{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02460456942003515, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008787346221441126, 'mean_word_length': 6.074534161490683, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems in the comparison of theoretical and experimental hyperpolarizabilities revisited.

The relationship between nonlinear susceptibilities and hyperpolarizabilities defined using different conventions is reexamined. In previous work [Willetts et al., J. Chem. Phys. 97, 7590 (1992)], relations between different conventions for microscopic hyperpolarizabilities have been derived, but the application of the corresponding conversion factors led to several inconsistencies. It is shown that different conventions for macroscopic susceptibilities have to be taken into account, too, in order to arrive at consistently comparable values. The complete set of conversion factors between several conventions are given for second harmonic generation, electric field induced second harmonic (EFISH) generation, and third harmonic generation. As an illustration, experimental EFISH and hyper-Rayleigh scattering results of p-nitroaniline are compared with each other and with recent results of ab initio computations including solvation effects. Several problems in the comparison of computational and experimental values are also discussed.