subotnik, J. E. Practical phase-space electronic Hamiltonians for ab-initio dynamics . The Journal of Chemical Physics 2024, 160, 124101 mcitethebibliography paper2.tex000066400000000000000000...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.