Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Dissociative positronium attachment in halogen gases

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Dissociative positronium attachment explains the anomalously large annihilation rates of positronium in halogen gases.

desk verdict First DPsA calculation for F2 gives a plausible mechanism and an honest benchmark, but the leap to Br2/I2 rests on an unestablished exothermicity that could flip the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18776 v1 pith:YHMNSEDK submitted 2025-05-24 physics.atom-ph

R. S. Wilde , G. F. Gribakin , I. I. Fabrikant This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 34.85.+x
keywords dissociativepositroniumattachmentortho-positroniumannihilationhalogengasesF2moleculefree-electron-gasmodelSigma_uresonancequasiclassicaltheoryeffectiveelectronnumber
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 the anomalously large annihilation rates of ortho-positronium observed in halogen gases are caused by dissociative positronium attachment, Ps + X2 → PsX + X, in which positronium grabs a halogen atom and the short-lived PsX complex annihilates quickly. For F2, where the reaction is exothermic at room temperature, the authors compute the rate from Ps-F2 scattering resonances and obtain 1Zeff = 596 for the ground vibrational state and 629 after thermal averaging. These values are two to three orders of magnitude above ordinary pickoff annihilation and only one order below the measured rates for Br2 and I2, so the mechanism is a credible explanation for chemical quenching. The result matters because it turns a mysterious empirical classification into a specific molecular process that can be tested by measuring F2 gas.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of the free-electron-gas (FEG) model for Ps-molecule scattering and the quasiclassical (WKB) local theory of dissociative attachment. The FEG model yields the Σu resonance position and adiabatic width as functions of internuclear separation; the quasiclassical formula σ = 4π2/k2 Γ(RF) Fv(E) s then converts those into capture cross sections, with the survival factor s controlling the probability that the temporary PsF2 complex dissociates rather than autodetaches. The exponential sensitivity of s to the crossing point ρcr is what makes the rate large but uncertain.

What would settle it

Measure the ortho-positronium annihilation rate in pure F2 gas at 300 K: the mechanism predicts 1Zeff of order 600 or more, whereas ordinary pickoff would give a value near unity. A measured 1Zeff well below, say, 100 would disprove the claim. Alternatively, an accurate ab initio calculation of the PsF2 potential energy curve that placed ρcr far from −0.250 a.u. would show the FEG prediction is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dissociative positronium attachment, not generic chemical quenching, is the mechanism behind the large 1Zeff values in halogen gases. Using free-electron-gas scattering potentials, the paper finds a Σu resonance in Ps-F2 scattering whose potential energy curve crosses the neutral curve at ρcr = −0.250 a.u., inside the classically forbidden region. Feeding the resonance position and width into a quasiclassical local theory of dissociative attachment gives a thermal rate constant 0.178 × 10−10 cm3/s and 1Zeff = 629 at 300 K, regarded by the authors as a lower bound because the resonance width is likely underestimated. The same calculation reproduces the shape of dissociative electron attachment in F2 and underestimates the best DEA cross section by a factor of four, which sets the expected accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The calculated rate grows exponentially with the placement of the curve crossing ρcr = −0.250 a.u., where the PsF2 resonance curve meets the neutral F2 curve; if the free-electron-gas model puts this crossing even 0.02 a.u. in the wrong direction, 1Zeff rises from 629 to over 1500, so the whole numerical prediction rests on that one crossing position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DPsA is the operative mechanism, the high 1Zeff values in Br2 and I2 find a microscopic explanation: Ps attaches to a molecule, the molecule dissociates, and the PsX complex annihilates quickly.
  • The predicted 1Zeff for F2 at room temperature is large enough to be measurable, so F2 gas could serve as the cleanest experimental test of the mechanism.
  • The same mechanism may apply to NO2, whose extremely high 1Zeff = 5.7 × 105 could be explained if its DPsA cross section exceeds its dissociative electron attachment cross section at thermal energies.
  • Thermal averaging over vibrational states matters: even though kBT is four times smaller than the vibrational quantum, excited vibrational levels contribute significantly, raising 1Zeff from 596 to 629.
  • Resonant Ps scattering and electron scattering can differ qualitatively at low energies even when they agree at higher velocities, so resonance-driven Ps chemistry cannot be read off electron-molecule data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the crossing point is as sensitive as Table III suggests, 1Zeff in F2 should be strongly temperature-dependent, a signature distinct from ordinary pickoff and testable by varying gas temperature.
  • The same quasiclassical machinery could be reversed: a measured 1Zeff in F2 would pin down the PsF2 curve crossing and give experimental constraints on positronium-molecule interaction potentials.
  • Because DPsA produces a bound Ps-halide complex whose positron annihilates with high-momentum atomic electrons, angular-correlation measurements in F2 should show a high-momentum component analogous to the NO2 data cited by the paper.
  • The mechanism suggests that Ps chemistry could drive molecular dissociation at thermal energies without free electrons, which may be relevant to positronium-based diagnostics in gases and soft matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes dissociative positronium attachment (DPsA), Ps + X2 -> PsX + X, as the mechanism behind the anomalously large ortho-positronium annihilation rates measured in Br2 and I2. It presents fixed-nuclei scattering calculations for Ps on F2 within a free-electron-gas model, identifies a Sigma_u resonance, and extracts the resonance width and PsF2 potential energy curve as functions of internuclear separation. These are then used as input to a local quasiclassical (WKB) dissociative-attachment formula, Eq. (7), to compute the DPsA cross section and thermally averaged rate for F2. The calculation yields 1Zeff = 596 for the ground vibrational state and 629 after vibrational averaging at 300 K, rising to 1507 and 4281 if the PsF2 curve is shifted by 0.02 and 0.05 a.u. The authors benchmark their method by reproducing the F2 dissociative electron attachment cross section to within a factor of four of previous nonlocal calculations and argue that their DPsA result is a lower bound.

Significance. If the proposal is correct, it would provide a quantitative mechanism for the long-standing 'chemical quenching' of ortho-positronium in halogen gases and would connect positronium-molecule scattering to the well-developed theory of dissociative electron attachment. The manuscript has several genuine strengths: the quasiclassical derivation in Appendix A is transparent; the electron-F2 benchmark gives a factor-of-four agreement with established nonlocal calculations; and the authors explicitly show the sensitivity of their result to the curve-crossing position in Table III rather than hiding it. The main significance, however, is conditional on the extrapolation from F2 to Br2 and I2, which is not demonstrated by the calculations in the paper and is sensitive to the sign of the threshold energy for those molecules. As a prediction for F2, the work is interesting and testable if Ps-F2 annihilation experiments become available; as an explanation of the Br2/I2 data, it currently rests on an unverified threshold assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Table III] The paper's central claim that DPsA explains the Br2 and I2 quenching is not backed by a quantitative threshold check for these molecules. Using Table I, Eth = D0 - PsA for Br2 is -0.091 eV with the Ps affinity of Ref. [24] but +0.097 eV with Ref. [25], and for I2 it is -0.174 eV with Ref. [24] but +0.147 eV with Ref. [25]. If the positive values are correct, the 300-K Maxwellian Boltzmann factor exp(-Eth/kBT) is only about 0.02, so DPsA could not plausibly reach the measured 1Zeff ~ 10^4 without an unreasonably large prefactor. Because F2 is exothermic by more than 1 eV, the F2 calculation cannot certify the mechanism for the heavier halogens. The authors should either perform a scattering calculation for Br2 and I2 with the same method, or at minimum bracket the threshold using both Ps-affinity data and state explicitly how the central conclusion depends on the sign of Eth.
  2. [Sec. IV, Table III] The predicted rate is exponentially sensitive to the crossing point rho_cr, whose location is a model output of the free-electron-gas calculation. Shifting the PsF2 potential curve horizontally by only 0.02 and 0.05 a.u. raises the Boltzmann-averaged 1Zeff from 629 to 1507 and 4281 (Table III). Since rho_cr = -0.250 a.u. lies in the classically forbidden region and the FEG model is approximate, the paper should provide an error estimate for rho_cr or an independent check, for example against a more accurate PsF2 curve, rather than presenting 629 as a lower bound. Without such an estimate, the central quantitative claim is not yet robust.
  3. [Secs. II and III] The benchmark of the DEA calculation is encouraging but leaves a sizable uncertainty that is not propagated into the DPsA rate. The present WKB result underestimates the best nonlocal DEA cross section by a factor of four (Sec. III), and the adiabatic widths in Table II are acknowledged to be underestimates for F2- and vanish for PsF2 beyond R = 2.4 a.u. Because the DPsA cross section is proportional to the width at the Franck-Condon point and to the survival factor, a comparable or larger error in the Ps width directly translates into 1Zeff ~ 10^3. The paper should give an explicit uncertainty budget and discuss whether a nonlocal treatment of the PsF2 resonance would alter the crossing-point argument that suppresses the F2 rate relative to DEA.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I, Eq. (2)] The notation 1Zeff is confusing: the leading '1' appears to be a relic of a superscript for the singlet state and is never defined. Please introduce the notation explicitly and use a consistent subscript/superscript format.
  2. [Sec. IV and Table III] The text states that the ground vibrational state gives <sigma V> = 0.178 x 10^-10 cm^3/s and that further vibrational averaging at room temperature gives 1Zeff = 629, while Table III lists a rate of 0.1882 x 10^-10 cm^3/s for the same unshifted case. Please reconcile these numbers.
  3. [Sec. II, Fig. 2] The text says the lowest two resonances are Delta_g at about 3.42 eV and Pi_u at about 4.38 eV, while the figure caption lists all symmetries without marking which curve is which. It would help the reader if the caption indicated the colour/symbol correspondence explicitly, especially because only the Sigma_u resonance is used later for DPsA.
  4. [Sec. II, Fig. 5] The comparison of the F2- curve in Fig. 5 is attributed to Ref. [31] in the text but to Ref. [19] in one place; Ref. [19] is a review of positron and positronium binding to atoms. Please check the citation and make the attribution consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the F2 DPsA rate and 1Zeff are computed from scattering-derived resonance parameters and the quasiclassical DEA formula, not fitted to the target annihilation rates.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The paper computes Ps-F2 scattering in the free-electron-gas model, extracts the Sigma_u resonance position and width as functions of internuclear separation, and feeds these into the quasiclassical local dissociative-attachment formula, Eq. (7) and Appendix A. The resulting cross section is thermally averaged to obtain 1Zeff = <sigma V> / (4 pi r0^2 c). No parameter is fitted to the measured Br2 or I2 annihilation rates, and the F2 value is not adjusted to reproduce any target 1Zeff. The hand-applied horizontal shifts in Table III are an explicit sensitivity test, not a fit: the paper states the unshifted result (629) as its central value and presents the shifted values only to estimate how strongly the crossing position affects the outcome. The self-citations to the authors' prior work are method transfers, not unverified assumptions: the FEG model is benchmarked against independent e--F2 R-matrix scattering and against DEA calculations and experimental attachment rates, and prior FEG applications to Ps scattering are compared with measured cross sections. The use of Ps affinities from the authors' many-body work [25] is accompanied by the independent MRCI values [24], and the paper explicitly flags bromine and iodine as only 'possibly' exothermic, acknowledging the uncertainty. Any concern about whether the mechanism truly explains Br2 and I2 is a correctness or extrapolation risk, not a circularity, because the quantitative prediction for F2 does not reduce to the measured rates it is compared with.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on computed model inputs: the FEG-derived resonance position and width, the potential energy curve crossing, and the quasiclassical attachment formula. No observed Ps-F2 annihilation data are used to tune the final 1Zeff, but the curve crossing position and width dominate the uncertainty. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Horizontal shift Delta_rho of the PsF2 potential energy curve = 0, 0.02, and 0.05 a.u. (chosen by hand)
    Used in Section IV to explore sensitivity of the DPsA rate to the curve crossing position; the room-temperature 1Zeff rises from 629 to 1507 to 4281 across these shifts, so the central rate estimate depends strongly on this hand-chosen quantity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The free-electron-gas model gives reliable low-energy Ps-molecule scattering potentials, including the Sigma_u resonance position and width for Ps-F2.
    Invoked in Section II; the model was previously tested on noble gases, N2, O2, and CO2, but for Ps-F2 there is no direct experimental check, and the authors state the resonance width is most likely underestimated.
  • domain assumption The local quasiclassical theory of dissociative attachment, Eq. (7) and Appendix A, applies to positronium projectiles with the substitution of Ps momentum for electron momentum.
    The theory was developed for electron attachment; its validity for the heavier Ps projectile and with the local approximation is assumed in Sections III and IV.
  • domain assumption The Sigma_u resonance is the only channel contributing to DPsA at thermal energies; the other resonances' potential energy curves do not cross the neutral curve.
    Stated in Section II based on eigenphase sums and potential curves; if another resonance crossed at low energy, the rate could be much higher than reported.
  • domain assumption The PsF2 potential curve and adiabatic width Gamma(R) can be extrapolated into the crossing region, including the asymptotic value U(infinity) derived from D0, hbar omega, and the EA of F.
    Used in Section II and Table II; the crossing point rho_cr = -0.250 a.u. lies in a classically forbidden region, and small shifts change the rate by factors of 2 to 7.
  • domain assumption Ps-atom complexes formed by DPsA annihilate rapidly, with a lifetime of about 0.5 ns, so every DPsA event contributes to o-Ps quenching with nearly unit efficiency.
    Used in Section IV to convert the DPsA rate coefficient into 1Zeff via 1Zeff = <sigma V> / (4 pi r0^2 c); the short PsX lifetime is taken from Ref. [25].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissociative positronium attachment in halogen gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHMNSEDK

@misc{pith2026250518776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissociative positronium attachment in halogen gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHMNSEDK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18776}
}
abstract

We suggest that the observed large annihilation rates of ortho-positronium ($o$-Ps) in halogen gases are due to the process of dissociative Ps attachment, ${\rm Ps} + X_2 \to {\rm Ps}X + X$, where $X$ stands for a halogen atom. This process is similar to dissociative electron attachment which leads to formation of negative ions. We calculate the cross section and rate of this process for the F$_2$ molecule, for which it is exothermic, and therefore, can occur at room temperature. We start with the Ps-F$_2$ scattering calculations which take into account electron exchange and correlations within the framework of the free-electron-gas model. The calculations reveal several resonances. Similar to the process of dissociative electron attachment, a $\Sigma_u$ resonance contributes to the dissociative Ps attachment at thermal energies. We determine the resonance position and width as functions of the internuclear separation, and use them as inputs for the local version of the quasiclassical theory of dissociative attachment. Our calculations yield an anomalously large rate constant for the $o$-Ps annihilation process which is only one order of magnitude lower than those observed for Br$_2$ and I$_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) total elastic cross section for e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) (a) Partial elastic cross section for Ps-F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Ps-F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Potential energy curves for F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the DEA cross sections for F2 calculated using different methods. A comparison of the WKB version of the local theory with the nonlocal results (both from Ref. [31]) shows that at low electron energies, the former underestimates the cross sections by about a fact…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of DEA and DPsA to the F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    S. L. Saito, Multireference configuration interaction calculations for positronium halides, J. Chem. Phys.122, 054302 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [25]

    Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to negative ions

    A. Ludlow and G. F. Gribakin, Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to negative 22 ions, Int. Rev. At. Mol. Phys.1, 73 (2010); arXiv:1002.3125v1 [physics.atom-ph] 16 Feb 2010

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  3. [1]

    Churazov, R

    E. Churazov, R. Sunyaev, S. Sazonov, M. Revnivtsev, and D. Varshalovich, Positron annihi- lation spectrum from the Galactic Centre region observed by SPI/INTEGRAL, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.357, 1377 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [2]

    P. Jean, J. Kn¨ odlseder, W. Gillard, N. Guessoum, K. Ferri` ere, A. Marcowith, V. Lonjou, and J. P. Roques, Spectral analysis of the Galactice +e? annihilation emission, Astron. Astrophys. 445, 579 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [3]

    Charlton, Experimental studies of positrons scattering in gases, Rep

    M. Charlton, Experimental studies of positrons scattering in gases, Rep. Prog. Phys.48, 737 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [4]

    P. J. Schultz and K. G. Lynn, Interaction of positron beams with surfaces, thin films, and interfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 701 (1988)

    work page 1988

  7. [5]

    S. G. Karshenboim, Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants, Phys. Rep.4221 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [6]

    D. B. Cassidy, Experimental progress in positronium laser physics, Eur. Phys. J. D72, 53 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    Charlton, A

    M. Charlton, A. P. Mills Jr, and Y. Yamazaki, Special issue on antihydrogen and positronium, J. Phys. B50, 140201 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    Wada and T

    K. Wada and T. Hyodo, A simple shape-free model for pore-size estimation with positron annihilation lifetime spectroscopy, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.443012003 (2013)

    2013

  3. [9]

    P. A. Fraser and M. Kraidy, The pick-off quenching of orthopositronium in helium, Proc. Phys. Soc. London89, 533 (1966)

    1966

  4. [10]

    D. G. Green, A. R. Swann, and G. F. Gribakin, Many-body theory for positronium-atom interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 183402 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    A. R. Swann, D. G. Green, and G. F. Gribakin, Many-body theory of positronium scattering and pickoff annihilation in noble-gas atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042802 (2023). 21

    2023

  6. [12]

    Mitroy and S

    J. Mitroy and S. A. Novikov, Spin-Orbit Quenching of Positronium during Atomic Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 183202 (2003)

    2003

  7. [13]

    Saito and T

    H. Saito and T. Hyodo, Experimental Evidence for Spin-Orbit Interactions in Positronium-Xe Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 253402 (2006)

    2006

  8. [14]

    Shibuya, T

    K. Shibuya, T. Nakayama, H. Saito, and T. Hyodo, Spin conversion and pick-off annihilation of ortho-positronium in gaseous xenon at elevated temperatures, Phys. Rev. A88, 012511 (2013)

    2013

  9. [15]

    Hyodo, T

    T. Hyodo, T. Nakayama, H. Saito, F. Saito, and K. Wada, The quenching of ortho-positronium, Phys. Status Solidi C6, 2497 (2009)

    2009

  10. [16]

    K. Wada, F. Saito, N. Shinohara, and T. Hyodo, Pick-off quenching probability of ortho- positronium per collision with atoms and molecules, Eur. Phys. J. D66, 108 (2012)

    2012

  11. [17]

    S. Y. Chuang and S. J. Tao, Quenching of positronium in nitrogen dioxide, Phys. Rev. A9, 989 (1974)

    1974

  12. [18]

    Shinohara, N

    N. Shinohara, N. Suzuki, T. Chang, and T. Hyodo, Pickoff and spin conversion of orthopositro- nium in oxygen, Phys. Rev. A64, 042702 (2001)

    2001

  13. [19]

    Mitroy, M

    J. Mitroy, M. W. J. Bromley and G. G. Ryzhikh, Positron and positronium binding to atoms, J. Phys. B35R81 (2002)

    2002

  14. [20]

    Bressanini, M

    D. Bressanini, M. Mella, and G. Morosi, Positron and positronium chemistry by quantum Monte Carlo. III. Ground state of [OH,Ps], [CH,Ps] and [NH 2,Ps] complexes, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 5931 (1998)

    1998

  15. [21]

    This is in stark contrast to positron-molecule binding which supports very high positron- molecule annihilation rates due to vibrational Feshbach resonances [27]

  16. [22]

    Matth ´ ıasson, A

    K. Matth ´ ıasson, A. Kvaran, G. A. Garcia, P. Weidner and B. Szt´ aray, Resolving the F2 bond energy discrepancy using coincidence ion pair production (cipp) spectroscopy, PCCP23, 8292 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    Lide, ed.,CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics(CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2016)

    David R. Lide, ed.,CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics(CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    I. I. Fabrikant, S. Eden, N. J. Mason, and J. Fedor, Chapter Nine - Recent Progress in Dissociative Electron Attachment: From Diatomics to Biomolecules, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 66, 545 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    G. F. Gribakin, J. A. Young, and C. M. Surko, Positron-molecule interactions: Resonant attachment, annihilation, and bound states, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2557 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Charlton, T

    M. Charlton, T. Giles, H. Lewis and D. P. van der Werf, Positron annihilation in small molecules, J. Phys. B46, 195001 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Iwata, R

    K. Iwata, R. G. Greaves, T. J. Murphy, M. D. Tinkle, and C. M. Surko, Measurements of positron-annihilation rates on molecules, Phys. Rev. A51, 473 (1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    Uzer, Theories of intramolecular vibrational energy transfer, Phys

    T. Uzer, Theories of intramolecular vibrational energy transfer, Phys. Rep.199, 73 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    I. I. Fabrikant, Dissociative electron attachment to halogen molecules: Angular distributions and nonlocal effects, Phys. Rev. A94, 052707 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    I. I. Fabrikant and R. S. Wilde, Exchange and correlation in positronium-molecule scattering, Phys. Rev. A97, 052707 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    T. N. Rescigno and C. F. Bender, The stability of the F2 − ion: a model for dissociative attachment, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys.9, L329 (1976)

    1976

  26. [34]

    R. J. Hall, Dissociative attachment and vibrational excitation of F2 by slow electrons, J. Chem. Phys.68, 1803 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    A. U. Hazi, A. E. Orel, and T. N. Rescigno, Ab Initio Study of Dissociative Attachment of Low-Energy Electrons to F 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.46, 918 (1981)

    1981

  28. [36]

    J. N. Bardsley and J. M. Wadehra, Dissociative attachment in HCl, DCl, and F 2, J. Chem. Phys.78, 7227 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    S. A. Kalin and A. K. Kazansky, The semiclassical version of the non-local resonance theory of electron-molecule collisions, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.23, 4377 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    M. Ingr, H. D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, Potential energy curve of the X2 u+ resonance state of F − 2 computed by CAP/CI, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.32, L547 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Brems, T

    V. Brems, T. Beyer, B. M. Nestmann, H. D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, Rotationalvibra- tional resonance states, J. Chem. Phys.117, 10635 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Honigmann, R

    M. Honigmann, R. J. Buenker, and H. P. Liebermann, Complex configuration interaction 23 calculations of the cross section for the dissociative electron attachment process e − + F2 F + F− using the complex basis function method, J. Comput. Chem.33, 355 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    F − 2 (2016)

    showed that the best theoretical DEA cross sections were generated by Haziet al.[35] using the Stiltjes momentum imaging technique for calculation of the resonance width. In a more recent study [31], we used the resonance position and width fromR-matrix calculations. The corre...

    2016

  34. [42]

    N. S. Shuman, T. M. Miller, A. A. Viggiano, and I. I. Fabrikant, Thermal electron attachment to F2, Phys. Rev. A88, 062708 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Hara, The Scattering of Slow Electrons by Hydrogen Molecules, J

    S. Hara, The Scattering of Slow Electrons by Hydrogen Molecules, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.22, 710 (1967)

    1967

  36. [44]

    Q. Sun, X. Zhang, S. Banerjee, P. Bao, M. Barbry, N. S. Blunt, N. A. Bogdanov, G. H. Booth, J. Chen, Z.-H. Cui, J. J. Eriksen, Y. Gao, S. Guo, J. Hermann, M. R. Hermes, K. Koh, P. Koval, S. Lehtola, Z. Li, J. Liu, N. Mardirossian, J. D. McClain, M. Motta, B. Mussard, H. Q. Pha...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Q. Sun, T. C. Berkelbach, N. S. Blunt, G. H. Booth, S. Guo, Z. Li, J. Liu, J. McClain, S. Sharma, S. Wouters, and G. K.-L. Chan, PySCF: the Python-based simulations of chemistry framework, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.8, e1340 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Sun, Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions, J

    Q. Sun, Libcint: An efficient general integral library for Gaussian basis functions, J. Comp. Chem.36, 1664 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    R. S. Wilde and I. I. Fabrikant, Positronium collisions with rare-gas atoms: Free-electron gas plus orthogonalizing pseudopotential model, Phys. Rev. A98, 042703 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    R. S. Wilde and I. I. Fabrikant, Positronium collisions with molecular nitrogen, Phys. Rev A 97, 052708 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    R. S. Wilde and I. I. Fabrikant, Resonance scattering of positronium atoms by nitrogen molecules, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.53, 185202 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    R. S. Wilde, H. B. Ambalampitiya and I. I. Fabrikant, Positronium collisions with O 2 and CO2, Phys. Rev. A104, 012810 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    D. M. Newson, R. Kadokura, H. Allen, S. E. Fayer, S. J. Brawley, M. Shipman G. Laricchia, R. S. Wilde and I. I. Fabrikant, Low-energy positronium scattering from O 2, Phys. Rev, A. 107, 022809 (2023). 24

    2023

  44. [52]

    R. S. Wilde, M. K. Selvage and I. I. Fabrikant, Positronium collisions with polar molecules, Phys. Rev. A106, 032810 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    S. J. Brawley, S. Armitage, J. Beale, D. E. Leslie, A. I. Williams, and G. Laricchia, Electron- Like Scattering of Positronium, Science330, 789 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    S. J. Brawley, A. I. Williams, M. Shipman, and G. Laricchia, Resonant Scattering of Positro- nium in Collision with CO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 263401 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    Shipman, S

    M. Shipman, S. J. Brawley, L. Sarkadi, and G. Laricchia, Resonant scattering of positronium as a quasifree electron, Phys. Rev. A95, 032704 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    An analysis of the experimental values, J

    M Gussoni, R Rui, G Zerbi, Electronic and relaxation contribution to linear molecular polar- izability. An analysis of the experimental values, J. Mol. Struct.447, 163 (1998)

    1998

  49. [57]

    London, The general theory of molecular forces, Trans

    F. London, The general theory of molecular forces, Trans. Faraday Soc.338 (1937)

    1937

  50. [58]

    I. I. Fabrikant and G. F. Gribakin, Positronium-atom scattering at low energies, Phys. Rev. A90, 052717 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    L. A. Morgan and C. J. Noble, Elastic scattering of electrons by fluorine molecules, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys.17L369 (1984)

    1984

  52. [60]

    A. K. Kazansky and I. S. Yelets, The semiclassical approximation in the local theory of res- onance inelastic interaction of slow electrons with molecules, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys.17, 4767 (1984)

    1984

  53. [61]

    S. A. Rangwala, E. Krishnakumar, and S. V. K. Kumar, Dissociative-electron-attachment cross sections: A comparative study of NO 2 and O3, Phys. Rev. A68, 052710 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    H. Liu, X. Jiang, Ch.-H. Yuen, V. Kokoouline, and M. Ayouz, Formation of negative-ion resonance and dissociative attachment in collisions of NO2 with electrons, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.54, 185201 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    J. N. Bardsley, Configuration interaction in the continuum states of molecules, J. Phys. B1, 349 (1968)

    1968

  56. [64]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977)

    1977

  57. [65]

    T. F. O’Malley, Theory of dissociative attachment, Phys. Rev.150, 14 (1966). 25

    1966

Pith tools

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