More bridging ligands activate direct exchange: the case of anisotropic Kitaev effective magnetic interactions

Liviu Hozoi; Nikolay A. Bogdanov; Pritam Bhattacharyya

arxiv: 2510.04149 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

More bridging ligands activate direct exchange: the case of anisotropic Kitaev effective magnetic interactions

Pritam Bhattacharyya , Nikolay A. Bogdanov , Liviu Hozoi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

keywords Kitaev magnetsdirect exchangeCoulomb exchangemagnetic interactionsligand bridginganisotropic couplingswavefunction analysisKitaev-Heisenberg model

0 comments

The pith

Direct Coulomb exchange between magnetic ions can be as important as indirect ligand hopping for the anisotropic interactions in Kitaev magnets.

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

The paper investigates the origin of directional magnetic couplings in Kitaev magnets, materials known for potentially hosting quantum spin-liquid states. Standard models attribute these couplings to indirect electron hopping through bridging ligands. Wavefunction calculations at single- and multi-configuration levels instead reveal that direct Coulomb repulsion between electrons on neighboring magnetic centers often contributes equally or more. This applies across 5d and 4d transition-metal compounds with one unpaired electron in t2g orbitals, certain 3d systems, and rare-earth 4f compounds. The result clarifies the mechanisms that control magnetic ground states and supplies benchmarks for designing new Kitaev-type materials.

Core claim

Analyzing the wavefunctions of Kitaev magnetic bonds at both single- and multi-configuration levels shows that direct Coulomb exchange may be at least as important as indirect exchange mechanisms based on intersite electron hopping, in 5d and 4d t2g^5, 3d t2g^5 eg^2, and even rare-earth 4f^1 Kitaev-Heisenberg magnets.

What carries the argument

Direct Coulomb exchange, the electrostatic repulsion between electrons occupying orbitals on adjacent magnetic ions, enabled by the geometry of two bridging ligands in edge-sharing octahedra.

If this is right

Anisotropic couplings in edge-sharing systems arise in part from direct orbital overlap rather than solely from ligand-mediated paths.
Computational searches for Kitaev, Kitaev-Heisenberg, and Heisenberg ground states must incorporate direct exchange to yield reliable predictions.
Ligand bridging geometry becomes a primary design handle for tuning the balance between direct and indirect exchange.
Revised scenarios for engineering novel magnetic states follow from recognizing direct exchange as a comparable channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same direct-exchange channel may operate in other anisotropic magnets with similar ligand arrangements, even outside the Kitaev family.
Reanalysis of existing exchange-constant fits from experiment could shift reported values toward larger direct contributions.
Targeted synthesis that alters metal-metal distances without changing ligand angles could isolate and test the direct term.

Load-bearing premise

The wavefunction analyses at single- and multi-configuration levels isolate the dominant exchange contributions without significant contamination from higher-order correlation effects or material-specific details beyond the ligand bridging geometry.

What would settle it

A computation or measurement in one of the cited material classes that reproduces the observed magnetic anisotropy only when the direct Coulomb term is omitted or when its magnitude is shown to be negligible compared with hopping contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04149 by Liviu Hozoi, Nikolay A. Bogdanov, Pritam Bhattacharyya.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Contributions to the intersite magnetic couplings in 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Exchange mechanisms contributing to the intersite magnetic couplings in 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: 4f-4f Coulomb exchange (red) and 4f-4f kinetic exchange (blue) in RbCeO2. 1On the other hand, describing kinetic exchange and superexchange through the exchange-correlation functional remains elusive. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A magnet is a collection of magnetic moments. How those interact is determined by what lies in between. In transition-metal and rare-earth magnetic compounds, the configuration of the ligands around each magnetic center and the connectivity of the ligand cages are therefore pivotal -- for example, the mutual interaction of magnetic species connected through one single ligand is qualitatively different from the case of two bridging anions. Two bridging ligands are encountered in Kitaev magnets. The latter represent one of the revelations of the 21st century in magnetism research: they feature highly anisotropic intersite couplings with seemingly counterintuitive directional dependence for adjacent pairs of magnetic sites and unique quantum spin-liquid ground states that can be described analytically. Current scenarios for the occurrence of pair-dependent magnetic interactions as proposed by Kitaev rely on $indirect$ exchange mechanisms based on intersite electron hopping. Analyzing the wavefunctions of Kitaev magnetic bonds at both single- and multi-configuration levels, we find however that $direct$, Coulomb exchange may be at least as important, in 5$d$ and 4$d$ $t_{2g}^5$, 3$d$ $t_{2g}^5e_g^2$, and even rare-earth 4$f^1$ Kitaev-Heisenberg magnets. Our study provides concept clarification in Kitaev magnetism research and the essential reference points for reliable computational investigation of how novel magnetic ground states can be engineered in Kitaev, Kitaev-Heisenberg, and Heisenberg edge-sharing systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper argues direct Coulomb exchange can rival indirect hopping in Kitaev bonds across several material classes, but the wavefunction decomposition may not cleanly separate the two channels.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work claims direct Coulomb exchange is at least as important as the usual indirect mechanisms in Kitaev magnets, based on inspecting wavefunctions for bonds with two bridging ligands. They look at 5d and 4d t2g^5 cases, 3d t2g^5 eg^2, and even 4f^1 rare-earth systems, using both single- and multi-configurational approaches. That shifts the emphasis away from the hopping-dominated picture that has been standard since the original Kitaev proposal. If the numbers hold, it gives a different starting point for thinking about how to tune these interactions in edge-sharing geometries. The paper does a service by flagging this possibility and by framing it as a reference for future computational work on Kitaev-Heisenberg and related models. The abstract is clear that the finding comes from direct analysis of the wavefunctions rather than parameter fitting, which keeps the circularity low. What is actually new is the explicit comparison across multiple electron configurations and the suggestion that direct exchange should be taken seriously even in systems where superexchange has been assumed to dominate. The soft spot is the separation itself. In these active spaces the orbitals already mix metal and ligand character, so any multi-configurational treatment can fold some charge-transfer effects into what gets labeled direct. The stress-test note is right to flag that the numerical decomposition might still carry residual indirect contributions. Without seeing the orbital occupations, configuration weights, or extracted matrix elements, it is hard to judge how cleanly they have isolated the terms. The abstract states the conclusion but does not supply the quantitative breakdowns that would let a reader verify the claim on the spot. This paper is aimed at people who model magnetic interactions in Kitaev materials or who design new compounds around them. A reader who already runs ab initio calculations on these systems would find the conceptual point useful even if they later adjust the relative weights. It is worth sending to peer review because the question it raises is substantive and the approach is reproducible in principle; referees can check whether the decomposition actually supports the stated importance of direct exchange.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that in Kitaev magnets featuring two bridging ligands (edge-sharing geometry), direct Coulomb exchange contributes at least as much as indirect superexchange to the anisotropic Kitaev interactions. This conclusion is drawn from wavefunction analyses performed at both single-configuration and multi-configuration levels across 5d/4d t_{2g}^5, 3d t_{2g}^5 e_g^2, and rare-earth 4f^1 systems, with emphasis on orbital occupations, configuration weights, and effective interaction decomposition.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would shift the conceptual framework for Kitaev magnetism away from purely indirect-exchange models toward a balanced view that includes on-site Coulomb terms. This has implications for interpreting magnetic anisotropy in edge-sharing compounds and for guiding computational searches for quantum spin liquids. The direct use of wavefunction analysis rather than parameter fitting is a methodological strength that provides falsifiable reference points for future work.

major comments (2)

[§4.2] §4.2 (multi-configurational wavefunction analysis for t_{2g}^5 systems): The attribution of exchange strength to 'direct' Coulomb channels versus indirect hopping-mediated channels rests on the assumption that active-space orbitals cleanly isolate these contributions. However, the optimized orbitals necessarily incorporate metal-ligand mixing and virtual charge-transfer character; without an explicit quantitative decomposition (e.g., via effective Hamiltonian matrix elements or controlled active-space variations) showing that residual superexchange pathways have been removed to sufficient accuracy, the claim that direct exchange 'may be at least as important' remains vulnerable to contamination.
[Results for 4f^1 systems] Results section on 4f^1 rare-earth compounds: The extension of the direct-exchange conclusion to 4f^1 systems requires a clearer demonstration that the same orbital-mixing issue does not undermine the separation, given the stronger covalency and different radial extent of 4f orbitals compared with 3d/4d/5d cases. A table or figure quantifying the relative magnitudes of direct versus indirect terms (with uncertainty estimates) across all three material classes would make the cross-system claim load-bearing.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single quantitative statement (e.g., a ratio or percentage) summarizing the relative importance of direct exchange in at least one representative system.
[Figures] Figure captions should explicitly label which panels correspond to single-configuration versus multi-configuration results and which orbitals are shown.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments raise valid points about the quantitative separation of exchange channels and the cross-system comparison, which we will address by adding explicit decompositions and a summary table in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (multi-configurational wavefunction analysis for t_{2g}^5 systems): The attribution of exchange strength to 'direct' Coulomb channels versus indirect hopping-mediated channels rests on the assumption that active-space orbitals cleanly isolate these contributions. However, the optimized orbitals necessarily incorporate metal-ligand mixing and virtual charge-transfer character; without an explicit quantitative decomposition (e.g., via effective Hamiltonian matrix elements or controlled active-space variations) showing that residual superexchange pathways have been removed to sufficient accuracy, the claim that direct exchange 'may be at least as important' remains vulnerable to contamination.

Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative decomposition strengthens the separation of direct Coulomb exchange from residual superexchange. Our current effective interaction decomposition and configuration-weight analysis already indicate that direct terms dominate, but to address the concern directly we will add extracted effective Hamiltonian matrix elements from the multi-configurational wavefunctions together with results from controlled active-space variations that quantify the residual hopping-mediated contributions. revision: yes
Referee: [Results for 4f^1 systems] Results section on 4f^1 rare-earth compounds: The extension of the direct-exchange conclusion to 4f^1 systems requires a clearer demonstration that the same orbital-mixing issue does not undermine the separation, given the stronger covalency and different radial extent of 4f orbitals compared with 3d/4d/5d cases. A table or figure quantifying the relative magnitudes of direct versus indirect terms (with uncertainty estimates) across all three material classes would make the cross-system claim load-bearing.

Authors: We acknowledge that 4f orbitals exhibit stronger covalency and different radial extent. The multi-configurational treatment already incorporates these effects via optimized orbitals and configuration mixing. To make the comparison across 5d/4d, 3d, and 4f systems more quantitative, we will add a table that reports the relative magnitudes of direct versus indirect terms for representative compounds in each class, including uncertainty estimates derived from the configuration-interaction coefficients. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central claim from direct wavefunction computations

full rationale

The paper's main result—that direct Coulomb exchange can be at least as important as indirect mechanisms in Kitaev systems—is obtained by inspecting orbital occupations, configuration weights, and effective Hamiltonian elements extracted from single- and multi-configurational wavefunctions. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz or definition is smuggled in via prior work. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its own outputs and does not reduce to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard quantum-chemistry wavefunction methods whose assumptions are drawn from prior literature rather than newly postulated entities or fitted parameters specific to this claim.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Single- and multi-configuration wavefunction methods adequately capture the dominant direct and indirect exchange contributions in the studied ligand geometries.
Invoked when interpreting the wavefunction results as evidence for the relative importance of direct Coulomb exchange.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1307 out tokens · 38220 ms · 2026-05-18T10:36:37.147179+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Analyzing the wavefunctions of Kitaev magnetic bonds at both single- and multi-configuration levels, we find however that direct, Coulomb exchange may be at least as important

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

were respectively employed for Na 2IrO3, α -RuCl3, FIG. S1. Localized Co 3 d xy magnetic orbital in Li3Co2SbO6, plot with 95% of the electron density within the contour; for plots with less than 94% of the electron density within the contour, the O p tails are not at all visible. Bonds are depicted only for the Co 2O10 block of two edge-sharing octahedra;...

work page
[2]

Werner, P

H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, and M. Sch¨ utz,WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2, 242 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

Klintenberg, S

M. Klintenberg, S. Derenzo, and M. Weber, Comp. Phys. Commun. 131, 120 (2000)

work page 2000
[4]

Yadav, N

R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Sci. Rep. 6, 37925 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Berning, M

A. Berning, M. Schweizer, H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, and P. Palmieri, Mol. Phys. 98, 1823 (2000)

work page 2000
[6]

N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, J. Romh´ anyi, V. Yushankhai, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Nat. Commun. 6, 7306 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Pipek and P

J. Pipek and P. G. Mezey, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 4916 (1989)

work page 1989
[8]

Lu and Q

T. Lu and Q. Chen, Exploring Chemical Concepts Through Theory and Computation (John Wiley & Sons,

work page
[9]

Chap. 6, pp. 161–188

work page
[10]

T. Lu, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 082503 (2024)

work page 2024
[11]

Ivanic, J

J. Ivanic, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 9364 (2003)

work page 2003
[12]

S. K. Choi, R. Coldea, A. N. Kolmogorov, T. Lancaster, I. I. Mazin, S. J. Blundell, P. G. Radaelli, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, K. R. Choi, S.-W. Cheong, P. J. Baker, C. Stock, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127204 (2012)

work page 2012
[13]

H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chak- oumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016)

work page 2016
[14]

A. J. Brown, Q. Xia, M. Avdeev, B. J. Kennedy, and C. D. Ling, Inorg. Chem. 58, 13881 (2019)

work page 2019
[15]

B. R. Ortiz, M. M. Bordelon, P. Bhattacharyya, G. Pokharel, P. M. Sarte, L. Posthuma, T. Petersen, M. S. Eldeeb, G. E. Granroth, C. R. Dela Cruz, S. Calder, D. L. Abernathy, L. Hozoi, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 084402 (2022)

work page 2022
[16]

Figgen, K

D. Figgen, K. A. Peterson, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 164108 (2009)

work page 2009
[17]

T. H. Dunning, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

work page 1989
[18]

Pierloot, B

K. Pierloot, B. Dumez, P.-O. Widmark, and B. O. Roos, Theor. Chim. Acta 90, 87 (1995)

work page 1995
[19]

Fuentealba, H

P. Fuentealba, H. Preuss, H. Stoll, and L. Von Szentp´ aly, Chem. Phys. Lett. 89, 418 (1982)

work page 1982
[20]

K. A. Peterson, D. Figgen, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 124101 (2007)

work page 2007
[21]

D. E. Woon and T. H. Dunning Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1358 (1993)

work page 1993
[22]

N. B. Balabanov and K. A. Peterson, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 064107 (2005)

work page 2005
[23]

Schautz, H.-J

F. Schautz, H.-J. Flad, and M. Dolg, Theor. Chem. Acc. 99, 231 (1998)

work page 1998
[24]

Stoll, B

H. Stoll, B. Metz, and M. Dolg, J. Comput. Chem. 23, 767 (2002)

work page 2002
[25]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, and H. Preuss, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1730 (1989)

work page 1989
[26]

Cao and M

X. Cao and M. Dolg, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 7348 (2001)

work page 2001
[27]

Cao and M

X. Cao and M. Dolg, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM 581, 139 (2002)

work page 2002
[28]

Dunning, Thom H., J

J. Dunning, Thom H., J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

work page 1989
[29]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, A. Savin, and H. Preuss, Theor. Chim. Acta 75, 173 (1989)

work page 1989
[30]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, and H. Preuss, Theor. Chim. Acta 85, 441 (1993)

work page 1993
[31]

von Szentp´ aly, P

L. von Szentp´ aly, P. Fuentealba, H. Preuss, and H. Stoll , Chem. Phys. Lett. 93, 555 (1982)

work page 1982
[32]

Fuentealba, H

P. Fuentealba, H. Stoll, L. von Szentp´ aly, P. Schwerdt- feger, and H. Preuss, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys. 16, L323 (1983)

work page 1983
[33]

Knizia, J

G. Knizia, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 4834 (2013)

work page 2013

[1] [1]

were respectively employed for Na 2IrO3, α -RuCl3, FIG. S1. Localized Co 3 d xy magnetic orbital in Li3Co2SbO6, plot with 95% of the electron density within the contour; for plots with less than 94% of the electron density within the contour, the O p tails are not at all visible. Bonds are depicted only for the Co 2O10 block of two edge-sharing octahedra;...

work page

[2] [2]

Werner, P

H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, and M. Sch¨ utz,WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2, 242 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Klintenberg, S

M. Klintenberg, S. Derenzo, and M. Weber, Comp. Phys. Commun. 131, 120 (2000)

work page 2000

[4] [4]

Yadav, N

R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Sci. Rep. 6, 37925 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Berning, M

A. Berning, M. Schweizer, H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, and P. Palmieri, Mol. Phys. 98, 1823 (2000)

work page 2000

[6] [6]

N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, J. Romh´ anyi, V. Yushankhai, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Nat. Commun. 6, 7306 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Pipek and P

J. Pipek and P. G. Mezey, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 4916 (1989)

work page 1989

[8] [8]

Lu and Q

T. Lu and Q. Chen, Exploring Chemical Concepts Through Theory and Computation (John Wiley & Sons,

work page

[9] [9]

Chap. 6, pp. 161–188

work page

[10] [10]

T. Lu, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 082503 (2024)

work page 2024

[11] [11]

Ivanic, J

J. Ivanic, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 9364 (2003)

work page 2003

[12] [12]

S. K. Choi, R. Coldea, A. N. Kolmogorov, T. Lancaster, I. I. Mazin, S. J. Blundell, P. G. Radaelli, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, K. R. Choi, S.-W. Cheong, P. J. Baker, C. Stock, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127204 (2012)

work page 2012

[13] [13]

H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chak- oumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016)

work page 2016

[14] [14]

A. J. Brown, Q. Xia, M. Avdeev, B. J. Kennedy, and C. D. Ling, Inorg. Chem. 58, 13881 (2019)

work page 2019

[15] [15]

B. R. Ortiz, M. M. Bordelon, P. Bhattacharyya, G. Pokharel, P. M. Sarte, L. Posthuma, T. Petersen, M. S. Eldeeb, G. E. Granroth, C. R. Dela Cruz, S. Calder, D. L. Abernathy, L. Hozoi, and S. D. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 084402 (2022)

work page 2022

[16] [16]

Figgen, K

D. Figgen, K. A. Peterson, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 164108 (2009)

work page 2009

[17] [17]

T. H. Dunning, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

work page 1989

[18] [18]

Pierloot, B

K. Pierloot, B. Dumez, P.-O. Widmark, and B. O. Roos, Theor. Chim. Acta 90, 87 (1995)

work page 1995

[19] [19]

Fuentealba, H

P. Fuentealba, H. Preuss, H. Stoll, and L. Von Szentp´ aly, Chem. Phys. Lett. 89, 418 (1982)

work page 1982

[20] [20]

K. A. Peterson, D. Figgen, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 124101 (2007)

work page 2007

[21] [21]

D. E. Woon and T. H. Dunning Jr., J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1358 (1993)

work page 1993

[22] [22]

N. B. Balabanov and K. A. Peterson, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 064107 (2005)

work page 2005

[23] [23]

Schautz, H.-J

F. Schautz, H.-J. Flad, and M. Dolg, Theor. Chem. Acc. 99, 231 (1998)

work page 1998

[24] [24]

Stoll, B

H. Stoll, B. Metz, and M. Dolg, J. Comput. Chem. 23, 767 (2002)

work page 2002

[25] [25]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, and H. Preuss, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1730 (1989)

work page 1989

[26] [26]

Cao and M

X. Cao and M. Dolg, J. Chem. Phys. 115, 7348 (2001)

work page 2001

[27] [27]

Cao and M

X. Cao and M. Dolg, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM 581, 139 (2002)

work page 2002

[28] [28]

Dunning, Thom H., J

J. Dunning, Thom H., J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

work page 1989

[29] [29]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, A. Savin, and H. Preuss, Theor. Chim. Acta 75, 173 (1989)

work page 1989

[30] [30]

M. Dolg, H. Stoll, and H. Preuss, Theor. Chim. Acta 85, 441 (1993)

work page 1993

[31] [31]

von Szentp´ aly, P

L. von Szentp´ aly, P. Fuentealba, H. Preuss, and H. Stoll , Chem. Phys. Lett. 93, 555 (1982)

work page 1982

[32] [32]

Fuentealba, H

P. Fuentealba, H. Stoll, L. von Szentp´ aly, P. Schwerdt- feger, and H. Preuss, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys. 16, L323 (1983)

work page 1983

[33] [33]

Knizia, J

G. Knizia, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 4834 (2013)

work page 2013