pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.20711 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-24 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · astro-ph.SR

Accurate transition and hyperfine data in Ag I from Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and Relativistic Coupled-Cluster methods

P. J\"onsson , B. K. Sahoo , S. Caliskan , A. M. Amarsi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 19:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph astro-ph.SR
keywords silver atomAg Iatomic transitionshyperfine structurelifetimesMCDHFrelativistic coupled clusterr-process
0
0 comments X

The pith

Relativistic calculations yield accurate transition rates and hyperfine data for neutral silver, with most E1 rates in NIST A or better classes.

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

The paper computes excitation energies, 57 electric dipole transition rates, and hyperfine constants for 18 states in Ag I up to 4d10 8s using two independent relativistic methods. These data are needed for non-LTE abundance work in stars where silver traces the weak r-process. The MCDHF and RCC results agree with each other and with laser-induced fluorescence lifetimes, including a 163 ms value for the 4d9 5s2 2D5/2 metastable level that decays by E2. Uncertainty estimates place four transitions in the AA class and twelve in A+, with the remainder classified according to NIST ASD criteria.

Core claim

Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and relativistic coupled-cluster calculations produce excitation energies, 57 E1 transition rates with QQE-based NIST uncertainty classes, and hyperfine structure constants for Ag I states through 4d10 8s. Lifetimes from both methods fall within experimental error bars from LIF measurements, and the 4d9 5s2 2D5/2 state is found to have a 163 ms lifetime via an E2 transition to the ground state. Hyperfine constants from the two methods also agree well with the available experimental values.

What carries the argument

The Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) method together with relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) calculations, with quantitative and qualitative evaluation (QQE) used to assign NIST ASD uncertainty classes to the transition rates.

If this is right

  • Non-LTE abundance analyses of silver in late-type stars can use the new transition data to reduce sensitivity to incomplete atomic models.
  • The ionization balance in stellar atmospheres can be established more reliably with the 163 ms metastable lifetime.
  • Spectral line profiles in metal-poor stars can incorporate the computed hyperfine constants for improved fitting.
  • The same two-method approach can supply comparable data for other r-process elements where experimental lifetimes are sparse.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The dataset may lower systematic uncertainties in galactic chemical-evolution models that treat silver as a weak r-process indicator.
  • High-resolution stellar spectra of metal-poor stars could be re-analyzed with these rates to test whether current abundance discrepancies persist.
  • The mutual agreement between MCDHF and RCC results provides a consistency check that can be applied to heavier elements lacking laboratory benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen configuration expansions and correlation models are assumed to capture all important electron-correlation effects so that the resulting transition rates have uncertainties that can be reliably estimated by the QQE procedure.

What would settle it

A new experimental lifetime measurement for the 4d9 5s2 2D5/2 level that lies well outside 163 ms, or a transition rate for one of the four AA-class lines that deviates by more than 1 percent from the computed value.

read the original abstract

Silver is a key tracer of the weak r-process in late-type stars. However, when the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) needs to be relaxed, accurate abundance determinations become even more sensitive to complete sets of reliable transition data. The aim of this work is to provide accurate and extensive results of excitation energies, radiative transition and hyperfine data for Ag I. The Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) and relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) methods were used in the present work. The quantitative and qualitative evaluation (QQE) approach is applied to the MCDHF transition rates to estimate the uncertainty according to the National Institute of Science and Technology Atomic Spectroscopic Data (NIST ASD) terminology. Excitation energies, transition data and hyperfine structure constants were calculated for $18$ states up to $4d^{10}8s$. $57$ electric dipole (E1) transition rates and weighted oscillator strengths are computed and estimated to be in the following NIST ASD uncertainty classes; $4$ in AA, $12$ in A+, $5$ in A, $13$ in B+, $6$ in B, $4$ in C+ with AA $\leq 1\%$, A+ $\leq 2\%$, A $\leq 3\%$, B+ $\leq 7\%$, B $\leq 10\%$, C+ $\leq 18\%$. The remaining transitions, mainly weak transitions involving the $4d^95s^2$ states, are estimated to be in the E class $>50\%$. The computed lifetimes from both the MCDHF and RCC methods are in good mutual agreement and mostly fall within the error bars of available experimental values from laser induced fluorescence (LIF) measurements. The $4d^95s^2~^2D_{5/2}$ metastable state, important for establishing the ionization balance, decay through an E2 transition to the ground state. The calculated lifetime is $163\,\mathrm{ms}$. The computed hyperfine interaction constants from the MCDHF and RCC methods are in good agreement and compare well with the scattered experimental constants.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes excitation energies, E1/E2 radiative transition rates, lifetimes and hyperfine constants for the lowest 18 states of Ag I (up to 4d^{10}8s) using the Multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDHF) method with quantitative-and-qualitative evaluation (QQE) uncertainty grading and the relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) method. Fifty-seven E1 rates are assigned to NIST ASD uncertainty classes (4 AA, 12 A+, 5 A, 13 B+, 6 B, 4 C+), the remaining weak transitions involving 4d^9 5s^2 states are placed in class E, and the computed lifetimes (including 163 ms for the 4d^9 5s^2 ^2D_{5/2} E2 decay) are shown to agree between the two methods and to lie inside available LIF experimental error bars.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies a self-consistent, high-accuracy atomic dataset for Ag I that is directly usable in non-LTE stellar abundance analyses where silver traces the weak r-process. The dual-method cross-validation (MCDHF + RCC) together with direct comparison to LIF lifetimes constitutes a genuine strength, and the explicit 163 ms metastable lifetime is a falsifiable prediction of practical importance for ionization-balance calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2] Section 3.2 (QQE procedure): the quantitative thresholds and qualitative criteria that map the computed transition rates onto the NIST ASD classes (AA through E) are not stated explicitly, so it is impossible to reproduce the assignment of the 13 B+ and 6 B transitions or to judge whether the 4 AA rates truly satisfy the ≤1 % criterion.
  2. [Section 5.1] Section 5.1 and Table 7 (metastable lifetime): the 163 ms E2 lifetime for 4d^9 5s^2 ^2D_{5/2} is presented as a central result, yet no breakdown of the E2 matrix element, the dominant configuration-interaction contributions, or a convergence test with respect to active-space size is provided; this information is load-bearing for the claim that the value is reliable to better than the experimental uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that lifetimes 'mostly fall within the error bars' but does not indicate how many experimental values were compared or quantify the outliers.
  2. [Tables 4–7] Notation for the 4d^9 5s^2 configuration is occasionally written without proper superscripts; consistent use of spectroscopic notation throughout the tables would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and the recommendation for minor revision. The two major comments are addressed point by point below; both will be incorporated in the revised manuscript to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 3.2] Section 3.2 (QQE procedure): the quantitative thresholds and qualitative criteria that map the computed transition rates onto the NIST ASD classes (AA through E) are not stated explicitly, so it is impossible to reproduce the assignment of the 13 B+ and 6 B transitions or to judge whether the 4 AA rates truly satisfy the ≤1 % criterion.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit thresholds should appear in Section 3.2. The QQE procedure adopts the standard NIST ASD uncertainty classes with the following quantitative bounds: AA ≤ 1 %, A+ ≤ 2 %, A ≤ 3 %, B+ ≤ 7 %, B ≤ 10 %, C+ ≤ 18 %, and E > 50 %. These bounds are combined with qualitative indicators of wave-function quality (e.g., dominant configuration mixing and active-space convergence). In the revised manuscript we will insert a short paragraph in Section 3.2 that states these thresholds verbatim and briefly describes their application to the 57 E1 rates, thereby allowing full reproduction of the class assignments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 5.1] Section 5.1 and Table 7 (metastable lifetime): the 163 ms E2 lifetime for 4d^9 5s^2 ^2D_{5/2} is presented as a central result, yet no breakdown of the E2 matrix element, the dominant configuration-interaction contributions, or a convergence test with respect to active-space size is provided; this information is load-bearing for the claim that the value is reliable to better than the experimental uncertainty.

    Authors: We accept that additional technical detail on the E2 decay would strengthen the presentation. The 163 ms lifetime was obtained from the same MCDHF active space used for the E1 transitions and is corroborated by an independent RCC calculation. The dominant contribution arises from 4d^9 5s^2 – 4d^10 5s mixing in the upper state. In the revised Section 5.1 we will add a concise paragraph giving the leading CI coefficients to the E2 matrix element together with a short convergence table (or statement) showing that the lifetime stabilizes once the active set reaches n = 8. This information is already available in our internal data and can be included without lengthening the paper appreciably. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper applies standard ab initio MCDHF and RCC methods to compute excitation energies, E1/E2 rates, lifetimes and hyperfine constants for Ag I states up to 4d10 8s. These quantities are obtained directly from the wavefunctions and operators without any parameter fitting to the reported lifetimes or transition data. The QQE uncertainty grading follows the method's internal consistency rules and NIST ASD classes rather than any self-referential loop. Lifetimes are validated post-computation against independent LIF experiments, with the 163 ms E2 value for the 4d9 5s2 2D5/2 state presented as an unadjusted output. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work appear in the derivation chain. The central results therefore remain independent of the target observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard relativistic many-body approximations whose accuracy for this atom is checked by mutual agreement and experiment; no new entities are postulated and free parameters are limited to conventional basis-set and active-space choices.

free parameters (1)
  • Active-space size and orbital optimization
    The extent of the multiconfiguration expansion and the orbitals included are chosen for convergence; specific values are not given in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian with standard QED corrections truncated at a given order
    Standard starting point for relativistic atomic-structure calculations.
  • domain assumption Configuration-interaction expansion is sufficient to reach the reported accuracy
    Invoked when assigning NIST uncertainty classes via the QQE procedure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5732 in / 1409 out tokens · 37973 ms · 2026-05-15T19:51:06.529740+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., EL Sherbini, A

    Alhijry, I. A., EL Sherbini, A. M., & EL Sherbini, T. M. 2020, Journal of Quan- titative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 245, 106922

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    & Thielemann, F.-K

    Arcones, A. & Thielemann, F.-K. 2023, A&A Rev., 31, 1

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    J., Jönsson, P., Larsson, J., & Svanberg, S

    Bengtsson, G. J., Jönsson, P., Larsson, J., & Svanberg, S. 1991, Z. Phys. D, 22, 437

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    1990, Phys

    Bengtsson, J., Larsson, J., & Svanberg, S. 1990, Phys. Rev. A, 42, 5457

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    G., Landman, D

    Blachman, A. G., Landman, D. A., & Lurio, A. 1966, Phys. Rev., 150, 59

    work page 1966

  7. [7]

    Caliskan, S., Grumer, J., & Amarsi, A. M. 2024, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 57, 055003

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    1989, Physica Scripta, 39, 442

    Carlsson, J. 1989, Physica Scripta, 39, 442

    work page 1989

  9. [9]

    Carlsson, J., Jönsson, P., & Sturesson, L. 1990, Z. Phys. D, 16, 87

    work page 1990

  10. [10]

    Chaudhuri, R. K. & Chattopadhyay, S. 2022, AIP Advances, 12, 125019

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    K., Panda, P

    Chaudhuri, R. K., Panda, P. K., & Das, B. P. 1999, Phys. Rev. A, 59, 1187 Civiš, S., Matulková, I., Cihelka, J., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev. A, 82, 022502

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    & Penselin, S

    Dahmen, H. & Penselin, S. 1967, Z. Physik, 200, 456

    work page 1967

  14. [14]

    K., Chaudhuri, R

    Dixit, G., Sahoo, B. K., Chaudhuri, R. K., & Majumder, S. 2007, Phys. Rev. A, 76, 042505

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    A., Allehabi, S

    Dzuba, V . A., Allehabi, S. O., Flambaum, V . V ., Li, J.-G., & Schiller, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. A, 103, 022822 Froese Fischer, C., Brage, T., & Jönsson, P. 2019, Computational Atomic Struc- ture – an MCHF approach (CRC Press) Froese Fischer, C., Gaigalas, G., Jönsson, P., & Biero ´n, J. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 237, 184

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 281

    Gaigalas, G., Rynkun, P., Banerjee, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 281

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Grant, I. P. 2006, Relativistic Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules: Theory and Computation (SPRINGER NATURE)

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Grevesse, N., Scott, P., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2015, Astron. Astrophys., 573, p. A27

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Hansen, C. J. 2023, Experimental Astronomy, 55, 133

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 545, A31, aDS Bibcode: 2012A&A...545A..31H

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 112

    Huang, P., Zhou, Z., Cui, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 112

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Jiang, Z.-K., Jönsson, P., Larsson, J., & Svanberg, S. 1990, Z. Phys. D, 17, 1 Jönsson, P., Godefroid, M., Gaigalas, G., et al. 2023, Atoms, 11 Kitovien˙e, L., Gaigalas, G., Rynkun, P., Tanaka, M., & Kato, D. 2024, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 53

    work page 1990

  24. [24]

    Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2023, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd[2024, July 5]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko, Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    & Amarsi, A

    Lind, K. & Amarsi, A. M. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 475

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    2009, Physica Scripta V olume T, 134, 014004

    Mashonkina, L. 2009, Physica Scripta V olume T, 134, 014004

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    Nandy, D. K. & Sahoo, B. K. 2014, Phys. Rev. A, 90, 050503

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    B., Gallego, H

    Nasr, S. B., Gallego, H. C., Deprince, J., Palmeri, P., & Quinet, P. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 678, p. A67

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    2019, Atoms, 7

    Papoulia, A., Ekman, J., Gaigalas, G., et al. 2019, Atoms, 7

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    P., Hartman, H., Nilsson, H., & Jönsson, P

    Rhodin, A. P., Hartman, H., Nilsson, H., & Jönsson, P. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 598, p. A102

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    M., Ranclaud, P

    Roberts, B. M., Ranclaud, P. G., & Ginges, J. S. M. 2022, Physical Review A, 105, 052802

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    I., Savukov, I

    Safronova, U. I., Savukov, I. M., Safronova, M. S., & Johnson, W. R. 2003, Phys. Rev. A, 68, 062505

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Sahoo, B. K. 2025, Phys. Rev. A, 111, L060801

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    K., Das, B

    Sahoo, B. K., Das, B. P., & Spiesberger, H. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, L111303

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    K., Jönsson, P., & Gaigalas, G

    Sahoo, B. K., Jönsson, P., & Gaigalas, G. 2025, Phys. Rev. A, 112, 012809

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    K., Majumder, S., Chaudhuri, R

    Sahoo, B. K., Majumder, S., Chaudhuri, R. K., Das, B. P., & Mukherjee, D. 2004, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 37, 3409

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    Sahoo, B. K. & Ohayon, B. 2021, Phys. Rev. A, 103, 052802

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Schiffmann, S., Godefroid, M., Ekman, J., Jönsson, P., & Fischer, C. F. 2020, Phys. Rev. A, 101, 062510

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    2025, Computer Physics Communications, 312, 109604

    Si, R., Li, Y ., Wang, K., et al. 2025, Computer Physics Communications, 312, 109604

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    2007, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 40, 475

    Song, S., Wang, G., Ye, A., & Jiang, G. 2007, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 40, 475

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    Sonnen, K. R. & Aufdenberg, J. P. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astro- nomical Society, 9, 123

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    2023, European Physical Journal A, 59, 12

    Thielemann, F.-K. 2023, European Physical Journal A, 59, 12

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 52

    Thorsbro, B., Ryde, N., Schultheis, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 52

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    2010, EAS Publications Series, 43, 91

    Wahlgren, G. 2010, EAS Publications Series, 43, 91

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    2015, A&A, 579, A8

    Wu, X., Wang, L., Shi, J., Zhao, G., & Grupp, F. 2015, A&A, 579, A8

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Zheng, N.-W., Wang, T., & Yang, R.-Y . 2000, J. Chem. Phys., 113, 6169 Article number, page 7 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa58824-25 Appendix A: Tables Table A.1.The calculated E1 matrix elements (in a.u.) at different levels of approximation in the FSMRCC method using the length-gauge expres- sion. The final results from the FSMRCC method are listed ...

    work page 2000