Orbital Interaction Mechanisms of Conductance Enhancement and Rectification by Dithiocarboxylate Anchoring Group

D. S. Kosov; Zhenyu Li

REVIEW

Orbital Interaction Mechanisms of Conductance Enhancement and Rectification by Dithiocarboxylate Anchoring Group

Zhenyu Li, D. S. Kosov

Materials Science · Submitted 28 Feb 2006 · 25 references

Pith's verdict: A clean orbital-interaction story for conductance enhancement and a clever rectification mechanism, but the near-Fermi resonances rest on an LDA level alignment that a scissor shift could destroy.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0603001 (version 2)

Pith IDWQXXB5BB, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationD. S. Kosov, Zhenyu Li. "Orbital Interaction Mechanisms of Conductance Enhancement and Rectification by Dithiocarboxylate Anchoring Group." arXiv:cond-mat/0603001 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/WQXXB5BB

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

What you should know: this paper gives the clearest orbital-interaction story I've seen for why dithiocarboxylate anchors enhance molecular conductance, and it proposes a rectification mechanism that flips the usual coupling-strength logic. Both ideas are worth engaging with. The central claim is that for 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate) (BDCT), the dithiocarboxylate LUMO sits close to the Au Fermi level and mixes with the biphenyl HOMO and LUMO to create bonding and antibonding resonances that produce the broad transmission plateau between 0.1 and 1.1 eV. That is a genuinely different explanation from the 'stronger coupling' picture of their earlier dithiocarbamate work, and the MPSH analysis in Table I and Fig. 4 backs it up cleanly. For the asymmetric TBCT junction, they predict that transmission peaks A and B shift with opposite electrodes, so both contribute to rectification in the same direction—again a nice twist on the standard picture where two resonances tend to cancel.

The paper does several things well. The orbital decomposition is transparent; every transmission feature is mapped to a specific MPSH orbital, and the interaction diagram is simple enough to check by eye. There is no parameter fitting to the experimental conductance or rectification, so the interpretation is not circular. The GGA and 4x4 k-point tests, while not decisive for the level-alignment issue, show the main features are robust to those choices.

The soft spot is real and load-bearing. The dithiocarboxylate LUMO energy epsilon_CT = 0.35 eV is taken from a small-molecule calculation (H2S2-CH), not from the self-consistent junction. The mechanism depends on this level sitting almost exactly at the Fermi energy (orbital 45 at 0.003 eV in Table I). DFT-LDA is known to place unoccupied molecular levels too low relative to a metal Fermi level because of self-interaction error; the paper's own currents are four orders of magnitude too high, which is a symptom of the same problem. A scissor shift of 0.5-1 eV on unoccupied levels would push these resonances out of the bias window and eliminate the predicted conductance enhancement. The GGA and k-point tests cannot cure this because they share the same self-interaction error. The rectification prediction is less sensitive in principle—it relies on opposite shifts of orbitals localized on different ends—but the absolute energies still matter for the bias window. So the qualitative mechanism is a plausible hypothesis, but the paper overstates confidence when it says the 'microscopic origin' is 'established.'

I'd send this to a serious referee. The ideas are novel and clearly communicated, and the orbital-interaction principle is a useful design rule even if the numbers shift. But the referee should ask for a scissor-correction or hybrid-functional sensitivity test. If the near-Fermi resonance disappears under that test, the enhancement story would have to be revised; the rectification idea might still survive.

Who's it for: anyone working on anchor-group chemistry in molecular electronics. I'd assign it to a graduate student reading group when discussing DFT-NEGF pitfalls and orbital interpretations, but I wouldn't cite it in my own work given the known level-alignment uncertainty.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with the sensitivity test as a required revision. It's a valuable contribution that deserves a rigorous referee, even though the quantitative evidence is weaker than the prose suggests.

Referee report

Significance

The paper gives a clear orbital-interaction interpretation of transport through dithiocarboxylate linkers, with transmission resonances matched to MPSH eigenvalues in Table I. The distinction between coupling-strength and electronic-structure origins is a useful conceptual contribution, and the predicted TBCT rectification is a falsifiable proposal. However, the central mechanism rests on the placement of an unoccupied dithiocarboxylate-derived level near the Fermi energy, which is the most delicate quantity in LDA-based transport calculations; the paper's own current values exceed experiment by four orders of magnitude. The qualitative mechanism is plausible but not established at the level claimed, and the quantitative agreement with the experimental conductance ratio is only approximate.

Major objections (2)

[Section III.B, Figure 4, and Table I] The conductance enhancement mechanism depends on the dithiocarboxylate LUMO-derived MPSH orbital 45 lying at 0.003 eV above the Fermi energy. This placement ultimately traces to the estimate epsilon_CT = 0.35 eV obtained from isolated H2S2-CH molecular orbitals rather than from the self-consistent junction electronic structure. Standard LDA self-interaction error tends to place unoccupied molecular levels too close to the metal Fermi level, and the GGA and 4x4 k-point tests reported in Section II do not address this systematic error. I therefore request a sensitivity test that shifts the LUMO-derived level up by 0.5 and 1.0 eV (for example, by a scissor correction or a hybrid-functional single-point calculation) and recomputes the transmission and I-V curves. If the near-Fermi plateau and the roughly 2.1x enhancement disappear, the central claim must be reformulated; if they survive, the orbital-interaction picture is robust.
[Section III.C, Figure 5, and Table II] The new rectification mechanism is supported by the observation that peaks A and B shift in opposite directions with bias, but the attribution of these shifts to coupling via the thiol or dithiocarboxylate side is qualitative, based on the spatial form of MPSH orbitals 39 and 40 in Figure 3c. To demonstrate that the peaks follow the chemical potential of the more strongly coupled electrode, the authors should quantify the left/right coupling asymmetry, for example by reporting the projected coupling matrices Gamma_L and Gamma_R for these orbitals or the electrode self-energy contributions. Without such a quantitative measure, the claim that this is an entirely new mechanism distinct from the standard coupling-strength picture is not fully supported.

Minor objections (6)

[Table I] The column header 'TBDT' appears to be a typo for 'TBCT' (4'-thiolato-biphenyl-4-dithiocarboxylate).
[Figure 5 caption] The caption text contains an uninterpretable sequence of characters ('/s45 /s50 ...') that appears to be a corrupted figure artifact; the authors should replace it with the intended caption.
[Abstract and Section I] The abstract contains the typo 'enhancemen t', and Section I uses 'dithiocarbomate' where 'dithiocarbamate' is intended.
[Section III.B] The sentence 'Peaks in BDTC transmission do not show significant additional broadening with respect to BDT resonances' uses the abbreviation 'BDTC' instead of 'BDCT'.
[Section III.C] The definition of the rectification coefficient R = I(V)/I(-V) at 1.0 eV bias voltage is stated without clarifying the sign convention of the current at negative bias; a short explanation would improve reproducibility.
[Table I and Figure 3] The MPSH orbital numbering convention is not explained; stating that orbitals are ordered by eigenvalue would help readers interpret the correspondence between orbitals and transmission resonances.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper establishes that the experimentally observed conductance enhancement in dithiocarboxylate-terminated molecular wires comes from a near-Fermi orbital interaction between the anchoring group and the wire, not from stronger…

The reading

This paper aims to explain, from first-principles transport calculations, why molecular wires terminated by dithiocarboxylate anchors conduct better than identical wires terminated by thiol anchors, and to predict a new mechanism of current rectification. For 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate), the empty lowest unoccupied orbital of the anchoring group sits close to the gold Fermi energy and hybridizes with the biphenyl HOMO and LUMO, creating bonding and antibonding transmission resonances right around the Fermi level. That near-Fermi transmission, not stronger molecule-electrode coupling, is the origin of the conductance enhancement. For an asymmetric wire with a thiol on one end and a dithiocarboxylate on the other, the paper predicts that different transmission peaks follow the chemical potentials of different electrodes, so both peaks push current in the same direction under bias, giving a rectification ratio of about 2.8 at one volt. A sympathetic reader would care because it turns anchoring-group chemistry into a design handle for molecular conductance and rectification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the molecular projected self-consistent Hamiltonian (MPSH) and its orbital-interaction diagram: after a self-consistent junction calculation, the Hamiltonian is projected onto the basis functions of the molecule, and the resulting renormalized molecular orbitals are decomposed into linear combinations of two anchoring-group orbitals (the sulphur 3p orbital for thiol and the LUMO of dithiocarboxylate) and the biphenyl HOMO/LUMO. This decomposition explains which transmission resonances lie near the Fermi energy and, for an asymmetric junction, which electrode's chemical potential each resonance follows under applied voltage.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using self-consistent density functional theory combined with nonequilibrium Green's function transport calculations, the paper establishes that the microscopic origin of the experimentally observed conductance enhancement by dithiocarboxylate anchoring groups is a disparity in electronic structure, not a disparity in coupling strength. For the 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate) junction, the additional broad transmission peak near the electrode Fermi energy comes from two molecular projected self-consistent Hamiltonian (MPSH) orbitals, 45 and 46, which are bonding and antibonding combinations of the dithiocarboxylate LUMO with the biphenyl HOMO and LUMO. Their energies (0.003 eV and 0.849 eV relative to the Fermi level) straddle the Fermi energy, giving almost perfect transmission across a wide energy window. The same orbital-interaction picture explains a new rectification mechanism in the asymmetric thiol/dithiocarboxylate junction: the transmission peak attached to the thiol side follows the chemical potential of the right electrode, the peak attached to the dithiocarboxylate side follows the left electrode, and a third peak stays fixed, so all resonances contribute constructively to rectification with a predicted rectification coefficient of about 2.8 at 1.0 V bias.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism rests on placing the isolated dithiocarboxylate LUMO at 0.35 eV above the gold Fermi energy, an estimate taken from a small model compound rather than from the self-consistent junction calculation itself; if that orbital sat elsewhere in the real junction, the claimed near-Fermi resonances would not appear and the enhancement mechanism would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the electronic-structure mechanism is right, replacing thiol linkers with dithiocarboxylate linkers on the same conjugated core should reproducibly raise near-Fermi transmission, with a computed conductance gain of about 2.1 relative to the thiol wire (somewhat larger than the measured 1.4).
The rectification mechanism predicts that in an asymmetric thiol/dithiocarboxylate junction, two transmission peaks move in opposite directions with voltage and contribute additively to the current, yielding a rectification ratio of about 2.8 at 1.0 V bias.
The standard coupling-strength picture of molecular rectification is insufficient: anchoring groups can control which electrode's chemical potential a resonance follows, so resonances above and below the Fermi level need not cancel each other's rectifying contributions.
The orbital-interaction diagram provides a guiding principle: transport properties can be predicted from the energy alignment of anchoring-group orbitals with the core's HOMO/LUMO and with the electrode Fermi level.

Reading between the lines

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

The mechanism suggests a design rule the paper does not state: any anchoring group whose vacant orbital lies near the electrode Fermi energy should generically enhance conductance of a conjugated core by inserting bonding and antibonding resonances into the transport window, so other electron-poor linkers may behave similarly.
The rectification mechanism is likely tunable: substituting groups on the biphenyl or shifting the linker's LUMO energy should move the bias voltages at which the two peaks enter the integration range, allowing control of the rectification ratio and its polarity.
A testable extension is to compute transmission for longer oligophenyl cores or different electrode separations; the orbital-interaction picture predicts the near-Fermi resonance persists as long as the dithiocarboxylate LUMO remains aligned with the Fermi level.
Because the quantitative predictions rest on a small-molecule estimate of the dithiocarboxylate LUMO energy, the numbers (conductance gain of 2.1, rectification of 2.8) could shift in a fully self-consistent embedding, but the qualitative mechanism is the robust part.

Original abstract

We study computationally the electron transport properties of dithiocarboxylate terminated molecular junctions. Transport properties are computed self-consistently within density functional theory and nonequilibrium Green's functions formalism. A microscopic origin of the experimentally observed current amplification by dithiocarboxylate anchoring groups is established. For the 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate) junction, we find that the interaction of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the dithiocarboxylate anchoring group with LUMO and highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the biphenyl part results in bonding and antibonding resonances in the transmission spectrum in the vicinity of the electrode Fermi energy. A new microscopic mechanism of rectification is predicted based on the electronic structure of asymmetrical anchoring groups. We show that the peaks in the transmission spectra of 4'-thiolato-biphenyl-4-dithiocarboxylate junction respond differently to the applied voltage. Depending upon the origin of a transmission resonance in the orbital interaction picture, its energy can be shifted along with the chemical potential of the electrode to which the molecule is more strongly or more weakly coupled.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,751 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.06 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.07 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.24 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study computationally the electron transport properties of dithiocarboxylate terminated molecular junctions. Transport properties are computed self-consistently within density functional theory and nonequilibrium Green's functions formalism. A microscopic origin of the experimentally observed current amplification by dithiocarboxylate anchoring groups is established. For the 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate) junction, we find that the interaction of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the dithiocarboxylate anchoring group with LUMO and highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the biphenyl part results in bonding and antibonding resonances in the transmission spectrum in the vicinity of the electrode Fermi energy. A new microscopic mechanism of rectification is predicted based on the electronic structure of asymmetrical anchoring groups. We show that the peaks in the transmission spectra of 4'-thiolato-biphenyl-4-dithiocarboxylate junction respond differently to the applied voltage. Depending upon the origin of a transmission resonance in the orbital interaction picture, its energy can be shifted along with the chemical potential of the electrode to which the molecule is more strongly or more weakly coupled.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study computationally the electron transport properties of dithiocarboxylate terminated molecular junctions.	contribution 0.99	0.94	0.03	asserted 0.79
s1	Transport properties are computed self-consistently within density functional theory and nonequilibrium Green's functions formalism.	method 1.00	0.87	0.02	asserted 0.98
s2	A microscopic origin of the experimentally observed current amplification by dithiocarboxylate anchoring groups is established.	result 0.77	0.93	0.62	asserted 1.00
s3	For the 4,4'-biphenyl bis(dithiocarboxylate) junction, we find that the interaction of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the dithiocarboxylate anchoring group with LUMO and highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the biphenyl part results in bonding and antibonding resonances in the transmission spectrum in the vicinity of the electrode Fermi energy.	result 0.90	0.96	0.32	asserted 1.00
s4	A new microscopic mechanism of rectification is predicted based on the electronic structure of asymmetrical anchoring groups.	contribution 0.54	0.88	0.20	asserted 0.83
s5	We show that the peaks in the transmission spectra of 4'-thiolato-biphenyl-4-dithiocarboxylate junction respond differently to the applied voltage.	result 1.00	0.93	0.07	asserted 1.00
s6	Depending upon the origin of a transmission resonance in the orbital interaction picture, its energy can be shifted along with the chemical potential of the electrode to which the molecule is more strongly or more weakly coupled.	interpretation 0.75	0.87	0.14	asserted 0.78

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Relaxed geometry of molecular wire junctions with di

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) Zero voltage bias transmission spectra and (b) cu

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: MPSH orbitals near gold electrode Fermi level for (a)

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: Schematic orbital interaction picture. Interactio

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5: Voltage-dependant transmission spectrum of the TBC

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6: Coupling strength (CS) and orbital interaction (OI)

Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0603001 by the authors.

References

Works cited (25)

[1]

Nitzan, A.; Ratner, M. A. Science 2003, 300, 1384

View on Pith 2003
[2]

Joachim, C.; Ratner, M. A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 8801

View on Pith 2005
[3]

Venkataraman, L.; Klare, J. E.; Tam, I. W.; Nuckolls, C.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Steigerwald, M. L. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 458

View on Pith 2006
[4]

Li, X.; He, J.; Hihath, J.; Xu, B.; Lindsay, S. M.; Tao, N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 2135

View on Pith 2006
[5]

Kim, B.; Beebe, J. M.; Jun, Y.; Zhu, X.-Y.; Frisbie, C. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4970

View on Pith 2006
[6]

Xue, Y.; Ratner, M. A. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 115406

View on Pith 2003
[7]

Ke, S.-H.; Baranger, H. U.; Yang, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 15897

View on Pith 2004
[8]

Basch, H.; Cohen, R.; Ratner, M. A. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1668

View on Pith 2005
[9]

Ke, S.-H.; Baranger, H. U.; Yang, W. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 114701

View on Pith 2005
[10]

Li, Z.; Kosov, D. S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 9893

View on Pith 2006
[11]

Siaj, M.; McBreen, P. H. Science 2005, 309, 588

View on Pith 2005
[12]

Tulevski, G. S.; Myers, M. B.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Steigerwald, M. L., Nuckolls, C. Science 2005, 309, 591

View on Pith 2005
[13]

Guo, X.; Small, J. P.; Klare, J. E.; Wang, Y.; Purewal, M. S.; Tam, I. W.; Hong, B. H.; Caldwell, R.; Huang, L.; O'Brien, S.; Yan, J.; Breslow, R.; Wind, S. J.; Hone, J.; Kim, P.; Nuckolls, C. Science 2006, 311, 356

View on Pith 2006
[14]

Guo, X. et al., Science 2006, 311, 356

View on Pith 2006
[15]

Akkerman, H. B.; Blom, P. W. M.; de Leeuw, D. M.; de Boer B. Nature 2006, 441, 69

View on Pith 2006
[16]

Tivanski, A. V.; He, Y.; Borguet, E.; Liu, H.; Walker, G. C.; Waldeck, D. H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 5398

View on Pith 2005
[17]

In bipyridine based molecular junction system, we

View on Pith
[18]

Aviram, A; Ratner, M. A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 29, 277-283

View on Pith 1974
[19]

Metzger, R. M. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 3803

View on Pith 2003
[20]

Taylor, J.; Brandbyge, M.; Stokbro, K. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 138301

View on Pith 2002
[21]

Soler, J. M.; Artacho, E., Gale, J.; Garcia, A., Junquera, J.; Ordejon, P.; Sanchez-Portal, D. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2002, 14, 2745-2779

View on Pith 2002
[22]

Brandbyge, M.; Mozos, J.-L.; Ordejon, P.; Taylor, J.; Stokbro, K. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 65, 165401

View on Pith 2002
[23]

Troullier, N; Martins, J. L. Phys. Rev. B 1991, 43, 1993

View on Pith 1991
[24]

Perdew, J. P.; Zunger, A. Phys. Rev. B 1981, 23, 5048

View on Pith 1981
[25]

Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865

View on Pith 1996

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Nitzan, A.; Ratner, M. A. Science 2003, 300, 1384

View on Pith 2003

[2] [2]

Joachim, C.; Ratner, M. A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2005, 102, 8801

View on Pith 2005

[3] [3]

Venkataraman, L.; Klare, J. E.; Tam, I. W.; Nuckolls, C.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Steigerwald, M. L. Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 458

View on Pith 2006

[4] [4]

Li, X.; He, J.; Hihath, J.; Xu, B.; Lindsay, S. M.; Tao, N. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 2135

View on Pith 2006

[5] [5]

Kim, B.; Beebe, J. M.; Jun, Y.; Zhu, X.-Y.; Frisbie, C. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 4970

View on Pith 2006

[6] [6]

Xue, Y.; Ratner, M. A. Phys. Rev. B 2003, 68, 115406

View on Pith 2003

[7] [7]

Ke, S.-H.; Baranger, H. U.; Yang, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 15897

View on Pith 2004

[8] [8]

Basch, H.; Cohen, R.; Ratner, M. A. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1668

View on Pith 2005

[9] [9]

Ke, S.-H.; Baranger, H. U.; Yang, W. J. Chem. Phys. 2005, 123, 114701

View on Pith 2005

[10] [10]

Li, Z.; Kosov, D. S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 9893

View on Pith 2006

[11] [11]

Siaj, M.; McBreen, P. H. Science 2005, 309, 588

View on Pith 2005

[12] [12]

Tulevski, G. S.; Myers, M. B.; Hybertsen, M. S.; Steigerwald, M. L., Nuckolls, C. Science 2005, 309, 591

View on Pith 2005

[13] [13]

Guo, X.; Small, J. P.; Klare, J. E.; Wang, Y.; Purewal, M. S.; Tam, I. W.; Hong, B. H.; Caldwell, R.; Huang, L.; O'Brien, S.; Yan, J.; Breslow, R.; Wind, S. J.; Hone, J.; Kim, P.; Nuckolls, C. Science 2006, 311, 356

View on Pith 2006

[14] [14]

Guo, X. et al., Science 2006, 311, 356

View on Pith 2006

[15] [15]

Akkerman, H. B.; Blom, P. W. M.; de Leeuw, D. M.; de Boer B. Nature 2006, 441, 69

View on Pith 2006

[16] [16]

Tivanski, A. V.; He, Y.; Borguet, E.; Liu, H.; Walker, G. C.; Waldeck, D. H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 5398

View on Pith 2005

[17] [17]

In bipyridine based molecular junction system, we

View on Pith

[18] [18]

Aviram, A; Ratner, M. A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 29, 277-283

View on Pith 1974

[19] [19]

Metzger, R. M. Chem. Rev. 2003, 103, 3803

View on Pith 2003

[20] [20]

Taylor, J.; Brandbyge, M.; Stokbro, K. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 138301

View on Pith 2002

[21] [21]

Soler, J. M.; Artacho, E., Gale, J.; Garcia, A., Junquera, J.; Ordejon, P.; Sanchez-Portal, D. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2002, 14, 2745-2779

View on Pith 2002

[22] [22]

Brandbyge, M.; Mozos, J.-L.; Ordejon, P.; Taylor, J.; Stokbro, K. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 65, 165401

View on Pith 2002

[23] [23]

Troullier, N; Martins, J. L. Phys. Rev. B 1991, 43, 1993

View on Pith 1991

[24] [24]

Perdew, J. P.; Zunger, A. Phys. Rev. B 1981, 23, 5048

View on Pith 1981

[25] [25]

Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865

View on Pith 1996