Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Comprehensive Laboratory Benchmark of K-shell Dielectronic Satellites of Fe XXV-XXI Ions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Iron K-shell dielectronic satellites are resolved to n=11 and measured to under 15 percent uncertainty, confirming the atomic code used in plasma models.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Fe K-shell DR benchmark dataset that overreaches in its claim to 'excellently confirm' FAC, because the normalization chain is partly FAC-dependent and the only independent check is too coarse to validate the <15% scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14833 v1 pith:FGEZ45SU submitted 2025-05-20 physics.atom-ph astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph

Chintan Shah , Pedro Amaro , Filipe Grilo , Ming Feng Gu , Liyi Gu , José Paulo Santos , F. Scott Porter , Thomas Pfeifer
show 2 more authors
Maurice A. Leutenegger José R. Crespo López-Urrutia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords dielectronicrecombinationFeXXVXXIK-shellsatelliteselectronbeamiontrapdistorted-wavecalculationsFlexibleAtomicCodeX-rayplasmadiagnostics
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 comprehensive laboratory study to date of the K-shell dielectronic recombination (DR) resonances of iron ions Fe XXV through Fe XXI, the process that dominates formation of the Fe K-shell X-ray lines seen in hot astrophysical and fusion plasmas. Using an electron beam ion trap with roughly 7 eV collision-energy resolution, the authors resolve the KLn satellite series up to n'=11 and derive absolute cross sections, normalized to radiative recombination into the n=2 shell, with total uncertainties below 15 percent. The central claim is that these measured DR satellite cross sections, together with the associated radiative-recombination and electron-impact-excitation cross sections, confirm the accuracy of relativistic distorted-wave calculations carried out with the Flexible Atomic Code (FAC). The paper also supplies machine-readable resonance energies, rates, branching ratios, and strengths for Fe XXV through Fe XXI up to n'=15, and derives DR rate coefficients that agree within 10 percent with a standard tabulated database used in spectral models.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the KLn dielectronic-recombination resonance: a doubly excited state of an iron ion formed when a free electron is captured into the n-shell while a K-shell electron is promoted to the L-shell, followed by radiative n=2→1 decay that emits the satellite photon. The Flexible Atomic Code (FAC), a relativistic distorted-wave atomic-structure package, computes the resonance energies and strengths, the RR cross sections used for normalization, the collision-radiative level populations, and the polarization corrections. The experimental machinery is an electron beam ion trap whose roughly 7 eV electron-beam energy spread (E/ΔE ≈ 900 at 6.5 keV) is what allows satellites to be separated up to n'=11; the analytical machinery is the normalization chain that converts X-ray counts into absolute cross sections using FAC RR cross sections and a simulation of 27 coupled charge-balance equations with FAC ionization and recombination rates.

What would settle it

Re-measure the same KLn DR resonances of Fe XXV–XXI in a merged-beams storage-ring experiment, where absolute cross sections are obtained from measured beam densities and interaction lengths without any FAC input; a deviation larger than the quoted uncertainties would show that the RR-normalized benchmark carries a normalization bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a quantitative confirmation: when the measured KLn DR satellite cross sections of Fe XXV–XXI, normalized to FAC radiative recombination and weighted by a FAC-simulated charge-state distribution, are compared with FAC distorted-wave predictions, the two agree within the experimental uncertainties across the Kα, Kβ, Kγ, and Kn≥5 satellite groups. The agreement holds at a level, below 15 percent, that the authors take to validate FAC for generating the atomic datasets used in astrophysical and fusion plasma models. Localized discrepancies remain: high-n satellites near the K-shell excitation threshold are slightly underestimated by FAC, a KLM (Kα) resonance near 5760 eV is underestimated, and KLN (Kγ) resonances near 6170 and 6190 eV exceed the measurements; the paper flags the first as plausibly due to omitted n'>15 channels and the others as unexplained. An independent normalization using a previously measured KLL DR resonance gives cross sections consistent with the RR(n=2) normalization, which the authors use to confirm their uncertainty estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's absolute scale comes from normalizing measured intensities to FAC's own radiative-recombination cross sections and from a charge-state distribution simulated with FAC rate coefficients, so a systematic error in FAC at that stage would be inherited by the very data used to test FAC; the agreement is then partly a consistency check rather than an independent test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The resolved KLn satellite energies and strengths up to n'=11 give spectral-fitting codes a direct benchmark for the Fe Kα complex, where high-n satellites blend into the resonance line and can mimic broadening or velocity shifts.
  • Agreement between measured and FAC cross sections below 15 percent supports using FAC as the engine for the large atomic datasets required by astrophysical and fusion plasma models.
  • The derived DR rate coefficients for Fe XXV–XXIII agree within 10 percent with a standard tabulated DR database, indicating the new dataset is consistent with the rates behind major spectral models.
  • The unresolved discrepancies near threshold and at specific KLM/KLN resonances define where the next generation of calculations or measurements, including n'>15 channels and higher resolution, should focus.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If FAC is trustworthy at the demonstrated level for this isoelectronic sequence, the same distorted-wave machinery could be extended with less experimental oversight to DR of neighbouring mid-Z elements, whose satellites fall in the same X-ray band and blend into iron diagnostics.
  • Because the absolute scale rests on FAC radiative-recombination cross sections, a future storage-ring measurement of DR or RR that is independent of FAC could rescale the published dataset by a single global factor; publishing the strengths in machine-readable form makes such a rescaling straightforward.
  • The unexplained KLM/KLN discrepancies and the near-threshold shortfall suggest that adding n'>15 Rydberg channels and a denser resonance grid to FAC is a concrete, testable improvement that the present data can already judge.
  • The low-energy n=3→2 and n=4→2 cascade measurements extend the same benchmark to the Fe L-shell band, so the dataset could also test atomic data used for lower-temperature photoionized plasmas, not only the high-temperature collisional case emphasized in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports laboratory measurements of K-shell dielectronic recombination (DR) satellites of Fe XXV–XXI ions using the FLASH-EBIT, resolving KLn satellites up to n′=11 with an electron-beam energy resolution of about 7 eV. The authors normalize measured DR intensities to radiative recombination (RR) into n=2, using FAC-calculated RR cross sections and a charge-state distribution extracted by fitting the RR band with FAC peak shapes and energies; they also simulate the charge balance with a FAC collisional-radiative model. The resulting absolute cross sections are compared with FAC distorted-wave predictions, and an additional normalization using the [1s2s²]J=1/2 KLL resonance cross sections of Beiersdorfer et al. (1992) is presented as an independent check. The paper concludes that the data 'excellently confirm' the accuracy and suitability of FAC for astrophysical and fusion plasma modeling, and it provides machine-readable FAC atomic data as supplementary material.

Significance. If the absolute cross-section scale were genuinely independent, this would be a valuable benchmark dataset for K-shell DR of Fe ions, which is directly relevant to X-ray spectral modeling of hot astrophysical plasmas. The experiment achieves a notable improvement in electron-beam energy resolution and extends satellite resolution to n′=11, and the paper makes the measured spectra and a large FAC atomic dataset available in machine-readable form. The independent B92 normalization cross-check, although limited, is a genuine anchor. However, the central benchmark claim is weakened by the fact that the absolute normalization, the charge-state simulation, and the energy-scale calibration all rely on FAC itself, so the agreement with FAC DR is partly a consistency check rather than an independent test.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The absolute cross-section scale is defined by normalizing the total RR intensity to FAC-calculated RR cross sections and to charge-state fractions obtained by fitting the RR band with FAC peak shapes and energies; the electron-beam energy scale is also calibrated with FAC DR resonance energies in the same section. As a result, the comparison between the measured cross sections and the FAC distorted-wave predictions in Fig. 5 is partly a consistency check: a systematic bias in FAC RR cross sections or rate coefficients would be inherited by the 'experimental' scale and would not appear as a discrepancy. The independent B92 normalization covers only one weak, unpolarized resonance and carries a 20% uncertainty, so it cannot validate the <15% claim across all charge states and n values. The authors should quantify how a systematic error in the FAC RR cross sections (beyond the assumed 5%) propagates into the DR cross-section scale, and should either provide a second independent normalization or explicitly narrow the benchmark claim to relative shapes and energies rather than absolute cross sections.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The abstract and Section 5 state that the data 'excellently confirm' the accuracy of FAC and that agreement is 'overall excellent', but Section 4.1 itself lists specific discrepancies: the KLM Kα resonance at ~5760 eV is underestimated by FAC, the KLN Kγ resonances at ~6170 and ~6190 eV are overestimated, and the high-n satellites near the excitation threshold are underestimated. These deviations are part of the central comparison, so the wording should be revised to a more balanced and quantitative assessment, for example reporting the typical and maximum residuals between measured and predicted cross sections rather than claiming excellent agreement without qualification.
  3. [§4.1 and Fig. 4(c)] The charge-state fractions n_cs are extracted by fitting the RR band with FAC-calculated peak positions and line shapes, and the comparison with the FAC collisional-radiative simulation in Fig. 4(c) is therefore not an independent validation of the charge balance. If the FAC RR cross-section ratios between charge states are biased, the fitted fractions and the normalization factor would be biased in a correlated way. The authors should either use an independent atomic model for the RR fit or the charge-state simulation, or explicitly discuss this assumption and its impact on the absolute cross-section uncertainties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] The vertical axis label reads 'T emperature' (with a space); this should be corrected to 'Temperature'.
  2. [Figure 5] The legend entries such as 'He x nHe' and 'Li x nLi' are cryptic; please define the notation in the caption or use more explicit labels such as 'He-like × n_He'.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence 'This gives us a relative electron-energy resolution of E/ΔE≈900 at 6.5 keV, nearly ten times better than earlier Fe works' would benefit from a citation to the specific earlier works and their typical resolution values, so the reader can appreciate the improvement quantitatively.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The caption uses 'nshell' as a column header; consider writing 'n shell' or 'Shell index' for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Benchmark partially circular: energy scale and absolute normalization are set by FAC, so agreement with FAC DR is partly a consistency check.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'K-shell cross sections: KLn DR satellites', paragraph describing electron-beam energy calibration (preceding Fig. 4)]
    "The effective electron-beam energy differs from nominal because of the negative space charge of the electron beam compensated by the positive space charge of the ion cloud (Currell & Fussmann 2005). We therefore calibrated the electron beam energy using theoretical DR resonance energies."

    The electron-beam energy scale is set to FAC's theoretical DR resonance energies, and the paper then compares the measured DR spectra against those same FAC energies to claim agreement (e.g., 'Our experimental data excellently confirm the accuracy and suitability of distorted-wave calculations'). Any global offset in FAC's computed resonance energies is absorbed into the calibration, so the energy positions in the benchmark are not an independent test of FAC. This is a self-definitional step: the measured energy axis is defined in terms of the theoretical quantity being validated.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, normalization to RR n=2 and comparison in Fig. 5]
    "For each slice of the electron beam energy, we first calculate the RR X-ray energies and 90◦ RR cross sections using FAC. ... we simulate the charge-state distribution by numerically solving 27 coupled differential equations ... with their ionization and recombination cross sections calculated by FAC. ... Finally, we compared our measured DR cross sections with FAC predictions weighted by the simulated charge-state distribution as a function of electron-beam energy (see Fig. 5)."

    The measured DR cross sections are normalized by an effective factor C = I_RR / (sum_cs n_cs σ_RR_cs), where σ_RR_cs and the fitted charge-state fractions n_cs are obtained from FAC RR cross sections and FAC-based synthetic spectra; the theoretical curves compared against them are weighted by a charge-state distribution simulated with FAC rate coefficients. Thus the absolute scale and the charge-state weighting enter both sides of the comparison. If FAC's RR cross sections or charge balance are systematically biased, the 'experimental' DR cross sections inherit that bias, so the claimed agreement with FAC DR is in part a self-consistency test rather than an independent benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's energy axis is calibrated to FAC DR resonance energies, so energy agreement with FAC is partly self-referential. The absolute DR cross-section scale is determined by normalizing to FAC RR cross sections and a charge-state distribution that is fitted using FAC synthetic RR spectra and cross-checked against a FAC rate-coefficient simulation; the theoretical comparison in Fig. 5 uses the same type of FAC-based charge-state weighting. Thus the 'excellent confirmation' of FAC is partly a consistency check. However, the DR intensities themselves are measured independently, the paper reports specific discrepancies (KLM Kα at ~5760 eV, KLN Kγ at ~6170/6190 eV, high-n near threshold), and there is an external B92 normalization check, albeit with 20% uncertainty. The derivation is therefore partially circular but not fully reduced to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on: (1) FAC as both the normalization source and the benchmark target; (2) the assumed 3-5% accuracy of RR cross sections; (3) the charge-balance simulation with FAC rate coefficients; (4) the energy calibration using FAC resonance energies; (5) polarization corrections from FAC; and (6) the negligible pileup assumption. No new entities are introduced. The fitted normalization factor and fitted charge-state fractions are the main free parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • RR(n=2) normalization factor = (3.47 +/- 0.37) x 10^22 counts cm^-2
    All DR cross sections are converted from counts by dividing by this factor, obtained by fitting measured RR(n=2) band intensities to FAC-computed RR cross sections and experimental charge-state fractions.
  • Electron beam energy space-charge offset = Not stated explicitly; determined by aligning measured DR peaks to FAC theoretical resonance energies
    Beam energy scale was calibrated using theoretical DR resonance energies, making the energy agreement partly dependent on FAC.
  • Fractional charge-state populations = Varying with beam energy; shown in Figures 3 and 4
    Derived from fits of measured RR(n=2) spectra with FAC cross sections and from a 27-equation charge balance simulation using FAC rate coefficients.
  • Transverse electron energy component = ~450 eV
    Input to FAC polarization correction, taken from prior work (Shah et al. 2018).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Distorted-wave and independent-resonance approximations are adequate for these DR cross sections.
    Used in FAC calculations; the paper's conclusion is a benchmark of this approximation, so its validity is assumed.
  • domain assumption RR cross sections of Fe XXV-XXI into n=2 are known from theory to 3-5%.
    Normalization relies on this accuracy; cited to Chen et al. 2005 and Knapp et al. 1989.
  • domain assumption The 27 coupled charge-balance equations with FAC rate coefficients describe the trapped ion population.
    Used to produce the simulated charge-state distribution that weights theory curves; partly validated against RR-derived populations.
  • domain assumption Pileup contributions are negligible; less than 0.5% of counts.
    Paper states pileup contribution is below 0.5%, though it appears in K-beta and RR(n=2) regions.
  • domain assumption Polarization corrections calculated with FAC including cyclotron motion are correct.
    Applies 90-degree intensity correction to both DR and RR; systematic uncertainty not fully quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Laboratory Benchmark of K-shell Dielectronic Satellites of Fe XXV-XXI Ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FGEZ45SU

@misc{pith2026250514833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Laboratory Benchmark of K-shell Dielectronic Satellites of Fe XXV-XXI Ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FGEZ45SU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14833}
}
abstract

We report on comprehensive laboratory studies of the K-shell dielectronic recombination (DR) resonances of Fe XXV - XXI ions that prominently contribute to the hard X-ray spectrum of hot astrophysical plasmas. By scanning a monoenergetic electron beam to resonantly excite trapped Fe ions in an electron beam ion trap, and achieving a high electron-ion collision energy resolution of ~7 eV, we resolve their respective KL$n$ satellites up to n'=11. By normalization to known radiative recombination cross sections we also determine their excitation cross sections and that of the continuum with uncertainties below 15%, and verify our results with an independent normalization based on previous measurements. Our experimental data excellently confirm the accuracy and suitability of distorted-wave calculations obtained with the Flexible Atomic Code (FAC) for modeling astrophysical and fusion plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intensity histogram of energy-resolved X-ray emission of Fe ions versus electron-beam energy. The solid lines contain the DR satellite channels of Kα at ∼6.7 keV resolved up to n = 11. Two diagonal dashed lines mark radiative recombination (RR) into n = 2 and 3 shells. Above the RR n = 2 line, artifacts due to their pile up with L-shell emissions below 2 keV are visible. portance was recognized by (Burgess 1964) for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. K-shell DR rate coefficients of Fe XXV- XXIII ions as a function of plasma electron temperature. The top panels show the comparison between the present DR rates and those available in the OPEN-ADAS database in their LS and IC coupling formats. The bottom panels display the ratio between the present and OPEN-ADAS rate coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted charge-state distribution of Fe ions trapped un￾der the present experimental conditions. Summed DR satellite in￾tensities within the Kα cut are superimposed to highlight the de￾pletion of certain charge states caused by strong DR resonances at different resonance energies. However, due to the unknown electron beam density, ion￾number density, and overlap factor between electron beam and ion cloud, absolute… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Example fit to the radiative recombination (RR) into n = 2 data obtained from a 10-eV broad ROI around an electron-beam energy of 5700 eV. (b) Fractional populations of charge states derived from this fit. (c) Derived fractional charge-state populations as a functi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total DR cross sections (black curve) measured at an angle of 90◦ with respect to the electron beam propagation axis and normalized to RR (n = 2) versus electron-beam energy, with the total uncertainty shown as gray band. Distorted wave predictions obtained with FAC fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of present measurements normalized using one of the KLL resonances with the doubly excited state configura￾tion, [1s2s 2 ]J=1/2, as reported by Beiersdorfer et al. (1992) (B92), with normalization using RR into n = 2 as observed here. The inset shows the reg…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: 2D X-ray intensity histogram as a function of electron beam and X-ray energies. Bottom panel: Summed X-ray intensity projected onto the electron beam energy axis, normalized to the theoretical RR (n = 2) cross sections and corrected for the transmission of t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    602C `\.=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Ali, S., Mahmood, S., Orban, I., et al. 2011, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 44, 225203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/44/22/225203

    doi:10.1088/0953-4075/44/22/225203 2011

  3. [3]

    2017, , 95, 022712

    Amaro, P., Shah, C., Steinbr\"ugge, R., et al. 2017, , 95, 022712. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.022712

    doi:10.1103/physreva.95.022712 2017

  4. [4]

    M., & Grevesse , N

    Asplund , M., Amarsi , A. M., & Grevesse , N. 2021, , 653, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140445

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140445 2021

  5. [5]

    I., Kramida , A., & Ralchenko , Y

    Azarov , V. I., Kramida , A., & Ralchenko , Y. 2023, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 149, 101548, 10.1016/j.adt.2022.101548

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Badnell , N. R. 1986, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 19, 3827, 10.1088/0022-3700/19/22/023

    doi:10.1088/0022-3700/19/22/023 1986

  7. [7]

    A., & Badnell , N

    Bautista , M. A., & Badnell , N. R. 2007, , 466, 755, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077056

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077056 2007

  8. [8]

    2003, , 41, 343

    Beiersdorfer, P. 2003, , 41, 343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094825

    arXiv 2003

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al

    Beiersdorfer , P., Phillips , T., Jacobs , V. L., et al. 1993, , 409, 846, 10.1086/172715

    1993 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Wong, K

    Beiersdorfer, P., Phillips, T. W., Wong, K. L., Marrs, R. E., & Vogel, D. A. 1992, , 46, 3812, 10.1103/PhysRevA.46.3812

    1992 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Bitter , M., & von Goeler , S

    Beiersdorfer , P., Schneider , M. B., Bitter , M., & von Goeler , S. 1992, Review of Scientific Instruments, 63, 5029, 10.1063/1.1143482

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Chen, M

    Beiersdorfer, P., Osterheld, A. L., Chen, M. H., et al. 1990, Phys. Rev. Lett., 65, 1995, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1995

    1990 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Reed, K

    Beiersdorfer, P., Vogel, D. A., Reed, K. J., et al. 1996, , 53, 3974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.53.3974

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Bernitt, S., et al

    Beilmann, C., Mokler, P. H., Bernitt, S., et al. 2011, , 107, 143201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.143201

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    H., et al

    Beilmann, C., Postavaru, O., Arntzen, L. H., et al. 2009, , 80, 050702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.050702

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    H., & Volonte , S

    Bely-Dubau , F., Gabriel , A. H., & Volonte , S. 1979, , 186, 405, 10.1093/mnras/186.3.405

    1979 doi

  9. [17]

    2005, , 357, 599, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08661.x

    Bianchi , S., Matt , G., Nicastro , F., Porquet , D., & Dubau , J. 2005, , 357, 599, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08661.x

    2005

  10. [18]

    2023, Atoms, 11, 10.3390/atoms11030058

    Biela-Nowaczyk, W., Amaro, P., Grilo, F., et al. 2023, Atoms, 11, 10.3390/atoms11030058

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    1964, , 139, 776

    Burgess, A. 1964, , 139, 776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/147813

    1964 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Paerels, F

    Bykov, A. M., Paerels, F. B. S., & Petrosian, V. 2008, Space Science Reviews, 134, 141, 10.1007/s11214-008-9309-4

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    H., et al

    Chen, H., Beiersdorfer, P., Scofield, J. H., et al. 2005, , 618, 1086, 10.1086/426135

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    Chen , M. H. 1986, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 34, 301

    1986

  15. [23]

    S., & Badnell , N

    Colgan , J., Pindzola , M. S., & Badnell , N. R. 2004, , 417, 1183, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034197

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Whiteford , A

    Colgan , J., Pindzola , M. S., Whiteford , A. D., & Badnell , N. R. 2003, , 412, 597, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031362

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    2005, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 33, 1763, 10.1109/TPS.2005.860072

    Currell , F., & Fussmann , G. 2005, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 33, 1763, 10.1109/TPS.2005.860072

    2005

  18. [26]

    M., & Jacobs, V

    Decaux, V., Beiersdorfer, P., Kahn, S. M., & Jacobs, V. L. 1997, , 482, 1076, 10.1086/304169

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    Decaux , V., Beiersdorfer , P., Osterheld , A., Chen , M., & Kahn , S. M. 1995, , 443, 464, 10.1086/175540

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    , Dere, K

    Del Zanna, G. , Dere, K. P. , Young, P. R. , Landi, E. , & Mason, H. E. 2015, , 582, A56. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526827

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    1980, Rep

    Dubau, J., & Volonte, S. 1980, Rep. Prog. Phys., 43, 199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/43/2/002

    1980 doi

  22. [30]

    Ebisawa , K., Ueda , Y., Inoue , H., Tanaka , Y., & White , N. E. 1996, , 467, 419, 10.1086/177616

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    W., L\' o pez-Urrutia, J

    Epp, S. W., L\' o pez-Urrutia, J. R. C., Brenner, G., et al. 2007, , 98, 183001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.183001

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Crespo L \'o pez-Urrutia , J

    Epp , S. W., Crespo L \'o pez-Urrutia , J. R., Simon , M. C., et al. 2010, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 43, 194008, 10.1088/0953-4075/43/19/194008

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Fabian, A. C. 2023, in High-Resolution X-ray Spectroscopy: Instrumentation, Data Analysis, and Science, ed. C. Bambi & J. Jiang (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 3--8, 10.1007/978-981-99-4409-5_1

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, , 756, 128. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    1998, , 58, 4518

    Fuchs, T., Biedermann, C., Radtke, R., Behar, E., & Doron, R. 1998, , 58, 4518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.4518

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    H., & Jordan , C

    Gabriel , A. H., & Jordan , C. 1969, , 145, 241, 10.1093/mnras/145.2.241

    1969 doi

  29. [37]

    J., L\' o pez-Urrutia, J

    Gonz\' a lez Mart\' i nez, A. J., L\' o pez-Urrutia, J. R. C., Braun, J., et al. 2005, , 94, 203201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.203201

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Gottardi, L., & Smith, S. 2024, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 709--754, 10.1007/978-981-19-6960-7_22

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, Phys

    Grilo, F., Shah, C., Marques, J., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. A, 110, 042827, 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.042827

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, , 913, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf737

    Grilo , F., Shah , C., K \"u hn , S., et al. 2021, , 913, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf737

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Gu, M. F. 2003, , 590, 1131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/375135

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    Gu , M. F. 2008, Can. J. Phys, 86, 675, 10.1139/P07-197

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    F., Kahn, S

    Gu, M. F., Kahn, S. M., Savin, D. W., et al. 2001, , 563, 462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/323683

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    1999, , 518, 1002, 10.1086/307326

    ---. 1999, , 518, 1002, 10.1086/307326

    1999 doi

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Harman, Z., Shah, C., Gonz\'alez Mart\' nez, A. J., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. A, 99, 012506, 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012506

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Phillips , K

    Harra-Murnion , L. K., Phillips , K. J. H., Lemen , J. R., et al. 1996, , 308, 670

    1996

  39. [47]

    R., , Beiersdorfer, P., et al

    Henderson, J. R., , Beiersdorfer, P., et al. 1990, , 65, 705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.705

    1990 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Gullikson , E

    Henke , B. L., Gullikson , E. M., & Davis , J. C. 1993, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 54, 181, 10.1006/adnd.1993.1013

    1993

  41. [49]

    2016, , 535, 117

    Hitomi Collaboration , Aharonian , F., Akamatsu , H., et al. 2016, , 535, 117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature18627

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    2018 b , , 70, 12, 10.1093/pasj/psx156

    ---. 2018 b , , 70, 12, 10.1093/pasj/psx156

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    2013, , 87, 052706

    Hu, Z., Li, Y., & Nakamura, N. 2013, , 87, 052706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.052706

    2013 doi

  44. [53]

    S., Ferrigno , C., Tamura , T., et al

    Kaastra , J. S., Ferrigno , C., Tamura , T., et al. 2001, , 365, L99, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000041

    2001 doi

  45. [54]

    S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H

    Kaastra , J. S., Mewe , R., & Nieuwenhuijzen , H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe , 411--414

    1996

  46. [55]

    1998, , 492, 822

    Kato , T., Fujiwara , T., & Hanaoka , Y. 1998, , 492, 822. https://doi.org/10.1086/305047

    1998 doi

  47. [56]

    A., Marrs, R

    Knapp, D. A., Marrs, R. E., Levine, M. A., et al. 1989, , 62, 2104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2104

    1989 doi

  48. [57]

    A., Marrs, R

    Knapp, D. A., Marrs, R. E., Schneider, M. B., et al. 1993, , 47, 2039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.47.2039

    1993 doi

  49. [58]

    V., Schnell , M., Savin , D

    Luki \'c , D. V., Schnell , M., Savin , D. W., et al. 2007, , 664, 1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519073

    2007 doi

  50. [59]

    Massey, H. S. W., & Bates, D. R. 1942, Rep. Prog. Phys., 9, 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/9/1/308

    1942 doi

  51. [60]

    2018, Rev

    Micke, P., Kühn, S., Buchauer, L., et al. 2018, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 89, 063109. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5026961

    2018 doi

  52. [61]

    M., Raymond , J., Reynolds , C

    Miller , J. M., Raymond , J., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2008, , 680, 1359, 10.1086/588521

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    N., Pradhan , A

    Nahar , S. N., Pradhan , A. K., & Zhang , H. L. 2001, , 133, 255, 10.1086/319187

    2001 doi

  54. [63]

    P., Watanabe, H., et al

    Nakamura, N., Kavanagh, A. P., Watanabe, H., et al. 2008, , 100, 073203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.073203

    2008 doi

  55. [64]

    2006, , 368, L62, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00158.x

    Nandra , K. 2006, , 368, L62, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00158.x

    2006

  56. [65]

    2008, Science, 319, 55, 10.1126/science.1151400

    Nicastro, F., Mathur, S., & Elvis, M. 2008, Science, 319, 55, 10.1126/science.1151400

    2008 doi

  57. [66]

    2018, Nature, 558, 406, 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    Nicastro, F., Kaastra, J., Krongold, Y., et al. 2018, Nature, 558, 406, 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    1988, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 38, 339, 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90034-4

    Nilsen , J. 1988, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 38, 339, 10.1016/0092-640X(88)90034-4

    1988 doi

  59. [68]

    Oppenheimer, J. R. 1927, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 13, 800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.13.12.800

    1927 doi

  60. [69]

    D., B\" o hm, S., & Schuch, R

    Orban, I., Loch, S. D., B\" o hm, S., & Schuch, R. 2010, , 721, 1603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1603

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    E., Kuramoto , H., Li , Y

    O'Rourke , B. E., Kuramoto , H., Li , Y. M., et al. 2004, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 37, 2343, 10.1088/0953-4075/37/11/011

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    Pajot, F., Barret, D., Lam-Trong, T., et al. 2018, J. Low Temp. Phys., 193, 901, 10.1117/12.2232432

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    M., Bardsley, J

    Penetrante, B. M., Bardsley, J. N., DeWitt, D., Clark, M., & Schneider, D. 1991 a , , 43, 4861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.43.4861

    1991 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Bardsley, J

    Penetrante, B. M., Bardsley, J. N., Levine, M. A., Knapp, D. A., & Marrs, R. E. 1991 b , , 43, 4873. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.43.4873

    1991 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Paerels , F

    Peterson , J. R., Paerels , F. B. S., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2001, , 365, L104, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000021

    2001 doi

  66. [75]

    2010, , 157, 103, 10.1007/s11214-010-9731-2

    Porquet , D., Dubau , J., & Grosso , N. 2010, , 157, 103, 10.1007/s11214-010-9731-2

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    S., Beiersdorfer , P., Brown , G

    Porter , F. S., Beiersdorfer , P., Brown , G. V., et al. 2009, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 163, J. Phys. Conf. Ser, 012105, 10.1088/1742-6596/163/1/012105

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    S., Beiersdorfer , P., Brown , G

    Porter , F. S., Beiersdorfer , P., Brown , G. V., et al. 2008, J. Low Temp. Phys, 151, 1061, 10.1007/s10909-008-9788-4

    2008 doi

  69. [78]

    2000, , 61, 1966

    Radtke, R., Biedermann, C., Fuchs, T., Fu mann, G., & Beiersdorfer, P. 2000, , 61, 1966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.1966

    2000 doi

  70. [79]

    2002, Space Science Reviews, 100, 89, 10.1023/A:1015861926654

    Reimers, D. 2002, Space Science Reviews, 100, 89, 10.1023/A:1015861926654

    2002 doi

  71. [80]

    K., Bernitt, S., Epp, S

    Rudolph, J. K., Bernitt, S., Epp, S. W., et al. 2013, , 111, 103002, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.103002

    2013 doi

  72. [81]

    2018, , 869, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb89

    Sardar , S., Wang , S.-X., & Zhu , L.-F. 2018, , 869, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeb89

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    W., Behar , E., Kahn , S

    Savin , D. W., Behar , E., Kahn , S. M., et al. 2002, , 138, 337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/323388

    2002 doi

  74. [83]

    W., Kahn, S

    Savin, D. W., Kahn, S. M., Linkemann, J., et al. 2002, , 576, 1098, 10.1086/341810

    2002 doi

  75. [84]

    R., et al

    Schnell, M., Gwinner, G., Badnell, N. R., et al. 2003, , 91, 043001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.043001

    2003 doi

  76. [85]

    2018, , 234, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa4c0

    Shah , C., Amaro , P., Steinbr \"u gge , R., et al. 2018, , 234, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa4c0

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    R., Gu , M

    Shah , C., Crespo L \'o pez-Urrutia , J. R., Gu , M. F., et al. 2019, , 881, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2896

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    2015, , 92, 042702, 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042702

    Shah , C., J \"o rg , H., Bernitt , S., et al. 2015, , 92, 042702, 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.042702

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    2016, , 93, 061201, 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.061201

    Shah , C., Amaro , P., Steinbr \"u gge , R., et al. 2016, , 93, 061201, 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.061201

    2016 doi

  80. [89]

    2021, , 914, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ea

    Shah , C., Hell , N., Hubbard , A., et al. 2021, , 914, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf1ea

    2021 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Beiersdorfer, P., Widmann, K., Chen, M

    Smith, A. J., Beiersdorfer, P., Widmann, K., Chen, M. H., & Scofield, J. H. 2000, , 62, 052717. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.052717

    2000 doi

  82. [91]

    J., Adams, J

    Smith, S. J., Adams, J. S., Bandler, S. R., et al. 2019, , 5, 021008, 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.021008

    2019 doi

  83. [92]

    u gge , R., K \

    Steinbr \"u gge , R., K \"u hn , S., Nicastro , F., et al. 2022, , 941, 188, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c00

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    C., Hudson, H

    Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., & Watanabe, T. 1997, , 479, L149, 10.1086/310597

    1997 doi

  85. [94]

    C., Takacs, E., et al

    Szypryt, P., O’Neil, G. C., Takacs, E., et al. 2019, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 90, 123107, 10.1063/1.5116717

    2019 doi

  86. [95]

    Tamura , T., Bleeker , J. A. M., Kaastra , J. S., Ferrigno , C., & Molendi , S. 2001, , 379, 107, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011317

    2001 doi

  87. [96]

    2018, Proc

    Tashiro , M., Maejima , H., Toda , K., et al. 2018, Proc. SPIE, 10699, 1069922. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2309455

    2018 doi

  88. [97]

    J., Newell , D

    Tiesinga , E., Mohr , P. J., Newell , D. B., & Taylor , B. N. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 025010, 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010

    2021 doi

  89. [98]

    A., & Safronova , U

    Vainshtein , L. A., & Safronova , U. I. 1978, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 21, 49, 10.1016/0092-640X(78)90003-7

    1978 doi

  90. [99]

    J., Kuramoto, H., et al

    Watanabe, H., Currell, F. J., Kuramoto, H., et al. 2001, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 34, 5095, 10.1088/0953-4075/34/24/311

    2001 doi

  91. [100]

    1995, Rev

    Widmann, K., Beiersdorfer, P., Decaux, V., et al. 1995, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 66, 761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1146281

    1995 doi

  92. [101]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00597, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00597

    XRISM Collaboration . 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00597, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00597

    2024 doi arXiv

  93. [102]

    2024 b , , 973, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    ---. 2024 b , , 973, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    2010, , 81, 022714

    Yao, K., Geng, Z., Xiao, J., et al. 2010, , 81, 022714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.022714

    2010 doi

  95. [104]

    A., & Surzhykov, A

    Yerokhin, V. A., & Surzhykov, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. A, 86, 042507, 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.042507

    2012 doi

  96. [105]

    A., & Surzhykov , A

    Yerokhin , V. A., & Surzhykov , A. 2018, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 47, 023105, 10.1063/1.5034574

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    Zhang, X., L\' o pez-Urrutia, J. R. C., Guo, P., et al. 2004, J. Phys. B, 37, 2277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/37/11/005

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.