Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Path-integral Monte Carlo simulations of solid parahydrogen using two-body, three-body, and four-body ab initio interaction potential energy surfaces

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Adding the four-body ab initio interaction to path-integral Monte Carlo simulations predicts solid parahydrogen's equilibrium density at 0.02608 Å$^{-3}$, matching the experimental 0.0261 Å$^{-3}$, and reproduces the pressure-density…

desk verdict Four-body ab initio PES in the estimator fixes the para-H2 EOS up to 0.065 A^-3; the pressure curves, however, rest on a derivative of a six-parameter fit with no uncertainty propagation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05557 v1 pith:YTIQPGSP submitted 2025-06-05 physics.chem-ph

Alexander Ibrahim , Pierre-Nicholas Roy This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords path-integralMonteCarlosolidparahydrogenequationofstatefour-bodyinteractionabinitiopotentialenergysurfacemany-bodyinteractionspressure-densityrelationhcpcrystalstructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports path-integral Monte Carlo simulations of solid parahydrogen at $T = 4.2$ K over densities from $0.024$ to $0.1$ Å$^{-3}$, using ab initio two-body, three-body, and four-body potential energy surfaces. Its central claim is that the four-body interaction is the missing many-body term that matters: including it in the energy estimator predicts an equilibrium density of $0.02608$ Å$^{-3}$, very close to the experimental $0.0261$ Å$^{-3}$, and reproduces the measured pressure-density curve up to about $0.065$ Å$^{-3}$. The two-body potential alone is too repulsive, while adding only the three-body term overcorrects and makes pressure decrease with density at high densities. The paper also finds that using the four-body potential during sampling at $0.1$ Å$^{-3}$ artificially breaks the hcp lattice symmetry, and concludes that five-body and higher-order interactions are needed for quantitative results at higher densities.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a hierarchy of isotropic ab initio potential energy surfaces: the two-body FSH surface built with an adiabatic hindered-rotor treatment, a three-body surface spherically averaged by six-point Lebedev quadrature and implemented by trilinear interpolation, and a four-body surface implemented as a feed-forward neural network. These are combined with path-integral Monte Carlo sampling in which each PES can be used either during sampling (strategies $S[2]$, $S[2,3]$, $S[2,3,4]$) or only during estimation, so expensive higher-order terms can be included in the estimator without slowing the random walk. Trotter factorization errors are removed by $\tau$-extrapolation near equilibrium and by small imaginary-time steps elsewhere, finite-size errors are corrected by two- and three-body tail corrections, and the energy-density results are fitted to a modified Birch equation of state whose derivative gives the pressure.

What would settle it

Run the same path-integral framework with five- and six-body non-additive potentials at densities above $0.065$ Å$^{-3}$; if the pressure overestimate and the hcp symmetry breaking persist once the many-body expansion is effectively converged, the isotropic point-particle model is at fault. A complementary test is to repeat the equilibrium-density simulation with an anisotropic potential that keeps rotational degrees of freedom explicit and check whether the kinetic energy moves from about $53$ cm$^{-1}$ toward the experimental $49.3(8)$ cm$^{-1}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the four-body non-additive interaction, not the three-body term, is the many-body contribution that brings the equation of state of solid parahydrogen into line with experiment at low and moderate densities. Simulations using only the two-body potential are too repulsive; adding the attractive three-body term overcorrects so badly that the pressure eventually decreases with density. When the four-body interaction energy is included in the estimator, the predicted equilibrium density is $0.02608$ Å$^{-3}$, essentially matching the experimental $0.0261$ Å$^{-3}$, and the simulated pressure-density curve agrees with experiment up to about $0.065$ Å$^{-3}$, beyond which the pressure is overestimated. The authors attribute the high-density deviation to five-body and higher-order many-body interactions, and report that using the four-body PES during sampling at $0.1$ Å$^{-3}$ artificially breaks the hcp lattice symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that solid parahydrogen can be treated as a collection of point particles interacting through isotropic potentials, with rotation and vibration folded out of the two-body term and omitted from the three- and four-body terms; the paper itself concludes that the remaining 7% kinetic-energy overestimate cannot come from five-body terms, pointing instead to this isotropic approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted equilibrium density of solid parahydrogen at 4.2 K becomes $0.02608$ Å$^{-3}$ with the four-body interaction in the estimator, essentially matching the experimental value.
  • The simulated pressure-density curve agrees with experiment up to about $0.065$ Å$^{-3}$, replacing the qualitative mismatch that appears when only two-body or two-plus-three-body terms are used.
  • Beyond $0.065$ Å$^{-3}$, the pressure is overestimated, which the paper takes as evidence that five-body and higher-order many-body interactions are required.
  • Using the four-body potential during sampling at $0.1$ Å$^{-3}$ produces an artificial translational symmetry breaking in the hcp lattice, so high-order PESs should be used for estimation, not sampling, at densities where neglected terms are large.
  • The average kinetic energy at equilibrium is overestimated by about 7%, a discrepancy the paper attributes to the isotropic-potential approximation rather than missing many-body terms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to add five- and six-body non-additive potentials for parahydrogen, as has been done for helium; by analogy, even-order terms are repulsive and odd-order terms attractive, so the high-density pressure overestimate should shrink as the series is extended.
  • The 7% kinetic-energy overestimate at equilibrium, which the paper cannot attribute to higher many-body terms, suggests that anisotropic rotational degrees of freedom are already relevant at low density; a PIMC simulation with explicit rotational states would settle this.
  • The artificial hcp symmetry breaking from the four-body PES in sampling implies that truncated many-body expansions can mimic structural phase transitions; similar artifacts should be checked in machine-learned many-body force fields applied at compressed densities.
  • Since the S[2] and S[2,3] sampling strategies gave nearly identical total energies, the estimation-only inclusion of expensive many-body PESs seems broadly valid at low and moderate densities, which could let cheaper simulations of other quantum solids include high-order terms without paying the sampling cost.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports path-integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations of hcp solid parahydrogen at T = 4.2 K over densities from 0.024 to 0.1 Å^-3, using isotropic ab initio two-body (FSH), three-body, and four-body PESs. The authors distinguish sampling from estimation strategies, apply Trotter extrapolation near equilibrium and a small-τ method at higher densities, apply two- and three-body tail corrections, and fit the energy-density data to a modified Birch form. The headline results are that including the four-body energy in the estimator yields an equilibrium density of 0.02608 Å^-3 (experiment: 0.0261 Å^-3) and reproduces the experimental pressure-density curve up to roughly 0.065 Å^-3, overestimating the pressure beyond that density; at 0.1 Å^-3, using the four-body PES during sampling leads to an hcp symmetry-breaking artifact that the authors identify as likely unphysical. The authors conclude that five-body and higher-order interactions are needed at high densities, while the residual 7% kinetic-energy overestimate at equilibrium cannot be explained by missing higher-body terms.

Significance. If correct, the work provides strong evidence that four-body non-additive interactions are the dominant missing many-body contribution to the low-to-moderate-density equation of state of solid parahydrogen. The paper's strengths include the use of ab initio PESs trained on coupled-cluster energies, careful treatment of Trotter extrapolation (Eq. 7) and finite-size tail corrections, an earlier N = 180 vs N = 448 finite-size check, explicit supplementary energy-density data, and transparent discussion of the symmetry-breaking artifact. The near-quantitative agreement with the experimental equilibrium density and pressure below 0.065 Å^-3 is a meaningful step beyond pairwise models. The significance is tempered, however, by the fact that the pressure curve is obtained by differentiating a six-parameter fit without propagated uncertainties, and by the acknowledged isotropic-PES limitation that leaves a 7% kinetic-energy discrepancy at equilibrium.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (10), Supplementary Tables I-II] The pressure-density curve that supports the central claim is obtained as the density derivative of the six-parameter modified Birch fit, Eq. (9), evaluated through Eq. (10). The supplementary material reports only point estimates of the fit parameters; no covariance matrix or uncertainty propagation is given, so the statistical significance of the agreement with experiment up to 0.065 Å^-3 is not established. The cancellation is severe: for the S[2] E[2,3,4] fit, P(rho0) = P0 + (2/3) sum(n kappa_n) is a near-zero difference of about +15.17 and -15.16 cm^-1 Å^-3. The same derivative formalism already produces a nonphysical decreasing pressure at high density for the E[2,3] curve in Fig. 6, showing that the fitted derivative is not robust in cancellation regions. The quoted chi-squared values are weighted residuals of the energy fit, not a test of the derivative, and no direct pressure (virial) estimator is provided. I recommend adding a direct pressure estimator, constraining the fit to yield physical pressure behavior, or reporting propagated derivative uncertainties; without one of these, the headline pressure agreement is not quantitatively established.
  2. [Sec. II A-B, Eq. (1); Sec. V] The Hamiltonian Eq. (1) treats molecules as point particles with isotropic PESs: the two-body FSH PES includes rotational and vibrational degrees of freedom only through an adiabatic hindered-rotor average, and the three- and four-body PESs are spherically averaged via six-point Lebedev quadrature. The authors themselves state in Sec. V that the 7% overestimate of the kinetic energy per molecule at equilibrium density cannot be explained by missing five-body and higher interactions, which points to the isotropic PES approximation as a likely source of systematic error. This acknowledged limitation means the reported EOS is specific to the isotropic model, and the conclusion that the four-body term is the dominant missing many-body interaction should be tempered or supported by a comparison with anisotropic PES simulations or with experimental kinetic-energy data.
  3. [Sec. II C, Table I, Sec. IV D] The E[2,3,4] pressure curve in Fig. 6 is computed from four-body energies estimated on configurations sampled with the S[2] (or S[2,3]) strategy; the four-body PES is included during sampling only at 0.1 Å^-3. The paper's own S[2,3,4] simulation at that density shows a roughly 1% change in total energy (Table I) and a symmetry-breaking artifact (Sec. IV D). No test is provided that the perturbative sampling assumption remains valid up to 0.065 Å^-3, the stated limit of pressure agreement. The overestimation above 0.065 Å^-3 could therefore be attributable, at least in part, to the breakdown of the S[2]-based sampling rather than exclusively to missing five-body and higher-order terms. A density scan with S[2,3,4] sampling in the 0.06-0.08 Å^-3 range, or a direct comparison of pressures from different sampling strategies, would strengthen the attribution of the high-density deviation to missing many-body interactions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The partition function immediately after Eq. (5) is written as Z = Tr{A exp(-beta H)}, but it should be Tr{exp(-beta H)}; this is a formal error in a defining equation, although it does not affect the numerical results.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'equlibrium' (Sec. IV B), 'straties' (Sec. II C), 'approxation' (Sec. II B), 'valnce' (Sec. II B), 'appoximation' (Sec. II B), and 'systemic' appears where 'systematic' is intended (Secs. III B and III C).
  3. [Eq. (10) and Fig. 6] Equation (10) yields pressure in units of cm^-1 Å^-3, while the text and Fig. 6 quote pressure in GPa; the conversion factor should be stated explicitly so readers can reproduce the plotted curves.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Sec. I] The goodness-of-fit measure chi^2 defined in the supplementary material is a weighted mean-square residual, not the standard chi-square per degree of freedom; labeling it as a weighted residual (or reporting a reduced chi-square) would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulated EOS predictions are benchmarked against external experimental data, and the ab initio PES inputs were not fitted to those benchmarks.

full rationale

The central predictions—equilibrium density and the pressure-density curve—are tested against external experimental values (rho0 = 0.0261 Angstrom^-3; Refs. [3,67,69,70]), so the comparison is not self-referential. The input PESs are ab initio surfaces trained on CCSD(T) electronic-structure energies (Sec. II B), with no experimental EOS data in the training set. The paper states this explicitly: 'Unlike phenomenological PESs, ab initio PESs have no dependence on the results of any specific experiment, and can be constructed to contain the different many-body contributions explicitly' (Sec. I). The same-group PESs (Refs. [16,42,43]) are legitimate prior work whose reliability rests on electronic-structure calculations, not on the solid parahydrogen EOS being predicted. The modified Birch fit, Eq. (9), is used only as an interpolation of simulation energies; its normalization by the experimental rho0 is a rescaling and does not force the fitted minimum or the pressure derivative to match experiment. The paper's own limitation statement in Sec. V—that the kinetic-energy overestimate cannot be explained by missing higher-order many-body terms and may instead implicate the isotropic-PES approximation—shows that the agreement with experiment is treated as a genuine, falsifiable result rather than a consequence of the model assumptions. The skeptic's concern about the pressure being a small residual of large fit parameters is a legitimate uncertainty/robustness issue, but it is not circularity: no experimental pressure was used to determine the fit parameters. Accordingly, no circular step can be identified, and the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the experimental benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative results rest on five classes of inputs: (1) the three published ab initio PESs, taken as given from prior work by the same group, with their basis-set and interpolation errors inherited; (2) the pointwise isotropic Hamiltonian that omits orientational and vibrational degrees of freedom; (3) the standard PIMC machinery including the neglect of exchange, the Trotter-error model, and the minimum-image and tail-correction conventions; (4) the modified Birch EOS functional form used to fit energy-density data and extract equilibrium density and pressure; and (5) the six-parameter fits themselves, whose parameter uncertainties are not propagated into the pressure curves. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Birch EOS parameters ϵ0, P0, κ1..κ4 = Reported in supplementary Tables I and II for S[2] and S[2,3] strategies
    Six parameters per energy curve fitted to the simulation energy-density data via scipy.optimize.curve_fit (Eq. 9); used to locate the predicted equilibrium density and to compute pressure via Eq. (10).
  • Trotter extrapolation coefficients c2 and c4 = Not reported in text
    Fitted to ⟨A⟩(τ) versus τ data for each density in the fine grid near equilibrium using Eq. (7); used to obtain zero-time-step energies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The three- and four-body PESs are isotropic, spherically averaged with six-point Lebedev quadrature over rotational degrees of freedom; the two-body FSH PES treats rotations adiabatically.
    The Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) uses only isotropic potentials; this is claimed valid in phase I up to about 60 GPa, but the 7% kinetic energy overestimate suggests incompleteness.
  • domain assumption CCSD(T) energies with AVQZ/AVTZ/AVDZ basis sets and midbond functions are accurate enough for the PES training data.
    The PESs are taken from prior work (Refs. 16,42,43) and are not refit here; their basis set errors are acknowledged but assumed small relative to target accuracy.
  • domain assumption Bosonic exchange is negligible in solid para-H2, so distinguishable-particle PIMC is valid.
    Section III A, citing prior simulation work (Refs. 7,17,62,63).
  • standard math The Trotter error scales as τ² + τ⁴ (Eq. 7), enabling extrapolation.
    Standard PIMC result, Ref. 64.
  • domain assumption Tail corrections for the two-body and three-body energies are computed with g(r)=1 outside the cutoff or product of pair distributions, and the four-body tail is neglected.
    Section III C; the four-body tail is argued negligible from r^-12 decay.
  • domain assumption The modified Birch EOS (Eq. 9) is a valid functional form for the energy-density curve over the simulated density range.
    Used to extract equilibrium density and pressure; standard EOS form from Ref. 67.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path-integral Monte Carlo simulations of solid parahydrogen using two-body, three-body, and four-body ab initio interaction potential energy surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTIQPGSP

@misc{pith2026250605557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path-integral Monte Carlo simulations of solid parahydrogen using two-body, three-body, and four-body ab initio interaction potential energy surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTIQPGSP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05557}
}
abstract

We present path integral Monte Carlo simulation results for the equation of state of solid parahydrogen between $ 0.024 \, {\r{A}}^{-3} $ and $ 0.1 \, {\r{A}}^{-3} $ at $ T = 4.2 \, $ K. The simulations are performed using non-additive isotropic ab initio two-body, three-body, and four-body potential energy surfaces (PES). We apply corrections to account for both the finite size simulation errors and the Trotter factorization errors. Simulations that use only the two-body PES during sampling yield an equation of state similar to that of simulations that use both the two-body and three-body PESs during sampling. With the four-body interaction energy, we predict an equilibrium density of $ 0.02608 \, {\r{A}}^{-3} $, very close to the experimental result of $ 0.0261 \, {\r{A}}^{-3} $. The inclusion of the four-body interaction energy also brings the simulation results in excellent agreement with the experimental pressure-density data until around $ 0.065 \, {\r{A}}^{-3} $, beyond which the simulation results overestimate the pressure. These PESs overestimate the average kinetic energy per molecule at the equilibrium density by about $ 7 \% $ compared to the experimental result. Our findings suggest that, at higher densities, we require five-body and higher-order many-body interactions to quantitatively improve the agreement between the pressure-density curve produced by simulations, and that of experiment. Using the four-body PES during sampling at excessively high densities, where such higher-order many-body interactions are likely to be significant, causes an artificial symmetry breaking in the hcp lattice structure of the solid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The energy per particle as a function of the den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The energy per molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The energy per molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The radial pair distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The radial pair distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The centroid radial pair distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The energy per molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    L. H. Nosanow, ``Theory of quantum crystals,'' Phys.\ Rev. , vol. 146, p. 120, 1966

    work page 1966

  2. [1]

    H. P. Gush, W. F. J. Hare, E. J. Allin, and H. L. Welsh, ``The infrared fundamental band of liquid and solid hydrogen,'' Can.\ J.\ Phys. , vol. 38, p. 176, 1960

    work page 1960

  3. [3]

    I. F. Silvera, ``The solid molecular hydrogens in the condensed phase: F undamentals and static properties,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. , vol. 52, p. 393, 1980

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Bhandari, A

    A. Bhandari, A. P. Rollings, L. Ratto, and J. D. Weinstein, ``High-purity solid parahydrogen,'' Rev.\ Sci.\ Instr. , vol. 92, p. 073202, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    C. S. Barrett, L. Meyer, and J. Wasserman, ``Crystal structure of solid hydrogen and deuterium, and of neon--hydrogen and neon--deuterium mixtures,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 45, p. 834, 1966

    work page 1966

  6. [6]

    Schnepp, ``One-phonon excited states of solid H _2 and D _2 in the ordered phase,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ A , vol

    O. Schnepp, ``One-phonon excited states of solid H _2 and D _2 in the ordered phase,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ A , vol. 2, no. 6, p. 2574, 1970

    work page 1970

  7. [7]

    Dusseault and M

    M. Dusseault and M. Boninsegni, ``Atomic displacements in quantum crystals,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 95, p. 104518, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    T. R. Prisk, R. T. Azuah, D. L. Abernathy, G. E. Granroth, T. E. Sherline, P. E. Sokol, J. Hu, and M. Boninsegni, ``Zero-point motion of liquid and solid hydrogen,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 107, p. 094511, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Fernandez-Alonso, C

    F. Fernandez-Alonso, C. Cabrillo, R. Fern\' a ndez-Perea, F. J. Bermejo, M. A. Gonz\' a lez, C. Mondelli, and E. Farhi, ``Solid para-hydrogen as the paradigmatic quantum crystal: T hree observables probed by ultrahigh-resolution neutron spectroscopy,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 86...

    2012

  2. [10]

    U. Buck, F. Huisken, A. Kohlhase, D. Otten, and J. Schaefer, ``State resolved rotational excitation in D _2 + H _2 collisions,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 78, p. 4439, 1978

    1978

  3. [11]

    I. F. Silvera and V. V. Goldman, ``The isotropic intermolecular potential for H _2 and D _2 in the solid and gas phases,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 69, p. 4209, 1978

    1978

  4. [12]

    M. J. Norman, R. O. Watts, and U. Buck, ``A spherical potential for hydrogen from solid state and scattering data,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 81, p. 3500, 1984

    1984

  5. [13]

    Diep and J

    P. Diep and J. K. Johnson, ``An accurate H _2 -- H _2 interaction potential from first principles,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 112, no. 10, p. 4465, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    R. J. Hinde, ``A six-dimensional H _2 -- H _2 potential energy surface for bound state spectroscopy,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 128, p. 154308, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    Patkowski, W

    K. Patkowski, W. Cencek, P. Jankowski, K. Szalewicz, J. B. Mehl, G. Garberoglio, and A. H. Harvey, ``Potential energy surface for interactions between two hydrogen molecules,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 129, p. 094304, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Faruk, M

    N. Faruk, M. Schmidt, H. Li, R. J. Le Roy, and P.-N. Roy, ``First-principles prediction of the R aman shifts in parahydrogen clusters,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 141, p. 014310, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Omiyinka and M

    T. Omiyinka and M. Boninsegni, ``Pair potentials and equation of state of solid para-hydrogen to megabar pressure,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 88, p. 024112, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Operetto and F

    F. Operetto and F. Pederiva, ``Diffusion M onte C arlo study of the equation of state of solid para- H _2 ,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 73, p. 184124, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    M. J. Elrod and R. J. Saykally, ``Many-body effects in intermolecular forces,'' Chem.\ Rev. , vol. 94, p. 1975, 1994

    1975

  12. [20]

    A. O. de-la Roza, L. M. LeBlanc, and E. R. Johnson, ``What is ``many-body'' dispersion and should I worry about it?,'' Phys.\ Chem.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 22, pp. 8266--8276, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Wind and I

    P. Wind and I. R eggen, ``Ab initio calculation of three-body interaction in the ( H _2 ) _3 trimer,'' Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 211, pp. 179--189, 1996

    1996

  14. [22]

    R. J. Hinde, ``Three-body interactions in solid parahydrogen,'' Chem.\ Phys.\ Lett. , vol. 460, pp. 141--145, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Manzhos, K

    S. Manzhos, K. Nakai, and K. Yamashita, ``Three-body interactions in clusters C O --(p H _2 ) _n ,'' Chem.\ Phys.\ Lett. , vol. 493, pp. 229--233, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Ibrahim and P.-N

    A. Ibrahim and P.-N. Roy, ``Equation of state of solid parahydrogen using ab initio two-body and three-body interaction potentials,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 157, p. 174503, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Cencek, G

    W. Cencek, G. Garberoglio, A. H. Harvey, M. O. McLinden, and K.Szalewicz, ``Three-body nonadditive potential for argon with estimated uncertainties and third virial coefficient,'' J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ A , vol. 117, pp. 7542--7552, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Ro\' s ciszewski, B

    K. Ro\' s ciszewski, B. Paulus, P. Fulde, and H. Stoll, ``Ab initio coupled-cluster calculations for the fcc and hcp structures of rare-gas solids,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 62, no. 9, p. 5482, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Tian, F.-S

    C.-L. Tian, F.-S. Liu, F.-Q. Jing, and L.-C. Cai, ``Five- and six-body effects on equation of state of solid ^4 H e,'' J.\ Phys.\ Condens.\ Matter , vol. 18, pp. 8103--8112, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    A. L. Barnes and R. J. Hinde, ``Effect of three-body interactions on the zero-temperature equation of state of H C P solid ^4 H e,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 146, p. 094510, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Garberoglio, A

    G. Garberoglio, A. H. Harvey, J. Lang, M. Przybytek, M. Lesiuk, and B. Jeziorski, ``Path-integral calculation of the third dielectric virial coefficient of helium based on ab initio three-body polarizability and dipole surfaces,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 161, p. 144111, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Binosi, G

    D. Binosi, G. Garberoglio, and A. H. Harvey, ``Third density and acoustic virial coefficients of helium isotopologues from ab initio calculations,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 160, p. 244305, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Marienhagen and K

    P. Marienhagen and K. Meier, ``Calculation of thermodynamic properties of helium using path integral M onte C arlo simulations in the N p T ensemble and ab initio potentials,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 161, p. 224110, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Schwerdtfeger and A

    P. Schwerdtfeger and A. Hermann, ``Equation of state for solid neon from quantum theory,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 80, p. 064106, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Garberoglio, ``On the contribution of non-additive three-body interactions to the third virial coefficient of para-hydrogen,'' Chem.\ Phys.\ Lett

    G. Garberoglio, ``On the contribution of non-additive three-body interactions to the third virial coefficient of para-hydrogen,'' Chem.\ Phys.\ Lett. , vol. 557, p. 26, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    T. W. Maltby, M. Hammer, and . Wilhelmsen, ``Equation of state for solid argon valid for temperatures up to 300 K and pressures up to 16 G P a,'' J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ Ref.\ Data , vol. 53, p. 043102, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    C.-L. Tian, N. Wu, F. Liu, S. K. Saxena, and X. Zheng, ``Four-body interaction energy for compressed solid krypton from quantum theory,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 137, p. 044108, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    R. J. Wheatley, G. Garberoglio, and A. H. Harvey, ``Four-body nonadditive potential energy surface and the fourth virial coefficient of helium,'' J.\ Chem.\ Eng.\ Data. , vol. 68, pp. 3257--3264, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Morresi and G

    T. Morresi and G. Garberoglio, ``Revisiting the properties of superfluid and normal liquid ^4 H e using ab initio potentials,'' J.\ Low Temp.\ Phys. , 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Kopf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, ``Pytorch: an imperative style, high-p...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Abadi, A

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro, G. S. Corrado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, I. Goodfellow, A. Harp, G. Irving, M. Isard, Y. Jia, R. Jozefowicz, L. Kaiser, M. Kudlur, J. Levenberg, D. Man \'e , R. Monga, S. Moore, D. Murray, C. Olah, ...

    2015

  32. [40]

    R. S. Graham and R. J. Wheatley, ``Machine learning for non-additive intermolecular potentials: Q uantum chemistry to first-principles predictions,'' Chem.\ Commun. , vol. 58, p. 6898, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Broad, S

    J. Broad, S. Preston, R. J. Wheatley, and R. S. Graham, ``Gaussian process models of potential energy surfaces with boundary optimization,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 155, p. 144106, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Ibrahim and P.-N

    A. Ibrahim and P.-N. Roy, ``Three-body potential energy surface for para-hydrogen,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 156, p. 044301, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Ibrahim and P.-N

    A. Ibrahim and P.-N. Roy, ``A neural network-based four-body potential energy surface for parahydrogen,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 160, p. 244308, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Gregoryanz, C

    E. Gregoryanz, C. Ji, P. Dalladay-Simpson, B. Li, R. T. Howie, and H.-K. Mao, ``Everything you always wanted to know about metallic hydrogen but were afraid to ask,'' Matter\ Radiat.\ Extremes , vol. 5, p. 038101, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Marx and M

    D. Marx and M. H. M \"u ser, ``Path integral simulations of rotors: T heory and applications,'' J.\ Phys.\ Condens.\ Matter , vol. 11, p. R117, 1999

    1999

  38. [46]

    Goncharenko and P

    I. Goncharenko and P. Loubeyre, ``Neutron and X -ray diffraction study of the broken symmetry phase transition in solid deuterium,'' Nature , vol. 435, pp. 1206--1209, 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, ``Ground state of solid hydrogen at high pressures,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 36, pp. 2092--2106, 1987

    1987

  40. [48]

    Schmidt, J

    M. Schmidt, J. M. Fern\' a ndez, N. Faruk, M. Nooijen, R. J. Le Roy , J. H. Morilla, G. Tejeda, S. Montero, and P.-N. Roy, ``Raman vibrational shifts of small clusters of hydrogen isotopologues,'' J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ A , vol. 119, p. 12551, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Li, P.-N

    H. Li, P.-N. Roy, and R. J. Le Roy , ``An ``adiabatic-hindered-rotor'' treatment allows para- H _2 to be treated as if it were spherical,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 133, p. 104305, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Li, P.-N

    H. Li, P.-N. Roy, and R. J. Le Roy, ``Analytic M orse/long-range potential energy surfaces and predicted infrared spectra for C O _2 -- H _2 ,'' J. Chem. Phys. , vol. 132, no. 21, p. 214309, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    L. Wang, D. Xie, R. J. Le Roy, and P.-N. Roy, ``A new four-dimensional ab initio potential energy surface for N _2 O -- H e and vibrational band origin shifts for the N _2 O -- H e _ N clusters with N = 1-40 ,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 137, p. 104311, 2012

    2012

  44. [52]

    L. Wang, D. Xie, R. J. Le Roy , and P.-N. Roy, ``A new six-dimensional potential energy surface for H _2 -- N _2 O and its adiabatic-hindered-rotor treatment,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 139, p. 034312, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    Li, X.-L

    H. Li, X.-L. Zhang, R. J. Le Roy, and P.-N. Roy, ``Analytic M orse/long-range potential energy surfaces and predicted infrared spectra for C O -- H _2 dimer and frequency shifts of C O in (para- H _2 ) _ N N =1-20 clusters,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 139, p. 164315, 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    A. Marr, T. Halverson, A. Tripp, and P.-N. Roy, ``Vibrational R aman shifts of spin isomer combinations of hydrogen dimers and isotopologues,'' J.\ Phys.\ Chem.\ A , vol. 124, no. 34, pp. 6877--6888, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Schmidt and P.-N

    M. Schmidt and P.-N. Roy, ``On the accuracy and efficiency of different methods to calculate raman vibrational shifts of parahydrogen clusters,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 156, p. 084102, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    K \'a llay and P

    M R C C , a quantum chemical program suite written by M. K \'a llay and P. R. Nagy and D. Mester and L. Gyevi-Nagy and J. Cs \'o ka and P. B. Szab \'o and Z. Rolik and G. Samu and J. Csontos and B. H \'e gely and \'A . Ganyecz and I. Ladj \'a nszki and L. Szegedy and B. Lad \'...

  49. [57]

    K \'a llay, P

    M. K \'a llay, P. R. Nagy, D. Mester, Z. Rolik, G. Samu, J. Csontos, J. Cs \'o ka, P. B. Szab \'o , L. Gyevi-Nagy, B. H \'e gely, I. Ladj \'a nszki, L. Szegedy, B. Lad \'o czki, K. Petrov, M. Farkas, P. D. Mezei, and \'A . Ganyecz, ``The M R C C program system: Accurate quantu...

    2020

  50. [58]

    u tt, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. M \

    O. T. Unke, S. Chmiela, H. E. Sauceda, M. Gastegger, I. Poltavsky, K. T. Sch \"u tt, A. Tkatchenko, and K.-R. M \"u ller, ``Machine learning force fields,'' Chem.\ Rev. , vol. 121, pp. 10142--10186, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    D. M. Ceperley, ``Path integrals in the theory of condensed helium,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. , vol. 67, p. 279, 1995

    1995

  52. [60]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokof'ev, and B. V. Svistunov, ``Worm algorithms for continuous-space path integral M onte C arlo simulations,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. , vol. 96, p. 070601, 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    Boninsegni, N

    M. Boninsegni, N. V. Prokof'ev, and B. V. Svistunov, ``Worm algorithm and diagrammatic M onte C arlo: A new approach to continuous-space path integral M onte C arlo simulations,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ E , vol. 74, p. 036701, 2006

    2006

  54. [62]

    Boninsegni, ``Search for superfluidity in supercooled liquid parahydrogen,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol

    M. Boninsegni, ``Search for superfluidity in supercooled liquid parahydrogen,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ B , vol. 97, p. 054517, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Ibrahim, L

    A. Ibrahim, L. Wang, T. Halverson, R. J. Le Roy , and P.-N. Roy, ``Equation of state and first principles prediction of the vibrational matrix shift of solid parahydrogen,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 151, p. 244501, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    Yan and D

    Y. Yan and D. Blume, ``Path integral M onte C arlo ground state approach: F ormalism, implementation, and applications,'' J.\ Phys.\ B , vol. 50, p. 223001, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Attard, ``Pair-hypernetted-chain closure for three-body potentials: R esults for argon with the A xilrod- T eller triple-dipole potential,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ A , vol

    P. Attard, ``Pair-hypernetted-chain closure for three-body potentials: R esults for argon with the A xilrod- T eller triple-dipole potential,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ A , vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 3659--3669, 1991

    1991

  58. [66]

    M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer simulation of liquids . Oxford University Press, 2 ed., 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Driessen, J

    A. Driessen, J. A. de Waal, and I. F. Silvera, ``Experimental determination of the equation of state of solid hydrogen and deuterium at high pressures,'' J.\ Low Temp.\ Phys. , vol. 34, p. 255, 1979

    1979

  60. [68]

    R. E. Cohen, O. G \"u lseren, and R. J. Hemley, ``Accuracy of equation-of-state formulations,'' Am.\ Mineral. , vol. 85, pp. 338--344, 2000

    2000

  61. [69]

    S. N. Ishmaev, I. P. Sadikov, A. A. Chernyshov, B. A. Vindryaevski i , V. A. Sukhoparov, A. S. Telepnev, and G. V. Kobelev, ``Neutron structural investigations of solid parahydrogen at pressures up to 24 kbar,'' Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz. , vol. 84, pp. 394--403, 1983

    1983

  62. [70]

    Mao and R

    H. Mao and R. J. Hemley, ``Ultrahigh-pressure transitions in solid hydrogen,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys. , vol. 66, pp. 671--692, 1994

    1994

  63. [71]

    R. A. Aziz, F. R. W. McCourt, and C. C. K. Wong, ``A new determination of the ground state interatomic potential for H e _2 ,'' Mol.\ Phys. , vol. 61, pp. 1487--1511, 1987

    1987

  64. [72]

    Cencek, K

    W. Cencek, K. Patkowski, and K. Szalewicz, ``Full-configuration interaction calculation of three-body nonadditive contribution to helium interaction potential,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 131, p. 064105, 2009

    2009

  65. [73]

    R. A. Aziz, V. P. S. Nain, J. S. Carley, W. L. Taylor, and G. T. McConville, ``An accurate intermolecular potential for helium,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 70, pp. 4330--4342, 1979

    1979

  66. [74]

    L. W. Bruch and I. J. McGee, ``Calculations and estimates of the ground state energy of helium trimers,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 59, pp. 409--413, 1973

    1973

  67. [75]

    A. R. Janzen and R. A. Aziz, ``An accurate potential energy curve for helium based on ab initio calculations,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 107, pp. 914--919, 1997

    1997

  68. [76]

    M. J. Cohen and J. N. Murrell, ``An analytic function for the three-body potential of H e _3 ,'' Chem.\ Phys.\ Lett. , vol. 260, pp. 371--376, 1996

    1996

  69. [77]

    Chang and M

    S.-Y. Chang and M. Boninsegni, ``Ab initio potentials and the equation of state of condensed helium at high pressure,'' J.\ Chem.\ Phys. , vol. 115, pp. 2629--2633, 2001

    2001

Pith tools

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