Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Wichmann-Kroll Correction to the Interelectronic Interaction in He- and Li-Like Ions

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Improved all-order Wichmann-Kroll values for interelectronic interaction in He- and Li-like ions.

desk verdict Solid He-like values and a useful method; Li-like numbers rest on a private communication and an unbenchmarked tail extrapolation—needs referee scrutiny, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.12168 v2 pith:5KZVNVJ2 submitted 2026-07-13 physics.atom-ph

J. Sommerfeldt , V. A. Yerokhin , Z. Harman , C. H. Keitel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords Wichmann-KrollvacuumpolarizationinterelectronicinteractionhighlychargedionsLambshiftbound-stateQEDfinitenuclearsizeDirac-CoulombGreenfunction
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

This paper tries to pin down the higher-order vacuum-polarization (Wichmann-Kroll) contribution to the interelectronic interaction in helium-like and lithium-like highly charged ions—the diagram in which a virtual electron-positron loop is inserted into the exchanged photon. It develops a subtraction of spurious, non-gauge-invariant pieces inside the integrand, which accelerates numerical convergence by roughly two orders of magnitude, and then computes the correction for Z = 20–100 with uncertainties several orders smaller than previous values. The He-like results agree with the earlier calculation, while the Li-like results disagree with it and are instead checked against an unpublished independent calculation. The paper also computes the finite-nuclear-size correction, which reduces the effect by more than 5% for heavy ions. If correct, these numbers replace the earlier references for the interelectronic Wichmann-Kroll contribution and tighten Lamb-shift predictions in strong-field QED tests.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Wichmann-Kroll loop in the photon line, expressed through two Dirac-Coulomb Green's functions in the nuclear field, expanded in multipoles κ,κ′ and photon partial waves. The load-bearing mechanism is the subtraction scheme: replacing the two bound propagators by a second-derivative expression with free propagators and the Coulomb potential removes non-gauge-invariant spurious terms that vanish after integration, shortening the integrand's tail and accelerating energy/radial integration by about two orders of magnitude. The multipole tail is handled by polynomial extrapolation in inverse powers of |κ| beyond κ,κ′ = ±16; a Wick rotation to the imaginary axis and Gauß

What would settle it

Recompute the correction with the multipole truncation raised to κ,κ′ = ±32 (or with a different subtraction/regularization) and compare the extrapolated tail contribution to the quoted uncertainty; a deviation larger than the stated error would falsify the precision claim. For the Li-like discrepancy, an independently published recalculation that resolves the two-body values would settle which set of numbers is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: all-order-in-αZ numerical values for E^(2+)_eVPe, the Wichmann-Kroll correction to the one-photon-exchange interelectronic interaction, for the He-like ground state and the 2s1/2, 2p1/2, 2p3/2 states of Li-like ions. Using the Dirac-Coulomb Green's function, the authors compute point-nucleus values plus a finite-nuclear-size difference, find a sign change near Z≈74 in the He-like ground state, and report a finite-size correction exceeding 5% for heavy ions. He-like values agree with the earlier calculation; Li-like values disagree and are supported by a private independent calculation. The subtraction method transfers, the authors argue, to the two-loop self-energy-vacuum-pola

Load-bearing premise

The several-orders-of-magnitude uncertainty reduction rests on a polynomial extrapolation of the multipole tail beyond κ,κ′=±16 that no independent calculation has verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new He-like values supersede the earlier numbers for the interelectronic Wichmann-Kroll contribution, replacing their error bars with uncertainties several orders of magnitude smaller.
  • The Li-like values, if adopted, shift predicted transition energies in lithium-like ions by a few meV relative to the earlier calculation, which is relevant for x-ray and dielectronic-recombination measurements.
  • The finite-nuclear-size correction, up to and beyond 5% for heavy ions, must be included in any comparison of high-Z Lamb-shift theory with experiment.
  • The subtraction scheme provides a template for all-order calculations of the two-loop self-energy-vacuum-polarization diagram, currently a dominant theory uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the tail extrapolation would be to push the multipole series to κ,κ′ = ±32 or use a mixed-gauge subtraction; if the extrapolated tail shifts by more than the quoted uncertainty, the 'several orders of magnitude' claim would need revision.
  • If the Li-like discrepancy is due to an error in the old calculation, existing experimental data on high-Z lithium-like ions may already prefer the new values; reanalyzing those data with the new correction would be a check.
  • The same subtraction idea may accelerate other multi-loop bound-state QED diagrams where spurious gauge-dependent terms slow convergence, not just the SVPE diagram mentioned in the paper.
  • The sign change near Z≈74 in the He-like ground state is a nontrivial prediction of the all-order treatment that could serve as a sensitive fingerprint for the Wichmann-Kroll contribution at moderate Z.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an all-order-in-αZ calculation of the Wichmann–Kroll (higher-order vacuum-polarization) correction to the one-photon exchange interelectronic interaction in He- and Li-like ions, denoted E^(2+)_eVPe. The method uses the Dirac–Coulomb Green's function, an angular multipole expansion, and a subtraction of spurious non-gauge-invariant terms (Sec. II.C) to improve convergence of the radial and loop-energy integrations. Numerical results are reported for Z=20–100 for point nuclei and for finite nuclear size (Tables I and II). He-like results are in agreement with Artemyev et al. [30] with substantially smaller quoted uncertainties; Li-like results disagree with Artemyev et al. [31] but agree with an independent calculation communicated privately by A. Malyshev [47]. The finite-nuclear-size correction is found to exceed 5% for some heavy ions. The authors argue the method transfers to the two-loop self-energy–vacuum-polarization diagram.

Significance. If correct, this work materially improves the precision of a hard QED correction in few-electron high-Z ions, with direct relevance to ongoing Lamb-shift and g-factor experiments and to the all-order treatment of the two-loop SVPE diagram. The derivation is self-contained, the Uehling part is handled analytically, and the error budget is explicit: quadrature convergence, multipole truncation with polynomial tail extrapolation, and nuclear-model dependence. The He-like benchmark against Artemyev et al. [30] gives confidence in the low-multipole part. However, the two load-bearing pillars — the extrapolation beyond κ,κ′ = ±16 and the Li-like discrepancy — are not independently verified in the manuscript: the former is tested only by an internal consistency check, and the latter rests on a private communication. Both need to be strengthened before the claimed accuracy can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, multipole truncation] The claimed improvement of 'several orders of magnitude' over Refs. [30,31] rests entirely on the reliability of the tail estimate for the partial-wave expansion of the two Dirac-Coulomb propagators, truncated at κ,κ′ = ±16. The paper estimates the tail by fitting polynomials in inverse powers of |κ| and assigns an uncertainty by varying the cutoff by 25% and the polynomial degree. That is an internal consistency check, not a validation: it assumes the tail is a polynomial in 1/|κ| with no logarithmic or oscillatory contributions, and it cannot detect a systematic bias of that ansatz. The He-like agreement in Table I validates the low multipoles at the older, coarser precision; it does not test the tail at the new claimed precision. I ask the authors to provide an independent check for at least one or two high-Z cases — for example, recomputation with κmax = 24 and 32, or a comparison wi
  2. [Sec. IV, Li-like results] The Li-like values are a central deliverable of the paper, but the disagreement with Ref. [31] for uranium is left unresolved, and the only supporting evidence is a private communication from A. Malyshev [47] that the reader cannot inspect. This is load-bearing because the manuscript offers no other way to decide between Ref. [31] and the present calculation. I strongly recommend that the authors either (i) include the numerical data from [47] in a table or appendix, or arrange a citable, inspectable publication of that independent calculation; (ii) identify and resolve the source of the discrepancy with Ref. [31] (for example, the sign of ω, the angular reduction, or the summation over core magnetic substates); or (iii) clearly mark the Li-like results as provisional and reduce the stated accuracy. As written, the Li-like half of the paper cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table II, Z=92a row] The Ref. [31] values are quoted without their original uncertainties and without specifying whether they include finite nuclear size. Since the Li-like discrepancy is a key issue, the complete comparison with errors should be shown.
  2. [Eq. (21)] The ω-dependent Uehling expression is not the standard static form; please add a brief derivation or an explicit reference for the branch and prefactor conventions in the exponential.
  3. [Refs. [43,44]] FLINT is described as 'Fast Library for Number Theory'; the Whittaker-function evaluation likely uses Arb [44] or another special-functions package. Please verify the citations and state which software actually evaluates the special functions.
  4. [Sec. III / Fig. 3] The convergence criterion (50% more integration points changes the result by <1e-6) should be stated as applying after the spurious-term subtraction and for all Z and states; also clarify how the radial infinity cutoff is chosen.
  5. [Sec. IV, low-Z scaling] The asserted Z^6 scaling in the low-Z region is not quantified. A fit or an explicit leading-Z^6 formula would make the statement testable and more informative.
  6. [Eq. (18)] The notation E^(2+)_eVPe is used before it is defined; please define it explicitly at first use and state that it is the Wichmann–Kroll part after Uehling subtraction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Wichmann-Kroll correction is computed from first-principles bound-state QED expressions; no fitted parameter or self-citation is the source of the claimed values.

full rationale

The derivation of E^(2+)_eVPe starts from the standard bound-state QED amplitude Eqs. (1)-(15), evaluates Dirac-Coulomb Green's functions with multipole expansions, and subtracts only the standard analytic Uehling term (Eq. 21). No input quantity is defined in terms of the tabulated output energies; nuclear radii are taken from published tables [45] or the Johnson-Soff formula [46]. The partial-wave tail is estimated by fitting polynomials in inverse powers of |kappa| to the already computed partial-wave contributions, so the fit is constrained by the calculation itself rather than tuned to force the final values; this is an internal numerical extrapolation, not a fitted quantity masquerading as a prediction. The agreement with Ref. [30] in the He-like case is an external benchmark, and the Li-like discrepancy is resolved by an independent (though privately communicated) calculation [47], not by a self-citation. Self-citations such as [28], [36], and [41,42] are used for method details and comparisons and are not load-bearing reductions of the central result. The unbenchmarked tail extrapolation and the uninspectable private communication are legitimate reproducibility/correctness concerns, but they are not circularity: the paper exhibits no equation that reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

No free parameters are fitted to the target data: inputs are α, Z, and nuclear radii from published tables [45] or the standard Johnson–Soff formula [46]; the Uehling contribution is the known analytic term (Eq. 21). The tail-extrapolation assumption is the only paper-specific element worth flagging. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bound-state QED Feynman rules yield Eq. (2) for the two-electron vacuum-polarization exchange matrix element, with the sign ω = E_a − E_b fixed by the redefined-vacuum argument.
    Sec. II.A and Appendix A; standard framework of Ref. [33]; the sign convention was pointed out to the authors by Malyshev [47] and verified via the three-electron two-photon connection.
  • standard math Spectral representation of the Dirac-Coulomb Green's function: sum over bound states plus integrals over positive and negative continua (Eqs. 5-7).
    Sec. II.A; foundational bound-state QED; closed Whittaker-function forms for the point-Coulomb case [34].
  • domain assumption Wick rotation of the loop-energy integral along the imaginary axis is legitimate for this diagram.
    Sec. III; standard practice for this diagram class; no pole-rotation analysis is shown in the paper.
  • domain assumption The large-mass (M → ∞) derivation of Refs. [22,40] supplies the correct spurious-term subtraction (Eq. 22).
    Sec. II.C; the paper numerically confirms the subtracted terms integrate to zero per multipole, which checks consistency but not the independence of the final value from the subtraction procedure.
  • domain assumption Nuclear structure enters only through model charge distributions (spherical shell, uniform sphere, Fermi) with radii from Ref. [45] or the Johnson–Soff formula [46].
    Sec. III; the model spread is folded into the Fns uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper The multipole tail beyond κ,κ′ = ±16 can be estimated by polynomial fits in inverse powers of |κ|, with uncertainty from truncation-point variation.
    Sec. III; no external or closed-form benchmark validates this extrapolation; the claimed accuracy gain rests on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wichmann-Kroll Correction to the Interelectronic Interaction in He- and Li-Like Ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KZVNVJ2

@misc{pith2026260712168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wichmann-Kroll Correction to the Interelectronic Interaction in He- and Li-Like Ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KZVNVJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12168}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical study of the higher-order QED contribution to the interelectronic interaction in He- and Li-like ions, where a virtual electron-positron loop is inserted into the photon line of the one-photon exchange diagram. Our approach is based on the Dirac-Coulomb Green's function and accounts for the interaction of the virtual $e^+e^-$ pair with the electric field of the nucleus to all orders in $\alpha Z$, with $\alpha$ being the fine-structure constant and $Z$ the atomic charge number. We show that the numerical convergence of the involved integrals can be significantly improved by explicitly subtracting the non-gauge-invariant spurious contributions from the integrands. We present improved numerical values for this contribution to the Lamb shift over a wide range of nuclear charge numbers $Z$. Our calculations agree well with previous results by Artemyev and co-workers [Phys. Rev. A 56, 3529 (1997); Phys. Rev. A 60, 45 (1999)] for He-like ions, but we find a discrepancy in the Li-like case. Moreover, we calculate the finite nuclear size correction to this diagram, which can reduce its size by more than 5% for heavy ions. The improved QED calculations not only decrease the uncertainty of theoretical predictions for the interelectronic interaction in few-electron ions but the methods could also be used in the future to improve calculations of closely related one-electron two-loop QED diagrams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , where the double lines represent an electron or positron in the Coulomb field of the nucleus and the wavy lines denote virtual photons. This correction is relevant not only because it contributes to the two-electron QED part of the Lamb shift, but it is also closely related to the one-electron two-loop di￾agram, in which a virtual electron-positron loop is inserted into the photon line of the self-energy diagram (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Subtraction scheme used to eliminate the lowest-order and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Absolute value of the real part of the integrand of the loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Three-electron two-photon exchange Feynman diagrams cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references

  1. [30]

    A. N. Artemyev, V . M. Shabaev, and V . A. Yerokhin, Vacuum polarization screening corrections to the ground-state energy of two-electron ions, Phys. Rev. A56, 3529 (1997)

    1997

  2. [31]

    A. N. Artemyev, T. Beier, G. Plunien, V . M. Shabaev, G. Soff, and V . A. Yerokhin, Vacuum-polarization screening corrections to the energy levels of lithiumlike ions, Phys. Rev. A60, 45 (1999)

    1999

  3. [47]

    Malyshev, private communication

    A. Malyshev, private communication

  4. [1]

    P. Mohr, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, QED Corrections in Heavy Atoms, Phys. Rep.293, 227 (1998)

    1998

  5. [2]

    V . M. Shabaev, A. I. Bondarev, D. A. Glazov, M. Y . Kay- gorodov, Y . S. Kozhedub, I. A. Maltsev, A. V . Malyshev, R. V . Popov, I. I. Tupitsyn, and N. A. Zubova, Stringent tests of QED using highly charged ions, Hyperfine Interactions239, 60 (2018)

    2018

  6. [3]

    M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo L ´opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Highly charged ions: Optical clocks and ap- plications in fundamental physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045005 (2018)

    2018

  7. [4]

    Indelicato, Topical Review: QED tests with highly-charged ions, jpbAMOP52, 232001 (2019)

    P. Indelicato, Topical Review: QED tests with highly-charged ions, jpbAMOP52, 232001 (2019)

    2019

  8. [5]

    Brandau, C

    C. Brandau, C. Kozhuharov, A. M ¨uller, W. Shi, S. Schippers, T. Bartsch, S. B ¨ohm, C. B ¨ohme, A. Hoffknecht, H. Knopp, N. Gr¨un, W. Scheid, T. Steih, F. Bosch, B. Franzke, P. H. Mok- ler, F. Nolden, M. Steck, T. St ¨ohlker, and Z. Stachura, Pre- cise Determination of the2s 1/2−2p1/2 Splitting in Very Heavy Lithiumlike Ions Utilizing Dielectronic Recomb...

    2003

Show all 48 references
  1. [6]

    Gumberidze, T

    A. Gumberidze, T. St ¨ohlker, D. Bana ´s, K. Beckert, P. Beller, H. F. Beyer, F. Bosch, X. Cai, S. Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen, F. Nolden, X. Ma, P. H. Mokler, A. Or ˇsi´c-Muthig, M. Steck, D. Sierpowski, S. Tashenov, A. Warczak, and Y . Zou, Electron-Electron Interactio...

    2004

  2. [7]

    Beiersdorfer, H

    P. Beiersdorfer, H. Chen, D. B. Thorn, and E. Trabert, Mea- surement of the two-loop Lamb shift in lithiumlike U89+, Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005)

    2005

  3. [8]

    Bruhns, J

    H. Bruhns, J. Braun, K. Kubi ˇcek, J. R. Crespo L ´opez-Urrutia, and J. Ullrich, Testing QED Screening and Two-Loop Contri- butions with He-Like Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 113001 (2007)

    2007

  4. [9]

    Ullmann, Z

    J. Ullmann, Z. Andelkovic, C. Brandau, A. Dax, W. Geith- ner, C. Geppert, C. Gorges, M. Hammen, V . Hannen, S. Kauf- mann, K. K ¨onig, Y . A. Litvinov, M. Lochmann, B. Maaß, J. Meisner, T. Murb ¨ock, R. S ´anchez, M. Schmidt, S. Schmidt, M. Steck, T. St ¨ohlker, R. C. Thompson...

    2017

  5. [10]

    Blaum, S

    K. Blaum, S. Eliseev, and S. Sturm, Perspectives on testing fun- damental physics with highly charged ions in Penning traps, Quantum Science & Technology6, 014002 (2021)

    2021

  6. [11]

    Sailer, V

    T. Sailer, V . Debierre, Z. Harman, F. Heiße, C. K ¨onig, J. Morgner, B. Tu, A. V . V olotka, C. H. Keitel, K. Blaum, and S. Sturm, Measurement of the bound-electron g-factor differ- ence in coupled ions, Nature606, 479 (2022)

    2022

  7. [12]

    Loetzsch, H

    R. Loetzsch, H. F. Beyer, L. Duval, U. Spillmann, D. Bana ´s, P. Dergham, F. M. Kr¨oger, J. Glorius, R. E. Grisenti, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, R. Heß, P. M. Hillenbrand, P. Indelicato, P. Jagodzinski, E. Lamour, B. Lorentz, S. Litvinov, Y . A. 8 Litvinov, J. Machado, N. Paul, ...

    2024

  8. [13]

    Sapirstein, Theoretical methods for the relativistic atomic many-body problem, Rev

    J. Sapirstein, Theoretical methods for the relativistic atomic many-body problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 55 (1998)

    1998

  9. [14]

    A. N. Artemyev, V . M. Shabaev, V . A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, QED calculation of then= 1andn= 2energy levels in He-like ions, Phys. Rev. A71, 062104 (2005)

    2005

  10. [15]

    Pachucki, A

    K. Pachucki, A. Czarnecki, U. D. Jentschura, and V . A. Yerokhin, Complete two-loop correction to the bound-electron gfactor, Phys. Rev. A72, 022108 (2005)

    2005

  11. [16]

    V . A. Yerokhin and V . M. Shabaev, Lamb Shift of n = 1 and n = 2 States of Hydrogen-like Atoms, 1≤Z≤110, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data.44, 033103 (2015)

    2015

  12. [17]

    Pachucki, V

    K. Pachucki, V . c. v. Patk ´oˇs, and V . A. Yerokhin, Testing fun- damental interactions on the helium atom, Phys. Rev. A95, 062510 (2017)

    2017

  13. [18]

    A. V . Malyshev, D. A. Glazov, Y . S. Kozhedub, I. S. Anisimova, M. Y . Kaygorodov, V . M. Shabaev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Ab initio Calculations of Energy Levels in Be-Like Xenon: Strong Inter- ference between Electron-Correlation and QED Effects, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 183001 (2021)

    2021

  14. [19]

    Sikora, V

    B. Sikora, V . A. Yerokhin, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Improved Bound-Electrong-Factor Theory through Complete Two-Loop QED Calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 123001 (2025)

    2025

  15. [20]

    G. A. Rinker and L. Wilets, Vacuum Polarization in High-Z, Finite-Size Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 1559 (1973)

    1973

  16. [21]

    Gyulassy, Nuclear-Size Effects on Vacuum Polarization in Muonic Pb, Phys

    M. Gyulassy, Nuclear-Size Effects on Vacuum Polarization in Muonic Pb, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 1393 (1974)

    1974

  17. [22]

    Soff and P

    G. Soff and P. Mohr, Vacuum Polarization in a Strong External Field, Phys. Rev. A38, 5066 (1988)

    1988

  18. [23]

    P. J. Mohr, Self-energy radiative corrections in hydrogen-like systems, Ann. Phys.88, 26 (1974)

    1974

  19. [24]

    P. J. Mohr, Self-energy of then= 2states in a strong Coulomb field, Phys. Rev. A26, 2338 (1982)

    1982

  20. [25]

    V . A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V . M. Shabaev, Two-loop QED corrections with closed fermion loops, Phys. Rev. A77, 062510 (2008)

    2008

  21. [26]

    A. V . Malyshev, Y . S. Kozhedub, and V . M. Shabaev, Ab initio calculations of the2p 3/2 →2stransition in He-, Li-, and Be- like uranium, Phys. Rev. A107, 042806 (2023)

    2023

  22. [27]

    Milstein and M

    A. Milstein and M. Schumacher, Present status of Delbr ¨uck scattering, Phys. Rep.243, 183 (1994)

    1994

  23. [28]

    Sommerfeldt, V

    J. Sommerfeldt, V . A. Yerokhin, T. St¨ohlker, and A. Surzhykov, All-Order Coulomb Corrections to Delbr ¨uck Scattering above the Pair-Production Threshold, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 061601 (2023)

    2023

  24. [29]

    O. Y . Andreev, D. Yu, K. N. Lyashchenko, and D. M. Vasileva, Energy spectra of electron-positron pairs produced in bound- bound muon transitions, Phys. Rev. A113, 042804 (2026)

    2026

  25. [32]

    Sunnergren,Complete One-Loop QED Calculations for Few- Electrons Ions

    P. Sunnergren,Complete One-Loop QED Calculations for Few- Electrons Ions. - Applications to Electron-Electron Interaction, the Zeeman Effect and Hyperfine Structure, Phd thesis, Univer- sity of Gothenburg (1998)

    1998

  26. [33]

    Shabaev, Two-time Green’s function method in quantum electrodynamics of high-Z few-electron atoms, Phys

    V . Shabaev, Two-time Green’s function method in quantum electrodynamics of high-Z few-electron atoms, Phys. Rep.356, 119 (2002)

    2002

  27. [34]

    D. J. Hylton, The reduced Dirac Green function for the Coulomb potential, J. Math. Phys.25, 1125 (1984)

    1984

  28. [35]

    Salvat and R

    F. Salvat and R. Mayol, Accurate numerical solution of the Schr¨odinger and Dirac wave equations for central fields, Com- put. Phys. Commun.62, 65 (1991)

    1991

  29. [36]

    Sommerfeldt and P

    J. Sommerfeldt and P. Indelicato, All-order Wichmann-Kroll contribution in heavy electronic and exotic atoms, Phys. Rev. A113, 022806 (2026)

    2026

  30. [37]

    W. R. Johnson, S. A. Blundell, and J. Sapirstein, Many-body perturbation-theory calculations of energy levels along the lithium isoelectronic sequence, Phys. Rev. A37, 2764 (1988)

    1988

  31. [38]

    V . A. Yerokhin and V . M. Shabaev, First-order self-energy cor- rection in hydrogenlike systems, Phys. Rev. A60, 800 (1999)

    1999

  32. [39]

    Scherdin, A

    A. Scherdin, A. Sch ¨afer, W. Greiner, G. Soff, and P. J. Mohr, Coulomb corrections to Delbr ¨uck scattering, Z. Phys. A.353, 273 (1995)

    1995

  33. [40]

    Gyulassy, Higher order vacuum polarization for finite radius nuclei, Nuclear Physics A244, 497 (1975)

    M. Gyulassy, Higher order vacuum polarization for finite radius nuclei, Nuclear Physics A244, 497 (1975)

    1975

  34. [41]

    V . A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, One-loop elec- tron self-energy with accelerated partial-wave expansion in the Coulomb gauge, Phys. Rev. A111, 012802 (2025)

    2025

  35. [42]

    V . A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, Two-loop electron self-energy with accelerated partial-wave expansion, Phys. Rev. A111, 042820 (2025)

    2025

  36. [43]

    T. F. team,FLINT: Fast Library for Number Theory(2026), version 3.5.0,https://flintlib.org

    2026

  37. [44]

    Johansson, Arb: Efficient Arbitrary-Precision Midpoint- Radius Interval Arithmetic, IEEE Trans

    F. Johansson, Arb: Efficient Arbitrary-Precision Midpoint- Radius Interval Arithmetic, IEEE Trans. Comput.66, 1281 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update, At. Data Nucl. Data Ta- bles99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  39. [46]

    Johnson and G

    W. Johnson and G. Soff, The lamb shift in hydrogen-like atoms, 1≤Z≤110, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables33, 405 (1985)

    1985

  40. [48]

    R. N. Soguel, A. V . V olotka, E. V . Tryapitsyna, D. A. Glazov, V . P. Kosheleva, and S. Fritzsche, Redefined vacuum approach and gauge-invariant subsets in two-photon-exchange diagrams for a closed-shell system with a valence electron, Phys. Rev. A 103, 042818 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.