Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 36 references

Complex pseudo-partition functions in the Configurationally-Resolved Super-Transition-Array approach for radiative opacity

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The doubly-recursive relation that stabilizes STA partition functions also stabilizes the complex pseudo-partition functions of CRSTA opacity calculations.

desk verdict The central recurrence as written is missing the binomial coefficient, which undercuts the paper's main claim until corrected; the underlying extension is still useful for CRSTA opacity work. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21121 v2 pith:HMQJJPOW submitted 2025-05-27 physics.atom-ph physics.plasm-ph

Jean-Christophe Pain This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords radiativeopacitysuper-transitionarrays(STA)configurationallyresolved(CRSTA)complexpseudo-partitionfunctionsdoubly-recursiverelationnumericalstabilityrotationmatricesChebyshevpolynomials
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

Super-Transition-Arrays (STA) theory estimates hot-plasma radiative opacity by grouping configurations into supershells, but its partition functions contain alternating-sign terms that make direct recurrences numerically unstable. The Configurationally-Resolved STA (CRSTA) method refines this by using complex pseudo-partition functions that depend on a specific one-electron jump and on an integration variable $\tau$. This paper establishes that the doubly-recursive relation over numbers of electrons and subshells, originally invented to cure the real-case instabilities, remains robust, efficient, and free of numerical instabilities for these complex pseudo-partition functions, despite the presence of sign-varying trigonometric factors. The recursion splits into two coupled recurrences for the real and imaginary parts, and the update at each iteration is a sum of rotated previous vectors. This gives CRSTA opacity calculations a practical stable way to resolve super-transition-array spectra down to the level of unresolved transition arrays without the Gaussian approximation of standard STA.

What carries the argument

The central object is the doubly-recursive relation over the number of electrons $Q$ and the number of subshells $N$ (Eq. (27)), which factors out one subshell at a time: $$Z_{Q,N} = \sum_{p=0}^{\min(Q,g_N)} X_N^p $e^{{ip\alpha_N}}$ Z_{Q-p,N-1},$$ with $\alpha_N = D_N^{ab}\tau/\hbar$. It carries the argument because, in the complex CRSTA case, splitting $Z_{Q,N}=A_{Q,N}+iB_{Q,N}$ turns the recurrence into two coupled real recurrences (Eqs. (33)-(34)), whose matrix form is a sum of rotation matrices of angle $p\alpha_N$ acting on the vector of prior real and imaginary parts. The trigonometric coefficients can be expressed as Chebyshev polynomials of the first and second kinds, and the rotation structure is what keeps the recurrence free of the alternating-sign error growth seen in the standard one-step recurrence.

What would settle it

Compute the ratio $Z^{ab}_Q/Z^{ab}_{Q-1}$ using the doubly-recursive relation for the same supershell but at $\tau=100$ (or for a transition where $p\alpha_N$ is large) and compare with values obtained by evaluating the polynomial generating function with independent multiprecision arithmetic; if the recurrence departs from the exact values for any $Q \le G/2$, the claimed general numerical stability is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the doubly-recursive relation $$Z_{Q,N} = \sum_{p=0}^{\min(Q,g_N)} X_N^p $e^{{ip\alpha_N}}$ Z_{Q-p,N-1},$$ with $\alpha_N = D_N^{ab}\tau/\hbar$, which was introduced in the standard STA formalism to avoid alternating-sign instabilities, remains applicable and numerically stable for the complex pseudo-partition functions of the CRSTA approach. The imaginary parts and the trigonometric functions (expressible as Chebyshev polynomials that change sign) do not destroy the stability. Writing $Z_{Q,N}=A_{Q,N}+iB_{Q,N}$, the recursion becomes a pair of coupled recurrences for $A$ and $B$, which can be recast in matrix form: the vector $(A_{Q,N},B_{Q,N})^T$ is a weighted sum of rotated vectors $(A_{Q-p,N-1},B_{Q-p,N-1})^T$ with rotation angle $p\alpha_N$. The paper shows agreement with exact values for a test case (supershell $(4p4d4f5s5p5d)$, a plasma at $T=100$ eV and $\rho=0.01$ g/cm$^3$, $\tau=10$), while the standard alternating-sign recurrence and a truncated-expansion method display numerical instabilities under the same conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of general numerical stability rests on a single test case—one supershell, one temperature, one density, and one value of $\tau$—compared against 'exact' values whose computation method is not described, so the general stability claim presumes that the behavior holds under other conditions and that the reference values are correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CRSTA opacity codes can evaluate the spectrum of each super-transition-array down to the unresolved-transition-array level without relying on the Gaussian approximation of standard STA.
  • The real and imaginary parts of the pseudo-partition functions can be obtained from two coupled recurrences over real numbers, which is more practical and more accurate than complex arithmetic.
  • The matrix form of the recurrence shows that each iteration is a weighted sum of rotated previous vectors, which explains why the alternating-sign instability of the standard one-step recurrence does not appear in the complex case.
  • The truncated fast expansion recently proposed for STA partition functions cannot be used as-is for CRSTA: it remains unstable up to order 20 and even with quadruple precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the stability is attributed to the sum-of-rotations structure rather than to specific coefficients, the doubly-recursive relation should also remain stable for other supershells, for the hole side $Q>G/2$, and for a wide range of $\tau$; this is a direct consequence of the mechanism the paper identifies, but it is not explicitly tested there.
  • Because the recurrence separates real and imaginary parts, it can be differentiated with respect to $\beta$ or $\tau$ to yield analytic derivatives of the pseudo-partition functions, which could give moments of the transition-array spectrum (mean energy, variance) without numerical integration over $\tau$.
  • In the PRTA-CRSTA framework of Section 3, the same doubly-recursive scheme could be applied to partially resolved transition arrays after spectator subshells are integrated out, potentially providing a stable way to combine reduced transition arrays with CRSTA dressing; the paper does not demonstrate this extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript considers the numerical evaluation of the complex pseudo-partition functions Z_Q^{ab}(g,beta,tau) that appear in the Configurationally-Resolved Super-Transition-Array (CRSTA) formalism for hot-plasma radiative opacity. Its central claim is that the doubly-recursive relation over electron number Q and subshell number N, previously introduced by the author for the standard STA theory, remains accurate and numerically stable when applied to these complex-valued quantities, in contrast to the Bar-Shalom recurrence, which the paper demonstrates to be unstable at tau=10. The paper also derives a rotation-matrix form for the coupled recurrences of the real and imaginary parts, reports negative numerical results for a truncated-expansion alternative, and places the findings in the context of the Partially-Resolved CRSTA method. Numerical validation is presented for a single supershell (4p4d4f5s5p5d) of a plasma at T=100 eV and rho=0.01 g/cm^3, with comparisons against 'exact' values whose computation is not described.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this paper supplies a practical, efficient replacement for the unstable Bar-Shalom recurrence in CRSTA opacity codes, and the rotation-matrix representation of the coupled real/imaginary recurrences is a clean structural observation that connects naturally to Chebyshev-polynomial techniques. The manuscript's strengths are the explicit algebraic derivation of the coupled recurrences, the favorable comparison with exact values for the reported test case, a self-contained proof of the Bar-Shalom relation in Appendix B, and an honest documentation of the truncated expansion's failure. These strengths are qualified, however, by algebraic errors in the written recurrence and in the real/imaginary-part equations, by the lack of any description of the 'exact' reference computation, and by the narrow empirical basis of the unqualified stability claim; all of these are correctable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.2, Eqs. (26)-(27)] Eqs. (26)-(27) omit the binomial coefficient (g_N choose p) that the factorization of the last subshell requires. From the generating function (14), U_{Q,N} = sum_{p=0}^{min(Q,g_N)} (g_N choose p) X_N^p U_{Q-p,N-1}, and the complex analogue is Z_{Q,N} = sum_{p=0}^{min(Q,g_N)} (g_N choose p) X_N^p e^{ip alpha_N} Z_{Q-p,N-1}. A one-subshell check with g_N=2 gives U_{1,1}=2X_1 from Eq. (14) but U_{1,1}=X_1 from Eq. (26). Since Figures 3-7 are claimed to be produced with Eq. (26), the written recurrence does not describe the numerics unless the implementation silently includes the binomial; the authors must correct the equations and state explicitly which recurrence was used in the figures. Note also that Eq. (26) introduces a phase e^{ip alpha_N} in the real STA case, where no such phase appears, and that the correct binomial does appear in the analogous recurrence for K_Q in Eq. (49).
  2. [2.2, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The identification of real and imaginary parts in Eqs. (33)-(34) is inconsistent with the derivation in Eq. (32) and with the matrix form (35). From Eq. (32), the real part is A_{Q,N} = sum_p X_N^p [cos(p alpha_N) A_{Q-p,N-1} - sin(p alpha_N) B_{Q-p,N-1}], and the imaginary part is B_{Q,N} = sum_p X_N^p [cos(p alpha_N) B_{Q-p,N-1} + sin(p alpha_N) A_{Q-p,N-1}]. The manuscript labels these two relations as B and A respectively, swapping the names. This must be corrected, since the rotation-matrix formulation is a central advertised result of the paper.
  3. [2.2, Figs. 1-7] The 'exact' reference values used for validation in Figures 1-7 are not described anywhere in the manuscript. The supershell (4p4d4f5s5p5d) has about 2.67 x 10^5 configurations in total, so direct enumeration would be a feasible way to produce a reference, but the paper must state the algorithm, the working precision, and the specific transition (a,b) used (Table 1 lists D_{3d,4f}, which implies the 3d-to-4f transition, but this is never stated in the text). Without this information the central numerical validation is not reproducible.
  4. [2.2 and Conclusion] The abstract and the conclusion state that the doubly-recursive relation is 'exempt of numerical instabilities,' but the numerical evidence is a single test: one supershell, one transition, and tau=10, with tau=1 and tau=0.5 shown in Figs. 8-11 without exact-reference comparison. The stability of a recurrence with oscillating phase factors can depend on the range of alpha_N values and on the supershell structure, so the unqualified claim is not supported by the presented evidence. Either additional tests (different supershells, several transitions, larger tau) or a carefully qualified statement are needed.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table 1 vs. text] Table 1 states that the data are for a gold plasma, while the text of Section 2.1 and all figure captions say copper plasma; since the one-electron energies, the D-matrix elements, and the chemical potential are element-specific, this inconsistency must be reconciled for reproducibility.
  2. [2.2, after Eq. (29)] The paragraph on Van Meter and Itoh's quantum modular exponentiation, including reference [18], is unrelated to the manuscript's topic and appears to be an unintended insertion; it should be removed or replaced by a relevant discussion of the actual computational complexity of the recurrence.
  3. [Throughout] The units of the time variable tau are never specified; because the phase factors p alpha_N = p D_N^{ab} tau/hbar and the stability at tau=10 depend on the unit system, the paper should state the units of tau explicitly.
  4. [2.2, notation] The sentence 'let us change the notation Z_{Q-1}^{ab}(g, beta, tau) into Z_{Q,N}' is confusing because the subscript shifts from Q-1 to Q; it would be clearer to define Z_{Q,N} explicitly as the Q-electron pseudo-partition function of the first N subshells.
  5. [Eq. (37)] In Eq. (37) the summation bound and the binomial coefficient use the symbol n while the argument of the trigonometric powers is p; the formula should use a single index consistently.
  6. [Figure captions] The Figure 15 caption says 'corresponding to the case of Fig. 15' but it refers to the case of Fig. 14, and the Figure 14 caption states T=50 eV while the text inside the figure states T=40 eV.
  7. [Eqs. (17) and (25)] The phase in Eqs. (17) and (25) is written as e^{-i hbar omega tau / hbar}; this redundant expression should be e^{-i omega tau} for clarity, matching Eq. (1).
  8. [2.1, text] The phrase 'because to the alternate signs' should read 'because of the alternating signs'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the recurrence is validated against exact sums, and self-citations supply the base method, not the validation.

full rationale

The central claim is that the doubly-recursive relation, previously used for real STA partition functions, remains numerically stable when applied to the complex pseudo-partition functions of CRSTA. The paper validates this claim by comparing recurrence results with exact values over a full range of electron numbers (Figs. 3-7), not by fitting any parameter or by reusing the recurrence output as its own reference. The self-citations [13-16] establish the prior real-case recurrence, but the complex extension, the coupled real/imaginary recurrences, and the numerical stability test are new content assessed against an independent exact evaluation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The unexplained generation of the 'exact' reference values and the apparent omission of binomial coefficients in Eqs. (26)-(27) are correctness or transparency concerns, not circularity: even if the written recurrence is algebraically defective, that does not make the derivation depend on its own conclusion. Since the paper's load-bearing validation does not reduce to its inputs, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitting parameters for the central recurrence and postulates no new physical entities. The numerical test uses standard plasma parameters as inputs. The main assumptions are the standard partition-function combinatorics and the representativeness of the one test case used to claim numerical stability.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The partition function factorizes over subshells as a product of binomial sums, as used in Eqs. (10)-(11) and the doubly-recursive relation Eq. (27).
    This is the standard STA combinatorics introduced in Ref. [3] and detailed in Appendix B; the CRSTA complex case inherits it.
  • domain assumption The one-electron energies, chemical potential, and D-matrix elements from the average-atom calculation correspond to the plasma conditions used in the numerical test.
    The stability demonstration depends on these inputs from Table 1, but the paper is inconsistent about whether the plasma is copper or gold.
  • domain assumption Particle-hole symmetry is used to define the stability criterion over Q = 1..G/2.
    Section 2.1 states that an algorithm is considered stable if it works up to G/2=24; some figures also show values beyond G/2, so the stated criterion rests on this symmetry.
  • standard math Standard trigonometric and Chebyshev polynomial identities are used to express cos(pα) and sin(pα).
    Equations (37)-(42) use textbook expansions; they are used for the rotation-matrix representation rather than for the stability result itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex pseudo-partition functions in the Configurationally-Resolved Super-Transition-Array approach for radiative opacity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMQJJPOW

@misc{pith2026250521121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex pseudo-partition functions in the Configurationally-Resolved Super-Transition-Array approach for radiative opacity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMQJJPOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21121}
}
read the original abstract

A few years ago, Kurzweil and Hazak developed the Configurationally Resolved Super-Transition-Arrays (CRSTA) method for the computation of hot-plasma radiative opacity. Their approach, based on a temporal integration, is an important refinement of the standard Super-Transition-Arrays (STA) approach, which enables one to recover the underlying structure of the STAs, made of unresolved transition arrays. The CRSTA formalism relies on the use of complex pseudo partition functions, depending on the considered one-electron jump. In this article, we find that, despite the imaginary part, the doubly-recursive relation which was introduced in the original STA method to avoid problems due to alternating-sign terms in partition functions, is still applicable, robust, efficient, and exempt of numerical instabilities. This was rather unexpected, in particular because of the occurrence of trigonometric functions, or Chebyshev polynomials, which can be either positive or negative. We also show that, in the complex case, the recursion relation can be presented in a form where the vector of real and imaginary parts at a given iteration is therefore obtained by a sum of the rotated previous ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real part of the ratio of consecutive partition functions Zab Q /Zab Q−1 for τ = 10 in the case of a copper plasma at T=100 eV and mass density ρ=0.01 g/cm3 , computed using the Bar￾Shalom relation (19) [3]. The considered super￾shell is (4p4d4f5s5p5d). The chemical potential is µ=-895.58476 eV. The one-electron energies and D-matrix elements are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real part of the ratio of consecutive par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Real part of the ratio displayed in Figs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Imaginary part of the ratio of consecutive partition func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between ratios of con￾secutive partition functions obtained with the usual partition function UQ = Zab Q (β, 0) and with Zab Q (β, 1) (corresponding to τ=1). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of electrons Q -400 -200 0 200 400 Partition function ZQab (β,1) Real part I…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between ratios of con￾secutive partition functions obtained with the usual partition function UQ = Z ab Q (β, 0) and with Z ab Q (β, 0.5) (corresponding to τ=0.5). 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of electrons Q -200 0 200 400 600 Partition function ZQab (β,0.5) Rea…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Imaginary part of the ratio of consecu￾tive partition functions Zab Q /Zab Q−1 calculated using expansion (50) at different orders, as a function of the number of electrons Q. Examination of expressions (56) and (57) reveals that matrix involved in Eq. (61) is not a r…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Transition array Fe X, [Ne] 3s2 3p3 3d1 (spect)1 → [Ne] 3s2 3p2 3d2 (spect)1 , where (spect) = (4s, 4p, ... , 6p), calculated using different ap￾proaches: pure DLA (Detailed Line Accounting), STA/SOSA, STA/UTA and PRTA-CRSTA. The temperature of the iron plasma is take…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Transition array Fe X, [Ne] 3s2 3p1 3d1 (spect)2 → [Ne] 3s2 3p0 3d2 (spect)2 , where (spect) = (4s, 4p, ... , 6p), calculated using dif￾ferent approaches: pure DLA (Detailed Line Ac￾counting), STA/SOSA, STA/UTA [34] statistical modeling of the transition arrays covere…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hazak and Y

    G. Hazak and Y. Kurzweil, High Energy Density Phys. 8, 290 (2012). 14

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Kurzweil and G

    Y. Kurzweil and G. Hazak, High Energy Density Phys. 9, 548 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Bar Shalom, J

    A. Bar Shalom, J. Oreg, W. H. Goldstein, D. Shvarts and A. Zigler, Phys. Rev. A 40, 3183 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Kurzweil and N

    Y. Kurzweil and N. Polack-Schupper, Phys. Plasmas 29, 012704 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Krief and A

    M. Krief and A. Feigel, High Energy Density Phys. 15, 59 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Krief, A

    M. Krief, A. Feigel and D. Gazit, Atoms 6, 35 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    P. D. Aberg, D. Fenn, M. E. Foord, P. E. Grabowski, C. A. Iglesia s and B. G. Wilson, The Opus radiative opacity code, a new implementation of the super-t ransition array method , Report LLNL- TR-813832 (USA). https://doi.org/10.2172/1650424

    work page doi:10.2172/1650424

  8. [8]

    Pain, Plasma 5, 154 (2022)

    J.-C. Pain, Plasma 5, 154 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    N. M. Gill, C. Fontes and C. Starrett, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Ph ys. 56, 015001 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Bauche, C

    J. Bauche, C. Bauche-Arnoult and M. Klapisch, Adv. At. Mol. Op t. Phys. 23, 131 (1988)

    1988

  3. [11]

    R. D. Cowan, The theory of atomic structure and spectra (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    J. C. Pain, High Energy Density Phys. 3, 204 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Gilleron and J.-C

    F. Gilleron and J.-C. Pain, Phys. Rev. E 69, 056117 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    B. G. Wilson, F. Gilleron and J.-C. Pain, Phys. Rev. E 76, 032103 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    J.-C. Pain, F. Gilleron and B. G. Wilson, High Energy Density Phys. 37, 100891 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Pain, Plasma 4, 42 (2021)

    J.-C. Pain, Plasma 4, 42 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    D. H. Bailey, Algorithm 719 - Multiprecision translation and execution o f FORTRAN programs , ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 19, 288 (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    Van Meter and K

    R. Van Meter and K. M. Itoh, Phys. Rev. 71, 052320 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Rivlin, The Chebyshev polynomials: From approximation theory to al gebra and number theory , Tracts in Pure & Applied Mathematics Wiley, New York, NY, First edition (1974)

    T. Rivlin, The Chebyshev polynomials: From approximation theory to al gebra and number theory , Tracts in Pure & Applied Mathematics Wiley, New York, NY, First edition (1974)

    1974

  12. [20]

    Sch¨ onhage and V

    A. Sch¨ onhage and V. Strassen, Computing 7, 281 (1971) [in German]

    1971

  13. [21]

    D. H. Bailey, Int. J. Supercomput. Appl. 2, 82 (1988)

    1988

  14. [22]

    Karatsuba and Yu

    A. Karatsuba and Yu. Ofman, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 145, 293 (1962) [in Russian], Soviet. Phys. Dokl. 7, 595-596 (1963)

    1962

  15. [23]

    A. L. Toom, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 150, 496 (1963) [in Russian], Soviet. Math. 3, 714 (1963)

    1963

  16. [24]

    S. A. Cook, On the minimum computation time of functions , PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cam- bridge, MA, 1966

    1966

  17. [25]

    F¨ urer, SIAM J

    M. F¨ urer, SIAM J. Comput. 39, 979 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Harvey and J

    D. Harvey and J. van der Hoeven, Ann. of Math. (2) 193, 563 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    B. G. Wilson and J.-C. Pain, High Energy Density Phys. 45, 101016 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Pain and B

    J.-C. Pain and B. G. Wilson, High Energy Density Phys. 49, 101065 (2023). 15

    2023

  21. [29]

    C. A. Iglesias and V. Sonnad, High Energy Density Phys. 8, 154 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    B. G. Wilson, C. A. Iglesias and M. H. Chen, High Energy Density Ph ys. 14, 67 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Pain and F

    J.-C. Pain and F. Gillleron High Energy Density Phys. 15, 30 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Kurzweil and G

    Y. Kurzweil and G. Hazak, Phys. Rev. E 94, 053210 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Bar-Shalom, J

    A. Bar-Shalom, J. Oreg and W. H. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. E 51, 4882 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    Bauche-Arnoult and J

    C. Bauche-Arnoult and J. Bauche and M. Klapisch, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2641 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    C. A. Iglesias, V. Sonnad, G. G. Wilson and J. I. Castor, High Ene rgy Density Phys. 5, 97 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Galatry, Phys

    L. Galatry, Phys. Rev. 122, 1218 (1961). A Hartree-Fock energy of a configuration The Hartree-Fock energy of a configuration reads Ec = N∑ s=1 qs     1 2 (qs − 1)Vs,s + 1 2 N∑ r=1, r⁄=s qrVs,r     (67) or equivalently (using the fact that G(k)(nsℓs, nsℓs) = F (k)(nsℓs, n...

    1961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.