Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 98 references

Ionization potential and electron affinity of superheavy element 119: relativistic high-order coupled cluster study with QED corrections

T0 review · 3 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 Superheavy element 119's ionization potential and electron affinity are pinned to 4.7839(56) eV and 0.6750(71) eV by a composite relativistic coupled-cluster calculation that includes the Gaunt interaction and quantum electrodynamic correct

desk verdict IP is solid; EA has an unresolved 0.042 eV method gap that the uncertainty budget misses. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05509 v1 pith:E7ADLRBL submitted 2025-09-05 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

A. R. Saetgaraev , L. V. Skripnikov , I. I. Tupitsyn , D. P. Usov , A. V. Oleynichenko , I. M. Savelyev , N. K. Dulaev , V. M. Shabaev This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords element119superheavyelementsionizationpotentialelectronaffinityrelativisticcoupledclusterGauntinteractionQEDcorrectionsperiodiclaw
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 attempts to establish the most accurate theoretical values yet for how tightly element 119 holds its outermost electron, both when the atom is ionized and when it forms a negative ion. It combines high-order relativistic coupled-cluster correlation, the Gaunt part of the Breit interaction, and QED radiative corrections into a single uncertainty budget. If correct, these values give experimenters concrete numbers to compare against once element 119 is synthesized, and they sharpen the picture of how periodic-law trends behave beyond oganesson.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a composite computational protocol. A large-basis all-electron SR-CCSD(T) calculation provides the baseline, while the expensive iterative-triples and perturbative-quadruples correction is computed separately using a 9-electron generalized relativistic pseudopotential (GRPP) with a compact atomic-natural-orbital-type basis. Gaunt corrections enter through an X2Cmmf Hamiltonian, and QED corrections are added via model QED operators in two independent implementations. The protocol's job is to make high-order correlation effects affordable while keeping the final values tied to a fully relativistic, all-electron treatment.

What would settle it

A future experiment on synthesized element 119 that measures the first ionization threshold outside 4.7839 ± 0.0056 eV, or a photodetachment measurement of the anion giving an electron affinity outside 0.6750 ± 0.0071 eV, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the first ionization potential of element 119 is 4.7839(56) eV and its electron affinity is 0.6750(71) eV. These values come from an all-electron relativistic SR-CCSD(T) baseline, to which the authors add first-time corrections for iterative triple and perturbative quadruple cluster amplitudes, the Gaunt electron-electron interaction, and QED self-energy and vacuum-polarization effects. The paper also reports a detailed uncertainty budget, with the dominant errors coming from high-angular-momentum basis functions and high-order correlation effects.

Load-bearing premise

The high-order correlation correction computed with the 9-electron pseudopotential and compact basis transfers quantitatively to the all-electron SR-CCSD(T) result, and the single-reference treatment, rather than Fock-space CCSD, is the correct reference for the anion E119-.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these values are correct, element 119's electron affinity is firmly positive, meaning the E119 minus anion is a bound species despite the atom sitting in group 1.
  • The predicted ionization threshold at roughly 4.78 eV gives a concrete target for laser-ionization or mass-spectrometric experiments once element 119 is produced.
  • The first-time evaluation of triple and quadruple excitation contributions shows that high-order correlation shifts the electron affinity by several hundredths of an electron volt, so earlier Fock-space double-excitation results are not the final word.
  • The discrepancy between the final electron affinity and the FS-CCSD value makes the anion a useful test case for judging when single-reference versus Fock-space coupled-cluster treatments are reliable in superheavy systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-reference result survives experimental scrutiny, Fock-space CCSD appears to overestimate the electron affinity of element 119 by roughly 0.03-0.04 eV, suggesting that higher excitations are mandatory for the two-electron attachment sector.
  • The compact-basis correction strategy demonstrated here could be transferred directly to element 120 and other superheavy atoms, where all-electron CCSDT(Q) is out of reach but the high-order correction may be captured in a frozen-core pseudopotential space.
  • A readily testable extension would be to apply the same composite scheme to the known lighter homologs of element 119, where measured IPs and EAs exist, to calibrate the size of the systematic error before the superheavy experiment arrives.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a composite relativistic coupled-cluster study of the ionization potential (IP) and electron affinity (EA) of superheavy element 119 (E119). The baseline is all-electron single-reference relativistic CCSD(T) with a Dirac–Coulomb Hamiltonian, supplemented by basis-set extrapolation, Gaunt interaction, QED corrections from two model-QED operator implementations, and high-order correlation corrections (iterative triples and perturbative quadruples) obtained with a 9-electron generalized relativistic pseudopotential. The recommended values are IP = 4.7839(56) eV and EA = 0.6750(71) eV. The paper argues these are the most accurate theoretical estimates to date and provides a benchmark for experiments beyond oganesson.

Significance. If the central claim is sound, the paper delivers the most accurate theoretical IP and EA for element 119 and a careful uncertainty budget. Its strengths are genuinely ab initio character (no fitting to experimental target values), explicit treatment of high-order excitations up to perturbative quadruples, cross-checked QED corrections, and a detailed basis-set convergence analysis. The paper is therefore a useful reference for future experimental searches and for periodic-law trend studies. However, the central EA value depends on a methodological choice that is not fully justified, and the unresolved method spread is not reflected in the uncertainty budget.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Table 5] The recommended EA is built on the SR-CCSD(T) baseline of 0.6759 eV, while the final-basis FS-CCSD value is 0.7176 eV, a 0.0417 eV gap that is about six times the quoted total EA uncertainty (0.0071 eV) and about fifteen times the computed SR-CCSDT(Q)−SR-CCSD(T) correction (+0.0028 eV). The text attributes this gap to neglect of high-order excitations in FS-CCSD, but no FS-CCSDT or equivalent multireference high-order calculation is presented that would close or quantify the gap. The uncertainty budget in Table 4 contains no term for reference-method dependence. As a result, the EA central value and its uncertainty are not robust. The authors should either provide a multireference high-order benchmark, conservatively incorporate the SR/FS method spread into the EA uncertainty, or otherwise justify why FS-CCSD is not the appropriate reference for E119−.
  2. [§2, SR-CCSDT(Q) paragraph] The high-order correlation correction is computed with a 9-electron GRPP pseudopotential in a compact contracted basis and then added to all-electron SR-CCSD(T) results obtained with the final uncontracted basis. This transferability assumption is load-bearing: the correction is small (+0.0028 eV for EA) and is being applied to a system with 102 correlated electrons. No test is reported of how the correction changes when the frozen-core/pseudopotential approximation is relaxed or when the basis is enlarged. The authors should provide at least a consistency check, e.g., comparing SR-CCSD(T) with the same GRPP/compact basis against the all-electron SR-CCSD(T) result, or estimating the basis and core dependence of the high-order correction itself.
  3. [§4, Conclusion] The conclusion states that inclusion of high-order cluster amplitudes reduces the difference between the two orbital-construction schemes, but this is demonstrated only for the EA. For the IP, the difference between Set 1 and Set 2 is already small at SR-CCSD(T) and the high-order correction does not significantly change it. More importantly, the conclusion that the remaining discrepancy with Refs. [35,36,38] is primarily due to high-order excitations is not supported by the data in Table 5, since the paper’s own FS-CCSD value (0.7176 eV) lies close to those references and the high-order correction moves the SR value by only +0.0028 eV. This claim should be softened or backed by an explicit calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typographical and grammatical issues: 'ab initiostudy' is missing a space, and 'correlation are treated' should be 'correlations are treated'.
  2. [Introduction] 'Berkeley' is misspelled as 'Berkely' in the list of laboratories.
  3. [§3.4, Table 5] The FS-CCSD value in Table 5 (0.7176 eV) differs from the FS-CCSD value in Table 1 (0.7075 eV) obtained with a smaller basis. The text does not explain whether the Table 5 FS-CCSD row includes the same basis-set increments that were computed at the SR-CCSD(T) level or whether it comes from a separate FS-CCSD calculation. Clarifying this would improve readability.
  4. [§3.3, Table 3] The statement 'We estimate the uncertainty of each QED correction calculation to be ~10%' is reasonable but the basis for this estimate is not explained. Since the final uncertainty budget uses this 10% value, a one-sentence justification would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: final IP/EA are composite ab initio sums; no fitted parameter or prior self-citation defines the target values.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard composite coupled-cluster calculation. The SR-CCSD(T) baseline energies are computed from the Dirac–Coulomb Hamiltonian; the SR-CCSDT(Q) correction is a genuine difference of two independent many-body calculations in a compact GRPP basis; Gaunt and QED contributions are likewise obtained as energy differences with and without the corresponding operators. The recommended IP and EA are sums of these separately computed contributions, with uncertainties propagated from basis-set, correlation, QED, and core effects. No experimental datum, no target value, and no fitted parameter enters the computation. The paper does rely on author-developed methods and codes (GRPP, QEDMOD, EXP-T, MRCC), and prior work [34] is cited to justify the single-reference/multireference agreement; however, these are methodological tools and comparisons rather than definitions of the predicted quantities. The unresolved FS-CCSD vs SR-CCSD(T) EA difference (0.7176 vs 0.6759 eV, Table 5) is a robustness/accuracy concern that the uncertainty budget does not explicitly capture, but it does not constitute circularity: the final EA is not equal by construction to any input, and no parameter was fitted to reproduce it. A specific circular reduction cannot be exhibited, so the correct finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several domain assumptions about the transferability of pseudopotential-based high-order corrections and the accuracy of model QED operators, plus the unverified convergence of the FS-CCSD active space. No free parameters are fitted to the target values.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian with positive-energy projection is a valid zeroth-order description for E119.
    Used as the base Hamiltonian in Section 2; assumes the no-pair approximation and neglect of higher-order QED beyond the model operator.
  • domain assumption Single-reference coupled cluster is converged for the 8s^1 and 8s^2 states of E119 and E119-.
    The SR-CCSD(T) method is applied to all charge states; the paper does not test multi-reference character beyond the FS-CCSD comparison.
  • domain assumption The model QED operator (QEDMOD) accurately represents the QED self-energy and vacuum polarization for inner-shell electrons of E119 to ~10%.
    Section 2: QED corrections estimated with model QED operators from Refs. [70,71] and [81,85], with claimed ~10% accuracy.
  • domain assumption The GRPP pseudopotential with 9 active electrons reproduces the all-electron correlation corrections for the high-order contribution.
    Section 2: SR-CCSDT(Q) corrections computed with GRPP and compact basis, then added to all-electron SR-CCSD(T); transferability is assumed.
  • standard math The finite nuclear size Gaussian model is sufficient for the nuclear potential.
    Section 2: Gaussian model of charge distribution [47].
  • domain assumption The FS-CCSD active space consisting of only the 8s spinor is adequate for the 0h1p and 0h2p sectors.
    Section 2: active space comprised 8s spinor; no convergence test on active space is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ionization potential and electron affinity of superheavy element 119: relativistic high-order coupled cluster study with QED corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7ADLRBL

@misc{pith2026250905509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ionization potential and electron affinity of superheavy element 119: relativistic high-order coupled cluster study with QED corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7ADLRBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05509}
}
read the original abstract

We report a highly accurate \textit{ab initio} study of the ionization potential (IP) and electron affinity (EA) of element 119. Electronic correlation are treated within the relativistic coupled cluster theory including excitations up to quadruples. The Gaunt electron--electron interaction and quantum electrodynamic (QED) corrections are taken into account. The role of high-order correlation effects is analyzed in detail. Our recommended values for the IP and EA are 4.7839(56) eV and 0.6750(71) eV, respectively. These results tighten previous estimates and provide a reference point for future experiments probing periodic-law trends beyond oganesson.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    V. I. Nefedov, M. B. Trzhaskovskaya and V. G. Yarzhem- skii, inDokl. Phys. Chem.Vol. 408, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    Ionization potential and electron affinity of superheavy element 119: relativistic high-order coupled cluster study with QED corrections

    INTRODUCTION The superheavy elements (SHEs) with Z = 104−118were synthesized at JINR (Dubna), LBNL (Berkely), GSI (Darmstadt), and RIKEN (Japan) [1–14]. SHEs withZ = 107−113were syn- thesizedviacold fusion reactions, in which massive projectiles such as58Feor 64Niwere collided with 208Pb or 209Bitargets. However, this approach is no longer viable for prod...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    METHODS AND COMPUT A TIONAL DET AILS As the initial approximation, we employ the Dirac–Coulomb (DC) Hamiltonian, given by HDC = Λ+  X i (cαi ·p i +β ic2 +V nucl(i)) + X i<j 1 rij   Λ+, whereαandβare the standard four-dimensional Dirac matrices,V nucl(i)is the nuclear potential (the finite nu- clear size effect is taken into account using the Gaussian ...

  4. [3]

    RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. One-electron basis set and high-order excitations As the first step of our computational scheme, we analyzed the influence of the choice of one-electron spinors used to construct Slater determinants on the re- sults for high-order correlation effects. A small depen- dence of the final calculated parameters on the choice of spi...

  5. [4]

    CONCLUSION In this work, the IP and EA of E119 were computed using the composite method based on the relativistic single-referencecoupledclustertheorywithsingle, double and perturbative triple excitations, SR-CCSD(T). Cor- 6 rections from iterative triple and non-iterative quadruple excitations to the IP and EA of E119 were evaluated for the first time; t...

  6. [5]

    G. N. Flerov, Y. T. Oganesyan, Y. V. Lobanov, V. I. Kuznetsov, V. A. Druin, V. P. Perelygin, K. A. Gavrilov, S. P. Tretiakova and V. M. Plotko, Phys. Lett.13, 73 (1964)

    1964

  7. [6]

    Zvara, Y

    I. Zvara, Y. T. Chuburkov, R. Tsaletka and M. R. Sha- laevskii, Sov. Radiochem11, 161 (1969)

    1969

  8. [7]

    Ghiorso, M

    A. Ghiorso, M. Nurmia, J. Harris, K. Eskola and P. Es- kola, Phys. Rev. Lett.22, 1317 (1969)

    1969

Show all 98 references
  1. [8]

    Ghiorso, M

    A. Ghiorso, M. Nurmia, K. Eskola, J. Harris and P. Es- kola, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 1498 (1970)

    1970

  2. [9]

    G. N. Flerov, Y. T. Oganessian, Y. V. Lobanov, Y. A. Lasarev, S.P.Tretiakova, I.V.KolesovandV.M.Plotko, Nucl. Phys. A160, 181 (1971)

    1971

  3. [10]

    Ghiorso, J

    A. Ghiorso, J. M. Nitschke, J. R. Alonso, C. T. Alonso, M. Nurmia, G. T. Seaborg, E. K. Hulet and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 1490 (1974)

    1974

  4. [11]

    Y. T. Oganessian, Y. P. Tretyakov, A. S. Minov, A. G. Demin, A.A.Pleve, S.P.Tretyakova, V.M.Plotko, M.P. Ivanov, N. A. Danilov, Y. S. Korotkin and G. N. Flerov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.20, 580 (1974)

    1974

  5. [12]

    Hofmann and G

    S. Hofmann and G. M¨ unzenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.72, 733 (2000)

    2000

  6. [13]

    Morita, K

    K. Morita, K. Morimoto, D. Kaji, T. Akiyama, S. Goto, H. Haba, E. Ideguchi, R. Kanungo, K. Katori, H. Koura, H. Kudo, T. Ohnishi, A. Ozawa, T. Suda, K. Sueki, H. Xu, T. Yamaguchi, A. Yoneda, A. Yoshida and Y. Zhao, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.73, 2593 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Y.T.Oganessian, A.V.Yeremin, A.G.Popeko, S.L.Bo- gomolov, G. V. Buklanov, M. L. Chelnokov, V. I. Chepi- gin, B. N. Gikal, V. A. Gorshkov, G. G. Gulbekian, M. G. Itkis, A. P. Kabachenko, A. Y. Lavrentev, O. N. Maly- shev, J. Rohac, R. N. Sagaidak, S. Hofmann, S. Saro, G. Giardi...

    1999

  8. [15]

    Stavsetra, K

    L. Stavsetra, K. E. Gregorich, J. Dvorak, P. A. Ellison, I. Dragojevi´ c, M. A. Garcia and H. Nitsche, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 132502 (2009)

    2009

  9. [16]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Y. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Y. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, B. N. Gikal, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, O. V. Ivanov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, M. G. Itkis, K....

    2000

  10. [17]

    Y. T. Oganessian, F. S. Abdullin, P. D. Bailey, D. E. Benker, M. E. Bennett, S. N. Dmitriev, J. G. Ezold, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, Y. V. Lobanov, A. N. Mezentsev, K. J. Moody, S. L. Nelson, A.N.Polyakov, C.E.Porter, A.V.Ramayya, F.D.Riley, J. B. Roberto, M...

    2010

  11. [18]

    Y. T. Oganessian, F. S. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, J. M. Gostic, J. H. Hamilton, R. A. Henderson, M. G. Itkis, K. J. Moody, A. N. Polyakov, A. V. Ramayya, J. B. Roberto, K. P. Rykaczewski, R. N. Sagaidak, D. A. Shaughnessy, I. V. Shirokovsky, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, V. G. S...

    2013

  12. [19]

    Y. T. Oganessian and V. K. Utyonkov, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 036301 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Hofmann, S

    S. Hofmann, S. Heinz, R. Mann, J. Maurer, G. M¨ unzenberg, S. Antalic, W. Barth, L. Dahl, K. Eber- hardt, R. Grzywacz, J. Hamilton, R. Henderson, J. Ken- neally, B. Kindler, I. Kojouharov, R. Lang, B. Lommel, K. Miernik, D. Miller and A. Yeremin, Eur. Phys. J. A 52(2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    Khuyagbaatar, A

    J. Khuyagbaatar, A. Yakushev, C. E. D¨ ullmann, D. Ack- ermann, L.-L. Andersson, M. Asai, M. Block, R. A. Boll, H. Brand, D. M. Cox, M. Dasgupta, X. Derkx, A. Di Nitto, K. Eberhardt, J. Even, M. Evers, C. Fahlander, U. Forsberg, J. M. Gates, N. Gharibyan, P. Golubev, K. E. Gre...

    2020

  15. [22]

    Tanaka, P

    M. Tanaka, P. Brionnet, M. Du, J. Ezold, K. Felker, B. J. Gall, S. Go, R. K. Grzywacz, H. Haba, K. Hagino, S. Hogle, S. Ishizawa, D. Kaji, S. Kimura, T. T. King, Y. Komori, R. K. Lemon, M. G. Leonard, K. Morimoto, K. Morita, D. Nagae, N. Naito, T. Niwase, B. C. Rasco, J. B. Ro...

    2022

  16. [23]

    B. M. Kayumov, O. K. Ganiev, A. K. Nasirov and G. A. Yuldasheva, Phys. Rev. C105, 014618 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    K. P. Santhosh and V. Safoora, Phys. Rev. C96, 034610 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Zhang, Y.-H

    M.-H. Zhang, Y.-H. Zhang, Y. Zou, C. Wang, L. Zhu and F.-S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C109, 014622 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Y. T. Oganessian and V. K. Utyonkov, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 62 (2015), Special Issue on Superheavy Elements

    2015

  20. [27]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, Y. V. Lobanov, F. S. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, R. N. Sagaidak, I. V. Shi- rokovsky, Y.S.Tsyganov, A.A.Voinov, A.N.Mezentsev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagre- baev, S. N. Dmitriev, R. A. Henderson, K. J. Moody, J. M. Kenne...

    2009

  21. [28]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, N. D. Kovrizhnykh, F. S. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, D. Ibadullayev, M. G. Itkis, D. A. Kuznetsov, O. V. Petrushkin, A. V. Podshib- iakin, A. N. Polyakov, A. G. Popeko, R. N. Sagaidak, L. Schlattauer, I. V. Shirokovski, V. D. Shubin, M. V. Shume...

    2022

  22. [29]

    Y. T. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkov, F. S. Abdullin, S. N. Dmitriev, D. Ibadullayev, M. G. Itkis, A. V. Karpov, N. D. Kovrizhnykh, D. A. Kuznetsov, O. V. Petrushkin, A. V. Podshibiakin, A. N. Polyakov, A. G. Popeko, R. N. Sagaidak, V. V. Saiko, L. Schlattauer, V. D. Shu- bin, M. ...

    2025

  23. [30]

    J. M. Gates, R. Orford, D. Rudolph, C. Appleton, B. M. Barrios, J. Y. Benitez, M. Bordeau, W. Botha, C. M. Campbell, J. Chadderton, A. T. Chemey, R. M. Clark, H. L. Crawford, J. D. Despotopulos, O. Dorvaux, N. E. Esker, P. Fallon, C. M. Folden, B. J. P. Gall, F. H. Gar- cia, P...

    2024

  24. [31]

    Z. Gan, W. Huang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhou and H. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 158 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    Eliav, U

    E. Eliav, U. Kaldor, Y. Ishikawa and P. Pyykk¨ o, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 5350 (1996)

    1996

  26. [33]

    M. Y. Kaygorodov, L. V. Skripnikov, I. I. Tupitsyn, E. Eliav, Y. S. Kozhedub, A. V. Malyshev, A. V. Oleyn- ichenko, V. M. Shabaev, A. V. Titov and A. V. Zait- sevskii, Phys. Rev. A104, 012819 (2021)

    2021

  27. [34]

    Y. Guo, L. F. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav and A. Borschevsky, Ionization potentials and electron affinity of oganesson with relativistic coupled cluster method, inNew Electron Correlation Methods and their Applications, and Use of Atomic Orbitals with Exponential Asymptotes, edited by...

    2021

  28. [35]

    Eliav, S

    E. Eliav, S. Fritzsche and U. Kaldor, Nucl. Phys. A944, 518 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    I. I. Tupitsyn, A. V. Malyshev, D. A. Glazov, M. Y. Kaygorodov, Y. S. Kozhedub, I. M. Savelyev and V. M. Shabaev, Opt. Spectrosc.129, 1038 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    A. R. Saetgaraev, I. I. Tupitsyn, D. P. Usov, I. M. Save- lyev, N. K. Dulaev, L. V. Skripnikov, V. M. Shabaev, Opt. Spectrosc.132, 939 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Landau, E

    A. Landau, E. Eliav, Y. Ishikawa and U. Kaldor, J. Chem. Phys.115, 2389 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Eliav, M

    E. Eliav, M. J. Vilkas, Y. Ishikawa and U. Kaldor, J. Chem. Phys.122, 224113 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Eliav, M

    E. Eliav, M. J. Vilkas, Y. Ishikawa and U. Kaldor, Chem. Phys.311, 163 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Hangele, M

    T. Hangele, M. Dolg and P. Schwerdtfeger, J. Chem. Phys.138, 174113 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    T. H. Dinh, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A78, 022507 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    V. A. Dzuba, Phys. Rev. A88, 042516 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    I. S. Lim, P. Schwerdtfeger, B. Metz and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys.122, 104103 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Borschevsky, V

    A. Borschevsky, V. Pershina, E. Eliav and U. Kaldor, J. Chem. Phys.138, 124302 (2013). 8

    2013

  39. [47]

    Thierfelder, P

    C. Thierfelder, P. Schwerdtfeger, A. Koers, A. Borschevsky and B. Fricke, Phys. Rev. A80, 022501 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    P. S. Miranda, A. P. S. Mendes, J. S. Gomes, C. N. Alves, A.R.deSouza, J.R.Sambrano, R.GarganoandL.G.M. de Macedo, J. Braz. Chem. Soc.23, 1104 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Pershina and M

    V. Pershina and M. Iliaˇ s, Mol. Phys.123, e2237614 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Iliaˇ s and V

    M. Iliaˇ s and V. Pershina, Mol. Phys.122, e2293229 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Visscher and K

    L. Visscher and K. Dyall, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 67, 207 (1997)

    1997

  44. [52]

    Visscher, T

    L. Visscher, T. J. Lee and K. G. Dyall, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 8769 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Kaldor, Theor

    U. Kaldor, Theor. Chim. Acta80, 427–439 (1991)

    1991

  46. [54]

    Visscher, E

    L. Visscher, E. Eliav and U. Kaldor, J. Chem. Phys.115, 9720–9726 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Eliav, A

    E. Eliav, A. Borschevsky, A. Zaitsevskii, A. V. Oleyn- ichenko and U. Kaldor, Relativistic Fock-space cou- pled cluster method: theory and recent applications, inComprehensive Computational Chemistry, edited by M. Y´ anez and R. J. Boyd Vol. 3, pp. 79–93, Elsevier, Oxford, , f...

    2024

  48. [56]

    DIRAC, a relativistic ab initio electronic struc- ture program, Release DIRAC19 (2019), written by A. S. P. Gomes, T. Saue, L. Visscher, H. J. Aa. Jensen, and R. Bast, with contributions from I. A. Aucar, V. Bakken, K. G. Dyall, S. Dubillard, U. Ekstr¨ om, E. Eliav, T. Enevold...

    2019

  49. [57]

    T. Saue, R. Bast, A. S. P. Gomes, H. J. A. Jensen, L. Visscher, I. A. Aucar, R. Di Remigio, K. G. Dyall, E. Eliav, E. Fasshauer, T. Fleig, L. Halbert, E. D. Hedeg˚ ard, B. Helmich-Paris, M. Iliaˇ s, C. R. Jacob, S. Knecht, J. K. Laerdahl, M. L. Vidal, M. K. Nayak, M. Olejnicza...

    2020

  50. [58]

    Eliav, EXP-T, An Extensible Code for Fock Space Relativistic Coupled Cluster Calculations,http://www

    A.V.Oleynichenko, A.S.Rumiantsev, A.Zaitsevskiiand E. Eliav, EXP-T, An Extensible Code for Fock Space Relativistic Coupled Cluster Calculations,http://www. qchem.pnpi.spb.ru/expt

  51. [59]

    A. V. Oleynichenko, A. Zaitsevskii and E. Eliav, inSu- percomputing, edited by V. Voevodin and S. Sobolev, pp. 375–386, Cham, 2020, Springer International Publishing

    2020

  52. [60]

    K´ allay and J

    M. K´ allay and J. Gauss, J. Chem. Phys.123, 214105 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    A. V. Titov and N. S. Mosyagin, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 71, 359 (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    A. N. Petrov, N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Titov and I. I. Tupit- syn, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.37, 4621 (2004)

    2004

  55. [63]

    N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Zaitsevskii, L. V. Skripnikov and A. V. Titov, Int. J. Quantum Chem.116, 301 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Petrov, E

    A.V.Oleynichenko, A.Zaitsevskii, N.S.Mosyagin, A.N. Petrov, E. Eliav and A. V. Titov, Symmetry15, 197 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Zaitsevskii and A. V. Titov, Int. J. Quantum Chem.120, e26076 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin and A. V. Titov, Chem. Phys. Lett.555, 79 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S

    M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S. G. Wilkins, L. V. Skripnikov, ´A.Koszor´ us, A.A.Breier, O.Ahmad, M.Au, S.W.Bai, I.Beloˇ sevi´ c, J.Berbalk, R.Berger, C.Bernerd, M. L. Bissell, A.Borschevsky, A. Brinson, K. Chrysalidis, T.E. Cocolios, R. P.de Groote, A. Dorne, C.M. Fajardo- Za...

    2025

  60. [68]

    A. V. Oleynichenko, A. Zaitsevskii, L. V. Skripnikov and E. Eliav, Mol. Phys.Alexander Nemukhin Special Issue, e2413416 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    K´ allay and P

    M. K´ allay and P. R. Surj´ an, J. Chem. Phys.115, 2945 (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    K´ allay, J

    M. K´ allay, J. Gauss and P. G. Szalay, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 2991 (2003)

    2003

  63. [71]

    Sikkema, L

    J. Sikkema, L. Visscher, T. Saue and M. Iliaˇ s, J. Chem. Phys.131, 124116 (2009)

    2009

  64. [72]

    Kutzelnigg and W

    W. Kutzelnigg and W. Liu, J. Chem. Phys.123, 241102 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Iliaˇ s and T

    M. Iliaˇ s and T. Saue, J. Chem. Phys.126, 064102 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A88, 012513 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn and V. A. Yerokhin, Com- put. Phys. Commun.189, 175 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A72, 052115 (2005)

    2005

  69. [77]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, Phys. Rev. A93, 052509 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    Sunaga, M

    A. Sunaga, M. Salman and T. Saue, J. Chem. Phys.157, 164101 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    I. I. Tupitsyn and E. V. Berseneva, Opt. Spectrosc.114, 682 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    Pyykk¨ o and L.-B

    P. Pyykk¨ o and L.-B. Zhao, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.36, 1469 (2003)

    2003

  73. [81]

    Pyykk¨ o, Chem

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Chem. Rev.112, 371 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Indelicato and J

    P. Indelicato and J. P. Desclaux, Phys. Rev. A42, 5139 (1990). 9

    1990

  75. [83]

    Dragani´ c, J

    I. Dragani´ c, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, R. DuBois, S. Fritzsche, V. M. Shabaev, R. S. Orts, I. I. Tupit- syn, Y. Zou and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 183001 (2003)

    2003

  76. [84]

    J. Lowe, C. Chantler and I. Grant, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 85, 118 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    L. V. Skripnikov, J. Chem. Phys.154, 201101 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    I. I. Tupitsyn, V. M. Shabaev, J. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, I. Dragani´ c, R. S. Orts and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022511 (2003)

    2003

  79. [87]

    I. I. Tupitsyn, A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, V. M. Shabaev, G. Plunien, J. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, A. Lapierre and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. A72, 062503 (2005)

    2005

  80. [88]

    I. I. Tupitsyn, N. A. Zubova, V. M. Shabaev, G. Plunien and T. St¨ ohlker, Phys. Rev. A98, 022517 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    L. V. Skripnikov, D. V. Chubukov and V. M. Shakhova, J. Chem. Phys.155, 144103 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    L. V. Skripnikov and A. V. Titov, J. Chem. Phys.142, 024301 (2015)

    2015

  83. [91]

    J. F. Stanton, J. Gauss, L. Cheng, M. E. Harding, D. A. Matthews and P. G. Szalay, CFOUR, Coupled-Cluster techniques for Computational Chemistry, a quantum- chemical program package, With contributions from A. Asthana, A.A. Auer, R.J. Bartlett, U. Benedikt, C. Berger, D.E. Ber...

  84. [92]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 095001 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    Pyykk¨ o, M

    P. Pyykk¨ o, M. Tokman and L. N. Labzowsky, Phys. Rev. A57, R689 (1998)

    1998

  86. [94]

    L. N. Labzowsky, I. A. Goidenko, M. Tokman and P. Pyykk¨ o, Phys. Rev. A59, 2707 (1999)

    1999

  87. [95]

    Sapirstein and K

    J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Phys. Rev. A66, 042501 (2002)

    2002

  88. [96]

    G. L. Malli, A. Da Silva and Y. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. A 47, 143 (1993)

    1993

  89. [97]

    Landau, E

    A. Landau, E. Eliav and U. Kaldor, Chem. Phys. Lett. 313, 399 (1999)

    1999

  90. [98]

    Anikina, D

    A. Anikina, D. Belyakov, T. Bezhanyan, M. Kirakosyan, A. Kokorev, M. Lyubimova, M. Matveev, D. Podgainy, A.Rahmonova, S.Shadmehri, O.Streltsova, S.Torosyan, M. Vala and M. Zuev, inDistributed Computer and Com- munication Networks, edited by V. M. Vishnevsky, K. E. Samouylovand...

    2025

Pith tools

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