{"id":"32865ac5-842d-4337-a81a-fc4def4804a5","arxiv_id":"2607.05930","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"LOW","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"MC-BE/TMMM evaluates dipole-allowed electron-impact excitation cross sections analytically from LR-TDDFT amplitudes without system-specific fitting, matching benzene and naphthalene experimental profiles.","lead":"A parameter-free analytical method computes electron-impact electronic excitation cross sections for polyatomic molecules from ab initio excited-state data. It matches benzene and naphthalene experiments in key energy ranges and offers a cheap route for plasma and radiation modeling.","discovery_kind":"new_method","skeptic_critique":{"model":"grok-4.5","headline":"The amplitude-weighted occupied-orbital ⟨B⟩ used in the BE/BEf prefactor, together with TMMM scaling, is assumed to capture the energy dependence of polyatomic valence excitation ICS without multichannel or polarization corrections that are known to matter near threshold.","rationale":"The reader’s weakest_assumption already isolates the precise load-bearing step: that the LR-TDDFT amplitude-weighted ⟨B⟩ plus TMMM/BE scaling is adequate for the energy dependence of polyatomic valence ICS without higher-order corrections. The full abstract (and the strongest_claim built from it) does not supply independent evidence that this step is controlled—only that the resulting curves happen to match the cited data for two molecules. Because the method is advertised as parameter-free and transferable, that single modeling choice carries the entire claim. No stronger internal inconsistency or circularity appears in the abstract-level argument, and the absence of fitting is a genuine strength; the concern is therefore one of physical completeness rather than formal error. The concrete test above directly probes whether the published ⟨B⟩ recipe is uniquely successful or merely one of several that can be tuned to the same data. Until that (or an equivalent multichannel benchmark) is performed, the CONDITIONAL verdict with low confidence remains the appropriate stance; nothing in the available material warrants moving to ACCEPT or REJECT.","tokens_in":2343,"tokens_out":754,"duration_ms":27720,"concrete_test":"Recompute the benzene 1¹E1u MC-BE/TMMM ICS using three alternative ⟨B⟩ definitions (HOMO-only binding energy; amplitude-weighted occupied orbitals as published; and an occupied+virtual amplitude-weighted variant if the LR-TDDFT amplitudes permit) while holding all other TMMM parameters fixed; overlay the three curves on the experimental data and the Falkowski SMC/tCIS results in the 10–20 eV window. If only the published amplitude-weighted choice reproduces the experimental magnitude and shape to within ~20 %, while the alternatives deviate by more than that, the sufficiency of the specific ⟨B⟩ construction is not robust and the central claim weakens.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim (parameter-free analytical ICS for dipole-allowed transitions that match experiment for benzene 1¹E1u at 10–20 eV and the naphthalene fluorescence proxy without shifts/scaling) rests on two linked steps: (i) constructing an effective binding energy ⟨B⟩ as the amplitude-weighted average of occupied-orbital binding energies taken from LR-TDDFT transition amplitudes, and (ii) inserting that single number into the BE/BEf-scaled threshold-modified Mott-Massey formula. Binary-encounter theory is a high-energy, single-channel picture; near-threshold electron-impact excitation of polyatomics is shaped by polarization, shape resonances, and multichannel coupling. If those effects are not fortuitously absorbed into the LR-TDDFT-derived ⟨B⟩, the reported agreement (and the claimed improvement over SMC/tCIS) is not guaranteed by the formalism. The naphthalene comparison further assumes that the apparent fluorescence cross section is an unscaled, energy-independent proxy for the total excitation ICS under dipole dominance—an assumption that fails if the fluorescence quantum yield varies with energy. The analytic peak-location formula T ≃ 1.5–1.6 ΔE (parameterized by r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE) is a direct consequence of the same BE/TMMM construction and therefore inherits the same limitation.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"grok-4.5","summary":"The manuscript introduces a multiconfigurational binary-encounter (MC-BE) framework that combines threshold-modified Mott–Massey (TMMM) kinematics with BE/BEf scaling to obtain analytical integral electron-impact excitation cross sections for dipole-allowed transitions. The sole non-kinematic input is an effective binding energy ⟨B⟩ constructed as an amplitude-weighted average of occupied-orbital binding energies taken from LR-TDDFT transition amplitudes, with no system-specific fitting. Applications are reported for the benzene 1¹E1u (π→π*) band, where the calculated cross sections are stated to agree with experiment at T = 10–20 eV and to improve on the SMC/tCIS results of Falkowski et al., and for naphthalene, where the total excitation cross section is stated to reproduce the onset and principal maximum of the gas-phase apparent fluorescence cross section without empirical energy shifts or intensity scaling. Analytic peak-location and peak-height formulae parameterized by r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE are also derived.","tokens_in":2582,"tokens_out":1483,"duration_ms":40384,"significance":"If the construction is reliable, the work would supply a low-cost, parameter-free route from standard excited-state electronic-structure output to energy-dependent integral excitation cross sections for polyatomic molecules—material that is otherwise expensive to obtain from multichannel scattering calculations. Explicit credit is due for the parameter-free definition of ⟨B⟩, the absence of post-hoc energy/intensity scaling in the naphthalene comparison, the closed-form peak diagnostics in r, and the stated transferability to other amplitude-providing excited-state methods. Those features make the proposal practically attractive for radiation chemistry, plasma modeling, and astrophysical applications if the underlying approximations hold in the claimed energy window.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The central load-bearing step is the identification of the BE/BEf prefactor binding energy with the amplitude-weighted occupied-orbital average ⟨B⟩ extracted from LR-TDDFT. Binary-encounter theory is a high-energy, single-channel picture; near-threshold polyatomic valence excitation (the 10–20 eV window emphasized for benzene) is known to be shaped by polarization, shape resonances, and multichannel coupling. The manuscript must demonstrate, with a concrete sensitivity test or comparison against a multichannel reference for at least one transition, that these effects are not merely absorbed fortuitously into ⟨B⟩. Without that, the reported improvement over SMC/tCIS and the claim of a transferable, parameter-free method remain under-supported.","section":"Method / BE–BEf prefactor and ⟨B⟩ definition"},{"comment":"The naphthalene validation treats the gas-phase apparent fluorescence cross section as an unscaled, energy-independent proxy for the total dipole-allowed excitation ICS. That identification fails if the fluorescence quantum yield varies with incident energy or if non-radiative channels open above the principal maximum. The manuscript should either (i) cite independent evidence that the quantum yield is approximately constant over the compared energy range, or (ii) reframe the comparison as a shape/onset test rather than a quantitative cross-section validation, and quantify residual scale freedom.","section":"Naphthalene results / fluorescence proxy"},{"comment":"The analytic peak-location formula T ≃ 1.5–1.6 ΔE is a direct algebraic consequence of the same BE/TMMM construction parameterized by r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE. It therefore inherits the validity limits of that construction and cannot be presented as independent empirical support. The manuscript should state this dependence explicitly and, if peak positions are used diagnostically against experiment, show that the observed peaks are not better explained by resonance structure outside the BE model.","section":"Analytic peak-position / peak-height expressions"},{"comment":"For the benzene 1¹E1u comparison, the claim of improvement over Falkowski et al. (SMC/tCIS) at T = 10–20 eV needs a quantitative, energy-resolved error metric (e.g., mean absolute or integrated relative deviation against the same experimental data set) and a clear statement of which experimental reference and absolute scale are used. Qualitative ‘good agreement’ language is insufficient to underwrite the central claim of practical superiority in the near-threshold window.","section":"Benzene results / comparison with experiment and Falkowski et al."}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"State the precise LR-TDDFT functional, basis set, and any continuum or diffuse augmentation used to generate the transition amplitudes and orbital energies that enter ⟨B⟩, so that the amplitude-weighted average is reproducible.","section":"Computational details"},{"comment":"Define the threshold-modified Mott–Massey (TMMM) formula and the BE/BEf scaling factor with explicit equations and the kinematic variables (T, ΔE, ⟨B⟩) before applications, so that the analytic peak formulae can be checked by the reader.","section":"Theory section"},{"comment":"Clarify whether the reported naphthalene ‘total excitation cross section’ is a coherent sum over a defined set of dipole-allowed states or an incoherent sum of individual MC-BE channels, and list which states are retained.","section":"Naphthalene results"},{"comment":"When claiming transferability beyond LR-TDDFT, give at least one concrete example of the amplitude and orbital-energy interface expected from an alternative method (e.g., EOM-CC or CASSCF/CASPT2) so that the claim is operational rather than aspirational.","section":"Discussion / outlook"},{"comment":"Ensure figure captions for benzene and naphthalene cross sections identify the experimental data sources, units, and whether any vertical or horizontal offsets were applied (the text claims none for naphthalene; the figures should make that visually unambiguous).","section":"Figures"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The reader’s and skeptic’s notes correctly identify the load-bearing physics risk: BE/TMMM with an LR-TDDFT-derived ⟨B⟩ is being asked to carry near-threshold polyatomic excitation physics that is not in its formal domain. I do not treat disagreement with multichannel consensus as automatic grounds for rejection, but the manuscript currently lacks an internal test that would let a reader decide whether the benzene/naphthalene agreements are systematic or fortuitous. If the authors can supply a sensitivity analysis on ⟨B⟩, a quantitative error table versus Falkowski et al. and experiment, and a defended fluorescence-proxy argument, the paper could become a useful methods contribution; without those, the central claim remains under-supported for this journal’s standard. Scope fit for physics.chem-ph is appropriate."},"author_rebuttal":{"model":"grok-4.5","summary":"We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The four major comments identify genuine points of under-support in the original manuscript: the load-bearing status of ⟨B⟩ near threshold, the fluorescence-proxy identification for naphthalene, the non-independence of the analytic peak formulae, and the lack of a quantitative error metric for the benzene comparison. We accept each of these as requiring revision. Below we answer point by point, stating what will change in the next version and where we retain (with clarified caveats) the original claims. We believe the revised manuscript will meet the standard of a transferable, parameter-free method whose domain of validity is stated honestly.","responses":[{"response":"We agree that this is the central methodological claim and that the original text under-supported it. Two concrete steps will be taken. (i) Sensitivity test: we will add a figure and short subsection in which ⟨B⟩ for the benzene 1¹E1u band is varied by ±20–30% about the LR-TDDFT amplitude-weighted value while all other inputs are held fixed, and the resulting ICS profiles are compared with the same experimental data set. This shows how much of the near-threshold shape is controlled by ⟨B⟩ versus the TMMM kinematic factors. (ii) Multichannel reference: the existing comparison with Falkowski et al. (SMC/tCIS) already supplies a multichannel, ab initio benchmark for the same transition and energy window; we will expand the discussion to state explicitly what that comparison does and does not establish—namely, that MC-BE/TMMM tracks the experimental magnitude better than SMC/tCIS in 10–20 eV, while remaining silent on resonance substructure that SMC can in principle resolve. We will also add a clear limitations paragraph stating that polarization and multichannel coupling are not modeled microscopically and that agreement in the present window does not prove they are absent, only that the effective ⟨B⟩ construction plus TMMM kinematics is empirically adequate for the integral, dipole-allowed ICS at the level of accuracy claimed. The transferable, parameter-free character of the construction is retained, but the domain of validity will be stated more narrowly.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Method / BE–BEf prefactor and ⟨B⟩ definition] The central load-bearing step is the identification of the BE/BEf prefactor binding energy with the amplitude-weighted occupied-orbital average ⟨B⟩ extracted from LR-TDDFT. Binary-encounter theory is a high-energy, single-channel picture; near-threshold polyatomic valence excitation (the 10–20 eV window emphasized for benzene) is known to be shaped by polarization, shape resonances, and multichannel coupling. The manuscript must demonstrate, with a concrete sensitivity test or comparison against a multichannel reference for at least one transition, that these effects are not merely absorbed fortuitously into ⟨B⟩. Without that, the reported improvement over SMC/tCIS and the claim of a transferable, parameter-free method remain under-supported."},{"response":"The referee is correct that an energy-independent quantum yield was assumed without adequate justification. We do not have independent, energy-resolved quantum-yield data that would rigorously support option (i) over the full compared range. We therefore adopt option (ii). In the revised manuscript the naphthalene comparison will be reframed explicitly as a shape-and-onset test: we will state that the calculated total dipole-allowed ICS is compared to the apparent fluorescence cross section only after both curves are normalized at the principal maximum (or, equivalently, that residual overall scale freedom remains), and that the claimed agreement is restricted to the location of the onset and of the principal maximum. Language that presents the comparison as a quantitative, absolute cross-section validation will be removed. A short caveat on possible energy dependence of the fluorescence yield and on non-radiative channels above the maximum will be added. The absence of empirical energy shifts is retained as a positive feature of the comparison under this weaker, shape-based reading.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Naphthalene results / fluorescence proxy] The naphthalene validation treats the gas-phase apparent fluorescence cross section as an unscaled, energy-independent proxy for the total dipole-allowed excitation ICS. That identification fails if the fluorescence quantum yield varies with incident energy or if non-radiative channels open above the principal maximum. The manuscript should either (i) cite independent evidence that the quantum yield is approximately constant over the compared energy range, or (ii) reframe the comparison as a shape/onset test rather than a quantitative cross-section validation, and quantify residual scale freedom."},{"response":"We accept the point fully. The peak-location and peak-height formulae will be introduced and used only as algebraic consequences of the MC-BE/TMMM construction for a given r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE, not as independent empirical corroboration. The revised text will state this dependence explicitly (e.g., “these peak diagnostics inherit the validity limits of the underlying BE/TMMM model”). Where experimental peak positions for benzene and naphthalene are compared with the analytic estimate, we will note that the observed maxima lie near 1.5–1.6 ΔE, consistent with the model, but that this consistency does not exclude a contribution from resonance structure outside the binary-encounter picture; the formulae remain useful as a quick diagnostic relating measured profiles to excitation energies within the stated approximation, not as a proof that resonances are absent. No claim of independent support will remain.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Analytic peak-position / peak-height expressions] The analytic peak-location formula T ≃ 1.5–1.6 ΔE is a direct algebraic consequence of the same BE/TMMM construction parameterized by r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE. It therefore inherits the validity limits of that construction and cannot be presented as independent empirical support. The manuscript should state this dependence explicitly and, if peak positions are used diagnostically against experiment, show that the observed peaks are not better explained by resonance structure outside the BE model."},{"response":"We agree that qualitative language is insufficient. The revised manuscript will (i) identify the experimental reference(s) and absolute scale used for the benzene 1¹E1u band by explicit citation and a short statement in the figure caption and text, and (ii) report quantitative, energy-resolved error metrics—specifically the mean absolute deviation and the integrated relative deviation of both MC-BE/TMMM and SMC/tCIS against that same experimental data set over T = 10–20 eV (and, for context, over a broader window). The claim of improvement will be restated strictly in terms of those metrics for the stated band and energy range, rather than as a general assertion of superiority. Any residual ambiguity about absolute experimental scale will be noted.","revision_made":"yes","referee_comment":"[Benzene results / comparison with experiment and Falkowski et al.] For the benzene 1¹E1u comparison, the claim of improvement over Falkowski et al. (SMC/tCIS) at T = 10–20 eV needs a quantitative, energy-resolved error metric (e.g., mean absolute or integrated relative deviation against the same experimental data set) and a clear statement of which experimental reference and absolute scale are used. Qualitative ‘good agreement’ language is insufficient to underwrite the central claim of practical superiority in the near-threshold window."}],"tokens_in":2254,"tokens_out":1613,"duration_ms":36876,"standing_objections":[]},"desk_editor":{"model":"grok-4.5","letter":"Punchline: Yamazaki offers a practical, parameter-free route from routine LR-TDDFT amplitudes to analytical electron-impact excitation cross sections for dipole-allowed bands. On the abstract’s face the benzene and naphthalene numbers look decent, and the method would be useful if the full validation holds.\n\nWhat is actually new is the multiconfigurational construction of the effective binding energy ⟨B⟩—amplitude-weighted occupied-orbital contributions from LR-TDDFT, inserted into BE/BEf-scaled threshold-modified Mott-Massey with no system-specific knobs—plus the analytic peak formulas in terms of r = ⟨B⟩/ΔE. That combination is a solid incremental step, not a reinvention of binary-encounter theory. Credit where due: the abstract is explicit about zero fitting, claims concrete improvement over Falkowski et al. SMC/tCIS for benzene 1¹E1u at 10–20 eV, and unscaled reproduction of the naphthalene fluorescence onset and principal maximum. Circularity burden is low. The transferability claim to other excited-state methods that supply amplitudes and orbital energies is sensible.\n\nSoft spots, in proportion. Binary-encounter plus Mott-Massey is a high-energy, single-channel picture. Ten to twenty eV for a polyatomic valence excitation is exactly where polarization, shape resonances, and multichannel coupling usually matter. If those effects are not absorbed into the TDDFT-derived ⟨B⟩ by accident, the reported agreement is not guaranteed by the formalism. The naphthalene comparison further treats apparent fluorescence as an energy-independent proxy for total excitation ICS under dipole dominance; that fails if the quantum yield varies with energy. Those are real caveats for a practical approximation, not load-bearing contradictions. I cannot inspect the explicit MC-BE formulas, basis sets, or figures from the abstract alone, so soundness stays provisional.\n\nWho this is for: people who need fast, fitting-free EIE cross sections for larger organics in plasma chemistry, atmospheric electron-energy-loss modeling, or radiation-track work. Not for anyone who needs quantitative near-threshold multichannel accuracy.\n\nIt deserves a serious referee. The claims are clear and checkable; a referee who knows electron-molecule scattering can pressure-test the 10–20 eV regime and the fluorescence proxy. I would not desk-reject it. Send it out.","headline":"A clean, fitting-free analytical bridge from LR-TDDFT amplitudes to electron-impact excitation cross sections that looks useful for polyatomics, though the near-threshold agreement sits on BE assumptions that are not guaranteed there.","tokens_in":3254,"tokens_out":605,"would_cite":false,"duration_ms":27529,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["34.80.Gs","31.15.ee","33.80.-b"],"model":"grok-4.5","headline":"Electron-impact excitation cross sections for polyatomics become analytical from ab initio data, no fitting","keywords":["electron-impact excitation","binary encounter","Mott-Massey","cross section","benzene","naphthalene","LR-TDDFT","dipole-allowed transitions"],"falsifier":"Measure absolute integral electron-impact excitation cross sections for the benzene 1¹E1u band or naphthalene total excitation between roughly 8 and 30 eV; systematic disagreement with the parameter-free MC-BE/TMMM curves (especially peak location near 1.5–1.6 ΔE or absolute height) would falsify the framework.","tokens_in":3139,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":1012,"duration_ms":16658,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"This paper offers a multiconfigurational binary-encounter method that turns standard ab initio excited-state amplitudes and orbital energies into closed-form electron-impact electronic excitation cross sections for dipole-allowed transitions. The key step is an amplitude-weighted average binding energy that feeds a threshold-modified Mott-Massey formula scaled by binary-encounter factors, with no molecule-specific adjustable constants. For benzene the calculated 1¹E1u (π→π*) band matches measured integral cross sections between 10 and 20 eV and improves on earlier multichannel results in that window; for naphthalene the total excitation cross section tracks the onset and main peak of the gas-phase apparent fluorescence cross section used as an emission proxy. Analytic peak-position and peak-height formulas show that typical valence excitations crest near 1.5–1.6 times the excitation energy and are strongly attenuated by the binding-energy factor. The framework is presented as a cheap, transferable route for modeling electron-impact excitation of polyatomic molecules whenever finite oscillator strengths and compatible orbital data are available.","feed_headline":"Analytical electron-impact cross sections from ab initio data, no fitting","feed_subtitle":"MC-BE/TMMM matches benzene and naphthalene experiments near threshold using only TDDFT amplitudes","key_machinery":"The amplitude-weighted average binding energy ⟨B⟩ extracted from LR-TDDFT transition amplitudes, inserted into the threshold-modified Mott-Massey formula scaled by binary-encounter (BE/BEf) factors; this single effective binding energy, together with the excitation energy ΔE and oscillator strength, closes the analytic expression for the integral cross section.","core_discovery":"A multiconfigurational binary-encounter (MC-BE) framework combined with the threshold-modified Mott-Massey approximation yields direct analytical integral cross sections for dipole-allowed electron-impact excitations from linear-response TDDFT amplitudes and orbital energies, without system-specific fitting; the amplitude-weighted effective binding energy supplies the sole BE/BEf prefactor, and the resulting curves for benzene’s dominant 1¹E1u band and naphthalene’s total excitation agree with available experimental benchmarks in the 10–20 eV region.","pith_inferences":["Because the method is transferable to any excited-state theory that yields amplitudes and orbital energies, it can be paired with higher-accuracy wave-function methods to isolate the residual error of the binary-encounter energy dependence itself.","The analytic peak-position formula suggests that gas-phase fluorescence or energy-loss spectra of larger polycyclic aromatics could be used to extract effective ⟨B⟩/ΔE ratios without absolute cross-section measurements.","If the amplitude-weighted ⟨B⟩ proves robust, the same construction may extend to dipole-forbidden or spin-forbidden channels once appropriate generalized oscillator strengths replace the optical oscillator strength.","The absence of system-specific fitting makes the curves natural reference baselines against which more expensive multichannel calculations can be calibrated for larger molecules."],"forward_implications":["Typical valence dipole-allowed excitations of polyatomics peak at incident energies T ≃ 1.5–1.6 ΔE with substantial binary-encounter attenuation, giving a direct diagnostic that links measured peak positions to excitation energies.","Cross sections for any molecule whose excited states supply compatible transition amplitudes and orbital energies can be obtained analytically without empirical energy shifts or intensity scaling.","The same closed-form expressions supply inexpensive estimates for electron-energy-loss modeling, atmospheric or plasma chemistry, and radiation-damage pathways involving polyaromatics.","Comparison with higher-level scattering methods becomes a targeted test of residual multichannel and polarization effects once the binary-encounter baseline is fixed."],"fun_headline_variants":["MC-BE/TMMM yields analytical electron-impact excitation cross sections from TDDFT","Fitting-free MC-BE cross sections for benzene and naphthalene excitations","Amplitude-weighted BE prefactor gives direct analytical excitation cross sections","Parameter-free MC-BE/TMMM for dipole-allowed electron-impact excitations","Analytical BE cross sections match benzene and naphthalene experimental data"],"cache_read_input_tokens":2304,"weakest_assumption_plain":"That an amplitude-weighted average of occupied-orbital binding energies is a sufficient effective binding energy for the binary-encounter prefactor, and that the threshold-modified Mott-Massey scaling then captures the energy dependence of polyatomic valence-excitation cross sections without higher-order multichannel or polarization corrections.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["MC-BE/TMMM yields analytical electron-impact excitation cross sections from TDDFT","Fitting-free MC-BE cross sections for benzene and naphthalene excitations","Amplitude-weighted BE prefactor gives direct analytical excitation cross sections","Parameter-free MC-BE/TMMM for dipole-allowed electron-impact excitations","Analytical BE cross sections match benzene and naphthalene experimental data"]},"model":"grok-4.5","cost_usd":0.028508,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":5462,"prompt_tokens":970,"num_sources_used":0,"completion_tokens":81,"cost_in_usd_ticks":285080000,"prompt_tokens_details":{"text_tokens":970,"audio_tokens":0,"image_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":256},"completion_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":4411,"accepted_prediction_tokens":0,"rejected_prediction_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":970,"tokens_out":81,"duration_ms":46187,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":4411,"cache_read_input_tokens":256,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-07-08T19:26:17.527092+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.5"},"falsifier":"Measure absolute integral electron-impact excitation cross sections for the benzene 1¹E1u band or naphthalene total excitation between roughly 8 and 30 eV; systematic disagreement with the parameter-free MC-BE/TMMM curves (especially peak location near 1.5–1.6 ΔE or absolute height) would falsify the framework.","supporting_citations":[],"review_version":1}