On the relativistic impulse approximation for the calculation of Compton scattering cross sections and photon interaction coefficients used in kV dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We calculate differential and integrated cross sections for the Compton interaction as well as mass attenuation ([Formula: see text]), mass energy-transfer ([Formula: see text]), and mass energy-absorption ([Formula: see text]) coefficients, within the relativistic impulse approximation (RIA) using Compton profiles (CPs) obtained from unrestricted Hartree-Fock electron densities. We investigate the impact of using molecular as opposed to atomic CPs on dosimetric photon interaction coefficients for air, water and graphite, and compare our cross sections to the simpler Waller-Hartree (WH) and Klein-Nishina (KN) formalisms. We find that differences in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] resulting from the choice of CPs within the RIA are small relative to the differences between the RIA, WH, and KN calculations. Surprisingly, although the WH binding corrections seem accurate when considering [Formula: see text], there are significant discrepancies between the WH and RIA results when we look at [Formula: see text]. The WH theory can differ substantially from the predictions of KN and the RIA in the tens of keV range (e.g. 6%-10% at 20 keV), when Compton scattering becomes the dominant interaction mechanism. For lower energies, the disagreement further grows to about one order of magnitude at 1 keV. However, since the photoelectric effect transfers more energy than the Compton interaction in the tens of keV range and below, the differences in the total [Formula: see text] values resulting from the choice of Compton models (KN, WH, or RIA) are not larger than 0.4%, and the differences between WH and the other two theories are no longer prominent.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".