Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Time-resolved solvation of alkali ions in superfluid helium nanodroplets: Theoretical simulation of a pump-probe study

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

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

Pith's one-line read Simulating the full pump-probe cycle, this paper finds that a newly formed alkali ion's solvation shell in a helium nanodroplet is not self-stable for the first several picoseconds and is held together only by the surrounding helium.

desk verdict Solid TDDFT pump-probe study; the new probe-step simulation is the real contribution, but the headline energy-relaxation claim is softer than it looks because it rests on an integration volume that shifts the fitted parameters by factors up to ~2. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14674 v1 pith:NY37SIJ6 submitted 2025-07-19 physics.atm-clus physics.chem-ph

Ernesto García-Alfonso , Manuel Barranco , Martí Pi , Nadine Halberstadt This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atm-clusphysics.chem-ph
keywords heliumnanodropletsalkaliionsolvationpump-probespectroscopytime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheorysnowballstructurePoissonianbindingNewton'slawofcoolingsuperfluid
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 simulates, in real time, what happens to an alkali ion immediately after a pump pulse creates it at the surface of a superfluid helium nanodroplet and a probe pulse later ejects it. The calculation covers both legs of the recent pump-probe experiment on a realistic droplet of 2000 helium atoms with a central xenon atom as the probe. The authors find that the quiet Poissonian picture for the binding of the first five helium atoms is correct for Na$^{+}$ and K$^{+}$, with a rate close to experiment, but that this calm statistics hides a turbulent interior: for the first 5.0 to 6.5 picoseconds the energy of the forming solvation shell is positive and rising, meaning the shell is not self-bound. Only the long-range attraction from the rest of the droplet keeps it together; once cooling begins, energy relaxation follows Newton's law, but with a delay and time constant ($\tau$ between 7.3 and 16.5 ps) several times larger than experiment. The paper matters because it shows that the detected cluster is not a snapshot of a simple growing shell but a hot complex that keeps gaining and losing helium atoms while it leaves the droplet.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is liquid $^4$He time-dependent density functional theory at zero temperature, using the Orsay-Trento functional in a version modified to stay stable under strongly attractive impurities. The helium is represented by a complex order parameter $\Psi$ whose squared modulus is the density; the alkali and xenon atoms are classical particles moving under the force from that density plus the ion-ion Coulomb repulsion. Ionization is implemented as a sudden switch of the atom-helium potential to the ion-helium potential at $t=0$ (pump) and of neutral xenon to Xe$^{+}$ at $t=\Delta t$ (probe). The diagnostic carrying the central claim is the solvation-structure energy, the expectation value of the DFT Hamiltonian integrated inside a sphere of radius $r_e^1$ or $r_e^2$ around Na$^{+}$, whose late-time decay is fitted to Newton's law $E_\infty[1-\exp(-(t-t_0)/\tau)]$ to extract the delay and relaxation time. A finer 0.2 Å grid than earlier simulations improves the accuracy of the Poisson binding rates.

What would settle it

Recompute the solvation-structure energy of Na$^{+}$ using a time-dependent shell boundary, defined as the instantaneous density minimum after the first shell peak, instead of the fixed equilibrium radii; if the energy becomes negative before about 1 ps under this definition, the paper's claim of a 5.0–6.5 ps self-instability is an artifact of the fixed boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the first instants of alkali-ion solvation in superfluid helium are highly turbulent and that the solvation structure is stabilized only by the surrounding helium solvent. In the 2000-atom simulation, the first five helium atoms bind to Na$^{+}$ and K$^{+}$ at a constant rate, confirming the Poissonian model; for Na$^{+}$ the rate is 1.33 atoms/ps, about 20% below the experimental value for the nearest droplet size. The key energetic result is that the energy inside the first ($r_e^1 = 3.8$ Å) or second ($r_e^2 = 6.7$ Å) solvation shell of Na$^{+}$ is positive and increasing for 5.0–6.5 ps, so the forming shell is not stable by itself; the long-range charge-induced dipole attraction from the rest of the droplet provides the stabilizing force. Only after that delay does the energy become negative and relax as Newton's law of cooling, with time delay $t_0 = 5.0$–6.5 ps and decay time $\tau = 7.3$–16.5 ps, compared with $t_0 = 0.23 \pm 0.06$ ps and $\tau = 2.6 \pm 0.4$ ps from experiment. The probe-stage simulations further show that the ion takes 2.3–4.7 ps to reverse its inward motion and several more picoseconds to leave the droplet, during which the shell can gain or lose helium atoms; for Na$^{+}$, $n_1$ rises from 5 to 7 and then falls to 4.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the equilibrium first- and second-shell radii (3.8 Å and 6.7 Å for Na$^{+}$) remain the correct spherical boundaries for integrating the solvation-structure energy during the first few picoseconds, when the density profile is violently oscillating; if the true shell boundary moves in that phase, the reported instability and Newton parameters could be artifacts of the integration volume.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Na$^{+}$ in a 2000-atom droplet, the first five helium atoms bind at a constant rate of about 1.33 atoms/ps, so the Poissonian picture holds, and the rate tracks the experimental trend of slower binding in smaller droplets.
  • At the moment the probe pulse fires ($n_1=5$), the solvation shell is hot and far from closed; during the several picoseconds needed to leave the droplet, Na$^{+}$ first gains helium atoms (5 to 7) and later loses them (down to 4), so the detected cluster size can differ from the size at probe time.
  • The energy inside the first or second solvation shell of Na$^{+}$ is positive and increasing for about 5.0–6.5 ps, meaning the shell is not self-bound; the long-range charge-induced dipole attraction from the rest of the droplet is what makes the energy turn negative.
  • Once the shell becomes self-bound, its energy relaxation follows Newton's law of cooling, with time delay $t_0=5.0$–6.5 ps and decay time $\tau=7.3$–16.5 ps, both several times larger than the values extracted from experiment.
  • For Rb$^{+}$ and Cs$^{+}$, the early binding is less cleanly linear, with oscillations in $n_1(t)$, so the Poissonian description is less accurate for heavier alkalis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the turbulence picture extends to other solutes, then any ionization event that suddenly switches on a strong solute-solvent attraction should begin with a transient, non-self-bound solvent shell, and the surrounding solvent's long-range field is what nucleates the stable snowball; the 'solvation shell' is then a time-dependent, boundary-dependent observable rather than a fixed cluster.
  • The mismatch between simulated and experimental Newton parameters, which the paper attributes partly to shell-boundary ambiguity, could be tested by re-extracting $t_0$ and $\tau$ with a dynamic shell boundary; if the delay shortens toward the experimental 0.23 ps, the apparent delay is a definitional effect rather than a physical one.
  • The probe-stage result implies that ion-yield curves $Y_n(\Delta t)$ are not direct snapshots of the growing shell, because they convolve binding during the pump stage with gain, loss, and dissociation during ejection and flight; a testable extension is to simulate yield curves by computing ejecta sizes at many delays and then fitting the Poisson model to those yields, which would quantify the con
  • Because heavier alkalis reverse direction and exit more slowly (Cs$^{+}$ takes about 4.7 ps just to turn around), their ejecta should be even more reshuffled, which suggests that the simple Poissonian interpretation of detected yields may fail earliest for the heaviest alkali ions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 4He-TDDFT simulations of both the pump and probe stages of the experiment by Albrechtsen et al. on alkali ions solvating in superfluid helium nanodroplets. For the pump stage, the authors report linear growth of the first-shell occupation number for Na+ and K+, with a binding rate for Na+ of 1.33 atom/ps that is within about 20% of the experimental value for similar droplet sizes. For the probe stage, the simulations show that after ionizing the central Xe atom the alkali ion takes several picoseconds to leave the droplet, during which its solvation shell can gain or lose He atoms. The central new claim is in Section IV: an energy analysis for Na+ is said to show that the solvation structure is not stable by itself during the first few picoseconds and only later relaxes according to Newton's law, with time constants that are longer than those inferred from experiment.

Significance. If the Section IV analysis is made robust, the paper would provide a valuable microscopic picture of non-equilibrium solvation dynamics in helium nanodroplets and a concrete theoretical counterpart to the experimental Newton-law model. The pump-stage binding rate agreement with experiment is a genuine strength, and the probe-stage observation that the solvation shell continues to exchange He atoms for several picoseconds is interesting and supported by direct particle counts in Figs. 4 and 6. The work also benefits from using an established TDDFT framework rather than fitting a model to the target observable. However, the energy-relaxation conclusion currently rests on a volume-dependent energy definition whose sensitivity is demonstrated by the paper's own Table III, so the central claim is not yet established at the level the abstract states.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (11), Fig. 7, Table III] The energy Esolv.struct(t) is computed by integrating the local TDDFT energy density over a sphere of fixed equilibrium radius re1 or re2 centered on the moving Na+ ion. During the first several picoseconds the helium density around the ion is strongly oscillatory (Fig. 3), with atoms crossing the integration surface in both directions. A spherical cut of a nonlocal density-functional Hamiltonian is not a well-defined subsystem energy in this regime, so the positive early-time E(t) used to conclude that the solvation structure is 'not stable by itself' may substantially reflect the kinetic-energy flux of transiting atoms rather than the internal energy of a Lagrangian solvation complex. This concern is not rhetorical: Table III shows that switching from re1 to re2 changes t0 from 6.53 to 5.0 ps and tau from 7.3 to 16.5 ps, a factor of about 2.3 in tau. The authors should either provide a flux-corrected or Lagrangian definition of the solvation-structure energy, or demonstrate explicitly that the qualitative conclusion is independent of the integration surface during the non-equilibrium phase.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (12), Table III] The quantitative comparison with the experimental Newton-law parameters is underdetermined as presented. The fits use E_infty determined separately and fit t0 and tau starting only after the integrated energy begins to decrease, over intervals [3.0, 11.2] ps and [6.0, 11.2] ps. The resulting differences between the first-shell and second-shell fits are described as an 'error margin,' but they are not statistical uncertainties and cannot be propagated into the abstract's stated ranges 5.0 <= t0 <= 6.5 ps and 7.3 <= tau <= 16.5 ps without a defensible definition of the solvation-structure energy. The paper should report the fitted curves with confidence bands, state which energy definition is the physically meaningful one, and explain why the other definition is not appropriate, rather than treating both as equivalent bounds.
  3. [Section III A, Eq. (8)] The statement that the simulations 'confirm the Poissonian model' is stronger than what a single deterministic trajectory can establish. Equation (8) shows only that n1(t), the time at which the first shell contains n atoms, is approximately linear for n <= 5. The Poissonian model is a stochastic statement about independent binding events, and the experimental observable is the full yield distribution Yn(t), not just the mean arrival time. A linear n1(t) is a necessary but not sufficient test of the Poissonian model. The authors should either simulate an ensemble of trajectories (or at least multiple ionization configurations) and compare the resulting distribution to Eq. (7), or soften the claim to say that the simulations reproduce the linear rate dependence that the Poissonian model predicts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (9)] The symbol 'Edissp(∞)' appears to be a typo for 'Edissip(∞)'.
  2. [Table III] The interval entry '[6.0,11.2,]' contains a trailing comma; the third column header 'interval rms' is also unclear and should be reformatted, e.g., as 'fit interval (ps) rms (K)'.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] 'Snapshots every ≡ 0.95 ps' should read 'every 0.95 ps' or 'every ≈ 0.95 ps'.
  4. [Section II A, Eq. (1) sentence] In the sentence 'All the potentials in Eq. (1 are approximated by sums of atom-atom interactions,' the closing parenthesis is missing after 'Eq. (1'.
  5. [Section III A 2, Table II] For Rb+ and Cs+, the two fitted values of A are listed in Table II but the table does not indicate which value corresponds to which fitting convention; the text describes the two conventions, so adding a footnote to the table would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the simulation outputs are independent of the experimental targets; self-citations are methodological only.

full rationale

All load-bearing results are generated by the 4He-TDDFT trajectory rather than imported from the data they are compared with. The Poissonian binding rate (A=1.33 atom/ps for Na+) is read off n1(t) from the simulation and compared with Albrechtsen et al.'s 1.65±0.09 atom/ps; the simulation was not adjusted to reproduce it. Section IV's Newton parameters (t0=5.0–6.5 ps, tau=7.3–16.5 ps) are least-squares fits to the simulated E_solv.struct(t) curve, and they explicitly disagree with the experimental values (0.23±0.06 ps and 2.6±0.4 ps), which is the opposite of fitting the target. Self-citations (OT functional, modified functional, BCN-TLS code, earlier solvation studies) are methodological: the functional was designed to reproduce general superfluid 4He properties and the code is public, so their use is independent evidence, not a self-referential premise. The fixed-radius integration of E_solv.struct (Eq. 12, Table III) is a definitional choice whose sensitivity the authors disclose; it affects the quantitative Newton parameters but is not an equation that forces the central claim by construction. No circular reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims depend on the DFT functional, the chosen shell radii, and the Newton-law fit; none of these are machine-checked or shipped as reproducible artifacts.

free parameters (4)
  • t0 (Newton-law time offset) = 5.0 to 6.5 ps (6.53 +/- 0.06 for 1st shell, 5.0 +/- 0.1 for 2nd shell)
    Fitted to the simulated solvation-structure energy curves in Section IV; the claimed delay before Newton behavior depends on this fit.
  • tau (Newton-law decay time) = 7.3 to 16.5 ps (7.3 +/- 0.2 for 1st, 16.5 +/- 0.6 for 2nd)
    Fitted decay constant; central comparison with experimental tau = 2.6 +/- 0.4 ps uses this value.
  • E_infty (asymptotic solvation energy) = -3424 K (1st shell), -4144 K (2nd shell)
    Used in the Newton-law fit; determined separately as the equilibrium energy of the corresponding solvation structure.
  • re1, re2 (solvation shell radii) = 3.8 A and 6.7 A for Na+
    Equilibrium first and second shell radii used as fixed integration boundaries for the energy; changing them changes t0 and tau, as shown in Table III.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The modified Orsay-Trento density functional (Ancilotto et al. 2005, Ref. 34) accurately describes superfluid helium dynamics even in the presence of strongly attractive ions.
    The entire simulation rests on this functional; it is phenomenological and not machine-checked.
  • domain assumption Sudden ionization: the pump and probe laser pulses instantaneously replace the neutral atom potentials with ion potentials.
    Used in Section II.B to set initial conditions for the pump and probe dynamics.
  • domain assumption Classical treatment of alkali and xenon ions as point charges with literature pair potentials (Patil 1991, Koutselos 1990, Sheng 2020, Viehland 2009).
    Ion positions follow Newton's equations coupled to the helium density (Eqs. 5-6); potential accuracy enters all results.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature superfluid description is sufficient at the experimental droplet temperature of 0.37 K.
    Thermal excitations are neglected; the experiment operates near 0.37 K where superfluid helium is essentially at T=0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-resolved solvation of alkali ions in superfluid helium nanodroplets: Theoretical simulation of a pump-probe study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NY37SIJ6

@misc{pith2026250714674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-resolved solvation of alkali ions in superfluid helium nanodroplets: Theoretical simulation of a pump-probe study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NY37SIJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14674}
}
abstract

The solvation process of an alkali ion (Na$^+$, K$^+$, Rb$^+$, Cs$^+$) inside a superfluid $^4$He$_{2000}$ nanodroplet is investigated theoretically using liquid $^4$He time-dependent density functional theory at zero temperature. We simulate both steps of the pump-probe experiment conducted on Na$^+$ [Albrechtsen et al., Nature 623, 319 (2023)], where the alkali atom residing at the droplet surface is ionized by the pump pulse and its solvation is probed by ionizing a central xenon atom and detecting the expulsed Na$^+$He$_n$ ions. Our results confirm the Poissonian model for the binding of the first five He atoms for the lighter Na$^+$ and K$^+$ alkalis, with a rate in good agreement with the more recent experimental results on Na$^+$ [Albrechtsen et al., J. Chem. Phys. 162, 174309 (2025)]. For the probe step we show that the ion takes several picoseconds to get out of the droplet. During this rather long time, the solvation structure around it is very hot and far from equilibrium, and it can gain or lose more He atoms. Surprisingly, analysing the Na$^+$ solvation structure energy reveals that it is not stable by itself during the first few picoseconds of the solvation process. After that, energy relaxation follows a Newton behavior, as found experimentally, but with a longer time delay, $5.0\leq t_0\leq 6.5$ ps vs. $0.23\pm0.06$ ps, and characteristic decay time, $7.3\le\tau\le 16.5$ ps vs. $2.6\pm 0.4$ ps. We conclude that the first instants of the solvation process are highly turbulent and that the solvation structure is stabilized only by the surrounding helium ``solvent''.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , together with the equilibrium density profile for Ak+ at equilibrium in a 2000-atom droplet. All the He-Ak+ poten￾tials were taken from Koutselos36 in order to keep the same accuracy level for all alkalis. Note that they include the correct 1/R 4 behavior corresponding to charge-induced dipole inter￾action at long range. The probe stage in the experiment is triggered by ionizing the xenon atom after a given time d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equilibrium configuration of Rb@(Xe@ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Snapshots every [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Snapshots every 1.5 ps taken during the probe step of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time evolution of Ak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Even though Ak+ is strongly accelerated upon Xe atom ionization, it still takes a few picoseconds for it to get out of the droplet and a little more to get separated from the droplet. Hence the outgoing ionic complex Ak+Hen keeps gaining a few He atoms during an additi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. First part: Solvation of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. First part: Solvation of K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. First part: Solvation of Rb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. First part: Solvation of Cs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tabbert , author H

    author author B. Tabbert , author H. G\"unther ,\ and\ author G. zu Putlitz ,\ journal journal J. Low Tem. Phys. \ volume 109 ,\ pages 425 ( year 1997 ) NoStop Tabbert1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Foerste , author H

    author author M. Foerste , author H. Guenther , author O. Riediger , author J.Wiebe ,\ and\ author G. zu Putliz ,\ journal journal Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter \ volume 104 ,\ pages 317 ( year 1997 ) NoStop Foerste1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Rossi , author M

    author author M. Rossi , author M. Verona , author D. E. \ Galli ,\ and\ author L. Reatto ,\ journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 69 ,\ pages 212510 ( year 2004 ) NoStop Rossi2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    author author S. L. \ Fiedler , author D. Mateo , author T. Aleksanyan ,\ and\ author J. Eloranta ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.86.144522 journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 86 ,\ pages 144522 ( year 2012 ),\ http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.144522 NoStop Fiedler2012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.144522 2012

  5. [5]

    author author K. R. \ Atkins ,\ journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 116 ,\ pages 1339 ( year 1959 ) NoStop Atkins1959

    work page 1959

  6. [6]

    author author J. P. \ Toennies ,\ in\ doi:10.1007/978-3-030-94896-2 booktitle Molecules in Superfluid Helium Nanodroplets ,\ series and number Topics in Applied Physics, vol. 145 ,\ editor edited by\ editor A. Slenczka \ and\ editor J. P. \ Toennies \ ( publisher Springer Cham ,\ year 2022 )\ pp.\ pages 1--40 NoStop Toennies2022

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-94896-2

  7. [7]

    Gonz\'alez-Lezana , author O

    author author T. Gonz\'alez-Lezana , author O. Echt , author M. Gatchell , author M. Bartolomei , author J. Campos-Mart\' nez ,\ and\ author P. Scheier ,\ journal doi:10.1080/0144235X.2020.1794585 journal Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. \ volume 39 ,\ pages 465 ( year 2020 ) NoStop GonzalezLezana2020

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Laimer , author L

    author author F. Laimer , author L. Kranabetter , author L. Tiefenthaler , author S. Albertini , author F. Zappa , author A. M. \ Ellis , author M. Gatchell ,\ and\ author P. Scheier ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.165301 journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 123 ,\ pages 165301 ( year 2019 ) NoStop Laimer2019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.165301

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    author author E. G. \ a Alfonso , author F. Ancilotto , author M. Barranco , author F. Cargnoni , author N. Halberstadt ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:10.1063/5.0244260 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 161 ,\ pages 224303 ( year 2024 ) NoStop GarciaAlfonso2024b

    doi

  2. [10]

    author author S. H. \ Albrechtsen , author C. A. \ Schouder , author A. Vi \ n as Mu \ n oz , author J. K. \ Christensen , author C. Engelbrecht Petersen , author M. Pi , author M. Barranco ,\ and\ author H. Stapelfeldt ,\ journal doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06593-5 journal Nature ...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author S. H. \ Albrechtsen , author J. K. \ Christensen , author C. E. \ Petersen , author C. A. \ Schouder , author P. J. \ Carchi-Villalta , author I. S\'anchez-P\'erez , author M. Bartolomei , author T. Gonz\'alez-Lezana , author F. Pirani ,\ and\ author H. Stapelfel...

    doi

  4. [12]

    Stienkemeier , author J

    author author F. Stienkemeier , author J. Higgins , author C. Callegari , author S. I. \ Kanorsky , author W. E. \ Ernst ,\ and\ author G. Scoles ,\ journal journal Z. Phys. D \ volume 38 ,\ pages 253 ( year 1996 ) NoStop Stienkemeier1996

    1996

  5. [13]

    B\"unermann , author G

    author author O. B\"unermann , author G. Droppelmann , author A. Hernando , author R. Mayol ,\ and\ author F. Stienkemeier ,\ journal doi:10.1021/jp0760760 journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 111 ,\ pages 12684 ( year 2007 ),\ http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp0760760 NoStop...

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    Pifrader , author O

    author author A. Pifrader , author O. Allard , author G. Aub\"ock , author C. Callegari , author W. E. \ Ernst , author R. Huber ,\ and\ author F. Ancilotto ,\ journal doi:10.1063/1.3500397 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 133 ,\ pages 164502 ( year 2010 ),\ https://link-aip-or...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Theisen , author F

    author author M. Theisen , author F. Lackner ,\ and\ author W. E. \ Ernst ,\ journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 14861 ( year 2010 ) NoStop Theisen2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Loginov \ and\ author M

    author author E. Loginov \ and\ author M. Drabbels ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.083401 journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 106 ,\ pages 083401 ( year 2011 ) NoStop Loginov2011a

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    Theisen , author F

    author author M. Theisen , author F. Lackner , author G. Krois ,\ and\ author W. E. \ Ernst ,\ journal doi:/10.1021/jz201091v journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ volume 2 ,\ pages 2778 ( year 2011 ) NoStop Theisen2011a

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Theisen , author F

    author author M. Theisen , author F. Lackner ,\ and\ author W. E. \ Ernst ,\ journal doi:10.1063/1.3624840 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 135 ,\ pages 074306 ( year 2011 ) NoStop Theisen2011b

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Zhang \ and\ author M

    author author X. Zhang \ and\ author M. Drabbels ,\ journal doi:10.1063/1.4743900 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 137 ,\ pages 051102 ( year 2012 ),\ http://link.aip.org/link/?JCP/137/051102/1 NoStop Zhang2012

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Ancilotto , author P

    author author F. Ancilotto , author P. B. \ Lerner ,\ and\ author M. W. \ Cole ,\ journal journal J. Low T. Phys. \ volume 101 ,\ pages 1123 ( year 1995 ) NoStop Ancilotto1995b

    1995

  13. [21]

    Poms , author A

    author author J. Poms , author A. W. \ Hauser ,\ and\ author W. E. \ Ernst ,\ journal journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 15158 ( year 2012 ) NoStop Poms2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Coppens , author A

    author author F. Coppens , author A. Leal , author M. Barranco , author N. Halberstadt ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:10.1007/s10909-016-1690-x journal J. Low Temp. Phys. \ volume 187 ,\ pages 439 ( year 2017 ) NoStop Coppens2016

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Leal , author D

    author author A. Leal , author D. Mateo , author A. Hernando , author M. Pi , author M. Barranco , author A. Ponti , author F. Cargnoni ,\ and\ author M. Drabbels ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.90.224518 journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 224518 ( year 2014 ) NoStop Leal2014

    doi

  16. [24]

    Garc\' a-Alfonso , author M

    author author E. Garc\' a-Alfonso , author M. Barranco , author N. Halberstadt ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:10.1063/5.0205951 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 160 ,\ pages 164308 ( month 04 \ year 2024 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Calvo ,\ journal doi:10.1063/5.0230829 journal J

    author author F. Calvo ,\ journal doi:10.1063/5.0230829 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 161 ,\ pages 121101 ( year 2024 ) NoStop Calvo2024

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Calvo ,\ journal doi:10.1063/10.0036204 journal J

    author author F. Calvo ,\ journal doi:10.1063/10.0036204 journal J. Low T. Phys. \ volume 51 ,\ pages 453–459 ( year 2025 ),\ https://doi.org/10.1063/10.0036204 NoStop Calvo2025

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Barranco , author R

    author author M. Barranco , author R. Guardiola , author E. S. \ Hern\'andez , author R. Mayol , author J. Navarro ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:doi:10.1007/s10909-005-9267-0 journal J. Low Temp. Phys. \ volume 142 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2006 ),\ http://link.springer.com/arti...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Ancilotto , author M

    author author F. Ancilotto , author M. Barranco , author F. Coppens , author J. Eloranta , author N. Halberstadt , author A. Hernando , author D. Mateo ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:10.1080/0144235X.2017.1351672 journal Int. Review in Phys. Chem. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 621...

    2017

  21. [29]

    Coppens , author J

    author author F. Coppens , author J. von Vangerow , author M. Barranco , author N. Halberstadt , author F. Stienkemeier , author M. Pi ,\ and\ author M. Mudrich ,\ journal doi:10.1039/C8CP00482J journal Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. \ volume 20 ,\ pages 9309 ( year 2018 ),\ http://d...

    doi

  22. [30]

    Rendler , author A

    author author N. Rendler , author A. Scognamiglio , author M. Barranco , author M. Pi , author N. Halberstadt , author K. Dulitz ,\ and\ author F. Stienkemeier ,\ journal doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.1c05467 journal J. Phys. Chem. A \ volume 125 ,\ pages 9048 ( year 2021 ),\ http://dx...

    doi

  23. [31]

    Trejo , author A

    author author M. Trejo , author A. Clifford , author E. G. \ a Alfonso , author N. Halberstadt , author L. Xue ,\ and\ author W. Kong ,\ journal doi:10.1063/5.0221682 journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 161 ,\ pages 054306 ( year 2024 ),\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0221682 NoStop Trejo2024

    doi

  24. [32]

    Dalfovo , author A

    author author F. Dalfovo , author A. Lastri , author L. Pricaupenko , author S. Stringari ,\ and\ author J. Treiner ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.52.1193 journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 52 ,\ pages 1193 ( year 1995 ) NoStop Dalfovo1995

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    Barranco , author F

    author author M. Barranco , author F. Coppens , author N. Halberstadt , author A. Hernando , author A. Leal , author D. Mateo , author R. Mayol ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ title Zero temperature DFT and TDDFT for ^4 He: A short guide for practitioners , \ ( year (2017), ),\ note h...

    2017

  26. [34]

    Ancilotto , author M

    author author F. Ancilotto , author M. Barranco , author F. Caupin , author R. Mayol ,\ and\ author M. Pi ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.72.214522 journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 72 ,\ pages 214522 ( year 2005 ),\ http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.214522 NoStop Ancilotto2005a

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    author author S. H. \ Patil ,\ journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 94 ,\ pages 8089 ( year 1991 ) NoStop Patil1991

    1991

  28. [36]

    Koutselos , author E.A.Mason ,\ and\ author L.A.Viehland ,\ journal doi:10.1063/1.459436 journal J.Chem.Phys \ volume 93 ,\ pages 7125 ( year 1990 ) NoStop Koutselos1990

    author author A. Koutselos , author E.A.Mason ,\ and\ author L.A.Viehland ,\ journal doi:10.1063/1.459436 journal J.Chem.Phys \ volume 93 ,\ pages 7125 ( year 1990 ) NoStop Koutselos1990

    1990 doi

  29. [37]

    Sheng , author J

    author author X. Sheng , author J. P. \ Toennies ,\ and\ author K. T. \ Tang ,\ journal doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.253402 journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 253402 ( year 2020 ) NoStop Sheng2020

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Viehland , author B

    author author L. Viehland , author B. R. \ Gray ,\ and\ author T. G. \ Wright ,\ journal doi:10.1080/00268970903183433 journal Mol. Phys. \ volume 107 ,\ pages 2127 ( year 2009 ) NoStop Viehland2009

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Pi , author F

    author author M. Pi , author F. Ancilotto , author E. Garc \' a-Alfonso , author F. Coppens , author N. Halberstadt , author A. Hernando , author A. Leal , author D. Mateo , author R. Mayol ,\ and\ author M. Barranco ,\ howpublished 4He-DFT BCN-TLS: A Computer Package for Simu...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Frigo \ and\ author S

    author author M. Frigo \ and\ author S. G. \ Johnson ,\ journal journal Proc. IEEE \ volume 93 ,\ pages 216 ( year 2005 ) NoStop Frigo2005

    2005

Pith tools

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