\section{\label{qmc_details} Details of QMC calculations}

\vspace{3mm}
All Variational Monte Carlo (VMC) and lattice regularized diffusion Monte Carlo (LRDMC)~{\cite{2005CAS, 2020NAK1}} calculations in this study were performed by a SISSA quantum Monte Carlo package, called \tvb\ ~{\cite{2020NAK2}}. 
The package employs a many-body WF ansatz $\Psi$ which can be written as the product of two terms, i.e.,
$
\Psi  =  \Phi _\text{AS} \times \exp J \,,
$
where the term $\exp J$ and $\Phi _\text{AS}$ are conventionally called Jastrow and antisymmetric parts, respectively.
The antisymmetric part is denoted as the Antisymmetrized Geminal Power (AGP) that reads:
$
{\Psi _{{\text{AGP}}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_1}, \ldots ,{{\mathbf{r}}_N}} \right) = {\hat A} \left[ {\Phi \left( {{\mathbf{r}}_1^ \uparrow ,{\mathbf{r}}_1^ \downarrow } \right)\Phi \left( {{\mathbf{r}}_2^ \uparrow ,{\mathbf{r}}_2^ \downarrow } \right) \cdots \Phi \left( {{\mathbf{r}}_{N/2}^ \uparrow ,{\mathbf{r}}_{N/2}^ \downarrow } \right)} \right],
$
where ${\hat A}$ is the antisymmetrization operator, and $\Phi \left( {{\mathbf{r}}_{}^ \uparrow ,{\mathbf{r}}_{}^ \downarrow } \right)$ is called the paring function~\cite{2003CAS}. The spatial part of the geminal function is expanded over the Gaussian-type atomic orbitals:
$
{\Phi _{{\text{AGP}}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i},{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right) = \sum\limits_{l,m,a,b} {{f_{\left\{ {a,l} \right\},\left\{ {b,m} \right\}}}{\psi _{a,l}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i}} \right){\psi _{b,m}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right)}
\label{agp_expansion}
$
where ${\psi _{a,l}}$ and ${\psi _{b,m}}$ are primitive Gaussian atomic orbitals, their indices $l$ and $m$ indicate different orbitals centered on atoms $a$ and $b$, and $i$ and $j$ are coordinates of spin up and down electrons, respectively, and ${{f_{\left\{ {a,l} \right\},\left\{ {b,m} \right\}}}}$ are the variational parameters.
In this study, a triple-zeta basis set (11$s$11$p$2$d$1$f$) accompanying an energy-consistent pseudo potential{~\cite{2007BUR}} was employed for the atomic orbitals of the antisymmetric part (Table~\ref{basis_set}).
The pairing function can be also written as
$
{\Phi _{{\text{AGPn}}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i},{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right) = 
\sum_{k=1}^M \lambda_k \phi_k(\mathbf{r}_i) \phi_k(\mathbf{r}_j)
$
with $\lambda_{k} > 0$, where $\phi_k(\mathbf{r})$ is a molecular orbital, i.e., $\phi_k(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_{i=1}^{L}{c_{i,k}{\psi_{i}}(\mathbf{r})}$.
When the paring function is expanded over $M$ molecular orbitals where $M$ is equal to the half of the total number of electrons ($N/2$), the AGP coincides with the Slater-Determinant ansatz{~\cite{2017BEC, 2009MAR}}. In this study, we restricted ourselves to a Jastrow-Slater determinant (JSD) by setting $M = \frac{1}{2} \cdot N$, wherein the coefficients of atomic orbitals, i.e., ${c_{i,k}}$, were obtained by a Density Functional theory (DFT) calculation, and were fixed during a VMC optimization.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./VMC_2_2_2_diamond_comparison.eps}
  \caption{
  The phonon dispersions of diamond calculated using 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell at the VMC level. 
  ``Raw data" denotes the phonon dispersion obtained by the finite-displacement method, while
  ``Corrected" is the phonon dispersion where the anharmonic and one-body finite-size corrections are included.
  The error bars are not shown here for the sake of clarity. 
  {\it Observed} experimental results are also plotted for comparison. 
  Experimental data are taken from Refs.~{\onlinecite{1965WAR, *1967WAR, 2000LIU, 2002KUL, 1998SCH}}.   
  The data in Ref.~{\onlinecite{1998SCH}} were digitalized using WebPlotDigitizer~\cite{2020ROH}.
  }
  \label{pd_disp_diamond_diff}
\end{figure}

\begin{center}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{\label{basis_set} The valence triple-zeta (VTZ) uncontracted basis set (11$s$11$p$2$d$1$f$) used for the determinant part in the present work.}

\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\Hline
Orbital type & Exponent & Orbital type & Exponent \\
\Hline
$s$ & 13.073594 & $p$ & 1.871016 \\
$s$ & 6.541187  & $p$ & 0.935757 \\
$s$ & 3.272791  & $p$ & 0.468003 \\
$s$ & 1.637494  & $p$ & 0.376742 \\
$s$ & 0.921552  & $p$ & 0.234064 \\
$s$ & 0.819297  & $p$ & 0.126772 \\
$s$ & 0.409924  & $p$ & 0.117063 \\
$s$ & 0.205100  & $p$ & 0.058547 \\
$s$ & 0.132800  & $p$ & 0.029281 \\
$s$ & 0.102619  & $d$ & 1.141611 \\
$s$ & 0.051344  & $d$ & 0.329486 \\
$p$ & 7.480076  & $f$ & 0.773485 \\
$p$ & 3.741035  &  &  \\
\Hline
\end{tabular}


\end{table}
\end{center}

\vspace{3mm}
The Jastrow term is composed of one-body, two-body and three/four-body factors ($J = {J_1}{J_2}{J_{3/4}}$). The one-body and two-body factors are essentially used to fulfill the electron-ion and electron-electron cusp conditions, respectively, and the three/four-body factor is employed to consider further electron-electron correlations (e.g., electron-nucleus-electron). Since we employed an energy-consistent pseudo potential developed by Burkatzki et al.~{\cite{2007BUR}}, we used only the inhomogeneous part of ${J_1^{inh}}$, $J_2$ and $J_{3/4}$ in this study (i.e., no electron-ion cusp corrections are needed). 
The inhomogeneous one-body Jastrow factor ${J_1^{inh}}$ reads
${J_1^{inh}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_1}, \ldots, {{\mathbf{r}}_N}} \right) =  \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{a=1}^{N_\text{atom}} \left( {\sum\limits_{l} {M_{a,l} \chi_{a,l}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i}} \right)} } \right),
$
where ${{{\mathbf{r}}_i}}$ are the electron positions, ${{{\mathbf{R}}_a}}$ are the atomic positions with corresponding atomic number $Z_a$, $l$ runs over atomic orbitals $\chi _{a,l}$ ({\it e.g.}, GTO) centered on the atom $a$, ${N_\text{atom}}$ is the total number of atoms in a system, and
$\{ M_{a,l} \}$ are variational parameters.
The two-body Jastrow factor is defined as:
$
{J_2}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_1}, \ldots {{\mathbf{r}}_N}} \right) = \exp \left( {\sum\limits_{i < j} {v\left( {\left| {{{\mathbf{r}}_i} - {{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right|} \right)} } \right),
$
where $v\left( r \right)$ is
$
v\left( r \right) = \frac{1}{2}r \cdot {\left( {1 - F \cdot r} \right)^{ - 1}}
$
and $F$ is a variational parameter. The three-body Jastrow factor is:
$
{J_{3/4}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_1}, \ldots {{\mathbf{r}}_N}} \right) = \exp \left( {\sum\limits_{i < j} {{\Phi _{{\text{Jas}}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i},{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right)} } \right),
$
and
$
{\Phi _{{\text{Jas}}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i},{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right) = \sum\limits_{l,m,a,b} {g_{a,l,m,b}^{}\chi _{a,l}^{{\text{Jas}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_i}} \right)\chi _{b,m}^{{\text{Jas}}}\left( {{{\mathbf{r}}_j}} \right)},
$
where the indices $l$ and $m$ again indicate different orbitals centered on
corresponding atoms $a$ and $b$. In this study, the coefficients of the three/four-body Jastrow factor were set to zero for $a \neq b$ because it significantly decreases the number of variational parameters while rarely affects variational energies .
A basis set (3$s$2$p$) was employed for the atomic orbitals of the Jastrow part.
The variational parameters in the Jastrow factor were optimized by the so-called stochastic reconfiguration~\cite{2007SOR} and/or the modified linear method~\cite{2007UMR, 2020NAK2} implemented in \tvb.
Using the optimized wavefunction, energies and forces are calculated at the VMC and the LRDMC levels. All LRDMC calculations were performed by the original single-grid scheme~\cite{2005CAS} with the discretization grid size $a = 0.20$ Bohr.
For the Raman frequency calculation, several lattice spaces, i.e., $a$ = 0.20, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.50 Bohr were also used to extrapolate the energies (i.e., $a \to 0$) with a quadratic function (i.e., $E(a) = E_0 + k_1 \cdot a^2 + k_2 \cdot a^4$).

\vspace{3mm}
Figure~\ref{pd_disp_diamond_diff} shows the phonon dispersions and Raman frequencies of diamond calculated using 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell at the VMC level. ``Raw data" denotes the phonon dispersion obtained by the finite-displacement method, while ``Corrected" is the phonon dispersion where the one-body finite-size (see sec.~{\ref{dft_validation}}) and anharmonic (see sec.~{\ref{pimd_renormalizations}}) corrections are included.


\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./one_body_dft.eps}
  \caption{Phonon dispersions of diamond obtained by different methods with different computational conditions at the DFT level, wherein the experimental lattice parameter was used. (a) A phonon dispersion calculated by the finite-displacement method (FDM), or the so-called frozen-phonon method, implemented in Phonopy~\cite{2015TOG} with 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell at $L$ point. The displacement of 0.03 Bohr was employed for calculating derivatives of atomic forces with respect to a nucleus position. (b) The same as (b) except for $k$-grid. The shifted 6 $\times$ 6 $\times$ 6 Monkhorst-Pack grid~\cite{1976MON} was employed. (c) A phonon dispersion calculated by the linear response method implemented Quantum Espresso package~\cite{2009GIA} with 1 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1 primitive unit cell. The shifted (unshifted) 8 $\times$ 8 $\times$ 8 Monkhorst-Pack grid~\cite{1976MON} was employed for $k$-integration ($q$-interpolation). The DFT calculations were performed with GGA-PBE functionals with Ultrasoft (US) pseudo potential taken from PS-Library~\cite{2014DAL}.
}
  \label{one-body-dft}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./FDM_dist_freq_conv.eps}
  \caption{Phonon frequencies calculated by DFT at $q$ = $\Gamma$ and $L$ points v.s. employed displacements in the finite displacement method, where the GGA-PBE functional was employed. The phonon dispersions were calculated using 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell with $k$ twist = $L$ ($\pi$,$\pi$,$\pi$).}
  \label{fdm-dist-freq-conv}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./Raman_freq_lattice_dep.eps}
  \caption{Plots of Raman Frequencies vs. lattice parameters of diamond.
They were calculated using the linear response theory implemented 
in Quantum Espresso at a single $q$ point, i.e., $q$ = (0,0,0) with
the LDA-PZ exchange-correlation functional. 
The primitive lattice was employed with $k$-grid = 8 $\times$ 8 $\times$ 8.
  }
  \label{Raman_freq_lattice_dep}
\end{figure}


\section{\label{dft_validation} Validation of computational conditions using DFT.}
There are two major implementations to compute a harmonic phonon dispersion, i.e., the finite displacement method (FDM) and the linear response method. The former is also called frozen phonon method. Their results should be consistent as far as employed hyperparameters are correct.
Figure~\ref{one-body-dft} shows phonon dispersions of diamond obtained by the two different methods at the DFT level, wherein the experimental lattice parameter was used. (a) A phonon dispersion calculated by the frozen-phonon method implemented in Phonopy~\cite{2015TOG} with 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell at $L$ point. The displacement of 0.03 Bohr was employed for calculating derivatives of atomic forces with respect to a nucleus position. (b) The same as (a) except for $k$-grid. The shifted 6 $\times$ 6 $\times$ 6 Monkhorst-Pack grid~\cite{1976MON} was employed. (c) A phonon dispersion calculated by the linear response method implemented Quantum Espresso package~\cite{2009GIA} with 1 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1 primitive unit cell. The 8 $\times$ 8 $\times$ 8 Monkhorst-Pack grids~\cite{1976MON} were employed for $k$ and $q$ integrations. The DFT calculations were performed with GGA-PBE functionals with Ultrasoft (US) pseudo potential taken from PS-Library~\cite{2014DAL}.
Comparison of (a)-red with (c)-green proves that the one-body finite size error is very small in a phonon calculation thanks to the error cancellation when $L$ twist for 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 conventional supercell is employed. In detail, the one-body finite size errors are 0.16 THz, 0.18 THz, and 0.23 THz for $q$ = $\Gamma$, $X$, and $L$, respectively.
Comparison of (b)-blue with (c)-green, which are almost overlapped, suggests that the finite difference method does not bias the result. 
As mentioned in the main text, 0.15 Bohr was employed for the displacement of a carbon atom in the VMC frozen-phonon calculation to decrease the statistical error. Figure.~\ref{fdm-dist-freq-conv} shows the amplitude of 0.15 Bohr employed underestimates frequencies by $\sim$ 0.12~THz. A single-phonon phonon calculation at $\Gamma$ alleviates this underestimation as mentioned in the main text.
Fig.~{\ref{Raman_freq_lattice_dep}} shows a plot of Raman Frequencies vs. lattice parameters of diamond. They were calculated using the linear response theory implemented in Quantum Espresso at a single $q$ point, i.e., $q$ = (0,0,0) with the LDA-PZ exchange-correlation functional. The primitive lattice was employed with 8 $\times$ 8 $\times$ 8.


\section{\label{pimd_renormalizations} Anharmonic renormalizations from path integral molecular dynamics}
The anharmonic renormalizations of phonon frequencies reported in Table~\ref{Comp_ph_DFT_QMC} with the superscript '$f$' were computed through the displacement-displacement zero-time Kubo-correlator built upon path integral molecular dynamics (PIMD) trajectories. The evaluation of the displacement-displacement correlator over classical molecular dynamics trajectories is a standard method to predict force constant matrices and phonon spectra, but it misses nuclear quantum effects. The details of the extension of such a method to extract phonon dispersions from path integral molecular dynamics can be found in Ref.~\onlinecite{2020MOR}.

\vspace{3mm}
In Fig~\ref{pimd_spectrum}, we report the whole spectrum that we have obtained using this new approach compared to the linear response DFT curve.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./image_pimd.eps}
  \caption{(a) Phonon spectrum at 300 K obtained from PIMD simulation
    versus linear response (LR) DFT spectrum; (b) Zoom over the optical modes.}
  \label{pimd_spectrum}
\end{figure}
In particular, the ion equations of motion were integrated using the PIOUD algorithm~\cite{2017MOU}, while at each time step the electronic potential energy surface was evaluated at DFT level using the Quantum Espresso package~\cite{2009GIA} and GGA-PBE~\cite{1996PER} exchange-correlation functionals. The simulation was carried out at 300 Kelvin for 34 picoseconds employing 12 beads. We used the same 64-atoms supercell as for the QMC calculations, with a 2 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 2 $k$-grid for electronic integration and a cutoff for wavefunctions equal to 60 Ry.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{./finite_size_corr.eps}
  \caption{Finite-size extrapolation for different lattice parameters. The differences of energies are constant regardless of the simulation cell size, indicating that the finite-size error is negligible for an EOS calculation thanks to the error cancellation. Since diamond is an insulator, raw QMC energies obtained at $L$ point can be smoothly extrapolated by a linear function. See. Ref.{~\onlinecite{2010HEN}}
  }
  \label{finite-size-corr}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8.4cm]{./epsover_force_erratic_behav.eps}
  \caption{VMC forces, its Hellmann-Feynman, and its Pulay contributions v.s. inverse of the condition number of the overlap matrix.
The forces were calculated with the space warp coordinate transformations (SWCT)~\cite{2010SOR}. The same VTZ atomic basis set and the pseudo potential~{\cite{2007BUR}} as in the phonon and EOS calculations were adopted, while 1 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1 conventional cell (8 carbon atoms in a simulation cell) with $k$ = $\Gamma$ twist was employed. Only one carbon atom was displaced in $x$ direction by 0.15 Bohr.
  }
  \label{err_force}
\end{figure}

\begin{center}
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{\label{force_errors} Error bars of forces corresponding to Fig.~{\ref{epsover}}(b) in the main text. $\kappa ({\bf S})^{-1}$ denotes the inverse of the condition number of the overlap matrix ${\bf S}$. The used geometry is showin in Table~{\ref{displaced_diamond}}}

\begin{tabular}{c|cc|cc}
\Hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\kappa ({\bf S})^{-1}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{with SWCT} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{without SWCT} \\
\cline{2-5}
 & Force ($F_{x}$ of C1) (Ha/bohr) &  Error bar (Ha/bohr) & Force ($F_{x}$ of C1) (Ha/bohr) &  Error bar (Ha/bohr) \\
\Hline
$10^{-5}$  & -6.659 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  4.1 $\times$ $10^{-4}$  & -6.71 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 1.7 $\times$ $10^{-3}$ \\
$10^{-6}$  & -6.622 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  4.1 $\times$ $10^{-4}$  & -6.67 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 1.4 $\times$ $10^{-3}$ \\
$10^{-7}$  & -6.523 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  4.4 $\times$ $10^{-4}$  & -6.68 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 1.3 $\times$ $10^{-3}$  \\
$10^{-8}$  & -6.635 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  4.6 $\times$ $10^{-4}$  & -6.77 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 1.5 $\times$ $10^{-3}$  \\
$10^{-10}$  & -6.734 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  8.0 $\times$ $10^{-4}$ & -6.59 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 1.6 $\times$ $10^{-3}$ \\
$10^{-12}$  & -13.87 $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  1.8 $\times$ $10^{-3}$ & -13.86 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 2.4 $\times$ $10^{-3}$  \\
$10^{-15}$  & -4.7   $\times$ $10^{-2}$  &  3.3 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & -4.9   $\times$ $10^{-2}$ & 3.4 $\times$ $10^{-2}$ \\
\Hline

\end{tabular}


\end{table*}
\end{center}

\section{\label{fse_qmc} Finite-size errors in QMC calculations}

The effect of the finite-size errors on an EOS calculation has been investigated.
Figure~\ref{finite-size-corr} shows that finite-size extrapolations for two different lattice parameters ($a$ = 6.6107 and 6.7407 Bohr). The differences of the energies are constant regardless of the simulation cell size, indicating that the finite-size error is negligible for an EOS calculation thanks to the error cancellation. Since diamond is an insulator, raw QMC energies obtained at $L$ point can be smoothly extrapolated by a linear function. See. Ref.{~\onlinecite{2010HEN}}.


\section{\label{vinet_ap} Vinet exponential function}

In this study, the obtained energies were fitted by the Vinet exponential function~\cite{1987VIN} that reads:
\begin{eqnarray*}
E(V)&=&E_0 + \frac{2B_0V_0}{\left(B_0^\prime-1\right)^2}\left\lbrace 2 -\left[ 5 + 3\left( \frac{V}{V_0}\right)^\frac{1}{3} (B_0^\prime -1)  -3B_0^\prime \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&\times &\left. \exp \left[ -\frac{3}{2} \left( B_0^\prime-1\right)\left[\left( \frac{V}{V_0}\right)^\frac{1}{3} -1\right]\right]\right\rbrace,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $E(V)$ is the total energy per atom, $V$ is volume per atom, and $E_0$, $V_0$, $B_0$, and $B_0^\prime$ are parameters. The non-linear fittings were performed using SciPy module~\cite{2020VIR} implemented in Python.



\section{Atomic forces}
\tvb\ evaluates atomic forces in a differential expression{~\cite{2010SOR}}:
\begin{equation*}
{{\mathbf{F}}_a} =  - \left\langle {\frac{d}{{d{{\mathbf{R}}_a}}}{e_L}} \right\rangle  + 2\left( {\left\langle {{e_L}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\frac{d}{{d{{\mathbf{R}}_a}}}\ln \left( {{{\mathcal{J}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\Psi } \right)} \right\rangle  - \left\langle {{e_L}\frac{d}{{d{{\mathbf{R}}_a}}}\ln \left( {{{\mathcal{J}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\Psi } \right)} \right\rangle } \right)
\label{forces:aad}
\end{equation*}
where ${\mathcal{J}}$ is the Jacobian of the space warp coordinate transformation (SWCT){~\cite{2010SOR}}, ${e_L}$ is the local energy, and the brackets indicates a Monte Carlo average over the trial WF. 
The first term is called ``Hellmann-Feynman" force (HF) and the second and third terms are called ``Pulay" force (PF).
All the terms above can be written by the partial derivatives of the local energy and those of the logarithm of the WF{~\cite{2010SOR}}.
These differential expressions are efficiently computed in \tvb, by using the adjoint algorithmic differentiation technique{~\cite{2010SOR}}.
\tvb\ also employs the so-called reweighting technique developed by Attaccalite and Sorella~{\cite{2008ATT}} to avoid divergence of the derivatives in the vicinity of the nodal surfaces.
Fig.~{\ref{err_force}} shows VMC forces, its Hellmann-Feynman, and its Pulay contributions v.s. inverse of the condition number of the overlap matrix, corresponding to Fig.~\ref{epsover} in the main text. Fig.~{\ref{err_force}} clarifies that the erratic behavior of the forces at $\kappa ({\bf S})^{-1} = 10^{-12}$ comes from its Pulay contribution, indicating that the linear-dependency of a basis-set also deteriorates absolute values of forces.


\begin{center}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{\label{displaced_diamond} The geometry of the displaced diamond used to obtain forces in Table{~\ref{force_errors}}. The lattice parameter is 6.741 Bohr. $x$, $y$, and $z$ are represented by fractional coordinates.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc}
\Hline
Element & Label & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
\Hline
C & C1 &  0.02225 & 0.00000 & 0.00000 \\
C & C2 &  0.00000 & 0.50000 & 0.50000 \\
C & C3 &  0.50000 & 0.00000 & 0.50000 \\
C & C4 &  0.50000 & 0.50000 & 0.00000 \\
C & C5 &  0.25000 & 0.25000 & 0.75000 \\
C & C6 &  0.75000 & 0.75000 & 0.75000 \\
C & C7 &  0.25000 & 0.75000 & 0.25000 \\
C & C8 &  0.75000 & 0.25000 & 0.25000 \\
\Hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{center}





\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
