werner_2009#
W. S. M. Werner, K. Glantschnig and C. Ambrosch-Draxl, “Optical constants and inelastic electron-scattering data for 17 elemental metals”, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 38, 1013-1092 (2009)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
DOI: 10.1063/1.3243762
Source kind: measurement
Recorded technique: Two independent sets of the dielectric function of 16 metals and Te. (1) DFT (Sec. 2, pp. 1017-1019): full-potential LAPW (WIEN2K), GGA (Perdew et al.), spin-polarised for Fe, Co, Ni, spin-orbit coupling (second variational) for Au, Pb, Pd, Pt and W; the dielectric response in the random-phase (independent-particle) approximation: epsilon_2 interband from momentum matrix elements (Eq. 6, improved tetrahedron method), the intraband part a Drude line with a lifetime broadening of 0.1 eV (‘a universal value chosen for all elemental metals’), the interband spectra Lorentzian-broadened by 0.1 eV, epsilon_1 by Kramers-Kronig transformation; lattice and convergence parameters in Table 1 (Cu fcc a = 6.8219 au; Ag fcc 7.7290 au; Au fcc 7.7101 au; optical k mesh 58x58x58). (2) REELS (Secs. 3-4, pp. 1020-1029): reflection electron energy-loss spectra in UHV (VG Microlab 310 F, hemispherical analyser at 20 eV pass energy, normal incidence, detection at 60 deg to the normal, base pressure ~1e-9 mbar; 17 elemental samples on one holder, cleaned by 3 keV Ar+ sputtering, checked by Auger spectroscopy), primary energies 300-3400 eV (50-200 eV discarded); Richardson-Lucy deconvolution of the instrumental broadening, elastic-peak removal (Eq. 9), a partial-intensity deconvolution of multiple volume and surface scattering from a pair of spectra (Eq. 23) giving the single-scattering distributions DIIMFP w_b and DSEP w_s, and a simultaneous fit of both to the theoretical expressions (Eqs. 10, 13) with a Drude-Lorentz dielectric function (Eq. 25, Tables 5-10), weights X_b = 1.0 and X_s = 0.01 (Eq. 27). The tabulated REELS epsilon are that fitted model’s values (‘These values have been calculated from the Drude-Lorentz expansion coefficients derived from experimental results for the DIIMFP (and DSEP)’, Summary, p. 1038).
Materials in structured entries: Ag, Au, Cu
Dataset quantities: permittivity_imaginary, permittivity_real
Contents: 12 datasets; 3 formulas.
Curation notes#
Journal pages 1013-1092 = PDF pages 1-80 (journal page = PDF page + 1012). Identity checked against the first page (the library flags warnings on the bibliographic record only). Werner et al. cover Ti, V, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo, Pd, Ag, Ta, W, Pt, Au, Pb, Bi and the semimetal Te; aluminium is not among them (it appears only in Fig. 4, a DIIMFP/DSEP illustration). Only Cu, Ag and Au are recorded here (the registered metals); the others’ tables are listed below and not transcribed.
TABLES OF OPTICAL CONSTANTS (Tables 11-26, pp. 1044-1091; one per metal, three pages each): Table 11 Ti, 12 V, 13 Fe, 14 Co, 15 Ni, 16 Cu (pp. 1059-1061), 17 Zn, 18 Mo, 19 Pd, 20 Ag (pp. 1071-1073), 21 Ta, 22 W, 23 Pt, 24 Au (pp. 1083-1085), 25 Pb, 26 Bi. Te has no numerical table (its Drude-Lorentz parameters are in Table 8 and its figures are Figs. 20 and 32). Each table gives, on one energy grid (0.50-4.75 eV in 0.25 eV steps, 5.0-70.5 eV in 0.5 eV steps; 150 rows), E (eV), epsilon_1, epsilon_2 and the ELF Im(-1/epsilon) from DFT, then E, epsilon_1, epsilon_2, ELF from REELS, and the REELS w_b (DIIMFP, meV^-1) and w_s (DSEP, arbitrary units, a_s = 1). The ELF, w_b and w_s have no quantity; they are kept in each row’s printed cells. The library has these tables as JSON only; the extraction script gives the parts and their page order, established from the images.
ACCURACY (REELS). ‘The accuracy of the experimental data is estimated to be better than 10% for the ELF and epsilon_2 as well as for epsilon_1 for energies above 10 eV. For energies below 10 eV, the uncertainty in epsilon_1 in the experimental data may exceed 100%, which is a consequence of the fact that energy-loss measurements mainly sample the absorptive part of the dielectric constant’ (abstract, p. 1013). The ~10% is the rms deviation of the DIIMFP between energy pairs (p. 1026), carried to the ELF and, by error propagation, to epsilon_1 and epsilon_2 (Fig. 9, Au, p. 1029). ‘For energies below ~5 eV, where the loss function assumes small values, the uncertainty in the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function derived from REELS becomes appreciable (that may exceed 100% in the case of epsilon_1)’; the REELS n and k ‘deviate from the other data sets for wavelengths above ~0.2 um’ (p. 1033); the cause is the tail of the elastic peak between 0.1 and 5 eV loss (p. 1033). For the REELS datasets the uncertainty is recorded as a 10 % bound, with epsilon_1 below 10 eV at 100 % (a floor: the paper says it ‘may exceed’ 100 %). The low-energy REELS rows are erratic (Cu epsilon_2 49.3, 86.3, 41.4 at 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 eV, as printed and consistent with the printed ELF). Near the semicore edges the REELS retrieval uses a dispersion alpha = 0.5 in Eq. 26 (alpha = 1 below), chosen so the edges match photoemission binding energies (pp. 1028-1029); the paper notes a ‘small systematic uncertainty’ from this beyond the semicore edges (Cu 3p3/2 at 75.1 eV, Ag 4p3/2 58.3 eV, Au 5p3/2 57.2 eV: Tables 6, 8, 9 captions). No uncertainty is given for the DFT values. No sample temperature is stated.
DFT CAVEATS. The DFT intraband broadening of 0.1 eV is not the metal’s own: for Ag the measured lifetime corresponds to 0.02 eV, and the choice ‘affects the low-energy region up to 2.6 eV’ (Fig. 1, p. 1019). The DFT datasets are therefore recorded as checks (use = check), a calculation rather than a measurement of these samples; this may be decided otherwise at review.
SUM RULES (Table 2, p. 1039; image checked). Z_eff (f-sum, Eq. 31) and P_eff (ps-sum, Eq. 32), with Henke’s data added above 80 eV: Cu (Z = 29) REELS 30.6, DFT 29.5, Palik 28.3; ps 1.037, 1.016, 0.995. Ag (47): 46.6, 44.5, 50.6; 1.018, 1.005, 1.148. Au (79): 74.5, 75.2, 75.0; 1.008, 0.992, 1.107. The f-sum deviations are 3-5 % for all three sets (p. 1034).
OTHER TABLES (notes only). Table 1 (p. 1019): DFT structural and convergence parameters. Table 3 (p. 1040): fit parameters k1, p1, k2, p2 of the IMFP against energy (Eq. 33, 200-3000 eV). Table 4 (p. 1041): the surface excitation parameter a_s per metal. Tables 5-10 (p. 1043): the Drude-Lorentz parameters of the REELS fits (the formulas below for Cu, Ag and Au; the other metals not transcribed). Figs. 27-32 plot n and k against wavelength (REELS, DFT, Palik); Fig. 27 is Cu, Ag and Au.
COMPARISON WITH PALIK (text). The three sets agree within the errors below the semicore edges (<~50 eV), with DFT and REELS agreeing better with each other than with Palik (e.g. the ELF peak positions below 30 eV for Ag and Au, p. 1033); at the semicore edges Palik’s values (from Henke’s atomic tables) differ from both (p. 1032). For Au the interband ELF peaks near 25 and 35 eV lie slightly higher in energy in Palik’s data than in the REELS (p. 1036).
REFRACTIVEINDEX.INFO. solprop’s silver table takes 0.0176-0.124 um (10-70.5 eV) from the database’s Ag/Werner page, ‘Experimental data: Derived from reflection electron energy-loss spectroscopy (REELS) spectra’ (published range 0.017586-2.479684 um, i.e. 0.5-70.5 eV): the REELS columns of Table 20 converted to n and k. See the curators’ notes for the comparison.
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED_WITH_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
werner_2009/eps1_reels_Cu#
{
"id": "eps1_reels_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/werner_2009__eps1_reels_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_bbde835d361c",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound",
"relative_rows": {
"0.50": 1.0,
"0.75": 1.0,
"1.00": 1.0,
"1.25": 1.0,
"1.50": 1.0,
"1.75": 1.0,
"2.00": 1.0,
"2.25": 1.0,
"2.50": 1.0,
"2.75": 1.0,
"3.00": 1.0,
"3.25": 1.0,
"3.50": 1.0,
"3.75": 1.0,
"4.00": 1.0,
"4.25": 1.0,
"4.50": 1.0,
"4.75": 1.0,
"5.0": 1.0,
"5.5": 1.0,
"6.0": 1.0,
"6.5": 1.0,
"7.0": 1.0,
"7.5": 1.0,
"8.0": 1.0,
"8.5": 1.0,
"9.0": 1.0,
"9.5": 1.0
}
}
}
Table 16, pp. 1059-1061 (tbl_bbde835d361c, tbl_77acafd389e3, tbl_d3f670af9b86), REELS epsilon_1, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows: the fitted Drude-Lorentz model’s values (formula drude_lorentz_Cu). Unreliable below ~5 eV (see the record’s notes).
werner_2009/eps2_reels_Cu#
{
"id": "eps2_reels_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/werner_2009__eps2_reels_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_bbde835d361c",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound"
}
}
Table 16, pp. 1059-1061, REELS epsilon_2, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows. ‘Better than 10%’ (abstract); the paper calls the uncertainty ‘appreciable’ below ~5 eV without a number.
werner_2009/eps1_dft_Cu#
{
"id": "eps1_dft_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/werner_2009__eps1_dft_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_bbde835d361c",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 16, pp. 1059-1061, DFT epsilon_1 (GGA, LAPW; 0.1 eV intraband and interband broadening), 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows. A calculation: kept as a check (record notes).
werner_2009/eps2_dft_Cu#
{
"id": "eps2_dft_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"file": "Cu/werner_2009__eps2_dft_Cu.csv",
"table": "tbl_bbde835d361c",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 16, pp. 1059-1061, DFT epsilon_2, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
werner_2009/eps1_reels_Ag#
{
"id": "eps1_reels_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"file": "Ag/werner_2009__eps1_reels_Ag.csv",
"table": "tbl_a521b89d0a14",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound",
"relative_rows": {
"0.50": 1.0,
"0.75": 1.0,
"1.00": 1.0,
"1.25": 1.0,
"1.50": 1.0,
"1.75": 1.0,
"2.00": 1.0,
"2.25": 1.0,
"2.50": 1.0,
"2.75": 1.0,
"3.00": 1.0,
"3.25": 1.0,
"3.50": 1.0,
"3.75": 1.0,
"4.00": 1.0,
"4.25": 1.0,
"4.50": 1.0,
"4.75": 1.0,
"5.0": 1.0,
"5.5": 1.0,
"6.0": 1.0,
"6.5": 1.0,
"7.0": 1.0,
"7.5": 1.0,
"8.0": 1.0,
"8.5": 1.0,
"9.0": 1.0,
"9.5": 1.0
}
}
}
Table 20, pp. 1071-1073 (tbl_a521b89d0a14, tbl_ba923cb150a2, tbl_d7484476dcbe), REELS epsilon_1, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows: the fitted model’s values (formula drude_lorentz_Ag). The refractiveindex.info Ag/Werner page is this column with epsilon_2, as n and k.
werner_2009/eps2_reels_Ag#
{
"id": "eps2_reels_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"file": "Ag/werner_2009__eps2_reels_Ag.csv",
"table": "tbl_a521b89d0a14",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound"
}
}
Table 20, pp. 1071-1073, REELS epsilon_2, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
werner_2009/eps1_dft_Ag#
{
"id": "eps1_dft_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"file": "Ag/werner_2009__eps1_dft_Ag.csv",
"table": "tbl_a521b89d0a14",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 20, pp. 1071-1073, DFT epsilon_1, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows. The 0.1 eV intraband broadening exceeds silver’s measured 0.02 eV (p. 1019).
werner_2009/eps2_dft_Ag#
{
"id": "eps2_dft_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"file": "Ag/werner_2009__eps2_dft_Ag.csv",
"table": "tbl_a521b89d0a14",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 20, pp. 1071-1073, DFT epsilon_2, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
werner_2009/eps1_reels_Au#
{
"id": "eps1_reels_Au",
"material": "Au",
"file": "Au/werner_2009__eps1_reels_Au.csv",
"table": "tbl_991d52c88cc2",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound",
"relative_rows": {
"0.50": 1.0,
"0.75": 1.0,
"1.00": 1.0,
"1.25": 1.0,
"1.50": 1.0,
"1.75": 1.0,
"2.00": 1.0,
"2.25": 1.0,
"2.50": 1.0,
"2.75": 1.0,
"3.00": 1.0,
"3.25": 1.0,
"3.50": 1.0,
"3.75": 1.0,
"4.00": 1.0,
"4.25": 1.0,
"4.50": 1.0,
"4.75": 1.0,
"5.0": 1.0,
"5.5": 1.0,
"6.0": 1.0,
"6.5": 1.0,
"7.0": 1.0,
"7.5": 1.0,
"8.0": 1.0,
"8.5": 1.0,
"9.0": 1.0,
"9.5": 1.0
}
}
}
Table 24, pp. 1083-1085 (tbl_991d52c88cc2, tbl_f4fe6ec8cdaa, tbl_4c92ff38fd6e), REELS epsilon_1, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows: the fitted model’s values (formula drude_lorentz_Au).
werner_2009/eps2_reels_Au#
{
"id": "eps2_reels_Au",
"material": "Au",
"file": "Au/werner_2009__eps2_reels_Au.csv",
"table": "tbl_991d52c88cc2",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "primary",
"parameters": {
"technique": "REELS"
},
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.1,
"level": "bound"
}
}
Table 24, pp. 1083-1085, REELS epsilon_2, 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
werner_2009/eps1_dft_Au#
{
"id": "eps1_dft_Au",
"material": "Au",
"file": "Au/werner_2009__eps1_dft_Au.csv",
"table": "tbl_991d52c88cc2",
"quantity": "permittivity_real",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 24, pp. 1083-1085, DFT epsilon_1 (with spin-orbit coupling), 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
werner_2009/eps2_dft_Au#
{
"id": "eps2_dft_Au",
"material": "Au",
"file": "Au/werner_2009__eps2_dft_Au.csv",
"table": "tbl_991d52c88cc2",
"quantity": "permittivity_imaginary",
"abscissa_unit": "eV",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"technique": "DFT"
}
}
Table 24, pp. 1083-1085, DFT epsilon_2 (with spin-orbit coupling), 0.50-70.5 eV, 150 rows.
Formulas#
werner_2009/drude_lorentz_Cu#
{
"id": "drude_lorentz_Cu",
"material": "Cu",
"equation": "Eqs. (25)-(26), p. 1024, with Table 6 (tbl_acb9ee0c406b, p. 1043), column Cu",
"printed": "epsilon_1(omega, q) = 1 - sum_i f_i (omega^2 - omega_i(q)^2) / [(omega^2 - omega_i(q)^2)^2 + omega^2 gamma_i^2], epsilon_2(omega, q) = sum_i f_i gamma_i omega / [(omega^2 - omega_i(q)^2)^2 + omega^2 gamma_i^2] (25); omega_i(q) = omega_i + alpha q^2 / 2 (26). Table 6, Cu (E_3p3/2 = 75.1 eV): omega_i (eV), gamma_i (eV), A_i (eV^2) = 0.000, 0.027, 86.3; 1.0, 0.5, 19.8; 1.0, 0.5, 21.9; 4.0, 1.7, 30.2; 4.8, 0.5, 2.5; 7.2, 11.3, 157.7; 14.2, 10.1, 130.9; 16.9, 68.2, 108.6; 24.3, 3.0, 40.0; 59.4, 55.1, 1022.4",
"variable": "omega = hbar omega, the energy (loss) in eV; q the momentum transfer (q = 0 for optical constants); the table's A_i (eV^2) is Eq. (25)'s oscillator strength f_i",
"range": "The REELS fit, 0-~80 eV; the paper considers the REELS values reliable from the near UV (above ~5 eV) to the soft x-ray range",
"coefficients": {
"omega_1": "0.000",
"gamma_1": "0.027",
"A_1": "86.3",
"omega_2": "1.0",
"gamma_2": "0.5",
"A_2": "19.8",
"omega_3": "1.0",
"gamma_3": "0.5",
"A_3": "21.9",
"omega_4": "4.0",
"gamma_4": "1.7",
"A_4": "30.2",
"omega_5": "4.8",
"gamma_5": "0.5",
"A_5": "2.5",
"omega_6": "7.2",
"gamma_6": "11.3",
"A_6": "157.7",
"omega_7": "14.2",
"gamma_7": "10.1",
"A_7": "130.9",
"omega_8": "16.9",
"gamma_8": "68.2",
"A_8": "108.6",
"omega_9": "24.3",
"gamma_9": "3.0",
"A_9": "40.0",
"omega_10": "59.4",
"gamma_10": "55.1",
"A_10": "1022.4"
},
"check": "At q = 0 with f_i = A_i, Eq. (25) gives epsilon = 0.804 + 0.257i at 70.0 eV (Table 16 REELS: 0.804, 0.257), 0.894 + 0.353i at 40.0 eV (0.894, 0.354), -0.104 + 2.120i at 10.0 eV (-0.097, 2.118), -4.149 + 5.191i at 5.0 eV (-4.101, 5.185), but -78.8 + 86.7i at 1.00 eV (-73.064, 86.333): three digits above 10 eV; below, the one- and two-digit rounding of the printed parameters (the two oscillators at 1.0 eV, the 0.027 eV Drude width) dominates. Checked 2026-09-27."
}
The REELS dielectric function of Cu. The last row of Table 6 is merged in the library’s cells (‘24.359.4 | 3.055.1 | 40.01022.4’); the values here are from the image. The oscillator parameters are ‘a convenient numerical representation of the data’ rather than physical transition energies (p. 1027). alpha = 1 below the semicore edge and 0.5 for semicore transitions (pp. 1024, 1029).
werner_2009/drude_lorentz_Ag#
{
"id": "drude_lorentz_Ag",
"material": "Ag",
"equation": "Eqs. (25)-(26), p. 1024, with Table 8 (tbl_9247fa2f536a, p. 1043), column Ag",
"printed": "Eq. (25) as for drude_lorentz_Cu. Table 8, Ag (E_4p3/2 = 58.3 eV): omega_i (eV), gamma_i (eV), A_i (eV^2) = 0.000, 0.065, 98.4; 1.0, 93.8, 103.9; 4.9, 0.7, 23.8; 10.3, 22.0, 318.3; 13.2, 6.3, 89.6; 21.2, 3.3, 63.5; 30.2, 3.7, 43.3; 43.0, 16.7, 313.3; 65.7, 38.8, 519.9",
"variable": "omega = hbar omega in eV; q = 0 for optical constants; A_i (eV^2) is Eq. (25)'s f_i",
"range": "The REELS fit, 0-~80 eV",
"coefficients": {
"omega_1": "0.000",
"gamma_1": "0.065",
"A_1": "98.4",
"omega_2": "1.0",
"gamma_2": "93.8",
"A_2": "103.9",
"omega_3": "4.9",
"gamma_3": "0.7",
"A_3": "23.8",
"omega_4": "10.3",
"gamma_4": "22.0",
"A_4": "318.3",
"omega_5": "13.2",
"gamma_5": "6.3",
"A_5": "89.6",
"omega_6": "21.2",
"gamma_6": "3.3",
"A_6": "63.5",
"omega_7": "30.2",
"gamma_7": "3.7",
"A_7": "43.3",
"omega_8": "43.0",
"gamma_8": "16.7",
"A_8": "313.3",
"omega_9": "65.7",
"gamma_9": "38.8",
"A_9": "519.9"
},
"check": "At q = 0 with f_i = A_i: 0.735 + 0.250i at 70.0 eV (Table 20 REELS: 0.735, 0.250), 0.877 + 0.641i at 40.0 eV (0.880, 0.641), 0.969 + 2.233i at 10.0 eV (0.956, 2.232), -92.055 + 8.138i at 1.00 eV (-92.057, 8.164), but -2.280 + 8.585i at 5.0 eV (-1.599, 9.249), where the 0.7 eV-wide oscillator at 4.9 eV makes the model sensitive to the printed rounding. Checked 2026-09-27."
}
The REELS dielectric function of Ag. Table 8’s cells in the library agree with the image for the Ag column (the merged last row belongs to Te and Ta).
werner_2009/drude_lorentz_Au#
{
"id": "drude_lorentz_Au",
"material": "Au",
"equation": "Eqs. (25)-(26), p. 1024, with Table 9 (tbl_0f7ff357dab2, p. 1043), column Au",
"printed": "Eq. (25) as for drude_lorentz_Cu. Table 9, Au (E_5p3/2 = 57.2 eV): omega_i (eV), gamma_i (eV), A_i (eV^2) = 0.000, 0.2, 113.1; 4.0, 1.5, 44.6; 7.3, 3.3, 54.8; 12.8, 11.8, 184.9; 18.9, 71.0, 728.1; 19.9, 2.9, 65.7; 28.9, 3.9, 50.0; 38.7, 13.0, 74.7; 64.3, 51.9, 544.0",
"variable": "omega = hbar omega in eV; q = 0 for optical constants; A_i (eV^2) is Eq. (25)'s f_i",
"range": "The REELS fit, 0-~80 eV",
"coefficients": {
"omega_1": "0.000",
"gamma_1": "0.2",
"A_1": "113.1",
"omega_2": "4.0",
"gamma_2": "1.5",
"A_2": "44.6",
"omega_3": "7.3",
"gamma_3": "3.3",
"A_3": "54.8",
"omega_4": "12.8",
"gamma_4": "11.8",
"A_4": "184.9",
"omega_5": "18.9",
"gamma_5": "71.0",
"A_5": "728.1",
"omega_6": "19.9",
"gamma_6": "2.9",
"A_6": "65.7",
"omega_7": "28.9",
"gamma_7": "3.9",
"A_7": "50.0",
"omega_8": "38.7",
"gamma_8": "13.0",
"A_8": "74.7",
"omega_9": "64.3",
"gamma_9": "51.9",
"A_9": "544.0"
},
"check": "At q = 0 with f_i = A_i: 0.768 + 0.238i at 70.0 eV (Table 24 REELS: 0.768, 0.237), 0.640 + 0.519i at 40.0 eV (0.639, 0.519), 0.030 + 2.833i at 10.0 eV (0.033, 2.828), -2.424 + 5.053i at 5.0 eV (-2.340, 4.989), -100.26 + 22.59i at 1.00 eV (-101.906, 17.819). Checked 2026-09-27."
}
The REELS dielectric function of Au. Table 9’s cells for Au agree with the image.
Corrections#
No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.
Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.