Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Rate coefficients for dielectronic recombination of N-like Ne

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Measured neon recombination is 1.6x theory in photoionized plasmas

desk verdict First Ne^3+ DR measurement is a solid experimental benchmark with a plausible but not ironclad low-T theory discrepancy, hinging partly on a modeled beam composition. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13729 v1 pith:E2AZC4LQ submitted 2026-07-15 physics.atom-ph

E.-O. Hanu , M. Lestinsky , E. B. Menz , M. Looshorn , Z. Andelkovic , A. Biniskos , C. Brandau , A. Braeuning-Demian
show 11 more authors
M. R. Fogle W. Geithner F. Herfurth P.-M. Hillenbrand C. Krantz R. Schuch M. Tatsch G. Vorobyev S.-X. Wang T. Stoehlker S. Schippers
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords dielectronicrecombinationNe3+plasmaratecoefficientphotoionizedplasmasplanetarynebulaestorageringmetastablelevelsatomicdatabenchmarking
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 reports a storage-ring measurement of dielectronic recombination of Ne3+ (N-like neon) over collision energies 0–25 eV. From the measured energy-dependent rate, the authors derive a plasma recombination rate coefficient and compare it with theoretical predictions. They find that in the low-temperature regime relevant to photoionized plasmas (about 0.7–1.5 eV), the experimentally derived rate is about 1.6 times larger than published theoretical values, a discrepancy outside the experimental uncertainties. The paper also provides a parametrized analytic fit to the measured rate so that astrophysical models can adopt it directly. If the result holds, published atomic data used for ionization balance and abundance determinations in planetary nebulae would need upward revision for Ne3+ recombination at low temperatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the plasma recombination rate coefficient α(T), obtained by convolving the measured merged-beams rate coefficient with a Maxwellian electron energy distribution. The analysis integrates three components: a multi-resonance fit to the spectrum below 0.25 eV, the measured rate from 0.25–17 eV, and a scaled theoretical contribution that accounts for Rydberg resonances beyond the experimental field-ionization cut-off at n=23. Because the ion beam contains a mixture of the ground state (about 44%) and two long-lived metastable levels, theoretical calculations are weighted by an estimated time-dependent beam composition; a separate ground-state-only comparison isolates that ch

What would settle it

Measure the DR spectrum with a purely ground-state Ne3+ beam—for example, by using a laser to deplete the metastable populations or by selecting a single quantum state before injection—and compare the resulting plasma rate coefficient to theory; if the rate then matches theory, the reported 1.6x discrepancy was an artifact of the assumed metastable mixture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the experimentally derived dielectronic recombination rate coefficient for Ne3+ exceeds the theoretical values by a factor of about 1.6 in the temperature range 0.68–1.46 eV characteristic of photoionized plasmas, outside the combined uncertainties. The discrepancy is traced primarily to resonance strengths in the 0.5–9 eV electron-energy range, where the measured spectrum shows substantially stronger resonance clusters than quantum-mechanical calculations. In the collisionally ionized plasma regime (about 6.8–34 eV), the measured and theoretical rates agree within uncertainties. The paper also derives a ground-state-only rate coefficient, which shows the same level

Load-bearing premise

The derived rates and the factor-1.6 discrepancy rest on a modeled, not directly measured, composition of the stored ion beam: roughly 44% ground state, 32% in the 2D5/2 metastable, and 24% in the 2D3/2 metastable; if the true fractions differ, the inferred ground-state rate and the theory comparison change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the discrepancy is real, published Ne3+ dielectronic recombination rates underpin recombination in photoionized nebulae, shifting ionization balance and derived neon abundances.
  • The analytic fit provided in the paper allows plasma simulation codes to use the experimental rate across 10^2–10^7 K, covering both photoionized and collisional regimes.
  • The agreement at high temperatures supports the use of the present method for benchmarking theoretical DR data in the collisional-ionization regime.
  • The localization of the discrepancy to 0.5–9 eV suggests theoretical treatments need better inclusion of low-energy configuration interaction and near-threshold resonances.
  • Ground-state-only and total comparisons show the same ~1.6 gap, so the excess is not due to metastable populations in the beam.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to check whether other N-like ions (e.g., O+, Fe19+) show a similar low-temperature enhancement; the underlying electron-configuration physics would predict a systematic pattern.
  • A direct measurement of the metastable fraction in the stored beam—for example, through optical detection of metastable decay or by laser depletion—would either confirm the 44% estimate or require a downward revision of the derived rate.
  • If the enhancement holds, photoionization models of planetary nebulae would need to adjust ionization correction factors for neon, which could propagate into metallicity gradient measurements.
  • The parametrized fit itself is a candidate benchmark for next-generation theoretical DR calculations, which could use the 0–25 eV energy-resolved spectrum as a fitting target.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a merged-beams dielectronic recombination (DR) measurement for Ne^3+ at CRYRING@ESR, covering 0–25 eV. The experimental MBRRC is compared with autostructure calculations for the ground 4S3/2 and metastable 2D5/2, 2D3/2 initial levels, weighted by a model beam composition estimated as 44% ground / 32% / 24%. A low-energy eight-resonance fit is used to model the near-threshold spectrum, and a plasma recombination rate coefficient (PRRC) is derived by combining the fitted low-energy part, the measured 0.25–17 eV spectrum, and a scaled high-n correction. The central claim is that in the photoionized-plasma temperature window (kT = 0.68–1.46 eV) the experimentally derived PRRC exceeds published theoretical values by about a factor of 1.6, outside the experimental uncertainties. Parametrized fits of the total and ground-state-only PRRC are also presented.

Significance. The experiment fills a genuine data gap: this is the first DR measurement for Ne^3+, and the complete Δn = 0 series coverage provides a useful benchmark for the low-temperature DR rates needed in photoionized plasma models. The absolute normalization, deconvolution of the toroidal-field energy spread, and the derivation of a PRRC suitable for astrophysical modeling follow well-established methods from the storage-ring community. If the reported discrepancy survives scrutiny, it would be an important constraint on theoretical DR data for neon. The parametrized fits in Table 3 are convenient for implementation in plasma codes. The main weakness is that the headline factor of ~1.6 depends on an unvalidated model of the metastable beam composition and on several extrapolation steps whose uncertainties are not quantified; these need to be addressed before the claim can serve as a reliable benchmark.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 / Fig. 4] The metastable beam composition—44% 4S3/2, 32% 2D5/2, 24% 2D3/2—is obtained from an ECR-source thermal-population model followed by radiative decay, but no uncertainty is assigned to these fractions and no direct measurement is presented. This composition is load-bearing: it weights the autostructure MBRRC in Fig. 5, and it is used when constructing the ground-state-only PRRC by subtracting metastable contributions (Sec. 4.2). The reported low-T discrepancy and the theory-to-experiment ratio ~0.62 are therefore conditional on this model. Please provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., how the derived PRRC and the 1.6 factor change when the ground-state fraction is varied over a realistic range) or a composition fit to the measured spectrum.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 / Figs. 9–10] The theoretical total PRRC shown as the red line in Fig. 10 is described in Fig. 9 as a sum weighted by statistical weights, whereas the experimental total PRRC (black line) reflects the stored-beam mixture (44/32/24). If this is the case, the black-vs-red comparison is between two different initial-level mixtures. Because the low-temperature rate is especially sensitive to the ground-state fraction, part of the factor ~1.6 could be a composition mismatch rather than a genuine deficit in the ground-state DR calculation. Either compare the experimental total with a beam-weighted theoretical total, or convert the experimental PRRC to the statistical-weight plasma mixture (subtract the metastable contributions and add back statistically weighted ones) and then compare. The manuscript should clarify and make the weighting explicit.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 / Table 2] The eight fitted DR resonances in Table 2 are presented without any uncertainties on the energies, strengths, or widths. The fit is a key component of the PRRC in the low-temperature window, yet no goodness-of-fit or parameter-covariance information is given. Since the central claim is that the experimental and theoretical rates disagree outside the experimental uncertainties, the fit uncertainties must either be quoted and propagated into α_exp(T) or shown to be negligible. Please add this information or justify its omission.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 / high-n correction] The high-n correction uses κ = 0.707 from the 17–22 eV interval (Table 1) to scale the autostructure n→∞ contribution, while the text states that the augmentation is applied in the 22.0–23.5 eV range, for which Table 1 gives κ = 1.095. No uncertainty is quoted for κ, and no argument is given that the 17–22 eV ratio remains valid for the unmeasured n > 23 high-n resonances. Because this correction contributes to the total PRRC and can affect the low-temperature comparison, please justify the choice of κ and propagate its uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The inequalities are written inconsistently: '0.68≤kT≥1.46 eV' and '6.8≤kT≥34 eV' should be '0.68 eV ≤ kT ≤ 1.46 eV' and '6.8 eV ≤ kT ≤ 34 eV'.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption / Sec. 4.2] The text refers to the low-energy component as the 'dashed green line' while the Fig. 8 caption says 'dotted green line'; please make the style labels consistent.
  3. [Table 3 / Eq. (7)] The parametrized fit is stated to reproduce α_exp(T) to within ±0.35%, but the fit coefficients are given without uncertainties. Adding uncertainties or a residual plot would help users assess the fit quality.
  4. [General] To facilitate reuse of the measured MBRRC and PRRC by the astrophysical community, consider providing the underlying numerical data (e.g., as a machine-readable supplement or a repository link).
  5. [References] The reference to 'S. Schippers 2026, unpublished (available upon request)' for the hydrocal code is awkward in a published benchmark paper; a citable reference or a short appendix describing the deconvolution would be preferable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central low-temperature rate-coefficient discrepancy is an experimentally measured benchmark; secondary theory-loaded corrections are disclosed and do not drive the main claim.

full rationale

The central claim that the experimentally derived DR plasma rate coefficient for Ne3+ exceeds published theoretical values by ~1.6 in the 0.68–1.46 eV photoionized-plasma window rests on the measured merged-beams spectrum plus an empirical multi-resonance fit (Table 2) to the measured low-energy data. The theoretical autostructure/Badnell values enter as comparison benchmarks, not as inputs to the low-energy fit; Table 1 quantifies the measured-versus-theory integrated strengths (κ≈0.41 over 0.5–17 eV), so the disagreement is a direct measurement outcome rather than a construction. The high-n field-ionization correction does use autostructure scaled by a factor κ matched to the measured spectrum (Sec. 4.2), so the absolute 'experimental' PRRC is partly theory-loaded, but that correction applies at collision energies above 17 eV and is exponentially suppressed at the low temperatures of the photoionized-plasma claim. Similarly, the ground-state-only PRRC is obtained by subtracting theoretical metastable contributions weighted by the modeled 44/32/24 beam composition (Sec. 3.1, Fig. 10), making that secondary comparison partially model-dependent; however, the paper reports the same ~0.62 theory/experiment ratio for the total PRRC, which does not require the subtraction. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain forces the result. The modeled metastable composition is an assumption with no quoted uncertainty, but it is an independent input rather than a circular redefinition of the output. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular; the main caveat is uncertainty in the beam-composition model, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the modeled beam composition (a free parameter set estimated from an ECR-source model), the fitted low-energy resonance parameters, and the κ-scaled high-n correction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • beam composition fractions (ground state fraction) = 0.44 ground, 0.32 2D5/2, 0.24 2D3/2
    From ECR source population model; used to weight theoretical contributions and to subtract metastable contributions from the derived PRRC.
  • resonance parameters (Table 2) = 8 energies, strengths, widths
    Fitted to the 0–0.25 eV measured spectrum; used to construct low-energy PRRC contribution.
  • scaling factor κ for high-n extrapolation = 0.707 (text) vs 1.095 (Table 1 for 22–23.5 eV)
    Matching autostructure to experiment in an energy interval; used to add missing high-n Rydberg strength to the PRRC.
  • analytic PRRC fit coefficients (Table 3) = 10 values (ci, Ei) for total and ground-state PRRC
    Parameterization of the derived experimental PRRC for use in codes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ECR ion source initially populates metastable levels according to a thermal distribution weighted by statistical degeneracy, with subsequent evolution governed purely by radiative decay (Sec. 3.1).
    Underpins the 44%/32%/24% beam composition estimate.
  • domain assumption The electron energy distribution in the cooler is accurately described and can be deconvolved using the hydrocal code implementing Lampert et al. (1996).
    Defines the energy resolution and the deconvolution of the measured spectrum.
  • domain assumption Field ionization truncates Rydberg series at n_cut = 23 and the missing high-n DR strength can be estimated by scaling the autostructure calculation with a single factor κ.
    Used to correct the PRRC for unmeasured high-n resonances.
  • domain assumption Quantum mechanical DR calculations with autostructure are accurate for the resonance positions and strengths outside the fitted energy ranges.
    Provides the theoretical benchmark and the high-n extrapolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rate coefficients for dielectronic recombination of N-like Ne." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E2AZC4LQ

@misc{pith2026260713729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rate coefficients for dielectronic recombination of N-like Ne},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E2AZC4LQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13729}
}
abstract

Dielectronic recombination (DR) for the process Ne$^{3+}$ + e$^{-}$ $\rightarrow$ Ne$^{2+}$ was investigated in a merged-beams arrangement at the heavy-ion storage ring CRYRING@ESR. The energy-dependent DR rate coefficient, $\alpha(E)$ was measured over the electron-ion collision energy range from 0 to 25 eV. The measurements cover the complete set of DR resonance series associated with $2s\to2p$ core excitations. The primary ion beam is estimated to have consisted of $44\%$ of the ions in the ground state, with the remainder distributed among long-lived metastable levels. In addition to the measurements we carried out quantum mechanical calculations of DR cross sections. The theoretical treatment includes contributions from the ground and excited metastable initial levels, weighted according to the estimated beam composition. From the experimental energy-resolved spectra, we derive a temperature dependent DR plasma recombination rate coefficient $\alpha_\mathrm{exp}(T)$ (PRRC). In the temperature domain where Ne$^{3+}$ is abundant in collisionally ionized plasmas, the present results show a good agreement with the present and with previous theoretical predictions. In the low-temperature regime characteristic for photoionized plasmas, the experimentally derived DR plasma rate coefficient is slightly larger than the published theoretical ones and does not agree within the experimental uncertainties. Parametrized fits of the experimentally derived DR PRRC are presented in order to facilitate an easy inclusion into astrophysical modelling codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of CRYRING@ESR with its injection beamlines. The electron cooler and the detectors used for dielectronic recombination experiments are located in sec￾tions YR03 and YR04, respectively. For the present measure￾ments, Ne3+ were produced with the local ECR ion source (G. Vorobyev et al. 2026). CRYRING@ESR is equipped with an ultracold elec￾tron cooler, implementing adiabatic transverse expan￾sion (H. Danared … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch of the present electron-ion recombination experiment at the CRYRING@ESR electron cooler. cooler, nearby vacuum gauges, and emissions from ion￾ization pumps. The relative electron–ion collision energy was precisely controlled by varying the voltage of the cathode of the electron cooler (C. Brandau et al. 2025). Rapid volt￾age detunings were achieved using a bipolar high-voltage amplifier (KEPCO BOP 1000M), whi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the measured and deconvolved MBRRC α(Ecm) for DR of Ne3+, covering a collision energy range between 0 and 25 eV. The experimental data are depicted as a black line, with the grey shading representing the associated statistical and systematic uncertainties. To facilitate interpretation, the resonance positions of three notable DR series are marked by downward-pointing arrows, derived from the Rydberg form… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of Ne3+ beam fractions in excited and metastable levels as a function of time. The grey shaded area marks the time range of the DR scan (7 to 27 s). The results of the model calculation are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The merged-beams DR rate coefficient α(Ecm) shown for collision energies between 14 and 25 eV. The de￾convolved and RR subtracted experimental result is depicted as the black line. Individual autostructure calculations for each metastable state are presented (in blue: …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deconvolved experimental data in the energy range of the DR resonances close to zero electron-ion collision energy. Line styles and colors follow the same convention as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MBRRC in the energy range of the DR resonances close to zero electron-ion collision energy: experiment with the associated uncertainty (black bars) and empirical fit of model DR resonances (red line) as given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The experimentally derived total DR PRRC for Ne3+ is represented by the black line. The error bars represent the total uncertainty (quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties). The individual components constituting the experimentally derived DR PRRC ar…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the theoretical PRRC (N. Badnell 2025) as a function of plasma temperature. The in￾dividual contributions from the ground state and each metastable state are weighted at 100% and plotted sep￾arately. At all plasma temperatures, the total PRRC rate coefficient (th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of our experimentally derived total PRRC (black line with error bars comprising statistical and systematic uncertainties) with the theoretical calculation of N. Badnell (2025) that includes the weighted contributions of the metastable levels (red line). We …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    Asplund, M. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    2025, Fits for Total Dielectronic Recombination Rate Coefficients [Online], https://amdpp.phys.strath.ac.uk/tamoc/DATA/DR/ 12

    Badnell, N. 2025, Fits for Total Dielectronic Recombination Rate Coefficients [Online], https://amdpp.phys.strath.ac.uk/tamoc/DATA/DR/ 12

    2025

  3. [3]

    Badnell, N. R. 2011, Computer Physics Communications, 182, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.03.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2011.03.023 2011

  4. [4]

    R., Gutenkunst, S., Morris, P

    Bernard-Salas, J., Pottasch, S. R., Gutenkunst, S., Morris, P. W., & Houck, J. R. 2008, The American Astronomical Society, 672, 13, doi: 10.1086/523294

    work page doi:10.1086/523294 2008

  5. [5]

    2025, Chinese Physics C, 49, 064001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adbf81

    Brandau, C., Fuchs, S., Hannen, V., et al. 2025, Chinese Physics C, 49, 064001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adbf81

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/adbf81 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Milam, S., et al

    Brickhouse, N., Ferland, G. J., Milam, S., et al. 2020, Bulletin of the AAS, 52, doi: 10.3847/25c2cfeb.10bdb63d

    work page doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.10bdb63d 2020

  7. [7]

    2001, ps, T92, 278, doi: 10.1238/physica.topical.092a00278

    Salzborn, E. 2001, ps, T92, 278, doi: 10.1238/physica.topical.092a00278

    work page doi:10.1238/physica.topical.092a00278 2001

  8. [8]

    Bryans, P., Landi, E., & Savin, D. W. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1540 B¨ ohm, S., M¨ uller, A., Schippers, S., et al. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 437(3), 1151–1157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042500

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1540 2009

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J., Olivier, G

    Cleri, N. J., Olivier, G. M., Hutchison, T. A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde55

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2000, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    Danared, H., K¨ allberg, A., Andler, G., et al. 2000, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    2000

  3. [11]

    Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 441, 123, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(99)01121-3

    doi

  4. [12]

    2020, Development of a fast precision high voltage divider for electron-ion collision spectroscopy at CRYRING@ESR,, Master thesis, M¨ unster University, M¨ unster, Germany

    Dirkes, T. 2020, Development of a fast precision high voltage divider for electron-ion collision spectroscopy at CRYRING@ESR,, Master thesis, M¨ unster University, M¨ unster, Germany

    2020

  5. [13]

    2009, NISC MCHF/MCDHF database, Version 2, https://nlte.nist.gov/MCHF/Elements/Ne/N 10.10.LT- lev.lt.db

    Froese-Fischer, C., & Tachiev, G. 2009, NISC MCHF/MCDHF database, Version 2, https://nlte.nist.gov/MCHF/Elements/Ne/N 10.10.LT- lev.lt.db

    2009

  6. [14]

    2020, X-Ray Spectrometry, 49, 338, doi: 10.1002/xrs.3112

    Hahn, C., Menz, E., Pf¨ afflein, P., Weber, G., & St¨ ohlker, T. 2020, X-Ray Spectrometry, 49, 338, doi: 10.1002/xrs.3112

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 133, doi: 10.1086/319184

    Kallman, T., & Bautista, M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 133, doi: 10.1086/319184

    2001 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online], doi: 10.18434/T4W30F

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Krantz, C., Hanu, E., & Looshorn, M. e. a. 2026, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, doi: 10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02357-0

    2026 doi

  10. [18]

    1996, Phys

    Lampert, A., Wolf, A., Habs, D., et al. 1996, Phys. Rev. A, 53, 1413, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.53.1413

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Bernhardt, D., et al

    Lestinsky, M., Badnell, N. R., Bernhardt, D., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 648, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/648

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Bernhardt, D., et al

    Lestinsky, M., Badnell, N. R., Bernhardt, D., et al. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 758, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/40

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2016-02643-6

    Lestinsky, M., Andrianov, V., Aurand, B., et al. 2016, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2016-02643-6

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Danared, H., et al

    Lestinsky, M., Menz, E. B., Danared, H., et al. 2022, Atoms, 10, 141, doi: 10.3390/atoms10040141

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    M., & Richardson, M

    Levesque, E. M., & Richardson, M. L. A. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/100

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/78 13

    Mahmood, S., Orban, I., Ali, S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/78 13

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    E., & Najita, J

    Meijerink, R., Glassgold, A. E., & Najita, J. R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, doi: 10.1086/527411

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, PhD thesis, Friedrich-Schiller Universit¨ at

    Menz, E. 2024, PhD thesis, Friedrich-Schiller Universit¨ at

    2024

  20. [28]

    2008, Astron

    Orban, I., B¨ ohm, S., Loch, S., & Schuch, R. 2008, Astron. Astrophys., 489, 829, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810295

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    Pagomenos, G., Bernard-Salas, J., & Pottasch, S. R. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, 19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730861

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    1990, Physics Reports, 196, 135

    Poth, H. 1990, Physics Reports, 196, 135

    1990

  23. [31]

    Savin, D. W. 2001, in ASP Conference Series, Vol. 247, Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasmas, ed. G. Ferland & D. W. Savin. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108058

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    W., Behar, E., Kahn, S

    Savin, D. W., Behar, E., Kahn, S. M., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, doi: 10.1086/323388

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    2026, unpublished (available upon request),

    Schippers, S. 2026, unpublished (available upon request),

    2026

  26. [34]

    2001, Astrophysical Journal, 555, 1027, doi: 10.1086/321512

    Schippers, S., M¨ uller, A., Gwinner, G., et al. 2001, Astrophysical Journal, 555, 1027, doi: 10.1086/321512

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 421, 1185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040380

    Schippers, S., Schnell, M., Brandau, C., et al. 2004, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 421, 1185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040380

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2025, Phys

    Schippers, S., Brandau, C., Fuchs, S., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 113001, doi: 10.1103/6j3v-lwxj

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Schippers, S., M¨ uller, A., et al

    Schmidt, E. W., Schippers, S., M¨ uller, A., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, L157, doi: 10.1086/504038

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, PhD thesis, M¨ unster University, M¨ unster, Germany

    Ueberholz, K. 2025, PhD thesis, M¨ unster University, M¨ unster, Germany

    2025

  31. [39]

    2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/3237/1/012051

    Vorobyev, G., Andelkovic, Z., Andreev, A., et al. 2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/3237/1/012051

    2026 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, The European Physical Journal D, 78, doi: 10.1140/epjd/s10053-024-00914-7

    Wang, S.-X., Brandau, C., Fritzsche, S., et al. 2024, The European Physical Journal D, 78, doi: 10.1140/epjd/s10053-024-00914-7

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Jinyi, S

    Zhuang, M.-Y., Ho, L. C., & Jinyi, S. 2019, Astrophysical Journal, 873, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0650

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    1998, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 31, 3729

    Zong, W., Schuch, R., Gao, H., DeWitt, D., & Badnell, N. 1998, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 31, 3729

    1998

Pith tools

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