Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Laboratory Measurements of Ca XIX Dielectronic Recombination Satellites

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first comprehensive laboratory determination of the electron and photon energies of the dielectronic recombination satellites of Ca XIX up to the KLR manifold (n = 8), with 0.05% electron-energy and 0.1% photon-energy

desk verdict First comprehensive Ca XIX DR KLn (n≤8) benchmark with careful methods, but the absolute electron-energy and cross-section scales are anchored to FAC, so read the 'agreement' claims with that caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09975 v1 pith:UHJ2MP2E submitted 2025-08-13 physics.atom-ph astro-ph.IMphysics.plasm-ph

Filipe Grilo , Marc Botz , Chintan Shah , Thomas Pfeifer , José R. Crespo López-Urrutia , Pedro Amaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phastro-ph.IMphysics.plasm-ph PACS 34.80.Kw32.30.Rj95.30.Ky
keywords dielectronicrecombinationCaXIXHe-likeionselectronbeamiontrapX-rayspectroscopysatellitelinesKLnmanifoldatomicdatabenchmarking
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 establishes a laboratory benchmark for the dielectronic recombination (DR) satellites of Ca XIX, the helium-like calcium ion whose K-alpha lines are among the strongest features in the X-ray spectra of hot astrophysical plasmas. In a cryogenic electron beam ion trap with 8 eV electron-energy resolution, the authors measured the electron energies and emitted photon energies of the KLn manifold up to n = 8, with 0.05% and 0.1% uncertainties, and extracted DR resonance strengths and rate coefficients. The KLL satellite energies agree with state-of-the-art calculations to within about 0.16%, the measured cross-sections agree with Flexible Atomic Code predictions within their ~10% uncertainty, and the derived rate coefficients match the OPEN-ADAS database values used in spectral modeling. The authors then compare FAC collisional-radiative synthetic spectra with XRISM observations of the Centaurus cluster, showing that the j and k DR satellites blend with the Ca XIX z line and alter its apparent amplitude and centroid, a correction that matters for plasma diagnostics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is two-dimensional X-ray spectroscopy of a trapped ion plasma: the electron beam energy is swept as a sawtooth between 2500 and 4700 eV, and each detected photon is recorded together with the beam energy at the instant of excitation, producing a two-dimensional yield map in which each DR resonance appears as a localized spot. A DR event is the two-step process of resonant capture of the free electron into a doubly excited state (inverse autoionization) followed by photon emission; the KLn label denotes the intermediate state's configuration (K-shell vacancy, L-shell electron, outer electron at level n). The spot centroids give the resonance electron energy and the

What would settle it

Measure the two anchor resonances (KLL at 2675.30 eV and KLO at 3722.97 eV) with an energy axis calibrated independently of the Flexible Atomic Code, for example a merged-beams storage-ring measurement of the same resonances or an EBIT run where the beam energy is set using radiative-recombination edges of a hydrogen-like ion, and compare with the FAC values used here. A disagreement larger than the quoted uncertainties (about 1.3 eV at KLL) would mean the reported KLn electron energies and the normalized cross-section scale are systematically shifted, while agreement would put the reported ab

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a full laboratory determination of the Ca XIX DR KLn series, namely electron resonance energies and satellite photon energies up to KLR (n = 8), plus relative cross-sections, is now available for the first time, and that it confirms the theoretical tools currently used in astrophysics. The measured KLL satellite energies reproduce the Flexible Atomic Code, AUTOLSJ/MZ, and CI+QED predictions within ~0.16%, except for the two-electron-one-photon transitions p and o, which all theories underestimate by 0.2-0.4%. The DR resonance strengths of KLL, KLM, KLN, and KLO, along with the direct-excitation cross-section of K-alpha, agree with FAC withi

Load-bearing premise

The electron-beam energy axis is anchored to two FAC-calculated resonance positions (KLL at 2675.30 eV and KLO at 3722.97 eV), and the absolute cross-section scale is anchored to the FAC-computed KLL resonance strength; if those theoretical anchor values are wrong, every reported electron energy and cross-section magnitude inherits the same offset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spectral fitting codes such as AtomDB/APEC, SPEX, and CHIANTI gain a laboratory anchor for Ca XIX: for the first time there are measured electron and photon energies for the full KLn series (n <= 8) and measured DR resonance strengths, filling a gap left by the earlier scarce tokamak and accelerator data.
  • The comparison with XRISM observations of the Centaurus cluster indicates that the j and k DR satellites alter the amplitude and centroid of the Ca XIX z line at low electron temperature, so plasma diagnostics based on the z/w line ratio must include DR satellite emissivities to avoid biased temperatures or velocities.
  • The 10%-level agreement between measured and FAC-calculated DR, DE, and RE cross-sections, and between the derived rate coefficients and OPEN-ADAS values, supports the use of these data in modeling hot plasmas observed by XRISM and future missions.
  • The KLL satellite energy table, including the p and o two-electron-one-photon transitions, provides a direct test of relativistic CI+QED calculations for Li-like calcium, with all lines agreeing to within ~0.16%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The persistent 0.2-0.4% deviation of the two-electron-one-photon transitions p and o across all compared theories points to a specific weakness in current atomic-structure calculations for Li-like ions rather than a general problem; a dedicated measurement isolating those two lines, free of the blends that affect the present data, would test whether the discrepancy is real or an artifact of line b
  • Because the electron-beam energy axis is calibrated against two FAC-calculated resonance positions, the quoted 0.05% uncertainties are internal-consistency uncertainties; an independent energy calibration would place the whole KLn series on an absolute scale and decouple the measurement from the theory being tested.
  • The same two-dimensional spectroscopy technique can be turned immediately on the He-like ions of sulfur and iron, whose K-alpha complexes occupy the same XRISM band and whose DR satellites are largely unbenchmarked; the j/k-type satellite contamination demonstrated for Ca suggests the effective z-line positions of those ions should be checked for similar shifts.
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. Using FLASH-EBIT, the authors record Ca K-alpha X-rays as a function of a swept electron-beam energy (2.5-4.7 keV) and fit the two-dimensional (E_e, E_gamma) maps with clustered Gaussians. They report electron and photon energies for the KLL and KLn (n=3-8) DR resonances of Ca XIX, along with DR/DE/RE resonance strengths and cross sections, DR rate coefficients, and comparisons with FAC, OPEN-ADAS, and recent XRISM observations of the Centaurus cluster. The electron-energy scale is calibrated using FAC energies of the KLL p and KLO resonances, and the absolute cross-section scale is normalized to the FAC KLL DR strength.

Significance. This is potentially the first comprehensive laboratory data set for Ca XIX DR KLn satellites up to n=8, and it is directly relevant to the modeling of high-temperature astrophysical plasmas observed by XRISM. The two-dimensional fitting approach, the independent photon calibration against Ne/Ar/Ca reference lines, and the fast/slow scan strategy to control charge-state evolution are strengths, as is the explicit uncertainty budget for the cross-section scale. The comparisons with OPEN-ADAS and with the XRISM spectrum add practical value. The main limitation is that the electron-energy axis and the absolute cross-section scale are anchored to FAC values, so not all parts of the claimed agreement are independent tests of the theory; this is fixable by rephrasing the claims and propagating the anchor uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (2), Table III] The electron-beam energy axis is calibrated by equating two DR resonances (KLL p at 2675.30 eV and KLO at 3722.97 eV) to their FAC values. Consequently, these two anchor points agree with FAC by construction, and the quoted 0.05% electron-energy uncertainty (approx. 1.3 eV at 2700 eV) does not include the accuracy of the FAC anchor energies. If FAC is in error at the anchors by a few eV, all reported KLn electron energies inherit that common offset. The paper itself notes 0.2-0.4% deviations for the p/o TEOP photon energies from advanced calculations, corresponding to several eV at these energies, so the concern is non-negligible. Please either provide an independent electron-energy reference, or explicitly restrict the 0.05% claim to relative positions between resonances and add a systematic anchor-uncertainty term to the absolute energies.
  2. [Table II, KLP/KLQ rows] The absolute cross-section scale is set by normalizing the projected experimental intensity to the FAC DR KLL resonance strength. Therefore the KLL entry in Table III reproduces FAC exactly by construction, and all other measured strengths, including DE and RE, scale with the assumed KLL value. The stated ~10% uncertainty and the conclusion 'our calculations also agree with our experimental direct excitation cross-sections within their 10% uncertainty' are not independent absolute tests of FAC. The relative ratios between KLM/KLN/KLO/DE/RE and KLL are independent and valuable, but the paper should separate relative-shape comparisons from absolute normalization or supply an independent normalization reference.
  3. [Table I, p/o rows] Several FAC electron energies in Table II are internally inconsistent. For the KLP 1s2p6p leading transition, E_e-FAC is listed as 3870.66 eV while E_e-exp is 3760.0 eV; for 1s2p6d the values are 3898.38 eV and 3778.1 eV; for the KLQ 1s2p7p row, 3863.01 eV and 3792.4 eV. These FAC values disagree with the experimental energies by tens of eV and violate the approximately monotonic convergence of the series (KLO 5d = 3722.97 eV, KLR 8d = 3831.44 eV). This is likely a typographical or column-alignment error, but since Table II is the central energy table, it must be corrected and re-verified. As printed, the statement of good agreement for the higher-n resonances is unsupported.
  4. [Table I, p/o rows] The relative-difference numbers shown in parentheses for the p and o rows do not appear to match the adjacent energy values. For example, for the p satellite, E_gamma-exp = 3806 eV and E_gamma-FAC = 3791.8 eV differ by about +0.37%, yet the displayed difference is -0.08%. The table layout is difficult to parse; please clarify which energies are used as the reference for each percentage and whether the comparison is made against blended or deblended centroids.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV C] The sentence 'Due to blends with Li-like DR resonances, we add the Li-like DR resonant strengths (see Table III) to the experimental uncertainty' is confusing. It should specify whether these theoretical strengths are added to the data, to the FAC comparison, or to the uncertainty budget, and this affects the interpretation of Fig. 4.
  2. [Fig. 2] The text describes experimental centroids as black circles and FAC centroids as blue crosses, while the figure caption uses 'crosses' for both. The notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Sec. IV D] The XRISM comparison is presented with a specific redshift z_r = 0.0092 chosen to align the observed w line with FAC. The text mentions this, but it would be useful to state explicitly that the comparison is thereby partly an alignment, not a fully blind spectral fit.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV A] Please state explicitly in the abstract or the uncertainty discussion that the 0.05% electron-energy uncertainty is an internal precision that does not include the systematic uncertainty of the FAC anchor values, if that is the case.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Electron-energy scale anchored to FAC values and KLL cross-section normalized to FAC make the anchor-point 'agreements' self-referential; higher-n relative data remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II (electron-beam energy calibration); Tables I/II, footnotes a (rows p and KLO)]
    "The electron beam energy calibration was made by matching two isolated DR resonances, KLL and KLO, with their respective F AC values, indicated in Tables I and II). ... aUsed for the electron beam energy axis calibration."

    The two anchor electron energies are set equal to FAC values by this calibration: Table I lists E_e-exp = 2675.3a vs E_e-FAC = 2675.30 for KLL p, and Table II lists E_e-exp = 3723.0a vs E_e-FAC = 3722.97 for KLO. Therefore the agreement of these two 'measured' electron energies with FAC is identity, not evidence. Moreover, the entire electron-energy scale is shifted so that these points coincide with FAC; the quoted 0.05% (about 1-1.5 eV) uncertainties do not include the uncertainty of the FAC anchors. The independent information about FAC is confined to the separations among the non-anchor resonances and the higher-KLn energies, which do not carry the footnote-a calibration flag.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV B (experimental DR cross-sections); Table III and footnote b]
    "The projected intensity was normalized to the DR KLL of our F AC calculation including the experimental energy spread and correction factors for polarization and anisotropy mentioned above. ... The resonance strength of the KLL resonances was used for normalization."

    Normalizing the projected intensity to the FAC-computed DR KLL resonance strength makes the 'experimental' KLL strength in Table III equal to the FAC value by construction (63 b vs 62.986 x 10^-20 cm^2 eV). The paper lists this KLL entry as an experimental cross-section although the footnote marks it as the calibration normalizer; agreement of the KLL row with FAC is therefore not an independent check. All other absolute DR/DE/RE strengths and the derived rate coefficients inherit this normalization, so their absolute magnitudes, and the quoted ~10% uncertainty, are not fully independent tests of FAC or OPEN-ADAS; only the relative strengths and energy dependences are independently measured.

full rationale

The genuinely new content in this paper is largely independent: the photon energies are calibrated against Ne, Ar, and Ca reference lines from the literature with only FAC-computed emissivities used for line-complex weighting; the higher-n (KLM-KLR) electron energies and the relative DR strengths are not set to FAC by construction; and the comparison with OPEN-ADAS is an external benchmark. However, the abstract's 0.05% absolute electron-energy claim rests on an energy axis whose two anchor points (KLL p and KLO) are forced to match FAC values, and the absolute cross-section scale is set by normalizing the projected intensity to the FAC KLL resonance strength. Consequently, the anchor rows in Tables I-III agree with FAC by definition, and any systematic error in the FAC anchor values is inherited by every absolute electron energy and absolute cross-section reported. The paper is transparent about both calibrations and even includes a ~5% theory-calibration uncertainty in the cross-section error budget, but transparency does not remove the self-reference. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness import was found; the self-citations are to established experimental procedures. The circularity is partial, not total: the relative spectra and non-anchor features retain independent benchmark value, so a score of 6 is appropriate rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental results rely on the FAC code for calibration anchors, absolute normalization, and modeling of contamination. These are standard tools but mean the headline 'agreement with FAC' is partly built into the analysis. The assumptions listed are the domain approximations and modeling choices that the comparisons inherit.

free parameters (3)
  • Electron-beam energy calibration anchors (KLL p and KLO FAC values) = 2675.30 eV and 3722.97 eV (from FAC)
    Used to set the electron-energy axis; agreement of KLL and KLO energies with FAC is therefore by construction (Tables I and II, footnotes a).
  • Absolute cross-section normalization factor = Set to FAC KLL resonance strength (62.986e-20 cm2 eV)
    Projected intensities normalized to DR KLL of FAC calculation (Sec IV B); absolute scale not independently measured.
  • Charge-state distribution He-like/Li-like fractions = ~80% He-like, 20% Li-like
    Estimated from ionization thresholds and used to model Li-like contamination (Sec II and IV B); not independently measured.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Isolated-resonance approximation; no quantum interference between RR and DR
    Sec III; standard for EBIT DR analysis, but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Distorted-wave approximation for DE and RR cross sections in FAC
    Sec III; theoretical cross sections rely on DW approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian line shapes and constant charge-state distribution in fast scans
    Sec IV A/B; 2D Gaussian fits assume Gaussian energy spread; fast-scan stability is asserted from up/down scan similarity.
  • domain assumption Ba charge-state populations estimated from population-balance equations with 33 s dump cycle
    Appendix A; used to model RR band contamination; not directly measured.
  • ad hoc to paper FAC collisional-radiative model with only Ca He/Li-like and Ar H/He-like ions for XRISM comparison
    Sec IV D; simplified plasma model, initial He-like Ca population, electron density 1e-2 cm^-3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laboratory Measurements of Ca XIX Dielectronic Recombination Satellites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHJ2MP2E

@misc{pith2026250809975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laboratory Measurements of Ca XIX Dielectronic Recombination Satellites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHJ2MP2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09975}
}
abstract

We report measurements of the K$\alpha$ emission from the astrophysically very abundant Ca XIX (He-like ion) and its satellite lines resonantly excited by dielectronic recombination (DR). We achieve an electron-energy resolution of 8 eV in a cryogenic electron beam ion trap, and determine the energies of the exciting electrons and the emitted photons up to the KLn ($n\le 8$) manifold with $0.05\%$ and $0.1\%$ respective uncertainties. For the KLL satellites, energies agree very well with our predictions using the Flexible Atomic Code (FAC) and previous state-of-the-art calculations. Our calculations also agree with our experimental direct excitation cross-sections for K$\alpha$ within their $10\%$ uncertainty. We extract DR coefficient rates and find good agreement with values tabulated in the OPEN-ADAS database. As an application, we experimentally benchmark Ca XIX atomic data used to model high-temperature astrophysical plasmas by comparing FAC synthetic spectra with recent XRISM observations revealing the contributions of DR satellites to the Ca XIX lines.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Giacconi, E

    R. Giacconi, E. Kellogg, P. Gorenstein, H. Gursky, and H. Tananbaum, The Astrophysical Journal 165, L27 (1971)

    1971

  2. [2]

    J. H. Smith and G. M. Courtier, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sci- ences 350, 421 (1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    K. S. Wood, J. F. Meekins, D. J. Yentis, H. W. Smathers, D. P. McNutt, R. D. Bleach, H. Friedman, E. T. Byram, T. A. Chubb, and M. Meidav, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 56, 507 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    C. R. Canizares, D. P. Huenemoerder, D. S. Davis, D. Dewey, K. A. Flanagan, J. Houck, T. H. Mark- ert, H. L. Marshall, M. L. Schattenburg, N. S. Schulz, M. Wise, J. J. Drake, and N. S. Brickhouse, The Astro- physical Journal 539, L41 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    A. C. Brinkman, C. J. T. Gunsing, J. S. Kaastra, R. L. J. van der Meer, R. Mewe, F. Paerels, A. J. J. Raassen, J. J. van Rooijen, H. Br¨ auninger, W. Burkert, V. Burwitz, G. Hartner, P. Predehl, J.-U. Ness, J. H. M. M. Schmitt, J. J. Drake, O. Johnson, M. Juda, V. Kashyap, S. S. Murray, D. Pease, P. Ratzlaff, and B. J. Wargelin, The Astrophysical Journal ...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    J. W. den Herder, A. C. Brinkman, S. M. Kahn, G. Branduardi-Raymont, K. Thomsen, H. Aarts, M. Au- dard, J. V. Bixler, A. J. den Boggende, J. Cot- tam, T. Decker, L. Dubbeldam, C. Erd, H. Goulooze, M. G¨ udel, P. Guttridge, C. J. Hailey, K. Al Janabi, J. S. Kaastra, P. A. J. de Korte, B. J. van Leeuwen, C. Mauche, A. J. McCalden, R. Mewe, A. Naber, F. B. P...

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    F. B. Paerels and S. M. Kahn, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics 41, 291 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Y. Ezoe, T. Ohashi, and K. Mitsuda, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 5, 10.1007/s41614-021-00052-2 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1007/s41614-021-00052-2 2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J. R. Peterson, S. M. Kahn, F. B. S. Paerels, J. S. Kaas- tra, T. Tamura, J. A. M. Bleeker, C. Ferrigno, and J. G. Jernigan, The Astrophysical Journal 590, 207 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    J.-U. Ness, R. Mewe, J. H. M. M. Schmitt, A. J. J. Raassen, D. Porquet, J. S. Kaastra, R. L. J. van der Meer, V. Burwitz, and P. Predehl, Astronomy & Astro- physics 367, 282 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    The analysis of such observations with spectral models cru- cially depends on the accuracy of the underlying atomic data

    and estimates of turbulence velocities [11]. The analysis of such observations with spectral models cru- cially depends on the accuracy of the underlying atomic data. Recently, the Soft X-ray Spectrometer (SXS) microcalorimeter onboard the ill-fated Hitomi satellite acquired h...

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Takahashi, M

    T. Takahashi, M. Kokubun, K. Mitsuda, R. Kelley, T. Ohashi, F. Aharonian, H. Akamatsu, F. Akimoto, S. Allen, N. Anabuki, and Others, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 9905, edited by J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, and M. Bautz (20...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Kaspi, W

    S. Kaspi, W. N. Brandt, I. M. George, H. Netzer, D. M. Crenshaw, J. R. Gabel, F. W. Hamann, M. E. Kaiser, A. Koratkar, S. B. Kraemer, G. A. Kriss, S. Mathur, R. F. Mushotzky, K. Nandra, B. M. Peterson, J. C. Shields, T. J. Turner, and W. Zheng, The Astrophysical Journal 574, 6...

    2002

  6. [14]

    J. S. Kaastra, R. Mewe, and H. Nieuwenhuijzen, UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas , 411 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    A. R. Foster, L. Ji, R. K. Smith, and N. S. Brickhouse, The Astrophysical Journal 756, 128 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Aharonian, H

    F. Aharonian, H. Akamatsu, F. Akimoto, S. W. Allen, L. Angelini, M. Audard, H. Awaki, M. Axelsson, A. Bamba, M. W. Bautz, et al., Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 70, 10.1093/pasj/psx156 (2018)

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    P. R. Young, K. P. Dere, E. Landi, G. D. Zanna, and H. E. Mason, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 074009 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    (c) Line emissivities at T e= 650 eV simulation

    (black dots) at Ca XIX Kα corrected for redshift in com- parison with F AC-CRM simulations (solid lines) for electron temperatures Te of (a) 2000 eV and (b) 650 eV, showing only DE (green) as well as DE plus DR contributions (orange), and expected emission from H-like and He-l...

    2000

  11. [19]

    Audard, H

    M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ballhausen, A. Bamba, E. Be- har, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, E. Costantini, R. Cumbee, M. Diaz-Trigo, C. Done, T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, M. Eckart, D. Eck- ert, T. Enoto, S. Eguchi, Y. Ezoe, A. Foster, R. Fuji- moto, Y. Fu...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Audard, H

    M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ballhausen, A. Bamba, E. Behar, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, E. Costantini, R. Cumbee, C. Done, T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, M. E. Eckart, D. Eckert, T. Enoto, S. Eguchi, Y. Ezoe, A. Foster, R. Fujimoto, Y. Fujita, Y. Fukazawa,...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Audard, H

    M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ballhausen, A. Bamba, E. Be- har, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, E. Costantini, R. Cumbee, M. D. Trigo, C. Done, T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, M. E. Eckart, D. Eck- ert, T. Enoto, S. Eguchi, Y. Ezoe, A. Foster, R. Fuji- moto, Y. F...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Audard, H

    M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ballhausen, A. Bamba, E. Be- har, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, E. Costantini, R. Cumbee, M. D. Trigo, C. Done, T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, M. E. Eckart, D. Eck- ert, S. Eguchi, T. Enoto, Y. Ezoe, A. Foster, R. Fuji- moto, Y. F...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Audard, H

    M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ballhausen, A. Bamba, E. Be- har, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, E. Costantini, R. Cumbee, M. Diaz-Trigo, C. Done, T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, M. Eckart, D. Eck- ert, T. Enoto, S. Eguchi, Y. Ezoe, A. Foster, R. Fuji- moto, Y. Fu...

    2025

  16. [24]

    A. H. Gabriel and C. Jordan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 145, 241 (1969)

    1969

  17. [25]

    H. S. W. Massey and D. R. Bates, Rep. Prog. Phys. 9, 62 (1942)

    1942

  18. [26]

    Burgess, Astrophys

    A. Burgess, Astrophys. J. 139, 776 (1964)

    1964

  19. [27]

    T. Kato, U. I. Safronova, A. S. Shlyaptseva, M. Cornille, J. Dubau, and J. Nilsen, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 67, 225 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Sardar, S.-X

    S. Sardar, S.-X. Wang, and L.-F. Zhu, The Astrophysical Journal 869, 128 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    V. A. Yerokhin and A. Surzhykov, Journal of Physi- cal and Chemical Reference Data 47, 10.1063/1.5034574 (2018)

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    J. L. Rui, L. Y. Xie, Y. L. Ma, and C. Z. Dong, The European Physical Journal D 77, 174 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    D. A. Knapp, R. E. Marrs, M. A. Levine, C. L. Bennett, M. H. Chen, J. R. Henderson, M. B. Schneider, and J. H. Scofield, Physical Review Letters 62, 2104 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    Hahn and R

    Y. Hahn and R. Bellantone, Physical Review A 40, 6117 (1989)

    1989

  25. [33]

    L. H. Andersen, P. Hvelplund, H. Knudsen, and P. Kvist- gaard, Physical Review Letters 62, 2656 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Beiersdorfer, A

    P. Beiersdorfer, A. L. Osterheld, M. H. Chen, J. R. Hen- derson, D. A. Knapp, M. A. Levine, R. E. Marrs, K. J. Reed, M. B. Schneider, and D. A. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1995 (1990)

    1995

  27. [35]

    Beiersdorfer, T

    P. Beiersdorfer, T. W. Phillips, K. L. Wong, R. E. Marrs, and D. A. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3812 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    R. Ali, C. P. Bhalla, C. L. Cocke, M. Schulz, and M. Stockli, Physical Review A 44, 223 (1991), pRA

    1991

  29. [37]

    Beiersdorfer, D

    P. Beiersdorfer, D. A. Vogel, K. J. Reed, V. Decaux, J. H. Scofield, K. Widmann, G. H¨ olzer, E. F¨ orster, O. Wehrhan, D. W. Savin, and L. Schweikhard, Phys- ical Review A 53, 3974 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    A. S. Shlyaptseva, R. C. Mancini, P. Neill, P. Beiersdor- fer, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and K. Widmann, Phys. Rev. A 57, 888 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Bitter, M

    M. Bitter, M. F. Gu, L. A. Vainshtein, P. Beiersdorfer, G. Bertschinger, O. Marchuk, R. Bell, B. LeBlanc, K. W. Hill, D. Johnson, and L. Roquemore, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 265001 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    G. V. Brown, P. Beiersdorfer, H. Chen, J. H. Scofield, K. R. Boyce, R. L. Kelley, C. A. Kilbourne, F. S. Porter, M. F. Gu, S. M. Kahn, and A. E. Szymkowiak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 253201 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Watanabe, H

    H. Watanabe, H. Tobiyama, A. P. Kavanagh, Y. M. Li, N. Nakamura, H. A. Sakaue, F. J. Currell, and S. Ohtani, Physical Review A 75, 12702 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Beilmann, O

    C. Beilmann, O. Postavaru, L. H. Arntzen, R. Ginzel, C. H. Keitel, V. M¨ ackel, P. H. Mokler, M. C. Simon, H. Tawara, I. I. Tupitsyn, J. Ullrich, J. R. Crespo L´ opez- Urrutia, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A80, 050702 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    A. P. Kavanagh, H. Watanabe, Y. M. Li, B. E. O’Rourke, H. Tobiyama, N. Nakamura, S. McMahon, C. Yamada, S. Ohtani, and F. J. Currell, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022712 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    K. Yao, Z. Geng, J. Xiao, Y. Yang, C. Chen, Y. Fu, D. Lu, R. Hutton, and Y. Zou, Physical Review A 81, 022714 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Brandau and C

    C. Brandau and C. Kozhuharov, Storage-ring studies of dielectronic recombination as a tool for precision spectroscopy, in Atomic Processes in Basic and Applied Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  38. [46]

    Beilmann, P

    C. Beilmann, P. H. Mokler, S. Bernitt, C. H. Keitel, J. Ullrich, J. R. L´ opez-Urrutia, and Z. Harman, Physical Review Letters 107, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.143201 (2011)

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    Beilmann, Z

    C. Beilmann, Z. Harman, P. H. Mokler, S. Bernitt, C. H. Keitel, J. Ullrich, and J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, Physical Review A 88, 62706 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    C. Shah, H. J¨ org, S. Bernitt, S. Dobrodey, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, C. Beilmann, P. Amaro, Z. Hu, S. Weber, S. Fritzsche, A. Surzhykov, J. R. J. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and S. Tashenov, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 92, 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042702 (2015)

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    C. Shah, P. Amaro, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, C. Beilmann, S. Bernitt, S. Fritzsche, A. Surzhykov, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and S. Tashenov, Physical Review E93, 061201 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    C. Shah, N. Hell, A. Hubbard, M. F. Gu, M. J. Mac- Donald, M. E. Eckart, R. L. Kelley, C. A. Kilbourne, M. A. Leutenegger, F. S. Porter, and G. V. Brown, The Astrophysical Journal 914, 34 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Amaro, C

    P. Amaro, C. Shah, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, C. Beilmann, S. Bernitt, J. R. L´ opez-Urrutia, and S. Tashenov, Physi- cal Review A 95, 1 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Orban, S

    I. Orban, S. Mahmood, T. Fritjof, E. Lindroth, C. Z. Dong, J. l. Rui, L. Y. Xie, and R. Schuch, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 57, 95201 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    C. Shah, P. Amaro, F. Grilo, M. F. Gu, L. Gu, J. P. Santos, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, and J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, The Astrophysical Journal 987, 36 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Azarov, A

    V. Azarov, A. Kramida, and Y. Ralchenko, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 149, 101548 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    J. E. Rice, M. L. Reinke, J. M. A. Ashbourn, C. Gao, M. M. Victora, M. A. Chilenski, L. Delgado-Aparicio, N. T. Howard, A. E. Hubbard, J. W. Hughes, and J. H. Irby, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Opti- cal Physics 47, 075701 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    J. E. Rice, M. L. Reinke, J. M. A. Ashbourn, C. Gao, M. Bitter, L. Delgado-Aparicio, K. Hill, N. T. Howard, J. W. Hughes, and U. I. Safronova, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 48, 144013 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Suleiman, H

    J. Suleiman, H. G. Berry, R. W. Dunford, R. D. Deslat- tes, and P. Indelicato, Physical Review A 49, 156 (1994)

    1994

  50. [58]

    S. W. Epp, J. R. Crespo ∼L´ opez-Urrutia, G. Brenner, V. M¨ ackel, P. H. Mokler, R. Treusch, M. Kuhlmann, M. V. Yurkov, J. Feldhaus, J. R. Schneider, M. Wellh¨ ofer, M. Martins, W. Wurth, and J. Ullrich, Physical Review Letters 98, 183001 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    S. W. Epp, J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, M. C. Simon, T. Baumann, G. Brenner, R. Ginzel, N. Guerassimova, V. M¨ ackel, P. H. Mokler, B. L. Schmitt, H. Tawara, and J. Ullrich, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 194008 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Grilo, C

    F. Grilo, C. Shah, J. Marques, J. P. Santos, J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. Amaro, Physical Review A 110, 042827 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    C. Shah, J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, M. F. Gu, T. Pfeifer, J. Marques, F. Grilo, J. P. Santos, and P. Amaro, The Astrophysical Journal 881, 100 (2019). xiii

    2019

  54. [62]

    Clementson, P

    J. Clementson, P. Beiersdorfer, G. V. Brown, and M. F. Gu, Physica Scripta 81, 015301 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    M. F. Gu, Canadian Journal of Physics 86, 675 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    A. H. Gabriel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society 160, 99 (1972)

    1972

  57. [65]

    Antcheva, M

    I. Antcheva, M. Ballintijn, B. Bellenot, M. Biskup, R. Brun, N. Buncic, P. Canal, D. Casadei, O. Couet, V. Fine, L. Franco, G. Ganis, A. Gheata, D. G. Maline, M. Goto, J. Iwaszkiewicz, A. Kreshuk, D. M. Segura, R. Maunder, L. Moneta, A. Naumann, E. Offermann, V. Onuchin, S. Pa...

    2009

  58. [66]

    Lloyd, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28, 129 (1982)

    S. Lloyd, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28, 129 (1982)

    1982

  59. [67]

    Cornille, J

    M. Cornille, J. Dubau, and U. I. Safronova, Physica Scripta 48, 546 (1993)

    1993

  60. [68]

    Vainshtein and U

    L. Vainshtein and U. Safronova, Atomic Data and Nu- clear Data Tables 21, 49 (1978)

    1978

  61. [69]

    Eissner, M

    W. Eissner, M. Jones, and H. Nussbaumer, Computer Physics Communications 8, 270 (1974)

    1974

  62. [70]

    M. F. Gu, The Astrophysical Journal 590, 1131 (2003)

    2003

  63. [71]

    Grilo, C

    F. Grilo, C. Shah, S. K¨ uhn, R. Steinbr¨ ugge, K. Fujii, J. Marques, M. F. Gu, J. P. Santos, J. R. C. L´ opez- Urrutia, and P. Amaro, The Astrophysical Journal 913, 140 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    A. N. Artemyev, V. M. Shabaev, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plu- nien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062104 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Pajot, D

    F. Pajot, D. Barret, T. Lam-Trong, J.-W. Den Herder, L. Piro, M. Cappi, J. Huovelin, R. Kelley, J. Mas-Hesse, K. Mitsuda, et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. 193, 901 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    W. R. Johnson, I. M. Savukov, U. I. Safronova, and A. Dalgarno, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries 141, 543 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    Liao, S.-N

    J.-Y. Liao, S.-N. Zhang, and Y. Yao, The Astrophysical Journal 774, 116 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    Y. Yao, N. S. Schulz, M. F. Gu, M. A. Nowak, and C. R. Canizares, The Astrophysical Journal 696, 1418 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Machado, C

    J. Machado, C. I. Szabo, J. P. Santos, P. Amaro, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, G. Bian, J. M. Isac, and P. Indelicato, Physical Review A 97, 032517 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    Kubi¸ cek, P

    K. Kubi¸ cek, P. H. Mokler, V. M ¨{a}ckel, J. Ullrich, and J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, Physical Review A 90, 32508 (2014), pRA

    2014

  71. [79]

    R. D. Deslattes, H. F. Beyer, and F. Folkmann, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 17, L689 (1984)

    1984

  72. [80]

    J. P. Briand, J. P. Moss´ e, P. Indelicato, P. Chevallier, D. Girard-Vernhet, A. Chetioui, M. T. Ramos, and J. P. Desclaux, Physical Review A 28, 1413 (1983)

    1983

  73. [81]

    H. D. Dohmann, D. Liesen, and H. Pfeng, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A: Atoms and Nuclei 285, 171 (1978)

    1978

  74. [82]

    Amaro, S

    P. Amaro, S. Schlesser, M. Guerra, E.-O. L. Bigot, J.-M. Isac, P. Travers, J. P. Santos, C. I. Szabo, A. Gumberidze, and P. Indelicato, Physical Review Letters 109, 043005 (2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    E. V. Aglitsky, P. S. Antsiferov, S. L. Mandelstam, A. M. Panin, U. I. Safronova, S. A. Ulitin, and L. A. Vainshtein, Physica Scripta 38, 136 (1988)

    1988

  76. [84]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 50, 033105 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jpr/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0064853/16697641/033105 1 online.pdf. Appendix A: Radiative recombination verification As already...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.