Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Lifetime effects and satellites in the photoelectron spectrum of platinum metal

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a unified, internally consistent reference for the photoelectron spectrum of metallic platinum by assigning every core-level satellite to a specific electron energy-loss event.

desk verdict Solid Pt reference dataset worth having, but the satellite-assignment framework is too loose and contains internal inconsistencies that need fixing before the 'internally consistent' claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21298 v1 pith:DNWI6NDR submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-ph

Prajna Bhatt , José Julio Gutiérrez Moreno , Laura E. Ratcliff , Aysha A. Riaz , Charlotte. M. L. André , Ann S. Y. Lu , Robert G. Palgrave , Andrei Gloskovskii
show 4 more authors
Christoph Schlueter Pardeep K. Thakur Tien-Lin Lee Anna Regoutz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.chem-ph PACS 79.60.-i79.20.Uv71.45.Gm71.15.Mb
keywords platinummetalphotoelectronspectroscopyHAXPESRHEELSplasmonsatellitesspin-orbitcouplingdensityofstatesenergy-lossassignment
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

Metallic platinum emits photoelectron spectra whose main peaks carry tails of extra 'satellite' features; these are often mistaken for chemical states in catalyst studies. This paper argues that every such satellite has a mechanical origin: a specific way the outgoing electron loses energy, such as kicking a bulk or surface plasmon, driving an interband transition, or ionising a 5p or 4f shell. The authors measure those loss energies independently with high-energy electron scattering, then use them as a dictionary to label the satellites seen in soft- and hard-X-ray photoemission across all accessible Pt core levels. They also show that reproducing the platinum valence band requires spin-orbit coupling in the calculations and a realistic, small 6p orbital weight. If the mapping is correct, platinum's photoelectron spectra become a readable reference rather than a source of false chemical states.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the RHEELS loss spectrum conceived as a dictionary: eleven labelled loss features (a-k) at 4.8, 13.4, 16.4, 24.5, 31.0, 34.8, 46.7, 53.4, 59.5, 68.2 and 71.3 eV, assigned to interband transitions, surface and bulk plasmons, plasmonic overtones, and 5p/4f ionisation, are used one-to-one to interpret the S1-S6 satellites riding on each core-level photoemission line. The same dictionary, combined with spin-orbit-resolved densities of states, anchors the valence-band comparison, with orbital photoionisation cross-sections adjusted so the 6p contribution is realistic.

What would settle it

Take the same Pt foil and record the 4f satellites with HAXPES at several photon energies between 2 and 8 keV while also collecting a momentum-resolved loss spectrum on a Pt single crystal; if the 7.1 eV satellite has no counterpart in the interband loss region at any momentum value, or if the RHEELS-to-HAXPES offsets change systematically with photon energy, the one-to-one loss dictionary underlying the assignment is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using RHEELS, soft and hard X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and DFT/G0W0 calculations, the paper establishes what it calls the first complete description of Pt's energy-loss features and the first internally consistent interpretation of satellites across its accessible core levels. Eleven RHEELS features are assigned to interband transitions, surface and bulk plasmons, plasmonic overtones, and 5p/4f ionisation losses; these loss energies are then matched to the S1-S6 satellites in the 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f/5s/5p, 3s, 3p and 3d core lines. It also reports the previously missing Pt 5p1/2 binding energy and 5p spin-orbit splitting and shows that spin-orbit coupling is necessary for either DFT or G0W

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy losses seen when an incoming electron scatters off platinum in RHEELS are the same losses that appear as satellites in photoemission, where a photoelectron and a core hole are present; the paper itself notes 0.7-2.5 eV offsets, so if any loss channel shifts or is absent between the two probes, the corresponding satellite assignment fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers measuring Pt-containing catalysts can now distinguish loss-induced satellites from chemically shifted peaks, reducing the chance of misassigning Pt oxidation states in XPS and HAXPES.
  • The first reported Pt 5p1/2 binding energy and the 5p spin-orbit splitting of 15.6 eV fill a gap in reference data for platinum.
  • Pt 3d is proposed as a practical HAXPES core level for chemical-state analysis because of its manageable lifetime width and higher photoionisation cross-section than 4f.
  • Valence-band modelling of platinum requires spin-orbit coupling, and the 6p contribution is much smaller than raw atomic cross-sections suggest.
  • The RHEELS-to-satellite correlation procedure, previously applied to tungsten, is transferable to other 5d transition metals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the loss dictionary is transferable, then in Pt alloys the satellite pattern should shift rigidly with the main photoemission line, so a constant offset between pure Pt and alloy Pt would confirm the assignment while a changing pattern would signal new chemical or final-state effects.
  • The 0.7-2.5 eV offsets between RHEELS and HAXPES positions for the semi-core ionisation features could encode the core-hole screening energy; compiling similar offsets for other metals might yield a systematic screening correction for comparing electron-loss and photoemission energies.
  • Satellite visibility appears to depend on the core level's angular momentum (surface plasmon losses are seen for p and d levels but not s levels); this selection-rule-like effect could be tested in other 5d metals, though the paper does not establish a mechanism.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a multi-technique spectroscopic study of polycrystalline Pt using RHEELS, SXPS (1.7 keV), and HAXPES (5.9 keV), supported by DFT and G0W0 calculations with and without spin-orbit coupling. Core-level binding energies, spin-orbit splittings, line widths, and satellite separations are tabulated; RHEELS loss features a–k are correlated with photoelectron satellites S1–S6 across the Pt 3s–5p core levels; and the valence band is compared with orbital-projected DOS using four photoionisation cross-section weighting schemes. The central claims are that this provides the first complete assignment of Pt characteristic energy-loss features and the first internally consistent interpretation of satellites across accessible Pt core levels, and that G0W0+SOC with a Pb-corrected 6p cross-section best reproduces the valence band.

Significance. If the satellite assignments are correct, the paper would give XPS and HAXPES users a valuable energy-loss-based reference for distinguishing loss satellites from chemical states in Pt, and the measured binding energies, spin-orbit splittings, and FWHM values are broadly consistent with prior literature. The data are made available on Zenodo, and the RHEELS/PES correlation is in principle non-circular because the two measurements are independent. However, the paper's central novelty—the unified satellite assignment—currently rests on qualitative matching with unquantified tolerances and contains internal inconsistencies. These issues must be resolved before the proposed reference can be relied upon for routine spectral interpretation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.B.1, Table III] In Table III, Pt 4d S2 relative to 4d5/2 is placed at 40.7 eV and assigned to a 'plasmonic overtone.' No RHEELS feature lies near 40.7 eV; the nearest features are f = 34.8 eV and g = 46.7 eV, each more than 5 eV away. Since overtones are defined as multiples or sums of the surface (24.5 eV) and bulk (34.8 eV) plasmons, the expected overtone positions would be around 49, 59, and 70 eV. The assignment is therefore not supported by the presented loss spectrum and needs to be either re-assigned or justified with a quantitative criterion.
  2. [Section III.B.1 (Pt 4s S2)] The text assigns the Pt 4s S2 satellite at 56.7 eV to '5p1/2 excitation at w = 59.5 eV (feature i),' but Table I assigns feature i at 59.5 eV to a 'plasmonic overtone' and feature j at 68.2 eV to 5p1/2 ionisation. The text thus contradicts its own Table I. In addition, 56.7 eV is closer to feature h at 53.4 eV (5p3/2) than to feature i at 59.5 eV. This inconsistency affects the analogous Pt 3s S2 assignment and weakens the claimed internal consistency.
  3. [Section III.B.2 and Table I] The surface-plasmon position is given as d = 24.5 eV in Table I, but Section III.B.2 cites '≈23.1 eV' for the same loss when assigning the Pt 3d S1 satellite at 25.0 eV. Furthermore, feature g at 46.7 eV is justified as 'double that of the surface plasmon (d),' which would be 49.0 eV rather than 46.7 eV. The manuscript should use a single consistent loss-position table with uncertainties, and if probe-dependent shifts are expected, they should be modelled rather than invoked case-by-case.
  4. [Section III.B (general matching procedure)] The matching of RHEELS loss features to PES satellites has no explicit decision rule. The paper accepts offsets of 0.7–2.5 eV for features h, j, and k, and similar flexible offsets appear in other assignments, without propagating the stated ±0.3–0.5 eV uncertainties or providing any statistical control. With 11 RHEELS features and roughly 30 satellite positions across core levels, coincidental matches within a few eV are expected. A quantitative matching criterion—for example, a tolerance tied to combined uncertainties, an energy-shift model, or a false-discovery assessment—is required to support the claim of an internally consistent satellite reference.
  5. [Section II.C and Table IV] Approach (3) determines the 6p photoionisation cross-section by least-mean-square optimisation against the experimental HAXPES valence band, and this optimised value is then used as one of the four approaches in the ranking that concludes the Pb-correction approach is best. Since the LMS value is fit to the same data used for comparison, the comparison is partly circular. The authors should report the L2 residual, use cross-validation, or treat the LMS result only as a consistency check rather than as an independent ab initio alternative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II] The Pt 4d rows are duplicated: the satellite list appears once under the combined 4d5/2/4d3/2 entries and again with separate rows. Merge these rows or label them clearly to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section III.B.2] The text reads 'FWHM ... were 8.2 and 11.5 eV for Pt 3p3/2 and 3p3/2.' The second entry should be 3p1/2.
  3. [Table II, Pt 3s row] The last row 'S1 352.9 55.3' appears to belong to Pt 3s but is separated from the 3s block; check the table formatting and column alignment.
  4. [Section III.A] The statement 'first complete description of the characteristic energy loss features from Pt metal' is strong given the extensive prior EELS literature summarised in Table S2. Consider softening the claim or explicitly stating what new assignments or completeness criteria are being introduced compared with Schröder et al. and Seignac and Robin.
  5. [Figure 2 and caption] The caption refers to SXPS data 'in orange' and HAXPES 'in grey,' but the printed greyscale version may not distinguish these clearly; add distinct line styles or labels in the figure panels.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Valence-band LMS cross-section fit is compared back to its fitting target; the central RHEELS–satellite correlation is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.C ('Comparison of Theory and Experiment'); Section III.D ('Valence Electronic Structure'), Table IV/Fig. 7]
    "Approach (3) uses the Scofield σi values for 6s and 5d and applies a least-mean square optimisation between the experimental and simulated spectra to arrive at an appropriate value for the 6p cross-section."

    The 6p cross-section is a free parameter obtained by least-squares fitting to the experimental HAXPES valence-band spectrum. Section III.D then ranks the resulting LMS-weighted PDOS against that same spectrum ('The relative intensity between features I and IV ... can be used to determine the quality of the VB description by the DOS ... order of poorest to best descriptions of the HAXPES VB are Scofield (1), LMS (3), Ueda (4), and Pb correction (2)'). The LMS envelope is not a prediction: it is an in-sample fit, so comparing it back to the fit target provides no independent confirmation. This is a circular comparison, but it is confined to the valence-band cross-section weighting and does not feed the RHEELS–satellite assignment chain.

full rationale

The main spectroscopic claim — matching photoelectron satellites to independently measured RHEELS loss features — is not circular. RHEELS and PES are separate experiments, no parameter is fitted to force the energy matches, and the paper openly acknowledges residual offsets (0.7–2.5 eV) and ambiguous cases (e.g., Pt 4f S1/S2 at 7.1 eV falls only in the range of interband transitions). The prior W-metal study [31] is used as methodological precedent and is not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, so the proposed Pt reference retains independent content. The only step that reduces to its input is the LMS cross-section comparison: the 6p photoionisation cross-section is fitted to the HAXPES VB and the same fitted spectrum is then used as one of the ranked descriptions of that VB. This is an in-sample comparison, not a prediction. It is peripheral to the central RHEELS–satellite correlation and to the SOC/G0W0 conclusions, hence the score is 4 rather than higher. The skeptic's internal-consistency objections (e.g., Pt 4s S2 vs feature i/j, surface plasmon 24.5 vs ≈23.1 eV) are correctness/consistency concerns, not circularity, and are not counted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or particles are introduced. The paper assigns existing spectral features (plasmons, interband transitions, core-level ionisation losses) to measured peaks. The main fitted quantity is the LMS 6p cross-section, and the main domain assumptions concern the transferability of atomic cross-sections and the correspondence between EELS and photoemission loss channels.

free parameters (1)
  • LMS-fitted 6p photoionisation cross-section (relative to 5d) = 2.3690 (Table IV)
    Approach (3) obtains this value by least-mean-square optimisation between the G0W0+SOC PDOS and the experimental HAXPES valence band (Section II.C). It is then compared against the same experimental spectrum in Figure 7(c), making it a fitted quantity rather than an independent prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RHEELS energy-loss features map onto final-state loss channels in photoemission satellites at the same energies.
    Used throughout Section III.B to assign S1-S6 satellites; offsets of 0.7-2.5 eV between RHEELS and HAXPES positions are acknowledged but treated as screening shifts.
  • domain assumption Atomic Scofield photoionisation cross-sections can be applied to solid-state Pt valence orbitals, including the Pb-ratio estimate for Pt 6p.
    Section II.C; all four weighting approaches rely on atomic cross-section tabulations.
  • domain assumption DFT/G0W0 with PBEsol, PseudoDojo pseudopotentials, and the specified k-grid/basis adequately represents the Pt valence electronic structure.
    Section II.B; the calculated PDOS are used as the theoretical benchmark for the experimental valence band.
  • standard math Surface and bulk plasmon energies for Pt are estimated from the Pines free-electron model with 10 valence electrons.
    Section III.A; used to label features d and f in the RHEELS spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifetime effects and satellites in the photoelectron spectrum of platinum metal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNWI6NDR

@misc{pith2026260721298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifetime effects and satellites in the photoelectron spectrum of platinum metal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNWI6NDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21298}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents a comprehensive investigation of the electronic structure and many-body photoemission effects in metallic platinum using reflection high-energy electron energy-loss spec- troscopy (RHEELS), soft X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (SXPS), and hard X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (HAXPES), supported by ab initio calculations. Shallow and deep core state spectra enable the systematic characterisation of intrinsic line-shape asymmetries and satellite structures. Correlation of photoelectron satellites with RHEELS loss features allows the assignment of inter- band transitions, surface and bulk plasmons, plasmonic overtones, and semi-core ionisation losses across the Pt spectrum. Several previously unresolved satellite features and spin-orbit splittings are identified and discussed. Comparison of experimental valence band spectra with orbital-projected densities of states calculated using ab initio density functional theory (DFT) and G0W0 approaches, with and without spin-orbit coupling, demonstrates the critical role of relativistic effects in reproducing the Pt valence electronic structure. Together, these results establish a unified, internally consistent spectroscopic reference for metallic platinum, providing a robust framework for interpreting photoelectron spectra of Pt-containing catalysts, electronic materials, and related 5d transition metal systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21298 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. RHEELS of metallic platinum. (a) Collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Core level photoelectron spectra including the (a) Pt 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Core level photoelectron spectra, including (a) Pt 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the experimental core line width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (b) shows that Pt 4p3/2 has a more intense con￾tribution from the surface plasmon. The surface plasmon feature is most evidently seen for the p orbitals, see Fig- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the sum of individual PDOS after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the PDOS spectra calculated using G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of the PDOS spectra calculated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references

  1. [1]

    These core levels were measured here using SXPS and HAXPES, and are depicted in Figure 2

    Shallow Core States (BE < 1000 eV) Although the most frequently accessed core level of Pt in the literature is the Pt 4 f, other core levels, including Pt 4s, 4p, 4d, 5s, and 5p, can also be easily measured with laboratory Mg and Al Kα X-ray sources as their BEs are well below 1000 eV. These core levels were measured here using SXPS and HAXPES, and are de...

  2. [2]

    As such, a small number of previous HAXPES studies on Pt have explored them, as described earlier

    Deep Core Levels The Pt 3 s, 3p, and 3 d core lines can only be accessed by the higher photon energy used in HAXPES. As such, a small number of previous HAXPES studies on Pt have explored them, as described earlier. Figures 3(a), (b), and (c) display the Pt 3 s, Pt 3p3/2, and Pt 3 d HAXPES core level spectra, respectively. As with the shallow core levels ...

  3. [3]

    Generaci´ on D

    Evaluation of Core Level Line Widths As highlighted in previous work on W metal, [31] a vi- tal aspect to consider when using core levels of different orbital nature, arising at different BEs, is the differences in lifetime broadening. Lifetime broadening arises from the creation of a core hole during photoemission. Core- level line widths in XPS contain ...

  4. [4]

    E. M. Wise, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 97, 57C (1950)

    1950

  5. [5]

    W. Yu, M. D. Porosoff, and J. G. Chen, Chemical Re- views 112, 5780 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    N. An, X. Yuan, B. Pan, Q. Li, S. Li, and W. Zhang, RSC Advances 4, 38250 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    C. He, Y. Gong, S. Li, J. Wu, Z. Lu, Q. Li, L. Wang, S. Wu, and J. Zhang, Advanced Materials 36, 2311628 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Q. Rong, B. Xiao, J. Zeng, R. Yu, B. Zi, G. Zhang, Z. Zhu, J. Zhang, J. Wu, and Q. Liu, ACS Sensors 7, 199 (2021)

    2021

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    Johnsson, G

    A. Johnsson, G. Schmidt, M. Hauf, and P. Pichler, Phys- ica Status Solidi A 219, 2100462 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Akhtar, S

    M. Akhtar, S. A. Uzair, M. Rizwan, and M. A. Ur Rehman, Frontiers in Materials 8, 747169 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    S. R. Mason, M. L. Willson, S. J. Egger, J. Beith, R. F. Dear, and A. Goodwin, Cochrane Database of System- atic Reviews (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    R. Jiao, K. Wang, Y. Xin, H. Sun, J. Gong, L. Yu, and Y. Wang, Ceramics International 49, 12596 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. Jin, Y. Guo, and X. Wang, Chemistry–A European Journal 30, e202302948 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. Wach, J. S´ a, and J. Szlachetko, Synchrotron Radia- tion 27, 689 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. A. Isaacs, J. Davies-Jones, P. R. Davies, S. Guan, R. Lee, D. J. Morgan, and R. Palgrave, Materials Chem- istry Frontiers 5, 7931 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Yang, M.-H

    C.-C. Yang, M.-H. Tsai, Z.-R. Yang, Y.-C. Tseng, and C.-H. Wang, ChemCatChem 15, e202300359 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Siburian, A

    R. Siburian, A. M. M. Ali, K. Sebayang, M. Supeno, K. Tarigan, C. Simanjuntak, S. P. Aritonang, and F. Hutagalung, Scientific Reports 11, 2532 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    E. I. Vovk, A. V. Kalinkin, M. Y. Smirnov, I. O. Klem- bovskii, and V. I. Bukhtiyarov, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 121, 17297 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Anniyev, H

    T. Anniyev, H. Ogasawara, M. P. Ljungberg, K. T. Wik- feldt, J. B. MacNaughton, L.- ˚A. N¨ aslund, U. Bergmann, S. Koh, P. Strasser, L. G. Pettersson, et al. , Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 12, 5694 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    A. K. Rumaiz, C. Weiland, I. Harding, N. S. Nooman, T. Krings, E. L. Hull, G. Giacomini, W. Chen, E. Cock- ayne, D. P. Siddons, et al. , AIP Advances 13 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Zheng, C

    D. Zheng, C. N. Young, and W. F. Stickle, Surface Sci- ence Spectra 30 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    HAXPES spectra of Pt Sputtered,

    S. Yasuno, “HAXPES spectra of Pt Sputtered,” (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Ueda and I

    S. Ueda and I. Hamada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 91, 024801 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    N. V. Smith, Physical Review B 9, 1365 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    Zborowski, T

    C. Zborowski, T. Conard, A. Vanleenhove, I. Hoflijk, and I. Vaesen, Surface Science Spectra 29 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Rudberg, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 127, 111 (1930)

    E. Rudberg, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 127, 111 (1930). 16

    1930

  19. [28]

    D. A. Papaconstantopoulos et al., Handbook of the Band Structure of Elemental Solids: From Z (Springer, 1986)

    1986

  20. [29]

    Mueller, J

    F. Mueller, J. Garland, M. Cohen, and K. Bennemann, Annals of Physics 67, 19 (1971)

    1971

  21. [30]

    D. Wu, K. Kusada, T. Yamamoto, T. Toriyama, S. Mat- sumura, I. Gueye, O. Seo, J. Kim, S. Hiroi, O. Sakata, et al. , Chemical Science 11, 12731 (2020)

    2020

  22. [31]

    Froidevaux, H

    C. Froidevaux, H. Launois, and F. Gautier, Journal of Applied Physics 39, 557 (1968)

    1968

  23. [32]

    Zhang, C

    C. Zhang, C. Xu, X. Gao, and Q. Yao, Theranostics 12, 2115 (2022)

    2022

  24. [33]

    Ienco, F

    A. Ienco, F. Ruffo, and G. Manca, Chemistry–A Euro- pean Journal 29, e202301669 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Kalha, L

    C. Kalha, L. E. Ratcliff, J. G. Moreno, S. Mohr, M. Mantsinen, N. K. Fernando, P. K. Thakur, T.-L. Lee, H.-H. Tseng, T. S. Nunney, et al. , Physical Review B 105, 045129 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Schlueter, A

    C. Schlueter, A. Gloskovskii, K. Ederer, I. Schostak, S. Piec, I. Sarkar, Y. Matveyev, P. L¨ omker, M. Sing, R. Claessen, et al. , AIP Conference Proceedings 2054 (2019)

  27. [36]

    J. Wolstenholme, Surface and Interface Analysis: An In- ternational Journal devoted to the development and ap- plication of techniques for the analysis of surfaces, inter- faces and thin films 40, 966 (2008)

    2008

  28. [37]

    Lee and D

    T.-L. Lee and D. A. Duncan, Synchrotron Radiation News 31, 16 (2018)

    2018

  29. [39]

    Smidstrup, T

    S. Smidstrup, T. Markussen, P. Vancraeyveld, J. Wellen- dorff, J. Schneider, T. Gunst, B. Verstichel, D. Stradi, P. A. Khomyakov, U. G. Vej-Hansen, et al. , Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 015901 (2019)

    2019

  30. [40]

    M. J. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. J. Verstraete, D. R. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, Computer Physics Communications 226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  31. [41]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Physical Review Letters 100, 136406 (2008)

    2008

  32. [42]

    J Jackson, A

    A. J Jackson, A. M Ganose, A. Regoutz, R. G Egdell, and O. D Scanlon, Journal of Open Source Software 3 (2018)

    2018

  33. [43]

    J. H. Scofield, Theoretical photoionization cross sections from 1 to 1500 keV., Tech. Rep. (University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, United States, 1973)

    1973

  34. [44]

    Digitisation of Scofield Photoionisation Cross Section Tabulated Data,

    C. Kalha, N. Fernando, and A. Regoutz, “Digitisation of Scofield Photoionisation Cross Section Tabulated Data,” (2020)

    2020

  35. [45]

    Pines, Reviews of modern physics 28, 184 (1956)

    D. Pines, Reviews of modern physics 28, 184 (1956)

    1956

  36. [46]

    M¨ ollenstedt, Optics5, 499 (1949)

    G. M¨ ollenstedt, Optics5, 499 (1949)

    1949

  37. [47]

    Albert, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik143, 513 (1956)

    L. Albert, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik143, 513 (1956)

    1956

  38. [48]

    Gauth´ e, Annales de Physique13, 915 (1958)

    B. Gauth´ e, Annales de Physique13, 915 (1958)

    1958

  39. [52]

    Schr¨ oder, E

    W. Schr¨ oder, E. Peters, and J. H¨ olzl, Applied Physics 3, 135 (1974)

    1974

  40. [53]

    Jaegl´ e, F

    P. Jaegl´ e, F. C. Farnoux, P. Dhez, M. Cremonese, and G. Onori, Physical Review 188, 30 (1969)

    1969

  41. [54]

    Haensel, K

    R. Haensel, K. Radler, B. Sonntag, and C. Kunz, Solid State Communications 7, 1495 (1969)

    1969

  42. [56]

    Tehuacanero-Cuapa, J

    S. Tehuacanero-Cuapa, J. Reyes-Gasga, A. Rodr ´ ıguez- G´ omez, D. Bahena, I. Hern´ andez-Calder´ on, and R. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Journal of Applied Physics120 (2016)

    2016

  43. [57]

    M´ elinon, P

    P. M´ elinon, P. K´ egh´ elian, B. Pr´ evel, A. Perez, G. Guiraud, J. LeBrusq, J. Lerm´ e, M. Pellarin, and M. Broyer, The Journal of chemical physics 107, 10278 (1997)

    1997

  44. [58]

    Doniach and M

    S. Doniach and M. Sunjic, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 3, 285 (1970)

    1970

  45. [59]

    H¨ ufner and G

    S. H¨ ufner and G. Wertheim, Physical Review B 11, 678 (1975)

    1975

  46. [60]

    H¨ ufner, G

    S. H¨ ufner, G. Wertheim, and J. Wernick, Solid State Communications 17, 417 (1975)

    1975

  47. [61]

    Nyholm, A

    R. Nyholm, A. Berndtsson, and N. Martensson, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, L1091 (1980)

    1980

  48. [62]

    Karlsson, C

    S. Karlsson, C. Norberg, O. Nilsson, S. Hogberg, A. El- Farrash, C. Nordling, and K. Siegbahn, Electron binding energies in platinum (Uppsala Univ., Inst. of Physics, 1967)

    1967

  49. [63]

    S. A. Rinc´ on-Ortiz, J. H. Quintero-Orozco, and R. Os- pina, Surface Science Spectra 30 (2023)

    2023

  50. [64]

    Shyu and K

    J. Shyu and K. Otto, Applied Surface Science 32, 246 (1988)

    1988

  51. [65]

    N. S. Resende, C. A. Perez, J. G. Eon, and M. Schmal, Catalysis Letters 141, 1685 (2011)

    2011

  52. [66]

    Sch¨ on, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 1, 377 (1972)

    G. Sch¨ on, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 1, 377 (1972)

    1972

  53. [67]

    Schneider and C

    W.-D. Schneider and C. Laubschat, Physical Review B 23, 997 (1981)

    1981

  54. [68]

    P. T. M. Van Attekum and J. Trooster, Physical Review B 20, 2335 (1979)

    1979

  55. [69]

    R. Lee, R. Quesada-Cabrera, J. Willis, A. Iqbal, I. P. Parkin, D. O. Scanlon, and R. G. Palgrave, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 15, 39956 (2023)

    2023

  56. [70]

    Campbell and T

    J. Campbell and T. Papp, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 77, 1 (2001)

    2001

  57. [71]

    Perkins, D

    S. Perkins, D. Cullen, M. Chen, J. Rathkopf, J. Scofield, and J. Hubbell, Tables and graphs of atomic subshell and relaxation data derived from the LLNL Evaluated Atomic Data Library (EADL), Z= 1–100 , Tech. Rep. (Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United S...

    1991

  58. [72]

    J. C. Fuggle and S. F. Alvarado, Physical Review A 22, 1615 (1980)

    1980

  59. [73]

    Spencer, S

    B. Spencer, S. Maniyarasu, B. Reed, D. Cant, R. Ahumada-Lazo, A. Thomas, C. Muryn, M. Maschek, S. Eriksson, T. Wiell, et al., Applied Surface Science 541, 148635 (2021)

    2021

  60. [74]

    Fadley and D

    C. Fadley and D. Shirley, Journal of Research of the Na- tional Bureau of Standards A 74, 543 (1970)

    1970

  61. [75]

    T. A. Clarke, I. D. Gay, and R. Mason, Chemical Physics Letters 27, 172 (1974)

    1974

  62. [76]

    Kowalczyk, L

    S. Kowalczyk, L. Ley, R. Pollak, and D. Shirley, Physics Letters A (1972)

    1972

  63. [77]

    Y. Baer, P. Heden, J. Hedman, M. Klasson, C. Nordling, and K. Siegbahn, Physica Scripta 1, 55 (1970). Lifetime effects and satellites in the photoelectron spectrum of platinum metal P. Bhatt,1, 2, 3 J. J. Gutiérrez Moreno, 4 L. E. Ratcliff,5, 6 A. A. Riaz, 1 C. M. L. André, 2,...

    1970

  64. [78]

    Additional Experimental Details S2

  65. [79]

    Energy Resolution Determination and Parameters S2

  66. [80]

    QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M Input Parameters S2

  67. [81]

    G 0W0 and DFT Calculated Unweighted PDOS S4

  68. [82]

    Additional Information on R(H)EELS Experiments and Summary of Literature S5

  69. [83]

    Further Photoionisation Cross Section Information S8

  70. [84]

    Comparison of Core Level Satellites S9

  71. [85]

    Comparison of PDOS to XPS Valence Band S9 References S11 S2

  72. [86]

    All experiments were performed on a Thermo ScientificTM NEXSA G2 spectrometer

    ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS REELs on Pt were performed at the UK National XPS Facility, HarwellXPS. All experiments were performed on a Thermo ScientificTM NEXSA G2 spectrometer. The instrument employs a monochromated X-ray Al Kα source (h = 1486.6 eV), Helium I and II UV ...

  73. [87]

    ENERGY RESOLUTION DETERMINA TION AND PARAMETERS FIG. S1. Fermi edges (E F) of a high-purity gold (Au) polycrystalline reference foil, collected at beamline I09, Diamond Light Source. The EF was collected with photon energies labelled as (b) SXPS (hν = 1.7 keV) and (b) HAXPES (...

  74. [88]

    S3 TABLE S1

    QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M INPUT PARAMETERS The input parameters for Pt for inelastic mean free path (IMFP) calculations using the QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M v3.0 software package are summarised in Table S1. S3 TABLE S1. Input parameters from QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M v3.0 for Pt for the determination ...

  75. [89]

    No obvious differences are observed between the sum of PDOS calculated manually and the total DOS provided by the theoretical calculations, suggesting complete projection of states

    G 0W0 AND DFT CALCULA TED UNWEIGHTED PDOS Figure S2 shows the unweighted DOS spectra calculated using the two computational approaches, (a,c) G0W0, and (b,d) DFT with and without the inclusion of spin-orbit coupling (SOC). No obvious differences are observed between the sum of...

  76. [90]

    All features are tabulated with ω positions, relative to the main elastic peak

    ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION ON R(H)EELS EXPERIMENTS AND SUMMARY OF LITERA TURE Table S2 summarises all known reports of features from electron energy loss spectroscopic investigations. All features are tabulated with ω positions, relative to the main elastic peak. Where investigat...

  77. [91]

    SURVEY SPECTRA FIG. S6. Survey spectra collected with synchrotron-based SXPS ( hν = 1.7 keV) and HAXPES ( hν = 5.9 keV) on a polycrystalline Pt foil. The BE is aligned to the intrinsic EF of the Pt metal, and the spectra are normalised to the height of the Pt 4 d5/2 core level...

  78. [92]

    [12, 13] as a function of photon energy

    FURTHER PHOTOIONISA TION CROSS SECTION INFORMA TION Figure S8 displays the one-electron photoionisation cross sections ( σi) of key atomic orbitals of platinum (Pt) taken from Refs. [12, 13] as a function of photon energy. FIG. S8. The one-electron corrected photoionisation cr...

  79. [93]

    COMPARISON OF CORE LEVEL SA TELLITES FIG. S9. Comparison of the (a) Pt 3 s, Pt 4s and (b) Pt 3p3/2, Pt 4p3/2 core level HAXPES spectra. Spectra are normalised to their maximum intensity and aligned relative to the main photoionisation peak. Insets show zoomed-in regions of the...

  80. [94]

    COMPARISON OF PDOS TO XPS V ALENCE BAND FIG. S10. Comparison of the PDOS spectra calculated using G 0W0 (a-d) DFT (e-h) with HAXPES valence band spectra, including the (a,e) Scofield, (b,f) Pb correction, (c,g) LMS optimisation, and (d,h) Ueda p-state cross section weighting a...

  81. [95]

    Tanuma, C

    S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surface and Interface Analysis 21, 165 (1994)

    1994

  82. [96]

    Rudberg, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 127, 111 (1930)

    E. Rudberg, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 127, 111 (1930)

    1930

  83. [97]

    Möllenstedt, Optics 5, 499 (1949)

    G. Möllenstedt, Optics 5, 499 (1949)

    1949

  84. [98]

    Albert, Zeitschrift für Physik 143, 513 (1956)

    L. Albert, Zeitschrift für Physik 143, 513 (1956)

    1956

  85. [99]

    Gauthé, Annales de Physique 13, 915 (1958)

    B. Gauthé, Annales de Physique 13, 915 (1958)

    1958

  86. [100]

    Kleinn, Optik 11, 226 (1954)

    W. Kleinn, Optik 11, 226 (1954)

    1954

  87. [101]

    Powell, Proceedings of the Physical Society 76, 593 (1960)

    C. Powell, Proceedings of the Physical Society 76, 593 (1960)

    1960

  88. [102]

    Seignac and M

    A. Seignac and M. S. Robin, Solid State Communications 11, 217 (1972)

    1972

  89. [103]

    Lynch and J

    M. Lynch and J. Swan, Australian Journal of Physics 21, 811 (1968)

    1968

  90. [104]

    Schröder, E

    W. Schröder, E. Peters, and J. Hölzl, Applied Physics 3, 135 (1974)

    1974

  91. [105]

    L. B. Leder, H. Mendlowitz, and L. Marton, Physical Review 101, 1460 (1956)

    1956

  92. [106]

    J. H. Scofield, Theoretical photoionization cross sections from 1 to 1500 keV ., Tech. Rep. (University of California, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, United States, 1973)

    1973

  93. [107]

    Digitisation of Scofield Photoionisation Cross Section Tabulated Data,

    C. Kalha, N. K. Fernando, and A. Regoutz, “Digitisation of Scofield Photoionisation Cross Section Tabulated Data,” (2020)

    2020

  94. [108]

    Kalha, L

    C. Kalha, L. E. Ratcliff, J. G. Moreno, S. Mohr, M. Mantsinen, N. K. Fernando, P. K. Thakur, T.-L. Lee, H.-H. Tseng, T. S. Nunney, et al., Physical Review B 105, 045129 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.