From ff3ecaceac60f47e7d658743ae7a8936703b1ad3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: EnzoMonino Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:55:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] partial answers --- Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex b/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex index 24304f9..35ad2d9 100644 --- a/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex +++ b/Response_Letter/Response_Letter.tex @@ -80,14 +80,14 @@ I do not think that it is clearly mentioned in the article when the notation app \item {I assume that in Fig.~1 authors plot the lowest solution after the diagonalization for each orbital p.} \\ -\alert{ +\alert{In Fig.~1 we plot the quasiparticle solution for each orbital, i.e, the solution with the largest spectral weight which is obtained using the ``normal'' $G_0W_0$ scheme. } \item {In Fig.~2, the thick and thin solid lines are hardly visible. A better way of displaying is necessary. Otherwise it all is a bit incomprehensible.} \\ -\alert{ +\alert{Visibility of the different solid lines has been improved. Thank you for this valuable comment. } \item @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ However, I cannot understand how the authors can claim that the correction intro These qp energies are different by 2-3 eV. How are the smooth curves advantageous if the results are so incorrect? Could authors elaborate?} \\ -\alert{ +\alert{Indeed the HOMO and LUMO orbitals do not show discontinuities along the dissociation coordinate so no need for a correction. Thus, it is an important feature that the regularization introduces only a small correction for these orbitals. Moreover, it is also essential to notice that we talk here about the $G_0W_0$ scheme but in case of a partially self-consistent scheme then the use of regularization seems critical. +%It is also true that the regularization introduces a correction of few eVs for the LUMO+1 (p=3) and LUMO+2 (p=4) orbitals but } \item