Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

LOMS.cz: A computational platform for high-throughput Classical and Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis and rare-earth spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LOMS.cz claims to fully automate Judd-Ofelt analysis for rare-earth materials, from absorption spectra to predicted radiative lifetimes, and validates the pipeline by reproducing published parameters for nine lanthanide dopants.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, well-validated web platform and database for Judd-Ofelt analysis, but the printed uncertainty formula in Eqs. 14 is wrong and the 'experimentally validated' label oversells the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01218 v1 pith:IVOIBOZT submitted 2025-07-01 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-phphysics.comp-phphysics.data-anphysics.optics

Jan Hrabovský , Petr Vařák , Robin Kryštůfek This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.comp-phphysics.data-anphysics.optics
keywords Judd-Ofeltanalysisrare-earthspectroscopyradiativelifetimecombinatorialparameterextractionabsorptionbandselectionreducedmatrixelementsspectroscopicdatabase4ftransitions
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 presents LOMS.cz, an open-source web platform for Judd-Ofelt (JO) analysis of rare-earth-doped materials. It claims to standardize and automate the full workflow: from measured absorption cross sections (or oscillator strengths, line strengths, or already known JO parameters) to the three phenomenological intensity parameters $\Omega_2,\Omega_4,\Omega_6$, and then to transition probabilities, branching ratios, and radiative lifetimes. Its combinatorial JO (C-JO) mode enumerates every subset of observed absorption bands and applies a box-plot outlier reduction to identify band combinations that yield stable, reliable parameters. The platform ships template files for eleven trivalent lanthanides, a database of over 1200 literature JO parameter records across more than 550 host materials, and a proposed standardized reporting format. A sympathetic reader should care because the paper addresses a real reproducibility problem: JO calculations have been performed for six decades without a common computational convention.

What carries the argument

The engine is the classic Judd-Ofelt linear least-squares fit: experimental line strengths $S_{\mathrm{exp}}(J\to J')$ obtained from integrated absorption cross sections (Eq. 22) are equated to the theoretical electric-dipole line strength $S_{\mathrm{ED}} = \sum_{i=2,4,6}\Omega_i\,|U^{(i)}|^2$ (plus a magnetic-dipole term where relevant), and the three $\Omega_i$ are adjusted by least squares. The load-bearing inputs are the host-insensitive reduced squared matrix elements $U^{(2)}, U^{(4)}, U^{(6)}$, the mean wavelengths, refractive indices, and barycenters. C-JO carries each possible $r$-subset of the $N_B$ observed bands through the same fit (Eq. 24), discards combinations that give negative $\Omega_i$ values, applies a box/whisker outlier cut, and reports medians of $\Omega_i$ and min/max radiative lifetimes over the surviving subsets. Uncertainty estimates for each $\Omega_i$ come from the diagonal of the inverse normal matrix multiplied by the RMS residual, following the error theory cited in the paper.

What would settle it

Take a doped crystal with an independently measured fluorescence lifetime and a known Stokes shift between absorption and emission; compute $\Omega_i$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{JO}}^r$ with LOMS.cz using absorption mean wavelengths as barycenters, and compare the predicted $\tau_{\mathrm{JO}}^r$ to the measured lifetime. If the $\lambda^{-3}$ dependence of $A(J',J)$ makes the predicted lifetime deviate by more than the reported uncertainty on a host where emission is red-shifted from absorption, the claim that the default barycenter convention yields reliable radiative properties fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LOMS.cz can fully automate the entire computational JO workflow and that Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis systematically identifies optimal absorption band combinations for reliable parameter extraction. The authors validate the claim by recomputing JO parameters and radiative lifetimes for Er$^{3+}$ in tellurite glass, Dy$^{3+}$ in YVO$_4$ and $\alpha$-KGd(WO$_4$)$_2$, Ho$^{3+}$ in LiYF$_4$ and YAG, Nd$^{3+}$ in Y$_2$O$_3$, Pm$^{3+}$ in lead phosphate glass, Pr$^{3+}$ in RbPb$_2$Cl$_5$, Tb$^{3+}$ in LiTbF$_4$, Sm$^{3+}$ in Sr$_2$SiO$_4$ and TeO$_2$BiCl$_3$, and Tm$^{3+}$ in germanate glass and S-FAP, finding agreement with published values. In the main Er example, LOMS.cz returns $\Omega_2 = 7.66\times10^{-20}$ cm$^2$, $\Omega_4 = 1.51\times10^{-20}$ cm$^2$, and $\Omega_6 = 2.21\times10^{-20}$ cm$^2$, matching the JOFwin2011 comparison values to three significant figures, and the radiative lifetimes agree with the reference to within rounding. The paper further claims that the integrated database enables direct comparison between computed and empirical results and that the proposed output format fills a long-standing reporting gap.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tabulated reduced squared matrix elements $U^{(2)}, U^{(4)}, U^{(6)}$ taken from a single reference template, the recommended practice of using absorption mean wavelengths as emission barycenters, and the user-supplied integrated absorption cross sections are accurate; if any of these are wrong, every computed $\Omega_i$ and every derived lifetime shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a single set of inputs in four accepted formats, researchers can now obtain $\Omega_2$, $\Omega_4$, $\Omega_6$, transition probabilities $A(J',J)$, branching ratios $\beta$, radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{JO}}^r$, and per-parameter uncertainties without hand-coding the fit.
  • C-JO removes the arbitrary choice of which absorption bands to include: the box-plot reduced median is reported alongside the full-set fit, so the stability of the parameters under band selection becomes visible.
  • The over-1200-record database covering 12 RE$^{3+}$ ions and more than 550 hosts lets a user query published JO parameters for the same ion and host and compare against a new computation, turning JO analysis into a screening tool rather than a one-off calculation.
  • The standardized reporting format (manifolds, matrix element sources, refractive index model, magnetic-dipole contribution, uncertainties) gives later readers the information needed to reproduce any reported parameter set.
  • If the validation across nine lanthanide dopants holds, the platform should be able to predict radiative lifetimes for new rare-earth-doped hosts from absorption measurements alone, flagging promising emission properties before extensive experimental characterization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If C-JO medians are as stable as the examples suggest, the same sweep could serve as a retrospective audit: legacy papers that report only a full-set fit could be re-analyzed from their tabulated absorption bands, and cases where the full-set value falls outside the box-plot reduced range would indicate a hypersensitive or misassigned transition.
  • The paper's recommendation to use absorption mean wavelengths as emission barycenters has a testable consequence: because $A(J',J)$ scales as $\lambda^{-3}$, a systematic Stokes shift between absorption and emission will bias predicted lifetimes; comparing platform predictions against measured fluorescence lifetimes on a Stokes-shifted host would quantify that bias.
  • The database's growth toward many hosts per ion would allow a statistical mapping of $\Omega_2$, $\Omega_4$, $\Omega_6$ against host properties such as polarizability, covalency, or site symmetry, which the current paper does not attempt; such a map would make the database predictive rather than merely comparative.
  • Nothing in the paper prevents the same combinatorial machinery from being applied to emission-based JO parametrizations, so the C-JO logic could generalize beyond absorption-band selection to the analysis tools already used for Eu$^{3+}$ emission spectra.
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 presents LOMS.cz, an open-source web platform for Judd-Ofelt (JO) analysis of trivalent rare-earth spectroscopy. It implements classical JO fitting from absorption cross sections, oscillator strengths, or line strengths; computes transition probabilities, branching ratios, and radiative lifetimes; introduces Combinatorial JO (C-JO) analysis that enumerates all subsets of observed manifolds and uses box-plot outlier rejection to identify stable parameter sets; and provides a curated database of more than 1200 JO parameter records. The workflow and GUI are described in detail, with template files, CSV import/export, and a proposed standardized reporting format. Technical validation reproduces published values of Ω₂, Ω₄, Ω₆ and radiative lifetimes for Er, Dy, Ho, Nd, Pm, Pr, Tb, Sm, and Tm systems, generally within a few percent.

Significance. The platform addresses a real reproducibility gap in rare-earth spectroscopy, where JO calculations are frequently performed with inconsistent conventions and unclear reporting. The paper's strengths are its openly available code, standardized input templates, detailed worked examples, and validation against independent literature values (Walsh, Cavalli, Kaminskii, Shinn, and others), which support the reliability of the core fitting and radiative-property engine. If the uncertainty-quantification issue described below is corrected, LOMS.cz would be a valuable community resource. However, the advertised 'detailed uncertainty quantification' is not supported by the equations as printed, and the validation scope is narrower than the conclusion claims, so the manuscript needs revision before the central claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Error evaluation of Judd-Ofelt analysis, Eqs. (14a)–(14b)] The printed formulas ΔΩ_i = √(f_ii·RMS_f) and ΔΩ_i = √(S_ii·RMS_S) are not the standard least-squares standard errors. For the linear model in Eqs. (16)–(17), the parameter covariance is RMS²·(uᵀu)⁻¹ = RMS²·F, so the correct standard error is ΔΩ_i = RMS_f·√(f_ii) (or RMS_S·√(S_ii)). As printed, the uncertainty is understated by a factor of 1/√(RMS): for typical oscillator-strength fits with RMS_f ≈ 10⁻⁷, the quoted uncertainties are about 3000× too small, and for line-strength fits with RMS_S in cm², Eq. (14b) is also dimensionally inconsistent. Because the GUI and CSV export explicitly report ΔΩ₂, ΔΩ₄, and ΔΩ₆, and the paper advertises 'detailed uncertainty quantification' and 'reliable parameter extraction,' this is a load-bearing error. Please correct the equations, or if the software internally uses the correct covariance formula, state this explicitly and reconcile the text.
  2. [Technical Validation and Conclusion] The conclusion states that LOMS.cz was 'extensively validated across diverse rare-earth systems including all spectroscopically active RE ions in various host matrices.' Table 3 validates nine ions (Er, Dy, Ho, Nd, Pm, Pr, Tb, Sm, Tm); Eu and Gd are absent, and Yb is not amenable to JO analysis because it has only one 4f–4f transition. The claim should be narrowed to the nine tested lanthanides, or the missing ions should be validated.
  3. [Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt theory and Evaluation protocol] The claim that C-JO 'systematically identifies optimal absorption band combinations' rests on the box-plot whisker criterion for outlier exclusion, but this criterion is presented as an ad hoc statistical choice and is not validated against an independent measure of parameter quality. The Median BP values in Table 3 sometimes differ markedly from the full-set values (e.g., Tb³⁺ in LiTbF₄: Ω₂ median 1.07 vs. full-set 1.50 vs. Median BP 1.52; Sm³⁺ in TeO₂BiCl₃: Ω₂ median BP 0.96 vs. full-set 0.48), and no external metric such as comparison with measured radiative lifetimes is used to demonstrate that the box-plot-reduced combinations are indeed more reliable. Please provide a concrete test of the 'optimal' claim or soften it.
  4. [Data Records and Code availability] The abstract describes a 'dynamically expanding database of experimentally validated parameters' and the conclusion refers to 'experimental validation through its integrated database,' but the Code availability section explicitly states that 'their factual accuracy has not been further independently verified.' These statements are inconsistent. The database is a curated literature compilation, not an independently validated set; please qualify the validation claim to avoid overstating the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt theory, Eq. (24)] The number of combinations for NB = 5 is given as 5 in one passage and 6 in another; the correct value is C(5,4) + C(5,5) = 6, as stated later in the Technical Validation section.
  2. [Judd-Ofelt theory: Experimental practice, Eq. (23)] The expression labeled λ_H appears to be the reciprocal of a weighted mean, and the distinction between harmonic and weighted mean definitions is not clearly explained; please clarify the definitions and notation.
  3. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'experiemntal' (Introduction), 'Figsahere' (Figures 10 and 11 captions), 'structrures' (CSV output section), and 'aquisition' (Author contributions).
  4. [Data Records] The text states that the database contains data for '12 RE3+ ions,' but the list that follows contains 11 template ions (Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm); please reconcile this number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the JO workflow is a standard forward calculation benchmarked against external literature; the only mild issue is a non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' own Ref. 33 for the C-JO method and main example.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the JO parameters are obtained from a standard least-squares fit of measured oscillator strengths/linestrengths (Eqs. 4/22) to the theoretical expressions (Eqs. 2/8); the radiative probabilities, branching ratios, and lifetimes are then computed forward from the fitted parameters via Eqs. 5, 10, 11. No fitted quantity is used to predict itself. The C-JO algorithm enumerates all manifold combinations (Eq. 24) and summarizes the distribution by median/box-plots; its 'optimal' value is a statistical summary of the fits, not a value derived from the claimed output, so the prediction is not forced by construction. The main worked example (TZB:Er) is a code-to-code consistency check against the authors' own Ref. 33 and against Walsh's JOFwin2011; this is a benchmark, not an independent prediction. However, Table 3 also validates against external literature (Cavalli, Kaminskii, Walsh, Shinn, Merkle, Vasyliev, etc.), so the core workflow is externally benchmarked. The one self-citation that is present, Ref. 33 as the source of the C-JO/box-whisker method and as the main example, is provenance rather than a load-bearing uniqueness argument: the method is re-demonstrated here on independent datasets. Inputs inherited from Walsh's JOFwin2011 templates and the database's 'factual accuracy has not been further independently verified' caveat are data-quality limitations, not circularity. The printed uncertainty expression (Eqs. 14a/14b) is dimensionally suspect, since the covariance identity requires RMS times the square root of the diagonal of the inverse normal matrix, but that is a correctness/error issue, not a circular reduction.

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

The platform introduces no new physical entities or new physical constants. It relies on standard JO theory, host-independent reduced matrix elements, user-supplied experimental absorption data, and the C-JO statistical convention from Ref. 33.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption JO theory: three phenomenological parameters Omega2, Omega4, Omega6 fully describe electric-dipole 4f-4f transition intensities.
    Invoked throughout; Eqs. 2, 8, and the fitting procedure assume this standard theory.
  • domain assumption Reduced squared matrix elements U^(2), U^(4), U^(6) are host-independent and the tabulated values in the LOMS templates are correct.
    The fitting uses these as fixed inputs; no host-specific renormalization is applied.
  • domain assumption The user's measured absorption bands are correctly assigned to specific J to J' transitions and integrated cross-sections are free of baseline errors.
    Eq. 22 converts integrated cross-sections to S_exp; misassignment shifts every fitted Omegai.
  • ad hoc to paper C-JO outlier exclusion via box-plot whiskers identifies 'optimal' band combinations.
    Adopted from Ref. 33; the statistical criterion is a convention, not derived from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Barycenter can be set to absorption mean wavelength without introducing large bias in A(J',J), beta, and tau.
    The authors recommend approach (1), but real Stokes shifts may violate this; the chosen barycenter affects Eq. 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LOMS.cz: A computational platform for high-throughput Classical and Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis and rare-earth spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVOIBOZT

@misc{pith2026250701218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LOMS.cz: A computational platform for high-throughput Classical and Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis and rare-earth spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVOIBOZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01218}
}
abstract

We present LOMS.cz (Luminescence, Optical and Magneto-optical Software), an open-source computational platform that addresses the long-standing challenge of standardizing Judd-Ofelt (JO) calculations in rare-earth spectroscopy. Despite JO theory's six-decade history as the fundamental framework for understanding $4f\leftrightarrow4f$ transitions, the field lacks standardized computational methodologies for precise and reproducible parameter determination. LOMS integrates three key innovations: (1) automated computation of JO parameters, transition probabilities, branching ratios, and theoretical radiative lifetimes, (2) a dynamically expanding database of experimentally validated parameters enabling direct comparison between computed and empirical results, and (3) a novel Combinatorial JO (C-JO) analysis algorithm that systematically identifies optimal absorption band combinations to ensure reliable parameter extraction. As a proof-of-concept, we demonstrate how this computational framework enables rapid screening of spectroscopic parameters, allowing researchers to predict optical properties with enhanced reliability. By combining automated analysis with experimental validation through its integrated database, LOMS.cz establishes a standardized platform for accelerating the discovery and optimization of rare-earth-based photonic and optoelectronic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01218 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Tracking of "Judd-Ofelt" expression within Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of sciences (WOS) scientific databases in 5-year intervals by July 2024. Results Method outline: Judd-Ofelt theory and Rare-earth ions To introduce JO theory and its implications, it is first necessary to define basic concepts related to the physics of rare-earth elements/ions, derivation of spectroscopic terms for RE3+ ground states as well a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy level diagram of RE3+ ions for the calculated complete set of 2S+1LJ multiplets28 (left) and the classical experimentally determined "Dieke"27 diagram for energies up to 40 000 cm−1 (right). Judd-Ofelt theory JO theory was introduced independently to each other by Brian R. Judd14 and George S. Ofelt15 in 1962 based on the previous work of J.H. Van Vleck about spectroscopic properties of rare-earth ions in sol… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Transmission spectrum and corresponding absorption cross sections, employing various corrections on scattering losses or plane parallel geometry of the sample; b) example of integrated area calculation of a selected band. Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt theory Following the previous section, it is clear that the selection of the appropriate transition bands, their experimental description or the decision whether to take… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Software procedure of Judd-Ofelt analysis and implementation of Judd-Ofelt parameters database. 11/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The graphical user interface of LOMS online tool, which is available at https://www.LOMS.cz/. 13/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The graphical user interface of LOMS online tool (https://www.LOMS.cz): Illustrative example of results structure for classical and combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis. 14/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The graphical user interface of LOMS online tool, with shown comparison between data input structure without and with observed absorption band overlap. See the main text for discussion. Results of transition analysis, calculation of A(J ′ , J),β(J ′ , J), τ JO r ,A(ED)…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The graphical user interface of LOMS online tool (https://www.LOMS.cz.): Illustrative example of results structure for Transition analysis Data Records The complete set of blank template input files for each rare-earth ion, illustrative examples of input files together…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The structure of import .csv file. Structure of .csv output file Calculated results of JO analysis, Combinatorial JO analysis and radiative transition properties can be exported in the form of .csv files upon clicking on the button Action button: Export report in the c…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Technical validation examples of combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis for materials doped with Er3+ and Dy3+ ions. Complete data outputs are listed in Figsahere repository43 21/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Technical validation examples of combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis for materials doped with Ho3+ and Nd3+ ions. Complete data outputs are listed in Figsahere repository43 22/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Technical validation examples of combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis for materials doped with Pm3+, Pr3+ and Tb3+ ions. Complete data outputs are listed in Figsahere repository43 23/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Technical validation examples of combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis for materials doped with Sm3+ and Tm3+ ions. Complete data outputs are listed in Figshare repository43 24/29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The fascination of the rare earths—then, now and in the future

    Wybourne, B. The fascination of the rare earths—then, now and in the future. J. Alloy. Compd. 380, 96–100, 10.1016/j. jallcom.2004.03.034 (2004)

    doi:10.1016/j 2004

  2. [2]

    Judd-Ofelt theory: principles and practices

    Walsh, B. Judd-Ofelt theory: principles and practices. Di Bartolo, B., F orte, O. (eds) Adv. Spectrosc. for Lasers Sens. 10.1007/1-4020-4789-4_21 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1007/1-4020-4789-4_21 2006

  3. [3]

    & Chen, C

    Zhou, B., Li, Z. & Chen, C. Global potential of rare earth resources and rare earth demand from clean technologies. Minerals 7, 10.3390/min7110203 (2017)

    work page doi:10.3390/min7110203 2017

  4. [4]

    & (eds), B

    Liu, G. & (eds), B. J. Spectroscopic Properties of Rare Earths in Optical Materials (Springer, 2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    & Wei, Y

    Zhou, B., Li, Z., Zhao, Y ., Zhang, C. & Wei, Y . Rare earth elements supply vs. clean energy technologies: new problems to be solve. Gospodarka Surowcami Miner. - Miner. Resour. Manag. 32, 10.1515/gospo-2016-0039 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1515/gospo-2016-0039 2016

  6. [6]

    Gutfleisch, O. et al. Magnetic materials and devices for the 21st century: Stronger, lighter, and more energy efficient. Adv. Mater .23, 821–842, 10.1002/adma.201002180 (2011)

    doi:10.1002/adma.201002180 2011

  7. [7]

    & Matsuura, Y

    Sagawa, M., Fujimura, S., Togawa, N., Yamamoto, H. & Matsuura, Y . New material for permanent magnets on a base of Nd and Fe (invited). J. Appl. Phys. 55, 2083–2087, 10.1063/1.333572 (1984)

    doi:10.1063/1.333572 1984

  8. [8]

    Dong, H. et al. Lanthanide nanoparticles: From design toward bioimaging and therapy. Chem. Rev. 115, 10725–10815, 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00091 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00091 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Zhou, J., Liu, Z. & Li, F. Upconversion nanophosphors for small-animal imaging. Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 1323–1349, 10.1039/C1CS15187H (2012)

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Collaboration on Rare Earth Elements

    HCSS/TNO. Collaboration on Rare Earth Elements. An analysis of potentials for collaboration with Japan on Rare Earths (The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and TNO: The Hague, Netherlands, 2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Rare earth elements supply restrictions: Market failures, not scarcity, hamper their current use in high-tech applications

    Tukker, A. Rare earth elements supply restrictions: Market failures, not scarcity, hamper their current use in high-tech applications. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 48, 9973–9974, 10.1021/es503548f (2014)

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    & Kramer, K

    Hehlen, M., Brik, M. & Kramer, K. 50th anniversary of the Judd–Ofelt theory: An experimentalist’s view of the formalism and its application. J. Lumin. 136, 221–239, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2012.10.035 (2013)

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    & Dramicanin, M

    Ciric, A., Marciniak, L. & Dramicanin, M. Self-referenced method for the Judd–Ofelt parametrisation of the Eu3+ excitation spectrum. Sci Rep 12, 563, 10.1038/s41598-021-04651-4 (2022)

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Optical absorption intensities of rare-earth ions

    Judd, B. Optical absorption intensities of rare-earth ions. Phys. Rev. 127, 750–761, 10.1103/PhysRev.127.750 (1962)

    1962 doi

  7. [15]

    Intensities of Crystal Spectra of Rare-Earth Ions

    Ofelt, G. Intensities of Crystal Spectra of Rare-Earth Ions. The J. Chem. Phys. 37, 511–520, 10.1063/1.1701366 (1962)

    1962 doi

  8. [16]

    & Auzel, F

    Goldner, P. & Auzel, F. Application of standard and modified Judd–Ofelt theories to a praseodymium-doped fluorozirconate glass. J. Appl. Phys. 79, 7972–7977, 10.1063/1.362347 (1996)

    1996 doi

  9. [17]

    Judd-Ofelt Theory — The Golden (and the Only One) Theoretical Tool of f-Electron Spectroscopy , chap

    Smentek, L. Judd-Ofelt Theory — The Golden (and the Only One) Theoretical Tool of f-Electron Spectroscopy , chap. 10 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    & Blasse, G

    Sytsma, J., Imbusch, G. & Blasse, G. The spectroscopy of Gd 3+ in yttriumoxychloride: Judd–Ofelt parameters from emission data. J. Chem. Phys. 91, 1456–1461, 10.1063/1.457106 (1989)

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    & Binnemans, K

    Görller-Walrand, C. & Binnemans, K. Chapter 167 spectral intensities of f-f transitions. In Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, 101–264, 10.1016/S0168-1273(98)25006-9 (Elsevier, 1998)

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    & Dramicanin, M

    Ciric, A., Stojadinovic, S. & Dramicanin, M. An extension of the judd-ofelt theory to the field of lanthanide thermometry. J. Lumin. 216, 116749, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2019.116749 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    & Dramicanin, M

    Ciric, A., Stojadinovic, S. & Dramicanin, M. Approximate prediction of the cie coordinates of lanthanide-doped materials from the judd-ofelt intensity parameters. J. Lumin. 213, 395–400, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2019.05.052 (2019)

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    & Dramicanin, M

    Ciric, A., Stojadinovic, S., Sekulic, M. & Dramicanin, M. JOES: An application software for Judd-Ofelt analysis from Eu3+ emission spectra. J. Lumin. 205, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2018.09.048 (2019)

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    & Freire, R

    Dutra, J., Bispo, T. & Freire, R. LUMPAC lanthanide luminescence software: Efficient and user friendly. J. Comput. Chem. 35, 10.1002/jcc.23542 (2014)

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Moura Jr., R. et al. (INVITED) JOYSpectra: A web platform for luminescence of lanthanides. J. Comput. Chem. 11, 10.1016/j.omx.2021.100080 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    & Veis, M

    Hrabovský, J., Kuˇcera, M., Paloušová, L., Bi, L. & Veis, M. Optical characterization of Y3Al5O12 and Lu3Al5O12 single crystals. Opt. Mater . Express11, 1218–1223, 10.1364/OME.417670 (2021). 27/29

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Hrabovský, J. et al. Rapid and precise large area mapping of rare-earth doping homogeneity in luminescent materials. Commun Mater 5, 251, 10.1038/s43246-024-00679-x (2024)

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    & Crosswhite, H

    Dieke, G. & Crosswhite, H. The spectra of the doubly and triply ionized rare earths. Appl. Opt. 2, 675–686, 10.1364/AO.2. 000675 (1963)

    1963 doi

  20. [28]

    & Burdick, G

    Peijzel, P., Meijerink, A., Wegh, R., Reid, M. & Burdick, G. A complete 4fn energy level diagram for all trivalent lanthanide ions. J. Sol. State Chem. 178, 448–453, 10.1016/j.jssc.2004.07.046 (2005)

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    The puzzle of rare-earth spectra in solids

    Vleck, J. The puzzle of rare-earth spectra in solids. J. Phys. Chem. 41, 67–80, 10.1021/j150379a006 (1937)

    1937 doi

  22. [30]

    & Hoogschagen, J

    Broer, L., Gorter, C. & Hoogschagen, J. On the intensities and the multipole character in the spectra of the rare earth ions. Physica 11, 231–250, 10.1016/S0031-8914(45)80009-5 (1945)

    1945 doi

  23. [31]

    Optical properties of glasses, in

    Edgar, A. Optical properties of glasses, in. J. Singh (Ed.), Optical Properties of Condensed Matter and Applications (John Wiley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Spectroscopic properties of Rare Earths (Wiley (New York), 1965)

    Wybourne, B. Spectroscopic properties of Rare Earths (Wiley (New York), 1965)

    1965

  25. [33]

    Hrabovsky, J. et al. Classical and combinatorial Judd–Ofelt analysis of spectroscopic properties in Er-doped materials: TeO2-ZnO-BaO:Er3+: glasses. J. Phys. Photonics 7, 025006, 10.1088/2515-7647/adb115 (2025)

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    & Rajnak, K

    Carnall, W., Fields, P. & Rajnak, K. Electronic energy levels in the trivalent lanthanide aquo ions. I. Pr3+, Nd3+, Pm3+, Sm3+, Dy3+, Ho3+, Er3+, and Tm3+. J. Chem. Phys. 49, 4424–4442, 10.1063/1.1669893 (1968)

    1968 doi

  27. [35]

    Error evaluation of Judd-Ofelt spectroscopic analysis

    Zhang, Y .et al. Error evaluation of Judd-Ofelt spectroscopic analysis. Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 239, 118536, 10.1016/j.saa.2020.118536 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Afef, B. et al. Green and near-infrared emission of Er 3+ doped PZS and PZC glasses. J. Lumin. 194, 706–712, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2017.09.040 (2018)

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    & Marimuthu, K

    Karthikeyan, P., Suthanthirakumar, P., Vijayakumar, R. & Marimuthu, K. Structural and luminescence behaviour of Er3+ doped telluro-fluoroborate glasses. J. Mol. Struct. 1083, 268–277, 10.1016/j.molstruc.2014.12.003 (2015)

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    & Marimuthu, K

    Mariyappan, M., Arunkumar, S. & Marimuthu, K. Judd-Ofelt analysis and NIR luminescence investigations on Er3+ ions doped B2O3–Bi2O3–Li2O–K2O glasses for photonic applications. Phys. B Condens. Matter 572, 27–35, 10.1016/j.physb. 2019.07.036 (2019)

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    & Wagner, T

    Aoki, T., Strizik, L., Hrabovsky, J. & Wagner, T. Quadrature frequency resolved spectroscopy of upconversion photolumi- nescence in GeGaS:Er3+; II. elucidating excitation mechanisms of red emission besides green emission. J. Mater . Sci.: Mater . Electron.28, 7077–7082, 10.100...

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Bureau, B. et al. Chalcogenide glass fibers for infrared sensing and space optics. Fiber Integr . Opt.28, 65–80, 10.1080/ 01468030802272542 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Chalcogenide glasses: a review of their preparation, properties and applications

    Seddon, A. Chalcogenide glasses: a review of their preparation, properties and applications. J. Non Cryst. Solids 184, 44–50, 10.1016/0022-3093(94)00686-5 (1995)

    1995 doi

  34. [42]

    Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants

    Polyanskiy, M. Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants. Sci data 11, 10.1038/s41597-023-02898-2 (2024)

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    & Krystufek, R

    Hrabovsky, J., Varak, P. & Krystufek, R. LOMS.cz: interactive online software for Classical and Combinatorial Judd-Ofelt analysis with integrated database of Judd-Ofelt parameters. Figshare 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7904465 (2024)

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Merkle, L. D. & Dubinskii, M. Pr:RbPb 2Cl5: temperature dependent spectra, dynamics and three-for-one excitation. Opt. Express 25, 19780, 10.1364/OE.25.019780 (2017)

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Walsh, B. M. et al. Spectroscopic characterization of Nd:Y2O3: application toward a differential absorption lidar system for remote sensing of ozone. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 19, 2893, 10.1364/JOSAB.19.002893 (2002)

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Krupke, W

    Shinn, M. D., Krupke, W. F., Solarz, R. W. & Kirchoff, T. A. Spectroscopic and laser properties of Pm3+. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 24, 1100–1108, 10.1109/3.232 (1988)

    1988 doi

  39. [47]

    Manjunath, C. et al. Optical absorption intensity analysis using judd-ofelt theory and photoluminescence investigation of orange-red Sr2SiO4: Sm3+ nanopigments. Dye. Pigment. 148, 118–129, 10.1016/j.dyepig.2017.08.036 (2018)

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Boudchicha, N. et al. Judd-Ofelt analysis and spectroscopy study of tellurite glasses doped with rare-earth (Nd3+, Sm3+, Dy3+, and Er3+). Mater. (Basel) 16, 6832, 10.3390/ma16216832 (2023)

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    G., Sugahara, Y

    Vasyliev, V ., Villora, E. G., Sugahara, Y . & Shimamura, K. Judd-Ofelt analysis and emission quantum efficiency of Tb-fluoride single crystals: LiTbF4 and Tb0.81Ca0.19F42.81. J. Appl. Phys. 113, 203508, 10.1063/1.4807649 (2013). 28/29

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    & Speghini, A

    Cavalli, E., Bettinelli, M., Belletti, A. & Speghini, A. Optical spectra of yttrium phosphate and yttrium vanadate single crystals activated with Dy3+. J. Alloy. Compd. 341, 107–110, 10.1016/S0925-8388(02)00079-8 (2002)

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    Kaminskii, A. et al. Optical spectroscopy and visible stimulated emission of Dy3+ ions in monoclinic α−KY(WO4)2 and α−KGd(WO4)2 crystals. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 65, 10.1103/PhysRevB.65.125108 (2002)

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    & Barnes, N

    Walsh, B., Grew, G. & Barnes, N. Energy levels and intensity parameters of ions in Y3Al5O12 and Lu3Al5O12. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 67, 1567–1582, 10.1016/j.jpcs.2006.01.123 (2006)

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Barnes, N

    Walsh, B. M., Barnes, N. P. & Di Bartolo, B. Branching ratios, cross sections, and radiative lifetimes of rare earth ions in solids: Application to Tm3+ and Ho3+ ions in LiYF4. J. Appl. Phys. 83, 2772–2787, 10.1063/1.367037 (1998)

    1998 doi

  46. [54]

    Strizik, L. et al. Green, red and near-infrared photon up-conversion in Ga–Ge–Sb–S:Er3+ amorphous chalcogenides. J. Lumin. 147, 209–215, 10.1016/j.jlumin.2013.11.021 (2014)

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Barnes, N

    Walsh, B. M., Barnes, N. P., Reichle, D. J. & Jiang, S. Optical properties of Tm3+ ions in alkali germanate glass. J. Non Cryst. Solids 352, 5344–5352, 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.08.029 (2006)

    2006 doi

  48. [56]

    Bonner, C. et al. A spectroscopic and Judd–Ofelt analysis of the relaxation dynamics of Tm3+ in the fluorapatites, FAP, S-FAP, and B-FAP. Opt. Mater . (Amst.)20, 1–12, 10.1016/S0925-3467(02)00005-8 (2002). 29/29

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.