Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An argon monolayer screens the rough silica wall of MCM-41 and reshapes helium confinement into a smooth cylindrical trap.

desk verdict Useful atomistic TPI potential for helium in Ar-plated MCM-41, but the 'microscopic support' for the smooth continuum model is a four-parameter fit to an arithmetic mean, not a coarse-graining that honors the corrugation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05603 v1 pith:AJXLYW4X submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Rahul Soni , Nathan S. Nichols , Sutirtha Paul , Garfield Warren , Paul Sokol , Adrian Del Maestro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords argonpreplatingMCM-41heliumconfinementtest-particleinsertionpotentialGaussianprocesssurrogateneutronscatteringgrand-canonicalMonteCarlo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that preplating MCM-41 with one argon monolayer is a controlled way to engineer the confinement seen by helium: the argon fills the most strongly attractive crevices of the silica surface, screens much of its atomic-scale roughness, and shifts the helium adsorption minimum to an annular region at $r_{\min}=11.66$ Å with depth $-44.16$ K. It then demonstrates that the radially and axially averaged helium potential is accurately captured by a smooth, continuum cylindrical potential, exactly the effective form used in earlier quantum Monte Carlo simulations of argon-plated MCM-41. If correct, this validates the coarse-grained description of preplated pores and gives an experimentally constrained microscopic potential ready for predictive many-body studies of confined quantum fluids. The result matters because it connects a concrete laboratory preparation, an argon monolayer on a real mesoporous silica, to the one-body term in the Hamiltonian that controls whether confined helium can behave as a quasi-one-dimensional quantum liquid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the helium test-particle insertion potential $U_\alpha(\mathbf{r})$ computed on a cylindrical grid ($200\times144\times50$ points per frozen configuration) against ten low-temperature Ar-preplated host configurations. Averaging this one-body energy over angle and axial position produces the radial confinement $U(r)$; fitting $U(r)$ to the continuum cylindrical potential of Eq. (11), a helium atom interacting with a perfect cylindrical cavity carved in a continuous medium, is what turns the atomistic model into a smooth effective description. The Gaussian-process surrogate with summed Matérn kernels $K_{5/2}+K_{3/2}$ is the machinery that captures the residual multi-scale corrugation after the smooth radial part is removed.

What would settle it

Run the same helium test-particle insertion on an alternative atomistic MCM-41 model whose silanol density or surface roughness is adjusted to reproduce the fine features near $q \simeq 2.5$ Å$^{-1}$ and at higher $q$ in the measured static structure factor; if the resulting radial minimum shifts by more than the reported fit uncertainties ($\sigma_R \simeq 0.19$ Å and $\sigma_{U_0} \simeq 0.65$ K), the claim that the current model fixes the confinement potential is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the Ar monolayer does not merely narrow the pore: it transforms the heterogeneous silica adsorption landscape into a nearly cylindrical one. Helium test-particle insertion into frozen, low-temperature Ar-preplated configurations gives a transverse potential whose most attractive part is an annulus at $r_{\min}\simeq 11.66$ Å with depth $U(r_{\min})/k_B = -44.16$ K, compared with the bare-pore minimum at $r_{\min}\simeq 14.17$ Å. Averaging over angle and along the pore axis yields a radial potential that fits the continuum cylindrical form of Eq. (11) with parameters $\sigma = 3.01\pm0.27$ Å, $R = 14.28\pm0.19$ Å, $n\varepsilon/k_B = 0.64\pm0.21$ K Å$^{-3}$, and $U_0/k_B = 0.14\pm0.65$ K. The same analysis quantifies the screening: the RMS corrugation of the potential is reduced by up to about 34% near $\Delta r \simeq -0.8$ Å. Residual angular and axial corrugation remains, is spread over many Fourier modes, and is reproduced by a Gaussian-process surrogate with a two-Matérn-kernel covariance and a mean absolute error of $0.77\pm0.03$ K.

Load-bearing premise

The atomistic MCM-41 model with its table of Lennard-Jones parameters faithfully represents the real silicon-oxygen surface, including its silanol chemistry and roughness; if the real surface differs, the computed helium minimum, depth, and screening factor shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The smooth cylindrical potential used in earlier quantum Monte Carlo work is microscopically justified for argon-preplated MCM-41, not merely assumed.
  • Helium at low temperature in the preplated pore will first populate an annular shell centered near $r=11.66$ Å rather than adsorbing directly on the silica wall.
  • The atomistic model reproduces the measured adsorption isotherm and the dominant neutron-scattering peak, anchoring its energetics to experiment.
  • A quantitative many-body description should retain residual corrugation, which persists over many length scales and can pin defects or renormalize the sound velocity of an emergent one-dimensional quantum liquid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same test-particle-insertion-plus-Gaussian-process pipeline could be applied to other preplating agents (neon, molecular hydrogen, cesium) and other probe fluids, producing a one-body confinement potential for each preparation without new experimental input.
  • The measured maximum screening factor of about 34% suggests an optimization target: preplating coverage or species that raises screening near the adsorption minimum should push the confinement closer to ideal cylindrical geometry.
  • Because the atomistic model misses fine high-$q$ features in the measured structure factor (for example the peak just above 2.5 Å$^{-1}$ in Fig. 5), the true silanol chemistry or surface roughness could shift the reported potential beyond the fit uncertainties; quantum-simulation predictions using this potential should carry a model-error band.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an atomistic simulation study of Ar-preplated MCM-41. GCMC simulations of Ar adsorption are compared with a measured 90 K isotherm and neutron S(q), MD cooling produces frozen monolayer configurations, and He test-particle insertion yields the spatially resolved one-body confinement potential. The authors find an annular minimum at r≈11.66 Å with depth −44.16 K, fit the radially averaged potential to the continuum cylindrical model of Eq. (11), and quantify residual angular corrugation via Fourier analysis and a Gaussian process surrogate.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a valuable bottom-up connection between a specific experimental pore preparation and the one-body potential used in quantum many-body simulations of confined helium, and the open code and data would benefit the field. The work is careful in reporting uncertainties, acknowledges discrepancies in S(q), and does not claim that the potential is featureless. The main limitation is that the validation of the smooth cylindrical potential rests on an arithmetic average of a corrugated energy landscape, so the microscopic support is not yet established at the quantitative level claimed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV B, Eq. (10) and Fig. 8] The radial potential U(r) is an unweighted arithmetic mean over θ and z. For a helium atom at low temperature, the relevant one-body radial potential is the Boltzmann-weighted average, U_eff(r) = -k_B T ln⟨exp[-U(r,θ,z)/k_B T]⟩_{θ,z}, because the density is exponentially enhanced in the deepest angular and axial channels. The paper's own data show residual corrugation with Fourier amplitudes of order 10–25 K near the wall and δU spanning hundreds of kelvin (Fig. 11), and only partial screening S≈34% near the minimum region (Fig. 9). The arithmetic mean is therefore systematically shallower than the potential actually sampled, and the excellent fit of Eq. (11) to U(r) does not by itself demonstrate that the smooth potential of Ref. [26] faithfully represents helium confinement. I request a quantitative test: compute the Boltzmann-weighted radial potential from the TPI or GP data at a relevant temperature (e.g., 1–4 K) and compare its minimum depth and shape with Eq. (11).
  2. [Section IV A, Eq. (8) and Fig. 2] The comparison with the experimental isotherm uses two reference parameters, µ_ref and P_ref/P0, chosen to align the simulation and experimental inflection points. This calibration removes the main horizontal and vertical offsets, so the 'excellent agreement' in Fig. 2 is partly by construction. Please state explicitly which features of the isotherm (shape, slope, plateau level) are parameter-free predictions, or re-fit with only one global parameter if possible. Without this, the isotherm comparison provides weaker experimental validation of the atomistic model than implied.
  3. [Section IV A, Fig. 5] The calculated S(q) reproduces the main peak near 1.8 Å⁻¹ and the secondary peak, but misses fine features just above 2.5 Å⁻¹ and persistent modulations at higher q. Since the TPI potential is computed from the same atomistic model, this discrepancy indicates a possible mismatch in surface structure or surface chemistry that could affect the reported He minimum position and depth. The acknowledgment in the text is helpful, but the central claim needs an assessment of sensitivity, for example by varying silanol density or pore roughness and re-computing U(r).
  4. [Section III C/D and IV C] The Gaussian process surrogate is trained only on the z-averaged transverse potential U(r,θ), not on the full U(r,θ,z). The abstract and discussion state that residual corrugation is 'accurately captured by a Gaussian process surrogate,' but the axial corrugation documented in Fig. 10 is not captured, and the text states that a full z-dependent GP is hindered by matrix size. Please either restrict the GP claim to the angular corrugation of the z-averaged potential or provide a full 3D surrogate.
  5. [Section III C] The He test-particle insertion uses a single Lennard-Jones parameter set (σ=2.640 Å, ε/k_B=10.9 K) without specifying how cross interactions with each host species (Ar, O(1), O(2), Si(2), H) are formed. Since the position and depth of the He minimum are central quantitative results, the manuscript must state the mixing rule and the per-species parameters, or point to the exact table in the released code.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV C] There is a typo: 'dependnece' should be 'dependence', and 'Gaussian Process' should be capitalized consistently.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The normalization of the cross term in S(q) should be stated more carefully: the denominator differs from the first term's normalization, and the convention for the loaded-minus-empty subtraction should be justified.
  3. [Fig. 10] The color scale for U(r,z) is difficult to read; please label the color axis and clarify whether the values are multiplied by k_B⁻¹ in the same way as the curves.
  4. [Table II] Please state how the parameter uncertainties were obtained (for example, from the covariance of the least-squares fit) and note that U0 is consistent with zero within the reported uncertainty.
  5. [Section II] The phrase 'areal number density of 0.059 Å⁻²' should use explicit units such as atoms/Ų; the current notation is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the continuum-cylinder 'microscopic support' is a four-parameter fit to the radially averaged TPI curve, so the agreement is fitted rather than independently predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.B 'Adsorption Potential', Eq. (11), Table II; Abstract; Sec. V Discussion]
    "The radial confinement potential U(r)/kB of the Ar-preplated pore can be fit to an analytic continuum model ... Eq. (11) ... We observe that this effective model provides an excellent description of the averaged potential data shown in Fig. 8, reproducing both the position and the depth of the radial minimum with high accuracy. The parameters determined from the fit are shown in Table II."

    The supporting claim—that the smooth cylindrical model used in Ref. [26] is microscopically validated—rests on the agreement between Eq. (11) and the radial potential U(r). But the paper states that the four parameters (sigma, R, n*epsilon, U0) in Table II 'were determined by fitting to the radially averaged test-particle insertion results shown in Fig. 8.' Thus the comparison is between a function and its own least-squares fit: reproducing the position and depth of the minimum is a property of the fitted parameters, not an independent prediction. Moreover, U(r) is defined in Eq. (10) as an arithmetic mean over theta and z, so the smooth radial component is partly produced by the averaging operation itself.

full rationale

The atomistic modeling chain is largely self-contained and externally benchmarked: the GCMC argon isotherm is compared with experiment (Fig. 2), the static structure factor with neutron scattering (Fig. 5), and the Gaussian-process surrogate is tested on held-out TPI points (SMAE = 0.77 K). The argon-induced shift of the helium minimum to r_min ~ 11.66 A with depth ~ -44.16 K, and the ~34% screening of RMS corrugation, are genuine outputs of the atomistic TPI calculation and do not depend on Eq. (11). The circular step is narrower: the paper presents a four-parameter fit of Eq. (11) to the radially averaged U(r) as 'microscopic support' for the effective potential used in the authors' earlier QMC work (Ref. [26]), even though Table II states the parameters were fit to exactly that curve. The Discussion does contain an important limiting statement—'the quality of the radially averaged fit should not be interpreted as evidence that the microscopic potential is featureless'—and it explicitly acknowledges residual multi-scale corrugation. That caveat reduces the severity of the circularity, but it also confirms that the fit-to-average cannot bear the weight of validating the smooth cylindrical confinement approximation for helium, whose equilibrium density would be Boltzmann-weighted toward the deeper angular and axial channels rather than the arithmetic mean. Self-citation to Ref. [26] is present, but the cylindrical functional form is also attributed to external Ref. [49], and the atomistic model comes from Ref. [3], so this is not a uniqueness-imported-from-authors case. Overall: partial circularity in the headline validation claim, with substantial independent content elsewhere.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an externally fitted atomistic model, several chosen calibration parameters (isotherm rescaling, monolayer criterion), and a four-parameter fit to the continuum form. No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger reflects that the 'microscopic support' is a consistency check between two model layers rather than a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (11)
  • Ar-Ar Lennard-Jones well depth and size (eps/kB, sigma) = 119.8 K, 3.405 Å
    Adopted from the fitted atomistic MCM-41 model of Ref. [3] (Table I); controls monolayer packing and adsorption energetics, and indirectly the frozen Ar configuration used for helium TPI.
  • Pore surface Lennard-Jones parameters for O(1), O(2), Si(2) = O(1): eps/kB 184.979 K, sigma 2.708 Å; O(2): 120.032 K, 3.07 Å; Si(2): 59.415 K, 3.905 Å; Si(1), H: 0
    Adopted from Ref. [3] (Table I); define the silica wall corrugation that argon screens.
  • Helium-host Lennard-Jones parameters = sigma = 2.640 Å, eps/kB = 10.9 K (He); cross terms via Lorentz-Berthelot mixing
    Standard helium interaction parameters used in test-particle insertion (Sec. III.C); not fitted here but directly set the confinement potential scale.
  • Isotherm pressure rescaling reference chemical potential (mu_ref) = -9.85 kJ/mol
    Chosen as the inflection point of the simulated GCMC isotherm, then used in Eq. (8) to align simulation and experiment; this enforces agreement at the monolayer filling point.
  • Isotherm pressure rescaling reference pressure ratio (P_ref/P0) = 0.38
    Taken from the inflection point of the experimental isotherm; with mu_ref it fixes the horizontal scale of Fig. 2, so the isotherm comparison is partly calibrated to experiment.
  • Continuum cylindrical model hard-core distance sigma = 3.01 +/- 0.27 Å
    Fitted to the radially averaged helium TPI potential via Eq. (11) (Table II); used to claim microscopic support for the smooth effective potential.
  • Continuum cylindrical model cylinder radius R = 14.28 +/- 0.19 Å
    Fitted to the radially averaged TPI potential (Table II); determines the position of the potential minimum in the continuum model.
  • Continuum cylindrical model density-strength product n*epsilon/kB = 0.64 +/- 0.21 K Å^-3
    Fitted to the radially averaged TPI potential (Table II).
  • Continuum cylindrical model energy offset U0/kB = 0.14 +/- 0.65 K
    Fitted offset in Eq. (11); consistent with zero within uncertainty, indicating the model is not tightly constrained.
  • Monolayer completion chemical potential mu_mono = -11.45 kJ/mol
    Determined by the derivative-crossing criterion dN1/dmu = -dN2/dmu (Appendix A); selects the argon configuration used for helium TPI, so the resulting potential depends on this modeling choice.
  • Gaussian process kernel hyperparameters = l_5/2 = 6.784e-2, l_3/2 = 3.918e2, A_5/2 = 4.309e2, A_3/2 = 2.859e3 (dimensionless)
    Learned from 80% of the helium TPI data by maximizing the log marginal likelihood (Supplemental Sec. IV); not central to the main confinement claim but part of the corrugation surrogate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The experiment-guided atomistic MCM-41 model of Ref. [3], including its LJ parameters, represents the real Sigma-Aldrich MCM-41 sample used in the isotherm and neutron measurements.
    Invoked in Sec. III.A; the entire simulation pipeline and the resulting confinement potential rest on this model. The paper's own S(q) comparison (Fig. 5) shows missing fine features, indicating incomplete surface fidelity.
  • standard math Lorentz-Berthelot mixing rules generate all cross-species Lennard-Jones interactions.
    Sec. III.A states cross interactions are generated using LB mixing in LAMMPS; a conventional but uncontrolled approximation for Ar-silica and Ar-He interactions.
  • domain assumption The MCM-41 framework is rigid during GCMC, MD, and helium insertion.
    Sec. III.A and III.C; silica flexibility is neglected, which is standard for adsorption simulations but could affect low-temperature corrugation.
  • domain assumption Cooling the argon monolayer to 4 K with the specified NVT protocol produces a frozen configuration representative of experimental preplating.
    Sec. III.C and Fig. 6; the experimental preplated pore is assumed to be in the same quenched state, but the paper does not directly validate the nonequilibrium cooling trajectory against a measured monolayer structure.
  • domain assumption The functional form of the continuum cylindrical potential, Eq. (11), from Ref. [26] is an appropriate description of the radially averaged atomistic potential.
    Sec. IV.B; the form is taken from the authors' earlier QMC work and fitted here. It is not derived from the atomistic model.
  • domain assumption Pairwise Lennard-Jones potentials with no three-body terms and no tail corrections adequately capture argon condensation, monolayer structure, and helium-host energetics.
    Sec. III.A and Supplemental; tail corrections are omitted with a cutoff of 8.55 Å, which can affect adsorption energies and structural correlations.
  • domain assumption The neutron scattering subtraction isolates Ar-Ar and Ar-MCM correlations, and the powder-averaged Debye formula in Eq. (5) captures the measured S(q).
    Sec. II and Sec. IV.A; the loaded-minus-empty subtraction assumes MCM-MCM scattering cancels exactly and multiple scattering is negligible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJXLYW4X

@misc{pith2026260805603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJXLYW4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05603}
}
read the original abstract

Atomic-scale modification of mesopore interfaces provides a route to tune the confinement experienced by adsorbed fluids, but how a specific interface preparation translates into the resulting microscopic confinement potential remains unclear. Here, we show that preplating MCM-41 with an argon monolayer modifies the effective pore interface by occupying strongly attractive regions of the heterogeneous silica surface and screening its atomic-scale corrugation. Grand-canonical Monte Carlo simulations of argon adsorption, low-temperature molecular dynamics, and helium test-particle insertion are combined with adsorption isotherms and neutron-scattering measurements to characterize the preplated pore at the atomic scale. Helium test-particle insertion calculations show that the modified interface shifts the helium adsorption minimum to an annular region inside the pore and produces a confinement landscape dominated by a smooth radial component. The resulting radial confinement potential can be described by a continuum cylindrical model, providing microscopic support for the effective potential used in earlier quantum Monte Carlo studies. Residual corrugation persists over multiple spatial scales and is accurately captured by a Gaussian process surrogate. These results demonstrate how atomic preplating can tailor nanopore confinement and provide an experimentally constrained microscopic potential for predictive studies of confined quantum fluids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Perspective view of the atomistic MCM-41 supercell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Adsorption isotherm of argon inside a MCM-41 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Static structure factor obtained from powder av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cylinder corrected Ar-Ar pair correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Top view (along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Helium confinement potential (divided by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Radial helium confinement potential at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Azimuthally averaged helium confinement potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The disorder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Predicted versus actual energies for the Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Occupancies of the first and second adsorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Derivatives of the first and second layer occu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    N. S. Nichols, T. R. Prisk, G. Warren, P. Sokol, and A. Del Maestro, Dimensional reduction of helium-4 in- side argon-plated mcm-41 nanopores, Phys. Rev. B102, 144505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    C. T. Kresge, M. E. Leonowicz, W. J. Roth, J. C. Vartuli, and J. S. Beck, Ordered mesoporous molecular sieves syn- thesized by a liquid-crystal template mechanism, Nature 359, 710 (1992)

    1992

  3. [1]

    show that pore symmetry, curvature, and chemically inequivalent surface sites materially alter adsorption and selectivity [2–4] while pore-wall chemistry can reorganize a nanoconfined fluid [5]. At low temperatures, the con- finement of light atoms such as helium with large zero- point motion into MCM-41 nanopores has enabled the study of dimensional cros...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [2]

    Ugliengo, M

    P. Ugliengo, M. Sodupe, F. Musso, I. J. Bush, R. Or- lando, and R. Dovesi, Realistic Models of Hydroxylated Amorphous Silica Surfaces and MCM-41 Mesoporous Material Simulated by Large-scale Periodic B3LYP Cal- culations, Adv. Mater.20, 4579 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Carta and M

    P. Carta and M. A. Scorciapino, Surface heterogeneity affects adsorption selectivity for CO 2 over CH 4 in bare mesostructured silica with 2D hexagonal symmetry and different pore size, Advanced Materials Interfaces10, 2300196 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Carta, C

    P. Carta, C. Cara, C. Cannas, and M. A. Scorciapino, Experiments-guided modeling of mcm-41: Impact of pore symmetry on gas adsorption, Advanced Materials Inter- faces9, 2201591 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    N. Wada, J. Taniguchi, H. Ikegami, S. Inagaki, and Y. Fukushima, Helium-4 Bose Fluids Formed in One- Dimensional 18 ˚A Diameter Pores, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4322 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Weinberger, F

    C. Weinberger, F. Zysk, M. Hartmann, N. K. Kaliannan, W. Keil, T. D. K¨ uhne, and M. Tiemann, The structure of water in silica mesopores—influence of the pore wall po- larity, Advanced Materials Interfaces9, 2200245 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Ikegami, Y

    H. Ikegami, Y. Yamato, T. Okuno, J. Taniguchi, and N. Wada, Observation of 4He Superfluidity in 1.8 nm- Pores, J. Low Temp. Phys.138, 171 (2005)

    2005

  2. [9]

    N. Wada, J. Taniguchi, T. Matsushita, R. Toda, Y. Mat- sushita, H. Ikegami, M. Hieda, A. Yamaguchi, and H. Ishimoto, Zero- and one-dimensional 4He Bose fluids realized in nanometer pores, J. Phys. Chem. Solids66, 1512 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    Taniguchi, R

    J. Taniguchi, R. Fujii, and M. Suzuki, Superfluidity and BEC of liquid 4He confined in a nanometer-size channel, Phys. Rev. B84, 134511 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    R. Toda, M. Hieda, T. Matsushita, N. Wada, J. Taniguchi, H. Ikegami, S. Inagaki, and Y. Fukushima, Superfluidity of 4He in One and Three Dimensions Real- ized in Nanopores, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 255301 (2007)

    2007

  5. [12]

    Yager, J

    B. Yager, J. Ny´ eki, A. Casey, B. P. Cowan, C. P. Lusher, and J. Saunders, NMR Signature of One-Dimensional Be- havior of 3He in Nanopores, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 215303 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Taniguchi, K

    J. Taniguchi, K. Demura, and M. Suzuki, Dynamical su- perfluid response of 4He confined in a nanometer-size channel, Phys. Rev. B88, 014502 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    Demura, J

    K. Demura, J. Taniguchi, and M. Suzuki, Twofold Tor- sional Oscillator Experiments from Film to Pressurized Liquid 4He in a Nanometer-Size Channel, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.86, 114601 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Demura, J

    K. Demura, J. Taniguchi, and M. Suzuki, Dynamical Su- perfluid Response of 3He–4He Solutions Confined in a Nanometer-Size Channel, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.84, 094604 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    T. R. Prisk, N. C. Das, S. O. Diallo, G. Ehlers, A. A. Podlesnyak, N. Wada, S. Inagaki, and P. E. Sokol, Phases of superfluid helium in smooth cylindrical pores, Phys. Rev. B88, 014521 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Taniguchi, J

    K. Taniguchi, J. Taniguchi, and M. Suzuki, Torsional Os- cillator Measurements of Liquid 4He Confined in 2.5-nm Channel of FSM, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.969, 012005 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    M. S. Bryan and P. E. Sokol, Maxon and roton measure- ments in nanoconfined 4He, Phys. Rev. B97, 184511 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    M. S. Bryan, T. R. Prisk, T. E. Sherline, S. O. Diallo, and P. E. Sokol, Bulklike excitations in nanoconfined liquid helium, Phys. Rev. B95, 144509 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Taniguchi, K

    J. Taniguchi, K. Taniguchi, K. Kanno, and M. Suzuki, Possible Thermodynamical Phase Slips in Superfluid 4He Confined in a 2.5-nm Channel of FSM, J. Low Temp. Phys.201, 139 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Bossy, J

    J. Bossy, J. Ollivier, and H. R. Glyde, Phonons, rotons, and localized Bose-Einstein condensation in liquid 4He confined in nanoporous FSM-16, Phys. Rev. B99, 165425 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    Del Maestro, M

    A. Del Maestro, M. Boninsegni, and I. Affleck, 4He lut- tinger liquid in nanopores, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 105303 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    C. Huan, J. Adams, M. Lewkowitz, N. Masuhara, D. Candela, and N. S. Sullivan, NMR Studies of the Dy- namics of 1D 3He in 4He Plated MCM-41, J. Low Temp. Phys.201, 146 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    McNamara, P

    S. McNamara, P. Parajuli, S. Paul, G. Warren, A. Del Maestro, and P. E. Sokol, Novel experimental plat- form to realize one-dimensional quantum fluids, Journal of Low Temperature Physics221, 256 (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    Del Maestro, N

    A. Del Maestro, N. S. Nichols, T. R. Prisk, G. Warren, and P. E. Sokol, Experimental realization of one dimen- sional helium, Nat. Commun.13, 3168 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    The X-ray diffraction data indicated that the sample con- sisted of a single phase with pores arranged on a hexago- nal lattice with a lattice constant of 4.7 nm

    and was characterized using X-ray powder diffrac- tion and N 2 gas adsorption isotherm measurements [16]. The X-ray diffraction data indicated that the sample con- sisted of a single phase with pores arranged on a hexago- nal lattice with a lattice constant of 4.7 nm. A Brunau...

  20. [28]

    S. Paul, T. Lakoba, P. E. Sokol, and A. Del Maestro, Lo- calization and wetting of 4He inside preplated nanopores, Phys. Rev. B113, 075433 (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    Matters3.1, 17 (2008)

    Sigma-Aldrich, Synthesis of Mesoporous Materials, Mater. Matters3.1, 17 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Brunauer, P

    S. Brunauer, P. H. Emmett, and E. Teller, Adsorption of Gases in Multimolecular Layers, J. Am. Chem. Soc.60, 309 (1938)

    1938

  23. [31]

    Schlumberger and M

    C. Schlumberger and M. Thommes, Characterization of hierarchically ordered porous materials by physisorption and mercury porosimetry—a tutorial review, Advanced Materials Interfaces8, 2002181 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Thommes, K

    M. Thommes, K. Kaneko, A. V. Neimark, J. P. Olivier, F. Rodr ´ ıguez-Reinoso, J. Rouquerol, and K. S. W. Sing, Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the eval- uation of surface area and pore size distribution (IUPAC technical report), Pure and Applied Chemistry87, ...

    2015

  25. [33]

    Jaroniec, M

    M. Jaroniec, M. Kruk, and J. P. Olivier, Standard Nitro- gen Adsorption Data for Characterization of Nanoporous Silicas, Langmuir15, 5410 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    Copley and J

    J. Copley and J. Cook, The Disk Chopper Spectrome- ter at NIST: a new instrument for quasielastic neutron scattering studies, Chem. Phys.292, 477 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    R. T. Azuah, L. R. Kneller, Y. Qiu, P. L. W. Tregenna- Piggott, C. M. Brown, J. R. D. Copley, and R. M. Dimeo, DAVE: A comprehensive Software Suite for the Reduc- 13 tion, Visualization, and Analysis of Low Energy Neutron Spectroscopic Data, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol....

    2009

  28. [36]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton, Lammps - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based mat...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Plimpton, Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics, J

    S. Plimpton, Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics, J. Comp. Phys.117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    J.-H. Yun, T. D¨ uren, F. J. Keil, and N. A. Seaton, Ad- sorption of Methane, Ethane, and Their Binary Mixtures on Mcm-41: Experimental Evaluation of Methods for the Prediction of Adsorption Equilibrium, Langmuir18, 2693 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Furukawa, T

    S.-i. Furukawa, T. Nishiumi, N. Aoyama, T. Nitta, and M. Nakano, A Molecular Simulation Study on Adsorp- tion of Acetone/Water in Mesoporous Silicas Modified by Pore Surface Silylation, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn.38, 999 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    J. O. Hirschfelder, C. F. Curtiss, R. B. Bird, and M. G. Mayer,Molecular theory of gases and liquids(Wiley New York, 1964)

    1964

  33. [41]

    Debye, Zerstreuung von r¨ ontgenstrahlen, Annalen der Physik351, 809 (1915)

    P. Debye, Zerstreuung von r¨ ontgenstrahlen, Annalen der Physik351, 809 (1915)

    1915

  34. [42]

    Rasmussen and C

    C. Rasmussen and C. Williams,Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    B. Kolb, P. Marshall, B. Zhao, B. Jiang, and H. Guo, Representing global reactive potential energy surfaces us- ing gaussian processes, The Journal of Physical Chem- istry A121, 2552 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Uteva, R

    E. Uteva, R. S. Graham, R. D. Wilkinson, and R. J. Wheatley, Active learning in gaussian process interpola- tion of potential energy surfaces, J. Chem. Phys.149, 174114 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    A. E. Wiens, A. V. Copan, and H. F. Schaefer, Multi- fidelity gaussian process modeling for chemical energy surfaces, Chemical Physics Letters: X3, 100022 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    V. L. Deringer, M. A. Caro, and G. Cs´ anyi, Machine learning interatomic potentials as emerging tools for ma- terials science, Advanced Materials31, 1902765 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    V. L. Deringer, A. P. Bart´ ok, N. Bernstein, D. M. Wilkins, M. Ceriotti, and G. Cs´ anyi, Gaussian Process Regression for Materials and Molecules, Chem. Rev.121, 10073 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Schneider, D

    M. Schneider, D. Born, J. K¨ astner, and G. Rauhut, Posi- tioning of grid points for spanning potential energy sur- faces—how much effort is really needed?, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 144118 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Akram, S

    S. Akram, S. Paul, C. Kovacs, V. Maroulas, A. Del Mae- stro, and K. D. Vogiatzis, Accurate helium-benzene po- tential: From ccsd(t) to gaussian process regression, The Journal of Chemical Physics164, 114108 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Cychosz Struckhoff, M

    K. Cychosz Struckhoff, M. Thommes, and L. Sarkisov, On the universality of capillary condensation and ad- sorption hysteresis phenomena in ordered and crystalline mesoporous materials, Advanced Materials Interfaces7, 2000184 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Zhang, W

    X. Zhang, W. Wang, and G. Jiang, A potential model for interaction between the Lennard–Jones cylindrical wall and fluid molecules, Fluid Phase Equilibria218, 239 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    Rosenow and A

    B. Rosenow and A. Del Maestro, Friedel oscillations in nanoconfined 4He, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 146002 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores

    R. Soni and A. Del Maestro, Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores, Github Repository 10.5281/zenodo.21814518 (2026). 1 Supplemental Material for: “Interface Engineering of Helium Confinement in Argon-Preplated MCM-41 Nanopores” Rahul So...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.