RBED cross sections for the ionization of atomic inner shells by electron-impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relativistic binary-encounter-dipole (RBED) model for electron-impact ionization of atoms combines classical binary-encounter theory and the asymptotic dipole interaction, which is based on the plane-wave Born approximation, with the only non-trivial ingredient being the optical oscillator strength (OOS). Due to the difficulty of obtaining accurate OOSs, the performance of the RBED model has so far not been fully assessed. In the present work we compare RBED inner-shell ionization cross sections (total and differential) of neutral atoms evaluated using three types of OOSs, namely an empirical power-law OOS, analytical hydrogenic OOSs and ab initio OOSs calculated numerically from self-consistent atomic potentials. We find that, compared to the distorted-wave Born approximation (DWBA), the RBED with either hydrogenic or numerical OOSs generally yields more accurate total cross sections (TCSs) than the RBED with the power-law OOS, especially for the most tightly bound shells. In the highly relativistic limit the RBED model does not recover the Bethe asymptotic behavior because of its different energy-dependent prefactor, hence we investigate an alternative prefactor which restores the correct Bethe asymptote. Finally, we suggest multiplying the RBED differential cross sections (DCSs) by the ratio of DWBA to RBED TCSs and verify that this renormalization improves the agreement with the DWBA DCSs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".