Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Portal for High-Precision Atomic Data and Computation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper reports a free, open-access web portal that packages high-precision atomic data for 28 atoms and ions, produced by an automated pipeline in which every calculated value carries an estimated uncertainty.

desk verdict A genuinely useful community portal with an honest resource-paper framing, but the uncertainty model needs calibration before the 'high-precision' claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08170 v1 pith:RQCQOHCO submitted 2025-06-09 physics.atom-ph physics.comp-ph

Amani Kiruga , Charles Cheung , Dmytro Filin , Parinaz Barakhshan , Akshay Bhosale , Vipul Badhan , Bindiya Arora , Rudolf Eigenmann
show 1 more author
Marianna S. Safronova
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords atomicdataportalCI+all-ordermethodcoupled-clusterall-ordertransitionmatrixelementspolarizabilitiesmagicwavelengthsNISTSpectraDatabaseuncertaintyquantification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a working web resource that turns high-precision atomic structure calculations into an automated, steadily growing data service. The portal currently covers 28 atoms and ions and provides energies, transition matrix elements, rates, lifetimes, branching ratios, polarizabilities, and hyperfine data, with an estimated uncertainty attached to every calculated value. The authors' central claim is that the underlying pipeline, from coupled-cluster and configuration-interaction computations to database ingestion and display, can run without hand intervention, including the step that matches computed states to the NIST Atomic Spectra Database and flags what theory provides that NIST does not. If the claim holds, the atomic, plasma, and astrophysics communities gain a single open site where precision data and their error bars can be browsed, plotted, and downloaded, and where new systems can be added on demand.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the automated portal pipeline built around the pCI software package. Two new scripts, gen_portal_csv.py and calc_lifetimes.py, take raw output from pCI computations, attach uncertainties by differencing CI+all-order and CI+MBPT results subject to a minimum-uncertainty floor, $\Delta = \sqrt{\Delta_0^2 + \Delta_{\rm min}^2}$, correct misidentified configurations through the five-step NIST correspondence procedure, and emit CSV files that the portal ingests into a PostgreSQL database. A separate Flask backend computes dynamic polarizabilities, magic wavelengths, and tune-out wavelengths on demand via the Sternheimer or Dalgarno-Lewis inhomogeneous-equation approach, so the portal never has to store millions of precomputed polarizability rows. The pipeline's claim to scalability rests on this separation: computation, ingestion, validation, and display are each automated steps that a new element's data pass through without human editing.

What would settle it

Download the portal's E1 matrix elements or lifetimes for a specific element such as Sr, and compare them transition by transition with the most precise experimental measurements available for those same transitions; if the measured values fall outside the quoted one-sigma uncertainties for a substantial fraction of transitions, the uncertainty model fails. A cleaner version is to recompute one portal system with an independent method family, for example a B-spline or multiconfiguration Dirac-Fock code, and check whether the two calculations agree within the portal's quoted error bars on every published value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that precision atomic data production can be industrialized without losing per-value uncertainty estimates. Using the relativistic all-order (coupled-cluster) method for monovalent systems and the CI+all-order method for multivalent ones, with CI+MBPT run alongside as an error benchmark, the authors generate energies, reduced matrix elements, transition rates, lifetimes, branching ratios, polarizabilities, and hyperfine constants for 28 systems. A five-step state-correspondence algorithm matches each computed level to the NIST Atomic Spectra Database by angular momentum, term symbol, multiplicity (allowing plus or minus one), and configuration, in that order, so that misidentified computational output is corrected automatically and NIST energies are used wherever they exist. Uncertainties on matrix elements are computed in quadrature from the CI+all-order versus CI+MBPT difference plus a per-system floor, and every portal value is displayed as value(uncertainty).

Load-bearing premise

The 'high-precision' claim rests on the assumption that a matrix element's uncertainty is honestly given by the difference between two theory methods plus a hand-set per-element floor; if that difference hides a common bias, every error bar on the portal is too small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pipeline works as claimed, adding a new atomic system reduces to running pCI, uploading CSVs to a shared folder, and letting ingestion scripts validate and publish the pages.
  • Every portal value carrying a stated uncertainty means users such as clock builders, astrophysicists, and plasma modelers can propagate error bars into their own calculations instead of treating the dataset as exact.
  • The five-step NIST correspondence lets theory supplement the NIST database: states pCI finds that NIST lacks are kept with estimated theoretical uncertainties, extending coverage beyond measured spectra.
  • The on-demand polarizability service with magic-wavelength and tune-out crossing finding makes laser-wavelength selection for optical clocks and traps a browser-side query rather than a bespoke computation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to run a third, independent method, for example a different all-order variant or high-precision experimental transition rates, over the portal's full element list; if deviations exceed the quoted one-sigma uncertainties for even one element family of matrix elements, the floor-based uncertainty model is under-covering systematic error.
  • The correspondence algorithm's preference ordering could silently misassign states in dense, strongly mixed spectra where the primary configuration label in NIST differs from the dominant configuration-interaction eigenvector; a natural safeguard would be to expose the residual energy disagreement of every match, not just the final state.
  • The same architecture likely generalizes beyond atoms: the ingest-validate-display pipeline is agnostic to the physics, so molecular or nuclear data with the same CSV schemas could ride the same portal infrastructure.
  • The paper's version-4 target of 100 atomic systems implies that the hand-set minimum uncertainties (for example 0.015 a.u. for Sr) will eventually need to become data-driven rather than per-element manual inputs if the quoted error bars are to stay meaningful at scale.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the University of Delaware Atom Portal, a web resource delivering energies, electric and magnetic multipole matrix elements, transition rates, radiative lifetimes, branching ratios, hyperfine constants, and scalar/tensor dynamic polarizabilities for 28 atoms and ions. Data are generated by automated workflows built on the authors' all-order coupled-cluster and CI+all-order/CI+MBPT codes (pCI), with a five-step correspondence algorithm that maps computed states to NIST energy levels and prefers NIST energies when available. Uncertainties are assigned by combining the difference between CI+all-order and CI+MBPT results with a hand-set minimum floor. The paper also presents the portal architecture, cloud data pipeline, testing framework, and interactive polarizability plotting interface.

Significance. If the claimed precision and uncertainty estimates are reliable, the portal is a useful community resource for atomic physics, plasma physics, astrophysics, and quantum technology applications, because it makes a broad set of state-of-the-art many-body calculations accessible through a searchable, interactive interface. Strengths include the use of well-established relativistic many-body methods, an automated pipeline with internal consistency checks, NIST-based energy correspondences, and public availability of the underlying pCI software. The core formulas for transition rates, lifetimes, branching ratios, and polarizabilities are standard and correctly presented. However, the central reliability claim is not yet fully evidenced: the uncertainty model is not calibrated against independent measurements of transition amplitudes, and the hand-set floors are not derived from a documented procedure. If the uncertainty estimates are accurate, the portal meets its stated goal; if not, the 'high-precision' claim overstates the data quality. The load-bearing issue is therefore the uncertainty model, not the physics formulas or the software architecture.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. 4.2, 5.1; Eq. (20)] The central 'high-precision' claim rests on the uncertainty model of Eq. (20), but the model is not calibrated against independent measurements. The difference Δ0 between CI+all-order and CI+MBPT is a method-spread estimator for two calculations that share the same valence CI space and one-electron basis; common systematic errors can cancel, and the hand-set floors Δmin are expert judgments rather than derived bounds. The NIST comparison in Sec. 5.1 validates energy-level correspondences and state labels, not transition amplitudes. I recommend adding a validation subsection that compares representative matrix elements, lifetimes, and magic or tune-out wavelengths to precision measurements, or explicitly relabeling all quoted uncertainties as method-difference spreads throughout the abstract, Sec. 4.2, and Sec. 7.
  2. [Appendix A.1, step 1] The pipeline description says that when only one of CI+all-order or CI+MBPT results is present, 'uncertainties are set to 0.' This appears to contradict the abstract's claim that all calculated values include estimated uncertainties. Please state whether any final portal entries are displayed with zero uncertainty, describe how the config-level min_uncertainty interacts with this zero step, and, if zero-error entries exist, qualify the abstract and Sec. 7 claims accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Appendix A.1] The minimum-uncertainty parameters are defined inconsistently: Sec. 4.2 gives Δmin in absolute atomic units (0.015, 0.003, 0.013 a.u. for Sr, Mg, Ca), while Appendix A.1 calls portal.min_uncertainty: 1.5 a minimum uncertainty 'in percentage.' The manuscript does not specify the reference value for the percentage or how the per-system absolute floors are reconciled with the global percentage default. This must be clarified for the uncertainty pipeline to be reproducible.
  4. [Secs. 2.2, 2.3] The propagation of matrix-element uncertainties into derived quantities is not documented. Eq. (20) defines Δ for matrix elements, but no formulas are given for the uncertainty of transition rates, lifetimes, polarizabilities, or magic wavelengths; the text only states that these are obtained from Δ. In particular, rates are computed with NIST energies when available, and the manuscript does not state whether NIST energy uncertainties are propagated into wavelengths. Please supply the full uncertainty-propagation chain or state the assumptions under which neglected terms are small.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains numerous typographical errors, including 'di fferent' (Secs. 2.2 and 4.1), 'o ffer' (Sec. 2.4), 'V ol.' (Ref. [1]), and the informal 'We've' in the abstract; these should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Fig. 2] The magic-wavelength uncertainty procedure is described only verbally; please specify precisely which intersections of the α±δ curves are used to set the upper and lower bounds.
  3. [Sec. 2.2] For magnetic multipole transitions, the line strength S(Tk) should be defined with the relevant units for matrix elements expressed in μ0, because Eqs. (3)–(8) are written without an explicit unit convention.
  4. [Ref. [21]] The NIST ASD reference contains an informal access date ('Mon Jun 20 2022'); please format it according to the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular step is exhibited: the portal's values are computed from stated many-body methods and checked against the external NIST database; the uncertainty model is a transparent heuristic, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain consists of computing atomic properties from the many-electron Schrödinger equation via all-order and CI+all-order methods, then deriving transition rates, lifetimes, and polarizabilities from standard formulas (Eqs. 3–10, 13–19). The only comparison to an external benchmark described in the paper is the NIST Atomic Spectra Database correspondence in Sec. 5.1, which is used to label states and to substitute NIST energies where available. That is an external data source, so the energies are not equivalent to the calculation's own inputs. The uncertainty model of Sec. 4.2, Eq. (20), Δ = sqrt(Δ0^2 + Δmin^2), defines Δ0 as the difference between CI+all-order and CI+MBPT results and Δmin as a hand-set floor. This is an explicit expert estimator rather than a parameter fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed a prediction. If the estimate is not calibrated against independent measurements, the 'high-precision' claim may be under-supported, but that is a correctness/validation concern, not a circularity of the derivation. The self-citations to the group's prior methods and papers are normal references to published, code-reproduced methods and do not form a chain that reduces the present results to their own assumptions. No passage in the paper asserts that the uncertainty estimates are derived from first principles; the limitation is acknowledged by the phrase 'Due to the omission of additional small corrections, we set a minimum value on all uncertainties.' The unit mismatch between Appendix A.1's percentage-based min_uncertainty: 1.5 and Sec. 4.2's absolute a.u. floors is a consistency issue, but it does not make any derived quantity equal to its input by construction. Therefore no circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The main postulates are the validity of the in-house uncertainty estimation and the NIST-based state mapping.

free parameters (4)
  • Minimum uncertainty for Sr E1 matrix elements (delta_Sr_min) = 0.015 a.u.
    Hand-set in Sec. 4.2 to account for small corrections beyond RPA; affects all Sr matrix element uncertainties via Eq. (20).
  • Minimum uncertainty for Mg E1 matrix elements (delta_Mg_min) = 0.003 a.u.
    Hand-set in Sec. 4.2 for neutral Mg.
  • Minimum uncertainty for Ca E1 matrix elements (delta_Ca_min) = 0.013 a.u.
    Hand-set in Sec. 4.2 for neutral Ca.
  • Global minimum percentage uncertainty (portal.min_uncertainty) = 1.5%
    Set in config.yml, Appendix A.1, and applied in quadrature to matrix element uncertainties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CI+all-order and CI+MBPT methods provide accurate approximations to the atomic many-body problem, and the difference between their results is a valid uncertainty estimate.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 4.2 and Eq. (20); no independent justification is provided.
  • domain assumption The NIST Atomic Spectra Database is complete and accurate for energy levels, and the five-step mapping reliably matches computed states to NIST states.
    Used in Sec. 5.1 and Appendix A for state identification and data replacement.
  • ad hoc to paper Configuration and term labels from pCI computations may be misidentified due to basis set issues, and the NIST correspondence algorithm corrects them.
    Stated in Sec. 5.1 and Appendix A.2; this correction is specific to this workflow.
  • standard math Standard quantum electrodynamics and atomic structure theory formulas (Wigner-Eckart theorem, multipole transition rate formulas, polarizability sum rules) are correct.
    Used in Sec. 2.2 and 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Portal for High-Precision Atomic Data and Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQCQOHCO

@misc{pith2026250608170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Portal for High-Precision Atomic Data and Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQCQOHCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08170}
}
read the original abstract

We've developed a scalable and sustainable online atomic data portal with an automated interface for easy update and addition of new data. The current portal provides energies, transition matrix elements, transition rates, radiative lifetimes, branching ratios, polarizabilities, hyperfine constants, and other data, for 28 atoms and ions. It also features an interactive polarizability plotting interface for neutral atoms and singly-charged ions. The data production is supported by recent developments of open-access atomic software based on our research codes, including new workflow algorithms, which allow large volumes of such data to be generated with automated accuracy assessments. This entails a new method of comparing our calculated values with data from the NIST Atomic Spectra Database. All calculated values include estimated uncertainties. Data for more systems will be added in the future. Experimental values are included with references, where high-precision data are available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08170 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Homepage of Version 3.0 of the portal. The user can select an atom or ion, which will display the available properties. URL: https: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Intersections of the polarizabilities α, α − δ, and α + δ computed for the 1S 0 and 3P1 (with the magnetic quantum number m = ±1) states of Sr in the vicinity of λ = 500.6 nm. intersections of every polarizability curve with curves plotted for another state, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A screenshot of the Matrix elements table for the Sr 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A screenshot of the interactive polarizability plots for the Sr 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This comparison also allows us to also provide data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The workflow for identifying the corresponding CI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The overall architecture of the Atom portal. Portal data is generated from o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Microscopic Rydberg electron orbit manipulation with optical tweezers

    physics.atom-ph 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    A tightly focused optical tweezer mixes Rydberg states to produce kilo-Debye tunable dipoles and ponderomotive wells for eccentric radial trapping of the electron.

  2. Isothermal compression of a Fermi gas to deep quantum degeneracy

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Isothermal compression of 6Li in a 166Er bath produces T/T_F = 0.024^{+0.007} and a fermion-bath thermalization time that is independent of T/T_F.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Safronova, W

    M. Safronova, W. Johnson, All-order methods for relativistic atomic structure calculations, in: E. Arimondo, P. R. Berman, C. C. Lin (Eds.), Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, V ol. 55 of Ad- vances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Academic Press, 2008, pp. 191–233. doi:10.1016/S1049-250X(07)55004-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s1049-250x(07)55004-4 2008

  2. [2]

    W. R. Johnson, U. I. Safronova, A. Derevianko, M. S. Safronova, Rel- ativistic many-body calculation of energies, lifetimes, hyperfine con- stants, and polarizabilities in 7Li, Phys. Rev. A 77 (2008) 022510. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.022510

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.77.022510 2008

  3. [3]

    U. I. Safronova, M. S. Safronova, High-accuracy calculation of energies, lifetimes, hyperfine constants, multipole polarizabilities, and blackbody radiation shift in 39K, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 052504. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevA.78.052504

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, Blackbody radiation shift, multipole polarizabilities, oscillator strengths, lifetimes, hyperfine constants, and excitation energies in ca +, Phys. Rev. A 83 (2011) 012503. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevA.83.012503

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, Critically evaluated theoretical ener- gies, lifetimes, hyperfine constants, and multipole polarizabilities in87Rb, Phys. Rev. A 83 (2011) 052508.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.83.052508

    doi:10.1103/physreva.83.052508 2011

  6. [6]

    U. I. Safronova, M. S. Safronova, Relativistic many-body calculation of energies, lifetimes, polarizabilities, and hyperpolarizabilities in li-like be+, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 032502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87. 032502

    doi:10.1103/physreva.87 2013

  7. [7]

    M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, C. W. Clark, Magic wavelengths, matrix elements, polarizabilities, and lifetimes of cs, Phys. Rev. A 94 (2016) 012505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.94.012505

    doi:10.1103/physreva.94.012505 2016

  8. [8]

    R. Pal, D. Jiang, M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, Calculation of parity- nonconserving amplitude and other properties of ra +, Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009) 062505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.062505

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.79.062505 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    M. S. Safronova, M. G. Kozlov, W. R. Johnson, D. Jiang, Development of a configuration-interaction plus all-order method for atomic calculations, Phys. Rev. A 80 (2009) 012516.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.012516

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    M. S. Safronova, S. G. Porsev, U. I. Safronova, M. G. Kozlov, C. W. Clark, Blackbody-radiation shift in the sr optical atomic clock, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 012509

    2013

  3. [11]

    S. G. Porsev, M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, I. I. Tupitsyn, Development of the configuration-interaction + all-order method and application to the parity-nonconserving amplitude and other properties of Pb, Phys. Rev. A 93 (1) (2016) 012501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.012501

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Heinz, A

    A. Heinz, A. J. Park, N. ˇSanti´c, J. Trautmann, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, I. Bloch, S. Blatt, State-Dependent Optical Lattices for the Strontium Optical Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (20) (2020) 203201. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.203201

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, J. Ye, Clock with 8 × 10−19 systematic uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 023401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.023401

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Yamaguchi, M

    A. Yamaguchi, M. S. Safronova, K. Gibble, H. Katori, Narrow-line cool- ing and determination of the magic wavelength of cd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 113201. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.113201

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Cheung, M

    C. Cheung, M. Safronova, S. Porsev, Scalable Codes for Precision Cal- culations of Properties of Complex Atomic Systems, Symmetry 13 (4) (2021) 621. doi:10.3390/sym13040621

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Cheung, M

    C. Cheung, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, I. I. Tupitsyn, A. I. Bondarev, pci: A parallel configuration interaction software pack- age for high-precision atomic structure calculations, Computer Physics Communications 308 (2025) 109463

    2025

  9. [17]

    A. P. Kulosa, D. Fim, K. H. Zipfel, S. R¨uhmann, S. Sauer, N. Jha, K. Gib- ble, W. Ertmer, E. M. Rasel, M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, S. G. Por- sev, Towards a mg lattice clock: Observation of the 1S 0−3P0 transition and determination of the magic wavelength, Phys. Rev. Le...

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Kestler, K

    G. Kestler, K. Ton, D. Filin, M. S. Safronova, J. T. Barreiro, Magic wave- lengths of the sr (5 s2 1 s0–5s5p 3 p1) intercombination transition near the 5s5p 3 p1–5p2 3 p2 transition, Phys. Rev. A 105 (2022) 012821. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.012821

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    C. D. Herold, V . D. Vaidya, X. Li, S. L. Rolston, J. V . Porto, M. S. Safronova, Precision measurement of transition matrix elements via light shift cancellation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 243003. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.243003

    2012

  12. [20]

    Ratkata, P

    A. Ratkata, P. D. Gregory, A. D. Innes, A. J. Matthies, L. A. McArd, J. M. Mortlock, M. S. Safronova, S. L. Bromley, S. L. Cornish, Measurement of the tune-out wavelength for 133Cs at 880 nm, Phys. Rev. A 104 (2021) 052813. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052813

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.9), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [Mon Jun 20 2022]. National In- stitute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2022). doi: 10.18434/T4W30F

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    W. R. Johnson, Atomic Structure Theory: Lectures on Atomic Physics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-540-68013-0

    2007

  15. [23]

    R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. 80 (1950) 102

    1950

  16. [24]

    Dalgarno, J

    A. Dalgarno, J. T. Lewis, Proc. R. Soc. A 233 (1955) 70. 9

    1955

  17. [25]

    Stone, V

    N. Stone, V . A. International Atomic Energy Agency, International Nuclear Data Committee, Table of recommended nuclear magnetic dipole moments (Nov 2019). URL https://www-nds.iaea.org/publications/indc/ indc-nds-0794.pdf

    2019

  18. [26]

    Stone, Table of nuclear electric quadrupole moments, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 111-112 (2016) 1–28

    N. Stone, Table of nuclear electric quadrupole moments, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 111-112 (2016) 1–28. doi:10.1016/j.adt. 2015.12.002

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Meija, T

    J. Meija, T. B. Coplen, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. D. Bi `evre, M. Gr ¨oning, N. E. Holden, J. Irrgeher, R. D. Loss, T. Walczyk, T. Pro- haska, Isotopic compositions of the elements 2013 (iupac technical re- port), Pure and Applied Chemistry 88 (3) (2016) 293–306. doi:10. 15...

    2016

  20. [28]

    Angeli, K

    I. Angeli, K. Marinova, Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99 (1) (2013) 69–

    2013

  21. [29]

    Barakhshan, R

    P. Barakhshan, R. Eigenmann, Exchanging best practices and tools for supporting computational and data-intensive research – the Xpert Net- work (2021). arXiv:arXiv-2102.09373

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Science Gateways Community Institute, https: //sciencegateways.org/

  23. [31]

    AMOS Gateway: A Portal for Research and Education in Atomic, Molec- ular, and Optical Science, https://amosgateway.org/

  24. [32]

    The molecular sciences software institute, https: //molssi.org/

  25. [33]

    Eigenmann, B

    R. Eigenmann, B. E. Bagozzi, A. Jayaraman, W. Totten, C. H. Wu, DARWIN - a resource for computational and data-intensive re- search at the university of delaware and in the Delaware region, udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/29071 (2021). Appendix A. pCI automated scripts The pCI c...

    2021

  26. [35]

    even” and “odd

    Reading and reformatting input files. At the first stage, all computed energy levels are read from the FINAL.RES out- put files of the pconf program. The script will first check generated directories from the ci.py script for these files. If they exist, the script will place t...

  27. [36]

    Sometimes, the configurations and terms of energy levels out- putted by the pCI codes might be misidentified due to discrep- ancies in the basis set or numerical precision

    Filtering and correcting misidentified configurations. Sometimes, the configurations and terms of energy levels out- putted by the pCI codes might be misidentified due to discrep- ancies in the basis set or numerical precision. At this stage, we attempt to correct misidentifie...

  28. [37]

    At final stage of the gen_portal_csv.py script, the mapping of NIST and pCI energy levels is reformatted for use on the portal

    Outputting data for portal. At final stage of the gen_portal_csv.py script, the mapping of NIST and pCI energy levels is reformatted for use on the portal. The out- put file is a Element_Energies.csv, a CSV file of the en- ergies of the system of interest, with a preference fo...

  29. [95]

    doi:10.1016/j.adt.2011.12.006

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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