评论：根据实验数据确定液态水中电子散射平均自由程的另一种方法
Comment on: An alternative approach for the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering in liquid water based on experimental data
摘要：
在最近的一篇文章中，Schild等人提出了他们所谓的确定液态水中电子散射平均自由程的另一种方法。这绝不是新的方法是基于一个非常简单的两个通道模型的电子散射只有一个完全弹性和一个完全非弹性（总损失）通道。参数化由弹性截面，其角度依赖性（DCS），和非弹性散射的电子损失的截面。两个截面（或等效MFP）由实验数据（EAL和测量的各向异性参数）拟合确定。弹性DCS计算从头计算各种集群模型。此外，他们声称找到了弹性和非弹性的平均自由程，比无定形冰的自由程短得多。我们发现，有一些问题都与作者的方法，并与他们的结果与文献的比较。正如评论中所概述的，弹性和非弹性平均自由程的报告值是有问题的，关于液态水和无定形冰中电子散射之间差异的结论是无效的。
英文摘要：
In a recent article, Schild et al. present what they call an alternative approach to the determination of mean free paths of electron scattering in liquid water. This by no means new approach is based on a very simplistic two channel model of electron scattering with only one fully elastic and one fully inelastic (total loss) channel. The parameterization consists of an elastic cross section, its angular dependence (DCS), and a cross section for electron loss by inelastic scattering. The two cross sections (or the equivalent MFPs) are determined from fits to experimental data (EALs and measured anisotropy parameters). The elastic DCS is calculated ab initio for various cluster models. Furthermore, they claim to find elastic and inelastic mean free paths that are much shorter than those for amorphous ice. We find that there are a number of issues both with the approach of the authors and with the comparison of their results with the literature. As outlined in the comment, the reported values for elastic and inelastic mean free paths are questionable and conclusions regarding the difference between electron scattering in liquid water and amorphous ice are invalid.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
