Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to parabenzoquinone

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Many-body theory predicts a positron binds to parabenzoquinone at 60 ± 16 meV.

desk verdict A clean, incremental MBT prediction for positron-pBQ binding (60 ± 16 meV) that deserves review, with the main caveat being the unquantified state-truncation error. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10327 v1 pith:IQXANGDH submitted 2025-02-14 physics.chem-ph physics.atom-phphysics.comp-phquant-ph

S. K. Gregg , J. Hofierka , B. Cunningham , D. G. Green This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-phquant-ph
keywords positronbindingparabenzoquinonemany-bodytheoryDysonequationself-energyvirtualpositroniumformationannihilationaromaticity
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 predicts that a positron, the electron's antimatter counterpart, forms a bound state with parabenzoquinone (C6H4O2) and reports a binding energy of $\varepsilon_b = 60 \pm 16$ meV from ab initio many-body theory. This value is about 650 times larger than the 0.0925 meV inferred from recent scattering calculations, and notably smaller than the $148 \pm 26$ meV the same method finds for benzene. The difference is attributed to the loss of aromaticity: in benzene the positron sits in the electron-rich region above and below the aromatic ring, whereas in parabenzoquinone it localizes next to the oxygen atoms, where the electron density is closer to repulsive nuclei. A sympathetic reader would care because it sharpens the picture of what controls positron binding to molecules and predicts a measurable binding energy and annihilation lifetime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the positron self-energy $\hat\Sigma_\varepsilon$ in the Dyson equation $\left(\hat H_0 + \hat\Sigma_\varepsilon\right)\psi_\varepsilon(r)=\varepsilon\psi_\varepsilon(r)$, built from three diagram classes: the GW polarization diagram, the virtual positronium formation ladder $\Gamma$, and the positron-hole repulsion ladder $\Lambda$. The binding energy is found by solving the Dyson equation on a grid of positron energies and interpolating to the point where $\varepsilon$ equals the bound-state energy. The calculation expands positron and electron states in Gaussian basis sets, truncates the Hartree-Fock expansion to 75% of states, and uses dressed Coulomb interactions with GW/RPA energies in the most sophisticated ladder evaluation. Strength parameters $S = -\sum_{\nu>0} \varepsilon_\nu^{-1} \langle\nu|\Sigma|\nu\rangle$ isolate each molecular orbital's contribution, identifying the $\pi$ orbitals, especially the (H-1)OMO, as the dominant sources of binding.

What would settle it

Run the identical Dyson-equation calculation without truncating the Hartree-Fock state expansion: a binding-energy shift larger than the quoted 16 meV uncertainty would overturn the 60 ± 16 meV claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that parabenzoquinone binds a positron with $\varepsilon_b = 60 \pm 16$ meV, computed by solving the Dyson equation for the positron quasiparticle with a self-energy that includes polarization (GW), virtual positronium formation ($\Gamma$), and positron-hole repulsion ($\Lambda$). The positron Dyson orbital is concentrated in two lobes next to the two oxygen atoms, consistent with the molecule's zero dipole moment and $D_{2h}$ symmetry, and the annihilation contact density is $\delta = 8.0\times10^{-3}$ a.u. (lifetime 2.48 ns), compared with $\delta = 1.61\times10^{-2}$ a.u. (0.81 ns) in benzene. Neither Hartree-Fock nor the polarization-only GW/BSE level binds the positron, showing that all three correlation contributions are required. The paper ascribes the reduced binding relative to benzene, and the lower annihilation rate, to the loss of aromaticity: the positron probes electron density near the oxygen nuclei rather than the delocalized density above and below an aromatic ring.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that truncating the electron and positron state expansion to 75% of the available Hartree-Fock states leaves the binding energy within a few meV of the fully converged value, so the quoted 60 ± 16 meV and the comparison to benzene stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 60 ± 16 meV binding is correct, positron annihilation experiments on parabenzoquinone should show clear signs of a bound state, in contrast to the near-threshold 0.0925 meV value from scattering.
  • The factor-of-about-2.5 reduction from benzene (148 ± 26 meV) supports the picture that aromaticity enhances positron binding, so non-aromatic ring molecules with similar polarizability should bind positrons more weakly.
  • The predicted annihilation lifetime of 2.48 ns, nearly three times that of benzene, is a directly measurable consequence of the positron's localization near oxygen.
  • Because Hartree-Fock and GW/BSE alone produce no binding, the comparison with benzene implies that virtual positronium formation and positron-hole repulsion are essential for quantitative binding in this molecule.
  • The consistency of the cheap g-scaled model (46–82 meV) with the full calculation suggests the model can be trusted for quick screening of other carbonyl-containing molecules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test would be to run positron scattering calculations with the same self-energy; if they reproduce the 60 meV binding, the 0.0925 meV scattering inference is likely missing correlation physics rather than just a numerical discrepancy.
  • The localization at oxygen in a zero-dipole molecule suggests that local electronegative functional groups, not just global dipole moments or polarizabilities, set the positron binding site; this could be probed by comparing para-, meta-, and ortho-quinone isomers.
  • The quoted within-few-meV convergence assumption could be checked directly by repeating the calculation with the full state set; if the binding shifts outside the 60 ± 16 meV window, the aromaticity comparison would need to be re-evaluated.
  • The strength-parameter analysis implies the (H-1)OMO, a $\pi$ orbital with density near oxygen, dominates binding; a testable corollary is that chemical substitutions that raise or lower this orbital's ionization energy should shift the binding energy in a predictable way.
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. The paper reports many-body theory calculations of positron binding to parabenzoquinone (pBQ) using the Dyson equation with GW, virtual positronium formation, and positron-hole repulsion self-energy diagrams. The authors predict a binding energy of 60 ± 16 meV, which is much larger than the 0.0925 meV inferred from recent scattering calculations (Ref. [17]) and smaller than their calculated benzene value of 148 ± 26 meV; the difference is attributed to the loss of aromaticity in pBQ. The paper also presents the positron Dyson orbital, annihilation contact density (8.0 × 10^-3 a.u., lifetime 2.48 ns), and molecular-orbital strength parameters to analyze which orbitals contribute most to binding.

Significance. If the predicted binding energy is correct, the paper resolves a large discrepancy between scattering-based inference and many-body theory for pBQ, and provides a quantitative target for future experiments. The method has been validated externally on benzene (calculated 148 ± 26 meV vs experimental 132 ± 3 meV), which lends credibility to the approach. The molecular-orbital strength analysis gives physical insight into the roles of π orbitals and lone pairs, and the predicted contact density is an additional falsifiable observable. However, the significance is currently tempered by the unresolved convergence issue regarding the truncated Hartree-Fock state expansion, which directly underpins the central numerical claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, paragraph on state-space truncation] The manuscript retains only 588 of 784 positron states and 486 of 648 electron states (75%) and asserts that the binding energy is 'within a few meV of a converged value,' but no convergence study with respect to the retained-state fraction is reported. Since the omitted high-energy states contribute to the Γ and Λ ladder diagrams, there is no demonstrated physical bound on their net effect. The quoted error bar of ±16 meV is defined in Section III.A as the spread among the three ladder variants (54, 44, 60 meV in Table I), so it does not include the systematic truncation error. This is load-bearing because the headline 60 ± 16 meV and the comparison to benzene (148 ± 26 meV) both depend on the assumption that the truncation shift is a few meV. Please provide evidence, such as a plot of ε_b versus the number of retained states or a test at a larger fraction for a smaller basis, or otherwise quantify the truncation uncertainty.
  2. [Section III.A, Table I and surrounding text] The central value 60 meV is described as the most sophisticated calculation (dressed Coulomb interactions and GW@RPA energies in the ladders), while the other two values (54 and 44 meV) use less sophisticated ladder evaluations. Using the largest-smallest spread as the error bar therefore conflates different levels of approximation with a random uncertainty; it is not a convergence error estimate. The text should clarify what statistical meaning, if any, the ±16 meV carries and should incorporate the state-truncation uncertainty discussed above into the final error budget.
  3. [Section III.A, benzene comparison] The comparison between pBQ (60 ± 16 meV) and benzene (148 ± 26 meV) uses the benzene result from Ref. [6]. If the state truncation in the present pBQ calculation has a systematically different effect than in the previously published benzene calculation, the difference attributed to aromaticity could be biased. Please state whether the benzene results were obtained with a comparably truncated state expansion and, if so, whether the same 'few meV' assumption applies, or provide a caution in the interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I, footnote [1]] The table caption lists three MBT values (54, 44, 60) and marks the third as bold, but the abstract and Section IV quote only 60 ± 16 meV. It would help readers if the text explicitly explained that 60 meV is the preferred value and that the error bar is the spread of all three variants.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The enhancement factor formula uses constants 1.31, 0.834, and 2.15 without specifying the units of ε_n; a reader may struggle to reproduce the contact density without consulting Ref. [20]. Please state that the ionization energies are in eV (or otherwise specify).
  3. [Section II, basis description] The statement that the binding energy is 'converged to within 10% with respect to changes in the basis' is not supported by any data. A brief table or sentence describing the basis convergence test would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The text refers to 'pink spheres' for additional basis centers, but the figure likely appears in grayscale in print. Please use distinct symbols or patterns that are visible without color.
  5. [Throughout] The molecule name is written 'parabenzoquinone' in the title and abstract but 'para-benzoquinone' in Ref. [17]; please choose one spelling for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline binding energy for pBQ is an ab initio many-body result, not a fit to the target data or a reduction to a self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim, εb = 60 ± 16 meV for positron binding to parabenzoquinone, is obtained by solving the Dyson equation with an explicit many-body self-energy, Σ = Σ_GW + Σ_Γ + Σ_Λ. No parameter in this calculation is fitted to the pBQ binding energy or to the 0.0925 meV scattering inference from Ref. [17]. The three MBT values (54, 44, 60 meV) are different treatments of ladder diagrams, not fitted parameters, and the quoted uncertainty is their spread. The model calculation using Eq. (3) with g = 1.4–1.5 is explicitly auxiliary, and the enhancement factors γ_n from Ref. [20] affect only the annihilation contact density, not the binding energy. The method itself and the benzene comparison come from the authors' prior work, but the benzene result is externally validated: the paper states the benzene binding energy of 148 ± 26 meV is 'in agreement with the experimental value of 132 ± 3 meV from the same study [6]'. This provides independent empirical support for the method and breaks any self-citation loop. The paper also explicitly concedes that 'complete convergence has not been achieved here' and that results are 'expected ... within a few meV of a converged value'; this is a convergence limitation, not a circular step. In summary, the derivation chain does not reduce, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central binding-energy prediction rests on the prior group's many-body method, a three-diagram self-energy model, basis and geometry choices, and an unverified convergence assumption. The contact-density claim additionally uses empirically fitted enhancement factors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Enhancement factor constants (1.31, 0.834, 2.15) = 1.31, 0.834, 2.15
    Used in Eq. (2) to convert the positron wavefunction into contact density and lifetime. These constants come from Ref. [20], where they were fitted to positron annihilation enhancement data.
  • Model scaling parameter g = g = 1.4 (lower), 1.5 (upper)
    Introduced in Eq. (3) for the approximate model that replaces the full virtual-positronium self-energy. Values are taken from prior work by the same group and are used only for the 46-82 meV estimate, not for the headline 60 meV result.
  • Diffuse positron basis parameters (smallest exponent 10^-3, ratio 2.2, 10s9p8d7f3g) = 10^-3, 2.2
    Chosen by hand in Section II to improve the description of long-range correlation. The basis completeness is stated to affect binding energy at the 10% level.
  • Additional basis center placement (1 Å from each O atom, ring center) = 1 Å offset
    Locations were selected after an initial calculation showed the positron density concentrated near the oxygen atoms. This is a manual basis enhancement that affects the calculated binding energy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The total positron self-energy is the sum of GW, virtual positronium (Γ), and positron-hole repulsion (Λ) diagrams, i.e., Σ = Σ_GW + Σ_Γ + Σ_Λ.
    Section II and Figure 2. The paper assumes these three diagram classes capture the dominant electron-positron correlations; no estimate of omitted higher-order diagrams is given.
  • domain assumption The fixed-nuclei approximation and Hartree-Fock optimized geometry with aug-cc-pVTZ basis sets are adequate for binding energies at the few-meV level.
    Section II: 'We employ the fixed-nuclei approximation in these calculations and optimise the molecular geometry at the Hartree-Fock level.' Vibrational and geometric relaxation effects are not assessed.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncating the state expansion to 75% of positron and electron states leaves the binding energy within a few meV of the converged value.
    Section II: 'complete convergence has not been achieved here due to the computational resources required... but it is expected that the present binding energy results are within a few meV of a converged value.' No convergence study supports this expectation.
  • domain assumption The basis set is sufficiently complete, with binding energy converged to within 10% with respect to basis changes.
    Section II: 'The positron binding energy is converged to within 10% with respect to changes in the basis.' The final basis uses aug-cc-pVTZ/QZ plus manually placed extra centers.
  • domain assumption The enhancement factor formula γ_n = 1 + sqrt(1.31/|ε_n|) + (0.834/|ε_n|)^2.15 describes positron annihilation contact density for these molecular orbitals.
    Eq. (2) and Ref. [20]. The constants are empirical fits to prior positron annihilation data, not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to parabenzoquinone." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IQXANGDH

@misc{pith2026250210327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to parabenzoquinone},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IQXANGDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10327}
}
abstract

Positron binding in parabenzoquinone is studied using \textit{ab initio} many-body theory. The effects of electron-positron correlations including polarization, virtual positronium formation and positron-hole repulsion, as well as those of $\pi$ bonds, aromaticity, and lone electron pairs, are considered. The binding energy is calculated as 60$\pm$16 meV, considerably larger than the 0.0925 meV value inferred from recent scattering calculations of [G. Moreira and M. Bettega, {\emph{Eur.~Phys.~J.~D}} {\bf 78} (2024)], but substantially smaller than we find in benzene (148$\pm$26 meV). The positron contact density (lifetime) is calculated as 8.0$\times10^{-3}$ a.u. (2.48 ns), vs.~1.61$\times 10^{-2}$ a.u. (0.81 ns) in benzene. The decrease (increase) in binding (annihilation rate) in parabenzoquinone compared to benzene is ascribed to the loss of aromaticity: the electron density on the positive oxygen nuclei being relatively harder for the positron to probe compared to the aromatic rings in benzene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Structure diagram of the parabenzoquinone molecule. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Many-body diagrams for three contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic diagram of the parabenzoquinone molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The lowest positron bound states (Dyson orbitals) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plots of the electron and positron density in the parabenzoquinone molecule (a) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Strength parameters for the electron molecular orbitals of parabenzoquinone plotted against the Hartree-Fock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

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. Diagrammatic Monte Carlo for positron-molecule many-body theory

    physics.chem-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Diagrammatic Monte Carlo stochastically sums the divergent virtual-positronium ladder series in positron-molecule self-energies, reproducing exact-diagonalisation binding energies for LiH.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    Hofierka, B

    J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, C. M. Rawlins, C. H. Pat- terson, and D. G. Green, Many-body theory of positron binding to polyatomic molecules, Nature606, 688 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [6]

    Table I quotes three results for the positron-pBQ bind- ing energy calculated using the full GW + Γ + Λ self- energy

    are also shown for comparison. Table I quotes three results for the positron-pBQ bind- ing energy calculated using the full GW + Γ + Λ self- energy. These three results are obtained by using differ- ent methods to evaluate the ladder diagrams from Figure 2(b) and (c), as described in the note below the table. Our most sophisticated (GW + ˜Γ +˜Λ) calculati...

    work page

  3. [1]

    This molecule is similar in structure to benzene, for ∗ sgregg07@qub.ac.uk † d.green@qub.ac.uk which positron binding has been previously studied using our many-body theory [6], leading to a natural compar- ison between the two molecules. Notably, for benzene our ab initio approach highlighted quantitatively the en- hanced importance of π bonds on the str...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    The first is the GW self-energy ΣGW , which accounts for polarization of the electron cloud by the positron, screening of the positron-electron Coulomb interaction and electron-hole attraction. Secondly, we calculate the contribution from virtual positronium formation Σ Γ, the process in which a molecular electron temporarily tunnels to the positron to fo...

    work page

  5. [3]

    J. R. Danielson, J. J. Gosselin, and C. M. Surko, Dipole enhancement of positron binding to molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 233201 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    The first (second) number uses bare (dressed) Coulomb interactions within the ladders and HF energies

    Many-body calculations at three levels of Σ GW +Γ+Λ. The first (second) number uses bare (dressed) Coulomb interactions within the ladders and HF energies. The third, highlighted in bold, is our most sophisticated calculation which uses dressed Coulomb interactions and GW @RPA energies in the ladders

    work page

  7. [5]

    Values of g = 1.4 (g = 1.5) are used to give the lower (upper) bound of the range

    Using Equation 3 to approximate the self-energy. Values of g = 1.4 (g = 1.5) are used to give the lower (upper) bound of the range. the molecule. It is evident from Figure 5(b) that there is a slightly increased positron density in the regions just above and below the plane of the molecule, indicating some attraction to the electrons from π bonds in the p...

    work page

  8. [7]

    S. J. Gilbert, L. D. Barnes, J. P. Sullivan, and C. M. Surko, Vibrational-resonance enhancement of positron annihilation in molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 043201 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    J. R. Danielson, J. A. Young, and C. M. Surko, Depen- dence of positron-molecule binding energies on molecular properties, J. Phys. B 42, 235203 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    J. R. Danielson, A. C. L. Jones, J. J. Gosselin, M. R. Natisin, and C. M. Surko, Interplay between permanent dipole moments and polarizability in positron-molecule binding, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022709 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    J. R. Danielson, A. C. L. Jones, M. R. Natisin, and C. M. Surko, Comparisons of Positron and Electron Binding to Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 113201 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Arthur-Baidoo, J

    E. Arthur-Baidoo, J. R. Danielson, C. M. Surko, J. P. Cassidy, S. K. Gregg, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, C. H. Patterson, and D. G. Green, Positron annihilation and binding in aromatic and other ring molecules, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062801 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Tachikawa, Y

    M. Tachikawa, Y. Kita, and R. J. Buenker, Bound states of the positron with nitrile species with a configuration interaction multi-component molecular orbital approach, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 2701 (2011)

    2011

  6. [13]

    Koyanagi, Y

    K. Koyanagi, Y. Kita, and M. Tachikawa, Systematic the- oretical investigation of a positron binding to amino acid molecules using the ab initio multi-component molecular orbital approach., Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 121 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Charry, J

    J. Charry, J. Romero, M. T. d. N. Varella, and A. Reyes, Calculation of positron binding energies of amino acids with the any-particle molecular-orbital approach, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052709 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

    A. R. Swann and G. F. Gribakin, Positron binding and annihilation in alkane molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 113402 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Sugiura, H

    Y. Sugiura, H. Suzuki, T. Otomo, T. Miyazaki, T. Takayanagi, and M. Tachikawa, Positron-electron correlation-polarization potential model for positron binding in polyatomic molecules, Journal of computa- tional chemistry 41, 1576 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. P. Cassidy, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, C. M. Rawl- ins, C. H. Patterson, and D. G. Green, Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to halogenated hydrocar- bons, Phys. Rev. A 109, L040801 (2024). 7

    2024

  11. [19]

    Hofierka, B

    J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, and D. G. Green, Many- body theory calculations of positron binding to hydrogen cyanide, Eur. Phys. J. D 78, 10.1140/epjd/s10053-024- 00810-0 (2024)

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C. M. Rawlins, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, C. H. Pat- terson, and D. G. Green, Many-body theory calculations of positron scattering and annihilation in h2, n2, and ch4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 263001 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    J. P. Cassidy, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, and D. G. Green, Many-body theory calcu- lations of positronic-bonded molecular dian- ions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 084304 (2024), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0188719/19692847/084304 1 5.01887 19.pdf

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Moreira and M

    G. Moreira and M. Bettega, Can a positron bind to the para-benzoquinone molecule?, Eur. Phys. J. D 78 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    R. A. Kendall, T. Dunning Jr, and R. J. Harrison, Elec- tron affinities of the first-row atoms revisited. systematic basis sets and wave functions, J. Chem. Phys. 96, 6796 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    https://www.nwchem-sw.org/ (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    D. G. Green and G. F. Gribakin, γ spectra and enhance- ment factors for positron annihilation with core electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 093201 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    C. H. Patterson, Photoabsorption spectra of small Na clusters: TDHF and BSE versus CI and experiment, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 043804 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    C. H. Patterson, Density fitting in periodic sys- tems: Application to tdhf in diamond and ox- ides, The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 064107 (2020), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0014106/15577721/064107 1 online.pdf

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    https://cccbdb.nist.gov/diplistx.asp (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    D. R. Lide, ed., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 97th ed.(CRC Press, 2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    V. A. Dzuba and G. F. Gribakin, Correlation-potential method for negative ions and electron scattering, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2483 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.