OK for titou

CCvsMBPT.tex

@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ Indeed, one can obtain an analog of the 1h1p block of the approximate EOM-rCCD H
 This equation provides the same excitation energies as the conventional linear-response equations \eqref{eq:BSE}, and the corresponding $\Lambda$ equations based on the BSE effective Hamiltonian $\tHN$ can be derived following Ref.~\onlinecite{Rishi_2020}.
 
 However, there is a significant difference with RPAx as the BSE involves $GW$ quasiparticle energies, where some of the correlation has been already dressed, while the RPAx equations only involves (undressed) one-electron orbital energies, as shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq:EOM-rCCD}.
-In other words, in the spirit of the Brueckner version of CCD, \cite{Handy_1989} the $GW$ post-treatment renormalizes the bare one-electron energies and, consequently, incorporates mosaic diagrams, \cite{Scuseria_2008,Scuseria_2013} a process named Brueckner-like dressing in Ref.~\onlinecite{Berkelbach_2018}.
+In other words, in the spirit of the Brueckner version of CCD, \cite{Handy_1989} the $GW$ pre-treatment renormalizes the bare one-electron energies and, consequently, incorporates mosaic diagrams, \cite{Scuseria_2008,Scuseria_2013} a process named Brueckner-like dressing in Ref.~\onlinecite{Berkelbach_2018}.
 
 This observation evidences clear similitudes between BSE@$GW$ and the similarity-transformed EOM-CC (STEOM-CC) method introduced by Nooijen, \cite{Nooijen_1997c,Nooijen_1997b,Nooijen_1997a} where one performs a second similarity transformation to partially decouple the 1h determinants from the 2h1p ones in the ionization potential (IP) sector and the 1p determinants from the 1h2p ones in the electron affinity (EA) sector.
 At the CCSD level, for example, this is achieved by performing IP-EOM-CCSD \cite{Stanton_1994,Musial_2003a} (up to 2h1p) and EA-EOM-CCSD \cite{Nooijen_1995,Musial_2003b} (up to 2p1h) calculations prior to the EOM-CC treatment, which can then be reduced to the 1h1p sector thanks to this partial decoupling.
@@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ Within the perturbative $GW$ scheme (commonly known as $G_0W_0$), the quasiparti
 \cite{Strinati_1980,Hybertsen_1985a,Hybertsen_1986,Godby_1988,Linden_1988,Northrup_1991,Blase_1994,Rohlfing_1995,Shishkin_2007}
 Partial self-consistency can be attained via the \textit{``eigenvalue''} self-consistent $GW$ (ev$GW$)  \cite{Hybertsen_1986,Shishkin_2007,Blase_2011,Faber_2011,Rangel_2016,Gui_2018} or the quasiparticle self-consistent $GW$ (qs$GW$) \cite{Faleev_2004,vanSchilfgaarde_2006,Kotani_2007,Ke_2011,Kaplan_2016} schemes.
 
-In the most general setting, the quasiparticle energies and their corresponding orbitals are obtained self-consistently by diagonalizing the so-called non-linear and frequency-dependent quasiparticle equation 
+In the most general setting, the quasiparticle energies and their corresponding orbitals are obtained by diagonalizing the so-called non-linear and frequency-dependent quasiparticle equation 
 \begin{equation}
 	\label{eq:GW}
 	\qty[ \be{}{} + \bSig{}{\GW}\qty(\omega = \e{p}{\GW}) ] \SO{p}{\GW} = \e{p}{\GW} \SO{p}{\GW}