Self-energy correction to the E1 transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions

M. G. Kozlov; M. Y. Kaygorodov; V. A. Yerokhin; Yu. A. Demidov

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 33 references

Self-energy correction to the E1 transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 For np-n'd E1 amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions, the perturbed-orbital part of the self-energy correction ceases to dominate, so energy-level QED operators cannot reproduce it.

desk verdict Serious all-order QED benchmark with a likely-right conclusion about QEDMOD for p-d transitions, but the vertex+reducible numbers for those transitions are not independently verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01231 v2 pith:33JOJGPT submitted 2024-12-02 physics.atom-ph

M. G. Kozlov , M. Y. Kaygorodov , Yu. A. Demidov , V. A. Yerokhin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords self-energycorrectionE1transitionamplitudehydrogen-likeionsvertexandreduciblecorrectionsperturbed-orbitalapproximationQEDMODmodelpotentialradiativecesium

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

This paper computes the one-loop electron self-energy correction to electric-dipole (E1) transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions, to all orders in the nuclear binding parameter $Z\alpha$. Its central result is that the correction splits into two parts with different behavior: a perturbed-orbital part that dominates for $ns$-$n'p$ transitions (about 99% for $1s$-$2p_{1/2}$), and a vertex+reducible part that becomes comparable for $np$-$n'd$ transitions. Since common effective QED potentials reproduce only the perturbed-orbital part, they estimate the self-energy correction to $p$-$d$ amplitudes only to order of magnitude, and sometimes with the wrong sign. The authors conclude that effective operators built to reproduce energy-level Lamb shifts cannot be trusted for $np$-$n'd$ E1 matrix elements, and they quantify this failure for hydrogen-like cesium.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition $\delta z_{\rm se} = z_{\rm po} + z_{\rm vr}$, where $z_{\rm po}$ sums intermediate-state matrix elements of the renormalized one-loop self-energy operator $\Sigma_R(\varepsilon)$ and $z_{\rm vr}$ contains the vertex diagram minus reducible contributions. The vr part is further split into free-electron and many-potential contributions, with the free vertex part evaluated in momentum space after Fourier-transforming the electric dipole operator through a finite regulator $\rho$. The paper's main diagnostic is the scaled correction $R_{\rm se}(Z\alpha) = (\pi/\alpha)\,\delta z_{\rm se}/z_{ab}$, which is tabulated for many transitions and compared with the values obtained from the QEDMOD model potential.

What would settle it

Compute the vr contribution to a specific $np$-$n'd$ transition in hydrogen-like cesium, for instance $2p_{1/2}$-$4d_{3/2}$ where the total correction nearly vanishes and changes sign, using an independent numerical scheme such as a different regularization of the dipole operator or a direct partial-wave summation that avoids the free/many split, and check that the remainder matches Table IV within the quoted uncertainty; a mismatch would overturn the claim that QEDMOD misses the correction by the stated amount.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes, through all-order-in-$Z\alpha$ numerical calculations, that the one-loop self-energy correction to E1 amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions decomposes into a perturbed-orbital (po) part and a vertex+reducible (vr) part whose relative size depends on the orbital angular momentum change. For the $1s$-$2p_{1/2}$ transition across $Z = 2$ to $100$, the vr part is consistently about 1% of the total, so effective-potential approximations hold at that level. For $ns$-$n'p$ transitions in hydrogen-like cesium ($Z = 55$) the same is roughly true, with the QEDMOD model potential reproducing the ab initio total to within about 10% in most cases. For $np$-$n'd$ transitions, however, the po and vr parts are of the same order, the total self-energy correction is smaller and irregular in sign, and QEDMOD fails quantitatively, in several cases giving the wrong sign. The paper's conclusion is that effective QED operators constructed from energy-level data cannot well reproduce the self-energy correction to $np$-$n'd$ E1 matrix elements.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical evaluation of the vertex+reducible part rests on a delicate cancellation between the free-electron and many-potential contributions, with the first four digits cancelling at $Z = 2$, and the paper assumes the remaining finite difference is accurate to the quoted uncertainties without reporting an independent verification of that cancellation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $1s$-$2p_{1/2}$ decays in any hydrogen-like ion, the vertex and reducible self-energy parts shift the amplitude by about 1%, so effective-potential calculations are reliable at that level.
For $ns$-$n'p$ transitions in heavy hydrogen-like ions, the QEDMOD model potential reproduces the ab initio self-energy correction to within roughly 10% in most cases, with the worst relative errors occurring where the correction itself is abnormally small.
For $np$-$n'd$ transitions, the same model potential gives only the order of magnitude of the self-energy correction, and sometimes not even the sign, so many-electron $p$-$d$ amplitude calculations need explicit uncertainty estimates.
The frequency-dependent part of the E1 operator is a percent-level correction for hydrogen-like cesium and must be included when comparing with high-precision measurements.
The irregular dependence of the vr correction on principal quantum numbers indicates that a simple effective operator for E1 amplitudes will be difficult to construct.

Reading between the lines

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

If the cesium pattern is generic, then in many-electron atoms the dominant QED effect on $p$-$d$ transitions may enter through correlation-induced configuration mixing rather than through the direct radial self-energy correction; the authors' earlier neon-like iron and nickel study is consistent with that route.
A testable extension is to compute the vr part for a few $np$-$n'd$ transitions in lighter and heavier hydrogen-like ions, for example $Z \approx 30$ and $Z \approx 80$, since the paper's detailed conclusions are for $Z = 55$ only.
The severe cancellation between free and many-potential parts of vr at low $Z$ suggests a cross-check with a completely different renormalization scheme; without such a check, the quoted sub-percent uncertainties at low $Z$ rest mainly on internal consistency.
A practical extension would be to fit the po part with the QEDMOD potential and tabulate vr residuals as a state-dependent operator; the sign reversal between $n_s < n_p$ and $n_s > n_p$ seen in the paper's figure indicates that such an operator would need to be nonlocal.

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

Read this one. It is the first systematic all-order benchmark of self-energy corrections to E1 amplitudes across many hydrogenic transitions, and it fills a real gap: Sapirstein and Cheng only did ns-np1/2 in a few alkali atoms. The decay-rate comparison with Ref. [28] for 1s-2p1/2 is a meaningful independent check, and the two methods agree reasonably.

The main new result is the mapping of where the vertex+reducible (vr) part matters. For ns-n'p transitions, po dominates and QEDMOD works within ~10%, which is reassuring. For np-n'd, the paper argues that po is no longer dominant and QEDMOD fails even to reproduce po, so it is only order-of-magnitude. That conclusion is likely right, and it matters because many-electron calculations use QEDMOD for exactly these E1 amplitudes.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Table I shows unexplained 3-15% deviations from Ref. [28] at Z=2-10, attributed to 'numerical issues' without analysis. Several table entries lack quoted uncertainties, and the nuclear model sensitivity at Z=90-100 is mentioned but not quantified. More importantly, the stress-test hits the right nerve: the only independent validation (the decay-rate comparison) is for 1s-2p1/2, where vr is about 1% of se. That check cannot validate the p-d vr values that drive the central claim. The free/many decomposition in Table II shows large cancellations, but Table IV gives no convergence data on the regulator, partial waves, or grid.

That said, the central qualitative claim does not collapse. Even if the vr numbers in Table IV were wrong by tens of percent, the fact that QEDMOD fails to reproduce the po part for p-d transitions is visible directly in the qmod-po column, independent of vr. So the paper's bottom line about QEDMOD is robust; the quantitative error bars on se and the qmod-se ratios are the fragile part.

This deserves a serious referee. The authors should be asked to provide data or at least convergence checks for the vr part in Table IV, and to explain the low-Z discrepancies. I would cite this for the benchmark values, and bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports ab initio calculations of the one-loop electron self-energy correction to E1 transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions, to all orders in the nuclear binding parameter Zα. The correction is split into a perturbed-orbital (po) part and a vertex-plus-reducible (vr) part. For the 1s-2p1/2 transition, the results are converted into corrections to the 2p1/2 decay rate and compared with the all-order calculation of Ref. [28]; good overall agreement is found. The authors then present an extensive set of results for ns-n'p and np-n'd transitions in H-like cesium (Z=55), including the frequency-dependent correction to the E1 operator, and compare the po part with the QEDMOD model-potential results. The central conclusion is that for ns-n'p transitions the po part dominates and QEDMOD reproduces the self-energy correction to within about 10% in most cases, while for np-n'd transitions the po and vr parts are of comparable magnitude and QEDMOD gives at best an order-of-magnitude estimate.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides an important caution for the common practice of using effective QED potentials, such as QEDMOD, to estimate QED corrections to transition amplitudes in many-electron atoms: the method may be reliable for ns-n'p-type transitions but fails quantitatively for np-n'd transitions. The work also provides a large, systematic dataset of self-energy corrections for H-like cesium that could be used to construct model operators for transition amplitudes, and it quantifies the frequency-dependent correction to the length-gauge E1 operator. The comparison with the independent calculation of Ref. [28] is a valuable external consistency check, and the identification of the large cancellations between the free-electron and many-potential parts of the vr contribution is an honest warning about numerical difficulty. The main unmet need is direct evidence for the numerical accuracy of the vr values that underpin the central claim.

major comments (2)

[§III, Table IV, and discussion around Eq. (12)]
[§III, Table I] The low-Z deviations from Ref. [28] are described only as "probably due to numerical issues" without further analysis. For example, at Z=2 the present result is -0.00355(4) versus -0.00343 from Ref. [28], and at Z=10 it is -0.04762(5) versus -0.045, which are 3-6% level discrepancies. Since this comparison is the main external consistency check of the whole calculation, the authors should quantify the numerical uncertainty in the decay-rate conversion, explain the origin of these low-Z discrepancies, or at least demonstrate that the same numerical issue does not affect the vr values in Tables III and IV at the level claimed.

minor comments (3)

[Section III, captions of Tables III and IV] There are small presentational errors: "Table III and IV presents" should be "present", and "ab inito" appears in the text instead of "ab initio" in a couple of places. Please correct these.
[Tables II, III, and IV] The quoted uncertainties are not consistent: several rows in Table II (e.g., Z=70, 80, 90, 100) and many entries in Tables III and IV carry no uncertainty, while the conclusions rely on comparisons at the level of a few percent. Please either provide uncertainties for all numerical values or state explicitly which entries are expected to be exact at the displayed digit level and why.
[Section II.B, Eq. (14)] The regulator ρ is stated to be typically 10^-6 and its error is said to be "completely negligible," but no numerical sensitivity study is shown. A brief statement of how the final values of z_vr change when ρ is varied would make the claim verifiable and would also address the concern raised in the major comment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the self-energy corrections are computed ab initio and validated against an independent all-order calculation; the QEDMOD comparison is an external benchmark, not a derivation input.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained from a direct numerical evaluation of one-loop self-energy diagrams: the perturbed-orbital part is computed from Eq. (3) using the renormalized one-loop self-energy operator, and the vertex+reducible part is computed from Eq. (6), with the free-electron part renormalized in momentum space and the many-potential remainder evaluated separately. No parameter is fitted to any subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction. The main conclusion about np-n'd transitions follows from the independently computed po and vr values reported in Table IV, not from any input assumption that forces the result. The only calibration-style comparison in the paper, the 1s-2p1/2 decay-rate check in Table I and Eq. (24), is made against Ref. [28], an external all-order calculation by a different group; this is a validation of the method, not an input to it. The QEDMOD package referenced in the comparison is co-authored by one of the present authors, but it is used as an external benchmark object whose output is compared with the ab initio values. The ab initio results do not depend on QEDMOD in any way, and the conclusion that QEDMOD fails to reproduce the np-n'd self-energy corrections is logically downstream of the ab initio numbers rather than being presupposed by them. The self-citation to the authors' earlier neon-like study [17] is contextual and is not load-bearing for the new np-n'd conclusion. The numerical issues flagged in the manuscript, such as cancellations in the vr part at low Z and deviations in Table I, concern accuracy and convergence, not circularity. Thus no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main input is the standard one-loop QED formalism of earlier references; the only ad hoc parameter is the ρ regulator for the dipole Fourier transform. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

ρ (regulator for the dipole operator Fourier transform) = ≈10^-6
Introduced in Eq. (14) to regularize the Fourier transform of the electric dipole operator. The authors state the ρ error is negligible at the level of interest and that only a small momentum region |p-p'| ~ ρ contributes to the integrals, but no systematic convergence study is shown.

assumptions (5)

standard math One-loop QED in Feynman gauge with the renormalized self-energy operator ΣR(ε) and standard mass counterterm
Eqs. (3)-(6) rely on the standard QED bound-state formalism of Refs. [16,18,19].
domain assumption The separation of the self-energy correction into perturbed-orbital and vertex+reducible parts is complete and gauge-consistent
Eq. (2) is the starting decomposition; the paper computes both parts within the one-loop approximation.
domain assumption The E1 transition amplitude in length gauge is evaluated in the low-frequency limit plus the first-order frequency-dependent correction δdab of Eq. (22)
Section II.C; higher-order terms in kr are neglected, justified by estimates for neutral Cs but only tested numerically for H-like Cs at the 10^-3 level.
domain assumption Point nuclear model for the nuclear charge distribution
Used in all calculations; deviation from finite-size nucleus results of Ref. [28] reaches 5-10% at Z=90-100 (Table I).
standard math Summations over intermediate states include the complete Dirac spectrum
Eqs. (3) and (6) require the full spectrum; the numerical implementation uses a finite basis, a standard approach in the group's previous work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-energy correction to the E1 transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33JOJGPT

@misc{pith2026241201231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-energy correction to the E1 transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33JOJGPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01231}
}

abstract

We present calculations of the self-energy correction to the $E1$ transition amplitudes in hydrogen-like ions, performed to all orders in the nuclear binding strength parameter. Our results for the $1s$-$2p_{1/2}$ transition for the hydrogen isoelectronic sequence show that the perturbed-orbital part of the self-energy correction provides the dominant contribution, accounting for approximately 99\% of the total correction for this transition. Detailed calculations were performed for $ns$-$n'p$ and $np$-$n'd$ transitions in H-like caesium. We conclude that the perturbed-orbital part remains dominant also for other $ns$-$n'p$ transitions, whereas for the $np$-$n'd$ matrix elements this dominance no longer holds. Consequently, the self-energy corrections for the $np$-$n'd$ one-electron matrix elements cannot be well reproduced by means of effective QED operators constructed for energy levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01231 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[28]

Radiative Corrections to One-Photon Decays of Hydrogenic Ions

J. Sapirstein, K. Pachucki, and K. T. Cheng, Radiative correc- tions to one-photon decays of hydrogenic ions, Phys. Rev. A69, 022113 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311134

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[1]

K ¨uhn, C

S. K ¨uhn, C. Shah, J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, K. Fujii, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, J. Stierhof, M. Togawa, Z. Harman, N. S. Oreshkina, C. Cheung, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, J. C. Berengut, M. Rosner, M. Bissinger, R. Ball- hausen, N. Hell, S. Park, M. Chung, M. Hoesch, J. Selt- mann, A. S. Surzhykov, V . A. Yerokhin, J. Wilms, F. S. Porter, T. St...

work page arXiv 2020
[2]

New Measurement Resolves Key Astrophysical Fe XVII Oscillator Strength Problem

S. K ¨uhn, C. Cheung, N. S. Oreshkina, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, M. To- gawa, S. Bernitt, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, F. Trinter, C. H. Keitel, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, Z. Harman, M. S. Safronova, J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, and C. Shah, New Measurement Resolves Key Astrophysical Fe XVII Osci...

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[3]

C. Shah, S. K ¨uhn, S. Bernitt, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, M. Togawa, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. Scott Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leuteneg- ger, C. Cheung, M. S. Safronova, and J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, Natural-linewidth measurements of the 3C and 3D soft-x-ray transitions in Ni XIX, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063108 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833

arXiv 2018
[5]

V . M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, K. Pachucki, G. Plunien, and V . A. Yerokhin, Radiative and correlation effects on the parity-nonconserving transition amplitude in heavy alkali-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. A 72, 062105 (2005)

work page 2005
[6]

C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Measurement of par- ity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

work page 1997
[7]

Sapirstein and K

J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Calculation of the Lamb shift in neutral alkali metals, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042501 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 33 references

[8]

Sapirstein and K

J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Calculation of radiative correc- tions to hyperfine splittings in the neutral alkali metals, Phys. Rev. A 67, 022512 (2003)

2003
[9]

C. J. Fairhall, B. M. Roberts, and J. S. M. Ginges, QED radia- tive corrections to electric dipole amplitudes in heavy atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022813 (2023), arXiv:2212.11490

2023 arXiv
[10]

B. M. Roberts, C. J. Fairhall, and J. S. M. Ginges, Electric-dipole transition amplitudes for atoms and ions with one valence electron, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052812 (2023), arXiv:2211.11134

2023 arXiv
[11]

H. B. Tran Tan and A. Derevianko, Precision theoretical deter- mination of electric-dipole matrix elements in atomic cesium, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042809 (2023)

2023
[12]

M. G. Kozlov, Y . A. Demidov, M. Y . Kaygorodov, and E. V . Tryapitsyna, Basis set calculations of heavy atoms, Atoms 12, 3 (2024), arXiv:2312.07782

2024 arXiv
[13]

V . M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V . A. Yerokhin, Model opera- tor approach to the Lamb shift calculations in relativistic many- electron atoms, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012513 (2013)

2013
[14]

V . M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V . A. Yerokhin, QEDMOD: Fortran program for calculating the model Lamb-shift operator, Comp. Phys. Comm. 189, 175 (2015)

2015
[15]

V . M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V . A. Yerokhin, QEDMOD: Fortran program for calculating the model Lamb-shift operator, Comp. Phys. Comm. 223, 69 (2018)

2018
[16]

Sapirstein and K

J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Calculation of radiative correc- tions to E1 matrix elements in the neutral alkali metals, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022503 (2005)

2005
[17]

M. G. Kozlov, V . A. Yerokhin, M. Y . Kaygorodov, and E. V . Tryapitsyna, QED calculations of the E1 transition amplitude in neonlike iron and nickel, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062805 (2024), arXiv:2410.02489

2024 arXiv
[18]

V . M. Shabaev, Two-time Green’s function method in quantum electrodynamics of high-Z few-electron atoms, Phys. Rep. 356, 119 (2002)

2002
[19]

Yerokhin and V

V . Yerokhin and V . Shabaev, First-order self-energy correction in hydrogenlike systems, Phys. Rev. A 60, 800 (1999)

1999
[20]

V . A. Yerokhin and A. V . Maiorova, Calculations of QED Ef- fects with the Dirac Green Function, Symmetry12, 800 (2020)

2020
[21]

Varshalovich, A

D. Varshalovich, A. Moskalev, and V . Khersonskii, Quantum theory of angular momentum (World Scientific, 1988). 9

1988
[22]

Yerokhin, A

V . Yerokhin, A. Artemyev, T. Beier, G. Plunien, V . Shabaev, and G. Soff, Two-electron self-energy corrections to the 2 p 1/2- 2 s transition energy in Li-like ions, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3522 (1999)

1999
[23]

Persson, S

H. Persson, S. Salomonson, P. Sunnergren, and I. Lindgren, Ra- diative corrections to the electron g-factor in H-like ions, Phys. Rev. A 56, R2499 (1997)

1997
[24]

V . A. Yerokhin and V . M. Shabaev, First order self-energy cor- rection in hydrogen-like systems, Phys. Rev. A60, 800 (1999)

1999
[25]

I. P. Grant, Gauge invariance and relativistic radiative transi- tions, J. Phys. B: Atomic and Molecular Physics7, 1458 (1974)

1974
[26]

W. R. Johnson, Atomic Structure Theory. Lectures on Atomic Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007)

2007
[27]

R. V . Popov and A. V . Maiorova, Relativistic calculations of one-photon transition probabilities in hydrogen-like ions, Op- tics and Spectroscopy 122, 366 (2017)

2017
[29]

V . G. Ivanov and S. G. Karshenboim, Radiative corrections to dipole matrix elements in hydrogen-like atoms, Phys. Lett. A 210, 313 (1996)

1996
[30]

G. Toh, A. Damitz, N. Glotzbach, J. Quirk, I. C. Stevenson, J. Choi, M. S. Safronova, and D. S. Elliott, Electric dipole ma- trix elements for the 6p 2PJ → 7s 2S1/2 transition in atomic cesium, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032504 (2019)

2019
[31]

G. Toh, N. Chalus, A. Burgess, A. Damitz, P. Imany, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, C. E. Tanner, and D. S. Elliott, Mea- surement of the lifetimes of the7p 2P3/2 and 7p 2P1/2 states of atomic cesium, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052507 (2019)

2019
[32]

G. Toh, A. Damitz, C. E. Tanner, W. R. Johnson, and D. S. Elliott, Determination of the Scalar and Vector Polarizabilities of the Cesium 6s 2S1/2 → 7s 2S1/2 Transition and Implica- tions for Atomic Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 073002 (2019)

2019
[33]

J. A. Quirk, A. Jacobsen, A. Damitz, C. E. Tanner, and D. S. Elliott, Measurement of the Static Stark Shift of the 7s 2S1/2 Level in Atomic Cesium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 233201 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [28]

Radiative Corrections to One-Photon Decays of Hydrogenic Ions

J. Sapirstein, K. Pachucki, and K. T. Cheng, Radiative correc- tions to one-photon decays of hydrogenic ions, Phys. Rev. A69, 022113 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311134

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[2] [1]

K ¨uhn, C

S. K ¨uhn, C. Shah, J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, K. Fujii, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, J. Stierhof, M. Togawa, Z. Harman, N. S. Oreshkina, C. Cheung, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, J. C. Berengut, M. Rosner, M. Bissinger, R. Ball- hausen, N. Hell, S. Park, M. Chung, M. Hoesch, J. Selt- mann, A. S. Surzhykov, V . A. Yerokhin, J. Wilms, F. S. Porter, T. St...

work page arXiv 2020

[3] [2]

New Measurement Resolves Key Astrophysical Fe XVII Oscillator Strength Problem

S. K ¨uhn, C. Cheung, N. S. Oreshkina, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, M. To- gawa, S. Bernitt, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, F. Trinter, C. H. Keitel, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, Z. Harman, M. S. Safronova, J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, and C. Shah, New Measurement Resolves Key Astrophysical Fe XVII Osci...

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[4] [3]

C. Shah, S. K ¨uhn, S. Bernitt, R. Steinbr ¨ugge, M. Togawa, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. Scott Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leuteneg- ger, C. Cheung, M. S. Safronova, and J. R. C. L ´opez-Urrutia, Natural-linewidth measurements of the 3C and 3D soft-x-ray transitions in Ni XIX, Phys. Rev. A 109, 063108 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [4]

M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833

arXiv 2018

[6] [5]

V . M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, K. Pachucki, G. Plunien, and V . A. Yerokhin, Radiative and correlation effects on the parity-nonconserving transition amplitude in heavy alkali-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. A 72, 062105 (2005)

work page 2005

[7] [6]

C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Measurement of par- ity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

work page 1997

[8] [7]

Sapirstein and K

J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Calculation of the Lamb shift in neutral alkali metals, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042501 (2002)

work page 2002