The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benchmark ofGWmethods for azabenzenes
Open accessAbstract
Many-body perturbation theory in the $GW$ approximation is a useful method for describing electronic properties associated with charged excitations. A hierarchy of $GW$ methods exists, starting from non-self-consistent ${G}_{0}$${W}_{0}$, through partial self-consistency in the eigenvalues and in the Green's function (sc$G{W}_{0}$), to fully self-consistent $GW$ (sc$GW$). Here, we assess the performance of these methods for benzene, pyridine, and the diazines. The quasiparticle spectra are compared to photoemission spectroscopy (PES) experiments with respect to all measured particle removal energies and the ordering of the frontier orbitals. We find that the accuracy of the calculated spectra does not match the expectations based on their level of self-consistency. In particular, for certain starting points ${G}_{0}$${W}_{0}$ and sc$G{W}_{0}$ provide spectra in better agreement with the PES than sc$GW$.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-interaction correction to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems
Perdew, J. P., & Zunger, A. (1981) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.23.5048 · Cited by 20,887
Electronic excitations: density-functional versus many-body Green’s-function approaches
Onida, G., Reining, L., & Rubio, A. (2002) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.601 · Cited by 4,155
Cited by
Kühne, T. D., Iannuzzi, M., Del Ben, M., Rybkin, V. V., Seewald, P., Stein, F., Laino, T., Khaliullin, R. Z., Schütt, O., Schiffmann, F., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/5.0007045 · Cited by 4,468
The GW approximation: content, successes and limitations
Reining, L. (2018) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1344 · Cited by 284
Combining Wave Function Methods with Density Functional Theory for Excited States
Ghosh, S., Verma, P., Cramer, C. J., Gagliardi, L., & Truhlar, D. G. (2018) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00193 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Marom, N., Caruso, F., Ren, X., Hofmann, O. T., Körzdörfer, T., Chelikowsky, J. R., Rubio, A., Scheffler, M., & Rinke, P.
- Venue
- Physical Review B
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2012-12-26
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 24
- ISSN
- 1098-0121 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-235X
- OpenAlex
- W1615960000
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Benchmark ofGWmethods for azabenzenes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevb.86.245127
- The paper
- Marom, N., Caruso, F., Ren, X., Hofmann, O. T., Körzdörfer, T., Chelikowsky, J. R., Rubio, A., Scheffler, M., & Rinke, P. (2012). Benchmark ofGWmethods for azabenzenes. Physical Review B. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.86.245127
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.