Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Computer simulations of the Stark effect in the helium-beta complex of krypton in ICF conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First computer-simulation line shapes for the Li-like n=2 and n=3 satellites of the krypton He-β line show that electron-impact interference terms, previously thought minor, significantly alter the n=3 satellite shape at inertial-confinemen

desk verdict A genuinely new CSM study of Kr He-beta satellites with a useful code comparison and a striking interference-term claim that is not yet fully backed up. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.05903 v2 pith:CKAHOPGP submitted 2025-12-05 physics.plasm-ph physics.atom-ph

G. Pérez-Callejo , E. Stambulchik , R. Florido , M. A. Gigosos This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 52.70.-m52.65.-y32.70.Jz
keywords StarkbroadeningkryptonHe-βLi-likesatellitescomputersimulationinterferencetermsinertialconfinementfusionplasmaspectroscopy
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 reports the first computer-simulation (CSM) Stark-broadened line shapes for the n=2 and n=3 Li-like satellites of the krypton He-β line under inertial-confinement-fusion conditions (electron density 10^24–10^25 cm^-3, temperature 3 keV). It shows that codes with the same underlying physics but different numerical implementations give essentially identical spectra, and that a new hybrid code matches full simulations while running about 50 times faster. The central physical claim is that the electron-impact interference terms—cross-correlations between upper and lower level wavefunctions, usually omitted to speed calculations—are almost negligible for n=2 satellites but significantly modify the n=3 satellite shape at the highest density, contradicting a recent standard-theory result. If correct, these terms must be retained for high-density spectroscopic diagnostics, and satellite profiles can now be modeled ab initio.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition of the spectral trace into diagonal and off-diagonal terms of the evolution operator. Interference terms are operationally defined as all contributions to the dipole-autocorrelation trace with i≠j or α≠β; the full evolution operator U(t) is still computed, but those off-diagonal contributions are dropped to produce an 'interference-free' profile (Eq. 6). To isolate the electron contribution, the authors also run electron-only simulations and artificially degenerate the level energies. The comparison of several simulation codes with different particle dynamics—straight-line, emitter-interaction, and full N-body—is what establishes that the interference

What would settle it

An independent standard-theory calculation that includes interference terms with a full ion-microfield treatment (not quasistatic) for Kr n=3 satellites at ne=10^25 cm^-3, Te=3 keV; if it does not reproduce the simulated shoulder and narrowing, the paper's identification of the effect as interference would be in doubt. Alternatively, a high-resolution measurement of the Kr He-β complex at ne≈10^25 cm^-3 could look for that high-energy shoulder, which the simulations predict appears only when interference terms are present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors show that first-principles computer simulations can now produce Stark-broadened profiles for the full krypton He-β complex, including the Li-like n=2 and n=3 satellites, at the electron densities and temperatures relevant to inertial confinement fusion. The profiles are stable across codes that treat particle trajectories differently, provided the same physics is used. The paper's principal physical claim is that the interference terms of the electron-impact broadening operator—off-diagonal cross-correlations between upper- and lower-level transitions—are essentially negligible for n=2 satellites but significantly modify the shape of n=3 satellites at the highest density studied

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's way of isolating interference terms—keeping only diagonal elements of the evolution operator in the trace—is assumed to correspond to the physical interference terms of electron-impact theory; because ions and electrons are treated jointly in the simulation, this correspondence is not exact, and if it fails, the conclusion about n=3 satellites would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At electron densities of 10^25 cm^-3, standard-theory calculations that omit interference terms will overestimate the width of the n=3 Kr satellites and miss a shoulder on the high-energy wing, biasing density measurements.
  • Satellite profiles for the He-β complex can now be computed ab initio with simulations, removing a major source of uncertainty in modeling full ICF spectra.
  • A hybrid approach that folds standard-theory electron broadening into a simulation of ion fields matches full simulation results while running about 50 times faster, making wide parameter scans practical.
  • The agreement across simulation codes with the same underlying particle-physics assumptions validates computer-simulation line shapes as reliable references for other complex multi-level emitters.
  • The level of particle-interaction detail (independent particles, emitter-interaction, full N-body) changes line widths by tens of percent, so density diagnostics must account for trajectory physics, not just the static field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The trend from negligible (n=2) to significant (n=3) suggests interference terms grow with principal quantum number; n=4 and higher satellites could show even larger effects, making them more sensitive—but harder to model—diagnostics.
  • Because the interference terms narrow the line, any standard-theory diagnostic that omits them will infer systematically higher electron densities at ICF conditions; the size of the bias could be estimated from the published profiles.
  • The electron-only, degenerate-level calculations provide a clean observable prediction: a high-resolution measurement of the Kr n=3 satellite at ne≈10^25 cm^-3 should show a shoulder on the high-energy wing, which would disappear if interference terms are absent.
  • The hybrid time-step-wise combination of standard-theory electrons with simulated ions may extend to other complex line systems, such as argon or germanium tracers, and to lower densities where electron broadening is relatively more important.
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 computer-simulation (CSM) calculations of the Stark-broadened Kr He-β line and its Li-like n=2 and n=3 satellite complexes at ICF-relevant conditions (n_e = 10^24–10^25 cm^-3, T_e = 3 keV). Three CSMs (SIMULA, SIMULAm, SimU/SimUSP) and, for one case, the full-molecular-dynamics code DinMol are compared. The authors claim the first CSM calculation of these satellite shapes, present a hybrid code SIMULAm that matches full simulations at ~50× lower cost, and analyze the effect of 'interference terms' on the satellite line shapes. They find that these terms marginally affect n=2 satellites but significantly modify the n=3 satellite line shape at n_e = 10^25 cm^-3, contrary to a prior standard-theory study (Ref. [21]). The paper concludes that omitting interference terms can cause significant errors at high densities.

Significance. If the central interference-term result holds, this paper provides a valuable new capability: ab initio CSM modeling of complex multi-level satellite spectra under ICF conditions, with an important correction to the earlier conclusion that interference terms are minor. The open data availability (Zenodo), the code-comparison exercise, and the first implementation of a hybrid standard-theory/CSM electron treatment are practical strengths. However, the physical interpretation of the 'interference-free' prescription in Eq. (6) is not adequately justified, and the quantitative claim about n=3 satellites depends on that prescription.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (6)] The 'interference-free' spectrum defined by retaining only i=j and α=β terms of the trace is not invariant under unitary transformations within degenerate or near-degenerate subspaces. For the n=3 Li-like satellites, the manifold contains many closely spaced levels; rotating the basis changes which terms are 'diagonal' and thus changes the computed no-interference spectrum. The authors neither specify the basis used nor justify why that basis corresponds to the standard-theory interference terms of Eq. (4). Without such specification, the 'significant modification' reported in Fig. 6 could be partly a basis artifact. Please either state and justify the physical basis (e.g., the uncoupled |n,ℓ,m_ℓ,m_s> basis) and show that the conclusions are independent of innocuous rotations, or benchmark the projection against a standard-theory calculation with and without the τ terms.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (5)] The derivation of Eq. (5) explicitly assumes 'the density matrix is equal to the unity matrix' (Tr[D(t)D(0)]), but the line shape in Eq. (2) includes ρ, and the emission calculation uses the upper-state populations. The trace expansion and the diagonal projection in Eq. (6) therefore omit the initial-state weighting. It is unclear whether the implementation in the codes retains the factors p_u and, if so, how the 'no-interference' trace was computed with ρ. This should be clarified; otherwise the 'interference-free' spectrum may not correspond to the code's actual emission spectrum.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 7 and 8] The electron-only simulations use the same diagonal-trace projection as the full simulations, but they are not validated against a standard electron-impact calculation with and without the τ interference terms. The paper acknowledges that the joint ion+electron treatment is not equivalent to standard theory, but the electron-only runs are intended to repair this. Without a direct comparison to, e.g., the impact-operator calculation of Ref. [21] under the same electron-only conditions, the factor-of-two linewidth change in Fig. 8 is not quantitatively established as the standard-theory interference effect. Please add such a benchmark or soften the quantitative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III] The abstract states that codes 'yield identical results', while the body (Sec. III, Figs. 1 and 4) says 'qualitatively similar' and shows systematic differences for SimU (curved paths). Please harmonize the wording, e.g., 'closely agree for the same trajectory assumptions'.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 3] The FWHA comparison shows spread among codes at a given density, but no statistical error bars or convergence information is given. A statement on run-to-run statistical uncertainty would strengthen the code-comparison claim.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (4)] In Eq. (4), γ and τ are introduced but the sign convention for the imaginary part is not defined. Clarify whether these are real quantities and how they enter the impact operator.
  4. [Sec. II, SIMULAm description] The description of the hybrid code SIMULAm in Eq. (3) is brief; please provide details on the choice of time step τ and on how the non-commutation of U_e and U_I is handled numerically.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward simulations with fixed input physics; the interference-term analysis is an explicitly acknowledged operational definition, not a fitted or definitionally forced result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are predictions from multi-code computer simulations with fixed input physics (electron density, temperature, atomic structure from prior references, and standard Stark-broadening formalisms). No parameter is fitted to the target spectra, and no simulated output is fed back as an input. The code-agreement claims (Sec. III) are consistency checks between independently implemented simulation codes, not circular reductions. The interference-term analysis (Sec. IV) defines an 'interference-free' trace by dropping off-diagonal terms in Eq. (6); this is an operational definition, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation that 'since in the computer simulations the effect of ions and electrons is considered jointly, this approach to omitting the interference terms is not equivalent to that of the electron impact broadening theory within the standard theory approach.' That admission makes the comparison with Ref. [21] a conditional, physics-validity concern rather than a hidden equivalence. The authors do not import a uniqueness theorem from their own prior work, do not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction, and do not rely on a self-citation chain for the load-bearing conclusion. The claimed first-time application to Li-like satellites is a literature claim, not a derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: simulation outputs are genuinely calculated, and the limitations are stated rather than concealed.

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

No numbers are fitted to data; the simulation is a forward model with fixed input densities/temperatures and atomic structure from prior references. The main non-standard assumption is the diagonal-trace definition of interference-free profiles (Eq. 6).

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Classical trajectories for plasma particles with quantum-mechanical emitter (semiclassical CSM).
    Invoked throughout Section II; the authors list it as a limitation in the closing paragraph of Section II.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation only: no quadrupole or full-Coulomb radiator–perturber interactions.
    Explicitly stated as the main simplification in Section II; affects all computed profiles.
  • standard math Equivalence of Eqs. (1) and (2) in the limit T·N → ∞ relies on the ergodic theorem and a diagonal density matrix.
    Stated in Section II as the mathematical basis for comparing different spectral estimators.
  • domain assumption SimU/SimUSP emitter–perturber interaction is modeled with Debye-shielded Coulomb fields and emitter charge Z = +34.
    Described in Section II and Table I; this is the physical input that produces curved trajectories.
  • ad hoc to paper Omitting interference terms is implemented by keeping only diagonal elements of the evolution operator in the trace (Eq. 6).
    Introduced in Section IV; the authors acknowledge this is not equivalent to standard-theory interference terms for mixed ion-electron dynamics.
  • domain assumption Atomic level structure of the n=2 and n=3 Li-like satellites (hundreds of states) is accurate and complete enough for line-shape calculation.
    Implicit in Section III.B; the paper reports level counts and matrix-element counts but does not validate the underlying atomic data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computer simulations of the Stark effect in the helium-beta complex of krypton in ICF conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKAHOPGP

@misc{pith2026251205903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computer simulations of the Stark effect in the helium-beta complex of krypton in ICF conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKAHOPGP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.05903}
}
read the original abstract

There is an ongoing interest in using spectroscopy in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments, where dopants such as krypton can provide vital information about the temperature and density of the imploding plasma. While the most advanced tools for calculating Stark profiles are computer simulation models (CSMs), their application to complex lineshapes under the extreme conditions of ICF experiments is computationally challenging. In this manuscript, we present results of several CSM realizations applied to the Stark shape of the krypton He-beta line and its satellites at ICF-relevant conditions (ne = 1e24 to 1e25 cm-3, Te = 3keV). We demonstrate that codes with the same underlying physics but different numerical approaches yield identical results and analyze the differences in the line profile caused by various physical effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A comparison of Kr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. He- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the full spectrum of the Kr He- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Area-normalized line profiles of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Area-normalized line profiles from SimU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Gallardo-Diaz, R

    E. Gallardo-Diaz, R. C. Mancini, J. T. Clapp, and M. Kruse, High Energy Density Phys. , 101081 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Florido, R

    R. Florido, R. C. Mancini, T. Nagayama, R. Tommasini, J. A. Delettrez,S.P.Regan,andB.Yaakobi,Phys.Rev.E 83,066408 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    S. P. Regan, R. Epstein, B. A. Hammel, L. J. Suter, H. A. Scott, M. A. Barrios, D. K. Bradley, D. A. Callahan, C. Cerjan, G. W. Collins, S. N. Dixit, T. Döppner, M. J. Edwards, D. R. Far- ley, K. B. Fournier, S. Glenn, S. H. Glenzer, I. E. Golovkin, S. W. Haan, A. Hamza, D. G. Hicks, N. Izumi, O. S. Jones, J. D. Kilkenny, J. L. Kline, G. A. Kyrala, O. L. ...

    2013

  4. [3]

    K. W. Hill, M. Bitter, L. Delgado-Aparicio, P. C. Efthimion, R. Ellis, L. Gao, J. Maddox, N. A. Pablant, M. B. Schneider, H. Chen, S. Ayers, R. L. Kauffman, A. G. MacPhee, P. Beiers- dorfer, R. Bettencourt, T. Ma, R. C. Nora, H. A. Scott, D. B. Thorn, J. D. Kilkenny, D. Nelson, M. Shoup, and Y. Maron, Rev. Sci. Instrum.87, 11E344 (2016)

    2016

  5. [4]

    H. Chen, T. Ma, R. Nora, M. A. Barrios, H. A. Scott, M. B. Schneider, L. Berzak Hopkins, D. T. Casey, B. A. Hammel, L. C. Jarrott, O. L. Landen, P. K. Patel, M. J. Rosenberg, and B. K. Spears, Phys. Plasmas24, 072715 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    M. A. Barrios, J. D. Moody, L. J. Suter, M. Sherlock, H. Chen, W.Farmer,J.Jaquez,O.Jones,R.L.Kauffman,J.D.Kilkenny, J. Kroll, O. L. Landen, D. A. Liedahl, S. A. Maclaren, N. B. Meezan,A.Nikroo,M.B.Schneider,D.B.Thorn,K.Widmann, and G. Pérez-Callejo, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 095002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    S. A. Slutz, M. R. Gomez, S. B. Hansen, E. C. Harding, B. T. Hutsel, P. F. Knapp, D. C. Lamppa, T. J. Awe, D. J. Ample- ford, D. E. Bliss, G. A. Chandler, M. E. Cuneo, M. Geissel, M. E. Glinsky, A. J. Harvey-Thompson, M. H. Hess, C. A. Jen- nings, B. Jones, G. R. Laity, M. R. Martin, K. J. Peterson, J. L. Porter, P. K. Rambo, G. A. Rochau, C. L. Ruiz, M. ...

    2018

  8. [7]

    Pérez-Callejo, L

    G. Pérez-Callejo, L. C. Jarrott, D. A. Liedahl, E. V. Marley, G.E.Kemp,R.F.Heeter,J.A.Emig,M.E.Foord,K.Widmann, J.Jaquez,H.Huang,S.J.Rose,J.S.Wark,andM.B.Schneider, Phys. Plasmas26, 063302 (2019)

    2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Jones, O

    G.Pérez-Callejo,M.A.Barrios,D.A.Liedahl,M.B.Schneider, O. Jones, O. Landen, R. L. Kauffman, L. J. Suter, J. D. Moody, S. J. Rose, and J. S. Wark, Phys. Plasmas27, 112714 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Gomez,A.Moreau,R.Hollinger,S.Wang,H.Song,J.J.Rocca, and R

    B.F.Kraus,L.Gao,K.W.Hill,M.Bitter,P.C.Efthimion,T.A. Gomez,A.Moreau,R.Hollinger,S.Wang,H.Song,J.J.Rocca, and R. C. Mancini, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 205001 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Thomas, D

    L.Gao,B.F.Kraus,K.W.Hill,M.B.Schneider,A.Christopher- son,B.Bachmann,M.Bitter,P.Efthimion,N.Pablant,R.Betti, C. Thomas, D. Thorn, A. G. MacPhee, S. Khan, R. Kauffman, D. Liedahl, H. Chen, D. Bradley, J. Kilkenny, B. Lahmann, E. Stambulchik, and Y. Maron, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 1...

    2022

  4. [11]

    K. W. Hill, L. Gao, B. F. Kraus, M. Bitter, P. C. Efthimion, N. Pablant, M. B. Schneider, D. B. Thorn, H. Chen, R. L. Kauffman, D. A. Liedahl, M. J. MacDonald, A. G. MacPhee, H. A. Scott, S. Stoupin, R. Doron, E. Stambulchik, Y. Maron, and B. Lahmann, Plasma Phys. Controlled F...

    2022

  5. [12]

    6, L012018 (2024)

    M.Bailly-Grandvaux,R.Florido,C.A.Walsh,G.Pérez-Callejo, F.N.Beg,P.Bradford,M.A.Gigosos,R.C.Mancini,C.McGuf- fey,F.Suzuki-Vidal,C.Vlachos,andJ.J.Santos,Phys.Rev.Res. 6, L012018 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    D. A. Haynes, D. T. Garber, C. F. Hooper, R. C. Mancini, Y. T. Lee,D.K.Bradley,J.Delettrez,R.Epstein,andP.A.Jaanimagi, Phys. Rev. E53, 1042 (1996)

    1996

  7. [14]

    N. C. Woolsey, B. A. Hammel, C. J. Keane, A. Asfaw, C. A. Back,J.C.Moreno,J.K.Nash,A.Calisti,C.Mossé,R.Stamm, B.Talin,L.Klein,andR.W.Lee,Phys.Rev.E 56,2314(1997)

    1997

  8. [15]

    I.GolovkinandR.Mancini,J.Quant.Spectrosc.Radiat.Trans- fer65, 273 (2000)

    2000

  9. [16]

    G.C.Junkel,M.A.Gunderson,C.F.Hooper,andD.A.Haynes, Phys. Rev. E62, 5584 (2000)

    2000

  10. [17]

    Golovkin, R

    I. Golovkin, R. Mancini, S. Louis, Y. Ochi, K. Fujita, H.Nishimura,H.Shirga,N.Miyanaga,H.Azechi,R.Butzbach, I. Uschmann, E. Förster, J. Delettrez, J. Koch, R. W. Lee, and L. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 045002 (2002)

    2002

  11. [18]

    Pérez-Callejo, C

    G. Pérez-Callejo, C. Vlachos, C. A. Walsh, R. Florido, M.Bailly-Grandvaux,X.Vaisseau,F.Suzuki-Vidal,C.McGuf- fey, F. N. Beg, P. Bradford, V. Ospina-Bohórquez, D. Batani, D.Raffestin,A.Colaïtis,V.Tikhonchuk,A.Casner,M.Koenig, B.Albertazzi,R.Fedosejevs,N.Woolsey,M.Ehret,A.Debayl...

    2022

  12. [19]

    M. A. Gigosos, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.47, 343001 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Stambulchik and Y

    E. Stambulchik and Y. Maron, High Energy Density Phys.6, 9 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    H.R.Griem, Spectral Line Broadening by Plasmas (Academic, New York, 1974)

    1974

  15. [23]

    C. A. Iglesias, High Energy Density Phys.6, 318 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    R.C.Mancini,C.A.Iglesias,S.Ferri,A.Calisti,andR.Florido, High Energy Density Phys.9, 731 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    M. A. Gigosos, S. Djurović, I. Savić, D. González-Herrero, Z. Mijatović, and R. Kobilarov, Astron. Astrophys.561, A135 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Stambulchik and Y

    E. Stambulchik and Y. Maron, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer99, 730 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    R.StammandD.Voslamber,J.Quant.Spectrosc.Radiat.Trans- fer22, 599 (1979)

    1979

  20. [28]

    Gigosos, D

    M. Gigosos, D. González-Herrero, N. Lara, R. Florido, A. Cal- isti, S. Ferri, and B. Talin, Phys. Rev. E98, 033307 (2018). 9

    2018

  21. [29]

    González-Herrero, G

    D. González-Herrero, G. Pérez-Callejo, R. Florido, and M.A.Gigosos,arXiv 2502.04808,10.48550/arXiv.2502.04808 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. A. Gigosos, R. C. Mancini, J. M. Martín-González, and R. Florido, Atoms9, 9 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Stambulchik, S

    E. Stambulchik, S. Alexiou, H. R. Griem, and P. C. Kepple, Phys. Rev. E75, 016401 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Rosato, Y

    J. Rosato, Y. Marandet, and R. Stamm, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer249, 107002 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    T. A. Gomez, T. Nagayama, P. B. Cho, M. C. Zammit, C. J. Fontes, D.P.Kilcrease, I.Bray, I.Hubeny, B.H.Dunlap, M.H. Montgomery, and D. E. Winget, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 235001 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Stambulchik and C

    E. Stambulchik and C. A. Iglesias, Phys. Rev. E105, 055210 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    T. A. Gomez, M. C. Zammit, I. Bray, C. J. Fontes, and J. R. White, Astrophys. J.963, 62 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    M. A. Gigosos, M. Á. González, and V. Cardeñoso, Spec- trochim. Acta Part B58, 1489 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Florido, R

    R. Florido, R. Rodríguez, J. Gil, J. Rubiano, P. Martel, E. Mínguez, and R. Mancini, Phys. Rev. E80, 056402 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    D.B.Boercker,C.A.Iglesias,andJ.W.Dufty,PhysicalReview A36, 2254 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    L.WoltzandC.HooperJr,PhysicalReviewA 38,4766(1988)

    1988

  32. [40]

    R.Mancini,D.Kilcrease,L.Woltz,andC.HooperJr,Computer Physics Communications63, 314 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    J.J.MacFarlane,I.E.Golovkin,P.R.Woodruff,S.K.Kulkarni, andI.M.Hall,in 2013 Abstracts IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science (ICOPS) (2013) pp. 1–1

    2013

  34. [42]

    H. R. Griem, Comments on At. and Mol. Phys.4, 75 (1973)

    1973

  35. [43]

    J. D. Hey and H. R. Griem, Phys. Rev. A12, 169 (1975)

    1975

  36. [44]

    Voslamber, Phys

    D. Voslamber, Phys. Rev. A14, 1903 (1976)

    1903

  37. [45]

    H. R. Griem and J. D. Hey, Phys. Rev. A14, 1906 (1976)

    1906

  38. [46]

    E.Galtier,F.B.Rosmej,A.Calisti,B.Talin,C.Mossé,S.Ferri, and V. S. Lisitsa, Phys. Rev. A87, 033424 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    T. A. Gomez, E. Stambulchik, and J. White, Phys. Rev. A109, 052804 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Pérez-Callejo, E

    G. Pérez-Callejo, E. Stambulchik, R. Florido, and M. A. Gigosos, Krypton He-β complex Stark broadened line pro- filesfromCSMsinICF-relevantconditions,DatasetonZenodo (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    6th Spectral Line Shapes in Plasmas Code Comparison Work- shop, https://plasma-gate.weizmann.ac.il/slsp/slsp6 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.