pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00996 · v1 · pith:APWAUVZNnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.IM· physics.plasm-ph

Parts-per-million-accurate determination of the K{α} photoionization resonance of Be-like oxygen with resolution of its ¹⁶O-¹⁸O isotopic shift

Jonas Danisch , Marc Botz , Chintan Shah , Moto Togawa , Joschka Goes , Dominic Hache , Filipe Grilo , Pedro Amaro
show 10 more authors
Vladimir A. Yerokhin Steffen K\"uhn Awad Mohamed Roberta Totani Monica de Simone Stefano Orlando Thomas Pfeifer Fabrizio Nicastro Marcello Coreno Jos\'e R. Crespo L\'opez-Urrutia
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 01:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.plasm-ph
keywords K-alpha resonanceBe-like oxygenisotopic shiftphotoionizationelectron beam ion trapsynchrotronastrophysical diagnosticsQED corrections
0
0 comments X

The pith

Be-like oxygen Kα resonance energy is fixed at 554.372 eV with the 2.2 meV isotopic shift to oxygen-18 resolved

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

The paper measures the energy of an inner-shell transition in four-electron oxygen ions to three parts per million. This line overlaps with a feature used in astrophysical X-ray diagnostics, so its precise location directly affects the interpretation of spectra from stars and other plasmas. The work also isolates the small energy difference between the two stable oxygen isotopes through time-of-flight separation of the photoions. Current calculations for this few-electron system, even after large quantum-electrodynamic corrections, still disagree among themselves by hundreds of meV, leaving the new experimental anchor as a test of those predictions. The values come from resonant excitation of ions stored in an electron-beam ion trap using calibrated soft X-rays at a synchrotron.

Core claim

The transition 1s² 2s² ¹S₀ → 1s 2s² 2p_{3/2} ¹P₁ in ¹⁶O^{4+} occurs at 554.372(3) eV (wavelength 22.36480(12) Å), with a 2.2 ± 1.3 meV shift (Δλ = 0.089(52) mÅ) for the ¹⁸O isotope. Ions are generated and held in an electron beam ion trap, excited by monochromatic soft X-rays whose energies are corrected by a second spectrometer, and the resulting photoions of each isotope are distinguished by time-of-flight after autoionization.

What carries the argument

Resonant soft X-ray photoexcitation of trapped Be-like oxygen ions followed by autoionization, with auxiliary spectrometer calibration of photon energy and time-of-flight separation of isotopic photoions

If this is right

  • Astrophysical models that use the blended O^{5+} Kα line for plasma diagnostics can be corrected using the measured O^{4+} position.
  • Electronic-structure calculations for four-electron ions can be checked directly against this benchmark, including the size of QED contributions.
  • The demonstrated technique shows that meV-scale isotopic shifts are measurable in soft X-ray transitions of light ions.
  • Accurate data are supplied for an ion relevant to X-ray observations of cosmic plasmas.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same trapped-ion plus synchrotron approach could map precise resonance positions across other few-electron light ions to build reference data.
  • Persistent scatter in theory despite the new anchor points to the need for further refinement of many-electron QED treatments.
  • With the blending quantified, re-analysis of existing X-ray spectra from astrophysical sources may shift inferred temperatures or abundances.

Load-bearing premise

The synchrotron photon energies are correctly adjusted by the auxiliary spectrometer and the time-of-flight measurement cleanly isolates each isotope without systematic offsets large enough to affect the few-meV shift.

What would settle it

An independent measurement at another facility with its own energy calibration that places the ¹⁶O transition energy outside the reported 3 meV uncertainty band would falsify the central value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00996 by Awad Mohamed, Chintan Shah, Dominic Hache, Fabrizio Nicastro, Filipe Grilo, Jonas Danisch, Joschka Goes, Jos\'e R. Crespo L\'opez-Urrutia, Marc Botz, Marcello Coreno, Monica de Simone, Moto Togawa, Pedro Amaro, Roberta Totani, Stefano Orlando, Steffen K\"uhn, Thomas Pfeifer, Vladimir A. Yerokhin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Experimental setup. Atoms are ionized and trapped by a magnetically compressed electron beam (orange) emitted by the off-axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Calibration of grating spectrometer using N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. One of eight scans recording photoionization of Be-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Fitted spectrometer line-centroid positions as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Isotopic shifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We determine with high accuracy the energy of the inner-shell transition $1s^2 2s^2~{}^1\mathrm{S}_0 \rightarrow 1s~2s^2~2p_{3/2}~{}^1\mathrm{P}_1$ ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}_{K\alpha}^{4+}$ at $554.372(3)~\mathrm{eV}$ ($\lambda$ = $22.36480(12)~\unicode{x212B}$) as well as its small shift of $2.2 \pm 1.3~\mathrm{meV}$ ($\Delta \lambda$ = $0.089(52)~\mathrm{m}\unicode{x212B}$) for the ${}^{18}\mathrm{O}$ isotope. This transition blends with a $K_\alpha$ line of $\mathrm{O}^{5+}$ used in astrophysical diagnostics, potentially affecting its reliability. In contrast to our experimental uncertainty of $\pm 3~\mathrm{meV}$, advanced electronic structure predictions for this four-electron system, including quantum electrodynamic (QED) corrections on the order of $100~\mathrm{meV}$, still scatter by more than $\pm 250~\mathrm{meV}$. Ions generated and stored in an electron beam ion trap were excited at the ELETTRA synchrotron facility with monochromatic soft x rays, with photon energies corrected by an additional spectrometer. Upon resonant excitation of $\mathrm{O}^{4+}$ and subsequent autoionization, we separate the photoions of each isotope by a time-of-flight measurement. This way, we resolve soft x-ray isotopic shifts of a few meV, obtain very accurate data on an essential astrophysical ion, and test calculations down to the level of QED contributions.

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 reports a high-precision experimental measurement of the inner-shell Kα photoionization resonance 1s² 2s² ¹S₀ → 1s 2s² 2p_{3/2} ¹P₁ in Be-like oxygen, giving 554.372(3) eV (λ = 22.36480(12) Å) for ^{16}O and an isotopic shift of 2.2 ± 1.3 meV (Δλ = 0.089(52) mÅ) for ^{18}O. The experiment uses an electron-beam ion trap at the ELETTRA synchrotron with monochromatic soft x-rays, an auxiliary spectrometer for energy calibration, and time-of-flight separation of photoions to resolve the isotopes.

Significance. If the result holds, the measurement supplies a benchmark at the few-meV level for an astrophysically relevant transition that blends with an O^{5+} line used in diagnostics, and it constrains advanced many-body calculations (including QED terms of order 100 meV) that currently scatter by >250 meV. The ability to resolve a soft-x-ray isotopic shift at this scale is a technical strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: the isotopic shift is reported as 2.2 ± 1.3 meV (≈1.7σ from zero). This marginal significance directly affects the central claim of having “resolved” the shift; the manuscript must clarify whether the data support a statistically robust detection or whether the result is better characterized as an upper limit.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: the photon-energy correction procedure with the auxiliary spectrometer and the TOF-based isotope separation are load-bearing for the claimed ±3 meV total uncertainty. A quantitative systematic-error budget (including possible cross-talk between isotopes and calibration residuals) is required to substantiate the ppm-level accuracy.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and figure captions should use a consistent symbol for the angstrom unit (Å) rather than mixing unicode and text representations.
  2. A brief statement of the number of independent data sets or total ion counts underlying the fit would help readers assess the statistical foundation of the quoted uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: the isotopic shift is reported as 2.2 ± 1.3 meV (≈1.7σ from zero). This marginal significance directly affects the central claim of having “resolved” the shift; the manuscript must clarify whether the data support a statistically robust detection or whether the result is better characterized as an upper limit.

    Authors: We agree that the reported isotopic shift of 2.2 ± 1.3 meV corresponds to a marginal 1.7σ significance. The value and uncertainty are statistically valid as a measurement, but we acknowledge that the language of 'resolved' may overstate the robustness. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state the significance level, rephrase the claim to indicate a measurement at 1.7σ rather than a firm resolution, and note that the result can also serve as an upper limit on the shift magnitude. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the photon-energy correction procedure with the auxiliary spectrometer and the TOF-based isotope separation are load-bearing for the claimed ±3 meV total uncertainty. A quantitative systematic-error budget (including possible cross-talk between isotopes and calibration residuals) is required to substantiate the ppm-level accuracy.

    Authors: We agree that a detailed quantitative systematic-error budget is required to support the claimed uncertainty. The revised manuscript will include an expanded Methods section with a tabulated breakdown of all systematic contributions, explicitly addressing the auxiliary spectrometer calibration residuals, photon-energy correction procedure, TOF isotope separation efficiency, and any potential cross-talk or contamination between the 16O and 18O signals. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct experimental measurement with external calibration

full rationale

The paper reports a direct experimental determination of transition energy and isotopic shift using synchrotron photon energies (corrected by an independent spectrometer) and time-of-flight separation of photoions. No derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps are present. The central result is an empirical measurement referenced to external standards, not reduced to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

As an experimental measurement, the claim rests on the accuracy of the experimental setup and data analysis procedures described at high level in the abstract; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The observed resonance corresponds to the specified 1s² 2s² ¹S₀ to 1s 2s² 2p_{3/2} ¹P₁ transition in Be-like oxygen.
    The identification of the transition is assumed based on prior knowledge of atomic structure.
  • domain assumption The additional spectrometer provides accurate correction to the photon energies from the synchrotron.
    The energy scale relies on this correction for the stated precision.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5962 in / 1427 out tokens · 44342 ms · 2026-07-02T01:39:03.513504+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

68 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Beiersdorfer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41, 343 (2003)

    P. Beiersdorfer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41, 343 (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    Biffi, S

    V . Biffi, S. Planelles, S. Borgani, E. Rasia, G. Murante, D. Fab- jan, and M. Gaspari, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society476, 2689 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Nicastro, J

    F. Nicastro, J. Kaastra, Y . Krongold, S. Borgani, E. Bran- chini, R. Cen, M. Dadina, C. W. Danforth, M. Elvis, F. Fiore, A. Gupta, S. Mathur, D. Mayya, F. Paerels, L. Piro, D. Rosa- Gonzalez, J. Schaye, J. M. Shull, J. Torres-Zafra, N. Wijers, and L. Zappacosta, Nature558, 406 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Pinto, W

    C. Pinto, W. Alston, M. L. Parker, A. C. Fabian, L. C. Gallo, D. J. K. Buisson, D. J. Walton, E. Kara, J. Jiang, A. Lohfink, and C. S. Reynolds, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society476, 1021 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Holczer, E

    T. Holczer, E. Behar, and N. Arav, The Astrophysical Journal 708, 981 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Nevalainen, B

    J. Nevalainen, B. Wakker, J. Kaastra, M. Bonamente, S. Snow- den, F. Paerels, and C. de Vries, A&A605(2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    M. F. Gu, M. Schmidt, P. Beiersdorfer, H. Chen, D. B. Thorn, E. Trabert, E. Behar, and S. M. Kahn, The Astrophysical Jour- nal627, 1066 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Micke, S

    P. Micke, S. Kühn, L. Buchauer, J. R. Harries, T. M. Bück- ing, K. Blaum, A. Cieluch, A. Egl, D. Hollain, S. Krae- mer, T. Pfeifer, P. O. Schmidt, R. X. Schüssler, C. Schweiger, T. Stöhlker, S. Sturm, R. N. Wolf, S. Bernitt, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, Review of Scientific Instruments89, 10.1063/1.5026961 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5026961 2018

  9. [9]

    K. C. Prince, R. R. Blyth, R. Delaunay, M. Zitnik, J. Krem- pasky, J. Slezak, R. Camilloni, L. Avaldi, M. Coreno, G. Ste- fani, C. Furlani, M. de Simone, and S. Stranges, Journal of Syn- chrotron Radiation5, 565 (1998)

    1998

  10. [10]

    Blyth, R

    R. Blyth, R. Delaunay, M. Zitnik, J. Krempasky, R. Krempaska, J. Slezak, K. Prince, R. Richter, M. V ondracek, R. Camilloni, L. Avaldi, M. Coreno, G. Stefani, C. Furlani, M. de Simone, S. Stranges, and M.-Y . Adam, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena101-103, 959 (1999)

    1999

  11. [11]

    G. W. Drake, Canadian Journal of Physics66, 586 (1988)

    1988

  12. [12]

    V . A. Yerokhin and A. Surzhykov, Phys. Rev. A86, 42507 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    V . A. Yerokhin, A. Surzhykov, and A. Müller, Phys. Rev. A96, 042505 (2017), erratum: 96, 069901(E) (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    V . A. Yerokhin and A. Surzhykov, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data48, 10.1063/1.5121413 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5121413 2019

  15. [15]

    V . A. Zaytsev, I. A. Maltsev, I. I. Tupitsyn, V . M. Shabaev, and V . Y . Ivanov, Optics and Spectroscopy128, 307 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    M. H. Chen, Physical Review A31, 1449 (1985)

    1985

  17. [17]

    M. H. Chen and B. Crasemann, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables37, 419 (1987)

    1987

  18. [18]

    A. K. Pradhan, G. X. Chen, F. Delahaye, S. N. Nahar, and J. Oelgoetz, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety341, 1268 (2003)

    2003

  19. [19]

    Garcia, C

    J. Garcia, C. Mendoza, M. A. Bautista, T. W. Gorczyca, T. R. Kallman, and P. Palmeri, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series158, 68 (2005)

    2005

  20. [20]

    S. B. Zhang and D. L. Yeager, Physical Review A85, 32515 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    Bruch, N

    R. Bruch, N. Stolterfoht, S. Datz, P. D. Miller, P. L. Pepmiller, Y . Yamazaki, H. F. Krause, J. K. Swenson, K. T. Chung, and B. F. Davis, Physical Review A35, 4114 (1987)

    1987

  22. [22]

    Schmidt, P

    M. Schmidt, P. Beiersdorfer, H. Chen, D. B. Thorn, E. Trabert, and E. Behar, The Astrophysical Journal604, 562 (2004)

    2004

  23. [23]

    B. M. McLaughlin, J.-M. Bizau, D. Cubaynes, S. Guilbaud, S. Douix, M. M. A. Shorman, M. O. A. E. Ghazaly, I. Sakho, and M. F. Gharaibeh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society465, 4690 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Machado, C

    J. Machado, C. I. Szabo, J. P. Santos, P. Amaro, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, G. Bian, J. M. Isac, and P. Indelicato, Physical Review A97, 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.032517 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.97.032517 2018

  25. [25]

    S. W. Epp, J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, G. Brenner, V . Mäckel, P. H. Mokler, R. Treusch, M. Kuhlmann, M. V . Yurkov, J. Feld- haus, J. R. Schneider, M. Wellhöfer, M. Martins, W. Wurth, and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 183001 (2007)

    2007

  26. [26]

    Bernitt, G

    S. Bernitt, G. V . Brown, J. K. Rudolph, R. Steinbrugge, A. Graf, M. Leutenegger, S. W. Epp, S. Eberle, K. Kubicek, V . Mackel, et al., Nature492, 225 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    M. C. Simon, J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, C. Beilmann, M. Schwarz, Z. Harman, S. W. Epp, B. L. Schmitt, T. M. Bau- mann, E. Behar, S. Bernitt, R. Follath, R. Ginzel, C. H. Kei- tel, R. Klawitter, K. Kubi ˇcek, V . Mäckel, P. H. Mokler, G. Re- ichardt, O. Schwarzkopf, and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 183001 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    J. K. Rudolph, S. Bernitt, S. W. Epp, R. Steinbrügge, C. Beil- mann, G. V . Brown, S. Eberle, A. Graf, Z. Harman, N. Hell, 9 M. Leutenegger, A. Müller, K. Schlage, H.-C. Wille, H. Yava¸ s, J. Ullrich, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, Physical Review Letters111, 103002 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Steinbrügge, S

    R. Steinbrügge, S. Bernitt, S. W. Epp, J. K. Rudolph, C. Beil- mann, H. Bekker, S. Eberle, A. Müller, O. O. Versolato, H.-C. Wille, H. ¸ s ¸ s, J. Ullrich, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, Phys. Rev. A91, 32502 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    M. A. Leutenegger, S. Kühn, P. Micke, R. Steinbrügge, J. Stier- hof, C. Shah, N. Hell, M. Bissinger, M. Hirsch, R. Ballhausen, M. Lang, C. Gräfe, S. Wipf, R. Cumbee, G. L. Betancourt- Martinez, S. Park, V . A. Yerokhin, A. Surzhykov, W. C. Stolte, J. Niskanen, M. Chung, F. S. Porter, T. Stöhlker, T. Pfeifer, J. Wilms, G. V . Brown, J. R. Crespo López-Urru...

    2020

  31. [31]

    C. Shah, M. Togawa, M. Botz, J. Danisch, J. J. Goes, S. Bernitt, M. Maxton, K. Köbnick, J. Buck, J. Seltmann, M. Hoesch, M. F. Gu, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, C. Che- ung, M. S. Safronova, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, The As- trophysical Journal969, 52 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Togawa, S

    M. Togawa, S. Kühn, C. Shah, V . A. Zaytsev, N. S. Oreshkina, J. Buck, S. Bernitt, R. Steinbrügge, J. Seltmann, M. Hoesch, C. H. Keitel, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, Physical Review A110, L030802 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    C. Shah, S. Dobrodey, S. Bernitt, R. Steinbrügge, J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, L. Gu, and J. Kaastra, The Astrophysical Jour- nal833, 52 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    S. Kühn, C. Cheung, N. S. Oreshkina, R. Steinbrügge, M. To- gawa, S. Bernitt, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, F. Trinter, C. H. Keitel, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, Z. Harman, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, and C. Shah, Physical Review Letters129, 245001 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    C. Shah, S. Kühn, S. Bernitt, R. Steinbrügge, M. Togawa, L. Berger, J. Buck, M. Hoesch, J. Seltmann, M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, M. F. Gu, F. S. Porter, T. Pfeifer, M. A. Leutenegger, C. Cheung, M. S. Safronova, and J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia, Phys. Rev. A109, 063108 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Schlesser, S

    S. Schlesser, S. Boucard, D. S. Covita, J. M. F. D. Santos, H. Fuhrmann, D. Gotta, A. Gruber, M. Hennebach, A. Hirtl, P. Indelicato, E. O. L. Bigot, L. M. Simons, L. Stingelin, M. Trassinelli, J. F. C. A. Veloso, A. Wasser, and J. Zmeskal, Physical Review A88, 22503 (2013)

    2013

  37. [37]

    B. M. Penetrante, J. N. Bardsley, D. DeWitt, M. Clark, and D. Schneider, Phys. Rev. A43, 4861 (1991)

    1991

  38. [38]

    B. M. Penetrante, J. N. Bardsley, M. A. Levine, D. A. Knapp, and R. E. Marrs, Phys. Rev. A43, 4873 (1991)

    1991

  39. [39]

    Mandal, G

    P. Mandal, G. Sikler, and M. Mukherjee, Journal of Instrumen- tation6(02), P02004

  40. [40]

    Kreckel, H

    H. Kreckel, H. Bruhns, K. A. Miller, E. Wåhlin, A. Davis, S. Höckh, and D. W. Savin, Review of Scientific Instruments 81, 063304 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    Melpignano, S

    P. Melpignano, S. D. Fonzo, A. Bianco, and W. Jark, Review of Scientific Instruments66, 2125 (1995)

    1995

  42. [42]

    Krempasky, R

    J. Krempasky, R. Krempaska, A. G. Bianco, A. Abrami, R. Pugliese, F. Bille, J. A. Karvonen, M. Coreno, and M. de Si- mone, inGratings and Grating Monochromators for Syn- chrotron Radiation, edited by W. R. McKinney and C. A. Palmer (SPIE, 1997)

    1997

  43. [43]

    Follath and A

    R. Follath and A. Balzer, inAIP Conference Proceedings, V ol. 1234 (2010) pp. 657–660

    2010

  44. [44]

    Krempaský, R

    J. Krempaský, R. Follath, V . N. Strocov, T. Schmitt, and U. Flechsig, inAdvances in X-Ray/EUV Optics and Compo- nents VI, V ol. 8139 (SPIE, 2011) p. 81390K

    2011

  45. [45]

    Poletto, F

    L. Poletto, F. Frassetto, P. Miotti, A. D. Cicco, P. Finetti, C. Grazioli, F. Iesari, A. Kivimäki, S. Stagira, and M. Coreno, Review of Scientific Instruments85, 10.1063/1.4898315 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4898315 2014

  46. [46]

    Frassetto, S

    F. Frassetto, S. Coraggia, N. Gerasimova, S. Dziarzhytski, T. Golz, H. Weigelt, and L. Poletto, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment635, S94 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    V . A. Yerokhin, V . c. v. Patkóš, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022815 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    P. T. Boggs and J. E. Rogers, inStatistical Analysis of Mea- surement Error Models and Applications: Proceedings of the AMS-IMS-SIAM Joint Summer Research Conference held June 10–16, 1989, Contemporary Mathematics, V ol. 112 (American Mathematical Society, 1990) p. 186

    1989

  49. [49]

    Liao, S.-N

    J.-Y . Liao, S.-N. Zhang, and Y . Yao, The Astrophysical Journal 774, 116 (2013)

    2013

  50. [50]

    J. S. Kaastra, A. J. J. Raassen, R. Mewe, N. Arav, E. Behar, E. Costantini, J. R. Gabel, G. A. Kriss, D. Proga, M. Sako, and K. C. Steenbrugge, Astronomy & Astrophysics428, 57 (2004)

    2004

  51. [51]

    Berrington, L

    K. Berrington, L. Quigley, and H. L. Zhang, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics30, 5409 (1997)

    1997

  52. [52]

    Lin, C.-S

    H. Lin, C.-S. Hsue, and K. T. Chung, Phys. Rev. A65, 032706 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    Kramida, Y

    A. Kramida, Y . Ralchenko, J. Reader, and N. A. Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.12) (2024), [Online] (Na- tional Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    M. F. Gu, Canadian Journal of Physics86, 675 (2008)

    2008

  55. [55]

    M. F. Gu, T. Holczer, E. Behar, and S. M. Kahn, Astrophys. J. 641, 1227 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512410 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    Breit, Physical Review34, 553 (1929)

    G. Breit, Physical Review34, 553 (1929)

    1929

  57. [57]

    Shabaev, I

    V . Shabaev, I. Tupitsyn, and V . Yerokhin, Computer Physics Communications189, 175 (2015)

    2015

  58. [58]

    C. F. Fischer, G. Gaigalas, P. Jönsson, and J. Biero´n, Computer Physics Communications237, 184 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    J. P. Desclaux, Computer Physics Communications9, 31 (1975)

    1975

  60. [60]

    Indelicato and J

    P. Indelicato and J. P. Desclaux, Physical Review A42, 5139 (1990)

    1990

  61. [61]

    J. Lowe, C. Chantler, and I. Grant, Radiation Physics and Chemistry85, 118 (2013)

    2013

  62. [62]

    J. Li, C. Nazé, M. Godefroid, S. Fritzsche, G. Gaigalas, P. Indel- icato, and P. Jönsson, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022518 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.022518 2012

  63. [63]

    N. J. Stone, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables90, 75 (2005)

    2005

  64. [64]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 30003 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    W. J. Huang, M. Wang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chinese Physics C45, 30002 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Mandelshtam, T

    V . Mandelshtam, T. Ravuri, and H. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1932 (1993)

    1932

  67. [67]

    V . A. Zaytsev, I. A. Maltsev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V . M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A100, 052504 (2019)

    2019

  68. [68]

    V . A. Zaytsev, A. V . Malyshev, and V . M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A107, 032801 (2023)

    2023