Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Ab initio calculations of the electronic structure of Ac$^+$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper predicts the hyperfine constants of six excited states of the actinium ion and shows that two laser excitation schemes can resolve them, giving experimental access to actinium nuclear moments.

desk verdict Useful Ac+ LRC predictions, but the HFS accuracy claim overreaches and a qzz sign conflict with MCDHF needs to be resolved before experiments rely on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.06528 v2 pith:P7KO5UZ4 submitted 2026-02-06 physics.atom-ph

Genevieve Geehan , Marten Luit Reitsma , Johan David Polet , Mustapha Laatiaoui , Julian Berengut , Anastasia Borschevsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords actiniumionhyperfinestructurelaserresonancechromatographyFock-spacecoupledclusterconfigurationinteractionmany-bodyperturbationtheorynuclearmomentsrelativisticatomic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to provide the theoretical support needed for laser resonance chromatography (LRC) experiments on the actinium ion, Ac+. It calculates the energies, lifetimes, and hyperfine structure parameters of six low-lying excited states using two complementary high-accuracy relativistic methods. The computed transition energies agree with experimental values to about 5%, and the authors argue that the predicted hyperfine parameters are correspondingly accurate. If correct, these predictions enable two concrete optical pumping schemes that could resolve hyperfine peaks and extract nuclear spins and moments of short-lived actinium isotopes.

What carries the argument

Two complementary relativistic many-body methods carry the argument: Fock-space coupled cluster (FSCC) and configuration interaction with many-body perturbation theory including Brueckner orbitals (CI+MBPT+Br). Hyperfine parameters are obtained with a finite-field approach, adding the magnetic dipole and electric field gradient operators to the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian and taking energy derivatives. The agreement between the two methods is used to assign uncertainties and to cross-validate the predictions.

What would settle it

Measure the hyperfine structure of the 6d7p1P1 transition in Ac+ by collinear laser spectroscopy or LRC and compare the extracted A0 and qzz with the predicted values (about -2189 to -2331 MHz for A0 and 206 to 283 MHz/b for qzz); a clear mismatch would falsify the accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports state-of-the-art relativistic calculations of the lowest excited states of Ac+ and identifies two effective laser excitation schemes for LRC. The computed transition energies match experiment to about 5%, lending confidence to the predicted magnetic dipole (A0) and electric quadrupole (qzz) hyperfine parameters for states where no measurement exists. These hyperfine constants are the link between measured hyperfine splittings and nuclear moments, so the calculations lay the groundwork for extracting nuclear properties from future LRC experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The hyperfine parameters are assumed to inherit the accuracy of the transition energies, but hyperfine constants depend on the wavefunction at the nucleus and on core-valence correlation, where the two methods differ by 12% or more.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the predicted A0 and qzz are accurate, LRC can resolve the hyperfine peaks of the 7s7p3P1 and 6d7p1P1 states, allowing extraction of magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments of actinium isotopes.
  • The two proposed optical pumping schemes (around 451 nm and 342 nm) should populating metastable 6d7s 3D states with over 98% efficiency after ten laser pulses, making the experiment feasible with scarce samples.
  • The calculated lifetimes show that the 6d7s3D1 level is metastable (about 1e5 s), long enough for drift-time detection in LRC, while the two odd states are short-lived and suitable for fast shelving.
  • The disagreement with a previous multiconfigurational Dirac-Hartree-Fock calculation for the 1P1 hyperfine parameters provides a clear target for experimental verification.
  • The methodological approach of using two complementary relativistic methods can be transferred to other heavy ions such as lawrencium or rutherfordium where LRC is planned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ~5% energy agreement does not automatically guarantee hyperfine accuracy, since hyperfine operators weight the wavefunction near the nucleus and core-valence correlation; the 12% and >20% method disagreements may better reflect the true uncertainty.
  • A direct measurement of the 6d7s3D1 lifetime would test the predicted M1 rate, where the paper differs from semi-empirical estimates by orders of magnitude—a low-cost indirect check of the same wavefunctions.
  • The two-method spread in A0 and qzz could be used to assign per-state error bars, which the paper does not fully develop but which would make the predictions more directly usable by experimenters.
  • The finite-field approach could naturally extend to isotope-shift predictions for Ac+ if nuclear field-shift and mass-shift operators were included, aiding future studies of nuclear charge radii.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports relativistic Fock-space coupled cluster (FSCC) and CI+MBPT with Brueckner orbitals (CI+MBPT+Br) calculations for six low-lying excited states of Ac+. It presents excitation energies, transition rates, lifetimes, and hyperfine structure parameters A0 and qzz, and proposes two laser resonance chromatography (LRC) excitation schemes. The calculated energies agree with experimental values to within about 5% for both methods. The two methods agree with each other for A0 to within 12% (largest for 6d2 3F2) but differ by more than 20% for qzz of the odd states. No uncertainty estimates are given. The central claim is that the energy agreement justifies expecting similar accuracy for the hyperfine parameters, which would allow these predictions to guide LRC experiments and extract nuclear moments.

Significance. If the hyperfine predictions are reliable, the paper fills an important gap: it provides electronic hyperfine parameters needed to extract nuclear magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments of Ac isotopes, and it gives concrete, testable LRC excitation schemes. Strengths include the use of two independent, state-of-the-art relativistic methods, the absence of parameters fitted to the target data, the use of experimental energies only as external benchmarks, and the explicit finite-field treatment of the hyperfine operators with basis-set checks in the appendix. However, the claimed transfer of accuracy from transition energies to hyperfine parameters is not established, no quantified uncertainties are provided despite the stated intention in the introduction, and one key qzz value has a sign disagreement with a published MCDHF calculation. The paper is therefore valuable but requires substantial revision before its main quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Table I and Table IV] The central inference — that agreement with experimental transition energies to ~5% implies a similar accuracy for hyperfine parameters — is not supported. The hyperfine operators in Eqs. (7) and (8) sample the wavefunction near the nucleus and are sensitive to core-valence correlation, whereas transition energies are dominated by different physics. The manuscript's own results show this: the two methods, which agree on energies to about 5%, differ by 12% for A0 (6d2 3F2) and by more than 20% for qzz of both odd states (e.g., 7s7p 3P1: FSCC −542 MHz/b, CI+MBPT+Br −424 MHz/b). Table IV contains no uncertainties, contrary to the promise in Section I that predictions would be 'accompanied by quantifiable uncertainties'. This is a load-bearing issue because the stated purpose is to guide LRC and extract nuclear moments; the inter-method spread sets a more realistic uncertainty than the energ
  2. [Section III.C, Table IV vs Ref. [24]] For the 6d7p 1P1 state, the MCDHF calculation used in Ref. [24] gives qzz = −173(17) MHz/b, while the present FSCC and CI+MBPT+Br values are +283 and +206 MHz/b. The text says this is 'somewhat lower', but this is not a minor numerical difference: the sign of the electric field gradient differs, which would change the sign of the extracted nuclear quadrupole moment Q through B = eQqzz. This state is also one of the two proposed LRC excitation schemes. The manuscript needs a serious discussion of this conflict, including possible sources of the sign difference (e.g., level mixing, core polarization, or method-specific approximations), before predictions for this state can be used for nuclear-moment extraction.
  3. [Section III.B, Table II] The calculated 6d7s 3D1 → 7s2 1S0 M1 rate is 4.35×10−6 s−1, eight orders of magnitude larger than the semi-empirical value 1.10×10−14 s−1 from Ref. [42]. The text dismisses this by saying the state is still long-lived, so the discrepancy does not affect the LRC scheme. However, this is an unexplained failure of the method for a forbidden transition involving a state that is central to the proposed optical pumping cycle. At minimum, the authors should explain the origin of the discrepancy (e.g., strong cancellation in the M1 matrix element) and state what this implies for the reliability of other small matrix elements. This discrepancy also undermines the general claim of 'high accuracy calculations' for all presented quantities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix Table VI] The v4z A0 value for 6d7s 1D2 is listed as −23887 MHz, which is inconsistent with the d-aug-v4z value of −2384 MHz and with the FSCC value in Table IV; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [References [15] and [41]] Both references refer to NIST atomic data compilations; using both numbering entries creates confusion. Consolidate into a single NIST reference.
  3. [Section III.C] The statement that one can expect to resolve 'all three hyperfine peaks' implicitly assumes a specific nuclear spin (e.g., 225Ac, I = 3/2). Please state the isotope and spin assumed, since the number of peaks depends on I.
  4. [Section III.C] The wording 'somewhat lower than the current predictions' for the MCDHF values is misleading; for qzz the sign differs, not just the magnitude. This should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section II.A] The notation 't-aug-aev4z' and 't-aug-vXz' is cumbersome; define the augmentation scheme and consider using a clearer label such as 'triple-augmented' to avoid confusion with the ae-core-correlating basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ab initio methods validated against external benchmarks; HFS parameters are independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The central outputs — excitation energies, lifetimes, and hyperfine structure parameters A0 and qzz — are computed by two independent many-body methods (FSCC and CI+MBPT+Br) with no fitted parameters. Experimental transition energies from the NIST database [41] are used only as external benchmarks; they do not enter the FSCC or CI+MBPT+Br Hamiltonians. The HFS parameters are obtained from expectation values of the magnetic-dipole and electric-field-gradient operators using the finite-field method, with no experimental hyperfine data used as input. The statement that agreement with experimental transition energies implies similar accuracy for HFS parameters is an inference, not a derivation: it is a legitimate correctness/uncertainty concern (the accuracy transfer is unvalidated, and the qzz sign conflict with MCDHF [24] is understated), but it is not circular, because the HFS values are not constructed from those energies or from the comparison. Lifetimes use experimental energies in the rate formula, but this is standard practice for decay-rate calculations and the lifetimes are still independent outputs tested against the semi-empirical values of Ref. [42]. Self-citations, e.g. [18] for basis-set convergence behavior, support methodological choices but are not load-bearing: the inner-core correction is computed directly in Table V, and no central prediction reduces to a self-cited result. The comparison with MCDHF [24] is external and, if anything, exposes disagreement rather than enforcing agreement. No step in the paper equates an output to an input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the target data. The predictions are ab initio, but rest on standard assumptions about the Hamiltonian, the valence-core separation, basis-set extrapolation, and the use of finite-field perturbation theory.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian with finite nuclear size and Breit/QED corrections adequately describes Ac+.
    Used as the starting point in Eqs (1)-(2); the authors note finite nuclear model choice has negligible effect, but QED treatment is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Ac+ can be treated as two valence electrons outside a closed-shell Ac3+ core, with core-valence correlations included to second order (CI+MBPT) or via coupled cluster (FSCC).
    Central to both methods; if core-valence correlations are insufficient, the HFS predictions would be wrong.
  • domain assumption The complete-basis-set extrapolation E_corr = E_CBS + A/N^3 (Martin's scheme) is valid for these calculations.
    Used for FSCC energies; systematic errors in extrapolation affect transition energies.
  • standard math The finite-field method with Hellman-Feynman theorem yields accurate hyperfine structure expectation values.
    Used in Eq (9); standard but relies on linear response regime with chosen lambda values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab initio calculations of the electronic structure of Ac$^+$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7KO5UZ4

@misc{pith2026260206528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab initio calculations of the electronic structure of Ac$^+$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7KO5UZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.06528}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate spectroscopic investigations of the heaviest elements are inherently challenging, due to their short lifetimes and low production yields. Success of such measurements requires both dedicated experimental techniques and strong theoretical support. Laser resonance chromatography (LRC) is a promising approach for heavy ion spectroscopy, in particularly for metals with low vapour pressure, such as actinium. We have employed the state-of-the-art relativistic Fock space coupled cluster approach as well as the configuration interaction with many-body perturbation theory method to calculate the energy levels, the transition amplitudes, the branching ratios, and the hyperfine structure parameters of the lowest excited states in Ac+. Knowledge of these properties is required for the design of experiments. Our calculations are in close agreement with experimental transition energies, leading us to expect a similar level of accuracy for the calculated hyperfine structure parameters. Based on these predictions, two possible experimental schemes are proposed for the planned LRC measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06528 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Level scheme for the lowest levels in Ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    R. Li, A. Teigelhöfer, J. Li, J. Bieroń, A. Gácsbaranyi, J. Johnson, P. Jönsson, V. Karner, M. Ma, M. Radulov, M. Roman, M. Stachura, and J. Lassen, Collinear laser spectroscopy on neutron-rich actinium isotopes, Phys. Rev. C111, 054320 (2025)

    2025

  2. [42]

    Kramida, Update of atomic data for the first three spectra of actinium, Atoms10, 10.3390/atoms10020042 (2022)

    A. Kramida, Update of atomic data for the first three spectra of actinium, Atoms10, 10.3390/atoms10020042 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/atoms10020042 2022

  3. [1]

    Campbell, I

    P. Campbell, I. Moore, and M. Pearson, Laser spec- troscopy for nuclear structure physics, Progress in Parti- cle and Nuclear Physics86, 127 (2016)

    2016

  4. [2]

    Block, M

    M. Block, M. Laatiaoui, and S. Raeder, Recent progress in laser spectroscopy of the actinides, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics116, 103834 (2021)

    2021

  5. [3]

    X. Yang, S. Wang, S. Wilkins, and R. G. Ruiz, Laser spectroscopy for the study of exotic nuclei, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics129, 104005 (2023)

    2023

  6. [4]

    Trubert and C

    D. Trubert and C. Le Naour, Fundamental aspects of single atom chemistry, inThe Chemistry of Superheavy Elements, edited by M. Schädel (Springer US, Boston, MA, 2003) pp. 95–116

    2003

  7. [5]

    Laatiaoui, W

    M. Laatiaoui, W. Lauth, H. Backe, M. Block, D. Ack- ermann, B. Cheal, P. Chhetri, C. E. Düllmann, P. van Duppen, J. Even, R. Ferrer, F. Giacoppo, S. Götz, F. P. Heßberger, M. Huyse, O. Kaleja, J. Khuyagbaatar, P. Kunz, F. Lautenschläger, A. K. Mistry, S. Raeder, E. M. Ramirez, T. Walther, C. Wraith, and A. Yakushev, Atom-at-a-time laser resonance ionizati...

    2016

  8. [6]

    Chhetri, D

    P. Chhetri, D. Ackermann, H. Backe, M. Block, B. Cheal, C. Droese, C. E. Düllmann, J. Even, R. Ferrer, F. Gia- coppo, S. Götz, F. P. Heßberger, M. Huyse, O. Kaleja, J. Khuyagbaatar, P. Kunz, M. Laatiaoui, F. Laut- enschläger, W. Lauth, N. Lecesne, L. Lens, E. Mi- naya Ramirez, A. K. Mistry, S. Raeder, P. Van Duppen, T. Walther, A. Yakushev, and Z. Zhang, ...

    2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [7]

    Raeder, D

    S. Raeder, D. Ackermann, H. Backe, R. Beerwerth, J. C. Berengut, M. Block, A. Borschevsky, B. Cheal, P. Chhetri, C. E. Düllmann, V. A. Dzuba, E. Eliav, J. Even, R. Ferrer, V. V. Flambaum, S. Fritzsche, F. Gi- acoppo, S. Götz, F. P. Heßberger, M. Huyse, U. Kaldor, O. Kaleja, J....

    2018

  2. [8]

    Murböck, S

    T. Murböck, S. Raeder, P. Chhetri, K. Diaz, M. Laa- tiaoui, F. Giacoppo, and M. Block, Filament studies for laser spectroscopy on lawrencium, Hyperfine Interactions 241, 1 (2020)

    2020

  3. [9]

    E. V. Kahl, S. Raeder, E. Eliav, A. Borschevsky, and J. C. Berengut, Ab initio calculations of the spectrum of lawrencium, Phys. Rev. A104, 052810 (2021)

    2021

  4. [10]

    J. S. Andrews, A. I. Bondarev, P. Jönsson, J. Grumer, S. Raeder, S. Fritzsche, and J. Bieroń, Ab initio multi- configurational calculations of experimentally significant energy levels and transition rates in Lr I (z= 103), Phys. Rev. A112, 062802 (2025)

    2025

  5. [11]

    Laatiaoui, A

    M. Laatiaoui, A. A. Buchachenko, and L. A. Viehland, Laser resonance chromatography of superheavy elements, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 023002 (2020)

    2020

  6. [12]

    E. Kim, B. Jana, A. Arya, M. Block, S. Raeder, H. Ra- manantoanina, E. Rickert, E. R. Romero, and M. Laa- tiaoui, Laser resonance chromatography: First commis- sioning results and future prospects, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Inter- acti...

    2024

  7. [13]

    Jajčišinová, K

    E. Jajčišinová, K. Dockx, M. Au, S. Bara, T. E. Cocolios, K. Chrysalidis, G. J. Farooq-Smith, D. V. Fedorov, V. N. Fedosseev, K. T. Flanagan, M. Heines, D. Houngbo, J. D. Johnson, A. Kellerbauer, S. Kraemer, B. A. Marsh, L. Popescu, J. P. Ramos, S. Rothe, M. D. Seliverstov, S....

    2024

  8. [14]

    Raeder, B

    S. Raeder, B. Anđelić, J. Auler, M. Block, P. Chauveau, P. Chhetri, A. Claessens, A. de Roubin, C. E. Düllmann, R. Ferrer, F. Giacoppo, M. J. Gutiérrez, F.-P. Heßberger, F. Ivandikov, M. Kaja, O. Kaleja, T. Kieck, E. Kim, S. Kraemer, M. Laatiaoui, J. Lantis, N. Lecesne, I. D. ...

    2023

  9. [15]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.12), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [Sat Jan 31 2026]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2026)

    2026

  10. [16]

    W. F. Meggers, M. Fred, and F. S. Tomkins, Emission spectra of actinium, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stan58, 297 (1957)

    1957

  11. [17]

    Visscher, E

    L. Visscher, E. Eliav, and U. Kaldor, Formulation and implementation of the relativistic Fock-space coupled cluster method for molecules, The Journal of Chemical Physics115, 9720 (2001)

    2001

  12. [18]

    L. F. Pašteka, E. Eliav, M. L. Reitsma, and A. Borschevsky, Relativistic atomic structure calcula- tionsinsupportofspectroscopy(2025),arXiv:2508.12751 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025

  13. [19]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and M. G. Kozlov, Com- bination of the many-body perturbation theory with the configuration-interaction method, Phys. Rev. A54, 3948 (1996)

    1996

  14. [20]

    E. V. Kahl and J. C. Berengut, AMBiT: A program for high-precision relativistic atomic structure calculations, Computer Physics Communications238, 232 (2019)

    2019

  15. [21]

    E. V. Kahl, J. C. Berengut, M. Laatiaoui, E. Eliav, and A. Borschevsky, High-precision ab initio calculations of the spectrum of Lr+, Phys. Rev. A100, 062505 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Bekker, A

    H. Bekker, A. Borschevsky, Z. Harman, C. Keitel, T. Pfeifer, P. Schmidt, J. Crespo López-Urrutia, and J. Berengut, Detection of the 5 p–4 f orbital crossing and its optical clock transition in Pr9+, Nature Commu- nications10, 5651 (2019)

    2019

  17. [23]

    F. P. Gustafsson, C. M. Ricketts, M. L. Reitsma, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, S. W. Bai, J. C. Berengut, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, A. Borschevsky, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, R.P.deGroote, K.T.Flanagan, A.Koszorús, G.Neyens, H. A. Perrett, A. R. Vernon, Q. Wang, S. G. Wilkins, an...

    2020

  18. [25]

    Verstraelen, A

    E. Verstraelen, A. Teigelhöfer, W. Ryssens, F. Ames, A. Barzakh, M. Bender, R. Ferrer, S. Goriely, P.-H. Hee- nen, M. Huyse, P. Kunz, J. Lassen, V. Manea, S. Raeder, and P. Van Duppen, Search for octupole-deformed ac- tinium isotopes using resonance ionization spectroscopy, Ph...

    2019

  19. [26]

    Viss- cher, H

    DIRAC, a relativistic ab initio electronic structure pro- gram, Release DIRAC24 (2024), written by L. Viss- cher, H. J. Aa. Jensen, R. Bast, A. S. P. Gomes and T. Saue, with contributions from I. A. Aucar, V. Bakken, J. Brandejs, C. Chibueze, J. Creutzberg, K. G. Dyall, S. Dub...

    2024

  20. [27]

    Sucher, Foundations of the relativistic theory of many- electron atoms, Phys

    J. Sucher, Foundations of the relativistic theory of many- electron atoms, Phys. Rev. A22, 348 (1980)

    1980

  21. [28]

    Visscher and K

    L. Visscher and K. G. Dyall, Dirac–fock atomic electronic structure calculations using different nuclear charge dis- tributions, At. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.67, 207 (1997)

    1997

  22. [29]

    Eliav, M

    E. Eliav, M. J. Vilkas, Y. Ishikawa, and U. Kaldor, Ex- trapolated intermediate hamiltonian coupled-cluster ap- proach: Theory and pilot application to electron affini- ties of alkali atoms, Journal of Chemical Physics122, 10.1063/1.1929727 (2005)

    2005 doi

  23. [30]

    K. G. Dyall, Relativistic double-zeta, triple-zeta, and quadruple-zeta basis sets for the actinides ac-lr, Theo- retical Chemistry Accounts117, 491 (2007)

    2007

  24. [31]

    J. M. Martin, Ab initio total atomization energies of small molecules — towards the basis set limit, Chemi- cal Physics Letters259, 669 (1996)

    1996

  25. [32]

    Kanellakopoulos, X

    A. Kanellakopoulos, X. F. Yang, M. L. Bissell, M. L. Re- itsma, S. W. Bai, J. Billowes, K. Blaum, A. Borschevsky, B. Cheal, C. S. Devlin, R. F. G. Ruiz, H. Heylen, S. Kauf- mann, K. König, Koszor, S. Lechner, S. Malbrunot- Ettenauer, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Nörtersh+ñuser, T...

    2020

  26. [33]

    P. A. B. Haase, E. Eliav, M. Iliaš, and A. Borschevsky, Hyperfine structure constants on the relativistic cou- pled cluster level with associated uncertainties, J. Phys. Chem. A124, 39 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    H.D.CohenandC.C.J.Roothaan,Electricdipolepolar- izability of atoms by the Hartree—Fock method. i. theory for closed-shell systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics 43, S34 (1965)

    1965

  28. [35]

    J. A. Pople, J. W. McIver, and N. S. Ostlund, Self- consistent perturbation theory. i. finite perturbation methods, The Journal of Chemical Physics49, 2960 (1968)

    1968

  29. [36]

    H. J. Monkhorst, Calculation of properties with the coupled-cluster method, International Journal of Quan- tum Chemistry12, 421 (2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Radiative potential and calculations of qed radiative corrections to energy levels and electromagnetic amplitudes in many-electron atoms, Phys. Rev. A72, 052115 (2005)

    2005

  31. [38]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, Atomic many-body effects and lamb shifts in alkali metals, Phys. Rev. A93, 052509 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, P. G. Silvestrov, and O. P. Sushkov, Relativistic many-body calculations in atoms and parity violation in caesium, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.18, 597 (1985)

    1985

  33. [40]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, P. G. Silvestrov, and O. Sushkov, Correlation potential method for the calcu- lation of energy levels, hyperfine structure and E1 transi- tion amplitudes in atoms with one unpaired electron, J. Phys. B: Atom. Mol. Phys.20, 1399 (1987)

    1987

  34. [41]

    Sansonetti, W.C

    J.E. Sansonetti, W.C. Martin, and S.L. Young (2005), Handbook of Basic Atomic Spectro- scopic Data (version 1.1.3). [Online] Available: http://physics.nist.gov/Handbook [2023, Nov 23]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2005

  35. [43]

    Visentin, H

    G. Visentin, H. Ramanantoanina, A. Borschevsky, L. Viehland, B. Jana, A. Arya, S. Fritzsche, and M. Laa- tiaoui,Transport-propertypredictionsforlaserresonance chromatography on Rf+(Z= 104), Physical Review A 110, 012805 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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