Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Modification of the uniform electron gas polarizational stopping power due to the interaction of the projectile with new collective modes at moderate and strong coupling

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read In a strongly coupled electron gas, the stopping power of a projectile develops a shelf and then two maxima instead of the usual single Bragg peak near the thermal velocity, driven by the projectile's distinct interaction with two…

desk verdict A novel moment-method calculation predicts two-peak stopping at strong coupling, but the prediction hangs on an entropy closure that needs sensitivity testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17229 v1 pith:55QRETUY submitted 2025-05-22 physics.plasm-ph quant-ph

S.A. Syzganbayeva , A.V. Filinov , Jesus Ara , A.B. Ashikbayeva , A. Askaruly , L.T. Yerimbetova , M.D. Barriga-Carrasco , Y.V. Arkhipov
show 1 more author
I.M. Tkachenko
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phquant-ph PACS 52.40.Mj52.27.Gr
keywords stoppingpoweruniformelectrongasmethodofmomentssumruleslossfunctionrotonmodestrongcouplingfriction
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 argues that when a uniform electron gas is driven into the strong-coupling regime (density parameter $r_s \gtrsim 16$ at degeneracy $\theta = 1$), its density-fluctuation spectrum is not a single plasmon curve but a bimodal spectrum with a low-frequency roton-like branch and a high-frequency branch. Because a passing charged projectile loses energy through these collective modes, the polarization stopping power — normally a single Bragg peak near the projectile's thermal velocity — should develop a shelf and then split into two maxima. The prediction is obtained without a small parameter: the nine-moment self-consistent method of moments reconstructs the loss function from nine exact sum rules, with the two highest characteristic frequencies fixed by an entropy-maximization closure. If correct, energy-loss experiments in dense plasmas and warm dense matter would show fine structure that random-phase, Mermin, and static local-field-corrected approximations all miss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the loss function $L(k,\omega) = -\mathrm{Im}\,\epsilon^{-1}(k,\omega)/(\pi\omega)$, reconstructed from its first nine power moments $\mu_0, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_8$ through the Nevanlinna representation of the inverse dielectric function — a linear-fractional transformation in the complex frequency plane whose free ingredient is a Nevanlinna parameter function $Q_4(z; q)$, set here to its static value $i h_4(q)$. The moments enter through the characteristic frequencies $\omega_j(q) = \sqrt{\mu_{2j}(q)/\mu_{2j-2}(q)}$; the lowest moments come from quantum Monte Carlo data and known sum rules, while $\omega_3$ and $\omega_4$ are fixed by maximizing the Shannon entropy of the loss function. The resulting closed expression satisfies all nine sum rules by construction and is what converts the bimodal $q$-dependent spectrum into the two-peak stopping structure.

What would settle it

Recompute the dynamic structure factor $S(q,\omega)$ of the uniform electron gas at $r_s \approx 22$–$28$, $\theta = 1$ by an independent ab initio method — analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo imaginary-time data or real-time time-dependent density functional theory — for wavenumbers in the range $1.5 \leq q/q_F \leq 3$. If the spectrum there is single-peaked rather than bimodal, the predicted two maxima in the stopping power and the friction enhancement near the thermal velocity at $r_s = 28$ would not occur.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at strong coupling the projectile does not couple to a single plasmon-like excitation but to two distinct collective modes, revealed as a bimodal structure of the density-fluctuation spectrum in earlier quantum Monte Carlo work. Accordingly, the loss function $L(k,\omega)$ develops two resonances for wavenumbers in the range $1.5 \lesssim q/q_F \lesssim 3$, and the stopping power $S(v)$ computed from it loses the standard single maximum: at $r_s = 22$ the unique Bragg peak at roughly $v \approx v_{th}$ first flattens into a shelf between about $2v_{th}$ and $4v_{th}$, and at $r_s = 28$ it splits into two lower maxima. The friction function $Q(v) = S(v)/(Ze)^2 v$ mirrors this: it stays linear up to the thermal velocity (whereas the local-field-corrected theory breaks the linear scaling), and at $r_s = 28$ it is slightly enhanced as the velocity approaches $v_{th}$ instead of decreasing. These features are produced by a dynamic structure that RPA, STLS, and static local-field-correction approximations do not contain, while the asymptotic low- and high-velocity limits of the stopping curve remain in agreement with those standard theories.

Load-bearing premise

The whole two-peak prediction rests on the closure that fixes $\omega_3(q)$ and $\omega_4(q)$ by Shannon-entropy maximization instead of from measured three- and four-body correlation functions; if a different closure changes the high-frequency shape of the loss function, the two-peak stopping structure disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $r_s = 22$ and $28$ with $\theta = 1$, the stopping curve for a projectile of velocity $v$ shows a shelf between about $2v_{th}$ and $4v_{th}$, and at $r_s = 28$ the shelf splits into two lower maxima instead of the single Bragg peak.
  • The friction function $Q(v)$ stays linear in velocity up to the thermal velocity at $r_s = 22$–$28$, and at $r_s = 28$ it increases slightly as $v \to v_{th}$; the local-field-correction scheme instead breaks the linear scaling in this regime.
  • In the warm-dense-matter regime ($r_s = 1, 2, 4$), the nine-moment results agree quantitatively with available stopping-power calculations, so the new structure is confined to strong coupling.
  • At high projectile velocities the nine-moment and RPA stopping powers nearly coincide, while both deviate from the local-field-correction result; the asymptotic velocity limits are preserved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bimodal spectrum is correct, similar two-resonance signatures should show up in other dynamic responses — dynamic conductivity, thermal transport, and the density response probed by X-ray Thomson scattering in warm dense matter — where only one plasmon resonance is currently expected.
  • The predicted shift of energy deposition from a single Bragg peak to a broad two-peak structure would change the range and heating profile of fast ions in dense plasmas; this is testable in current ion-stopping experiments at laser-plasma facilities.
  • The closure itself can be checked without new theory: computing $\mu_6(q)$ and $\mu_8(q)$ directly from quantum Monte Carlo imaginary-time correlation functions would replace the entropy maximization and either confirm or alter the two-peak prediction within the same nine-moment framework.
  • Mapping the onset of the roton-like branch in the $(r_s, \theta)$ plane, beyond the $\theta = 1$ line studied here, would show whether the two-peak stopping structure is a general signature of strong coupling in electron liquids or specific to nearly degenerate conditions.
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 manuscript computes the polarizational stopping power and friction function of the uniform electron gas at moderate to strong coupling using a nine-moment version of the method of moments. The loss function is constructed from a Nevanlinna representation of the inverse dielectric function, with the lowest moments μ0, μ2, μ4 taken from QMC data and the higher characteristic frequencies ω3, ω4 fixed by Shannon-entropy maximization because the corresponding three- and four-body static correlations are unknown. The authors report that at rs ≳ 16 the loss spectrum becomes bimodal, leading to a two-peak stopping curve and, at rs = 28, an enhancement of the friction function near the thermal velocity. These features are attributed to the interaction of the projectile with roton-like collective modes previously identified by the same group.

Significance. If the central prediction is robust, the paper would be an important contribution to the theory of ion energy loss in warm dense matter and strongly coupled plasmas, as it would show that collective-mode structure can produce qualitative fine structure in stopping curves that is absent from RPA, STLS, and static local-field-corrected approaches. The work builds on an internally consistent sum-rule and Nevanlinna framework, uses QMC input for the low-order moments, reproduces known results in the warm-dense regime, and makes falsifiable predictions for rs = 22 and 28. The principal weakness is that the predicted new effect is controlled by an unvalidated closure for the high-order moments and by a static Nevanlinna parameter function, so the significance hinges on a sensitivity analysis that is not currently provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (24)-(25)] The frequencies ω3(q) and ω4(q) are not constrained by QMC or by the nine sum rules; they are obtained by maximizing the Shannon entropy over the two-parameter model, with starting values taken from ideal-Fermi-gas ratios. These frequencies control the high-frequency shape of L(q,ω) in Eq. (19), and hence the bimodal spectrum and the two-peak stopping structure in Fig. 4. Since the paper states that three- and four-body static correlations are 'virtually unknown' (App. B), the entropy criterion is a closure, not an exact constraint. I therefore cannot accept the central prediction without a closure-sensitivity test: vary ω3(q) and ω4(q) within the Cauchy-Bunyakovsky-Schwarz inequalities (18) and test alternative admissible closures, showing that the two-peak structure and the enhanced low-velocity friction at rs=28 persist. If the effect disappears for plausible alternatives, the claim should be reframed as model-dependent.
  2. [Appendix C, Eqs. (27)-(29)] The static Nevanlinna parameter function Q4(z;q)=i h4(q) is introduced by analogy with earlier classical-plasma work, but no microscopic justification is given for the strongly coupled UEG. Nevanlinna functions are not fixed by the moments, so a different admissible Q4 can change the high-frequency spectral shape while preserving all nine moments and the Kramers-Kronig relations. The loss function in Eq. (19) and thus the stopping results in Fig. 4 depend on this choice. I ask the authors to test sensitivity to the NPF, for example by using a frequency-dependent NPF with the same asymptotic behavior, or to derive h4(q) from a separate consistency condition rather than postulating its static form.
  3. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4] The comparison with Ref. [30] shown in Fig. 3 is performed in the warm-dense regime (rs=1,2,4), where the loss spectrum is single-peaked and the unknown high-frequency closure is not stressed. This agreement does not validate the Shannon-entropy closure in the strong-coupling regime rs=16-28, for which no independent benchmark is provided. Moreover, the roton-like mode cited from Ref. [17] is itself obtained with the same entropy-maximization closure, so the two-peak stopping prediction does not provide independent confirmation of the mode's existence. The paper should state this circularity explicitly and identify at least one independent observable, or provide quantitative error bars on ω3 and ω4, before the prediction can be considered robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The projectile velocity is printed as the digit '3' in equations and text (e.g., Eq. (4), Eq. (20), and Fig. 3); this typographical artifact should be corrected to a proper velocity symbol.
  2. [Section II] The citation marker '[6 ? ]' is unresolved and should be completed.
  3. [Conclusions] The phrase 'Bruckner parameter' should read 'Brueckner parameter'.
  4. [Section III and Appendix B] The statement that the framework uses 'nine sum rules' is misleading: only μ0, μ2, and μ4 are known from QMC or analytical expressions, while μ6 and μ8 are inputs from the entropy closure and are not independently verifiable. The text should distinguish exact input from modeled input.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (24)] The sign convention for the Shannon entropy functional should be stated explicitly: Eq. (24) defines Σ as minus the entropy, and the maximization is over the two parameters; this is currently clear only from the surrounding discussion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The two-peak stopping prediction is inherited from the Shannon-entropy closure that fixes ω3 and ω4; the bimodal spectrum cited from the authors' own [17] is itself an output of that closure, so the central novelty is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV (Numerical Results) and Appendix B: determination of ω3(q), ω4(q)]
    "The fundamental ingredient of this approach, cf. the characteristic frequenciesω1(2)(q) [defined by the power moments µ0(q),µ2,µ4(q)] have been provided by the fermionic QMC code [17], while the higher-order frequencies ω3(4)(q) were determined by the Shannon information entropy maximization procedure; see Sec. V B for details."

    The two-peak stopping and friction structure that the paper labels a prediction is controlled by the high-frequency shape of L(q,ω), which is set by the closure-selected frequencies ω3(q) and ω4(q). These are not measured or QMC-derived; Appendix B states that they are fixed by maximizing the Shannon entropy (Eqs. 24–25) because three- and four-body static correlations are 'virtually unknown'. Thus the predicted two maxima are an output of the entropy closure, not an independently tested consequence of the nine sum rules. Changing the closure could change the spectrum and remove the two maxima, and the paper performs no such sensitivity test. The key 'prediction' is therefore a closure-selected input presented as a predicted effect.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV after Fig. 2 and Sec. V Conclusions]
    "we predict that the projectiles interact with two modes or quasiparticles revealed in the bimodal spectrum of density fluctuations [17] in distinct ways, and two maxima appear instead of the traditional unique one located near the thermal velocity of electrons. ... New features ... directly reflect our recently disclosed bimodal structure of the density fluctuation spectrum for rs≥ 16."

    The bimodal spectrum invoked to explain the two-peak stopping is attributed to [17], the authors' own PRB paper. In that paper, as recalculated here in Fig. 1, the sixth and eighth moments—the quantities that create the roton-like minimum and the bimodal loss function—are not QMC data but are fixed by the same Shannon-entropy closure. The explanatory premise therefore reduces to a self-citation chain: the 'modes' are products of the entropy ansatz, not an external empirical or ab initio fact. The QMC input fixes only μ0 and μ4, which are insufficient to determine the two-mode structure, so the central claim rests on the authors' own prior closure rather than on independent support.

full rationale

The derivation chain from the nine moments to the loss function via Nevanlinna theory is mathematically self-contained, and part of the input is genuinely independent: μ0 and μ4 come from QMC, μ2 is the f-sum rule, and the comparison with Moldabekov et al. [30] at rs=1,2,4 provides an external benchmark. However, the central strong-coupling prediction is not protected by these independent inputs. The sixth and eighth moments, hence ω3 and ω4, are fixed by Shannon-entropy maximization (Eqs. 24–25) because the three- and four-body correlation functions are unavailable; Fig. 1 shows the roton-like bimodal structure appears precisely in the entropy-selected F6 and F8. The two-peak stopping/friction structure is then presented as a prediction and attributed to the bimodal spectrum 'revealed' in the authors' own [17]. This is partial circularity, not a complete one: the stopping integral (6) is an independent exact relation, the low-order moments are QMC-based, and the peak-splitting is a genuine, though closure-dependent, consequence of the assumed spectrum. A closure-sensitivity study or an independent dynamic-structure-factor benchmark would largely remove the circularity; without it, the central novelty is inherited from the entropy closure and from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard moment theory plus three non-standard closures: Shannon-entropy selection of ω3 and ω4, the static approximation for the Nevanlinna parameter h4, and the accuracy of QMC static inputs at strong coupling. Only the first two are adjustable within this paper, and they control the predicted two-peak structure.

free parameters (2)
  • higher-order characteristic frequencies ω3(q), ω4(q) / moments μ6(q), μ8(q) = chosen by Shannon entropy maximization; q-dependent, not tabulated
    Unknown static three- and four-body correlations; the entropy closure selects these frequencies and thereby shapes the loss function and the two-peak stopping signature (Appendix B, Eqs. 24-25).
  • static Nevanlinna parameter h4(q) = given by Eq. (29) in terms of ω1-ω4
    The NPF Q4 is taken frequency-independent and purely imaginary (Eq. 27), an ansatz adapted from classical plasma moment calculations; no microscopic derivation is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Nevanlinna theorem and the Hamburger moment problem give a one-to-one linear-fractional representation of the inverse dielectric function in terms of moments and a Nevanlinna parameter function.
    Used in Sec. III, Eq. (10); this is a rigorous mathematical framework.
  • ad hoc to paper The static approximation Q4(z;q)=i h4(q) for the Nevanlinna parameter function is valid for the uniform electron gas.
    Eq. (27) in Appendix C; motivated by classical plasma results [11,12] but not proven for the warm dense electron gas.
  • ad hoc to paper Shannon-entropy maximization determines the unknown higher-order frequencies ω3(q) and ω4(q).
    Appendix B, Eqs. (24)-(25); maximizes the entropy of the model loss function rather than using microscopic information about three- and four-body correlations.
  • domain assumption The fermionic QMC static input moments [17] are accurate at rs up to 28 and theta=1.
    QMC and path integral Monte Carlo data have statistical and systematic errors, especially at low temperature; the paper does not quantify these errors.
  • domain assumption Lindhard linear-response formula Eq. (4) is valid for the strongly coupled UEG stopping power.
    Polarizational stopping is treated in first-order perturbation in the projectile charge, which neglects projectile feedback and assumes linear response.
invented entities (1)
  • roton-like low-frequency collective mode (bimodal excitation spectrum) in strongly coupled UEG
    purpose: Explains the two-peak structure in the stopping power and the unusual friction function at rs≥16.
    The mode was 'revealed' in the authors' own PRB 2023 using the same nine-moment and Shannon-entropy framework; this paper provides no independent measurement. It does offer a falsifiable handle, the predicted two-peak stopping curve, but no such data are presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modification of the uniform electron gas polarizational stopping power due to the interaction of the projectile with new collective modes at moderate and strong coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55QRETUY

@misc{pith2026250517229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modification of the uniform electron gas polarizational stopping power due to the interaction of the projectile with new collective modes at moderate and strong coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55QRETUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17229}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a detailed study of the polarizational stopping power of a homogeneous electron gas in moderate and strong coupling regimes using the self-consistent version of the method of moments as the key theoretical approach capable of expressing the dynamic characteristics of the system in terms of the static ones, which are the moments. We develop a robust framework that relies on nine sum rules and other exact relationships to analyze electron-electron interactions and their impact on energy-loss processes. We derive an expression for the stopping power that takes into account both quantum statistical effects and electron correlation phenomena. Our results demonstrate significant deviations from classical stopping power predictions, especially under the strong coupling conditions when electron dynamics is highly dependent on collective behavior and a projectile interacts with the system collective modes revealed in Phys. Rev. B 107, 195143 (2023). This work not only advances the theoretical understanding of the homogeneous electron gas but also has implications for practical applications in fields such as plasma physics and materials science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The wavenumber dependence of the rescaled power moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The frequency dependence of the loss function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Z. A. Moldabekov, T. Dornheim, M. Bonitz, and T. Ra- mazanov, Phys. Rev. E101, 053203 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [17]

    A. V . Filinov, J. Ara, and I. M. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195143 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Estimates of the dynamic struc- ture factor for the finite temperature electron liquid via ana- lytic continuation of path integral monte carlo data,

    T. Chuna, N. Barnfield, J. V orberger, M. P. Friedlander, T. Ho- heisel, and T. Dornheim, “Estimates of the dynamic struc- ture factor for the finite temperature electron liquid via ana- lytic continuation of path integral monte carlo data,” (2025), arXiv:2503.20433 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    Dynamic exchange-correlation effects in the strongly coupled electron liquid

    T. Dornheim, P. Tolias, F. Kalkavouras, Z. Moldabekov, and J. V orberger, “Dynamic exchange-correlation e ffects in the strongly coupled electron liquid,” (2024), arXiv:2405.08480 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    H. M. Bellenbaum, B. Bachmann, D. Kraus, T. Gawne, M. P. B ¨ohme, T. D ¨oppner, L. B. Fletcher, M. J. Mac- Donald, Z. A. Moldabekov, T. R. Preston, J. V or- berger, and T. Dornheim, Applied Physics Letters 126, 044104 (2025), https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0248230/20365613/044104 1 5.0248230.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0248230/20365613/044104 2025

  6. [4]

    M. D. Barriga-Carrasco, Laser and Particle Beams 29, 81–86 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [5]

    M. D. Barriga-Carrasco, Phys. Rev. E 82, 046403 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    A. J. Filinov A. V . and T. I. M., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.38120220324 (2023), 10.1098 /rsta.2022.0324

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    Ortner, Physica Scripta 2000, 69 (2000)

    J. Ortner, Physica Scripta 2000, 69 (2000)

    2000

  2. [8]

    Arkhipov, A

    Y . Arkhipov, A. Ashikbayeva, A. Askaruly, A. Davletov, S. Syzganbaeva, A. Davletov, and I. M. Tkachenko, Contri- butions to Plasma Physics 55, 381 (2015)

    2015

  3. [9]

    Y . V . Arkhipov, A. B. Ashikbayeva, A. Askaruly, A. E. Davle- tov, and I. M. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. E 90, 053102 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    Y . V . Arkhipov, A. B. Ashikbayeva, A. Askaruly, A. E. Davle- tov, and I. M. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. E 91, 019903 (2015)

    2015

  5. [11]

    Y . V . Arkhipov, A. Askaruly, A. E. Davletov, D. Y . Dubovt- sev, Z. Donk ´o, P. Hartmann, I. Korolov, L. Conde, and I. M. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 045001 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    Y . V . Arkhipov, A. Ashikbayeva, A. Askaruly, A. E. Davle- tov, D. Y . Dubovtsev, K. S. Santybayev, S. A. Syzganbayeva, L. Conde, and I. M. Tkachenko, Phys. Rev. E 102, 053215 8 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    S. A. Syzganbayeva, J. Ara, A. Askaruly, A. B. Ashikbayeva, I. M. Tkachenko, and Y . V . Arkhipov, Europhysics Letters140, 11001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, and M. Bonitz, Phys. Rep. 744, 1 (2018)

    2018

  9. [15]

    J. Ara, L. Coloma, and I. M. Tkachenko, Physics of Plasmas 28, 112704 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    J. Ara, A. Filinov, and I. Tkachenko, Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series 2270, 012041 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Lindhard, On the properties of a gas of charged particles (Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser, 1954)

    J. Lindhard, On the properties of a gas of charged particles (Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser, 1954)

    1954

  12. [19]

    Krein and A

    M. Krein and A. Nudel’man, The Markov moment problem and extremal problems, Trans. of Math. Monographs 50, Amer. Math. Soc. (Providence, R.I., 1977)

    1977

  13. [20]

    Nevanlinna, Asymptotische Entwicklungen beschr¨ ankter Funktionen und das Stieltjessche Momentenproblem , STK (Helsinki, 1922)

    R. Nevanlinna, Asymptotische Entwicklungen beschr¨ ankter Funktionen und das Stieltjessche Momentenproblem , STK (Helsinki, 1922)

    1922

  14. [21]

    Tkachenko, Y

    I. Tkachenko, Y . Arkhipov, and A. Askaruly, The Method of Moments and its Applications in Plasma Physics (Lambert, Saarbr¨ucken, 2012)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Shohat and J

    J. Shohat and J. Tamarkin, The Problem of Moments , Amer. Math. Soc. (Providence, R.I., 1943)

    1943

  16. [23]

    Akhiezer, The Classical Moment Problem (Hafner Publish- ing Company, New York, 1965)

    N. Akhiezer, The Classical Moment Problem (Hafner Publish- ing Company, New York, 1965)

    1965

  17. [24]

    Dornheim, A

    T. Dornheim, A. Cangi, K. Ramakrishna, M. B¨ohme, S. Tanaka, and J. V orberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 235001 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Dornheim, Z

    T. Dornheim, Z. A. Moldabekov, and P. Tolias, Phys. Rev. B 103, 165102 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    G. J. Kalman, P. Hartmann, K. I. Golden, A. Filinov, and Z. Donk´o, Europhysics Letters 90, 55002 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Dornheim, J

    T. Dornheim, J. V orberger, S. Groth, N. Hoffmann, Z. A. Mold- abekov, and M. Bonitz, The Journal of Chemical Physics 151, 194104 (2019)

    2019

  21. [28]

    Tanaka and S

    S. Tanaka and S. Ichimaru, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 55, 2278 (1986)

    1986

  22. [29]

    Singwi, M

    K. Singwi, M. Tosi, R. Land, and A. Sj ¨olander, Phys. Rev.176, 589 (1968)

    1968

  23. [31]

    T. W. Hentschel, A. Kononov, A. Olmstead, A. Cangi, A. D. Baczewski, and S. B. Hansen, Physics of Plasmas 30 (2023), 10.1063/5.0143738

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    L. Ward, B. Blaiszik, C.-W. Lee, T. Martin, I. Foster, and A. Schleife, npj Computational Materials 10 (2024), 10.1038/s41524-024-01374-8

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    A. J. White, O. Certik, Y . H. Ding, S. X. Hu, and L. A. Collins, Phys. Rev. B 98, 144302 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. Ziegler, and J. Biersack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 268, 1818 (2010), 19th International Conference on Ion Beam Analysis

    2010

  27. [35]

    Schleife, Y

    A. Schleife, Y . Kanai, and A. A. Correa, Phys. Rev. B 91, 014306 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Kononov, T

    A. Kononov, T. W. Hentschel, S. B. Hansen, and A. D. Baczewski, npj Computational Materials 9, 205 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    V . U. Nazarov, J. M. Pitarke, C. S. Kim, and Y . Takada, Phys. Rev. B 71, 121106 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Kononov, A

    A. Kononov, A. J. White, K. A. Nichols, S. X. Hu, and A. D. Baczewski, Physics of Plasmas 31, 043904 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Sarasola, R

    A. Sarasola, R. Ritchie, E. Zaremba, and P. Echenique, in The- ory of the Interaction of Swift Ions with Matter. Part 2 , Ad- vances in Quantum Chemistry, V ol. 46 (Academic Press, 2004) pp. 1–28

    2004

  32. [40]

    Density functional theory of stopping power,

    P. M. Echenique and M. E. Uranga, “Density functional theory of stopping power,” in Interaction of Charged Particles with Solids and Surfaces, edited by A. Gras-Marti, H. M. Urbassek, N. R. Arista, and F. Flores (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1991) pp. 39–71

    1991

  33. [41]

    R. D. Pu ff, Phys. Rev. 137, A406 (1965)

    1965

  34. [42]

    Dornheim, S

    T. Dornheim, S. Groth, J. V orberger, and M. Bonitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 255001 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    C. E. Shannon, Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379 (1948)

    1948

  36. [44]

    A. Y . Khinchin, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk8, 3 (1953)

    1953

  37. [45]

    Zubarev, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics(Consultants Bureau, London, 1974)

    D. Zubarev, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics(Consultants Bureau, London, 1974)

    1974

Pith tools

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