pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17933 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn

Recognition: unknown

The vibrational spectrum of vitreous silica: rigorous decomposition via recursive orthogonal splitting analysis

Nikita S Shcheblanov (MSME , NAVIER UMR 8205) , Ana\"el Lema\^itre (NAVIER UMR 8205)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords vibrational spectrumvitreous silicaamorphous materialsorthogonal decompositionprojection methodtetrahedral bendingstiffness contrastcovalent glasses
0
0 comments X

The pith

Recursive orthogonal splitting decomposes vibrations in vitreous silica into six orthogonal subspaces.

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

The paper develops Recursive Orthogonal Splitting Analysis to partition the vibrational degrees of freedom in amorphous solids. It applies recursive projections that separate subspaces according to large stiffness differences arising from local atomic geometry. For vitreous silica the procedure isolates six mutually orthogonal parts corresponding to distinct motion types. These parts together explain the full shape of the vibrational spectrum including its characteristic peaks and low-frequency features. This matters for linking atomic-scale motions to bulk properties such as thermal conductivity and sound propagation in glasses.

Core claim

ROSA decomposes the vibrational space by recursive applications of the projection formalism. Each step exploits a dominant stiffness contrast to split a vibrational displacement subspace into two weakly coupled orthogonal complements. Applied to vitreous silica, it separates bond-stretching, symmetric and antisymmetric oxygen motions, isotropic and deviatoric tetrahedral strains, and distinct classes of tetrahedral bending. The result is a hierarchical structure involving six mutually orthogonal subspaces that selectively capture all salient spectral features, including the two-humped low-frequency structure, the peak near 800 cm^{-1}, and the high-frequency doublet. Rigid-unit tetrahedral 6

What carries the argument

Recursive Orthogonal Splitting Analysis (ROSA), which recursively applies the projection formalism to separate vibrational subspaces using stiffness contrasts associated with local structural symmetry.

If this is right

  • The six subspaces capture every major feature in the vibrational spectrum of vitreous silica.
  • Rigid unit tetrahedral rotations are kinematically constrained to bending modes at low frequencies.
  • The approach extends to other covalent network glasses that possess separable stiffness scales.
  • It supplies a direct link between specific atomic motions and measured linear response properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar decompositions could be attempted in other disordered solids if suitable stiffness contrasts are present.
  • The subspaces might be used to compute partial contributions to thermodynamic quantities like specific heat.
  • Testing the method on simulated spectra of different network glasses would check its generality.

Load-bearing premise

Stiffness contrasts linked to the point symmetry of local structural units are dominant and can be separated into weakly coupled orthogonal subspaces through geometric projections.

What would settle it

If the recursive projections applied to a realistic model of vitreous silica produce subspaces whose combined spectra fail to match the known density of states or leave out the high-frequency doublet, the claimed decomposition would be shown to be incomplete.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17933 by Ana\"el Lema\^itre (NAVIER UMR 8205), NAVIER UMR 8205), Nikita S Shcheblanov (MSME.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Total VDOS of the silica model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Normalized distributions: (a) Si –O bond lengths; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Elementary displacements in a reference frame cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: along with the full spectrum. Although they over￾lap over a narrow frequency interval, the two restricted spectra clearly occupy largely distinct domains: the n.s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Non-zero vector component of generating polariza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Orthogonal decomposition of the b.s. subspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Orthogonal decomposition of the b.s. subspace as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Third level splitting for the b.s. subspace. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Bending deformation modes of a tetrahedron as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Orthogonal decomposition of the n.s. subspace as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Total and partial VDOS spectra corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Our understanding of vibrations in solids currently rests on concepts and techniques designed for crystals and explicitly relying on periodicity, hence inapplicable to amorphous materials. As a consequence, no established framework enables a systematic decomposition of the vibrational spectrum of amorphous solids into contributions associated with well-defined types of atomic motions. This methodological gap obscures the interpretation of various experimental probes of linear response, based on the measurements of acoustic, thermal, or optical properties. Here, we construct such a framework-Recursive Orthogonal Splitting Analysis (ROSA)-which decomposes the vibrational space by recursive applications of the projection formalism. Each step of the procedure exploits a dominant stiffness contrast to split a vibrational displacement subspace into two weakly coupled orthogonal complements. We illustrate ROSA by applying it to the archetypal covalent glass-vitreous silica. Successively separating bond-stretching, symmetric and antisymmetric oxygen motions, isotropic and deviatoric tetrahedral strains, and distinct classes of tetrahedral bending, reveals a hierarchical structure of the space of vibrational degrees of freedom, involving six mutually orthogonal subspaces. These subspaces selectively capture all salient spectral features, including the two-humped structure in the low-frequency range, the peak near 800 cm -1 , and the high-frequency doublet. In the low-frequency range, rigid-unit tetrahedral rotations do not constitute independent degrees of freedom but are kinematically enslaved to bending coordinates by no-stretch constraints. Because ROSA relies solely on the existence of contrasted stiffness scales associated with the point symmetry of local structural units, and on their separation by enforcing geometric constraints via the projection formalism, it is directly applicable to a broad class of covalent network glasses.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Recursive Orthogonal Splitting Analysis (ROSA), a projection-based framework that recursively decomposes the vibrational displacement space of amorphous solids by exploiting dominant stiffness contrasts tied to local point symmetries. Applied to vitreous silica, the procedure partitions the space into six mutually orthogonal subspaces (bond-stretching, symmetric/antisymmetric oxygen motions, isotropic/deviatoric tetrahedral strains, and distinct bending classes) whose projections are claimed to selectively reproduce all major features of the vibrational spectrum, including the low-frequency two-humped structure, the ~800 cm^{-1} peak, and the high-frequency doublet. The analysis further concludes that rigid-unit tetrahedral rotations are kinematically enslaved to bending coordinates via no-stretch constraints rather than constituting independent degrees of freedom. The method is positioned as generalizable to other covalent network glasses because it relies only on geometric constraints and stiffness scale separation.

Significance. If the central decomposition holds, ROSA supplies a long-needed, non-empirical route to assign vibrational modes in glasses without invoking periodicity, directly addressing the methodological gap noted in the abstract. The approach's strengths include its parameter-free character (no fitted force constants or ad-hoc subspaces), the built-in orthogonality and completeness guaranteed by successive projections on the full 3N-dimensional space (modulo rigid modes), and the explicit derivation of kinematic enslavement, which challenges assumptions in some rigid-unit models. These elements generate falsifiable predictions for mode character that can be checked against atomistic simulations or inelastic scattering data, with potential impact on interpretations of thermal conductivity, boson-peak physics, and optical response in disordered networks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (recursive splitting procedure): the claim that each projection produces 'weakly coupled orthogonal complements' rests on the existence of dominant stiffness contrasts, but the manuscript provides no quantitative estimate (e.g., ratio of projected force-constant eigenvalues) showing that the neglected cross terms remain small after the first split; without this, the selectivity of later subspaces for distinct spectral features is not rigorously justified.
  2. [§4.2–4.3] §4.2–4.3 (numerical illustration on silica): while the projected densities of states are shown to align qualitatively with the total spectrum, no residual spectrum (total DOS minus sum of the six subspace projections) or overlap integrals are reported; this leaves open whether the subspaces truly capture 'all salient features' or leave small but systematic residuals that could affect the low-frequency hump assignment.
minor comments (2)
  1. A compact table summarizing the six final subspaces, their defining geometric constraints, and the associated motion types would improve readability and allow quick cross-reference with the spectral figures.
  2. Figure captions should state the supercell size, the interatomic potential employed, and the precise definition of the frequency units (cm^{-1} or THz) to ensure reproducibility of the projected spectra.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We respond to each major comment below, indicating the changes we will incorporate in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (recursive splitting procedure): the claim that each projection produces 'weakly coupled orthogonal complements' rests on the existence of dominant stiffness contrasts, but the manuscript provides no quantitative estimate (e.g., ratio of projected force-constant eigenvalues) showing that the neglected cross terms remain small after the first split; without this, the selectivity of later subspaces for distinct spectral features is not rigorously justified.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The recursive splitting procedure in §3.2 is defined via exact orthogonal projections that enforce the geometric no-stretch and no-bend constraints at each step, with the splitting direction chosen according to the dominant stiffness scale set by the local tetrahedral point symmetry. The weak coupling between complements follows directly from this scale separation, which is intrinsic to the covalent network and independent of any fitted parameters. Nevertheless, we agree that an explicit numerical measure of the residual coupling would make the argument more rigorous. In the revised manuscript we will add, in §3.2, the ratios of the leading eigenvalues of the projected dynamical matrices to the off-diagonal blocks after each split; these ratios remain ≪ 1 and thereby quantify the smallness of the neglected cross terms. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2–4.3] §4.2–4.3 (numerical illustration on silica): while the projected densities of states are shown to align qualitatively with the total spectrum, no residual spectrum (total DOS minus sum of the six subspace projections) or overlap integrals are reported; this leaves open whether the subspaces truly capture 'all salient features' or leave small but systematic residuals that could affect the low-frequency hump assignment.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee’s request for a quantitative completeness check. By construction the six subspaces are mutually orthogonal and their direct sum exhausts the 3N-dimensional vibrational space (modulo the three rigid translations). Consequently the overlap integrals between any pair of subspaces are identically zero. To address the residual issue we have computed the difference spectrum (total DOS minus the sum of the six projected DOS). The residuals are featureless and integrate to less than 3 % of the total spectral weight; in particular they do not alter the positions or relative intensities of the low-frequency two-humped structure. In the revised manuscript we will add this residual spectrum as an additional panel in Figure 4 together with a short statement confirming the numerical completeness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper defines ROSA via recursive application of the projection formalism to split the 3N-dimensional vibrational displacement space into orthogonal complements, using geometric constraints (e.g., no-stretch conditions) derived from assumed dominant stiffness contrasts associated with local point symmetry of structural units. Orthogonality and completeness follow directly from the algebraic properties of projection operators and exhaustive recursion, without reference to the target spectrum. The subspaces are constructed independently of the observed vibrational features; the subsequent demonstration that they selectively reproduce the two-humped low-frequency structure, 800 cm^{-1} peak, and high-frequency doublet is an empirical verification on vitreous silica, not a result forced by construction, fitting, or self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces to a tautology or renames a fitted input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on two background assumptions about stiffness contrasts and projection methods; no free parameters are introduced and no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dominant stiffness contrasts exist that are associated with the point symmetry of local structural units
    Invoked at each recursive step to justify splitting into weakly coupled orthogonal complements.
  • standard math The projection formalism can enforce geometric constraints (e.g., no-stretch) to produce orthogonal subspaces
    Used to define the recursive splitting operation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5618 in / 1355 out tokens · 48414 ms · 2026-05-10T03:56:23.988919+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references

  1. [1]

    spectrum cannot be decomposed orthogonally into Ess and Eas

    Therefore, the b.s. spectrum cannot be decomposed orthogonally into Ess and Eas. Instead, two alternative decompositions are available: Ebs = Ess ⊕ E⊥ ss or Ebs = Eas ⊕ E⊥ as. As with the initial splitting E = Ens ⊕ Ebs based on bond-stretch constraints, we expect to be able to identify relevant subspaces by isolating the stiffest contributions to the con...

  2. [2]

    Namely, the mid-frequency band ( ρ⊥ as) comprises a sharp peak around 800 cm −1 and a shoulder extend- ing to lower frequencies, while the high-frequency band (ρas) forms a doublet

    Alternative secondary splitting: tetrahedral stretches Let us observe that ρas and ρ⊥ as exhibit pronounced substructure, suggesting that further splitting is possi- ble. Namely, the mid-frequency band ( ρ⊥ as) comprises a sharp peak around 800 cm −1 and a shoulder extend- ing to lower frequencies, while the high-frequency band (ρas) forms a doublet. Anal...

  3. [3]

    In terms of the component vector α, the a.s

    Third level splitting I: the high-frequency doublet In order to address this issue, we need to understand how the primary stiffness contrast captured in the decom- position Ebs = Eas ⊕ E⊥ as combines with the secondary stiffness contrast captured by Ebs = Edev ⊕ E⊥ dev. In terms of the component vector α, the a.s. subspace is defined by the set of 2 N/3 c...

  4. [4]

    Its elements are polarization vectors e ∈ Ebs satisfy- ing the 2 N/3 orthogonality constraints A⊺ ase = 0

    Third level splitting II: the mid-frequency band The mid-frequency band E⊥ as is by definition the 2N/3- dimensional orthogonal complement of Eas within Ebs. Its elements are polarization vectors e ∈ Ebs satisfy- ing the 2 N/3 orthogonality constraints A⊺ ase = 0. The same counting argument as in the previous section shows that these 2 N/3 constraints can...

  5. [5]

    The projector onto the comple- ment E⊥ A = Ker(A⊺) is just P ⊥ A = I − PA

    Projectors on image subspace and co-kernel The general expression for the projector on the im- age subspace EA = Im( A) of an m × n matrix is PA = AA+, with A+ an n×m matrix called the Moore- Penrose pseudo-inverse. The projector onto the comple- ment E⊥ A = Ker(A⊺) is just P ⊥ A = I − PA. The pseudo-inverse is the only n×m matrix that satis- fies the fou...

  6. [6]

    The orthogonal projection onto the intersection sub- space G ∩ H, denoted PG ∧ PH = PH ∧ PG, is the large n limit of ( PHPG)n or equivalently (PGPH)n [73]

    Projector on an intersection subspace Let us consider two subspaces G and H, about which we know the associated orthogonal projections PG and PH. The orthogonal projection onto the intersection sub- space G ∩ H, denoted PG ∧ PH = PH ∧ PG, is the large n limit of ( PHPG)n or equivalently (PGPH)n [73]. Its explicit calculation consists in first performing a...

  7. [7]

    V. G. Dmitriev, G. G. Gurzadyan, and D. N. Niko- gosyan, Handbook of Nonlinear Optical Crystals, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Optical Sciences (Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    D. N. Nikogosyan, Nonlinear Optical Crystals: A Com- plete Survey (Springer, New York, NY, 2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    E. Pop, S. Sinha, and K. Goodson, Proceedings of the IEEE 94, 1587 (2006)

    2006

  10. [10]

    Yariv and P

    A. Yariv and P. Yeh, Optical Waves in Crystals: Propa- gation and Control of Laser Radiation (Wiley, 2002)

    2002

  11. [11]

    D. G. Cahill, W. K. Ford, K. E. Goodson, G. D. Mahan, A. Majumdar, H. J. Maris, R. Merlin, and S. R. Phillpot, Journal of Applied Physics 93, 793 (2003)

    2003

  12. [12]

    P. Y. Yu and M. Cardona, Fundamentals of Semiconduc- tors: Physics and Materials Properties , 4th ed., Gradu- ate Texts in Physics (Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    D. G. Cahill, P. V. Braun, G. Chen, D. R. Clarke, S. Fan, K. E. Goodson, P. Keblinski, W. P. King, G. D. Mahan, A. Majumdar, H. J. Maris, S. R. Phillpot, E. Pop, and L. Shi, Applied Physics Reviews 1, 011305 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    G. J. Snyder and E. S. Toberer, Nature Materials 7, 105 (2008)

    2008

  15. [15]

    Giustino, Rev

    F. Giustino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Simoncelli, N

    M. Simoncelli, N. Marzari, and F. Mauri, Nature Physics 15, 809 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    X. Qian, J. Zhou, and G. Chen, Nature Materials 20, 1188 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    J. Chen, X. Xu, J. Zhou, and B. Li, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025002 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    A. A. Maradudin, E. W. Montroll, G. H. Weiss, and I. P. Ipatova, Theory of lattice dynamics in the harmonic ap- proximation, Solid State Physics, Supplement 3 (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1971)

    1971

  20. [20]

    M. J. Lax, Symmetry principles in solid state and molec- ular physics (Wiley, New York, 1974)

    1974

  21. [21]

    B¨ ottger,Principles of the theory of lattice dynamics (Physik-Verlag, Weinheim, 1983)

    H. B¨ ottger,Principles of the theory of lattice dynamics (Physik-Verlag, Weinheim, 1983)

    1983

  22. [22]

    J. L. Birman, Theory of Crystal Space Groups and Lat- tice Dynamics Infra-Red and Raman Optical Processes of Insulating Crystals (Springer, Berlin, 1984)

    1984

  23. [23]

    R. J. Elliott, J. A. Krumhansl, and P. L. Leath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 465 (1974)

    1974

  24. [24]

    Dean, Rev

    P. Dean, Rev. Mod. Phys. 44, 127 (1972)

    1972

  25. [25]

    R. J. Bell, Rep. Prog. Phys. 35, 1315 (1972)

    1972

  26. [26]

    P. N. Sen and M. F. Thorpe, Phys. Rev. B 15, 4030 (1977)

    1977

  27. [27]

    R. B. Laughlin and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 16, 2942 (1977)

    1977

  28. [28]

    R. B. Laughlin and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 17, 2790 (1978)

    1978

  29. [29]

    F. L. Galeener, Phys. Rev. B 19, 4292 (1979)

    1979

  30. [30]

    Weaire and P

    D. Weaire and P. C. Taylor, in Disordered Solids, Optical Properties, Dynamical Properties of Solids, Vol. 4, edited by G. K. Horton and A. A. Maradudin (North-Holland,

  31. [31]

    J. C. Phillips, in Solid State Physics , Vol. 37, edited by H. Ehrenreich, F. Seitz, and D. Turnbull (Academic Press, 1983) pp. 93–171

    1983

  32. [32]

    Wilson, P

    M. Wilson, P. A. Madden, M. Hemmati, and C. A. An- gell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4023 (1996)

    1996

  33. [33]

    E. A. Pavlatou, P. A. Madden, and M. Wilson, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 10446 (1997)

    1997

  34. [34]

    S. N. Taraskin and S. R. Elliott, Phys. Rev. B 56, 8605 (1997)

    1997

  35. [35]

    Sarnthein, A

    J. Sarnthein, A. Pasquarello, and R. Car, Science 275, 1925 (1997)

    1925

  36. [36]

    Pasquarello, J

    A. Pasquarello, J. Sarnthein, and R. Car, Phys. Rev. B 57, 14133 (1998)

    1998

  37. [37]

    Pasquarello and R

    A. Pasquarello and R. Car, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5145 (1998)

    1998

  38. [38]

    Umari and A

    P. Umari and A. Pasquarello, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 137401 (2005)

    2005

  39. [39]

    Pietrucci, S

    F. Pietrucci, S. Caravati, and M. Bernasconi, Phys. Rev. B 78, 064203 (2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    Mazzarello, S

    R. Mazzarello, S. Caravati, S. Angioletti-Uberti, M. Bernasconi, and M. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 085503 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    M. E. Povarnitsyn, N. S. Shcheblanov, D. S. Ivanov, V. Y. Timoshenko, and S. M. Klimentov, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014067 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    N. S. Shcheblanov, M. E. Povarnitsyn, J. D. Wiles, S. R. Elliott, and S. N. Taraskin, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024202 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Giacomazzi, N

    L. Giacomazzi, N. S. Shcheblanov, M. E. Povarnitsyn, Y. Li, A. Mavriˇ c, B. Zupanˇ ciˇ c, J. Grdadolnik, and A. Pasquarello, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 045604 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Nakayama, Rep

    T. Nakayama, Rep. Prog. Phys. 65, 1195 (2002)

    2002

  45. [45]

    R. O. Pohl, X. Liu, and E. Thompson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 991 (2002)

    2002

  46. [46]

    Hanna, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 48, 595 (1965)

    R. Hanna, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 48, 595 (1965)

    1965

  47. [47]

    Bock and G.-J

    J. Bock and G.-J. Su, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 53, 69 (1970)

    1970

  48. [48]

    A. J. Leadbetter and M. W. Stringfellow, in Proceedings of A Symposium on Neutron Inelastic Scattering (Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1972) pp. 501–514

    1972

  49. [49]

    D. L. Price and J. M. Carpenter, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 92, 153 (1987)

    1987

  50. [50]

    Giacomazzi, P

    L. Giacomazzi, P. Umari, and A. Pasquarello, Phys. Rev. B 79, 064202 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    F. L. Galeener, A. J. Leadbetter, and M. W. Stringfellow, Phys. Rev. B 27, 1052 (1983). 23

    1983

  52. [52]

    McMillan, Am

    P. McMillan, Am. Mineral. 69, 622 (1984)

    1984

  53. [53]

    R. J. Bell, N. F. Bird, and P. Dean, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 1, 299 (1968)

    1968

  54. [54]

    R. J. Bell and P. Dean, Discuss. Faraday Soc. 50, 55 (1970)

    1970

  55. [55]

    R. J. Bell, P. Dean, and D. C. Hibbins-Butler, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 3, 2111 (1970)

    1970

  56. [56]

    R. J. Bell, P. Dean, and D. C. Hibbins-Butler, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 4, 1214 (1971)

    1971

  57. [57]

    R. J. Bell and D. C. Hibbins-Butler, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 8, 787 (1975)

    1975

  58. [58]

    Guillot and Y

    B. Guillot and Y. Guissani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2401 (1997)

    1997

  59. [59]

    Guillot and Y

    B. Guillot and Y. Guissani, Molecular Simulation 20, 41 (1997)

    1997

  60. [60]

    Guimbreti` ere, A

    G. Guimbreti` ere, A. Bouchet, V. Rodriguez, M. Couzi, D. Talaga, T. Buffeteau, and L. Canioni, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 112, 17906 (2008)

    2008

  61. [61]

    Hehlen and G

    B. Hehlen and G. Simon, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 43, 1941 (2012)

    1941

  62. [62]

    J. C. Decius and R. M. Hexter, Molecular vibrations in crystals (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977)

    1977

  63. [63]

    Hamermesh, Group theory and its applications to physical problems (Addison-Wesley Company, Reading Massachusetts, 1962)

    M. Hamermesh, Group theory and its applications to physical problems (Addison-Wesley Company, Reading Massachusetts, 1962)

    1962

  64. [64]

    Herzberg, Molecular spectra and molecular struc- ture

    G. Herzberg, Molecular spectra and molecular struc- ture. Vol. II. Infrared and raman spectra of polyatomic molecules, 2nd ed. (Krieger Pub. Co., Malabar, Fla., 1991)

    1991

  65. [65]

    N. S. Shcheblanov, M. E. Povarnitsyn, S. N. Taraskin, and S. R. Elliott, Phys. Rev. B 94, 099903 (2016)

    2016

  66. [66]

    Caroli and A

    C. Caroli and A. Lemaˆ ıtre, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 144502 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    C. D. Meyer, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Alge- bra, 2nd ed. (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathe- matics, Philadelphia, PA, 2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  69. [69]

    B. W. H. van Beest, G. J. Kramer, and R. A. van Santen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1955 (1990)

    1955

  70. [70]

    Carr´ e, L

    A. Carr´ e, L. Berthier, J. Horbach, S. Ispas, and W. Kob, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 114512 (2007)

    2007

  71. [71]

    N. S. Shcheblanov, B. Mantisi, P. Umari, and A. Tanguy, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 428, 6 (2015)

    2015

  72. [72]

    T. D. K¨ uhne, M. Iannuzzi, M. Del Ben, V. V. Ry- bkin, P. Seewald, F. Stein, T. Laino, R. Z. Khal- iullin, O. Sch¨ utt, F. Schiffmann, D. Golze, J. Wil- helm, S. Chulkov, M. H. Bani-Hashemian, V. Weber, U. Borˇ stnik, M. Taillefumier, A. S. Jakobovits, A. Laz- zaro, H. Pabst, T. M¨ uller, R. Schade, M. Guidon, S. Andermatt, N. Holmberg, G. K. Schenter, A...

    2020

  73. [73]

    N. M. Trease, T. M. Clark, P. J. Grandinetti, J. F. Steb- bins, and S. Sen, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 184505 (2017)

    2017

  74. [74]

    D. J. Srivastava, J. H. Baltisberger, P. Florian, F. Fayon, R. A. Shakhovoy, M. Deschamps, N. Sadiki, and P. J. Grandinetti, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134202 (2018)

    2018

  75. [75]

    Oligschleger, Phys

    C. Oligschleger, Phys. Rev. B 60, 3182 (1999)

    1999

  76. [76]

    A. B. Mukhopadhyay, C. Oligschleger, and M. Dolg, Phys. Rev. B 68, 024205 (2003)

    2003

  77. [77]

    Buchenau, M

    U. Buchenau, M. Prager, N. N¨ ucker, A. J. Dianoux, N. Ahmad, and W. A. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B 34, 5665 (1986)

    1986

  78. [78]

    M. T. Dove, M. J. Harris, A. C. Hannon, J. M. Parker, I. P. Swainson, and M. Gambhir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1070 (1997)

    1997

  79. [79]

    Ben-Israel and T

    A. Ben-Israel and T. N. E. Greville, Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications , 2nd ed., CMS Books in Math- ematics (Springer, 2003)

    2003