Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 85 references

Quantum electrodynamic corrections for molecules: Vacuum polarisation and electron self energy in a two-component relativistic framework

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that vacuum polarisation and electron self-energy can be added as effective potentials in a two-component ZORA framework, matching four-component accuracy for heavy atoms and molecules.

desk verdict Solid two-component ZORA implementation of QED potentials with strong benchmarks; the abstract overstates agreement given the unexplained Au 5p1/2 deviation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08213 v1 pith:UEYVNXRA submitted 2024-11-12 physics.chem-ph physics.atom-ph

Kjell Janke , Andrés Emilio Wedenig , Peter Schwerdtfeger , Konstantin Gaul , Robert Berger This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 31.30.J31.15.-p
keywords quantumelectrodynamicsZORAtwo-componentrelativisticmethodsvacuumpolarisationelectronself-energyUehlingpotentialFlambaum-Gingesheavy-elementmolecules
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

The paper aims to show that the two dominant one-electron quantum electrodynamic corrections, vacuum polarisation and electron self-energy, can be included as effective potentials inside a two-component zeroth-order regular approximation (ZORA) framework. If true, QED corrections for heavy atoms and molecules no longer require a full four-component Dirac machinery; they can be estimated at two-component cost with deviations of a few percent from four-component benchmarks for most valence, ionisation, and transition properties. The paper reports such corrections for ionisation energies of group 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 18 atoms, for Li-, Na-, and Cu-like ionic transitions up to Z = 90, and for BaF and RaF molecules, and compares perturbative and self-consistent treatments for gold.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the two-component ZORA Hamiltonian supplemented by one-electron QED effective potentials. The Uehling potential handles vacuum polarisation; the Flambaum–Ginges potential supplies magnetic, high-frequency, and low-frequency self-energy terms, with the high-frequency part regularised by a fitted cut-off factor; the Pyykkö–Zhao potential is a fitted Gaussian describing s-level self-energy shifts. The integrals in the magnetic and high-frequency parts are evaluated by cubic spline interpolation, and the whole set of operators is mapped into two-component form by the ZORA picture-change transformation of Ref. [60], which reconstructs the small component from the ZORA wave function.

What would settle it

Recompute the Flambaum-Ginges self-energy contribution to the 5p1/2 Kohn-Sham orbital energy of gold in the same basis and with the same effective potentials, but using a different two-component transformation or the full four-component Hamiltonian; if the calculated value moves from the four-component reference by much less than 63.8%, the ZORA picture-change transformation is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Uehling potential for vacuum polarisation and effective one-electron potentials for the electron self-energy, namely the Flambaum–Ginges potential in its magnetic, high-frequency, and low-frequency parts and the Pyykkö–Zhao Gaussian potential, can be transformed into two-component ZORA form through the picture-change transformation that generates the small component from the ZORA wave function. With these potentials, QED corrections to orbital energies, ionisation energies, and electronic transition energies of heavy atoms and molecules agree with four-component Dirac-Hartree-Fock and average-of-configuration Hartree-Fock results to within a few percent for most cases. The largest deviations appear for deep core orbitals of gold and especially for the 5p1/2 orbital, where the deviation reaches 63.8% and the paper states that the origin is presently open.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ZORA picture-change transformation turns the QED potentials into matrix elements that match four-component results for every orbital of interest; the 63.8% deviation for gold's 5p1/2 orbital, whose origin the paper says is open, shows this premise does not hold in at least one case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QED corrections can be included in routine molecular electronic-structure calculations at two-component cost, making heavy-element spectroscopic predictions more complete.
  • The perturbative expectation-value treatment is largely sufficient: once linear response is accounted for, differences from self-consistent inclusion become negligible for most orbitals.
  • The results provide benchmark QED contributions to BaF and RaF transition energies, relevant for precision spectroscopy of radioactive molecules.
  • The Z-scaling fits for group trends allow one to estimate where QED corrections become significant, with fastest growth for group 11 and 12 elements.
  • For gold, QED corrections lift the HOMO orbital energy by about 0.25%, an effect relevant for meV-accuracy predictions such as ionisation potentials and electron affinities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 63.8% deviation for the gold 5p1/2 orbital reflects a picture-change failure of ZORA rather than a peculiarity of that orbital, the general agreement claim is not universal; repeating the comparison for 5p1/2 orbitals of other heavy atoms would settle this.
  • The same two-component machinery could be used to estimate QED corrections to properties beyond energies, such as hyperfine fields or parity-violation matrix elements, where short-range behaviour may amplify the deviations seen in core orbitals.
  • Because the paper reports that basis-set choice affects the QED corrections more than the level of theory, extending the benchmark to larger basis sets may tighten or shift the few-percent agreement for valence properties.
  • The method offers a practical route to include QED contributions in molecular dynamics or property calculations where four-component treatments remain prohibitively expensive.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript implements vacuum-polarisation (Uehling) and electron-self-energy (Flambaum-Ginges, Pyykkö-Zhao) effective potentials as one-electron operators in a two-component ZORA framework, with picture-change corrections following Ref. [60]. It benchmarks QED contributions to atomic ionization energies, ionic transition energies, valence orbital energies, and selected molecular properties (group 2 monofluorides, BaF, RaF) against four-component reference data, and it compares perturbative and self-consistent treatments of the QED potentials for gold Kohn-Sham orbital energies. The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that QED corrections can be obtained in this two-component framework efficiently and in excellent agreement with corresponding four-component results.

Significance. If the claimed agreement holds for the properties of interest, the approach would enable routine QED estimates for heavy-element molecular spectroscopy at two-component cost, which is valuable for precision studies such as those on RaF. The paper has concrete strengths: it benchmarks against four-component implementations of the same effective potentials (Refs. [29,38]), reports systematic data over a wide Z range, and does not fit parameters to the target data. However, the abstract's unqualified 'excellent agreement' claim is undermined by the authors' own Table V, which shows deviations up to 32.4% for the 1s1/2 orbital and 63.8% for the 5p1/2 orbital of gold, with the origin of the latter explicitly left open. The method's validity for core and some valence orbital energies is therefore not established by the present evidence, even though the valence and transition-energy benchmarks are largely good.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §IV.C, Table V] The abstract's blanket statement that QED corrections are obtained 'in excellent agreement with corresponding four-component results' is contradicted by Table V, which reports self-consistent FG+UE deviations of 29.6% (1s1/2), 15.3% (2p1/2), and 63.8% (5p1/2) for gold relative to four-component B3LYP/dyall.3zp calculations of Ref. [38] using the same functional and basis set. The text states that the origin of the 5p1/2 deviation is 'presently open.' Because these are direct benchmarks of the ZORA picture-change transformation, the central claim must be qualified. Please provide a decomposition of the 5p1/2 correction into the individual Flambaum-Ginges contributions (magnetic, high-frequency, low-frequency) and the Uehling term, with signs, to determine whether the large relative error is a cancellation artifact; also report the un-averaged Kramers-pair values for the entries affected by footnote a of Table V. The 10.0-10.3% deviation for the 6s1/2 valence orbital should also be addressed, as it is not a deep-core effect.
  2. [§III.B and §II.D] The computational details state that the QED potentials are evaluated with a point-like nucleus after the SCF was performed with finite Gaussian nuclear charge distributions. This ad hoc combination is not justified in the manuscript. Since the largest deviations in Table V occur for core orbitals, where finite-nuclear-size effects are largest, please quantify the effect of using the finite nuclear charge distribution in the Uehling and Flambaum-Ginges potentials for gold, at least for the 1s1/2 and 5p1/2 orbital-energy corrections, or provide a reference demonstrating that this effect is negligible at the reported accuracy level.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C, Table VI] The statement that the s-contributions 'compare well' with Koziol and Aucar is not supported by the reported deviations of up to 14.9% (Zn 1s), 22.9% (Cd 1s), and 35.9% (Hg 1s); please rephrase to describe the actual level of agreement and note explicitly that this comparison involves a different self-energy model (Welton picture).
  2. [§III.A] The spline interpolation accuracy is reported only as a mean relative error; please also report the maximum relative error in the grid range, since failures near the nucleus could disproportionately affect core-orbital QED matrix elements.
  3. [§IV.A, Table I] Footnote c, which discusses a correction to a GRASP routine in Ref. [29], is lengthy and detailed; consider moving this explanation to the text or supporting information, as it interrupts the table of results.
  4. [§V, Conclusion] The conclusion states that the impact of different self-energy schemes is 'much larger' than residual deviations between the present two-component framework and four-component frameworks; this is only shown for select examples and should be qualified as applying to the systems and potentials studied here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the two-component ZORA QED implementation is validated against four-component calculations of the same effective potentials, so the central comparison is a genuine cross-check rather than a fit disguised as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that QED corrections can be evaluated efficiently in a two-component ZORA framework and agree well with four-component calculations of the same corrections. The QED potentials themselves (Uehling, Flambaum-Ginges, and Pyykkö-Zhao) are taken as literature inputs, with their fitted parameters explicitly described, and they are not fitted to the molecular or atomic properties presented in the paper. The key benchmark is therefore a two-component versus four-component comparison of identical operators, which is a meaningful test of the ZORA picture-change transformation rather than a self-fulfilling construction. The comparison is demonstrably non-trivial: Table V reports a 63.8% deviation for the Au 5p1/2 orbital contribution, with the text stating that 'the origin of this deviation is presently open', which shows the agreement is not forced by construction. Self-citations appear, notably Ref. [60] for the ZORA transformation and Ref. [29] for four-component DHF reference data, but these are prior published methods and results, not uniqueness theorems or unverified premises. The current paper supplies its own numerical comparisons against both co-authored and external references (e.g., Refs. [38] and [81]), so the central claim does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The paper transparently discloses limitations: the 5p1/2 deviation, the larger model dependence of the self-energy scheme than the ZORA-versus-four-component residual, and the limited applicability of the Pyykkö-Zhao potential to s-levels. These are correctness or robustness concerns, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the sense that its output quantities are not equivalent, by definition or by fitting, to its input parameters.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on semi-empirical effective potentials with coefficients fitted to atomic reference data, plus the ZORA picture-change transformation. The paper itself introduces no new free parameters, but inherits the fitted coefficients from the SE potentials. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Pyykkö-Zhao Bpz(Z) coefficients = -48.6116, 1.53666, 0.0301129 (Eh)
    Equation (2); fitted to 2s energy shifts of H-like systems and 2s M1 hyperfine splittings; central to the Pyykkö-Zhao SE potential.
  • Pyykkö-Zhao beta(Z) coefficients = -12751.3, 916.038, 5.7797 (a0^-2)
    Equation (2); fitted to the same H-like and Li-like reference data as Bpz; determines the spatial range of the SE potential.
  • Flambaum-Ginges A(Z,r) cutoff coefficients = 1.071, -1.976, -2.128, 0.169, and 0.07
    Equations (4)-(5); fitted to radiative shifts for high Coulomb s-levels; modifies the high-frequency SE contribution near the nucleus.
  • Flambaum-Ginges B(Z) coefficient = 0.074 + 0.35 Z alpha
    Equation (7)-(8); fitted to radiative shifts for high Coulomb p-levels; scales the low-frequency SE contribution.
  • Thierfelder-Schwerdtfeger An(Z) coefficients = An0, An1, An2 not stated numerically in text
    Equation (6); fitted to self-energy contributions to H-like atoms calculated by Mohr; used in Tables I-III for comparison with Ref. [29].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The leading-order QED corrections to the electron-nucleus potential are adequately described by the Uehling potential (VP) and the Flambaum-Ginges or Pyykkö-Zhao effective SE potentials.
    Sections II.A and II.B; these potentials are fitted or semi-empirical and are the input models; the paper does not validate them against exact QED, only against four-component implementations of the same potentials.
  • domain assumption The ZORA picture-change transformation (Eqs. 13 and 14) yields accurate two-component matrix elements for the singular QED potentials, including near the nucleus.
    Section II.D; the 63.8% deviation for the 5p1/2 orbital of Au in Table V indicates this assumption can fail for certain orbitals.
  • domain assumption Neglect of two-electron QED (retardation and electron-electron vacuum polarization) is justified; only electron-nucleus QED is considered.
    Introduction states that photon-frequency dependent retardation corrections to the Breit interaction are usually less important than QED corrections of the electron-nucleus potential considered in this work.
  • ad hoc to paper A point-like nucleus can be used for the QED potentials after the SCF with finite Gaussian nuclei.
    Section III.B: 'In subsequent computations of QED contributions, a point-like nucleus was used.' This introduces a discontinuity between the mean-field and QED operators that is not assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum electrodynamic corrections for molecules: Vacuum polarisation and electron self energy in a two-component relativistic framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UEYVNXRA

@misc{pith2026241108213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum electrodynamic corrections for molecules: Vacuum polarisation and electron self energy in a two-component relativistic framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UEYVNXRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08213}
}
abstract

Vacuum polarisation (VP) and electron self energy (SE) are implemented and evaluated as quantum electrodynamic (QED) corrections in a (quasi-relativistic) two-component zeroth order regular approximation (ZORA) framework. For VP, the Uehling potential is considered, and for SE, the effective potentials proposed by Flambaum and Ginges as well as the one proposed by Pyykk\"o and Zhao. QED contributions to ionisation energies of various atoms and group 2 monofluorides, group 1 and 11 valence orbital energies, $^2\mathrm{P}_{1/2} \leftarrow {}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$ and $^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2} \leftarrow {}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}$ transition energies of Li-, Na-, and Cu-like ions of nuclear charge $Z$ = 10, 20, ..., 90 as well as $\Pi_{1/2}\leftarrow \Sigma_{1/2}$ and $\Pi_{3/2}\leftarrow\Sigma_{1/2}$ transition energies of BaF and RaF are presented. Furthermore, perturbative and self-consistent treatments of QED corrections are compared for Kohn--Sham orbital energies of gold. It is demonstrated, that QED corrections can be obtained in a two-component ZORA framework efficiently and in excellent agreement with corresponding four-component results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08213 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Self energy (a) and vertex correction (b) of order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams of the exact bound-state VP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Absolute SE (Flambaum–Ginges) and VP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    P. J. Mohr, Phys. Rev. A 46, 4421 (1992)

    1992

  2. [38]

    Kozio l, C

    K. Kozio l, C. A. Gim´ enez, and G. A. Aucar, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 044113 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Pyykk¨ o, Chem

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Chem. Rev.88, 563 (1988)

    1988

  4. [2]

    Pyykk¨ o, Chemical Reviews112, 371 (2012)

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Chemical Reviews112, 371 (2012)

    2012

  5. [3]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 117, 610 (1928)

    work page 1928

  6. [4]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 118, 351 (1928)

    work page 1928

  7. [5]

    Saue, ChemPhysChem 12, 3077 (2011)

    T. Saue, ChemPhysChem 12, 3077 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Quantum Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (Springer, 2009)

    2009

Show all 85 references
  1. [7]

    Breit, Phys

    G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 34, 553 (1929)

    1929

  2. [8]

    Indelicato, J

    P. Indelicato, J. Biero´ n, and P. J¨ onsson, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 129, 495 (2011)

    2011

  3. [9]

    Pyykk¨ o, Annu

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.63, 45 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    W. E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford, Phys. Rev. 72, 241 (1947)

    1947

  5. [11]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  6. [12]

    Berger and J

    R. Berger and J. Stohner, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.- Comput. Mol. Sci. 9, e1396 (2019)

    2019

  7. [13]

    T. A. Isaev, S. Hoekstra, and R. Berger, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052521 (2010)

    2010

  8. [14]

    T. A. Isaev and R. Berger, ArXiv e-prints 1302.5682, physics.chem (2013), arXiv:1302.5682 [physics.chem-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [15]

    L. P. Gaffney, P. A. Butler, M. Scheck, A. B. Hayes, F. Wenander, M. Albers, B. Bastin, C. Bauer, A. Blazhev, S. B¨ onig, N. Bree, J. Cederk¨ all, T. Chupp, D. Cline, T. E. Cocolios, T. Davinson, H. DeWitte, J. Diriken, T. Grahn, A. Herzan, M. Huyse, D. G. Jenk- ins, D. T. Jos...

    2013

  10. [16]

    P. A. Butler, L. P. Gaffney, P. Spagnoletti, K. Abrahams, M. Bowry, J. Cederk¨ all, G. de Angelis, H. De Witte, P. E. Garrett, A. Goldkuhle, C. Henrich, A. Illana, K. Johnston, D. T. Joss, J. M. Keatings, N. A. Kelly, M. Komorowska, J. Konki, T. Kr¨ oll, M. Lozano, B. S. Nara ...

    2020

  11. [17]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, R. Berger, J. Billowes, C. L. Binners- ley, M. L. Bissell, A. A. Breier, A. J. Brinson, K. Chrysa- lidis, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, K. T. Flanagan, T. F. Giesen, R. P. de Groote, S. Franchoo, F. P. Gustafs- son, T. A. Isaev, ´A. Koszor´ us, G. Neyens, H....

    2020

  12. [18]

    S. M. Udrescu, S. G. Wilkins, A. A. Breier, R. F. G. Ruiz, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, I. Belo˘ sevi´ c, R. Berger, M. L. Bissell, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Co- colios, R. P. de Groote, A. Dorne, K. T. Flana- gan, S. Franchoo, K. Gaul, S. Geldhof, T. F. Giesen, D. Hanstorp...

    2024

  13. [19]

    Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S

    M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S. G. Wilkins, L. V. Skripnikov, A. Koszorus, A. A. Breier, M. Au, I. Belo- sevic, R. Berger, M. L. Bissell, A. Borschevsky, A. Brin- son, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Cocolios, R. P. de Groote, A. Dorne, C. M. Fajardo-Zambrano, R. W. Field, K. T. Flanaga...

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [20]

    P. J. Mohr, Annals of Physics 88, 26 (1974)

    1974

  15. [21]

    S. A. Blundell, Phys. Rev. A 47, 1790 (1993)

    1993

  16. [22]

    S. M. Schneider, W. Greiner, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 50, 118 (1994)

    1994

  17. [23]

    P. J. Mohr, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rep. 293, 227 (1998)

    1998

  18. [24]

    Sunnergren, H

    P. Sunnergren, H. Persson, S. Salomonson, S. M. Schnei- der, I. Lindgren, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1055 (1998)

    1998

  19. [25]

    Labzowsky, I

    L. Labzowsky, I. Goidenko, M. Tokman, and P. Pyykk¨ o, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2707 (1999)

    1999

  20. [26]

    A. N. Artemyev, V. M. Shabaev, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plu- nien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062104 (2005). 12

    2005

  21. [27]

    S. G. Karshenboim, Physics Reports 422, 1 (2005)

    2005

  22. [28]

    Indelicato, J

    P. Indelicato, J. P. Santos, S. Boucard, and J.-P. De- sclaux, Eur. Phys. J. D 45, 155 (2007)

    2007

  23. [29]

    Here, it was observed, that the basis set had a greater impact on the QED corrections, than the level of theory alone

    or four-component AOC-HF calculations by Sunaga, 11 Salman and Saue [38]. Here, it was observed, that the basis set had a greater impact on the QED corrections, than the level of theory alone. Furthermore, the contri- butions to the ionisation energies of group 2 monofluo- rid...

  24. [30]

    V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012513 (2013)

    2013

  25. [31]

    Schwerdtfeger, L

    P. Schwerdtfeger, L. F. Paˇ steka, A. Punnett, and P. O. Bowman, Nuclear Physics A 944, 551 (2015), special Is- sue on Superheavy Elements

    2015

  26. [32]

    Thierfelder and P

    C. Thierfelder and P. Schwerdtfeger, Phys. Rev. A 82, 062503 (2010)

    2010

  27. [33]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052509 (2016)

    2016

  28. [34]

    Smits, P

    O. Smits, P. Indelicato, W. Nazarewicz, M. Piibeleht, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Physics Reports 1035, 1 (2023), pushing the limits of the periodic table — A review on atomic relativistic electronic structure theory and calcu- lations for the superheavy elements

    2023

  29. [35]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 095001 (2016)

    2016

  30. [36]

    Sunaga and T

    A. Sunaga and T. Saue, Molecular Physics 119, e1974592 (2021)

    2021

  31. [37]

    L. V. Skripnikov, D. V. Chubukov, and V. M. Shakhova, J. Chem. Phys. 155, 144103 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0068267/13305693/144103 1 online.pdf

    2021 doi

  32. [39]

    The larger deviations between the values are attributed to the different formulation of the wave function and the SE

    by ≈ 16% for the Π 1/2 ← Σ1/2 and ≈ 19% for the Π3/2 ← Σ1/2 transitions. The larger deviations between the values are attributed to the different formulation of the wave function and the SE. The latter’s share of the QED correction is larger than the one of the VP. V. CONCLUSI...

  33. [40]

    M. T. Colombo Jofr´ e, K. Kozio l, I. A. Aucar, K. Gaul, R. Berger, and G. A. Aucar, J. Chem. Phys. 157, 064103 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Sunaga, M

    A. Sunaga, M. Salman, and T. Saue, J. Chem. Phys. 157, 164101 (2022), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0116140/16552014/164101 1 online.pdf

    2022 doi

  35. [42]

    Zaitsevskii, L

    A. Zaitsevskii, L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin, T. Isaev, R. Berger, A. A. Breier, and T. Giesen, J. Chem. Phys. in press (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    L. F. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav, A. Borschevsky, U. Kaldor, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 023002 (2017)

    2017

  37. [44]

    D. J. Flynn, I. P. Grant, and H. M. Quniey, ArXiv e- prints (2024), arXiv:2405.11262v2 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    D. J. Flynn, I. P. Grant, and H. M. Quniey, ArXiv e- prints (2024), arXiv:2405.11261v2 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    L. W. Fullerton and G. A. Rinker, Phys. Rev. A 13, 1283 (1976)

    1976

  40. [47]

    E. A. Uehling, Phys. Rev. 48, 55 (1935)

    1935

  41. [48]

    A. M. Frolov and D. M. Wardlaw, The European Physical Journal B 85, 348 (2012)

    2012

  42. [49]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052115 (2005)

    2005

  43. [50]

    E. H. Wichmann and N. M. Kroll, Phys. Rev. 101, 843 (1956)

    1956

  44. [51]

    K¨ allen and A

    G. K¨ allen and A. Sabry, Mat. Fys. Medd. K. Dan. Vi- densk. Selsk. 29, 17 (1955)

    1955

  45. [52]

    Indelicato and P

    P. Indelicato and P. J. Mohr, Phys. Rev. A 58, 165 (1998)

    1998

  46. [53]

    Pyykk¨ o and L.-B

    P. Pyykk¨ o and L.-B. Zhao, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 36, 1469 (2003)

    2003

  47. [54]

    Beier, P

    T. Beier, P. J. Mohr, H. Persson, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 58, 954 (1998)

    1998

  48. [55]

    Berestetskii, L

    V. Berestetskii, L. Pitaevskii, and E. Lifshitz, Relativistic Quantum Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982)

    1982

  49. [56]

    V. A. Yerokhin and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012506 (2001)

    2001

  50. [57]

    Boucard and P

    S. Boucard and P. Indelicato, Eur. Phys. J. D 8, 59 (2000)

    2000

  51. [58]

    P. J. Mohr, Annals of Physics 88, 52 (1974)

    1974

  52. [59]

    P. J. Mohr and Y.-K. Kim, Phys. Rev. A45, 2727 (1992)

    1992

  53. [61]

    van W¨ ullen, J

    C. van W¨ ullen, J. Chem. Phys.109, 392 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    S. A. Br¨ uck, N. Sahu, K. Gaul, and R. Berger, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 194109 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Gaul and R

    K. Gaul and R. Berger, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 044101 (2020), arXiv:1907.10432 [physics.chem-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Nahrwold and R

    S. Nahrwold and R. Berger, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 214101 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    W. R. Inc., Mathematica, Version 11.0, champaign, IL, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Berger, N

    R. Berger, N. Langermann, and C. van W¨ ullen, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042105 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    based on Turbomole [68]. If not stated otherwise, the two-component wave functions were obtained from a complex Generalised Hartree–Fock (cGHF) calculation using the ZORA [69–72] framework, employing a model potential to alleviate the gauge dependence of ZORA as suggested by v...

  60. [68]

    T. A. Isaev and R. Berger, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062515 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Z¨ ulch, K

    C. Z¨ ulch, K. Gaul, S. M. Giesen, R. F. G. Ruiz, and R. Berger, arXiv physics.chem-ph, 2203.10333 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    van W¨ ullen, Z

    C. van W¨ ullen, Z. Phys. Chem224, 413 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Ahlrichs, M

    R. Ahlrichs, M. B¨ ar, M. H¨ aser, H. Horn, and C. K¨ olmel, Chem. Phys. Lett. 162, 165 (1989)

    1989

  64. [72]

    Chang, M

    C. Chang, M. Pelissier, and P. Durand, Physica Scripta 34, 394 (1986)

    1986

  65. [73]

    E. v. Lenthe, E. J. Baerends, and J. G. Snijders, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 4597 (1993), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/99/6/4597/14776295/4597 1 online.pdf

    1993

  66. [74]

    van Lenthe, E

    E. van Lenthe, E. J. Baerends, and J. G. Snijders, J. Chem. Phys. 101, 9783 (1994), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/101/11/9783/9435003/9783 1 online.pdf

    1994

  67. [75]

    van Lenthe, R

    E. van Lenthe, R. van Leeuwen, E. J. Baerends, and J. G. Snijders, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 57, 281 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    W. Liu, C. van W¨ ullen, F. Wang, and L. Li, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 3626 (2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    Visscher and K

    L. Visscher and K. G. Dyall, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 67, 207 (1997)

    1997

  70. [78]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 123, 714 (1929)

    1929

  71. [79]

    J. C. Slater, Phys. Rev. 81, 385 (1951)

    1951

  72. [80]

    S. H. Vosko, L. Wilk, and M. Nuisar, Can. J. Phys. 58, 1200 (1980)

    1980

  73. [81]

    A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A 38, 3098 (1988)

    1988

  74. [82]

    C. Lee, W. Yang, and R. G. Parr, Phys. Rev. B 37, 785 (1988)

    1988

  75. [83]

    A. D. Becke, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1372 (1993)

    1993

  76. [84]

    Kozio l and G

    K. Kozio l and G. A. Aucar, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 134101 (2018), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5026193/15539369/134101 1 online.pdf

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    S. G. Wilkins, H. A. Perrett, S. M. Udrescu, A. A. Kyu- beris, L. F. Paˇ steka, M. Au, I. Beloˇ sevi´ c, R. Berger, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bissell, A. Borschevsky, A. A. Breier, A. J. Brinson, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, R. P. de Groote, A. Dorne, E. Eliav, ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.