Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Coupled cluster theory for positron binding in anions and polyatomic molecules

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces POS-CCSD, a coupled-cluster method that treats electrons and the positron on equal footing to compute positron binding energies in molecules.

desk verdict Genuine full-exponential CC for positrons with solid H-/F- benchmarks; the polyatomic results are unconverged and the abstract's 'fully converged' for H- overstates the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.19948 v2 pith:BUTH7YYB submitted 2026-03-20 physics.chem-ph

Rosario R. Riso , Jan Haakon M. Trabski , Federico Rossi , Dermot Green , Henrik Koch This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph
keywords positronbindingcoupledclusterelectron-positroncorrelationenergypolyatomicmoleculesactivespaceattachmentnuclearrelaxation
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 presents a coupled-cluster approach, POS-CCSD, for computing positron binding energies in atomic anions and polyatomic molecules. The method includes electronic single and double excitations alongside simultaneous electron–positron and positron single excitations, giving a non-perturbative treatment of both electron–electron and electron–positron correlation. For the atomic ions H− and F−, the method reproduces high-level reference binding energies once sufficiently large active spaces are used. For polyatomic molecules, the binding energies increase with active-space size but are not yet converged, and the paper argues that the remaining discrepancies reflect missing higher-order excitations and basis/active-space incompleteness, not a flaw in the equal-footing treatment. It also shows that positron attachment significantly softens the LiH potential-energy surface, emphasizing that fixed-nuclei calculations must account for nuclear relaxation when compared with experiment.

What carries the argument

The cluster operator T = T1 + T2 + S1 + S2 + Γ acting on a positron Hartree–Fock reference. T1/T2 move one or two electrons into virtual orbitals; Γ moves the single positron; S1 and S2 generate simultaneous one-electron–one-positron and two-electron–one-positron excitations. The energy expression depends directly on T1, T2, S1, and Γ, and only implicitly on S2, which nevertheless improves binding energies by up to about 200 meV. The method scales as N^7 with the number of orbitals, so an active-space restriction selects a set of canonical electron and positron orbitals used in the cluster expansion.

What would settle it

Run POS-CCSD with progressively larger active spaces for a small polyatomic such as LiH or acetonitrile and compare against a full configuration-interaction or explicitly correlated result in the same basis; if the CCSD binding energy converges to a value that differs from the exact result by more than the stated target accuracy, the double-excitation truncation fails. A simpler check is to compute a perturbative triple-excitation correction (T3/S3) and see whether it changes the binding energy by tens of meV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces POS-CCSD, a coupled-cluster wave function for an N-electron-plus-one-positron system whose cluster operator includes electronic singles and doubles (T1, T2), positron singles (Γ), and simultaneous electron–positron singles and doubles (S1, S2). Solving the similarity-transformed equations gives a non-perturbative treatment of both electron–electron and electron–positron correlation. For H− (where CCSD is formally exact for two electrons and one positron) the best active-space binding energy is 7.051 eV versus a 7.110 eV reference; for F− it is 6.235 eV versus 6.230 eV. For polyatomic molecules the computed binding energies rise with active-space size but are not converge

Load-bearing premise

For molecules other than H−, the method assumes that truncating the cluster operator at double excitations (electronic and electron–positron) and using a finite energy-selected active space captures the true positron binding energy; the paper's own binding curves show the answer still moving with active-space size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is correct, it provides a systematically improvable hierarchy for positron binding energies: adding T3 and S3 operators should move polyatomic results toward experiment and toward many-body references.
  • The large effect of including the electronic double-excitation operator T2 shows that target-molecule electron correlation substantially lowers the positron binding energy, so frozen-target or no-T2 approximations that appear accurate are likely relying on error cancellation.
  • Binding energies computed at fixed geometry should be corrected for nuclear relaxation; for LiH the positron lowers vibrational levels by about 80 cm−1 (about 10 meV), a sizable fraction of the binding energy.
  • Converged predictions require either positron-optimized basis sets or a controlled active-space extrapolation, since standard electronic basis sets describe the highly diffuse positron poorly even when augmented.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed upward trend with active-space size continues, extrapolating POS-CCSD results to the full-space limit could offer practical polyatomic binding energies before triple excitations become feasible; the paper does not attempt such an extrapolation.
  • For nonpolar molecules such as benzene and CS2, POS-CCSD underestimates binding by a large margin; if converged calculations preserve this trend, it would suggest that experimental binding energies in these systems receive significant contributions (vibrational, multi-reference, or otherwise) that single-reference fixed-nuclei CCSD does not capture.
  • Because POS-CCSD treats the positron as just another quantum particle, the same cluster machinery could in principle be extended to positron scattering and annihilation rates via response theory, not only to binding energies.
  • The requirement of orbitals up to about 150 eV in the active space suggests that positron-basis design should be guided by energy-selection criteria that capture the positron's diffuseness, rather than by standard correlation-consistent basis families.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents positron coupled cluster singles and doubles (POS-CCSD), a coupled-cluster framework in which electrons and a single positron are described on equal footing, with cluster operators T1, T2, S1, S2, and Γ. Positron binding energies are computed as direct energy differences (Eq. 19) between the positron–molecule complex and the bare molecule at the same level of theory. The method is benchmarked on H− and F− using standard basis sets, optimized exponents, and ghost-atom active spaces, and on several polyatomic molecules (LiH, acetonitrile, HCN, formaldehyde, benzene, CS2) using energy-selected active spaces. The paper also examines LiH potential-energy-surface and vibrational changes upon positron attachment. The atomic benchmarks are encouraging: the largest H− active-space value approaches the QMC/MRCI reference, and the F− value closely matches the MRCI reference. For polyatomics, however, the reported binding energies are explicitly unconverged, and the paper acknowledges that quantitative agreement with experiment is not reached.

Significance. If the method is ultimately validated, POS-CCSD would provide a systematically improvable, size-extensive coupled-cluster hierarchy for positron–molecule binding, including non-perturbative treatment of both electron–electron and electron–positron correlation. The paper's strengths include the absence of fitted parameters (binding energies are direct energy differences), validation of the eT implementation with an independent Julia implementation, and deposition of input/output data in Zenodo. The H−/F− benchmarks provide genuine evidence for the method at the few-electron level. However, the central claim that the method is applicable to polyatomic molecules is not yet supported by the presented data, because the polyatomic binding curves are not converged with respect to either active-space size or cluster-truncation order. The atomic benchmarks alone do not establish predictive accuracy for the molecular systems that motivate the work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Table V and Fig. 3] The paper's own text states that 'in all systems the binding curve has not reached a plateau' and the Table V footnote concedes that the larger-active-space POS-CCSD results 'are not converged.' Concretely, LiH changes from 825 to 909 meV when the active space grows from 300 to 500 orbitals, and acetonitrile's 500-orbital value (155 meV) is still far from the no-T2 300-orbital value (243.8 meV) and from the ΣGW+Γ+Λ reference (207 meV). Because the central applicability claim is for polyatomic molecules, these unconverged curves do not yet support POS-CCSD as a predictive method for such systems. The authors should either compute converged values (or provide reliably extrapolated limits) for at least LiH and acetonitrile, or explicitly reframe the polyatomic results as preliminary benchmarks with conservative uncertainty estimates.
  2. [§IV.A, Table IV and Abstract] The abstract calls the H− result 'fully converged,' but Table IV lists only N=300, 500, 700 out of the full 1300-orbital space; the binding energy is still increasing monotonically (6.804, 6.995, 7.051 eV toward the 7.110 eV reference). Similarly, for F− the 500-orbital value coincides with the 6.230 eV reference, but the full space is 1800 orbitals and no plateau is demonstrated. 'Fully converged' should be replaced by a qualifier such as 'largest active space,' or an extrapolated full-space estimate with an associated uncertainty should be provided.
  3. [§IV.B, Table VI] In the full aug-cc-pVQZ basis, POS-CCSD gives a negative binding energy for acetonitrile (-66 meV), whereas the 500-orbital ghost-atom calculation gives +155 meV and the reference methods give values between +19 and +207 meV. The predicted bound/unbound character therefore changes with the basis/active-space protocol. This is a direct consequence of unconverged calculations and means that no statement about polyatomic binding (including its sign) can be drawn from the current data. A convergence protocol (e.g., basis-set and active-space extrapolation) is needed before the method's predictive value for molecules can be assessed.
  4. [§III and §IV.B, cluster truncation] For systems with more than two electrons, the T1/T2/S1/S2/Γ truncation is an approximation, but no T3/S3 diagnostics or perturbative triples estimate is reported. The authors themselves list 'lack of higher order excitations in the POS-CCSD electron and electron-positron space' as a possible cause of the disagreement with ΣGW+Γ+Λ. This is a load-bearing assumption for the polyatomic claim. At minimum, a perturbative triples (T) and/or S3 correction, or a diagnostic based on the norm of projected triples amplitudes, should be reported for one polyatomic system to indicate that the cluster truncation is under control.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II.A] 'Roothan Hall' should be 'Roothaan–Hall'; the sentence 'minimizing ... with respect with respect to the real antisymmetric operators' contains a duplicated phrase.
  2. [§V and §IV.D] 'polaritization' should be 'polarization'; 'non-neglible' should be 'non-negligible'; 'Frank-Condon' should be 'Franck–Condon.'
  3. [§IV.B] The sentence 'we also report the the molecular dipole, polarizability and ionization energy' contains a duplicated article.
  4. [Table IV caption] 'The full space number of orbitals for H− is 1300 and 1800 for F−' is grammatically awkward; suggest 'The full space comprises 1300 orbitals for H− and 1800 orbitals for F−.'
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] 'Difference in convergence to the full space result' is unclear; specify whether the panels plot binding energy versus number of electron/positron active orbitals and identify the full-space value.
  6. [Supplementary Material] The projection equations are dense; a short paragraph defining the barred integrals, Fock-matrix elements, and index conventions before the explicit formulas would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: POS-CCSD binding energies are direct energy differences from the CC equations, with external QMC/MRCI/experimental benchmarks.

full rationale

The central quantity, the positron binding energy, is defined and computed as the direct energy difference ε_b = E_total(molecule+positron) − E_total(molecule) (Eq. 19), with both energies obtained by solving the POS-CCSD amplitude equations (Eqs. 15–18). No parameter is fitted to the reported binding energies or to the benchmark values: the cluster amplitudes are determined from the stationarity conditions Ω_μ = 0, and the quoted H−/F− benchmarks are external QMC (Ref. 51) and MRCI (Ref. 54) results. The polyatomic comparisons use experimental data and prior many-body calculations, including some from the same group (Refs. 28, 35, 90), but these enter only as comparison values and as a basis/ghost-atom protocol, not as inputs that force the POS-CCSD result by construction. The paper's own admission that the active-space binding curves have not reached a plateau ('in all systems the binding curve has not reached a plateau', Section IV.B) and that POS-CCSD is not converged for polyatomics is a limitation on accuracy and convergence, not a circularity: the predicted values are still independently solved from the Hamiltonian. Similarly, the H− 'fully converged' abstract claim is an extrapolation relative to Table IV's 700-orbital active space, but this is a support/correctness issue, not an equation-level reduction. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard quantum-chemical domain assumptions (Born-Oppenheimer, one positron, CCSD truncation, basis completeness) rather than on fitted parameters. The main hand-chosen inputs are active-space dimensions and ghost-atom/basis parameters from prior work; the paper's central numerical limitation is that these are not converged for polyatomic systems.

free parameters (2)
  • active_space_dimension_N = N = 300, 500, 700 for H−/F−; 300/400/500 per molecule in Table V
    Chosen by hand and memory constraints; binding energies depend strongly on N and are not converged at the largest reported N (Fig. 3). Not fitted to experimental values, so it is a convergence truncation rather than a model parameter.
  • ghost_atom_basis_and_positions = taken from Refs. 28, 35, 90
    Even-tempered Gaussian exponents and ghost-atom placements are adopted from prior positron-binding studies by the same group (including co-author D. G. Green). These choices materially affect binding energies and are not derived in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born–Oppenheimer approximation: nuclei are fixed; electronic and positronic wavefunctions are computed at a fixed nuclear geometry.
    Used throughout the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and for single-point binding energies (Eq. 19); nuclear relaxation is treated only post hoc for LiH.
  • domain assumption At most one positron per molecule.
    Section II: 'We only consider cases in which one positron is captured per molecule' because two-positron capture is deemed unlikely.
  • domain assumption The CCSD cluster operator T1+T2+S1+S2+Γ is sufficient; T3, S3 and higher excitations are neglected.
    Eqs. (10)–(14); no T3/S3 diagnostics are given, and Section IV.B speculates that missing higher excitations may explain disagreement with ΣGW+Γ+Λ.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy-based active-space selection converges to the full correlation space.
    Used for all polyatomic calculations; the authors state in Section IV.B and Fig. 4b that the electron active-space selection is sub-optimal, and Fig. 3 shows no plateau.
  • domain assumption Gaussian basis sets (standard or optimized) can span the diffuse positron wavefunction when combined with ghost atoms.
    Needed for the H− exact-in-basis analysis; Table III shows exponent optimization only partially closes the gap to QMC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupled cluster theory for positron binding in anions and polyatomic molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUTH7YYB

@misc{pith2026260319948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupled cluster theory for positron binding in anions and polyatomic molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUTH7YYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.19948}
}
abstract

We present the positron coupled cluster singles and doubles (POS-CCSD) method to calculate positron binding energies in molecules. This framework treats electrons and positrons on an equal footing and includes up to simultaneous double-electron-single-positron excitations. We benchmark the approach by computing binding energies for atomic anions and several polar and non-polar polyatomic systems, comparing the results with independent theoretical studies and, where available, experimental data. The fully converged results for H$^{-}$ are in excellent agreement with quantum Monte Carlo and multi-reference configuration interaction results. Quantitative agreement with experiments is not reached in the present study due to the slow convergence of the binding energy with respect to the size of the orbital bases for the electrons and the positron. However, the POS-CCSD results underscore the critical role of electron correlation in the description of electron-positron systems required for a balanced description of these complex systems. In addition, we examine nuclear relaxation effects following positron attachment in LiH.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.19948 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pictorial representation of the electron-positron capture process. Because of the electron polarization, a bonded meta-stable state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pictorial representation of the positron Hartree-Fock wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Difference in convergence to the full space result for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PES for LiH with and without positron attachment. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Vibrational states of the POS-CCSD and CCSD aug-cc-pVQZ PES. The overlap matrix between the vibrational states is reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ya Amusia, N

    M. Ya Amusia, N. A. Cherepkov, L. V. Chernysheva, and S. G. Shapiro. Elastic scattering of slow positrons by helium. J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys. , 9(17):L531, 1976. URL http://stacks.iop.org/0022-3700/9/ i=17/a=005

    1976

  2. [2]

    Positron annihilation and binding in aromatic and other ring molecules

    Eugene Arthur-Baidoo, JR Danielson, CM Surko, JP Cassidy, SK Gregg, J Hofierka, B Cunningham, CH Pat- terson, and DG Green. Positron annihilation and binding in aromatic and other ring molecules. Phys. Rev. A., 109(6):062801, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    J. P. Cassidy, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, and D. G. Green. Many-body theory calculations of positronic- bonded molecular dianions. J. Chem. Phys. , 160(8):084304, 02 2024. ISSN 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/5.0188719

    doi:10.1063/5.0188719 2024

  4. [4]

    Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to halogenated hydrocarbons

    JP Cassidy, J Hofierka, B Cunningham, CM Rawlins, CH Patterson, and DG Green. Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to halogenated hydrocarbons. Phys. Rev. A , 109(4):L040801, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Faddeev random-phase approximation for molecules

    Matthias Degroote, Dimitri Van Neck, and Carlo Barbieri. Faddeev random-phase approximation for molecules. Phys. Rev. A , 83:042517, Apr 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.042517

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.83.042517 2011

  6. [6]

    W. H. Dickhoff and D. Van Neck. Many-body Theory Exposed! - Propagator Description of Quantum Me- chanics in Many-Body Systems - 3rd ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 2026

    2026

  7. [7]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, W. A. King, B. N. Miller, and O. P. Sushkov. Interaction between slow positrons and atoms. Phys. Scr. , T46(T46):248, 1993. doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/1993/T46/039. URL http: //stacks.iop.org/1402-4896/1993/i=T46/a=039

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/1993/t46/039 1993

  8. [8]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, G. F. Gribakin, and W. A. King. Bound states of positrons and neutral atoms. Phys. Rev. A , 52(6):4541, Dec 1995. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.4541

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.52.4541 1995

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, G. F. Gribakin, and W. A. King. Many-body calculations of positron scattering and annihilation from noble-gas atoms. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. , 29(14):3151, 1996. doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/29/14/024

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    Relativistic linearized coupled-cluster single-double calculations of positron-atom bound states

    VA Dzuba, VV Flambaum, GF Gribakin, and C Harabati. Relativistic linearized coupled-cluster single-double calculations of positron-atom bound states. Phys. Rev. A. , 86(3):032503, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Nuclear-electronic orbital second- order coupled cluster for excited states

    Jonathan H Fetherolf, Fabijan Pavoˇ sevi´ c, and Sharon Hammes-Schiffer. Nuclear-electronic orbital second- order coupled cluster for excited states. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17977 , 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka. Quantum theory of many-particle systems . Dover, New York, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    D. G. Green. Positron cooling and annihilation in noble gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:203403, Nov 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.203403

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    D. G. Green. Probing positron cooling in noble gases via annihilation γ spectra. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:203404, Nov 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.203404

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    D. G. Green, A. R. Swann, and G. F. Gribakin. Many-body theory for positronium-atom interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:183402, May 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.183402

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    γ-ray spectra and enhancement factors for positron annihilation with core electrons

    DG Green and GF Gribakin. γ-ray spectra and enhancement factors for positron annihilation with core electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 114(9):093201, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Positron scattering and annihilation on noble-gas atoms

    DG Green, JA Ludlow, and GF Gribakin. Positron scattering and annihilation on noble-gas atoms. Phys. Rev. A., 90(3):032712, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Many-body the- ory and gaussian-basis implementation of positron annihilation γ-ray spectra on polyatomic molecules

    SK Gregg, JP Cassidy, AR Swann, J Hofierka, B Cunningham, and DG Green. Many-body the- ory and gaussian-basis implementation of positron annihilation γ-ray spectra on polyatomic molecules. arXiv:2502.12364, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    G. F. Gribakin and J. Ludlow. Many-body theory of positron-atom interactions. Phys. Rev. A , 70(3):032720, Sep 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032720

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Identification of atoms that can bind positrons

    C Harabati, VA Dzuba, and VV Flambaum. Identification of atoms that can bind positrons. Phys. Rev. A. , 89(2):022517, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Rawlins, Charles H

    Jaroslav Hofierka, Brian Cunningham, Charlie M. Rawlins, Charles H. Patterson, and Dermot G. Green. Many-body theory of positron binding to polyatomic molecules. Nature, 606(7915):688–693, June

  14. [22]

    Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to hydrogen cyanide

    Jaroslav Hofierka, Brian Cunningham, and Dermot G Green. Many-body theory calculations of positron binding to hydrogen cyanide. Eur. Phys. J. , 78(4):37, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    M¨ uller and L

    M. M¨ uller and L. S. Cederbaum. Many-body theory of composite electronic-positronic systems. Phys. 5 20 Rev. A, 42:170–183, Jul 1990. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.170. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.42.170

    1990 doi

  16. [24]

    Multicomponent equation-of-motion coupled cluster singles and doubles: Theory and calculation of excitation energies for positronium hydride

    Fabijan Pavoˇ sevi´ c and Sharon Hammes-Schiffer. Multicomponent equation-of-motion coupled cluster singles and doubles: Theory and calculation of excitation energies for positronium hydride. J. Chem. Phys. , 150(16), 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Connections between many-body perturbation and coupled-cluster theories

    Ra´ ul Quintero-Monsebaiz, Enzo Monino, Antoine Marie, and Pierre-Fran¸ cois Loos. Connections between many-body perturbation and coupled-cluster theories. J. Chem. Phys. , 157(23):231102, 12 2022. ISSN 0021-

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. M. Rawlins, J. Hofierka, B. Cunningham, C. H. Patterson, and D. G. Green. Many-body theory calculations of positron scattering and annihilation in H 2, N 2, and CH 4. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130:263001, Jun 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.263001

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Multireference configuration interaction calculations for positronium halides

    Shiro L Saito. Multireference configuration interaction calculations for positronium halides. J. Chem. Phys. , 122(5), 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Scuseria, Thomas M

    Gustavo E. Scuseria, Thomas M. Henderson, and Danny C. Sorensen. The ground state correlation energy of the random phase approximation from a ring coupled cluster doubles approach. J. Chem. Phys. , 129(23): 231101, 12 2008. ISSN 0021-9606. doi: 10.1063/1.3043729

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    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, Apr 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042802. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042802

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Masanori Tachikawa. Positron-attachment to acetonitrile, acetaldehyde, and acetone molecules: Vibrational enhancement of positron affinities with configuration interaction level of multi-component molecular orbital approach. In J. Phys. Conf. Ser. , volume 488, page 012053, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Capturing correlation effects in positron binding to atoms and molecules

    Shiv Upadhyay, Anouar Benali, and Kenneth D Jordan. Capturing correlation effects in positron binding to atoms and molecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. , 20(22):9879–9893, 2024. 6

    2024

  24. [2022]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04703-3

    ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04703-3. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41586-022-04703-3

    doi

  25. [9606]

    doi: 10.1063/5.0130837

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.