Near L-edge photoionization of triply charged iron ions

A. L. David Kilcoyne; Alexander Perry-Sa{\ss}mannshausen; Alfred M\"uller; Daniel Wolf Savin; Kaja Schubert; Kristof Holste; Michael Martins; Randolf Beerwerth; Sadia Bari; Sandor Ricz

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 22 references

Near L-edge photoionization of triply charged iron ions

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The final charge states produced when Fe3+ absorbs an L-shell photon are explained by including slow three-electron Auger decays with shake-down transitions, which earlier cascade calculations omitted.

desk verdict A solid first measurement of Fe3+ L-edge partial cross sections with a genuinely improved, if partly unverified, shake-down Auger cascade model that deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05252 v1 pith:EIKZGHEV submitted 2019-08-14 physics.atom-ph astro-ph.IM

Randolf Beerwerth , Ticia Buhr , Alexander Perry-Sa{ss}mannshausen , Sebastian O. Stock , Sadia Bari , Kristof Holste , A. L. David Kilcoyne , Simon Reinwardt

show 7 more authors

Sandor Ricz Daniel Wolf Savin Kaja Schubert Michael Martins Alfred Müller Stephan Fritzsche Stefan Schippers

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phastro-ph.IM

keywords atomicdatabenchmarkingphysicsde-excitationratesphotoionizationspectrallineidentificationAugercascadeironL-shellshake-downtransitions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fe3+ is a relevant ion for interpreting X-ray absorption by iron in astrophysical environments, but predicting what charge state it ends up in after L-shell photoexcitation or photoionization requires knowing how the inner-shell vacancy decays. This paper measures relative cross sections for one- through five-fold ionization of Fe3+ at photon energies of 680–950 eV and shows that the final charge-state fractions are only reproduced when the Auger cascade model includes slow three-electron Auger decays in which a subvalence electron shakes down to supply energy. Earlier cascade tables, which allowed only two-electron Auger processes, overproduce Fe5+ and underproduce Fe6+ by large factors. The measured spectra also allow the assignment of strong 2p→nd and 2s→np resonance features with the help of multiconfiguration Dirac–Hartree–Fock calculations. Getting these fractions right matters because X-ray photoabsorption models of active galactic nuclei and the interstellar medium rely on such atomic data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Auger cascade decay tree built over thousands of fine-structure levels of the intermediate charge states, with transition rates computed in the single-configuration approximation using MCDHF wave functions. The key extension is the inclusion of three-electron Auger decays—processes in which the Auger electron is released together with an additional shake-down transition of a third bound electron—for levels that are energetically forbidden to decay by ordinary two-electron Auger processes. The cascade model assumes radiative losses are negligible so that every energetically allowed level autoionizes, and it is this assumption plus the shake-down channels that carries the argument from inner-shell vacancy to final charge-state distribution. A 30,000 K Boltzmann distribution over the 37 ground-configuration fine-structure levels accounts for the metastable content of the ion beam when comparing computed and measured photoabsorption spectra.

What would settle it

Measure whether the low-lying levels of the 2s22p63s23p43d6 configuration of Fe4+ autoionize or radiatively relax; if radiative decay competes even at the few-percent level, the predicted Fe5+ and Fe6+ yields would shift and the agreement with the measured charge-state fractions would weaken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the product charge-state fractions following L-shell photoexcitation or photoionization of Fe3+ are well described by MCDHF-based Auger cascade calculations, provided the cascade tree includes three-electron Auger processes with a shake-down transition of a (sub-)valence electron. The decisive example is the lower-lying levels of the 2s22p63s23p43d6 configuration in Fe4+, which cannot decay to Fe5+ by a two-electron Auger process because the required final state is energetically out of reach; instead they autoionize through a three-electron Auger decay in which a 3d electron shakes down to 3p, filling the 3p double vacancy and releasing the Auger electron. Including these channels raises the predicted yields of Fe6+ and Fe7+ and produces the pronounced step in the mean product charge state at the 2p ionization threshold, which the earlier calculations of Kaastra and Mewe (1993) missed. The paper also assigns the measured resonance structure to 2p→nd (n=3,4,5) and 2s→np (n≥4) transitions, using a 30,000 K Boltzmann population of the 37 fine-structure levels of the Fe3+ ground configuration to account for metastable ions in the beam. The remaining deficiencies—overestimated Fe4+ and underestimated Fe7+/Fe8+—are attributed to unmodeled shake-up and direct double Auger decays.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that any excited level with enough energy will release an electron rather than emit light, including slow three-electron Auger decays whose rates are never computed; if radiative decay competes for the lower-lying levels of configuration 7, the predicted Fe5+ and Fe6+ yields would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any future L-shell photoabsorption model for Fe3+ must include slow shake-down three-electron Auger channels to reproduce the measured final charge-state distribution.
The mean product charge state now shows the correct step at the 2p ionization threshold, so charge-balance models for photoionized iron plasmas can rely on these fractions where earlier tables could not.
The measured partial cross sections provide a benchmark dataset for 680–950 eV that can be used to test other theoretical treatments of inner-shell cascades.
Because the model still underestimates Fe7+ and omits Fe8+, improving the description of the highest charge states will require adding shake-up transitions and direct double Auger decays to the cascade tree.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the shake-down mechanism is as general as it appears, earlier cascade tables for other M-shell iron ions and neighboring transition metals likely suffer the same omission, and their charge-state yields may need revision.
Because no three-electron Auger rates were actually computed, the agreement implies—but does not prove—that these slow decays still outpace radiative relaxation; a direct calculation of those rates would turn the assumed mechanism into a tested one.
A measurement using a pure ground-state Fe3+ beam (free of metastable levels) would decouple the cascade model from the adopted 30,000 K population assumption and give a sharper test of the remaining Fe4+ overestimate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. This is the first merged-beams measurement of Fe3+ L-shell photoionization, giving partial cross sections for one- through five-fold ionization over 680–950 eV. And the paper's real contribution is not just the data: it shows that adding slow three-electron Auger decays with a subvalence shake-down transition substantially fixes the charge-state fractions that Kaastra & Mewe get wrong. That claim holds up better than the stress-test note suggests. Table 4 and Figure 6 show the shake-down model gets Fe5+ and Fe6+ fractions in the right order and roughly the right magnitude, and it reproduces the step in the mean charge state at the 2p threshold. The improvement over previous theory is clear and is not an artifact of fitting the charge-state data—the cascade model is built from computed transition energies and rates, not fitted to the fractions.

The experimental work is clean and carefully presented. The data table includes statistical uncertainties, the energy scale is calibrated to ±0.2 eV, and the absolute normalization is anchored to Verner et al. at one point with an estimated ±15% uncertainty, which is honest. The MCDHF and HFR calculations do useful service in assigning the 2p→nd and 2s→np resonances, and the comparison between the two-electron Auger model and Kaastra & Mewe correctly isolates what the shake-down channels add.

The soft spots are real but proportionate. The load-bearing assumption is stated in Section 4.3: every level that is energetically allowed to autoionize does so, with radiative losses negligible, even though the three-electron Auger processes are described as slow. No such rates are computed. If radiative decay competes for the lower levels of configuration 7, the branching fractions in Table 3 shift and the advertised improvement weakens. That is a genuine unquantified sensitivity, and the reader's conditional verdict is fair. Separately, the photoabsorption comparison uses a Boltzmann temperature of 30,000 K and a −2.2 eV shift chosen for agreement; that only affects the resonance spectrum, not the charge-state fractions, but it is a fitted parameter. And the model produces none of the observed Fe7+ and Fe8+, which the authors acknowledge and attribute to missing shake-up or double-Auger channels. These are gaps, not internal contradictions. The paper does not oversell: it flags the radiative-loss assumption, the fitted temperature, and the missing high charge states.

Who this is for: atomic physicists working on iron L-shell data and X-ray astronomers modeling photoionized plasmas. The benchmarked cross-section dataset is useful even if the cascade model later gets revised. Send it to referees. A serious referee could push for a sensitivity analysis on the autoionization assumption, but the experimental data alone justify publication in a good journal.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports merged-beams measurements of partial cross sections for single and multiple photoionization of Fe3+ by single-photon absorption at 680–950 eV, covering 2p and 2s photoexcitation resonances and direct ionization. The measured partial cross sections are normalized to the Verner et al. (1993) theoretical total cross section at one energy point, and the product charge-state fractions f_q and mean charge state q̄ are derived. The photoabsorption spectra are compared with MCDHF and HFR calculations, using a Boltzmann population at 30,000 K for the ground-configuration metastable levels and a −2.2 eV energy shift to reproduce the measured spectrum. The paper's central claim is that extensive MCDHF Auger-cascade calculations, including slow three-electron Auger decays accompanied by shake-down transitions, yield product charge-state fractions in good agreement with experiment and a substantial improvement over the earlier Kaastra and Mewe (1993) cascade tables. The authors attribute the improvement to the inclusion of these shake-down channels, which were missing in previous work.

Significance. The paper provides valuable benchmark data for Fe3+ L-shell photoabsorption, relevant to X-ray absorption and emission studies of astrophysical plasmas, and the measured partial cross sections are made available in machine-readable form with statistical uncertainties. If the cascade result holds, it identifies a concrete physical mechanism, slow three-electron Auger decay accompanied by shake-down of a subvalence electron, that was omitted from previous inner-shell cascade models and that materially changes the predicted final charge-state distribution. The authors are also explicit about the model's limitations, in particular the absence of Fe8+ and most Fe7+ production. The strength of the work is its combination of state-of-the-art atomic-structure calculations with a dedicated measurement; the main risk is that the central cascade claim rests on an unquantified assumption about radiative losses.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 4.2, Table 4, Figure 6] The central improvement over Kaastra and Mewe is governed by the statement in Sec. 4.3 that 'radiative losses are still negligible, so that all levels that are energetically allowed to autoionize will do so.' This assumption converts the lower-lying levels of configuration 7 into Fe5+ rather than Fe4+ and produces the large changes in F_{k,q} in Table 3 for 2s and 2p holes. However, no three-electron Auger transition rates are computed or tabulated, and the paper itself notes that such processes are expected to be slow. If radiative decay competes for any of the low-lying configuration-7 levels, the branching fractions in Table 3, and hence the f_q values in Figure 6 and Table 4, would shift and the claimed improvement could be weakened. I ask the authors to compute or bound the relevant Auger and radiative widths for these levels, or to provide a sensitivity estimate showing how f_q and q̄ change if a specified fraction of the low-lying levels decays radiatively instead of autoionizing.
[Sec. 4.2, Table 4, Figure 6] The shake-down model does not produce Fe7+ or Fe8+ at the resonance energies listed in Table 4, whereas the experiment detects both charge states; for example, at 960 eV the model gives 3.8% Fe7+ while the experiment gives 9.4% Fe7+ and 0.4% Fe8+. The authors acknowledge that shake-up and direct double-Auger channels are missing from the cascade tree. Because the claimed agreement with the measured charge-state fractions is the central result, the manuscript should quantify how these omitted channels affect the reported f_q values or explicitly state which portion of the comparison is being used to support the claim of agreement. Without such a quantitative statement, the improvement over Kaastra and Mewe could be viewed as partly due to compensating omissions in the highest charge states.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 4] The Boltzmann temperature of 30,000 K is described as having 'no other justification than the relatively good agreement' between calculation and measurement; this fitted parameter, together with the −2.2 eV shift and the assumed line widths, should be listed explicitly in the main text as model parameters and not only in the figure caption.
[Table 1] In Table 1, the entry at 691.568 eV has no σ5 value but a dash; the caption or notes should state whether this is a true zero, an upper limit, or a value that was not measured.
[Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract states that the theoretical charge-state fractions are 'in good agreement' with experiment, but no quantitative goodness-of-fit measure is given; a simple metric, such as the mean deviation or a chi-square value for the points shown in Figure 6, would make the assessment more precise.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Shake-down cascade 'prediction' rests on an assumed 100%-autoionization rule rather than on computed rates; a fitted metastable temperature adds a second fitted input.

self definitional [Sec. 4.3, 'Cascade Models', page 11, around Table 3 and Eq. (3)]
"The precise computation of the Auger transition rates including a shake-down transition is rather challenging due to complex correlation patterns [...] Here we assume that the radiative losses are still negligible, so that all levels that are energetically allowed to autoionize will do so. In the following we will refer to this extended cascade decay tree as 'shake-down'."

The three-electron Auger rates that would decide between radiative stabilization (Fe4+) and shake-down autoionization (Fe5+/Fe6+) are explicitly not computed. The F_{k,q} are instead set to 100% autoionization for every level above threshold. These F_{k,q} enter Eq. (3) and Table 4 to produce the 'predicted' charge-state fractions. Consequently the improved Fe5+/Fe6+ yields relative to Kaastra & Mewe are the direct bookkeeping of the assumption, not an independent theoretical prediction. Comparing those f_q with the measured charge-state fractions is a consistency check of the ansatz, not a test of computed transition rates.
fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1, 'Photoabsorption Cross Section', Figure 4e and following paragraph]
"we chose a Boltzmann distribution at a temperature of 30 000 K with no other justification than the relatively good agreement between the calculated and measured photoabsorption spectra, as seen in Figure 4e. [...] All the following results were computed with this distribution."

The effective temperature of the initial Fe3+ level population is adjusted to make the synthetic photoabsorption spectrum match the measured one; the same distribution is then used as an input for subsequent photoexcitation charge-state fractions in Table 4. The later 'good agreement' of the modeled spectra is therefore partly produced by the fitted T rather than by an independent prediction. This is an openly admitted fit, but it is fitted input feeding the predicted quantities.

full rationale

The paper is mostly a self-contained experimental and computational study. The absolute normalization to Verner et al. (1993) is an openly stated scale calibration, and the -2.2 eV energy shift is a standard line-position calibration; neither affects the charge-state fractions, since f_q are ratios from which the absolute scale cancels. The two-electron Auger cascade rates, MCDHF/HFR photoexcitation spectra, and photoionization branching ratios involve genuine computation, and the comparison with the measured partial cross sections provides independent information, especially for the resonance positions. The circularity burden is concentrated in Sec. 4.3. The 'shake-down' model does not compute three-electron Auger rates; it imposes the rule that every energetically allowed level autoionizes. The branching fractions F_{k,q} in Table 3 that enter Eq. (3) and Table 4 are therefore not derived predictions for the affected channels; they are the rule itself. The improved Fe5+/Fe6+ agreement relative to Kaastra & Mewe is, to a substantial degree, the bookkeeping of that rule. This makes the central improvement partially circular. A second fitted input is the initial-level temperature T = 30,000 K, chosen to reproduce the measured photoabsorption spectrum and then used for subsequent photoexcitation predictions; this is openly admitted but still fitted input feeding a claimed prediction. The self-citations (Andersson et al. 2015; Schippers et al. 2016b; Beerwerth & Fritzsche 2017) are used only to explain why the shake-down rates were not computed; they are not load-bearing uniqueness claims, so they do not by themselves raise the score. Overall, the paper retains substantial independent content in the MCDHF spectra and two-electron cascade, but the key advertised improvement over previous theory partially reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on two fitted parameters (population temperature and energy shift), a hand-chosen line-broadening assumption, a common normalization to an external theory, and several unproven physical assumptions about the dominance of non-radiative decay and the neglect of shake-up and double Auger channels. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Metastable population temperature T = 30,000 K
Boltzmann distribution over the 37 fine-structure levels of the 3d5 ground configuration, chosen because it gave the best match to the measured photoabsorption spectrum, with no other justification than the relatively good agreement. Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4e.
Energy shift of computed spectra = -2.2 eV
Uniform shift applied to MCDHF and HFR energies so that the calculated and measured positions of the strongest 2p to 3d resonance at about 711 eV coincide. Sec. 4.1.
Natural line width for 2p-hole resonances = 0.4 eV (uniform)
Assumed Lorentzian width used in the Voigt convolution, consistent with computed total Auger widths of 370 to 550 meV but not derived per level. Sec. 4.1.
Natural line width for 2s-hole resonances = 3.5 eV
Uniform width used for 2s to np resonances, reflecting fast Coster-Kronig decay; taken from computed Fe4+ 2s-hole widths and assumed equal for Fe3+. Sec. 4.1.
Absolute cross-section normalization factor = Set to Verner et al. (1993) at 692 eV
All relative partial cross sections multiplied by a common factor so the summed cross section matches the theoretical M-shell photoionization cross section at 692 eV; introduces about 15% systematic uncertainty. Sec. 2, Eq. (1).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption MCDHF and HFR methods provide sufficiently accurate wave functions and transition rates for the photoexcitation and Auger processes.
The entire theoretical analysis rests on the Grasp2k, Ratip, and Cowan codes. The paper itself notes limitations, including reversed level order in a multiplet, overestimated 2p-hole widths, and neglect of configuration interaction that is crucial for shake processes. Sec. 3.1.
ad hoc to paper The Fe3+ ion beam contains an unknown mixture of ground and metastable levels, and a Boltzmann distribution at 30,000 K represents this mixture.
The temperature is fitted to reproduce the measured spectrum; the ion source population is not independently measured. Sec. 4.1.
ad hoc to paper Radiative decay is negligible compared with Auger decay for all energetically allowed levels, including the slow three-electron Auger channels.
Explicitly assumed in Sec. 4.3; no three-electron Auger rates are computed, so the branching fractions are set by an energetic criterion.
domain assumption Shake-up and direct double Auger processes are negligible for the product charge-state fractions.
The paper states that including such processes would be needed to describe Fe7+ and Fe8+ production, which are underestimated by the model. Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5.
domain assumption The fluorescence yield from L-shell holes in iron is negligible, so photon scattering does not measurably deplete the summed cross section.
Sec. 2, based on McGuire (1972) and the authors' computation of about 1% yield.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near L-edge photoionization of triply charged iron ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EIKZGHEV

@misc{pith2026190805252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near L-edge photoionization of triply charged iron ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EIKZGHEV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05252}
}

abstract

Relative cross sections for $m$-fold photoionization ($m=1,\ldots,5$) of Fe$^{3+}$ by single photon absorption were measured employing the photon-ion merged-beams setup PIPE at the PETRA III synchrotron light source operated at DESY in Hamburg, Germany. The photon energies used spanned the range of $680-950\,\mathrm{eV}$, covering both the photoexcitation resonances from the $2p$ and $2s$ shells as well as the direct ionization from both shells. Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) calculations were performed to simulate the total photoexcitation spectra. Good agreement was found with the experimental results. These computations helped to assign several strong resonance features to specific transitions. We also carried out Hartree-Fock calculations with relativistic extensions taking into account both photoexcitation and photoionization. Furthermore, we performed extensive MCDHF calculations of the Auger cascades that result when an electron is removed from the $2p$ and $2s$ shells of Fe$^{3+}$. Our theoretically predicted charge-state fractions are in good agreement with the experimental results, representing a substantial improvement over previous theoretical calculations. The main reason for the disagreement with the previous calculations is their lack of inclusion of slow Auger decays of several configurations that can only proceed when accompanied by de-excitation of two electrons. In such cases, this additional shake-down transition of a (sub-)valence electron is required to gain the necessary energy for the release of the Auger electron.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05252 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Measured partial cross sections, σm, for m-fold photoionization of Fe3+. The data are plotted in units of megabarns (Mb), which is 10−18 cm2 . The partial cross section for m = 2 was multiplied by a factor 10 to avoid the large overlap with the m = 1 curve. The vertical gray lines show the computed energy level structure of the 2s 2 2p 5 3s 2 3p 6 3d 5 and 2s2p 6 3s 2 3p 6 3d 5 configurations, respectively approxima… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Experimental total photoabsorption cross section given by Equation (1) for Fe3+ (blue circles) and the theoretical cross section for single-photon single ionization of Fe3+ from Verner et al. (1993) (orange line). The steps at 767 eV and 885 eV correspond to the thresholds for direction photoionization of a 2p and 2s electron, respectively. The dashed lines are the continuation of M-shell and (M + 2p)- shell photoi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Energy configuration diagram of the hole-state configurations that can be accessed by single-photon excitation or ionization of Fe3+. Some core-hole configurations that can be accessed with the current photon energies are listed. All configurations marked in red can, at least partially, decay via three-electron Auger processes. See Sec. 4.3 for details. The inset in the lower right corner shows the computed energy… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Computed cross section for different populations of the 3d 5 ground configuration. Panels (a) – (d) are computed with a statistical population of the lowest N = 1, 5, 12, and 37 fine-structure levels, respectively, while (e) is based on a Boltzmann distribution at T =…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Measured photoabsorption cross section and our MCDHF calculations, including (a) 2p → nd resonances and (b) 2s → np resonances. The inset in (b) enlarges the region of the 2s → np resonances. Computed spectra are convoluted with a Voigt profile with a Gaussian FWHM = …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) Product charge-state fractions, fq, in percentage for the four charge states q = 4, 5, 6, and 7. Experimental results (small circles) are compared to our computations (large circles) for direct ionization of a single electron using the shakedown Auger model and to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

2015, PhRvA, 92, 023414

Andersson, J., Beerwerth, R., Linusson, P., et al. 2015, PhRvA, 92, 023414

work page 2015
[2]

2017, Eur

Beerwerth, R., & Fritzsche, S. 2017, Eur. Phys. J. D, 71, 253

work page 2017
[3]

Behar, E., Sako, M., & Kahn, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 497

2001
[4]

2018, JPhB, 51, 055602

Buth, C., Beerwerth, R., Obaid, R., et al. 2018, JPhB, 51, 055602

work page 2018
[5]

Cowan, R. D. 1981, The Theory of Atomic Structure and Spectra (Berkeley: California University Press), atomic-structure code accessible via http://aphysics2.lanl.gov/tempweb/lanl/

work page 1981
[6]

2001, JESRP, 114-116, 1155 —

Fritzsche, S. 2001, JESRP, 114-116, 1155 —. 2012, CPC, 183, 1525 Froese Fischer, C., Rubin, R. H., & Rodriguez, M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1828

work page 2001
[7]

Grant, I. P. 2007, Relativistic quantum theory of atoms and molecules: theory and computation, Vol. 40 (Springer Science & Business Media), doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35069-1

work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35069-1 2007
[8]

2005, ApJ, 632, 788 J¨ onsson, P., Gaigalas, G., Biero´ n, J., Froese Fischer, C., &

Holczer, T., Behar, E., & Kaspi, S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 788 J¨ onsson, P., Gaigalas, G., Biero´ n, J., Froese Fischer, C., &

work page 2005

Show all 22 references

[9]

Grant, I. P. 2013, CPC, 184, 2197 J¨ onsson, P., He, X., Fischer, C. F., & Grant, I. 2007, CPC, 177, 597

2013
[10]

S., & Mewe, R

Kaastra, J. S., & Mewe, R. 1993, A&AS, 97, 443

1993
[11]

2018, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.5.2), [Online]

Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team. 2018, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.5.2), [Online]. Available: http://physics.nist.gov/asd, Tech. rep., National Institute of Standards and Technology

2018
[12]

C., Xiang, J., Ravel, B., Kortright, J., & Flanagan, K

Lee, J. C., Xiang, J., Ravel, B., Kortright, J., & Flanagan, K. 2009, ApJ, 702, 970

2009
[13]

McGuire, E. J. 1972, PhRvA, 5, 1043 14 Beerwerth et al

1972
[14]

S., & de Groot, F

Miedema, P. S., & de Groot, F. M. 2013, JESRP, 187, 32 M¨ uller, A., Bernhardt, D., Borovik, Jr., A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 166

2013
[15]

Nahar, S. N. 2006, A&A, 448, 779

2006
[16]

F., & Manson, S

Reilman, R. F., & Manson, S. T. 1979, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 40, 815

1979
[17]

2014, JPhB, 47, 115602

Schippers, S., Ricz, S., Buhr, T., et al. 2014, JPhB, 47, 115602

2014
[18]

2017, ApJ, 849, 5

Schippers, S., Martins, M., Beerwerth, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 5

2017
[19]

2003, ECR Ion Sources, ed

Trassl, R. 2003, ECR Ion Sources, ed. F. J. Currell (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 3–37

2003
[20]

A., & Yakovlev, D

Verner, D. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1995, A&AS, 109, 125

1995
[21]

A., Yakovlev, D

Verner, D. A., Yakovlev, D. G., Band, I. M., & Trzhaskovskaya., M. B. 1993, ADNDT, 55, 233

1993
[22]

2013, NIMA, 710, 151

Viefhaus, J., Scholz, F., Deinert, S., et al. 2013, NIMA, 710, 151

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2015, PhRvA, 92, 023414

Andersson, J., Beerwerth, R., Linusson, P., et al. 2015, PhRvA, 92, 023414

work page 2015

[2] [2]

2017, Eur

Beerwerth, R., & Fritzsche, S. 2017, Eur. Phys. J. D, 71, 253

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Behar, E., Sako, M., & Kahn, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 563, 497

2001

[4] [4]

2018, JPhB, 51, 055602

Buth, C., Beerwerth, R., Obaid, R., et al. 2018, JPhB, 51, 055602

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Cowan, R. D. 1981, The Theory of Atomic Structure and Spectra (Berkeley: California University Press), atomic-structure code accessible via http://aphysics2.lanl.gov/tempweb/lanl/

work page 1981

[6] [6]

2001, JESRP, 114-116, 1155 —

Fritzsche, S. 2001, JESRP, 114-116, 1155 —. 2012, CPC, 183, 1525 Froese Fischer, C., Rubin, R. H., & Rodriguez, M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1828

work page 2001

[7] [7]

Grant, I. P. 2007, Relativistic quantum theory of atoms and molecules: theory and computation, Vol. 40 (Springer Science & Business Media), doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35069-1

work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35069-1 2007

[8] [8]

2005, ApJ, 632, 788 J¨ onsson, P., Gaigalas, G., Biero´ n, J., Froese Fischer, C., &

Holczer, T., Behar, E., & Kaspi, S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 788 J¨ onsson, P., Gaigalas, G., Biero´ n, J., Froese Fischer, C., &

work page 2005