Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Speeding-up Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics with Hybrid Functionals using Adaptively Compressed Exchange Operator based Multiple Timestepping

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining an adaptively compressed exchange operator with multiple time stepping cuts the cost of hybrid-functional ab initio molecular dynamics by roughly sevenfold while keeping energy conservation and structural accuracy.

desk verdict A sound but incremental methods paper: the ACE/r-RESPA split is new and the 32-water tests look right, but the 7x speed-up is anchored to one system and a loose energy-conservation metric. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08510 v1 pith:RK77XRY4 submitted 2019-08-22 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph

Sagarmoy Mandal , Nisanth N. Nair This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords abinitiomoleculardynamicshybriddensityfunctionalsadaptivelycompressedexchangeoperatorr-RESPAmultipletimesteppingplane-wavebasisPBE0liquidwaterexact
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to make hybrid-functional ab initio molecular dynamics affordable for condensed-phase simulations. Its proposal is to split the ionic forces into a fast, cheap part computed with an adaptively compressed exchange operator and a slow correction equal to the difference between the full hybrid force and the compressed one, then propagate the nuclei with the r-RESPA multiple-time-step scheme so the expensive correction is recomputed only once per outer timestep. On a 32-molecule water box at the PBE0 level, an outer timestep of about 7.2 fs with fifteen internal steps yields roughly a sevenfold CPU-time speed-up over conventional integration with a 1.4 fs step, with total-energy fluctuations close to those of the conventional run and essentially identical radial distribution functions and vibrational spectra. If the speed-up transfers to other systems, it would make long hybrid-level trajectories practical for problems where cheaper density functionals are known to be too approximate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adaptively compressed exchange (ACE) operator, $\hat{V}_X^{\mathrm{ACE}} = -\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\mathrm{orb}}} |P_k\rangle\langle P_k|$, a low-rank approximation to the full exact-exchange operator. Applying it to each occupied orbital costs a few simple inner products instead of the $N_{\mathrm{orb}}^2 N_G \log N_G$ plane-wave transform cost of the exact operator. The paper uses this operator to define the fast force component in an r-RESPA multiple-time-step integrator: $\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{ACE}}$ is cheap enough to refresh every inner step, while the expensive correction $\Delta\mathbf{F}$ is updated only at the outer step, whose size is justified by the observed smoothness of $\Delta\mathbf{F}$ over roughly 7 fs for liquid water.

What would settle it

The central requirement can be tested directly: compute $\Delta\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{hybrid}} - \mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{ACE}}$ along a trajectory for a system with fast charge or spin dynamics (for example, a proton-transfer or transition-metal system) and measure how long its autocorrelation persists. If the correlation time is comparable to the inner step $\delta t$ rather than the outer step $\Delta t$, or if an MTS-15 run shows total-energy drift worse than a conventional 1.4 fs run, the timescale separation that the speed-up relies on does not hold for that system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the exact-exchange contribution to the ionic force does not have to be evaluated every molecular-dynamics step. Writing the hybrid force as $\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{hybrid}} = \mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{ACE}} + \Delta\mathbf{F}$ (Eq. 7), the paper identifies $\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{ACE}}$, computed from a low-rank adaptively compressed exchange operator $\hat{V}_X^{\mathrm{ACE}} = -\sum_k |P_k\rangle\langle P_k|$, as the fast force and $\Delta\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{hybrid}} - \mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{ACE}}$ as the slow force. A symmetric Trotter factorization (r-RESPA) then advances the slow correction once per outer step $\Delta t = n\,\delta t$ while the cheap fast force is updated every inner step $\delta t \approx 0.5$ fs. For a 32-water PBE0 system, $n=5$ gives a 4-fold speed-up and $n=15$ a 7-fold speed-up compared with conventional integration, with $\log_{10}(\Delta E)$ equal to $-5.2$ versus $-6.8$ for the conventional run at 1.4 fs, and the oxygen-oxygen, oxygen-hydrogen, and hydrogen-hydrogen radial distribution functions and the power spectrum in excellent agreement with the reference trajectory. The construction of the ACE operator, which costs as much as one exact-exchange application and is done once per MD step, remains the computational bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The entire speed-up rests on the claim that the difference between the full hybrid force and the compressed-exchange force is smooth on the timescale of the outer timestep; the paper demonstrates this for one 32-water system, not for all systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid-functional AIMD trajectories for liquid water can be propagated with an outer timestep near 7.2 fs while keeping energy drift within the range of a conventional 1.4 fs integration.
  • The speed-up is 4-fold at $n=5$ and roughly 7-fold at $n=15$; in both cases the structural and vibrational properties match the reference trajectory.
  • Because the ACE operator costs as much as one exact-exchange application to construct, further speed-ups must come from making that construction cheaper or reusing the operator over several steps.
  • The scheme works in both microcanonical and thermostatted simulations, and thermostatting also damps resonances that could appear with large outer steps.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same force-splitting idea should transfer to other hybrid functionals and other condensed-phase systems, but only if the user first checks that $\Delta\mathbf{F}$ is smooth over the proposed outer timestep; a spectrum or autocorrelation of $\Delta\mathbf{F}$ is a cheap diagnostic.
  • Editorial inference: if the ACE construction could be recycled over several MD steps instead of being rebuilt from scratch, the speed-up would grow from roughly $n$ toward $n$ times the construction-to-application cost ratio, which the paper's own timings suggest is a large further gain.
  • Editorial inference: systems with fast electronic rearrangements, such as proton-transfer reactions, small-gap metals, or photoexcited states, are the natural stress test; if $\Delta\mathbf{F}$ varies on the inner-step timescale there, the outer timestep must shrink and most of the speed-up disappears.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper combines the adaptively compressed exchange (ACE) operator with reversible reference system propagator (r-RESPA) multiple time stepping to accelerate hybrid-functional ab initio molecular dynamics. The exact force is split as F_hybrid = F_ACE + ΔF (Eq. (7)), with the cheap ACE force treated as the fast component and the residual ΔF treated as the slow component. The method is implemented in CPMD and benchmarked on a 32-water system at the PBE0 level. The authors report that MTS-15 (outer step ≈7.5 fs, inner step ≈0.5 fs) gives total energy fluctuations that they describe as comparable to a velocity-Verlet run at 1.4 fs, reproduces the radial distribution functions and power spectra of bulk water, and yields a per-MD-step CPU speed-up of about 7 over conventional VV.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a practically valuable method: the exact force split is an identity with no fitted parameters, the benchmark shows good structural and dynamical agreement, and the method directly addresses a recognized cost bottleneck in hybrid-functional AIMD. The paper does not ship code or data, so the CPU timings cannot be independently checked, and the transferability of the slow-force assumption is not yet established. Nevertheless, the algorithmic idea is clear, the benchmark is the right kind of test, and the paper is a reasonable methods contribution pending the clarifications below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I, Table II, and conclusion] The speed-up is quoted per MD step, but the VV and MTS runs use different physical time steps (VV uses Δt=1.4 fs; MTS-15 uses Δt≈7.5 fs). A per-MD-step CPU ratio therefore does not measure the wall-clock time needed to reach a fixed simulated physical time. Using the reported tCPU values, the physical-time-normalized speed-up is roughly a factor of 36, not 7, but the accuracy-adjusted speed-up is never given. The manuscript must explicitly define the timing metric and report both the per-physical-time speed-up and the speed-up at a defined accuracy tolerance; without this, the headline '~7 fold' is ambiguous.
  2. [Table I and Eq. (8)] The claim that MTS-n runs with n up to 15 have 'total energy conservation comparable' to the VV run is not quantitatively supported. Table I reports log10(ΔE) = −6.8 for VV and −5.2 for MTS-15, i.e., about a factor of 40 larger energy fluctuation for MTS-15. Since no accuracy threshold is defined, the statement is subjective, and the reader cannot determine what maximum outer timestep (and hence what speed-up) would be allowed if VV-level energy conservation were required.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Eq. (7)] The load-bearing assumption is that ΔF = F_hybrid − F_ACE varies slowly on the outer timestep scale. The only evidence is visual inspection of 1000 MD steps for a single 32-water trajectory (Fig. 1(a) and (b)). No autocorrelation time of ΔF, no second system, and no second thermodynamic state are provided. This leaves the transferability of the method and of the reported speed-up unestablished. Please add a quantitative measure of the ΔF timescale and at least one additional test system (e.g., a different density, temperature, or molecule) or explicitly restate the claims as system-specific.
  4. [Table II] The timing components in Table II are not internally consistent with Table I. The 'CPU time per SCF using VX operator' is 24 s and the 'Average CPU time for the construction of VACE_X at the beginning of every MD step' is also 24 s; if both are incurred every outer step, their sum alone (48 s) exceeds the reported MTS-15 tCPU of 38 s. The authors must clarify whether the construction of VACE_X and the evaluation of F_hybrid share the same VX computation, and they should give a cost breakdown that adds up to the Table I values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1] The caption lists panel (d) for log10(ΔE) versus time step, but the figure as rendered contains only panels (a)–(c); the referenced panel should be included.
  2. [Text after Eq. (7)] The phrase 'In Figures 1(a) and (b)' should be 'In Figure 1(a) and (b)'.
  3. [Table I and text] The text says 'MTS-n runs with n up to 15 have total energy conservation comparable to VV run using a timestep 1.4 fs' without defining 'comparable'; since numeric values are available in Table I, giving a threshold or a statistical test would be more informative.
  4. [Table II] The manuscript does not report the number of SCF iterations per MD step or the SCF convergence criterion in the timing runs; this information is needed to interpret the per-step CPU times.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MTS-ACE method is benchmarked against an independent conventional velocity Verlet reference, and no fitted parameter is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central decomposition in Eq. (7), F_hybrid = F_ACE + Delta F, defines the fast and slow force components from the ACE-approximated and full exchange operators, and the r-RESPA propagation in Eq. (6) is a standard Trotter factorization. The accuracy of the method is assessed by comparing MTS-5 and MTS-15 trajectories against a conventional velocity Verlet run at the same PBE0 level, using total energy fluctuation (Eq. 8), potential energy traces, radial distribution functions, and power spectra. No quantity in the paper is fitted to reproduce a target observable; the VV run is an independent reference, not an output of the proposed scheme. The self-citation (Ref. 12) is cited as background for prior MTS work and is not load-bearing for the new claim. The speed-up estimates in Tables I and II are CPU-time measurements, not derived from the claimed accuracy. Even though one might challenge the loose energy-conservation metric or the transferability of the timescale separation observed in Figure 1, those are scientific robustness concerns rather than circularity. The paper does not define any input in terms of its target prediction, does not rename a known result, and does not invoke a self-citation to forbid alternatives. The central claim is therefore not circular.

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

The method's contribution is algorithmic, not a new physical law. It has no fitted physical parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard DFT approximations, the r-RESPA factorization, the ACE low-rank approximation, and an empirical fast/slow force separation. The paper explicitly names the ACE construction as the bottleneck and leaves its improvement to future work, which is a fair limitation statement.

free parameters (2)
  • inner timestep delta t = ~0.5 fs
    Chosen by hand as the fast force timestep; the energy drift of the MTS runs depends on this value.
  • MTS outer timestep ratio n = 5 and 15
    User-selected integer ratios giving outer timesteps of 2.5 and 7.5 fs; n=15 gives the ~7x speedup and is chosen from energy-conservation tests, not from a first-principles estimate of the slow-force timescale.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation and PBE0/plane-wave DFT with norm-conserving pseudopotentials describe liquid water adequately.
    All benchmarks and accuracy statements inherit the standard DFT approximations; the paper validates only against a VV baseline, not against experimental data.
  • standard math Trotter factorization (Eq. 6) of the Liouville propagator is accurate for the chosen inner and outer timesteps.
    r-RESPA is a standard reversible integrator; the practical accuracy depends on timestep choice and is benchmarked through energy conservation in Figure 1(d).
  • domain assumption ACE operator (Eq. 2) reproduces the action of the exact exchange operator closely enough for forces and dynamics.
    The paper relies on Refs. 16, 17 for this low-rank approximation; no error bound for the time-dependent force is provided, only trajectory-level benchmarks.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual force delta F = F_hybrid - F_ACE is slow on the outer timestep scale for all systems.
    This is the load-bearing timescale separation; it is demonstrated in Figure 1 for one 32-water system, and its validity for general systems is untested.
  • domain assumption Always Stable Predictor Corrector extrapolation gives initial guesses accurate enough for one ACE construction per MD step to suffice.
    The efficiency accounting assumes the predictor-corrector extrapolation keeps the initial wavefunction close enough that a single ACE construction per MD step is sufficient; this is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speeding-up Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics with Hybrid Functionals using Adaptively Compressed Exchange Operator based Multiple Timestepping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RK77XRY4

@misc{pith2026190808510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speeding-up Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics with Hybrid Functionals using Adaptively Compressed Exchange Operator based Multiple Timestepping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RK77XRY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08510}
}
read the original abstract

Ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulations using hybrid density functionals and plane waves are of great interest owing to the accuracy of this approach in treating condensed matter systems. On the other hand, such AIMD calculations are not routinely carried out since the computational cost involved in applying the Hartree Fock exchange operator is very high. In this work, we make use of a strategy that combines adaptively compressed exchange operator formulation and multiple time step integration to significantly reduce the computational cost of these simulations. We demonstrate the efficiency of this approach for a realistic condensed matter system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Test results for 32-water system using PBE0 func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Flowchart of the MTS propagation scheme proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Radial distribution functions (RDFs) for bulk water [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    Marx \ and\ author J

    author author D. Marx \ and\ author J. Hutter ,\ @noop title Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics: Basic Theory and Advanced Methods \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ address Cambridge ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Todorova , author A

    author author T. Todorova , author A. P. \ Seitsonen , author J. Hutter , author I.-F. W. \ Kuo , \ and\ author C. J. \ Mundy ,\ 10.1021/jp055127v journal journal J. Phys. Chem. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 3685 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1021/jp055127v 2006

  6. [6]

    Zhang , author D

    author author C. Zhang , author D. Donadio , author F. Gygi , \ and\ author G. Galli ,\ 10.1021/ct2000952 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 1443 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/ct2000952 2011

  7. [7]

    author author R. A. \ DiStasio Jr. , author B. Santra , author Z. Li , author X. Wu , \ and\ author R. Car ,\ 10.1063/1.4893377 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 141 ,\ pages 084502 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.4893377 2014

  8. [8]

    Ambrosio , author G

    author author F. Ambrosio , author G. Miceli , \ and\ author A. Pasquarello ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b03876 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. B \ volume 120 ,\ pages 7456 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b03876 2016

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    author author M. E. \ Tuckerman , author G. J. \ Martyna , \ and\ author B. J. \ Berne ,\ 10.1063/1.459140 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 93 ,\ pages 1287 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Tuckerman , author B

    author author M. Tuckerman , author B. J. \ Berne , \ and\ author G. J. \ Martyna ,\ 10.1063/1.463137 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 97 ,\ pages 1990 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    Wu , author A

    author author X. Wu , author A. Selloni , \ and\ author R. Car ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.085102 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 79 ,\ pages 085102 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Gygi \ and\ author I

    author author F. Gygi \ and\ author I. Duchemin ,\ 10.1021/ct3007088 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 9 ,\ pages 582 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Dawson \ and\ author F

    author author W. Dawson \ and\ author F. Gygi ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00826 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 11 ,\ pages 4655 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    author author L. E. \ Ratcliff , author A. Degomme , author J. A. \ Flores-Livas , author S. Goedecker , \ and\ author L. Genovese ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/30/i=9/a=095901 journal journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \ volume 30 ,\ pages 095901 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  7. [15]

    Mandal , author J

    author author S. Mandal , author J. Debnath , author B. Meyer , \ and\ author N. N. \ Nair ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 149 ,\ pages 144113 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  8. [16]

    Guidon , author F

    author author M. Guidon , author F. Schiffmann , author J. Hutter , \ and\ author J. VandeVondele ,\ 10.1063/1.2931945 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 214104 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Liberatore , author R

    author author E. Liberatore , author R. Meli , \ and\ author U. Rothlisberger ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01189 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 2834 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Fatehi \ and\ author R

    author author S. Fatehi \ and\ author R. P. \ Steele ,\ 10.1021/ct500904x journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 11 ,\ pages 884 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Lin ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00092 journal journal J

    author author L. Lin ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00092 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 2242 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Hu , author L

    author author W. Hu , author L. Lin , author A. S. \ Banerjee , author E. Vecharynski , \ and\ author C. Yang ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b01184 journal journal J. Chem. Theory Comput. \ volume 13 ,\ pages 1188 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Chawla \ and\ author G

    author author S. Chawla \ and\ author G. A. \ Voth ,\ 10.1063/1.476307 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 4697 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

  14. [22]

    Hutter et al

    author author J. Hutter et al. ,\ @noop title CPMD : A n A b I nitio E lectronic S tructure and M olecular D ynamics P rogram ,\ note see http://www.cpmd.org NoStop

  15. [23]

    Adamo \ and\ author V

    author author C. Adamo \ and\ author V. Barone ,\ 10.1063/1.478522 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 110 ,\ pages 6158 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    Troullier \ and\ author J

    author author N. Troullier \ and\ author J. L. \ Martins ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.43.1993 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 43 ,\ pages 1993 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  17. [25]

    author author G. J. \ Martyna , author M. L. \ Klein , \ and\ author M. Tuckerman ,\ 10.1063/1.463940 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 97 ,\ pages 2635 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  18. [26]

    Ma , author J

    author author Q. Ma , author J. Izaguirre , \ and\ author R. Skeel ,\ 10.1137/S1064827501399833 journal journal SIAM J. Sci. Comput. \ volume 24 ,\ pages 1951 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    1951 doi

  19. [27]

    Kolafa ,\ 10.1002/jcc.10385 journal journal J

    author author J. Kolafa ,\ 10.1002/jcc.10385 journal journal J. Comput. Chem. \ volume 25 ,\ pages 335 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    Carnimeo , author S

    author author I. Carnimeo , author S. Baroni , \ and\ author P. Giannozzi ,\ 10.1088/2516-1075/aaf7d4 journal journal Electron. Struct. \ volume 1 ,\ pages 015009 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

  22. [30]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.