Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Imaging valence electron rearrangement in a chemical reaction using hard X-ray scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that hard X-ray scattering can track the spatial rearrangement of a single valence electron through a complete chemical reaction, demonstrated on photoexcited deuterated ammonia.

desk verdict A credible TRXS step toward imaging valence electron dynamics through a full reaction, with a solid early-time signature and a late-time channel interpretation that is honest about its trajectory mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19172 v1 pith:IL65X3DJ submitted 2025-06-23 physics.chem-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Ian Gabalski , Alice Green , Philipp Lenzen , Felix Allum , Matthew Bain , Surjendu Bhattacharyya , Mathew A. Britton , Elio G. Champenois
show 19 more authors
Xinxin Cheng James P. Cryan Taran Driver Ruaridh Forbes Douglas Garratt Aaron M. Ghrist Martin Gra{ss}l Matthias F. Kling Kirk A. Larsen Mengning Liang Ming-Fu Lin Yusong Liu Michael P. Minitti Silke Nelson Joseph S. Robinson Philip H. Bucksbaum Thomas J. A. Wolf Nanna H. List James M. Glownia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords time-resolvedX-rayscatteringvalenceelectrondynamicsammoniaphotodissociationRydbergstateabinitiomultiplespawningindependentatommodelnonadiabaticdeuterated
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

Most ultrafast X-ray scattering from molecules is dominated by core electrons near the nuclei, so the chemically active valence electrons are usually invisible. This paper identifies ammonia as a favorable exception: because it has few core electrons, a hard X-ray scattering measurement on photoexcited deuterated ammonia (ND3) can follow the single promoted valence electron as it moves. The study compares the measured time-resolved difference signal with two computed signals, one generated from ab initio electron densities and one from an independent-atom model that ignores chemical bonding. The data match the ab initio signal, including a prompt low-angle depletion caused by the 3s Rydberg electron and a later high-angle enhancement that rises and then falls as the molecule dissociates. The paper concludes that the dominant observed effect is the rearrangement of the photoexcited valence electron rather than the structural motion of the deuterons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-resolved scattering difference signal $\Delta S(Q,\tau) = (S(Q,\tau) - S_0(Q))/S_0(Q)$, measured over $Q = 0.37$–$4.40$ Å$^{-1}$, combined with a four-channel decomposition of the excited-state population: predissociation trapping, adiabatic dissociation, nonadiabatic dissociation, and ground-state recovery. The comparison that carries the argument is between a fully ab initio scattering calculation performed on ab initio multiple spawning (AIMS) trajectories and an independent-atom model (IAM), which treats the molecule as non-interacting atoms with tabulated atomic form factors. Ammonia's small number of core electrons is what makes the valence-electron contribution large enough for these two models to differ visibly. The electronic mechanism giving the signal its late-time shape is the evolution of the excited state from n3s Rydberg character to n$\sigma^*$ character, which pulls electron density back toward the ND2 fragment and shifts the scattering enhancement to higher $Q$.

What would settle it

A decisive experiment would be to pump the $\nu'_2 = 4$ transition that the AIMS simulation used, instead of the $\nu'_2 = 5$ peak, and compare the long-delay scattering decomposition to the predicted 2.6:1 branching ratio; if the mismatch persists at the matching pump energy, the discrepancy lies in the trajectory ensemble or the electronic-structure calculation rather than the initial vibrational state. A complementary check would compare the early-delay low-$Q$ depletion against ab initio and independent-atom calculations at identical fixed nuclear geometries, since the valence rearrangement claim requires the data to follow the former.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that time-resolved hard X-ray scattering records the spatial rearrangement of the valence electron throughout the photodissociation of ND3, not just the nuclear positions. After 200 nm excitation to the $\tilde{\mathrm{A}}$ state, whose dominant character is promotion of a lone-pair electron into a 3s Rydberg orbital, the measured difference signal $\Delta S(Q,\tau)$ shows a prompt depletion at $Q$ between 0.7 and 2.6 Å$^{-1}$ and an enhancement above 3.0 Å$^{-1}$. The ab initio scattering signal reproduces both features; the independent-atom model does not, because it has no valence electron rearrangement. The paper attributes the early low-$Q$ depletion to the Rydberg electron itself and the later rise-and-decay of the high-$Q$ enhancement to the evolution of the excited-state character from n3s to n$\sigma^*$ as the N–D bond breaks, with distinct contributions from adiabatic and nonadiabatic dissociation channels. Fitting the long-delay data to the two channel signals gives a nonadiabatic-to-adiabatic branching ratio of 6.3:1, while the reused AIMS trajectories predict about 2.6:1, a discrepancy the paper discusses in terms of the initial vibrational level and the modelling of the adiabatic channel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the computer-simulated molecular paths, started at a vibrational absorption peak one step lower in energy than the one the laser actually excited, faithfully represent the real nuclear and electronic motion; the paper itself notes that these paths give a 2.6:1 channel ratio while the data imply 6.3:1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hard X-ray scattering can resolve valence electron rearrangement on the time scale of a chemical reaction, not just the positions of nuclei.
  • The prompt low-$Q$ depletion after photoexcitation is a direct signature of the promotion of the lone-pair electron into the 3s Rydberg orbital, appearing before deuteron motion has progressed.
  • The later rise-and-fall of the enhancement at $Q$ between 3.3 and 4.3 Å$^{-1}$ reports the n3s to n$\sigma^*$ electronic character change during N–D bond fission.
  • The experimentally derived nonadiabatic-to-adiabatic branching ratio of 6.3:1, versus about 2.6:1 from the reused trajectories, indicates that current simulation approaches underestimate the suppression of the adiabatic channel in ND3.
  • With brighter and higher-energy X-ray sources, the same approach can be extended to heavier molecules with more core-electron background.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Repeating the experiment while pumping the $\nu'_2 = 4$ transition used for the AIMS trajectories would test whether the branching-ratio discrepancy comes from the initial vibrational state or from the trajectory and electronic-structure method itself.
  • The same differential-scattering logic could be applied to distinguish isomeric or electronic-state mixtures in other low-Z molecules, wherever the core-electron background is small enough to subtract.
  • Attosecond hard X-ray pulses would push the technique from tracking femtosecond valence-electron redistribution that accompanies nuclear motion toward direct observation of electron wavepacket motion.
  • If independent-atom structural models are used to refine gas-phase X-ray data on low-Z molecules, neglecting valence rearrangement could bias the inferred bond lengths and angles at early times.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports gas-phase time-resolved hard X-ray scattering measurements on photoexcited ND3 (200 nm pump, ~10 keV probe) and compares the measured difference signal ΔS(Q,τ) with two sets of modeled signals: a fully ab initio scattering calculation based on AIMS trajectories and an independent-atom-model (IAM) calculation using the same nuclear trajectories. The experimental data show a prompt depletion at low Q (0.7–2.6 Å^-1) and an enhancement at high Q (3.0–4.4 Å^-1) that initially rises and then decays. The ab initio model, which includes valence electron rearrangement, reproduces the prompt low-Q depletion and the high-Q enhancement-decay, whereas the IAM, which only contains nuclear structure changes, does not. The authors conclude that hard X-ray scattering can track the spatial rearrangement of a single valence electron throughout a chemical reaction, and they extract a nonadiabatic-to-adiabatic dissociation branching ratio of 6.3:1 by re-weighting the calculated channel signals against the long-delay data.

Significance. If the claims are borne out, this is an important advance: it would extend TRXS sensitivity from early-time valence-electron signatures to the full reaction and would distinguish valence-electron rearrangement from nuclear dynamics through a direct scattering observable. The paper has genuine strengths: the independent-atom-model comparison is a good control; the reuse of the AIMS trajectories from Ref. [25] is explicitly disclosed, including the ν2'=4-versus-ν2'=5 mismatch and the branching-ratio discrepancy; the channel decomposition (adiabatic, nonadiabatic, predissociation trap, ground-state recovery) makes the theoretical content transparent; and the early-time low-Q depletion is robust because it appears before significant nuclear motion and is absent in the IAM. However, the late-time quantitative interpretation relies on trajectory ensembles that are not matched to the pumped vibrational state, and the model comparison is not supported by any statistical measure of fit quality. These issues are load-bearing for the central quantitative claims, though they do not negate the early-time result.

major comments (3)
  1. [End Matter on Experimental and Computational Details; Fig. 4] All ab initio and IAM scattering signals are computed from AIMS trajectories launched on the ν′2=4 transition [59], whereas the experiment pumps the ν′2=5 transition (End Matter). The paper states that this will primarily affect the adiabatic/nonadiabatic branching ratio, and indeed the AIMS branching ratio (2.6:1) differs from the experimental fit (6.3:1). This mismatch is load-bearing for the late-time interpretation: the high-Q "enhancement, then decay" is attributed to the distinct timescales and Q-dependence of the adiabatic and nonadiabatic channels (Fig. 4a), so if the true ν′2=5 wavepacket has different channel populations or electronic-character evolution, that attribution and the central claim that the dominant late-time effect is valence-electron rearrangement would need revision. The authors should either repeat the AIMS simulations with ν′2=5 initial conditions or provide a sensitivity test showing that the channel-specific scattering signals are unchanged between ν′2=4 and ν′2=5; otherwise the late-time channel-resolved conclusions should be presented as tentative.
  2. [Fig. 3 and the least-squares fits] The claim that the experimental signal is "generally more consistent" with the ab initio model than with the IAM (Fig. 3a) is made without any goodness-of-fit statistic. The two excitation-fraction fits yield 6.6% and 8.6% with no reported uncertainties, and the branching-ratio fit in Fig. 4b yields 6.3:1 with no uncertainty. Because the paper's central conclusion is a model discrimination between a valence-electron-including and a valence-electron-free scattering calculation, the authors should report reduced chi-square (or an equivalent) for each model over the full Q-τ map and for the delay-resolved lineouts, together with residuals and confidence intervals on all fitted parameters. Without this, the preference for the ab initio model is not quantitatively established.
  3. [Fig. 4(b) and the branching-ratio fit] The long-delay re-weighting fit uses only the adiabatic and nonadiabatic dissociation signals as basis functions, but the text does not state whether the predissociation-trap and ground-state-recovery contributions (Figs. 2f–g) are included or assumed negligible at τ>500 fs, nor whether the fit coefficients are constrained (e.g., nonnegative). The reported 6.3:1 ratio should be accompanied by a confidence interval (e.g., bootstrap) and a statement of the fitting procedure, including the treatment of any constant offset and any scaling by the excitation fraction. As written, the branching-ratio value is not possible to reproduce or assess.
minor comments (5)
  1. [End Matter] The End Matter references Fig. 1(c) for the ν′2=5 absorption peak, but Fig. 1 as presented has only panels (a) and (b); please add the panel or correct the cross-reference to the Supplemental Material.
  2. [Abstract and End Matter] The abstract states the probe is 9.8 keV, while the End Matter gives 10 keV (λ = 1.24 Å); please reconcile or explain the difference.
  3. [Headings] The headings "END MA TTER" contain a typographical spacing issue; please fix to "END MATTER".
  4. [Main text, Fig. 2 discussion] In the phrase "due to the n3s-photoexcited electron," consider rewording to "the 3s Rydberg electron" for readability.
  5. [Title and Abstract] The phrase "imaging valence electron rearrangement" is stronger than what is demonstrated if no real-space inversion is performed; "tracking" or "following" may be more accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is tested against an independent-atom baseline, and the reused prior simulation is a limitation, not an input-output reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the measured hard X-ray scattering difference signal from photoexcited ND3 is better described by ab initio scattering predictions, which include valence electron rearrangement, than by an independent-atom model (IAM) that omits it. This is a controlled comparison: both the ab initio and IAM signals are computed from the same AIMS nuclear trajectories, so the contrast isolates the treatment of the electron density. The only fitted parameter in the main comparison is a global excitation fraction for each model, which does not change the shape of the predicted signal. Thus the data's preference for the ab initio signal is not manufactured by construction. The long-delay branching ratio is explicitly obtained by a least-squares fit to the late-time data and is transparently compared with the AIMS prediction of 2.6:1; it is labeled as an experimentally determined fit, not a forward prediction, so it does not constitute a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. The reuse of AIMS trajectories from Ref. [25] launched at the nu'_2 = 4 peak rather than the pumped nu'_2 = 5 peak is an acknowledged limitation that may affect the fidelity of the theoretical signal, but it is not a circular reduction: the trajectories are prior, independent input, and the paper openly discusses the resulting branching-ratio discrepancy. No self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternative interpretations, and no equation reduces to itself by definition. The derivation chain is therefore not circular, though it carries real uncertainty about trajectory fidelity.

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

The interpretation rests on the standard theory of X-ray scattering from molecules, the AIMS nonadiabatic dynamics method, and the assumption that the pump populates the n3s Rydberg state. Two parameters are fitted to the data: the excitation fraction and the late-time channel weighting (branching ratio). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • excitation_fraction = 6.6% (ab initio fit), 8.6% (IAM fit)
    Scales the computed difference signal to the experimental data; fitted independently for the two models.
  • channel_coefficients (nonadiabatic/adiabatic) = branching ratio 6.3:1 nonadiabatic:adiabatic
    Weights of the two computed channel scattering signals fit to long-delay data in Fig. 4(b).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 200 nm pump predominantly populates the 2 1A (n3s Rydberg) state of ND3.
    Standard assignment for the A←X transition in ammonia; cited refs [34,35].
  • standard math The independent atom model (Eq. 1) is an adequate baseline for nuclear-only scattering.
    Standard Debye scattering equation using atomic form factors.
  • domain assumption Inelastic X-ray scattering contributes negligibly to the total signal.
    Stated in the paper: 'the inelastic component here has negligible contribution to the total X-ray scattering signal'.
  • domain assumption The AIMS method and reused trajectories capture the nonadiabatic dynamics correctly except for the noted branching ratio.
    AIMS is an established method [36], but the trajectories are from ν'2=4 and yield a branching ratio that disagrees with the experiment.
  • domain assumption Azimuthal averaging is valid after correcting for the observed anisotropic scattering.
    Anisotropic changes of about 0.25% are observed and corrected; this assumes the residual isotropic signal is artifact-free.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging valence electron rearrangement in a chemical reaction using hard X-ray scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IL65X3DJ

@misc{pith2026250619172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging valence electron rearrangement in a chemical reaction using hard X-ray scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IL65X3DJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19172}
}
read the original abstract

We have observed the signatures of valence electron rearrangement in photoexcited ammonia using ultrafast hard X-ray scattering. Time-resolved X-ray scattering is a powerful tool for imaging structural dynamics in molecules because of the strong scattering from the core electrons localized near each nucleus. Such core-electron contributions generally dominate the differential scattering signal, masking any signatures of rearrangement in the chemically important valence electrons. Ammonia represents an exception to the typically high core-to-valence electron ratio. We measured 9.8 keV X-ray scattering from gas-phase deuterated ammonia following photoexcitation via a 200 nm pump pulse to the 3s Rydberg state. We observed changes in the recorded scattering patterns due to the initial photoexcitation and subsequent deuterium dissociation. Ab initio calculations confirm that the observed signal is sensitive to the rearrangement of the single photoexcited valence electron as well as the interplay between adiabatic and nonadiabatic dissociation channels. The use of ultrafast hard X-ray scattering to image the structural rearrangement of single valence electrons constitutes an important advance in tracking valence electronic structure in photoexcited atoms and molecules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19172 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Potential energy surfaces of ND [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Experimental difference signal. (b)-(c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (b) further elucidates the differences between the experimental, ab initio, and IAM signals by taking delay-resolved lineouts of the low- and high-Q regions of ∆S(Q, τ ), the bounds of which are indicated by the ver￾tical gray dashed lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    E. G. Champenois, N. H. List, M. Ware, M. Brit- ton, P. H. Bucksbaum, X. Cheng, M. Centurion, J. P. Cryan, R. Forbes, I. Gabalski, K. Hegazy, M. C. Hoff- mann, A. J. Howard, F. Ji, M.-F. Lin, J. P. F. Nunes, X. Shen, J. Yang, X. Wang, T. J. Martinez, and T. J. A. Wolf, Femtosecond Electronic and Hydrogen Structural Dynamics in Ammonia Imaged with Ultrafas...

    work page 2023

  2. [59]

    Biasin, T

    E. Biasin, T. B. van Driel, G. Levi, M. G. Laursen, A. O. Dohn, A. Moltke, P. Vester, F. B. K. Hansen, K. S. Kjaer, T. Harlang, R. Hartsock, M. Christensen, K. J. Gaffney, N. E. Henriksen, K. B. Møller, K. Haldrup, and M. M. Nielsen, Anisotropy enhanced X-ray scattering from sol- vated transition metal complexes, J Synchrotron Rad25, 306 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Pauling, The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry(Cornell University Press, 1960)

    L. Pauling, The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals: An Introduction to Modern Structural Chemistry(Cornell University Press, 1960)

    work page 1960

  4. [2]

    S. Bag, S. Chandra, J. Ghosh, A. Bera, E. R. Bern- stein, and A. Bhattacharya, The attochemistry of chemi- cal bonding, International Reviews in Physical Chemistry 40, 405 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [3]

    P. R. Bunker and P. Jensen, Molecular Symmetry and Spectroscopy (NRC Research Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [4]

    Barone, S

    V. Barone, S. Alessandrini, M. Biczysko, J. R. Cheese- man, D. C. Clary, A. B. McCoy, R. J. DiRisio, F. Neese, M. Melosso, and C. Puzzarini, Computational molecular spectroscopy, Nat Rev Methods Primers 1, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Cheng, R

    C. Cheng, R. Forbes, A. J. Howard, M. Spanner, P. H. Bucksbaum, and T. Weinacht, Momentum-resolved 6 above-threshold ionization of deuterated water, Phys. Rev. A 102, 052813 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    A. J. Howard, C. Cheng, R. Forbes, G. A. McCracken, W. H. Mills, V. Makhija, M. Spanner, T. Weinacht, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Strong-field ionization of water: Nu- clear dynamics revealed by varying the pulse duration, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043120 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    A. J. Howard, M. Britton, Z. L. Streeter, C. Cheng, R. Forbes, J. L. Reynolds, F. Allum, G. A. Mc- Cracken, I. Gabalski, R. R. Lucchese, C. W. McCurdy, T. Weinacht, and P. H. Bucksbaum, Filming enhanced ionization in an ultrafast triatomic slingshot, Commun Chem 6, 1 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    G. A. Worth and L. S. Cederbaum, BEYOND BORN- OPPENHEIMER: Molecular Dynamics Through a Con- ical Intersection, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 55, 127 (2004)

    2004

  3. [9]

    Cheng and G

    Y.-C. Cheng and G. R. Fleming, Dynamics of Light Har- vesting in Photosynthesis, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 60, 241 (2009)

    2009

  4. [10]

    R. W. Schoenlein, L. A. Peteanu, R. A. Mathies, and C. V. Shank, The First Step in Vision: Femtosecond Iso- merization of Rhodopsin, Science 254, 412 (1991)

    1991

  5. [11]

    Polli, P

    D. Polli, P. Alto` e, O. Weingart, K. M. Spillane, C. Man- zoni, D. Brida, G. Tomasello, G. Orlandi, P. Kukura, R. A. Mathies, M. Garavelli, and G. Cerullo, Conical in- tersection dynamics of the primary photoisomerization event in vision, Nature 467, 440 (2010)

    2010

  6. [12]

    B. M. Bode and M. S. Gordon, Macmolplt: A graphical user interface for GAMESS, Journal of Molecular Graph- ics and Modelling 16, 133 (1998)

    1998

  7. [13]

    Weinacht and B

    T. Weinacht and B. J. Pearson, Time-Resolved Spec- troscopy: An Experimental Perspective (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    C. Z. Bisgaard, O. J. Clarkin, G. Wu, A. M. D. Lee, O. Geßner, C. C. Hayden, and A. Stolow, Time- Resolved Molecular Frame Dynamics of Fixed-in-Space CS2 Molecules, Science 323, 1464 (2009)

    2009

  9. [15]

    Hockett, C

    P. Hockett, C. Z. Bisgaard, O. J. Clarkin, and A. Stolow, Time-resolved imaging of purely valence-electron dynam- ics during a chemical reaction, Nature Phys7, 612 (2011)

    2011

  10. [16]

    Itatani, J

    J. Itatani, J. Levesque, D. Zeidler, H. Niikura, H. P´ epin, J. C. Kieffer, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Villeneuve, Tomo- graphic imaging of molecular orbitals, Nature 432, 867 (2004)

    2004

  11. [17]

    Mayer, F

    D. Mayer, F. Lever, D. Picconi, J. Metje, S. Alisauskas, F. Calegari, S. D¨ usterer, C. Ehlert, R. Feifel, M. Niebuhr, B. Manschwetus, M. Kuhlmann, T. Mazza, M. S. Robin- son, R. J. Squibb, A. Trabattoni, M. Wallner, P. Saal- frank, T. J. A. Wolf, and M. G¨ uhr, Following exci...

    2022

  12. [18]

    Leitner, I

    T. Leitner, I. Josefsson, T. Mazza, P. S. Miedema, H. Schr¨ oder, M. Beye, K. Kunnus, S. Schreck, S. D¨ usterer, A. F¨ ohlisch, M. Meyer, M. Odelius, and Ph. Wernet, Time-resolved electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis of photodissociation: Photoelectron spectra of Fe(CO)...

    2018

  13. [19]

    Gabalski, F

    I. Gabalski, F. Allum, I. Seidu, M. Britton, G. Brenner, H. Bromberger, M. Brouard, P. H. Bucksbaum, M. Burt, J. P. Cryan, T. Driver, N. Ekanayake, B. Erk, D. Garg, E. Gougoula, D. Heathcote, P. Hockett, D. M. P. Hol- land, A. J. Howard, S. Kumar, J. W. L. Lee, S. Li, J. Mc- M...

    2023

  14. [20]

    T. J. A. Wolf, R. H. Myhre, J. P. Cryan, S. Coriani, R. J. Squibb, A. Battistoni, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, P. Bucks- baum, G. Coslovich, R. Feifel, K. J. Gaffney, J. Grilj, T. J. Martinez, S. Miyabe, S. P. Moeller, M. Mucke, A. Natan, R. Obaid, T. Osipov, O. Plekan, S. Wang, H. ...

    2017

  15. [21]

    Centurion, T

    M. Centurion, T. J. A. Wolf, and J. Yang, Ultrafast Imag- ing of Molecules with Electron Diffraction, Annual Re- view of Physical Chemistry 73, 21 (2022)

    2022

  16. [22]

    J. Yang, M. Guehr, T. Vecchione, M. S. Robinson, R. Li, N. Hartmann, X. Shen, R. Coffee, J. Corbett, A. Fry, K. Gaffney, T. Gorkhover, C. Hast, K. Jobe, I. Makasyuk, A. Reid, J. Robinson, S. Vetter, F. Wang, S. Weathersby, C. Yoneda, X. Wang, and M. Centurion, Femtosecond gas ...

    2016

  17. [23]

    X. Shen, J. P. F. Nunes, J. Yang, R. K. Jobe, R. K. Li, M.-F. Lin, B. Moore, M. Niebuhr, S. P. Weathersby, T. J. A. Wolf, C. Yoneda, M. Guehr, M. Centurion, and X. J. Wang, Femtosecond gas-phase mega-electron- volt ultrafast electron diffraction, Structural Dynamics 6, 054305 (2019)

    2019

  18. [24]

    T. J. A. Wolf, D. M. Sanchez, J. Yang, R. M. Parrish, J. P. F. Nunes, M. Centurion, R. Coffee, J. P. Cryan, M. G¨ uhr, K. Hegazy, A. Kirrander, R. K. Li, J. Ruddock, X. Shen, T. Vecchione, S. P. Weathersby, P. M. Weber, K. Wilkin, H. Yong, Q. Zheng, X. J. Wang, M. P. Minitti, ...

    2019

  19. [26]

    Stankus, H

    B. Stankus, H. Yong, J. Ruddock, L. Ma, A. M. Car- rascosa, N. Goff, S. Boutet, X. Xu, N. Zotev, A. Kir- rander, M. P. Minitti, and P. M. Weber, Advances in ultrafast gas-phase x-ray scattering, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 234004 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Stankus, H

    B. Stankus, H. Yong, N. Zotev, J. M. Ruddock, D. Bell- shaw, T. J. Lane, M. Liang, S. Boutet, S. Carbajo, J. S. Robinson, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, J. E. Koglin, M. P. Minitti, A. Kirrander, and P. M. Weber, Ultrafast X-ray scattering reveals vibrational coherence following Ry...

    2019

  21. [28]

    H. Yong, N. Zotev, J. M. Ruddock, B. Stankus, M. Simmermacher, A. M. Carrascosa, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, D. Bellshaw, M. Liang, S. Carbajo, J. E. Koglin, J. S. Robinson, S. Boutet, M. P. Minitti, A. Kir- rander, and P. M. Weber, Observation of the molecular 7 response to lig...

    2020

  22. [29]

    Gabalski, M

    I. Gabalski, M. Sere, K. Acheson, F. Allum, S. Boutet, G. Dixit, R. Forbes, J. M. Glownia, N. Goff, K. Hegazy, A. J. Howard, M. Liang, M. P. Minitti, R. S. Minns, A. Natan, N. Peard, W. O. Rasmus, R. J. Sension, M. R. Ware, P. M. Weber, N. Werby, T. J. A. Wolf, A. Kirran- der,...

    2022

  23. [30]

    P. H. Bucksbaum, M. R. Ware, A. Natan, J. P. Cryan, and J. M. Glownia, Characterizing Multiphoton Excita- tion Using Time-Resolved X-ray Scattering, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011065 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    J. Yang, X. Zhu, J. P. F. Nunes, J. K. Yu, R. M. Parrish, T. J. A. Wolf, M. Centurion, M. G¨ uhr, R. Li, Y. Liu, B. Moore, M. Niebuhr, S. Park, X. Shen, S. Weathersby, T. Weinacht, T. J. Martinez, and X. Wang, Simultane- ous observation of nuclear and electronic dynamics by ul...

    2020

  25. [32]

    J. M. Glownia, K. Gumerlock, H. T. Lemke, T. Sato, D. Zhu, and M. Chollet, Pump–probe experimental methodology at the Linac Coherent Light Source, J. Syn- chrotron Radiat. 26, 685 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    H. Yong, X. Xu, J. M. Ruddock, B. Stankus, A. M. Carrascosa, N. Zotev, D. Bellshaw, W. Du, N. Goff, Y. Chang, S. Boutet, S. Carbajo, J. E. Koglin, M. Liang, J. S. Robinson, A. Kirrander, M. P. Minitti, and P. M. Weber, Ultrafast X-ray scattering offers a structural view of exc...

    2021

  27. [34]

    Vaida, M

    V. Vaida, M. I. McCarthy, P. C. Engelking, P. Rosmus, H.-J. Werner, and P. Botschwina, The ultraviolet absorp- tion spectrum of the ˜A 1A′′ 2← ˜X 1A1 transition of jet- cooled ammonia, The Journal of Chemical Physics 86, 6669 (1987)

    1987

  28. [35]

    A. S. Chatterley, G. M. Roberts, and V. G. Stavros, Timescales for adiabatic photodissociation dynamics from the ˜A state of ammonia, The Journal of Chemical Physics 139, 034318 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    Ben-Nun, J

    M. Ben-Nun, J. Quenneville, and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, Ab Ini- tio Multiple Spawning: Photochemistry from First Prin- ciples Quantum Molecular Dynamics, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 5161 (2000)

    2000

  30. [37]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details on ab initio theory, experimental design, and data treatment

  31. [38]

    P. J. Brown, A. G. Fox, E. N. Maslen, M. A. O’Keefe, and B. T. M. Willis, Intensity of diffracted intensities, in International Tables for Crystallography(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006) pp. 554–595

    2006

  32. [39]

    R. M. Parrish and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, Ab Initio Computation of Rotationally-Averaged Pump–Probe X-ray and Elec- tron Diffraction Signals, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 1523 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    I. S. Ufimtsev and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, Quantum Chemistry on Graphical Processing Units. 1. Strategies for Two- Electron Integral Evaluation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 222 (2008)

    2008

  34. [41]

    I. S. Ufimtsev and T. J. Martinez, Quantum Chemistry on Graphical Processing Units. 2. Direct Self-Consistent- Field Implementation, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 5, 1004 (2009)

    2009

  35. [42]

    I. S. Ufimtsev and T. J. Martinez, Quantum Chem- istry on Graphical Processing Units. 3. Analytical Energy Gradients, Geometry Optimization, and First Principles Molecular Dynamics, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 5, 2619 (2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    Seritan, C

    S. Seritan, C. Bannwarth, B. S. Fales, E. G. Hohenstein, C. M. Isborn, S. I. L. Kokkila-Schumacher, X. Li, F. Liu, N. Luehr, J. W. Snyder Jr., C. Song, A. V. Titov, I. S. Ufimtsev, L.-P. Wang, and T. J. Mart ´ ınez, TeraChem: A graphical processing unit-accelerated electronic ...

    2021

  37. [44]

    M. N. R. Ashfold, G. A. King, D. Murdock, M. G. D. Nix, T. A. A. Oliver, and A. G. Sage, Π σ* excited states in molecular photochemistry, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12, 1218 (2010)

    2010

  38. [45]

    Huang, Y

    S. Huang, Y. Ding, Y. Feng, E. Hemsing, Z. Huang, J. Krzywinski, A. A. Lutman, A. Marinelli, T. J. Maxwell, and D. Zhu, Generating Single-Spike Hard X- Ray Pulses with Nonlinear Bunch Compression in Free- Electron Lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 154801 (2017)

    2017

  39. [46]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y. Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijkstal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, N. Mirian, and G. Geloni, Terawatt-attosecond hard X-ray free- electron laser at high repetition rate, Nat. Photon. 18, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  40. [47]

    open the possibility of spatially tracking of electron wavepackets involved in charge migration [48], strong- field ionization [49–51], high-harmonic generation [52], and photoionization [53] for the first time. Improvements in the repetition rate and average brightness of FEL...

    2022

  41. [48]

    S. Li, T. Driver, P. Rosenberger, E. G. Champenois, J. Duris, A. Al-Haddad, V. Averbukh, J. C. T. Barnard, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, P. H. Bucksbaum, R. N. Cof- fee, L. F. DiMauro, L. Fang, D. Garratt, A. Gatton, Z. Guo, G. Hartmann, D. Haxton, W. Helml, Z. Huang, A. C. LaForge, ...

    2022

  42. [49]

    H. J. W¨ orner, C. A. Arrell, N. Banerji, A. Cannizzo, M. Chergui, A. K. Das, P. Hamm, U. Keller, P. M. Kraus, E. Liberatore, P. Lopez-Tarifa, M. Lucchini, M. Meuwly, C. Milne, J.-E. Moser, U. Rothlisberger, G. Smolent- sev, J. Teuscher, J. A. van Bokhoven, and O. Wenger, Char...

    2017

  43. [50]

    Agostini, F

    P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite, and N. K. Rahman, Free-Free Transitions Following Six-Photon Ionization of Xenon Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1127 (1979)

    1979

  44. [51]

    R. R. Freeman, P. H. Bucksbaum, H. Milchberg, S. Darack, D. Schumacher, and M. E. Geusic, Above- threshold ionization with subpicosecond laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1092 (1987)

    1987

  45. [52]

    P. B. Corkum, N. H. Burnett, and F. Brunel, Above- threshold ionization in the long-wavelength limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1259 (1989)

    1989

  46. [53]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. F. Li, L. A. Lompre, G. Main- fray, and C. Manus, Multiple-harmonic conversion of 1064 nm radiation in rare gases, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  47. [54]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann, G. A. Rei- der, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. Corkum, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Attosecond metrology, Na- 8 ture 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  48. [55]

    Northey, A

    T. Northey, A. Kirrander, and P. M. Weber, Extracting the electronic structure signal from X-ray and electron scattering in the gas phase, J Synchrotron Rad 31, 303 (2024)

    2024

  49. [56]

    Boutet and G

    S. Boutet and G. J. Williams, The Coherent X-ray Imag- ing (CXI) instrument at the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), New J. Phys. 12, 035024 (2010)

    2010

  50. [57]

    P. Emma, R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bost- edt, J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Cof- fee, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding, D. Dowell, S. Edstrom, A. Fisher, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, J. Hastings, G. Hays, P. Hering, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, H. Loos, M. Messer- schmidt, A. Miah...

    2010

  51. [58]

    L. Ma, N. Goff, A. M. Carrascosa, S. Nelson, M. Liang, X. Cheng, H. Yong, I. Gabalski, L. Huang, S. W. Crane, A. E. Green, F. Allum, P. Lenzen, S. B. Muvva, L. F. Heald, Y. Liu, S. Bhattacharyya, K. A. Larsen, M. Graßl, R. Forbes, M. Centurion, T. J. A. Wolf, A. Kirrander, M. ...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Cheng, H.-C

    B.-M. Cheng, H.-C. Lu, H.-K. Chen, M. Bahou, Y.-P. Lee, A. M. Mebel, L. C. Lee, M.-C. Liang, and Y. L. Yung, Absorption Cross Sections of NH 3, NH2D, NHD2, and ND 3 in the Spectral Range 140-220 nm and Impli- cations for Planetary Isotopic Fractionation, ApJ 647, 1535 (2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    J. Ma, X. Zhu, H. Guo, and D. R. Yarkony, First prin- ciples determination of the NH 2/ND2( ˜A, ˜X ˜A, ˜X) branch- ing ratios for photodissociation of NH 3/ND3 via full- dimensional quantum dynamics based on a new quasi- diabatic representation of coupled ab initio potential e...

    2012

  54. [62]

    Biesner, L

    J. Biesner, L. Schnieder, G. Ahlers, X. Xie, K. H. Welge, M. N. R. Ashfold, and R. N. Dixon, State selective pho- todissociation dynamics of ˜A state ammonia. II, The Journal of Chemical Physics 91, 2901 (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    H. Yu, N. L. Evans, A. S. Chatterley, G. M. Roberts, V. G. Stavros, and S. Ullrich, Tunneling Dynamics of the NH 3 ( ˜A) State Observed by Time-Resolved Photo- electron and H Atom Kinetic Energy Spectroscopies, J. Phys. Chem. A 118, 9438 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    time tool,

    X. Zhu and D. R. Yarkony, On the representation of coupled adiabatic potential energy surfaces using quasi- diabatic Hamiltonians: A distributed origins expansion approach, The Journal of Chemical Physics 136, 174110 (2012). END MA TTER ON EXPERIMENT AL AND COMPUT A TIONAL DET...

    2012

  57. [65]

    simulations that were reused from Ref. [25]. The AIMS-computed time-resolved populations of the main reaction channels are shown in Fig. 1(b). These trajec- tories were launched on the ν′ 2 = 4 transition [59], one absorption peak lower in energy from the ν′ 2 = 5 transi- tion...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.