arxiv: 2604.12749 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Recognition: unknown

Perspective on a challenge: predicting the photochemistry of cyclobutanone

Ji\v{r}\'i Jano\v{s} , Nanna Holmgaard List , Andrew J. Orr-Ewing , Ji\v{r}\'i Suchan , Mario Barbatti , Olivia Bennett , Marcus Brady , Javier Carmona-Garc\'ia

show 32 more authors

Rachel Crespo-Otero Julien Eng O. Jonathan Fajen Marco Garavelli Sandra G\'omez Alice E. Green Federico J. Hern\'andez Daniel Hollas Lewis Hutton Lea M. Ibele Adam Kirrander Zhenggang Lan Yorick Lassmann Joseph E. Lawrence Benjamin G. Levine Dmitry V. Makhov Jonathan R. Mannouch Xincheng Miao Roland Mitri\'c Shane M. Parker Thomas J. Penfold Jiawei Peng Jeremy O. Richardson Dmitrii Shalashilin Petr Slav\'i\v{c}ek K. Eryn Spinlove Patricia Vindel-Zandbergen Federica Agostini Sara Bonella Todd J. Mart\'inez Graham A. Worth Basile F. E. Curchod

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

keywords cyclobutanonephotochemistrynonadiabatic molecular dynamicsMeV-UEDexcited-state dynamicsprediction challengeelectronic structure methods

0 comments

The pith

Nonadiabatic molecular dynamics qualitatively predicts cyclobutanone photochemistry, as shown by a community challenge matching simulations to two independent MeV-UED experiments.

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

This perspective summarizes a 2023 community challenge in which more than 70 researchers submitted fifteen distinct simulations of cyclobutanone excited at 200 nm. The participants used varied electronic-structure methods and nonadiabatic dynamics strategies to forecast the time-resolved MeV ultrafast electron diffraction signals in advance of experiments performed at SLAC and at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The collected predictions were compared directly to the measured signals, and the group discussed strengths and weaknesses of the approaches at a dedicated workshop. The work shows that the simulations capture the principal features of the excited-state evolution at a qualitative level. It also demonstrates that the choice of electronic structure theory strongly shapes the detailed dynamics and the resulting signals.

Core claim

The paper establishes that a broad set of nonadiabatic molecular dynamics calculations, performed before any experimental data were available, produce time-resolved MeV-UED signals that agree qualitatively with measurements from two independent instruments, while underscoring that the underlying electronic structure method exerts a decisive influence on the predicted excited-state pathways and observables.

What carries the argument

Nonadiabatic molecular dynamics simulations that propagate nuclear trajectories on multiple electronic states obtained from electronic structure calculations, then compute the resulting time-resolved MeV-UED diffraction patterns for direct comparison to experiment.

If this is right

Multiple nonadiabatic dynamics strategies can identify the dominant photochemical pathways of cyclobutanone after 200 nm excitation.
The specific electronic structure method chosen determines the detailed outcome of the excited-state dynamics and the computed observables.
Time-resolved MeV-UED provides a practical experimental observable for testing theoretical photochemistry models.
Community-wide sharing of computational protocols improves consistency in nonadiabatic dynamics predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Comparable challenges on other small molecules could systematically map which electronic structure methods perform best for different photochemical mechanisms.
The qualitative success implies that theory can help interpret ultrafast diffraction data even when exact quantitative matches remain method-dependent.
Standardized benchmarking suites for electronic structure within nonadiabatic dynamics would reduce variability across future studies.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental MeV-UED signals from the two facilities supply an unbiased, high-fidelity benchmark that can be compared directly to all theoretical predictions without major effects from data processing or instrument differences.

What would settle it

If the full set of fifteen predicted time-resolved MeV-UED signals showed no qualitative agreement with the key temporal features observed in either experimental data set, the claim of qualitative predictive power would be refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12749 by Adam Kirrander, Alice E. Green, Andrew J. Orr-Ewing, Basile F. E. Curchod, Benjamin G. Levine, Daniel Hollas, Dmitrii Shalashilin, Dmitry V. Makhov, Federica Agostini, Federico J. Hern\'andez, Graham A. Worth, Javier Carmona-Garc\'ia, Jeremy O. Richardson, Jiawei Peng, Ji\v{r}\'i Jano\v{s}, Ji\v{r}\'i Suchan, Jonathan R. Mannouch, Joseph E. Lawrence, Julien Eng, K. Eryn Spinlove, Lea M. Ibele, Lewis Hutton, Marco Garavelli, Marcus Brady, Mario Barbatti, Nanna Holmgaard List, O. Jonathan Fajen, Olivia Bennett, Patricia Vindel-Zandbergen, Petr Slav\'i\v{c}ek, Rachel Crespo-Otero, Roland Mitri\'c, Sandra G\'omez, Sara Bonella, Shane M. Parker, Thomas J. Penfold, Todd J. Mart\'inez, Xincheng Miao, Yorick Lassmann, Zhenggang Lan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Group photograph taken during the CECAM workshop ’Building a roadmap for future develop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic representation of the photoexcitation process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic representation of the impact of the level of electronic-structure theory on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic representation of the nonadiabatic dynamics processes related to cyclobutanone. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic representation of the determination of MeV-UED signal on the support of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Lineouts of the UED signals presented in Fig. 7. (A) Absolute values of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Analysis of the lineouts presented in Fig. 8A and C, grouping the contributions based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Schematic representation of the overall photochemistry of cyclobutanone excited at 200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This Perspective is part of a Special Topic that explored the maturity of nonadiabatic molecular dynamics for predicting photochemical processes. In 2023, a prediction challenge was issued to the community of computational photochemists to simulate the photochemistry of cyclobutanone, photoexcited at 200 nm, and the resulting time-resolved MeV-UED signal. The challenge attracted 15 theoretical predictions from more than 70 researchers, employing a wide range of strategies for electronic structure and nonadiabatic molecular dynamics to predict the time-resolved MeV-UED signal before the experiment had been conducted at SLAC (Stanford, USA). The MeV-UED instrument at Shanghai Jiao Tong University was also used to provide a second independent time-resolved MeV-UED signal for the photochemistry of cyclobutanone. This Perspective discusses the various approaches and strategies used by the participants to predict the photochemistry of cyclobutanone. This work also summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of various methods used for photoexcitation, electronic structure, nonadiabatic dynamics, and calculation of observables, as agreed by the participants during a CECAM workshop dedicated to the results of the challenge and organized in Lausanne in April 2025. This Perspective also collects all the predicted time-resolved MeV-UED signals into a single figure, together with the experimental signal. This challenge (i) demonstrated the qualitative predictive power of nonadiabatic molecular dynamics and (ii) underscore the impact of electronic-structure theory on the outcome of the excited-state dynamics and the need for its careful benchmarking. This effort allowed the community to share practical strategies to perform nonadiabatic dynamics (discussed in the present Perspective) and constitutes a 'calibration' exercise for computational photochemistry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This perspective mainly summarizes a community challenge on predicting cyclobutanone photochemistry and lines up 15 pre-experiment theory signals against two UED datasets.

read the letter

The main point is that this is a perspective summarizing a 2023 community challenge on predicting the photochemistry of cyclobutanone using nonadiabatic dynamics, with predictions compared to two post-challenge MeV-UED experiments at SLAC and Shanghai. Fifteen groups contributed, and the paper pulls their signals together with the measured data. It does well by collecting everything into one figure and by summarizing the workshop discussion on what worked for electronic structure choices, dynamics methods, and observable calculations. That kind of compilation gives the field a concrete reference point for how current nonadiabatic MD approaches perform on a real photochemical system. The soft spots are real but not fatal. This adds no new calculations or data of its own; it is a report on prior work. The claim that the challenge demonstrated qualitative predictive power depends on the two experiments serving as consistent benchmarks, yet the text does not include a direct side-by-side comparison of the SLAC and Shanghai traces to check for differences in resolution, background handling, or instrument response. If those datasets diverge more than the qualitative agreement margin, the interpretation of theory success becomes less clear. This paper is mainly for researchers already working on excited-state dynamics who want a snapshot of current capabilities on one molecule. A reader looking for new methods or quantitative error bars will find limited value. It deserves a serious referee because documenting such challenges helps track where the field stands, even if the perspective format means lighter demands on novelty. I recommend sending it for peer review, with reviewers asked to examine the experimental consistency details.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a perspective summarizing a 2023 community prediction challenge on the photochemistry of cyclobutanone (200 nm excitation) and the resulting time-resolved MeV-UED signal. Fifteen theoretical predictions from over 70 researchers, using diverse electronic-structure and nonadiabatic-dynamics methods, were collected prior to experiments performed at SLAC and at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The paper discusses the approaches, reports outcomes from a CECAM workshop, collects all predicted signals with the experimental data in one figure, and concludes that the challenge demonstrated the qualitative predictive power of nonadiabatic molecular dynamics while highlighting the decisive role of electronic-structure theory.

Significance. If the comparison to experiment is robust, the work provides a valuable community benchmark and calibration exercise for computational photochemistry. It offers practical guidance on method choices, underscores the sensitivity of excited-state dynamics to electronic-structure approximations, and documents a successful pre-experiment prediction effort involving a large number of independent groups.

major comments (1)

[the figure that collects all predicted time-resolved MeV-UED signals together with the experimental signal] The central claim that the challenge demonstrated qualitative predictive power rests on treating the SLAC and Shanghai MeV-UED datasets as interchangeable, high-fidelity benchmarks. The manuscript collects predictions and experiment into a single figure but does not report a direct side-by-side quantitative comparison of the two experimental traces (differences in temporal resolution, momentum-transfer range, background subtraction, or instrument response functions). Without this analysis it is not possible to determine whether the claimed qualitative agreement margin is larger than any inter-experiment discrepancies.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states that 15 predictions were compared to two experiments, yet the text does not explicitly describe how the two experimental signals were combined, averaged, or selected for the comparison shown in the main figure.
A concise table listing the electronic-structure method, nonadiabatic-dynamics algorithm, and observable-calculation approach for each of the 15 submissions would improve clarity and allow readers to quickly assess the diversity of strategies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and valuable feedback on our Perspective. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the experimental data.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the challenge demonstrated qualitative predictive power rests on treating the SLAC and Shanghai MeV-UED datasets as interchangeable, high-fidelity benchmarks. The manuscript collects predictions and experiment into a single figure but does not report a direct side-by-side quantitative comparison of the two experimental traces (differences in temporal resolution, momentum-transfer range, background subtraction, or instrument response functions). Without this analysis it is not possible to determine whether the claimed qualitative agreement margin is larger than any inter-experiment discrepancies.

Authors: We agree that including a quantitative comparison between the SLAC and Shanghai experimental datasets would enhance the manuscript and allow for a better assessment of the robustness of the qualitative agreement. Although the Perspective mentions both experiments and collects the signals in one figure, we did not provide an explicit side-by-side analysis of the two traces. In the revised version, we will add a new figure or panel (or supplementary material) that directly compares the two experimental time-resolved MeV-UED signals, highlighting any differences in temporal resolution, momentum transfer range, background subtraction, and instrument response. This will demonstrate that the inter-experiment discrepancies are smaller than the variations among theoretical predictions and do not undermine the qualitative predictive power shown by the nonadiabatic dynamics methods. We believe this revision will address the referee's concern while preserving the manuscript's main message. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a perspective summarizing a community-wide prediction challenge in which 15 independent theoretical predictions for cyclobutanone photochemistry were generated before any experiments were performed. The central claims rest on post-challenge comparison of those pre-experiment predictions against external MeV-UED data collected at two separate facilities. No equations, derivations, parameter fittings, or self-referential definitions appear in the text; the enumerated circularity patterns (self-definitional loops, fitted inputs presented as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from the same authors, etc.) are absent. The validation sequence is temporally external to the paper itself, so the reported qualitative predictive power does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new mathematical derivations, free parameters, or invented entities are introduced; the paper reports on the application of existing nonadiabatic dynamics methods to a benchmark challenge.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5841 in / 1197 out tokens · 30966 ms · 2026-05-10T13:53:17.759440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Liu , author R

author author Y. Liu , author R. Xu , author D. M. \ Sanchez , author T. J. \ Martínez , \ and\ author T. J. \ Wolf ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 76 ,\ pages 615 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025
[2]

author author B. G. \ Levine \ and\ author T. J. \ Mart \' nez ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 58 ,\ pages 613 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

2007
[3]

author author M. S. \ Schuurman \ and\ author A. Stolow ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 69 ,\ pages 427 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018
[4]

author author B. F. E. \ Curchod \ and\ author A. J. \ Orr-Ewing ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry A \ volume 128 ,\ pages 6613 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[5]

Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation , title =

author author J. Jano s \ and\ author P. Slav \' i c ek ,\ 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00908 journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 19 ,\ pages 8273 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00908 2023
[6]

author author T. V. \ Papineau , author D. Jacquemin , \ and\ author M. Vacher ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters \ volume 15 ,\ pages 636 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[7]

Jíra , author J

author author T. Jíra , author J. Janoš , \ and\ author P. Slavíček ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 10972 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[8]

author author L. L. E. \ Cigrang , author B. F. E. \ Curchod , author R. A. \ Ingle , author A. Kelly , author J. R. \ Mannouch , author D. Accomasso , author A. Alijah , author M. Barbatti , author W. Chebbi , author N. Došlić , author E. C. \ Eklund , author S. Fernandez-Alberti , author A. Freibert , author L. González , author G. Granucci , author F. ...

2025
[9]

Prlj , author J

author author A. Prlj , author J. T. \ Taylor , author J. Janoš , author E. Lognon , author D. Hollas , author P. Slavíček , author F. Agostini , \ and\ author B. F. E. \ Curchod ,\ @noop journal journal Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science \ volume 7 ,\ pages 4157 ( year 2026 ) NoStop

2026
[10]

\ Kao , author R

author author M.-H. \ Kao , author R. K. \ Venkatraman , author M. N. \ Ashfold , \ and\ author A. J. \ Orr-Ewing ,\ @noop journal journal Chemical Science \ volume 11 ,\ pages 1991 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

1991
[11]

author author E. W.-G. \ Diau , author C. K \"o tting , \ and\ author A. H. \ Zewail ,\ @noop journal journal ChemPhysChem \ volume 2 ,\ pages 294 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

2001
[12]

\ Xia , author X.-Y

author author S.-H. \ Xia , author X.-Y. \ Liu , author Q. Fang , \ and\ author G. Cui ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry A \ volume 119 ,\ pages 3569 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

2015
[13]

Liu \ and\ author W.-H

author author L. Liu \ and\ author W.-H. \ Fang ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 144 ,\ pages 144317 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2016
[14]

Janoš , author J

author author J. Janoš , author J. P. \ Figueira Nunes , author D. Hollas , author P. Slavíček , \ and\ author B. F. E. \ Curchod ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 144305 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[15]

author author A. E. \ Green , author Y. Liu , author F. Allum , author M. Graßl , author P. Lenzen , author M. N. R. \ Ashfold , author S. Bhattacharyya , author X. Cheng , author M. Centurion , author S. W. \ Crane , author R. Forbes , author N. A. \ Goff , author L. Huang , author B. Kaufman , author M.-F. \ Kling , author P. L. \ Kramer , author H. V. ...

2025
[16]

Wang , author H

author author T. Wang , author H. Jiang , author C. Jin , author X. Zou , author P. Zhu , author T. Jiang , author F. He , \ and\ author D. Xiang ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 162 ,\ pages 184201 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025
[17]

author author J. C. \ Tully ,\ @noop journal journal International Journal of Quantum Chemistry \ volume 40 ,\ pages 299 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

1991
[18]

author author J. O. \ Richardson , author J. E. \ Lawrence , \ and\ author J. R. \ Mannouch ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 76 ,\ pages 663 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025
[19]

author author M. P. \ Esch \ and\ author B. G. \ Levine ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 152 ,\ pages 234105 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020
[20]

author author E. R. \ Miller , author S. J. \ Hoehn , author A. Kumar , author D. Jiang , \ and\ author S. M. \ Parker ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ,\ pages 034105 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[21]

Vindel-Zandbergen \ and\ author J

author author P. Vindel-Zandbergen \ and\ author J. González-Vázquez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 161 ,\ pages 024104 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[22]

Hait , author D

author author D. Hait , author D. Lahana , author O. J. \ Fajen , author A. S. P. \ Paz , author P. A. \ Unzueta , author B. Rana , author L. Lu , author Y. Wang , author E. F. \ Kjønstad , author H. Koch , \ and\ author T. J. \ Martínez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 244101 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[23]

Peng , author H

author author J. Peng , author H. Liu , \ and\ author Z. Lan ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 224305 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[24]

Hutton , author A

author author L. Hutton , author A. Moreno Carrascosa , author A. W. \ Prentice , author M. Simmermacher , author J. E. \ Runeson , author M. J. \ Paterson , \ and\ author A. Kirrander ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 204307 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[25]

author author J. E. \ Lawrence , author I. M. \ Ansari , author J. R. \ Mannouch , author M. A. \ Manae , author K. Asnaashari , author A. Kelly , \ and\ author J. O. \ Richardson ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 174306 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[26]

Bennett , author A

author author O. Bennett , author A. Freibert , author K. E. \ Spinlove , \ and\ author G. A. \ Worth ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 174305 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[27]

author author V. K. \ Jaiswal , author F. Montorsi , author F. Aleotti , author F. Segatta , author D. Keefer , author S. Mukamel , author A. Nenov , author I. Conti , \ and\ author M. Garavelli ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 164316 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[28]

author author D. V. \ Makhov , author L. Hutton , author A. Kirrander , \ and\ author D. V. \ Shalashilin ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 164310 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[29]

Mukherjee , author R

author author S. Mukherjee , author R. S. \ Mattos , author J. M. \ Toldo , author H. Lischka , \ and\ author M. Barbatti ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 154306 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[30]

Eng , author C

author author J. Eng , author C. D. \ Rankine , \ and\ author T. J. \ Penfold ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 154301 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[31]

Suchan , author F

author author J. Suchan , author F. Liang , author A. S. \ Durden , \ and\ author B. G. \ Levine ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 134310 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[32]

Miao , author K

author author X. Miao , author K. Diemer , \ and\ author R. Mitrić ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 124309 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[33]

Martín Santa Daría , author J

author author A. Martín Santa Daría , author J. Hernández-Rodríguez , author L. M. \ Ibele , \ and\ author S. Gómez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 160 ,\ pages 114303 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[34]

Jano s , author P

author author J. Jano s , author P. Slav\' i c ek , \ and\ author B. F. E. \ Curchod ,\ @noop journal journal Accounts of Chemical Research \ volume 58 ,\ pages 307 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025
[35]

Marsili , author A

author author E. Marsili , author A. Prlj , \ and\ author B. F. E. \ Curchod ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics \ volume 23 ,\ pages 12945 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

2021
[36]

Plasser , author R

author author F. Plasser , author R. Crespo-Otero , author M. Pederzoli , author J. Pittner , author H. Lischka , \ and\ author M. Barbatti ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 10 ,\ pages 1395 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

2014
[37]

author author B. G. \ Levine \ and\ author T. J. \ Martínez ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry A \ volume 113 ,\ pages 12815 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009
[38]

Lee , author M

author author S. Lee , author M. Filatov , author S. Lee , \ and\ author C. H. \ Choi ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 149 ,\ pages 104101 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018
[39]

Scott , author G

author author M. Scott , author G. L. S. \ Rodrigues , author X. Li , \ and\ author M. G. \ Delcey ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 20 ,\ pages 2423 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[40]

Li Manni , author R

author author G. Li Manni , author R. K. \ Carlson , author S. Luo , author D. Ma , author J. Olsen , author D. G. \ Truhlar , \ and\ author L. Gagliardi ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 10 ,\ pages 3669 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

2014
[41]

Battaglia \ and\ author R

author author S. Battaglia \ and\ author R. Lindh ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 16 ,\ pages 1555 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020
[42]

Battaglia \ and\ author R

author author S. Battaglia \ and\ author R. Lindh ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 154 ,\ pages 034102 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

2021
[43]

author author A. Y. \ Sokolov ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 149 ,\ pages 204113 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018
[44]

author author J. E. \ Runeson \ and\ author D. E. \ Manolopoulos ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 159 ,\ pages 094115 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023
[45]

Mai , author P

author author S. Mai , author P. Marquetand , \ and\ author L. González ,\ @noop journal journal International Journal of Quantum Chemistry \ volume 115 ,\ pages 1215 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

2015
[46]

author author T. S. \ Kuhlman , author S. P. \ Sauer , author T. I. \ S lling , \ and\ author K. B. \ M ller ,\ 10.1063/1.4742313 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 137 ,\ pages 22A522 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1063/1.4742313 2012
[47]

author author T. S. \ Kuhlman , author T. I. \ S lling , \ and\ author K. B. \ M ller ,\ 10.1002/cphc.201100929 journal journal ChemPhysChem \ volume 13 ,\ pages 820 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1002/cphc.201100929 2012
[48]

Moreno Carrascosa , author H

author author A. Moreno Carrascosa , author H. Yong , author D. L. \ Crittenden , author P. M. \ Weber , \ and\ author A. Kirrander ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation \ volume 15 ,\ pages 2836 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019
[49]

Suchan \ and\ author J

author author J. Suchan \ and\ author J. Janoš ,\ 10.5281/zenodo.17350829 title IAM-XED: Independent Atom Model for X-ray and Electron Diffraction , \ howpublished https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17350829 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17350829 2025
[50]

Brady \ and\ author R

author author M. Brady \ and\ author R. Crespo-Otero ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 163 ,\ pages 234118 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

2025
[51]

Barbatti , author M

author author M. Barbatti , author M. Bondanza , author R. Crespo-Otero , author B. Demoulin , author P. O. \ Dral , author G. Granucci , author F. Kossoski , author H. Lischka , author B. Mennucci , author S. Mukherjee , author M. Pederzoli , author M. Persico , author M. Pinheiro Jr , author J. Pittner , author F. Plasser , author E. Sangiogo Gil , \ an...

2022
[52]

@noop title EPSRC Programme Grant on 'Coherent States in Molecular Simulations' (COSMOS) , \ howpublished https://cosmosproject.co.uk ,\ note accessed: 2025-07-06 NoStop

2025
[53]

Worth ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 248 ,\ pages 107040 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

author author G. Worth ,\ @noop journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 248 ,\ pages 107040 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

2020