Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Isotope shift spectroscopy in mercury vapors: a valid alternative to ytterbium for new physics search

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mercury isotope shifts measured 20 times more accurately reveal a 4.6σ King-plot nonlinearity — a candidate signature of a new boson or of hidden nuclear-structure effects.

desk verdict Excellent mercury isotope shift measurements, but the King-plot nonlinearity relies on a shaky correlation assumption for the old 546-nm data. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08622 v1 pith:EUHDCQAY submitted 2025-09-10 physics.atom-ph

Stefania Gravina , Antonio Castrillo , Livio Gianfrani This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.30.-r42.62.Fi32.70.Jz
keywords isotopeshiftspectroscopymercuryKingplotnewphysicssearchfrequencycombdeep-UVsaturatedabsorptionintercombinationline
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 the most accurate measurements to date of the isotope shifts of the 254-nm intercombination line of mercury, covering all five stable bosonic isotopes. Using frequency-comb-locked, wavelength-modulated saturated absorption spectroscopy, the authors determine line centers with a precision of a few parts in 10^12, improving the global isotope-shift uncertainty by more than a factor of 20 over the best previous data. Combining their results with 1989 measurements of a second mercury transition at 546 nm, they build a King plot whose deviation from linearity reaches a statistical significance of 4.6σ — a potential fingerprint of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as a new boson mediating a short-range neutron–electron force. Because mercury nuclei are nearly spherical, the nuclear-deformation contributions that dominate King-plot nonlinearities in ytterbium are expected to be much smaller in mercury, making it a cleaner probe for such a search.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the King plot built from mass-scaled isotope shifts. For any two transitions, the two-term isotope shift formula ν = Kµ + Fδ⟨r²⟩ can be rearranged into a linear relation between the mass-scaled shifts of the two lines, with slope and intercept encoding the electronic coefficients F₂/F₁ and K. Deviations from that straight line expose contributions the two-term formula omits — quadratic field shift, nuclear deformation, or a Yukawa-like new-boson term α_NP X h^(A,A′). Experimentally, the new precision comes from comb-referenced, wavelength-modulated saturated absorption (Lamb-dip) spectroscopy on temperature-stabilized natural-abundance mercury vapor at 253.7 nm, wi

What would settle it

Re-measure the isotope shifts of the 546-nm transition for the same four isotope pairs with modern comb-referenced accuracy and rebuild the King plot. If the nonlinearity persists at the same or higher significance, the 4.6σ is a real effect; if it disappears or drops below roughly 3σ, it was an artifact of the 1989 measurements or of unaccounted correlations. A complementary check: measure a third transition's isotope shifts and test whether the nonlinearity scales with the neutron-number difference A − A′, as a new-boson term would.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two results drive the paper. First, absolute center frequencies of the 6s² ¹S₀ → 6s6p ³P₁ intercombination line at 253.7 nm are measured for all five bosonic mercury isotopes, giving isotope shifts in four pairs with roughly 10-kHz uncertainties — more than 20 times better than the earlier literature. Second, plotted against mass-scaled isotope shifts of the 546-nm transition taken from 1989 data, these shifts form a King plot that departs from linearity with a statistical significance of 4.6σ. The authors read this as a candidate signature of an extra term in the isotope shift — higher-order nuclear effects or a new boson coupling neutrons to electrons — and stress that mercury's nearly sph

Load-bearing premise

The 4.6σ significance rests on the isotope-shift data for the 546-nm transition, published in 1989, being accurate and mutually uncorrelated; the paper justifies ignoring their correlations with a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.73, a test that does not actually measure the correlations among the data points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new 254-nm isotope shift values, with roughly 10-kHz uncertainties, become the reference standard for mercury isotope shift work and calibrate the electronic coefficients K₂₅₄ and F₂₅₄ of the intercombination line.
  • If the 4.6σ King-plot nonlinearity survives remeasurement of the 546-nm line, it provides a target for exclusion plots constraining a hypothetical boson that couples neutrons to electrons.
  • Mercury's small quadrupole deformation means that, unlike in ytterbium, nuclear deformation is unlikely to be the leading source of King-plot nonlinearity — so any confirmed nonlinearity can be attributed more cleanly to new physics or to higher-order field-shift effects.
  • The authors state explicitly that new, improved measurements of the 546-nm transition are required before the nonlinearity can be interpreted; the result is a demand for confirmation, not a final claim.
  • More accurate line-center frequencies for the intercombination line directly benefit mercury laser cooling and magneto-optical trapping applications that rely on this transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The robustness of the 4.6σ is not yet demonstrated: the Durbin-Watson statistic used to justify treating the 1989 546-nm data as uncorrelated tests autocorrelation of regression residuals, not the pairwise correlations among the isotope-shift data points; properly accounting for those correlations could shift the p-value.
  • A decisive test would be to measure the 546-nm transition with the present apparatus; if the nonlinearity is genuine and physics-driven, it should persist at similar significance with the new data rather than vanish as an artifact of the 1989 measurements.
  • Because the new-boson term scales with the neutron-number difference h = A − A′, an extended dataset spanning more isotope pairs could distinguish a new-boson signature from a smooth nuclear-radius-dependent term like the quadratic field shift.
  • Measurements of additional mercury transitions (for instance the ³P₀ clock line) at comparable accuracy would allow a multi-transition nonlinearity decomposition, placing mercury on the same footing as ytterbium and separating nuclear-deformation from new-boson contributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports comb-referenced, wavelength-modulated saturated absorption spectroscopy of the 254-nm Hg intercombination line for the five bosonic isotopes of mercury, extracting isotope shifts for four pairs relative to 198Hg with uncertainties in the 9–13 kHz range, an improvement by more than a factor of 20 over earlier experimental determinations. The measured shifts are combined with literature 546-nm isotope shifts to construct a King plot. A generalized-least-squares fit with diagonal covariance is reported to give normalized chi-square = 26, p = 2.3 × 10^-6, quoted as a 4.6σ nonlinearity. The authors justify neglecting off-diagonal covariance elements by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.73 and conclude that mercury is a promising system for new-physics searches.

Significance. If confirmed, the King-plot nonlinearity would be an important result: mercury is a new atomic system with nearly spherical nuclei, unlike the deformed ytterbium isotopes, so a nonlinearity would be more difficult to attribute to nuclear deformation and would sharpen the case for non-standard sources. The experimental achievements are substantial and credible: absolute frequencies at the 10^-12 level, a detailed type-A/type-B uncertainty budget, controlled ac-Stark and pressure-shift corrections, and agreement with the best previous experimental isotope shifts. The central claim, however, is the 4.6σ nonlinearity, and that claim currently rests on a statistical treatment of 1989 external data that is not adequately justified. The paper itself acknowledges that the result 'requires confirmation', which is appropriate; the issue is that the stated significance is presented as a quantitative detection without a valid covariance analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [King plot paragraph after Fig. 3] The Durbin-Watson statistic is used to justify setting the off-diagonal elements of the 546-nm covariance matrix to zero. This is not a valid justification: the Durbin-Watson statistic tests serial correlation of residuals from a regression, not the covariance of the data points. Moreover, the value 1.73 is inconsistent with the paper's own residual pattern: a '-+-+' pattern in four residuals gives DW ≈ 3, indicating negative autocorrelation, not the positive autocorrelation implied by 1.73. Since the 546-nm isotope shifts in Ref. [33] were measured in a single scanning experiment referenced to 198Hg, common-mode calibration and reference uncertainties necessarily induce off-diagonal elements. With only four data points and two fitted parameters, the reported χ² = 26 is fragile; a realistic covariance matrix could move the p-value well above the 4.6σ threshold. The authors should either
  2. [King plot paragraph after Fig. 3] The manuscript states that 'complications arise if the matrix is negative definite, like the one we built for the isotope shift data of the 546-nm transition'. A covariance matrix is positive semidefinite by construction; a negative-definite matrix indicates an error in how the covariance was assembled. Using this as a reason to discard off-diagonal elements is not statistically sound. This compounds the previous concern and further undermines the reported significance.
  3. [Table III and fit to Fig. 3] The 254-nm isotope shifts are all differences with respect to 198Hg and share a common frequency-calibration uncertainty of 4.2 kHz (Table III) as well as possibly common pressure-shift systematics. The 'weighted linear fit taking into account the uncertainties of both variables' should include this covariance. If only diagonal uncertainties were used, the quoted χ² and p-value are not a valid generalized-least-squares result, and the stated 4.6σ significance is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The notation F2/F1 in Eq. (2) is introduced before the reader has seen the mass-scaled shift defined explicitly; consider defining \(\tilde\nu^{A,A'}_i\) in the text preceding the equation.
  2. [Abstract and text] The abstract uses '5.9 10^-12' without a multiplication symbol; please use consistent scientific notation (e.g., 5.9 × 10^-12).
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states 'The error bars on both the x- and y-axes correspond to 1σ' but does not specify whether these include type-B uncertainties or whether any correlations are represented. Please clarify.
  4. [Table II] The sign convention for isotope shifts (negative for heavier isotopes relative to 198Hg) is not stated explicitly. Please add a sentence to the table caption.
  5. [References] Reference [28] journal name is 'Opt. Express' in standard abbreviated form; please check consistency. Also, Ref. [34] is commonly cited as the Durbin-Watson test, not 'statistic test'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the isotope shifts and King-plot nonlinearity are derived from independent frequency measurements and external 546-nm data, not from fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct experimental frequency determinations and a statistical King-plot analysis. Equation (1) defines the isotope shift as a sum of mass and field shift terms; Eq. (2) is a linear rearrangement that eliminates δ<r²>. The measured 254-nm isotope shifts (Table II) are direct differences of comb-referenced absolute frequency determinations relative to 198Hg, with uncertainties from Table III. The King plot (Fig. 3) combines these measured shifts with 546-nm shifts taken from Ref. [33]. The reported 4.6σ nonlinearity is the statistical significance of the residual scatter from a weighted linear fit (normalized χ²=26, p=2.3×10⁻⁶). The fitted coefficients K254 and F254, obtained from a separate regression against δ<r²> values from Ref. [30], are not inputs to the King plot and do not force the nonlinearity; they are reported as useful electronic coefficients, not as predictions of the King-plot result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Durbin-Watson discussion (value 1.73 used to justify neglecting off-diagonal covariance elements) may be statistically questionable, but that is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity: it does not make the 4.6σ claim equivalent to the paper's own inputs by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [21], [24], [25], [26] concern experimental apparatus and previous determinations; they are not used as proof of the new measurement or the King-plot nonlinearity. The paper explicitly states that the result 'requires confirmation with new and improved measurements on the transition at 546 nm,' appropriately flagging the dependence on external data without making the claim tautological. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central King plot claim rests on the standard two-term isotope shift model plus two modeling assumptions: isotope-independent ac-Stark coefficient and negligible correlations in the 546-nm dataset. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ac-Stark shift per unit intensity = -2.23(12) kHz/mW/cm^2
    Measured only for 200Hg at multiple intensities; applied to all isotopes assuming isotope independence.
  • Pressure shift coefficient = -33(11) kHz/Pa
    Taken from Ref. [28] (Witkowski et al. 2019); used to correct isotope shifts for Hg-Hg collisions.
  • Electronic coefficients K254 and F254 = K254 = -2.67(47) THz u; F254 = -52.37(24) GHz/fm^2
    Fit to mass-scaled isotope shifts versus δ<r²> from Ref. [30]; not used in the King plot nonlinearity claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Isotope shifts factor into a mass-shift term and a field-shift term with transition-dependent electronic factors and isotope-pair-dependent nuclear factors (Eq. 1).
    Standard assumption in isotope shift theory; invoked to derive the King plot linearity.
  • domain assumption Higher-order contributions (quadratic field shift, nuclear deformation, new boson) are small and cause deviations from King plot linearity (Eq. 3).
    Basis for interpreting any nonlinearity; the relative sizes of these terms are not known a priori.
  • ad hoc to paper The ac-Stark shift per unit intensity measured for 200Hg applies to all other isotopes.
    Only 200Hg was measured at multiple intensities; Table I applies the same coefficient scaled by intensity to 196, 198, 202, and 204.
  • ad hoc to paper Off-diagonal elements of the covariance matrix for the 546-nm isotope shifts can be neglected, justified by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.73.
    Durbin-Watson tests residual autocorrelation in a regression; using it to justify dropping the covariance off-diagonal terms is not standard and could affect the χ².

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isotope shift spectroscopy in mercury vapors: a valid alternative to ytterbium for new physics search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUHDCQAY

@misc{pith2026250908622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isotope shift spectroscopy in mercury vapors: a valid alternative to ytterbium for new physics search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUHDCQAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08622}
}
abstract

Precision isotope shift metrology in the deep-UV region has been performed for all bosonic isotopes of mercury with a zero nuclear spin, by using the technique of frequency-comb referenced, wavelength-modulated, saturated absorption spectroscopy. The absolute center frequencies of the 6s$^2$ $^1$S$_0$ $\rightarrow$ 6s6p $^3$P$_1$ intercombination line have been measured with precision in the range of 2.5 - 5.9 10$^{-12}$, in temperature-stabilized mercury vapor samples with natural abundances. Frequency shifts in four isotope pairs have been determined with unprecedented accuracy, the global uncertainty being improved by a factor greater than 20 with respect to the best experimental data of the past literature. Our data set, when combined with previous measurements on the 6s6p $^3$P$_2$$\rightarrow$6s7s $^3$S$_1$ transition at 546 nm, allows us to build a King plot that reveals a nonlinearity with a statistical significance of 4.6$\sigma$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Examples of sub-Doppler spectra for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass-scaled isotope shifts for the Hg intercombi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. King plot of the Hg 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references

  1. [33]

    Meija, T

    J. Meija, T. B. Coplen, M. Berglund, W. A. Brand, P. D. Bi` evre, M. Gr¨ oning, N. E. Holden, J. Irrgeher, R. D. Loss, T. Walczyk, and T. Prohaska, Isotopic compositions of the elements 2013 (iupac technical report), Pure and Ap- plied Chemistry88, 293 (2016)

    2013

  2. [1]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  3. [2]

    In Figure 3, the mass-scaled isotope shifts of the 546-nm transition are plotted against the data of the intercombination line

    To this end, we considered the 6s6p 3P2→6s7s 3S1 transition at 546 nm, whose isotope shift data are taken from [33]. In Figure 3, the mass-scaled isotope shifts of the 546-nm transition are plotted against the data of the intercombination line. The relative uncertainties on ˜νA,A′ 254nm range from 1.6×10 −6 to 3.1×10 −6, while those on ˜νA,A′ 546nm vary b...

    2022

  4. [3]

    Petersen, R

    M. Petersen, R. Chicireanu, S. T. Dawkins, D. V. Mag- alh˜ aes, C. Mandache, Y. Le Coq, A. Clairon, and S. Bize, Doppler-free spectroscopy of the 1s0−3p0 optical clock transition in laser-cooled fermionic isotopes of neutral mercury, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 183004 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Mejri, J

    S. Mejri, J. J. McFerran, L. Yi, Y. Le Coq, and S. Bize, Ultraviolet laser spectroscopy of neutral mercury in a one-dimensional optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A84, 032507 (2011)

    2011

  6. [5]

    Lavigne, T

    Q. Lavigne, T. Groh, and S. Stellmer, Magneto-optical trapping of mercury at high phase-space density, Phys. Rev. A105, 033106 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    C. Guo, V. Cambier, J. Calvert, M. Favier, M. Andia, L. de Sarlo, and S. Bize, Exploiting the two-dimensional magneto-optical trapping of 199Hg for a mercury optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. A107, 033116 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    J. J. McFerran, L. Yi, S. Mejri, S. Di Manno, W. Zhang, J. Gu´ ena, Y. Le Coq, and S. Bize, Neutral atom frequency reference in the deep ultraviolet with fractional uncertainty = 5.7×10 −15, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 183004 (2012)

    2012

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel, Reduced limit on the permanent electric dipole moment of 199Hg, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 161601 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    C. Abel, N. J. Ayres, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, E. Chanel, P.-J. Chiu, B. Cl´ ement, C. B. 6 Crawford, M. Daum, S. Emmenegger, L. Ferraris- Bouchez, M. Fertl, P. Flaux, A. Fratangelo, W. C. Grif- fith, Z. D. Gruji´ c, P. G. Harris, L. Hayen, N. Hild, M. Kasprzak, ...

    2022

  3. [10]

    Truong, D

    G.-W. Truong, D. Stuart, J. D. Anstie, E. F. May, T. M. Stace, and A. N. Luiten, Atomic spectroscopy for primary thermometry, Metrologia52, S324 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    Gravina, N

    S. Gravina, N. A. Chishti, A. Castrillo, L. Gian- frani, A. Sorgi, P. C. Pastor, C. Clivati, F. Bertiglia, G. Lopardo, F. Levi, and G. Galzerano, Comb-locked deep-ultraviolet laser system for precision mercury spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. A109, 022816 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    J. C. Berengut and C. Delaunay, Precision isotope-shift spectroscopy for new physics searches and nuclear in- sights, Nature Reviews Physics7, 119 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Delaunay, R

    C. Delaunay, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, and Y. Soreq, Probing atomic higgs-like forces at the precision frontier, Phys. Rev. D96, 093001 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Frugiuele, E

    C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, G. Perez, and M. Schlaffer, Con- straining new physics models with isotope shift spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. D96, 015011 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    J. C. Berengut, D. Budker, C. Delaunay, V. V. Flam- baum, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, C. Grojean, R. Harnik, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, and Y. Soreq, Probing new long- range interactions by isotope shift spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 091801 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Counts, J

    I. Counts, J. Hur, D. P. L. Aude Craik, H. Jeon, C. Le- ung, J. C. Berengut, A. Geddes, A. Kawasaki, W. Jhe, and V. Vuleti´ c, Evidence for nonlinear isotope shift in yb+ search for new boson, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 123002 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    N. L. Figueroa, J. C. Berengut, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flam- baum, D. Budker, and D. Antypas, Precision determina- tion of isotope shifts in ytterbium and implications for new physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 073001 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    J. Hur, D. P. L. Aude Craik, I. Counts, E. Knyazev, L. Caldwell, C. Leung, S. Pandey, J. C. Berengut, A. Geddes, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Reinhard, A. Kawasaki, H. Jeon, W. Jhe, and V. Vuleti´ c, Evidence of two-source king plot nonlinearity in spec- troscopic search for new boson...

    2022

  12. [19]

    Door, C.-H

    M. Door, C.-H. Yeh, M. Heinz, F. Kirk, C. Lyu, T. Miyagi, J. C. Berengut, J. Biero´ n, K. Blaum, L. S. Dreissen, S. Eliseev, P. Filianin, M. Filzinger, E. Fuchs, H. A. F¨ urst, G. Gaigalas, Z. Harman, J. Herkenhoff, N. Huntemann, C. H. Keitel, K. Kromer, D. Lange, A. Rischka, ...

    2025

  13. [20]

    S. O. Allehabi, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. V. Afanasjev, Nuclear deformation as a source of the non- linearity of the king plot in the yb + ion, Phys. Rev. A 103, L030801 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: Frdm(2012), Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables109-110, 1 (2016)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Gravina, N

    S. Gravina, N. A. Chishti, S. Di Bernardo, E. Fasci, A. Castrillo, A. Laliotis, and L. Gianfrani, Comb- referenced doppler-free spectrometry of the 200Hg and 202Hg intercombination line at 254 nm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 213001 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    W. H. King, Isotope shifts in atomic spectra (Springer- Verlag, New York Inc., 1983)

    1983

  17. [24]

    V. V. Flambaum, A. J. Geddes, and A. V. Viatkina, Iso- tope shift, nonlinearity of king plots, and the search for new particles, Phys. Rev. A97, 032510 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Lopardo, F

    G. Lopardo, F. Bertiglia, A. Barbone, M. Bertinetti, R. Dematteis, D. Giraudi, and L. Gianfrani, A thermo- static chamber for doppler-broadening thermometry of mercury vapors, Measurement173, 108594 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Clivati, S

    C. Clivati, S. Gravina, A. Castrillo, G. A. Costanzo, F. Levi, and L. Gianfrani, Tunable uv spectrometer for doppler broadening thermometry of mercury, Opt. Lett. 45, 3693 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Gravina, C

    S. Gravina, C. Clivati, A. Castrillo, E. Fasci, N. A. Chishti, G. Galzerano, F. Levi, and L. Gianfrani, Mea- surement of the mercury (6s6p) 3p1-state lifetime in the frequency domain from integrated absorbance data, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033240 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Westberg, J

    J. Westberg, J. Wang, and O. Axner, Fast and non- approximate methodology for calculation of wavelength- modulated voigt lineshape functions suitable for real- time curve fitting, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer113, 2049 (2012)

  22. [29]

    Witkowski, G

    M. Witkowski, G. Kowzan, R. Munoz-Rodriguez, R. Ciury lo, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, P. Mas lowski, and M. Za- wada, Absolute frequency and isotope shift measure- ments of mercury 1s0-3p1 transition, Opt. Express27, 11069 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The ame 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references*, Chinese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    J. S. Schelfhout and J. J. McFerran, Multiconfiguration dirac-hartree-fock calculations for hg and cd with esti- mates for unknown clock-transition frequencies, Phys. Rev. A105, 022805 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    M. D. Rayman, C. G. Aminoff, and J. L. Hall, Precise laser frequency scanning using frequency-synthesized op- tical frequency sidebands: application to isotope shifts and hyperfine structure of mercury, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 539 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    Durbin and G

    J. Durbin and G. S. Watson, Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. I, Biometrika37, 409 (1950)

    1950

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.