Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

A Bayesian Approach for Strong Field QED Tests with He-like Ions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian reanalysis of transition energies in helium-like ions finds no significant deviation from quantum electrodynamics, reducing a previously reported 4.5-sigma anomaly to about 2.7 sigma.

desk verdict A solid Bayesian reanalysis that resolves the old 4.5 sigma QED anomaly down to a 2.7 sigma trend, but the independence assumption on repeated measurements needs a sensitivity check before the no-deviation claim is bulletproof. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04423 v5 pith:4KBY6TZN submitted 2025-01-08 physics.atom-ph

César Godinho , Jorge Machado , Nancy Paul , Mauro Guerra , Paul Indelicato , Martino Trassinelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords He-likeionsQEDtestsBayesianevidencenestedsamplingtransitionenergiesstrong-fieldpower-lawdeviationprecisionspectroscopy
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 asks whether measured x-ray transition energies in helium-like ions from $Z=5$ to 92 agree with quantum electrodynamics, a question that previous frequentist analyses answered in contradictory ways. It uses Bayesian model selection to compare the null hypothesis (no deviation from QED) with deviation models of the form $f(Z)=aZ^k$, assigning probabilities rather than relying on best-fit $\chi^2$. With the full dataset, including post-2012 measurements, the analysis finds no significant deviation: the pre-2012 evidence for a roughly $4.5\sigma$ discrepancy shrinks to about $2.7\sigma$ at $k=4.5$, below the threshold for claiming new physics. The $\Delta n=0$ intrashell transitions show no evidence of any power-law deviation. This matters because it converts a contested, model-dependent verdict into a quantitative probability statement and specifies what accuracy future measurements would need to settle the residual trend.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bayes factor between a null model (theory agrees with experiment) and a family of deviation models $f_k(Z)=aZ^k$, with a possible constant offset $aZ^k+b$. Parameter priors are flat over a $\pm 5\sigma$ range at $Z=92$, and the multidimensional integrals for the Bayesian evidence are computed with nested sampling. The logarithm of the evidence ratio $\ln E$ maps onto an effective standard-deviation scale, letting the paper convert model probabilities into the familiar language of $\sigma$ deviations. This machinery is what allows model probabilities and weighted averages over $k$, rather than pairwise $\chi^2$ tests, to drive the conclusion.

What would settle it

Measure the $1s2p\ ^1P_1 \to 1s^2\ ^1S_0$ transition in helium-like uranium with a total uncertainty below 10 eV; if the new point deviates from the QED prediction by more than about 3 $\sigma$, the paper's conclusion that no deviation can currently be claimed would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the current helium-like ion transition data are consistent with QED: no deviation from prediction can currently be claimed. The analysis models any hypothetical beyond-QED contribution as $f(Z)=aZ^k$ and uses the integrated likelihood (Bayesian evidence) to compare such models with the null model, rather than relying on the best-fit $\chi^2$. Applied to the pre-2012 dataset, the method reproduces the 4.5-$\sigma$ discrepancy with $k=3.5$; adding 25 later measurements lowers the maximum relative evidence to 2.7 $\sigma$ with $k=4.5$, and the constant-offset models are disfavored. For $\Delta n=0$ intrashell transitions the relative evidence never favors any power-law deviation, and future hypothetical-datum calculations indicate that a uranium measurement with uncertainty below 10 eV (xenon 1 eV, lead 5 eV) would be needed to discriminate the residual trend from the null hypothesis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every published measurement can be treated as an independent Gaussian point, with the experimental and theoretical uncertainties added linearly and no correlation among repeated measurements of the same ion; if shared systematic errors or optimistic theory error bars are present, the evidence values and the 2.7-sigma residual could shift materially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the conclusion is right, the 2012 4.5-sigma anomaly is best read as a small-sample or error-accounting effect, not as evidence for missing QED or new physics.
  • The residual 2.7-sigma trend, with a power exponent $k=4.5$, is a target for future experiments rather than a discovery; it constrains the accuracy needed to confirm or exclude it.
  • A uranium $w$-line measurement with total uncertainty below 10 eV, or a xenon measurement below 1 eV, would have the largest impact on the model probabilities, according to the paper's hypothetical-datum analysis.
  • The absence of deviation in $\Delta n=0$ transitions, where only $\ell=0$ states are involved, supports the current QED treatment and suggests any missing contribution would be orbital-dependent if it exists.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because repeated measurements of the same ion are treated as independent Gaussian points, the effective sample size at high $Z$ is smaller than the raw count; averaging repeats or adding correlation terms would likely widen the error bars on the fitted $k$ and amplitude $a$.
  • Editorial inference: The 2.7-sigma residual is conditional on the quoted theory uncertainties; if those uncertainties are optimistic, the same data could push the residual below or above the significance threshold.
  • Editorial inference: The same Bayesian machinery could be applied to lithium-like ions or to other transition classes, where a different balance of orbital contributions might isolate the physical origin of any genuine power-law trend.
  • Editorial inference: The required-accuracy numbers assume a single new measurement with uncorrelated error; a campaign spanning several $Z$ values would likely be far more discriminating than one ultra-precise point.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines the long-standing question of whether theory-experiment differences in He-like ion transition energies show a systematic deviation from QED predictions. Using Bayesian model selection, the authors compare a null hypothesis (no deviation) against models of the form f(Z) = a Z^k and f(Z) = a Z^k + b, applied to compiled data on n = 2 → 1 and Δn = 0 transitions for Z = 5 to 92. The analysis reproduces a ~4.5σ preference for a deviation when only pre-2012 data are used, but finds that including post-2012 measurements reduces this to 2.7σ at k ≈ 4.5. The authors conclude that no significant deviation from QED can currently be claimed, and they provide predictive maps for the accuracy required of future measurements at U, Pb, and Xe. The paper argues that a Bayesian approach is better suited to this problem than previous frequentist chi-square analyses because it assigns probabilities to competing models and allows model averaging.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper resolves a controversy in strong-field QED tests: the previously claimed 4.5σ discrepancy is shown to be a small-sample/error-accounting effect rather than evidence for new physics. The Bayesian framework is a genuine methodological improvement over the frequentist chi-square comparisons used in earlier work, as it computes full model evidence rather than relying on best-fit chi-square values. The analysis also produces concrete, falsifiable predictions for future experiments, specifying the accuracies needed to confirm or rule out the residual trend. The main weakness is that the conclusion rests on a likelihood that treats repeated measurements of the same ion and transition as independent, and the underlying dataset and code are not provided. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim, which is why the paper requires revision rather than immediate acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III] The likelihood treats every published measurement as an independent Gaussian residual with δE_total = δE_exp + δE_theo, and for the pre-2012 set the authors explicitly use the data 'without making any average on measurements on the same elements.' The full dataset contains multiple measurements of the same ion and transition, often from the same experimental groups. If those points share systematic errors (Doppler calibration, beam-energy scale, detector response) or if the same theoretical error from Refs. [13,14] is replicated for repeated measurements, the effective number of independent constraints is smaller than the number of points in Fig. 1. This directly inflates the Bayesian evidence for the null model in Fig. 2 and can bias the inferred exponent k toward the high-Z points that are also the most heavily replicated. The global inflation of all uncertainties by a factor of 2 does not address this correlated-error issue. Since the central conclusion rests on the 2.7σ residual, a correlation-aware re-analysis (averaging repeated measurements or introducing covariance terms) or an explicit justification that the systematic errors are independent is required before the no-deviation claim is secure.
  2. [Section III] The theoretical uncertainties from Refs. [13,14] are taken at face value and are added linearly to the experimental uncertainty for each data point. For repeated measurements of the same transition, the identical theory value and its uncertainty are used multiple times. If the theory error is a common-mode contribution, the total uncertainties for those points are overestimated in a way that artificially favors the null model. The authors should state whether the theory uncertainty is treated as fully correlated across repeated measurements and, if so, recompute the evidence with a proper treatment. Alternatively, they should justify why the current treatment is conservative; as written, it is not clear that the conclusion is robust to this choice.
  3. [Appendix / data availability] The manuscript does not provide the full dataset (ion, transition, experimental value, uncertainty, theory value, uncertainty) or the code used for the nested-sampling computation. Without these, the reported Bayes factors, the exponent k≈4.5, and the 2.7σ significance cannot be reproduced or independently checked. Since the paper's main contribution is a re-analysis of existing data, a supplementary data table and code (or a precise table of the residuals plotted in Fig. 1) should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The mapping between Bayesian evidence and p-values/σ depends on the prior choices and is only approximate; the paper uses it to quote 4.5σ and 2.7σ. Please clarify that these σ values are indicative conversions, not formal frequentist significances.
  2. [Section III] The statement 'The mean value of the parameter cannot be used as this assumes that the data are normally distributed' is inaccurate: the posterior mean is a valid estimator without any normality assumption on the data. Perhaps the authors mean that the posterior is non-Gaussian and the median is more robust; please rephrase.
  3. [Fig. 1] The fits f5, f3.5, and f4.5 are given in absolute energy units but are drawn on a y-axis labeled (E_E - E_T)/Z^2 (eV). Please clarify how the curves are scaled when displayed.
  4. [Section III] The phrase 'L1 norm of both uncertainty sources' is unconventional; since δE_total = δE_exp + δE_theo is a simple sum, please use 'linear sum' or 'conservative sum' to avoid confusion with the L1 norm of vectors.
  5. [Abstract and Appendix] The abstract says 'weighted average on the different deviation models' but the appendix averages over models with equal prior probability P[M_m]=1/M. Consider saying 'model average' instead of 'weighted average' unless the weights are specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Bayesian model comparison is self-contained, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation of code and group data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a Bayesian model comparison between a null QED model and power-law deviation models f_k(Z)=aZ^k. The parameters a and k are free and marginalized via nested sampling; the posterior probabilities are computed from the likelihood of literature data with uncertainties δE_total=δE_exp+δE_theo. Nothing in the defining equations forces the conclusion: the pre-2012 data yield log evidence ≈9.0 for k=3.5 (≈4.5σ), while the full data set shifts to 2.7σ at k=4.5, showing the result responds to added data rather than being an identity. The theory predictions come from independent external references [13,14], and the experimental points are published measurements, including some from groups that include co-authors; self-use of the nested_fit code [26-29] and of group measurements is normal and not load-bearing. The future-measurement accuracy statements are posterior predictive calculations from the same fitted models, a standard Bayesian design use, not a hidden refitting of the conclusion. The strongest methodological concern is the treatment of repeated measurements of the same transition as independent Gaussian constraints, which could affect evidence values, but this is a statistical assumption about the data, not a circular derivation: the no-deviation claim is not equivalent by construction to the input likelihood or priors.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The Bayesian analysis is statistically self-contained, but it rests on the reliability and independence of the compiled measurements, on the correctness of the quoted theoretical errors, and on the power-law model space. No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • amplitude a in f(Z) = a Z^k = fitted; median for all data about 8.4e-9 eV at k = 4.5; pre-2012 value 1.4e-6 eV at k = 3.5
    Scale of the hypothesized power-law deviation; marginalized over a flat prior and reported in Fig. 1.
  • exponent k in f(Z) = a Z^k = fitted; most probable k = 4.5 for all data, k = 3.5 for pre-2012 data
    Shape of the Z-dependence; scanned over k = 0 to 10 and used to interpret the possible physics of the deviation.
  • offset b in f_c(Z) = a Z^k + b = fitted but not quoted in the paper; strongly disfavored by the evidence
    Extra parameter in an alternative model accounting for an unexpected constant term; used as a methodological control.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bayes theorem and nested-sampling integration of the marginal likelihood are valid.
    Used in Section II to turn likelihoods and priors into model probabilities; standard Bayesian machinery.
  • domain assumption Theoretical transition energies from Refs. [13,14] are correct within their quoted uncertainties.
    All experiment-theory residuals are computed relative to these predictions; a common theory bias would shift every residual and change the evidence.
  • domain assumption Published measurements are independent Gaussian draws with uncertainties combined as delta_E_total = delta_E_exp + delta_E_theo.
    The likelihood in Section II assumes independence, and the linear uncertainty combination is stated in Section III. Correlated systematics or non-Gaussian tails would alter the evidence.
  • domain assumption Possible missing physics is represented by f(Z) = a Z^k or f(Z) = a Z^k + b.
    The model space in Section II is restricted to these forms, so deviations with a different Z-dependence would not be detected.
  • domain assumption A flat prior covering the +/-5 sigma range at Z = 92 is uninformative for the model comparison.
    The authors report tests showing insensitivity to boundary choices, but the prior is still a modeling choice affecting absolute evidence values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Bayesian Approach for Strong Field QED Tests with He-like Ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4KBY6TZN

@misc{pith2026250104423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Bayesian Approach for Strong Field QED Tests with He-like Ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4KBY6TZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04423}
}
abstract

Detailed comparisons between theory and experiment for quantum electrodynamics (QED) effects in He-like ions have been performed in the literature to search for hints of new physics. Different frequentist statistical analyses of the existing atomic transition energy data have shown contradictory conclusions as to the presence of possible deviations from the theory predictions. We present here an approach using Bayesian statistics which allows to assign quantitative probabilities to the different deviation models from theory for He-like ions for $Z = 5$ to 92. Potential deviations beyond the standard model or higher order QED effects are modeled with $f(Z) \propto Z^k$ functions. Considering the currently available data, no significant difference between theory and experiment is found, and we show that recent experiments have reduced the possible deviations previously observed in the literature. Using past measurements and a weighted average on the different deviation models, we indicate the accuracy required for future measurements to investigated possible divergences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04423 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The most likely (highest evidence) fits for the measurements from Refs. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evidence of multiple test functions on pre-2012 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Gordon and R

    C. Gordon and R. Trotta, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 382, 1859 (2007), URL https:// doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2966.2007.12707.x

    arXiv 2007

  2. [1]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025008

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.025008 2018

  3. [2]

    Beiersdorfer and G

    P. Beiersdorfer and G. V. Brown, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032514 (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.91.032514

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Indelicato, J

    P. Indelicato, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 52, 232001 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6455/ab42c9

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 251803 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.251803

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.251803 2024

  6. [5]

    C. T. Chantler and J. A. Kimpton, Can. J. Phys. 87, 763 (2009), URL http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/ doi/abs/10.1139/P09-019

    work page doi:10.1139/p09-019 2009

  7. [6]

    C. T. Chantler, M. N. Kinnane, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, A. T. Payne, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. M. Pomeroy, J. N. Tan, J. A. Kimpton, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 153001 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.153001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.153001 2012

  8. [7]

    C. T. Chantler, A. T. Payne, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. A. Kimpton, and E. Tak´ acs, New J. Phys.16, 123037 (2014), URL http: //stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/16/i=12/a=123037?key= crossref.b716ebd48322422e1c3d550745b3ffb3

    work page 2014

Show all 59 references
  1. [8]

    Machado, C

    J. Machado, C. I. Szabo, J. P. Santos, P. Amaro, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, G. Bian, J. M. Isac, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032517 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 97.032517

    2018 doi

  2. [9]

    Machado, N

    J. Machado, N. Paul, G. Soum-Sidikov, L. Duval, S. Mac´ e, R. Loetzsch, M. Trassinelli, and P. Indeli- cato, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032821 (2023), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.032821

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    N. Hell, G. V. Brown, J. Wilms, V. Grinberg, J. Clementson, D. Liedahl, F. S. Porter, R. L. Kelley, C. A. Kilbourne, and P. Beiersdorfer, The Astrophysical Journal 830, 26 (2016), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/0004-637X/830/1/26

    2016

  4. [12]

    Loetzsch, H

    R. Loetzsch, H. Beyer, L. Duval, U. Spillmann, D. Bana´ s, P. Dergham, F. Kr¨ oger, J. Glorius, R. Grisenti, M. Guerra, et al., Nature 625, 673 (2024), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06910-y

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    A. N. Artemyev, V. M. Shabaev, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plu- nien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062104 (2005), URL http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v71/e062104

    2005

  6. [14]

    V. A. Yerokhin, V. c. v. Patk´ oˇ s, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022815 (2022), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.022815

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    von der Linden, V

    W. von der Linden, V. Dose, and U. von Toussaint, Bayesian Probability Theory: Applications in the Physical Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2014), ISBN 9781139952460

    2014

  8. [16]

    D. S. Sivia and J. Skilling, Data analysis: a Bayesian tutorial (Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2006), 2nd ed

    2006

  9. [17]

    Trotta, Contemp

    R. Trotta, Contemp. Phys. 49, 71 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    von Toussaint, Rev

    U. von Toussaint, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 943 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Neyman and E

    J. Neyman and E. Pearson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 231, 289 (1933)

    1933

  12. [20]

    Yates, Sup

    F. Yates, Sup. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1, 217 (1934), ISSN 14666162

    1934

  13. [21]

    Bevington and D

    P. Bevington and D. Robinson, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences (McGraw-Hill, 2003), ISBN 9780072472271, URL https://books.google.fr/books?id=0poQAQAAIAAJ

    2003

  14. [22]

    F. J. Massey, J. Acoust. Soc. America 46, 68 (1951), ISSN 0162-1459

    1951

  15. [23]

    Akaike, IEEE Trans

    H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19, 716 (1974), ISSN 0018-9286

    1974

  16. [24]

    D. J. Spiegelhalter, N. G. Best, B. P. Carlin, and A. Van Der Linde, J. Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statisti- cal Methodology 64, 583 (2002), ISSN 1467-9868, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353

    2002

  17. [26]

    M. Trassinelli, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 408, 301 (2017), ISSN 0168-583X, proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Physics of Highly Charged Ions (HCI-2016), Kielce, Poland, 11-16 S...

    2017

  18. [27]

    Trassinelli, Proceedings 33 (2019), ISSN 2504-3900, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/14

    M. Trassinelli, Proceedings 33 (2019), ISSN 2504-3900, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/14

    2019

  19. [28]

    Trassinelli and P

    M. Trassinelli and P. Ciccodicola, Entropy 22 (2020), ISSN 1099-4300, URL https://www.mdpi. com/1099-4300/22/2/185

    2020

  20. [29]

    Maillard, F

    L. Maillard, F. Finocchi, and M. Trassinelli, Entropy 25, 347 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    Skilling, AIP Conf

    J. Skilling, AIP Conf. Proc. 735, 395 (2004)

    2004

  22. [31]

    Skilling, Bayesian Anal

    J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  23. [32]

    Ashton, N

    G. Ashton, N. Bernstein, J. Buchner, X. Chen, G. Cs´ anyi, A. Fowlie, F. Feroz, M. Griffiths, W. Han- dley, M. Habeck, et al., Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2, 39 (2022)

    2022

  24. [33]

    Aglitsky, P

    E. Aglitsky, P. Antsiferov, S. Mandelstam, A. Panin, U. Safronova, and S. Ulitin, Physica Scripta 38, 136 (1988), URL http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0031-8949/38/2/003/meta

    1988

  25. [34]

    E. V. Aglitskii, V. A. Boiko, S. M. Zakharov, S. A. Pikuz, and A. Y. Faenov, Soviet Journal of Quantum Elec- tronics 4, 500 (1974), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 0049-1748/4/i=4/a=R16

    1974

  26. [35]

    Amaro, S

    P. Amaro, S. Schlesser, M. Guerra, E. O. Le Bigot, J.-M. Isac, P. Travers, J. P. Santos, C. I. Szabo, A. Gumberidze, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 043005 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.043005

    2012 doi

  27. [36]

    Beiersdorfer, M

    P. Beiersdorfer, M. Bitter, S. von Goeler, and K. W. Hill, Phys. Rev. A 40, 150 (1989), URL http://journals. aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.150

    1989 doi

  28. [37]

    J. P. Briand, P. Chevallier, P. Indelicato, K. P. Ziock, and D. D. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2761 (1990), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 7 1103/PhysRevLett.65.2761

    1990

  29. [38]

    J. P. Briand, P. Indelicato, A. Simionovici, V. San Vi- cente, D. Liesen, and D. D. Dietrich, Europhysics Let- ters 9, 225 (1989), URL http://iopscience.iop.org/ 0295-5075/9/3/007

    1989

  30. [39]

    Briand, P

    J. Briand, P. Indelicato, M. Tavernier, O. Gorceix, D. Liesen, H. Beyer, B. Liu, A. Warczak, and J. Desclaux, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A318, 1 (1984), URL https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02117207

    1984

  31. [40]

    Briand, J.-P

    J.-P. Briand, J.-P. Moss´ e, P. Indelicato, P. Chevallier, D. Girard-Vernhet, A. Ch´ etioui, M. Ramos, and J.-P. Desclaux, Phys. Rev. A 28, 1413 (1983), URL http: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.28.1413

    1983 doi

  32. [41]

    J. P. Briand, M. Tavernier, R. Marrus, and J. P. De- sclaux, Phys. Rev. A 29, 3143 (1984), URL http:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.29.3143

    1984 doi

  33. [42]

    C. T. Chantler, D. Paterson, L. T. Hudson, F. G. Serpa, J. D. Gillaspy, and E. Takacs, Phys. Rev. A 62, 042501 (2000), URL http://publish.aps.org/abstract/PRA/ v62/p042501

    2000

  34. [43]

    R. D. Deslattes, H. F. Beyer, and F. Folkmann, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 17, L689 (1984), URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/17/21/001

    1984 doi

  35. [44]

    H. D. Dohmann, D. Liesen, and H. Pfeng, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei285, 171 (1978), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01408743

    1978 doi

  36. [45]

    Engstrom and U

    L. Engstrom and U. Litzen, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28, 2565 (1995), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 0953-4075/28/i=13/a=010

    1995

  37. [46]

    S. W. Epp, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, S. Bernitt, J. K. Rudolph, C. Beilmann, H. Bekker, A. M¨ uller, O. O. Versolato, H. C. Wille, H. Yava¸ s, et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 020502 (R) (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.92.020502

    2015

  38. [47]

    Indelicato, M

    P. Indelicato, M. Tavernier, J. P. Briand, and D. Liesen, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D 2, 249 (1986), URL http:// link.springer.com/10.1007/BF01429081

    1986 doi

  39. [48]

    Kubi¸ cek, P

    K. Kubi¸ cek, P. H. Mokler, V. M¨ ackel, J. Ullrich, and J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032508 (2014), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.90.032508

    2014

  40. [49]

    J. H. Lupton, D. D. Dietrich, C. J. Hailey, R. E. Stewart, and K. P. Ziock, Phys. Rev. A 50, 2150 (1994), URL http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.50.2150

    1994 doi

  41. [50]

    MacLaren, P

    S. MacLaren, P. Beiersdorfer, D. A. Vogel, D. Knapp, R. E. Marrs, K. Wong, and R. Zasadzinski, Phys. Rev. A 45, 329 (1992), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.45.329

    1992

  42. [51]

    A. T. Payne, C. T. Chantler, M. N. Kinnane, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. A. Kimpton, and E. Takacs, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 185001 (2014), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ 0953-4075/47/i=18/a=185001

    2014

  43. [52]

    J. K. Rudolph, S. Bernitt, S. W. Epp, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, C. Beilmann, G. V. Brown, S. Eberle, A. Graf, Z. Harman, N. Hell, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 103002 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.111.103002

    2013

  44. [53]

    J. E. Rice, M. A. Graf, J. L. Terry, E. S. Marmar, K. Giesing, and F. Bombarda, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28, 893 (1995), URL http://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/28/5/021

    1995 doi

  45. [54]

    J. E. Rice, M. L. Reinke, J. M. A. Ashbourn, C. Gao, M. M. Victora, M. A. Chilenski, L. Delgado-Aparicio, N. T. Howard, A. E. Hubbard, J. W. Hughes, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 075701 (2014), URL http://stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/47/i=7/a=075701

    2014

  46. [55]

    Schleinkofer, F

    L. Schleinkofer, F. Bell, H. D. Betz, G. Trolman, and J. Rothermel, Physica Scripta25, 917 (1982), URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/25/6B/004

    1982 doi

  47. [56]

    D. B. Thorn, G. V. Brown, J. H. T. Clementson, H. Chen, M. Chen, P. Beiersdorfer, K. R. Boyce, C. A. Kilbourne, F. S. Porter, and R. L. Kelley, Can. J. Phys. 86, 241 (2008), URL http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/ abs/10.1139/P07-134#.WY2cya1HmHo

    2008 doi

  48. [57]

    D. B. Thorn, M. F. Gu, G. V. Brown, P. Beiersdorfer, F. S. Porter, C. A. Kilbourne, and R. L. Kelley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 163001 (2009), URL http://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.163001

    2009 doi

  49. [58]

    Widmann, P

    K. Widmann, P. Beiersdorfer, G. V. Brown, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, A. L. Osterheld, K. J. Reed, J. H. Scofield, and S. B. Utter, in X-RAY AND INNER-SHELL PROCESSES (Chicago, Illinois (USA), 2000), vol. 506, p. 444

    2000

  50. [59]

    Widmann, P

    K. Widmann, P. Beiersdorfer, V. Decaux, and M. Bitter, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2200 (1996), URL http://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2200

    1996 doi

  51. [60]

    Pf¨ afflein, G

    P. Pf¨ afflein, G. Weber, S. Allgeier, Z. An- delkovic, S. Bernitt, A. I. Bondarev, A. Borovik, L. Duval, A. Fleischmann, O. Forstner, et al., Quantum electrodynamics in strong electromagnetic fields: Substate resolved k α transition energies in helium-like uranium (2024), 240...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.