Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Comparative Analysis of Mg$^+$ Properties using Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and Relativistic Coupled-cluster Methods

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper benchmarks Mg+ properties with two many-body methods and finds that relativistic coupled-cluster matches measured hyperfine and isotope-shift constants better than MCDHF.

desk verdict Solid, honest MCDHF-vs-RCC benchmark on Mg+ that is useful for lifetimes and FS constants, but its headline claim about RCC isotope-shift agreement is underpinned by SMS values whose convergence is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19515 v1 pith:2WJAVDKV submitted 2025-04-28 physics.atom-ph physics.comp-ph

B. K. Sahoo , Per Jönsson , Gediminas Gaigalas This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords multiconfigurationDirac-Hartree-Fockrelativisticcoupled-clustermagnesiumionMg+hyperfinestructureconstantsisotopeshiftE1transitionmatrixelementsatomiclifetimesdipolepolarizability
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 sets out to see how two standard atomic many-body methods, multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock with relativistic configuration interaction (MCDHF/RCI) and relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC), behave as correlation is added layer by layer for singly ionized magnesium. It benchmarks excitation energies, E1 transition matrix elements, magnetic-dipole hyperfine constants, isotope-shift constants, and derived lifetimes and polarizability against measured values. The central finding is that the two methods agree with each other for most properties, but for hyperfine constants and isotope shifts the RCC results track the measurements more closely. The paper therefore recommends the RCC-based lifetimes and differential isotope-shift constants as the more reliable inputs for future experiments and for benchmarking other atomic systems.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two complementary wave-function machines and a set of operator-specific evaluation protocols. The MCDHF/RCI side builds correlation in seven orbital layers with singles and doubles substitutions plus a restricted set of triple substitutions, and estimates transition uncertainties by scanning the full gauge parameter rather than just comparing two gauges. The RCC side uses a Fock-space coupled-cluster ansatz, $e^T\{1+S_v\}$, with singles-doubles-triples amplitudes, finite-field, expectation-value, and analytical-response routes to isotope-shift constants, plus separate basis, Breit, and QED corrections. The isotope-shift operators—field shift, normal mass shift, and specific mass shift—have different radial sensitivities, and the paper tracks which approximation level stabilizes each, which is the mechanism that lets it attribute the RCC advantage to a better treatment of two-body correlation.

What would settle it

Measure the 3s→4s isotope shift in 24Mg+–26Mg+ (or 25Mg+–24Mg+) with enough precision to fix the sign and magnitude of the specific mass-shift constant; the two methods predict opposite signs (-54 GHz amu from MCDHF/RCI versus +3(5) GHz amu from RCC), so the measurement would immediately show which treatment of two-body correlation is right. A second check would be a remeasurement of the ground-state polarizability to see whether it falls near the calculated 34.9–35.2 a.u. or near the old experimental 33.8 a.u.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a calibration: in Mg+, RCCSDT with basis, Breit, and QED corrections reproduces the measured ground-state hyperfine constant, -596.6(8) MHz versus -596.2542487(42) MHz, and gives differential isotope-shift constants for the D1 and D2 lines whose specific mass shifts (356(15) and 362(15) GHz amu) sit close to experiment, while the MCDHF/RCI values (321 and 321 GHz amu) deviate more. The E1 amplitudes from the two methods agree to the second decimal place, leading to essentially identical lifetimes and a ground-state polarizability of 35.16 (MCDHF/RCI) versus 34.92(7) (RCC), both above the single available measurement. Where the methods differ, the difference is systematic: correlation trends for one-body operators (energies, E1) converge smoothly, while two-body isotope-shift operators, especially the specific mass shift, remain sensitive to the treatment of triples and beyond.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that correlation effects left out of both methods—especially triple excitations beyond a small orbital set in MCDHF/RCI, and quadruple excitations in RCC—are smaller than the method-to-method differences under discussion; the paper itself notes that quadruple substitutions are expected to be non-negligible for specific mass shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The recommended lifetimes for the 3p, 4s, 3d, and 4p states of Mg+ are more precise than any single available measurement, so they can serve as reference values for beam or trap lifetime experiments.
  • Because both methods put the ground-state polarizability near 35 a.u., the existing experimental value near 33.8 a.u. is called into question and should be re-examined.
  • For isotope-shift work, the field-shift constants agree across methods and with experiment, so nuclear-charge-radius differences extracted from Mg+ data are on solid ground; the specific mass shift is the part that needs the RCC treatment.
  • The layer-by-layer comparison provides a template for judging where MCDHF/RCI and RCC can be trusted in heavier ions, where no measurements exist for quantities like parity-violation or time-reversal-violation enhancement factors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same head-to-head protocol applied to heavier alkaline-earth ions such as Ca+, Sr+, or Ba+ would probably show larger MCDHF/RCI disagreements, because relativistic and core-correlation effects grow with Z; the Mg+ agreement should not be read as a general license.
  • Editorial inference: the opposite signs predicted for the 3s→4s specific mass shift make that transition a sharper experimental test than the D lines, where both methods already sit closer to experiment.
  • Editorial inference: since the field-shift constants are robust but the specific mass shift is not, future method work on isotope shifts should concentrate on two-body correlation treatments (full connected triples, or explicit quadruples) rather than on enlarging one-particle basis sets.
  • Editorial inference: the gauge-scan approach implies that for other ions, relying on length-velocity gauge agreement to certify E1 accuracy can be misleading; the full gauge-parameter dependence should be checked before quoting sub-percent uncertainties.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic comparison of two many-body methods, MCDHF/RCI and relativistic coupled-cluster (RCCSD/RCCSDT), applied to low-lying states of Mg+. For each method it computes excitation energies, E1 matrix elements, lifetimes, ground-state electric dipole polarizability, hyperfine A constants, and isotope-shift constants (field shift, normal mass shift, and specific mass shift), with layer-by-layer or method-level convergence analysis. The MCDHF/RCI results are taken from layer 7 with triple-excitation corrections, while the RCC results include basis, Breit, and QED corrections. The central claim is that the two methods agree well for most properties, and that the RCC values for hyperfine constants and isotope-shift constants agree with experiment better than the MCDHF/RCI values, leading to recommended lifetimes and differential IS constants.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides useful benchmarks for Mg+ — in particular excited-state lifetimes that are more precise than the currently available experimental values — and general guidance on when MCDHF/RCI and RCC results can be trusted. The paper has clear strengths: systematic layer-by-layer expansions, use of three independent approaches to isotope-shift constants (finite-field, expectation-value, and analytic response), and no property fitted to the benchmark data. The cross-method consistency for E1 matrix elements, lifetimes, polarizability, and field-shift constants is convincing. The central recommendation, however, is only as strong as the convergence of the specific mass shift (SMS) constants, and here the evidence presented is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.D, Tables XII and XV] The load-bearing claim that RCC IS constants agree better with experiment rests on differential SMS constants that are the least converged quantities in the paper. In Table XII, the RCCSD-to-RCCSDT shifts in the finite-field SMS constants are large: the ground-state 3s value changes from 111.34 to 46.03 GHz u, the 3p 2P°_1/2 value changes from -276.20 to -310.19 GHz u, and the 3p 2P°_3/2 value changes from -280.93 to -314.74 GHz u. The final differential values in Table XV (356(15) and 362(15) GHz u for the D lines) inherit these triple-excitation shifts, yet the quoted uncertainties are smaller than the triples shift, and Sec. IV.D explicitly states that quadruple substitutions are expected to be non-negligible for SMS constants. In addition, the RCCSDT calculation is truncated at g symmetry, and the h/i corrections in Table XIV are computed only at the RCCSD level. If neglected quadruple or high-l triple effects shift the SMS constants by an amount comparable to the observed triple-excitation shifts, the RCC D-line values would move away from the experimental values, and the sign of the 3s-4s SMS constant could flip. The claimed preference for RCC over MCDHF for the D-line SMS values is therefore not established without a quantitative estimate of these neglected effects.
  2. [Sec. IV.D and Table XIII] The MCDHF/RCI side of the comparison is similarly affected by truncation. Triple substitutions are restricted to the {12s,10p,5d} active space, and the SD-to-SDT changes in Table XIII are substantial: K_SMS for 3s-4s changes from -75 to -54 GHz u, and for the D lines from 304 to 321 GHz u. The text notes that further core-core correlation layers are needed for isotope-shift convergence. Since the central value of the RCC 3s-4s SMS constant has the opposite sign to the MCDHF/RCI value and is reported as 3(5) GHz u, the current calculations do not establish which method is more reliable for the SMS constants. At minimum, the comparison should be accompanied by a sensitivity estimate based on the observed SD-to-SDT shifts and the known truncation of the triple-excitation space.
  3. [Table XV] The quoted uncertainties in Table XV are not derived or explained in the text. For K_SMS, uncertainties of 5 GHz u and 10-15 GHz u are assigned to transitions for which the triples contribution alone is tens of GHz u and quadruples are stated to be non-negligible. The paper should state explicitly how the uncertainties were obtained, and demonstrate that they account for truncation of the RCCSDT excitation space to g symmetry, treatment of h/i corrections only at RCCSD, and neglect of quadruple substitutions. Without this, the uncertainties give a false impression of the reliability of the recommended SMS constants.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table IV] The table heading states that E1 transition rates are given "in s", but rates are in s^-1; please correct the units.
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (15)] The text contains an unresolved citation "[ ? ]" after presenting the relativistic NMS and SMS operators; this should be replaced with the proper reference, presumably Ref. [38].
  3. [Eq. (42) and surrounding text] The definition of the mean level deviation and the energy shift ES is unclear: it should be stated explicitly whether ES is added or subtracted, and the quoted values (ES = -183 cm^-1 and ES = -149 cm^-1) should be interpreted in terms of the ground-state binding-energy imbalance.
  4. [Table XII] The column labeled "Scaling [36]" for the NMS constants is not defined in the text; please state how the scaled values are obtained from the NIST ASD ionization potentials.
  5. [Sec. IV.A] There is a typo in "Babaushkin" (should be Babushkin); similar minor typographical errors appear elsewhere, including "bench-marked" in the abstract, and would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  6. [References] References [3] and [20] are identical (Nataraj et al.); please consolidate or cite different relevant works if duplication was unintended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all computed quantities are compared with independent experimental benchmarks and none is fitted to the target data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Excitation energies, E1 matrix elements, Ahf constants, and IS constants are obtained by solving the MCDHF/RCI and RCC equations with no parameter adjusted to reproduce the experimental values they are later compared against. Lifetimes are formed from the computed E1 matrix elements combined with NIST experimental wavelengths, while the lifetime measurements cited in Table VII are separate external data sets, so the comparison is not self-referential. IS constants are extracted from finite-field energy derivatives or analytical response; the choice of the FF set is guided by agreement of the NMS channel with scaling values from NIST ASD, not by the SMS data used for benchmarking. The paper explicitly flags that quadruple excitations may be non-negligible for SMS constants; this is a convergence limitation, not a circular reduction. The numerous self-citations to the authors' earlier RCC/AR formalism are not load-bearing because the formalism is rederived in Sections II and III and the results are checked against independent measurements.

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

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numerical input is the finite-field step lambda_o. All other assumptions are standard domain assumptions of atomic structure theory, and the paper states its basis truncations openly.

free parameters (1)
  • Finite-field perturbation step lambda_o = 10^-5 a.u. for all states
    Hand-chosen numerical step in Eq. (32) for extracting FS, NMS, and SMS constants in the RCC and MCDHF finite-field calculations. The authors cross-check with EVE and AR response approaches, so it is not a fit to data, but it is an ad hoc numerical input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian with Breit and leading QED corrections is a sufficient description for Mg+.
    Used throughout Section III.A and III.B; the RCC corrections 'Breit' and 'QED' are computed perturbatively and added to final values.
  • domain assumption The first-order isotope shift formula delta E = F delta<r^2> + K_MS(mu' - mu) captures the isotope dependence.
    Adopted in Eq. (10) of Section II; higher-order field and mass shift effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption The point-electron-density approximation for the MCDHF field shift, f = -(2 pi / 3) Z rho_e(0), is accurate in Mg+.
    Stated in Section II after Eq. (14) as neglecting variation of electron density over the nuclear volume, a good approximation in lighter Mg+.
  • standard math Truncated coupled-cluster and configuration-interaction expansions converge to the exact atomic wave function as the active space grows.
    The entire method comparison assumes this convergence. The paper tests it by increasing MCDHF layers and RCC excitation rank but cannot prove it.
  • domain assumption Nuclear structure inputs (magnetic moment g_I, Fermi charge distribution, Bohr-Weisskopf correction) are known from prior measurements and models.
    Hyperfine A_hf is proportional to g_I (Eq. 7), and FS constants depend on the nuclear charge distribution; the BW correction is added in RCC Table X.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative Analysis of Mg$^+$ Properties using Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and Relativistic Coupled-cluster Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WJAVDKV

@misc{pith2026250419515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative Analysis of Mg$^+$ Properties using Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and Relativistic Coupled-cluster Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WJAVDKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19515}
}
abstract

We demonstrate behaviors of correlation effects in the calculations of atomic properties through two commonly employed many-body methods; namely multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) and relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) methods. Particularly, we have bench-marked excitation energies, electric dipole (E1) matrix elements, magnetic dipole hyperfine structure constants ($A_{hf}$), and isotope shift (IS) constants in the singly ionized magnesium (Mg$^+$) systematically at different levels of approximation of both methods. We have also estimated the E1 polarizability of the ground state and lifetimes of the excited states using the E1 matrix elements from both methods. All these results are compared with the experimental values wherever available. We find that the computed results agree well with each other with a few exceptions; particularly the $A_{hf}$ and IS constants from the RCC method are found to agree with the measurements better. This comparison analysis would be useful in evaluating the above-discussed properties in other atomic systems using the MCDHF and RCC methods more reliably.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, and H. Spiesberger, New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in 133Cs, Phys. Rev. D 103, L111303 (2021) . 15

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    and ( 29) of the RCC method utilize the Jacobi iterative scheme to solve the equation, which necessitates storing the matrix elements only in a single array of N dimension. The E1 matrix elements and Ahf values are evaluated in the RCC method as ⟨O⟩ = ⟨Φ f |{1 + S(0) f }† ¯O{1 + S(0) i }|Φ i⟩ √ Nf Ni , (31) where O stands for one of the operator and Nv=f,...

    work page

  3. [4]

    B. K. Sahoo, N. Yamanaka, and K. Yanase, Revisit- ing theoretical analysis of the electric dipole moment of 129Xe, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042811 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [5]

    D. K. Nandy and B. K. Sahoo, Relativistic calculations of radiative properties and fine structure constant vary- ing sensitivity coefficients in the astrophysically relevan t zn ii, si iv and ti iv ions, MNRAS 447, 3812 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [6]

    Mukherjee, B

    D. Mukherjee, B. K. Sahoo, H. S. Nataraj, and B. P. Das, Relativistic coupled cluster (rcc) computation of the electric dipole moment enhancement factor of fran- cium due to the violation of time reversal symmetry, J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 12549 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [7]

    B. K. Sahoo, S. Blundell, A. V. Oleynichenko, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, L. V. Skripnikov, and B. Ohayon, Recent advancements in atomic many-body meth- ods for high-precision studies of isotope shifts, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 58, 042001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [8]

    B. K. Sahoo, High-precision determination of lorentz-symmetry-violating parameters in ca +, Phys. Rev. A 99, 050501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    B. K. Sahoo, Determination of the nuclear quadrupole moment of 87Sr, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062501 (2006)

    2006

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    Biero´ n and P

    J. Biero´ n and P. Pyykk¨ o, Nuclear quadrupole moments of bismuth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 133003 (2001)

    2001

  2. [11]

    B. P. Das, K. V. P. Latha, B. K. Sahoo, C. Sur, R. K. Chaudhuri, and D. Mukher- jee, Relativistic and correlation effects in atoms, J. Theo. Comp. Chem. 04, 1 (2005)

    2005

  3. [12]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, A. R. Vernon, C. L. Binnersley, B. K. Sahoo, M. Bissell, J. Billowes, T. E. Cocolios, W. Gins, R. P. de Groote, K. T. Flanagan, A. Koszorus, K. M. Lynch, G. Neyens, C. M. Ricketts, K. D. A. Wendt, S. G. Wilkins, and X. F. Yang, High-precision multi- photon i...

    2018

  4. [13]

    J¨ onsson, M

    P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, G. Gaigalas, J. Ekman, J. Grumer, W. Li, J. Li, T. Brage, I. P. Grant, J. Biero´ n, and C. F. Fischer, An introduction to rel- ativistic theory as implemented in grasp, Atoms 11, 10.3390/atoms11010007 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules: Theory and Computation (SPRINGER NATURE, 2006)

    2006

  6. [15]

    B. K. Sahoo, M. R. Islam, B. P. Das, R. K. Chaudhuri, and D. Mukherjee, Lifetimes of the metastable 2d3/ 2,5/ 2 states in ca +, sr +, and ba +, Phys. Rev. A 74, 062504 (2006)

    2006

  7. [16]

    Kumar, C.-B

    P. Kumar, C.-B. Li, and B. K. Sahoo, Diverse trends of electron correlation effects for prop- erties with different radial and angular factors in an atomic system: a case study in ca+, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 055101 (2018)

    2018

  8. [17]

    L. V. Skripnikov, S. D. Prosnyak, A. V. Malyshev, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, A. J. Brinson, K. Mi- namisono, F. C. P. Cruz, J. R. Reilly, B. J. Rickey, and R. F. G. Ruiz, Isotope-shift factors with quan- tum electrodynamics effects for many-electron sys- tems: A study of the ...

    2024

  9. [18]

    B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, Relativistic coupled-cluster studies of dipole polarizabilities in closed-shell atoms, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062516 (2008)

    2008

  10. [19]

    spectroscopic accuracy

    N. J. DeYonker and K. A. Peterson, Is near- “spectroscopic accuracy” possible for heavy atoms and coupled cluster theory? an investigation of the first ionization potentials of the atoms ga–kr, J. Chem. Phys. 138, 164312 (2013)

    2013

  11. [20]

    Shavitt and R

    I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett, Many-body methods in Chemistry and Physics (Cam- bidge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009)

    2009

  12. [21]

    L. F. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav, A. Borschevsky, U. Kaldor, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Relativistic coupled cluster calcu- lations with variational quantum electrodynamics resolve the discrepancy between experiment and theory concern- ing the electron affinity and ionization potential of g...

    2017

  13. [22]

    H. S. Nataraj, B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, and D. Mukherjee, Intrinsic electric dipole moments of paramagnetic atoms: Rubidium and cesium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 033002 (2008)

    2008

  14. [23]

    T. D. Crawford and H. F. Schaefer III, An introduction to coupled cluster theory for computational chemists, in Rev. Comp. Chem. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000) pp. 33–136

    2000

  15. [24]

    ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the use of the cluster expansion and the tech- nique of diagrams in calculations of correlation effects in atoms and molecules, in Adv

    J. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, On the use of the cluster expansion and the tech- nique of diagrams in calculations of correlation effects in atoms and molecules, in Adv. Chem. Phys. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1969) pp. 35–89

    1969

  16. [25]

    R. F. Bishop and P. H. Y. Li, Frustrated honeycomb- bilayer heisenberg antiferromagnet: The spin- 1 2 J1−J2−J ⊥ 1 model, Phys. Rev. B 95, 134414 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    V. S. Prasannaa, A. C. Vutha, M. Abe, and B. P. Das, Mercury monohalides: Suitabil- ity for electron electric dipole moment searches, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 183001 (2015)

    2015

  18. [27]

    Kowalski, D

    K. Kowalski, D. J. Dean, M. Hjorth-Jensen, T. Pa- penbrock, and P. Piecuch, Coupled cluster calcu- lations of ground and excited states of nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 132501 (2004)

    2004

  19. [28]

    Contributions from different E1 matrix ele- ments from the MCDHF/RCI and RCC methods to the ground state electric dipole polarizability (in a.u.) of Mg +

    is obtained using 8 TABLE VIII. Contributions from different E1 matrix ele- ments from the MCDHF/RCI and RCC methods to the ground state electric dipole polarizability (in a.u.) of Mg +. The tail, core-valence and core contributions are estimate d using the RPA. The final values...

  20. [29]

    R. F. Bishop, An overview of coupled clus- ter theory and its applications in physics, Theor. Chim. Acta 80, 95 (1991)

    1991

  21. [30]

    Hagen, T

    G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and D. J. Dean, Coupled-cluster computations of atomic nuclei, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 096302 (2014)

    2014

  22. [31]

    Bishop, J

    R. Bishop, J. Arponen, and P. Pajanee, Aspects of Many-body Effects in Molecules and Extended System s (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989)

    1989

  23. [32]

    R. F. Bishop, The coupled cluster method, in Microscopic Quantum Many-Body Theories and Their Applicat ions, edited by J. Navarro and A. Polls (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998) pp. 1–70

    1998

  24. [33]

    B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, Relativistic normal coupled- cluster theory for accurate determination of electric dipole moments of atoms: First application to the 199Hg atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 203001 (2018)

    2018

  25. [34]

    B. K. Sahoo, A. R. Vernon, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, C. L. Bin- nersley, J. Billowes, M. L. Bissell, T. E. Cocolios, G. J. Farooq-Smith, K. T. Flanagan, W. Gins, R. P. de Groote, A. Koszor´ us, G. Neyens, K. M. Lynch, F. Parnefjord- Gustafsson, C. M. Ricketts, K. D. A. Wendt, S. G. W...

    2020

  26. [35]

    Katyal, A

    V. Katyal, A. Chakraborty, B. K. Sahoo, B. Ohayon, C.-Y. Seng, M. Gorchtein, and J. Behr, Testing for isospin symmetry breaking by combining isotope shift measurements with precise calculations in potassium, Phys. Rev. A 111, 042813 (2025)

    2025

  27. [36]

    J¨ onsson, G

    P. J¨ onsson, G. Gaigalas, P. Rynkun, L. Radˇ zi¯ ut˙ e, J. Ek- man, S. Gustafsson, H. Hartman, K. Wang, M. Gode- froid, C. Froese Fischer, I. Grant, T. Brage, and G. Del Zanna, Multiconfiguration dirac-hartree-fock cal- culations with spectroscopic accuracy: Applications to as...

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    Lindgren and J

    I. Lindgren and J. Morrison, Atomic Many-body Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1986)

    1986

  29. [38]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, Nist atomic spectra database (ver. 5.12) (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Ekman, P

    J. Ekman, P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, C. Naz´ e, G. Gaigalas, and J. Biero´ n, ris 4: A pro- gram for relativistic isotope shift calculations, Comp. Phys. Comm. 235, 433 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Gaidamauskas, C

    E. Gaidamauskas, C. Naze, P. Rynkun, G. Gaigalas, P. Joensson, and M. Godefroid, Tensorial form and ma- trix elements of the relativistic nuclear recoil operator, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 175003 (2011)

    2011

  32. [41]

    C. F. Fischer, M. Godefroid, T. Brage, P. J¨ onsson, and G. Gaigalas, Advanced multiconfiguration meth- ods for complex atoms: I. energies and wave functions, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 182004 (2016)

    2016

  33. [42]

    Mackenzie, I

    B. Mackenzie, I. Grant, and P. Norrington, Program to calculate transverse breit and qed corrections to energy levels in a multiconfiguration dirac-fock envi- ronment, Comput. Phys. Commun.;(Netherlands) 21, 10.1016/0010-4655(80)90042-9 (1980)

    1980 doi

  34. [43]

    Gaigalas, A program library for computing pure spin–angular coefficients for one- and two-particle operators in relativistic atomic theory, Atoms 10, 10.3390/atoms10040129 (2022)

    G. Gaigalas, A program library for computing pure spin–angular coefficients for one- and two-particle operators in relativistic atomic theory, Atoms 10, 10.3390/atoms10040129 (2022)

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    Y. T. Li, K. Wang, R. Si, M. Godefroid, G. Gaigalas, C. Y. Chen, and P. J¨ onsson, Reducing the com- putational load – atomic multiconfiguration calcula- tions based on configuration state function generators, Comp. Phys. Comm. , 108562 (2022)

    2022

  36. [45]

    Ansbacher, Y

    W. Ansbacher, Y. Li, and E. H. Pinnington, Precision lifetime measurement for the 3p levels of Mg II using frequency-doubled laser radiation to excite a fast ion beam, Phys. Lett. A 139, 165 (1989)

    1989

  37. [46]

    Lundin, B

    L. Lundin, B. Engman, J. Hilke, and I. Mar- tinson, Lifetime measurements in mg i-mg iv, Phys. Scr. 8, 274 (1973)

    1973

  38. [47]

    A. R. Schaefer, Measured Lifetimes of Excited States of Magnesium, Astrophys. J. 163, 411 (1971)

    1971

  39. [48]

    Andersen, Measurements of atomic lifetimes for neutral and ionized magnesium and calcium, J

    T. Andersen, Measurements of atomic lifetimes for neutral and ionized magnesium and calcium, J. Quant. Spectr. Rad. Trans. 10, 1143 (1970)

    1970

  40. [49]

    H. G. Berry, J. Bromander, and R. Buchta, Some mean life measurements in the na i and mg i isoelectronic se- quences, Phys. Scrip. 1, 181 (1970)

    1970

  41. [50]

    W. Li, J. Grumer, T. Brage, and P. J¨ onsson, Hfszee- man95—a program for computing weak and intermediate magnetic-field- and hyperfine-induced transition rates, Comp. Phys. Comm. 253, 107211 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    I. P. Grant, Gauge invariance and relativistic radiative transitions, J. Phys. B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 7, 1458 (1974)

    1974

  43. [52]

    Dyall, I

    K. Dyall, I. Grant, C. Johnson, F. Parpia, and E. Plum- mer, Grasp: A general-purpose relativistic atomic struc- ture program, Comp. Phys. Comm. 55, 425 (1989)

    1989

  44. [53]

    Ekman, M

    J. Ekman, M. R. Godefroid, and H. Hartman, Validation and implementation of uncertainty estimates of calcu- lated transition rates, Atoms 2, 215 (2014)

    2014

  45. [54]

    Gaigalas, P

    G. Gaigalas, P. Rynkun, L. Radˇ zi¯ ut˙ e, D. Kato, M. Tanaka, and P. J¨ onsson, En- ergy level structure and transition data of er 2+, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 248, 13 (2020)

    2020

  46. [55]

    Rynkun, S

    P. Rynkun, S. Banerjee, G. Gaigalas, M. Tanaka, L. Radˇ zi¯ ut˙ e, and D. Kato, Theoretical investiga- tion of energy levels and transition for ce iv, A&A 658, A82 (2022)

    2022

  47. [56]

    Gaigalas, P

    G. Gaigalas, P. Rynkun, S. Banerjee, M. Tanaka, D. Kato, and L. Radˇ zi¯ ut˙ e, Theoretical investiga- tion of energy levels and transitions for pr iv, MNRAS 517, 281 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    Kitovien˙ e, G

    L. Kitovien˙ e, G. Gaigalas, P. Rynkun, M. Tanaka, and D. Kato, Theoretical investigation of the ge iso- electronic sequence, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 53, 10.1063/5.0187307 (2024)

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2024, July 5]. National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    M. A. Haque and D. Mukherjee, Application of cluster expansion techniques to open shells: Calculation of dif- ference energies, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 5058 (1984)

    1984

  51. [60]

    Lindgren and D

    I. Lindgren and D. Mukherjee, On the connectivity cri- teria in the open-shell coupled-cluster theory for general model spaces, Phys. Rep. 151, 93–127 (1987)

    1987

  52. [61]

    B. J. Lyons and T. F. Gallagher, Mg 3 snf − 3sng − 3snh − 3sni intervals and the mg + dipole polarizability, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2426 (1998)

    1998

  53. [62]

    Z. T. Xu, K. Deng, H. Che, W. H. Yuan, J. Zhang, and Z. H. Lu, Precision measurement of the 25Mg+ ground-state hyperfine constant, Phys. Rev. A 96, 052507 (2017)

    2017

  54. [63]

    W. M. Itano and D. J. Wineland, Precision measure- ment of the ground-state hyperfine constant of 25Mg+, Phys. Rev. A 24, 1364 (1981)

    1981

  55. [64]

    D. K. Nandy and B. K. Sahoo, Quadrupole shifts for the 171Yb+ ion clocks: Experiments versus theories, Phys. Rev. A 90, 050503 (2014)

    2014

  56. [65]

    B. K. Sahoo and B. Ohayon, Benchmarking many-body approaches for the determination of isotope-shift con- stants: Application to the Li ,be+, and ar 15+ isoelec- tronic systems, Phys. Rev. A 103, 052802 (2021)

    2021

  57. [66]

    Papoulia, J

    A. Papoulia, J. Ekman, G. Gaigalas, M. Godefroid, S. Gustafsson, H. Hartman, W. Li, L. Radˇ zi¯ ut˙ e, P. Rynkun, S. Schiffmann, K. Wang, and P. J¨ onsson, Coulomb (velocity) gauge recommended in multiconfig- uration calculations of transition data involving rydberg series, Atom...

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Pehlivan Rhodin, H

    A. Pehlivan Rhodin, H. Hartman, H. Nilsson, and P. J¨ onsson, Experimental and theoretical oscillator strengths of mg i for accurate abundance analysis, A&A 598, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629849 (2017)

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    Schiffmann, M

    S. Schiffmann, M. Godefroid, J. Ekman, P. J¨ onsson, and C. F. Fischer, Natural orbitals in multiconfigu- ration calculations of hyperfine-structure parameters, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062510 (2020) . 17

    2020

  60. [69]

    R. Si, Y. Li, K. Wang, C. Chen, G. Gaigalas, M. Gode- froid, and P. J¨ onsson, Graspg – an extension to grasp2018 based on configuration state function gener- ators, Comp. Phys. Comm. 312, 109604 (2025)

    2025

  61. [70]

    Froese Fischer, G

    C. Froese Fischer, G. Gaigalas, P. J¨ onsson, and J. Biero´ n, Grasp2018—a fortran 95 version of the general relativistic atomic structure package, Comp. Phys. Comm. 237, 184 (2019)

    2019

  62. [71]

    Schiffmann, J

    S. Schiffmann, J. Li, J. Ekman, G. Gaigalas, M. Gode- froid, P. J¨ onsson, and J. Biero´ n, Relativistic radial electron density functions and natural orbitals from grasp2018, Comp. Phys. Comm. 278, 108403 (2022)

    2022

  63. [72]

    C. F. Fischer, T. Brage, and P. J¨ onsson, Computational atomic structure: An mchf approach (1997)

    1997

  64. [73]

    D. T. Yordanov, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, M. De Rydt, C. Geppert, M. Kowalska, J. Kr¨ amer, K. Kreim, A. Krieger, P. Lievens, T. Neff, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, R. S´ anchez, and P. Vingerhoets, Nuclear Charge Radii of 21− 32Mg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 042504 (2012)

    2012

  65. [74]

    Batteiger, S

    V. Batteiger, S. Kn¨ unz, M. Herrmann, G. Saathoff, H. A. Sch¨ ussler, B. Bernhardt, T. Wilken, R. Holzwarth, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Udem, Precision spec- troscopy of the 3 s−3p fine-structure doublet in Mg +, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022503 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.