Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 21 references

EIE calculation and Collisional-Radiative modeling for Na-like Kr and Xe

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using MCDHF and RDW methods, this paper builds collisional-radiative models of sodium-like Kr and Xe and shows that the Xe43+ emission spectrum matches earlier measurements.

desk verdict Kr validation is solid; the Xe EIE table is internally inconsistent and unusable as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00962 v1 pith:XWXCWZZC submitted 2025-07-31 physics.atom-ph physics.plasm-ph

Ashwini Malviya This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords electron-impactexcitationNa-likekryptonxenonMCDHFrelativisticdistortedwavecollisional-radiativemodellineratiosplasmadiagnostics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that a multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock plus relativistic distorted wave pipeline can calculate electron-impact excitation cross-sections, rate coefficients, and collisional-radiative emission spectra for two sodium-like highly charged ions, Kr25+ and Xe43+. For Kr the computed excitation energies, cross-sections, rate coefficients, and line intensities match a prior calculation. For Xe the paper provides the first full CR-model output from this pipeline: a tabulated EIE dataset, an emission spectrum whose nanometer-range lines agree with previous measurements and whose angstrom-range lines correspond to known L-shell transitions, and temperature-dependent line ratios. If the paper is right, plasma spectroscopy gains a new self-consistent dataset for Xe43+ and an independent confirmation for Kr25+.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the MCDHF method for bound-state wavefunctions, the RDW T-matrix construction for electron-impact excitation cross-sections, and the steady-state population balance of the collisional-radiative model, which combines excitation and de-excitation, ionization and three-body recombination, and spontaneous radiative decay. After solving the population balance, line intensities are computed as $I_{ul}=E_{lu}R_{ul}n_u$, and the same populations give the temperature-dependent line ratios.

What would settle it

Rerunning the population balance of Eq. (15) with the ionization and three-body recombination rates explicitly supplied, or measuring the predicted line ratios in a plasma with independently known temperature and density, would settle the claim; disagreement with the paper's line-ratio curves beyond combined uncertainties would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single MCDHF/RDW framework, using 24 fine-structure levels for Kr25+ and the analogous Na-like level set for Xe43+, produces atomic structures that agree with a standard atomic database and electron-impact excitation results that agree with prior calculations for Kr. The new Xe43+ results, provided as cross-sections, an intensity profile, and line-ratio curves, reproduce known spectral features, with the model's emission lines matching earlier theoretical and experimental wavelengths in both the nanometer and angstrom ranges.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted Xe43+ intensities and line ratios depend on ionization and three-body recombination rates and on plasma density and temperature that are never stated, so if any of those inputs is wrong, every spectrum and line-ratio curve changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Na-like Kr25+ now has an independent MCDHF/RDW check of excitation energies, EIE cross-sections, and rate coefficients previously reported, supporting the use of either dataset in impurity-seeded plasma diagnostics.
  • Na-like Xe43+ gains a tabulated electron-impact excitation cross-section dataset covering the dominant fine-structure transitions from 3s, 3p, and 3d levels up to 100 keV incident energy, which can be used in other collisional codes.
  • The Xe43+ collisional-radiative model predicts emission lines and line-ratio temperature trends that can serve as a spectroscopic diagnostic of electron temperature in high-temperature plasmas.
  • The agreement of the calculated Xe43+ emission spectrum with previously measured nanometer and angstrom lines indicates that the model captures the main population and decay channels for this ion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper never states the ionization and three-body recombination rates used in the population balance, a user should treat the Xe43+ intensities and line ratios as conditional on those inputs; substituting independent ionization rates could shift the predicted ratios.
  • The same MCDHF/RDW plus collisional-radiative pipeline could be applied to neighboring sodium-like ions where benchmark data exist, which would test whether the framework generalizes beyond Kr and Xe.
  • The line-ratio curves could in principle be inverted to infer electron temperature from observed Xe43+ spectra, but the sensitivity of that inversion to density and to the unstated recombination rates remains to be quantified.
  • First-order RDW treatments omit resonant excitation channels, so the role of resonances in the Xe43+ population balance is an open question that separate close-coupling or R-matrix calculations could address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports MCDHF and RDW calculations of fine-structure energies, electron-impact excitation (EIE) cross-sections, rate coefficients, and Collisional-Radiative (CR) model results for Na-like Kr25+ and Xe43+. For Kr, the authors compare their excitation energies with NIST and with Ref. [15], show EIE cross-sections and rate coefficients for two transitions each, and present a CR-model emission spectrum and line-ratio temperature dependence. For Xe, they compare fine-structure energies with NIST, state that EIE cross-sections are provided in Appendix A, and present an emission spectrum and line-ratio curves from a CR model, claiming agreement with previous experiments and theories.

Significance. If the results are correct and the data are made reproducible, the paper would provide a new MCDHF/RDW EIE dataset for Na-like Xe43+ and an independent confirmation of the earlier Kr25+ calculation in Ref. [15]. The methods are standard and ab initio: MCDHF and RDW involve no fitted parameters, and the reverse (de-excitation and recombination) rates follow from detailed balance. The Kr validation is genuinely useful, with tabulated energies agreeing with NIST at the 0.06-0.21 percent level and the displayed cross-sections and rate coefficients tracking Ref. [15]. However, the paper's own reported agreement statistics do not match its tables, the central Xe EIE table in Appendix A is internally inconsistent with the paper's threshold energies, and the CR-model inputs are not fully specified, so the main new deliverables are not currently reproducible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Appendix A] The EIE cross-section table in Appendix A is internally inconsistent with the paper's own level energies in Table II. For example, the 3s-3p1/2 threshold is 100.20 eV according to Table II, yet the table lists sigma = 104.24e-20 cm2 at incident energy 0 eV; the 3s-3p3/2 threshold is 186.29 eV, yet the table lists 122.81 at 0 eV; the 3s-3d3/2 transition (threshold 313.14 eV) first becomes nonzero at 77 eV; and the 3s-3d5/2 transition (threshold 332.36 eV) first appears at 145 eV. These onsets violate the physical requirement that cross-sections vanish below threshold and contradict the paper's own level energies. In addition, the first data row contains 13 entries including the energy column while the header has 12 columns, so the table cannot be parsed unambiguously. Because Section III-B states that the Xe EIE data are provided exactly in this table, the central new deliverable is not usable as presented.
  2. [Section III-A, Tables I and II] The reported agreement statistics do not match the tabulated values. For Kr the text states a mean percentage difference with NIST of (0.015, 0.008), but the lowest 3p1/2 energy in Table I differs from NIST by about 0.21 percent (56.458 eV vs 56.340 eV), and most rows differ by 0.05 to 0.15 percent. For Xe the claimed mean percentage difference of 0.0011 percent is inconsistent with Table II, where the 3p1/2 level (100.20 vs 100.00 eV) differs by 0.2 percent and the 3d3/2 level (313.14 vs 312.89 eV) differs by 0.08 percent. The printed statistics therefore cannot have been computed from the displayed tables, so the validation claim is not currently supported.
  3. [Section II-C, Section III-A, Section III-B] The CR-model inputs needed to reproduce the intensity spectra and line ratios are not stated. For Kr the text says only that the ion density and electron temperature are taken 'as mentioned in [15]' without giving the numerical values; for Xe the density, the temperature grid, and the ionization and three-body recombination rate coefficients entering Eq. (15) are never specified. Equation (15) explicitly contains the ionization rate coefficient k_u^+(Te), but no source or numerical values for these coefficients are provided. Since the Xe intensity profile and line-ratio curves are primary new results, this missing information prevents independent verification of those results.
  4. [Section III-B, Fig. 7] The claimed agreement of the Xe emission spectrum with Refs. [20], [13], and [21] is only qualitative. The text lists wavelengths (8.48, 5.82, 6.61, 6.66, 12.39 nm, and 2.96, 2.74 Angstroms) but provides no comparison plot, no line-position residuals, and no quantitative metric such as relative intensity ratios. Figure 7 is a single Gaussian-convolved spectrum from this work alone. Without a quantitative comparison, the central validation claim for the Xe CR model cannot be assessed from the manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section II-A] There are typographical errors in the method names, including 'Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartee-Fock' and 'coulumb repulsion'; these should be corrected to 'Hartree-Fock' and 'Coulomb repulsion'.
  2. [Figs. 5 and 8] The x-axis labels read 'T emperature (ev)' and should be 'Temperature (eV)'; the text refers to temperatures up to 20000 eV while the figures' axis unit is not fully specified, and the y-axis shows 'Ratio' without stating the specific line pairs beyond the legend.
  3. [Fig. 7 and text] The notation for the transitions is inconsistent between the figures (e.g., '2p63p 2P o1/2 - 2p63s 2S1/2') and the table labels (e.g., '3s - 3p1/2'); the text should clarify that the closed inner shells are omitted in the table notation.
  4. [References] Reference [15] contains a broken URL in the full text ('https://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/11/11/142' appears before 'Atoms'); the citation should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the EIE cross-sections, detailed-balance reverse rates, and CR-model outputs are derived from ab initio MCDHF/RDW calculations and checked against external benchmarks; Appendix A inconsistencies are a data-quality issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (6) computes EIE cross-sections from the RDW T-matrix using ab initio MCDHF bound orbitals, with no fitted parameter entering the reported cross-sections. Reverse excitation/de-excitation rates are obtained from the standard detailed-balance relations, Eqs. (10)-(11), rather than from the target intensities or line ratios, and the CR-model population equations (15) are solved from these rate coefficients, radiative rates, and the stated collisional processes. The only externally set parameters for Kr, density and electron temperature, are taken explicitly from [15], and the Xe level set is taken from [1]; neither injects the predicted emission intensities or line ratios as an input, so no claimed result is forced by self-citation or by construction. All agreement claims are checked against independent external benchmarks: NIST excitation energies, [15] for Kr cross-sections and rate coefficients, and [20], [13], [21] for Xe emission lines. The Appendix A table does contain apparent internal inconsistencies, including nonzero EIE cross-sections below the paper's own excitation thresholds and row/column mismatches, but that is a correctness and reproducibility concern rather than circularity; it does not reduce any derivation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard ab initio machinery (MCDHF, RDW, detailed balance) rather than on fitted parameters, so the ledger is small. The main entries are modeling choices that are not fully specified: the CR-model plasma parameters for Kr are borrowed from [15] without values, and the level-set truncation defines which states participate. No invented entities are introduced, and no number is fit to data in the sense of a free parameter tuned to reproduce the target results.

free parameters (2)
  • CR model plasma parameters (Kr) = unspecified; declared 'as mentioned in [15]'
    Section III-A: the Kr CR-model calculation uses ion density and electron temperature from [15] without stating their values; the resulting spectra and line ratios depend on them.
  • Level-set truncation for the excitation model = 24 fine-structure levels (Kr); Xe set from [1], nl with 4 <= n <= 7, 0 <= l <= 2
    The choice of which fine-structure levels enter the CR model (Section III-A, and 'same as in our previous work [1]' for Xe) determines the populations and intensities, but it is a truncation choice, not a number fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math MCDHF with the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) yields bound orbitals and mixing coefficients accurate enough for EIE and radiative rates.
    Section II-A; variational MCDHF is the standard structure method invoked.
  • domain assumption The RDW T-matrix (Eq. 5) with distorted waves on the MCDHF potential adequately describes electron-impact excitation for these ions.
    Section II-B; no convergence check against R-matrix or close-coupling results for Xe is shown.
  • domain assumption Ionization and three-body recombination rates needed by the kinetic equation (Eq. 15) exist and are correct, though never specified.
    Section II-C; the rate equation includes n_e n_+ n_e k_+u terms, but the paper gives no ionization cross-sections or source for k_+u.
  • domain assumption Steady-state collision-dominated kinetics with only excitation, de-excitation, ionization, recombination, and radiative decay capture the level populations.
    Section II-C; the kinetic equation (15) is solved as a steady-state balance.
  • standard math Detailed balance (Eqs. 10-11) supplies all reverse rate coefficients.
    Section II-C.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EIE calculation and Collisional-Radiative modeling for Na-like Kr and Xe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWXCWZZC

@misc{pith2026250800962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EIE calculation and Collisional-Radiative modeling for Na-like Kr and Xe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWXCWZZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00962}
}
read the original abstract

As an extension to our previous work [1], a comprehensive theoretical study for Na-like Krypton and Xenon is carried out. Using MCDHF (Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartee-Fock) along with RDW (Relativistic distorted wave) theory we calculate key atomic properties, electron-impact excitation (EIE), rate coefficients, and collision strength for these ions. We use these parameters to build a Collisional-Radiative model for Na-like Krypton and Xenon. For Na-like Krypton we compare our computed excitation energy, EIE cross-sections, rate coefficients, emission line intensity with previous work. Additionally we investigate variation of line ratios with temperature. For Na-like Xenon we compared excitation energy for various fine-structure with NIST( [2]) database and then provide our computed results for EIE cross-section,intensity profile, and the temperature dependence of line ratios for Na-like Xenon. Our findings offer atomic data for studies related Na-like ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00962 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EIE cross-section comparison for Na-like Kr with previous work [15]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of calculated rate coefficient with [15] for Na-like Kr. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission spectra of Kr25+ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emission spectra of Kr25+ taken from [15]. the excitation levels already mentioned, we included the fol￾lowing ionization state: 1s 22s 22p 6 , 1s 2 s 22p 53s, 1s 22s 12p 63s, 1s 12s 22p 63s for calculation. we solve for the population of levels(as described in the the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of line ratios with temperature for Na-like Kr. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EIE cross-section variations with electron energy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Emission spectra for Xe43+. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Temperature (ev) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Ratio a 0.845 nm/0.908 nm 0.873 nm/0.802 nm 9.770 nm/0.794 nm 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Temperature (ev) 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 Ratio b 6.652 nm/ 12.363 nm 8.483 n…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of line ratios with temperature for Na-like Xe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Study of electron impact excitation of na-like kr ion for impurity seeding experiment in large helical device https://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/11/11/142,

    S. Gupta, T. Oishi, and I. Murakami, “Study of electron impact excitation of na-like kr ion for impurity seeding experiment in large helical device https://www.mdpi.com/2218-2004/11/11/142,” Atoms, vol. 11, 11 2023

    work page 2004

  2. [8]

    R-matrix inner-shell electron-impact excitation of the na-like iso-electronic sequence,

    G. Y . Liang, A. D. Whiteford, and N. R. Badnell, “R-matrix inner-shell electron-impact excitation of the na-like iso-electronic sequence,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 42, no. 22, p. 225002, nov 2009. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/42/22/225002

    doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/22/225002 2009

  3. [9]

    Measurements of cross sections and resonance structures following electron-impact excitation/ionization of na-like kr and xe,

    D. Schneider, D. Dewitt, D. A. Knapp, K. J. Reed, and M. H. Chen, “Measurements of cross sections and resonance structures following electron-impact excitation/ionization of na-like kr and xe,” 9 1994. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/69419

    work page 1994

  4. [20]

    Extreme ultraviolet spectra of highly charged xe ions,

    E. Tr ¨abert, P. Beiersdorfer, J. K. Lepson, and H. Chen, “Extreme ultraviolet spectra of highly charged xe ions,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 68, p. 042501, Oct 2003. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.68.042501

    work page 2003

  5. [13]

    Extreme ultraviolet spectra of highly charged xenon observed with an electron beam ion trap,

    D. Osin, J. Reader, J. D. Gillaspy, and Y . Ralchenko, “Extreme ultraviolet spectra of highly charged xenon observed with an electron beam ion trap,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 45, no. 24, p. 245001, nov 2012. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/45/24/245001

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/45/24/245001 2012

  6. [21]

    L x-ray transitions in f-like to na-like xenon ions determined at a room temperature electron beam ion trap,

    U. Kentsch, G. Zschornack, F. Grossmann, V . P. Ovsyannikov, F. Ullmann, and S. Fritzsche, “L x-ray transitions in f-like to na-like xenon ions determined at a room temperature electron beam ion trap,” X-Ray Spectrometry , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 71–78, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/xrs.850

    work page doi:10.1002/xrs.850 2006

  7. [1]

    Extended calculations of atomic structure parameters for na-like ar, kr and xe ions using relativistic mcdhf and mbpt methods,

    S. Rathi and L. Sharma, “Extended calculations of atomic structure parameters for na-like ar, kr and xe ions using relativistic mcdhf and mbpt methods,” Atoms, vol. 10, 11 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [2]

    Atomic spectra database,

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Atomic spectra database,” 2024, accessed: 2024-01-25. [Online]. Available: https://www.nist.gov/pml/atomic-spectra-database

    work page 2024

Show all 21 references
  1. [3]

    Highly charged ions in magnetic fusion plasmas: research opportunities and diagnostic necessities,

    P. Beiersdorfer, “Highly charged ions in magnetic fusion plasmas: research opportunities and diagnostic necessities,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics , vol. 48, no. 14, p. 144017, may 2015. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/ ...

    2015 doi

  2. [4]

    Summary report of a consultancy meeting in preparation of a coordinated research project on atomic data for injected impurities in fusion plasmas,

    C. Hill, “Summary report of a consultancy meeting in preparation of a coordinated research project on atomic data for injected impurities in fusion plasmas,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267392411

    2022

  3. [5]

    Discovery of photospheric argon in very hot central stars of planetary nebulae and white dwarfs*,

    Werner, K., Rauch, T., and Kruk, J. W., “Discovery of photospheric argon in very hot central stars of planetary nebulae and white dwarfs*,” A&A, vol. 466, no. 1, pp. 317–322, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20077101

    2007 doi

  4. [6]

    Absolute rate coefficients for dielectronic recombination of na-like kr25+,

    Z. K. Huang, W. Q. Wen, S. X. Wang, N. Khan, H. B. Wang, C. Y . Chen, C. Y . Zhang, S. P. Preval, N. R. Badnell, W. L. Ma, X. Liu, D. Y . Chen, X. L. Zhu, D. M. Zhao, L. J. Mao, X. M. Ma, J. Li, M. T. Tang, R. S. Mao, D. Y . Yin, W. Q. Yang, J. C. Yang, Y . J. Yuan, L. F. Zhu,...

    2020 doi

  5. [7]

    Lifetime of the 3pt2p3/2 level in na-like kr25+,

    I. Kink, R. Hutton, B. Nystr ¨om, I. Martinson, K. Ishii, K. Ando, T. Kambara, Y . Nakai, T. M. Kojima, and Y . Awaya, “Lifetime of the 3pt2p3/2 level in na-like kr25+,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 55, pp. 3229–3232, Apr 1997. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/Phy...

    1997

  6. [10]

    Relativistic effects and systematic trends in electric quadrupole transition probabilities for na-like ions,

    E. Charro and I. Mart ´ın, “Relativistic effects and systematic trends in electric quadrupole transition probabilities for na-like ions,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 35, no. 15, p. 3227, jul 2002. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10...

    2002 doi

  7. [11]

    Spectroscopic study of doubly excited na-like argon ions,

    S. Bliman, M. G. Suraud, D. Hitz, J. E. Rubensson, J. Nordgren, M. Cornille, P. Indelicato, and E. J. Knystautas, “Spectroscopic study of doubly excited na-like argon ions,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics , vol. 22, no. 22, p. 3647, nov 1989. [Onli...

    1989 doi

  8. [12]

    Oscillator strength measurements of the resonance transitions in sodium- and magnesium- like argon,

    N. Reistad, L. Engstr ¨om, and H. G. Berry, “Oscillator strength measurements of the resonance transitions in sodium- and magnesium- like argon,” Physica Scripta , vol. 34, no. 2, p. 158, aug 1986. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/34/2/012

    1986 doi

  9. [14]

    X-ray observations of ne-like xe and satellites from c-mod tokamak plasmas,

    J. E. Rice, K. B. Fournier, G. E. Kemp, M. Bitter, N. Cao, L. Delgado-Aparicio, K. Hill, A. E. Hubbard, J. W. Hughes, and M. L. Reinke, “X-ray observations of ne-like xe and satellites from c-mod tokamak plasmas,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics , v...

    2020 doi

  10. [16]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules: Theory and Computation . New York, NY , USA: Springer Science- Business Media, 2007

    2007

  11. [17]

    Detailed electron impact fine-structure excitation cross-sections of kr+ and linear polarization of its subsequently emitted photons,

    S. Gupta and R. Srivastava, “Detailed electron impact fine-structure excitation cross-sections of kr+ and linear polarization of its subsequently emitted photons,” Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer , vol. 253, p. 106992, 2020. [Online]. Available: htt...

    2020

  12. [18]

    Colradpy: A python collisional radiative solver,

    C. Johnson, S. Loch, and D. Ennis, “Colradpy: A python collisional radiative solver,” Nuclear Materials and Energy , vol. 20, p. 100579, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2352179118301881

    2019

  13. [19]

    Crmodel: A general collisional radiative modeling code,

    A. Hartgers, J. van Dijk, J. Jonkers, and J. van der Mullen, “Crmodel: A general collisional radiative modeling code,” Computer Physics Communications , vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010465500002319

    2001

Pith tools

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