Singlet Fission in Carotenoid Dimers -- The Role of the Exchange and Dipolar Interactions

Alexandru G.Ichert; William Barford

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Singlet Fission in Carotenoid Dimers -- The Role of the Exchange and Dipolar Interactions

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 This paper claims that singlet fission in carotenoid dimers proceeds through an intrachain exchange-bound $1^1B_u^-$ triplet-pair state that transfers to separate chains and spin-decoheres into two unentangled triplets, and predicts a…

desk verdict A clear, honest extension of Barford's carotenoid singlet-fission model with a testable EPR fingerprint, but the whole mechanism rests on an assumed assignment of the intermediate state. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14282 v1 pith:W4IMJAVM submitted 2024-11-21 physics.chem-ph

Alexandru G.Ichert , William Barford This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.chem-ph

keywords singletfissioncarotenoidslycopenetriplet-pairexchangeinteractionEPRspectroscopyspindecoherenceinternalconversion

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 tries to establish a concrete mechanism for singlet fission in carotenoid dimers: after the bright $n^1B_u^+$ state relaxes, the system lands in an intrachain "dark" $1^1B_u^-$ state, which is a strongly exchange-coupled triplet pair. That pair hops to separate chains, the spins thermally decohere, and the result is two independent triplets — complete singlet fission. The authors simulate the dynamics for lycopene H-aggregate dimers and show that at long times the density matrix approaches an equal mixture of the nine lowest eigenstates, with vanishing entanglement entropy and $\langle S^2 \rangle = 4\hbar^2$. They also predict a powder EPR spectrum with an EAEAEA polarization pattern, which they propose as the observable fingerprint of this pathway.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exchange-coupled triplet-pair Hamiltonian on a carotenoid dimer, with intrachain triplet hopping $t_{\text{intra}}$, interchain hopping $t_{\text{inter}}$, strong exchange $J$ between triplets on adjacent C-C dimers, dipolar zero-field splitting $D$ and $E$, and a Zeeman term. The dynamics are carried by a quantum Liouville equation with Redfield spin-conserving rates and two Lindblad spin-dephasing dissipators. The key low-energy sector is reduced to a two-triplet model with residual exchange $J_1$ and biquadratic exchange $J_2$, which reproduces the nine lowest eigenstates and yields the thermalized $1/9$ population mixture and the EPR spectrum.

What would settle it

A transient EPR measurement on lycopene H-aggregates that does not show the predicted EAEAEA polarization pattern at ca. 300 ns would contradict the mechanism; alternatively, time-resolved spectroscopy identifying the intermediate as predominantly charge-transfer rather than $1^1B_u^-$ would break the assumed state ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the exchange interaction, not charge transfer, governs singlet fission in carotenoid dimers. After photoexcitation to $n^1B_u^+$, ultrafast internal conversion populates the intrachain $1^1B_u^-$ state, a strongly exchange-bound singlet triplet-pair. This state evolves, via interchain hopping and the dipolar interaction, into singlet, triplet, and quintet interchain states; spin-conserving and spin-nonconserving relaxation then thermally equilibrates the nine lowest eigenstates, producing a pair of single, unentangled triplets on separate chains. The simulated EPR spectrum at ca. 300 ns shows an EAEAEA absorption/emission pattern, which the authors identify as the signature of this mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dark state populated after internal conversion is the intrachain $1^1B_u^-$ triplet-pair state; if it were instead a charge-transfer state or another $2A_g$-family member, the exchange-coupled dynamics and the predicted EPR signature would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mechanism is correct, the long-time product of singlet fission in carotenoid dimers is two spin-uncorrelated triplets on separate chains, not a bound pair.
The thermalized state corresponds to equal population of the nine lowest interchain eigenstates, equivalent to $\langle S^2\rangle = 4\hbar^2$ and zero entanglement entropy.
The EAEAEA EPR polarization pattern distinguishes this exchange-mediated pathway from the AEEAAE pattern seen in acene singlet fission.
The model can be extended to other carotenoids and to higher $2A_g$-family intermediate states, not only $1^1B_u^-$.
Because triplet diffusion beyond the dimer is not included, the separated triplets still experience a residual exchange interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

If the EAEAEA pattern is confirmed experimentally, it would provide a direct spectroscopic test for whether the fission intermediate in a given carotenoid aggregate is a $2A_g$-family exchange-bound state rather than a charge-transfer state.
The predicted EPR line positions depend on the residual exchange parameters $J_1$ and $J_2$, so measuring them could extract the interchain electronic coupling and the degree of triplet delocalization on each chain.
The mechanism implies that singlet fission in carotenoids should be strongly suppressed when the $1^1B_u^-$ state is not thermally accessible or when interchain hopping is weak; experiments on carotenoid derivatives with modified conjugation length could test this prediction.
Extending the theory from a dimer to a full aggregate would require a spatially varying exchange interaction, and conformational disorder in H-aggregate packing could break the permutation symmetry of the dipolar interaction and alter the EPR fingerprint.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper you asked about is worth reading. It is a clear, well-structured extension of Barford's model of singlet fission in carotenoids. What is actually new: the authors expand the spin basis to the full nine states, add orthorhombic zero-field splitting and longitudinal spin-dephasing, and simulate the EPR powder spectrum with EasySpin including the biquadratic exchange term. The predicted EAEAEA polarisation pattern is concrete and, in principle, testable against the AEEAAE pattern seen in acenes. The perturbative appendix and the entanglement-entropy calculation are genuinely useful. The paper is honest about its machinery: the Hamiltonian, the Lindblad rates, and the parameters are all specified, and the mechanism is broken into four time regimes.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test puts it: the whole mechanism leans on the assumption that the intermediate S* is the intrachain 11Bu- triplet-pair. Section 1 says this outright. If S* has significant charge-transfer character, as the competing model argues, then Eq. 3, the reduced model, and the EPR fingerprint do not follow. The conclusions relax the label to 'other high-energy 2Ag-family members,' but that still requires an intrachain singlet triplet-pair as the initial condition. That is not an internal inconsistency—the paper is upfront about it—but it is a load-bearing external assumption, and the authors provide no new experimental identification.

Two smaller concerns. First, the reduced-model parameters J1 and J2 are fitted to reproduce the full-model spectrum, so the EPR prediction is conditional on that full model rather than an independent test. That is normal model reduction, but worth flagging. Second, the long-time unentangled result is effectively enforced by imposing detailed balance on the spin-nonconserving rates, so the equilibrium is by construction; what is still a real prediction is the ~2 µs timescale and the dynamical path. Minor issues include missing code/SI in the arXiv version and a few typos.

For a reader in carotenoid photophysics or EPR-based singlet fission, this is a serious contribution. It deserves a proper peer review. I would cite it and bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a theoretical model for singlet fission in carotenoid dimers. Starting from the assumption that the dark intermediate S* is the intrachain 11Bu- triplet-pair state, the authors construct a two-chain spin Hamiltonian including exchange, dipolar, and Zeeman interactions, and propagate the density operator with a quantum Liouville equation containing Redfield and Lindblad dissipators. The simulations show population transfer from the intrachain bound triplet-pair to interchain triplet-pair states within ca. 100 ps, thermal equilibration among the nine lowest interchain spin states by ca. 2 µs, and a characteristic EAEAEA polarization pattern in the powder-average EPR spectrum at ca. 300 ns. The authors conclude that the long-time state consists of two single, spin-uncorrelated triplets on separate chains, completing singlet fission.

Significance. If the central assumption about the identity of S* is correct, the paper offers a concrete microscopic mechanism for singlet fission in carotenoids and a distinctive EPR fingerprint that can be compared with experiments. The model is clearly specified, and the inclusion of both exchange and dipolar interactions, with explicit treatment of spin-conserving and spin-nonconserving relaxation, is a step beyond prior work. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the key predictions are conditional on the assumed intermediate and on the fitted residual exchange parameters, and by a technical mislabeling of the entanglement measure. The paper does not provide an independent test of the 11Bu- assignment, so its contribution is a plausible mechanism rather than a definitive identification.

major comments (4)

[Section 1 and Eq. (27)] The paper's central claim is conditional on the assumption, stated in Section 1 as "In this paper we assume that this 'dark' state is 11Bu-", that the intermediate S* is an intrachain spin-singlet triplet-pair. This assumption is load-bearing for the initial condition (Eq. 27), the exchange Hamiltonian (Eq. 4), and the EPR simulation (Fig. 6). The alternative mechanism in refs. 18 and 19 assigns significant interchain charge-transfer character to S*; if that mechanism is correct, the model and its EAEAEA fingerprint do not apply. The Conclusions' remark that other 2Ag-family states could play this role does not resolve the issue, because those states are still intrachain triplet-pair/CTE hybrids, not CT-dominated interchain states. Please either provide independent evidence for the assignment in lycopene or reframe the paper as explicitly conditional and specify an experimental observable that would discriminate between the 11Bu- and CT-dominated mechanisms.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (29), Table 1] The reduced two-triplet Hamiltonian is defined by saying it "precisely reproduces the spectrum shown in Fig. 3", with J1 and J2 chosen accordingly. These values are therefore fitted to the full model spectrum rather than derived from the microscopic parameters (tinter, J, geometry). Since the predicted EAEAEA EPR pattern (Fig. 6) is governed by the residual exchange interactions J1 and J2, the fingerprint is essentially a function of two fitted parameters. The paper should either (i) derive J1 and J2 from the full Hamiltonian, giving explicit expressions in terms of tinter and J, or (ii) show that the polarization pattern is robust over a plausible range of J1 and J2. Without this, the claim that EAEAEA is a distinctive signature of the proposed mechanism is not strongly supported.
[Appendix B, Eq. (55), Fig. 8] The quantity defined as S_ent = S_A + S_B - S_AB is the quantum mutual information, not the entanglement entropy. At thermal equilibrium the reduced density matrices S_A and S_B each have von Neumann entropy log2(3), so the entanglement entropy (in the usual sense) does not vanish; rather, the mutual information vanishes because the state is a product state (Eq. 30). The text's statement that "Sent ≈ 0 ... displays the complete de-entanglement" is therefore based on a misidentified measure, even though the underlying conclusion (the equilibrium state is a product of two single-triplet states) is correct. Please correct the terminology and the interpretation of Fig. 8.
[Section 3.3, Fig. 6] The simulated EPR spectrum is presented for a single parameter set at a single time (ca. 300 ns). The EAEAEA pattern and its contrast with the AEEAAE pattern seen in acenes are the paper's key falsifiable prediction. To make this prediction useful for experiment, the authors should report how the polarization pattern depends on the ZFS parameters (D, E), the residual exchange couplings (J1, J2), and the spectrometer response time. A robustness analysis would also address whether the pattern is a general consequence of strongly exchange-coupled triplet pairs or a fine-tuned result.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (19)] The spectral function J(ω) = ωω0/(ω^2 + ω0) is dimensionally inconsistent; presumably it should be ωω0/(ω^2 + ω0^2) or the definition of ω0 as a frequency should be revised.
[Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: "on seperate carotenoid chains" should be "on separate carotenoid chains".
[Section 3.1] The statement that ΔE10−1 ≈ 176 meV is given without showing how this value is obtained; including it in Fig. 3 or in a table would help the reader verify the thermal accessibility argument.
[Section 4] The claim that the model "can be used to explain singlet fission in carotenoid aggregates for a diverse range of carotenoids" is speculative given the lycopene-specific parameters; consider softening or providing a scaling argument.
[Eq. (24)] The detailed balance condition for the spin-nonconserving rates is imposed rather than derived; a brief justification of why this modification is consistent with the Lindblad formalism would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Long-time 'complete singlet fission' is imposed by the detailed-balance condition rather than independently predicted; the EPR fingerprint remains non-circular.

self definitional [Section 2.3, Eq. (24); Section 3.2; Appendix B]
"we explicitly enforce that the spin-nonconserving rates obey kSNC_ba = kSNC_ab e^{−ω_ab ¯h/kBT}, ... meaning that the overall rates follow detailed balance. Thus, we ensure that the final populations are the same as given by the Boltzmann distribution. ... The population of each state reaches a thermal equilibrium value of approximately 1/9 at ca. 2 μs ... This corresponds to complete singlet fission."

The paper's central long-time conclusion—complete singlet fission to unentangled triplets—is not an independent prediction of the dynamics. Equation (24) enforces detailed balance, i.e. the final populations are set to the Boltzmann distribution by construction. Because the nine lowest eigenstates are nearly degenerate (ΔE9−1 ≈ 0.51 meV ≪ kBT = 26 meV), the enforced Boltzmann equilibrium is approximately 1/9 population per state. Section 3.2 and Appendix B then identify this equal-population thermal state with unentangled triplets and complete singlet fission. Thus the conclusion follows from the input that the dissipator thermalizes the system, rather than from an unconstrained calculation; only the equilibration time (ca.

full rationale

The paper's observable fingerprint—the simulated EAEAEA EPR spectrum at 300 ns—is a genuine model output: it depends on the reduced Hamiltonian, the ZFS parameters, and the computed 300 ns populations, not on a target spectrum being fitted. The multi-stage dynamics (coherent transfer, spin-conserving equilibration, spin-nonconserving thermalization) are also legitimate simulation results. The main circularity is the asymptotic claim: Eq. (24) explicitly enforces detailed balance and Boltzmann populations, and the near-degeneracy of the nine lowest eigenstates then makes those populations approximately equal; the paper labels this equal-population state as complete singlet fission. That step is self-definitional: the conclusion is equivalent to the thermalization assumption. The paper's initial-state identification of S* with 11Bu− is load-bearing but transparently stated as an assumption and supported by prior published work (refs. 10–12); since it is not derived from the present model and is externally falsifiable, it does not itself constitute circularity, though it conditions the entire mechanism. Overall, the paper has independent content in its EPR prediction, but the long-time complete-fission claim reduces by construction, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a large set of empirical parameters (most taken from ref. 10) and on several domain assumptions about the identity of the intermediate state and the thermalization process. The reduced-model parameters J1 and J2 are effective values chosen to reproduce the full model spectrum. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)

tintra = 0.88 eV
Intrachain triplet hopping integral; value from ref. 10, controls triplet motion.
tinter = 0.0088 eV
Interchain triplet hopping integral; from ref. 10, controls chain coupling.
J = 1.23 eV
Intrachain triplet exchange interaction; from ref. 10, sets spin multiplet splittings.
Delta = 0.32 eV
Exothermic driving energy; from ref. 10, energy offset between intrachain and interchain states.
D = 0.01 meV
Axial zero-field splitting parameter; from ref. 21/Table 1, mixes singlet and quintet states.
E = 0.001 meV
Rhombic zero-field splitting parameter; from Table 1, couples singlet to MS=±2 quintets.
lambda = 0.05 eV
Bath reorganization energy; quantifies system-bath coupling strength.
omega0 = 0.20 eV
Debye spectral function cutoff frequency.
T1 = 5 ns
Longitudinal spin-dephasing time used in spin-nonconserving rates.
T2 = 10 ns
Transverse spin-dephasing time used in spin-nonconserving rates.
J1 = 0.05 meV
Residual exchange parameter in reduced two-triplet model; selected so Eq. 29 reproduces the full model spectrum.
J2 = 0.12 meV
Biquadratic exchange parameter in reduced model; selected to reproduce the full model spectrum.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The intermediate populated after photoexcitation is the intrachain 11Bu- state.
Section 1 states 'In this paper we assume that this dark state is 11Bu-'; the dynamics start from this state.
domain assumption Interconversion between 11Bu- and 21Ag- is symmetry forbidden to zeroth order in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.
Section 1 invokes C2h symmetry to argue the bound triplet-pair cannot decay to 21Ag- and instead transfers to interchain states.
ad hoc to paper The reduced two-triplet Hamiltonian (Eq. 29) with J1=0.05 meV and J2=0.12 meV reproduces the low-energy spectrum.
Section 3.1 states Eq. 29 'precisely reproduces' the spectrum; the parameter values are chosen for this purpose.
domain assumption Spin-nonconserving rates obey detailed balance, so the final populations equal the Boltzmann distribution.
Eq. 24 enforces thermalization; Appendix B uses this to conclude the triplets become unentangled.
domain assumption The principal axes of the dipolar tensor coincide with molecular symmetry axes and the triplets remain colinear.
Section 2.2; this preserves spin parity and determines which quintets mix with the singlet.
standard math The secular approximation decouples populations and coherences in the master equation.
Section 2.3; standard open quantum system approximation used to simplify the Liouville equation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Singlet Fission in Carotenoid Dimers -- The Role of the Exchange and Dipolar Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4IMJAVM

@misc{pith2026241114282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Singlet Fission in Carotenoid Dimers -- The Role of the Exchange and Dipolar Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4IMJAVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14282}
}

abstract

A theory of singlet fission in carotenoid dimers is presented which aims to explain the mechanism behind the creation of two uncorrelated triplets. Following the initial photoexcitation of a carotenoid chain to a "bright" $n^1B_u^+$ state, there is ultrafast internal conversion to the intrachain "dark" $1^1B_u^-$ triplet-pair state. This strongly exchanged-coupled state evolves into a pair of triplets on separate chains and spin-decoheres to form a pair of single, unentangled triplets, corresponding to complete singlet fission. The simulated EPR spectra for lycopene dimers shows a distinct spectral signal due to the residual exchange coupling between the triplet-pairs on seperate carotenoid chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14282 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

M. B. Smith and J. Michl, Chemical Reviews, 2010, 110, 6891--6936

work page 2010
[2]

M. B. Smith and J. Michl, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 2013, 64, 361--386

work page 2013
[3]

Singh, W

S. Singh, W. J. Jones, W. Siebrand, B. P. Stoicheff and W. G. Schneider, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1965, 42, 330--342

work page 1965
[4]

Shockley and H

W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics, 1961, 32, 510--519

work page 1961
[5]

M. C. Hanna and A. J. Nozik, Journal of Applied Physics, 2006, 100, 074510

work page 2006
[6]

T. C. Berkelbach, M. S. Hybertsen and D. R. Reichman, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2013, 138, 114103

work page 2013
[7]

Aryanpour, A

K. Aryanpour, A. Shukla and S. Mazumdar, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2015, 119, 6966--6979

work page 2015
[8]

Santra, J

S. Santra, J. Ray and D. Ghosh, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2022, 13, 6800--6805

work page 2022

Show all 32 references

[9]

Barford and C

W. Barford and C. A. Chambers, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2023, 159, 084116

2023
[10]

Barford, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2023, 14, 9842--9847

W. Barford, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2023, 14, 9842--9847

2023
[11]

D. J. Valentine, D. Manawadu and W. Barford, Physical Review B, 2020, 102, 125107

2020
[12]

Barford, Physical Review B, 2022, 106, 035201

W. Barford, Physical Review B, 2022, 106, 035201

2022
[13]

Barford, Electronic and Optical Properties of Conjugated Polymers, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2013

W. Barford, Electronic and Optical Properties of Conjugated Polymers, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2013

2013
[14]

Manawadu, T

D. Manawadu, T. N. Georges and W. Barford, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 2023, 127, 1342--1352

2023
[15]

Kundu and J

A. Kundu and J. Dasgupta, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2021, 12, 1468--1474

2021
[16]

Kosumi, K

D. Kosumi, K. Yanagi, R. Fujii, H. Hashimoto and M. Yoshizawa, Chemical Physics Letters, 2006, 425, 66--70

2006
[17]

Quaranta, A

A. Quaranta, A. Krieger-Liszkay, A. A. Pascal, F. Perreau, B. Robert, M. Vengris and M. J. Llansola-Portoles, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2021, 23, 4768--4776

2021
[18]

A. J. Musser, M. Maiuri, D. Brida, G. Cerullo, R. H. Friend and J. Clark, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2015, 137, 5130--5139

2015
[19]

B. Peng, Z. Wang, J. Jiang, Y. Huang and W. Liu, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2024, 160, 194304

2024
[20]

Kollmar, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1993, 98, 7210--7228

C. Kollmar, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1993, 98, 7210--7228

1993
[21]

J. A. Weil and J. R. Bolton, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance, Wiley, 2006

2006
[22]

M. I. Collins, D. R. McCamey and M. J. Tayebjee, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2019, 151, 164104

2019
[23]

M. Chen, M. D. Krzyaniak, J. N. Nelson, Y. J. Bae, S. M. Harvey, R. D. Schaller, R. M. Young and M. R. Wasielewski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116, 8178--8183

2019
[24]

J. J. Burdett, G. B. Piland and C. J. Bardeen, Chemical Physics Letters, 2013, 585, 1--10

2013
[25]

P. C. Tapping and D. M. Huang, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2016, 120, 25151--25157

2016
[26]

R. C. Johnson and R. E. Merrifield, Physical Review B, 1970, 1, 896--902

1970
[27]

L. R. Weiss, S. L. Bayliss, F. Kraffert, K. J. Thorley, J. E. Anthony, R. Bittl, R. H. Friend, A. Rao, N. C. Greenham and J. Behrends, Nature Physics, 2017, 13, 176--181

2017
[28]

M. J. Tayebjee, S. N. Sanders, E. Kumarasamy, L. M. Campos, M. Y. Sfeir and D. R. McCamey, Nature Physics, 2017, 13, 182--188

2017
[29]

Stoll and A

S. Stoll and A. Schweiger, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2006, 178, 42--55

2006
[30]

C. E. Tait, M. D. Krzyaniak and S. Stoll, Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 2023, 349, 107410

2023
[31]

bright" n^1B_u^+ state, there is ultrafast internal conversion to the intrachain

B. S. Basel, J. Zirzlmeier, C. Hetzer, B. T. Phelan, M. D. Krzyaniak, S. R. Reddy, P. B. Coto, N. E. Horwitz, R. M. Young, F. J. White, F. Hampel, T. Clark, M. Thoss, R. R. Tykwinski, M. R. Wasielewski and D. M. Guldi, Nature Communications, 2017, 8, 15171 mcitethebibliography...

2013
[32]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

M. B. Smith and J. Michl, Chemical Reviews, 2010, 110, 6891--6936

work page 2010

[2] [2]

M. B. Smith and J. Michl, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 2013, 64, 361--386

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Singh, W

S. Singh, W. J. Jones, W. Siebrand, B. P. Stoicheff and W. G. Schneider, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1965, 42, 330--342

work page 1965

[4] [4]

Shockley and H

W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics, 1961, 32, 510--519

work page 1961

[5] [5]

M. C. Hanna and A. J. Nozik, Journal of Applied Physics, 2006, 100, 074510

work page 2006

[6] [6]

T. C. Berkelbach, M. S. Hybertsen and D. R. Reichman, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2013, 138, 114103

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Aryanpour, A

K. Aryanpour, A. Shukla and S. Mazumdar, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2015, 119, 6966--6979

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Santra, J

S. Santra, J. Ray and D. Ghosh, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2022, 13, 6800--6805

work page 2022