Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Theoretical determination of the ionization potentials of ScF, YF, LaF and AcF

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports relativistic coupled-cluster values for the adiabatic ionization potentials of ScF, YF, LaF, and AcF — 7.067(11), 6.694(10), 5.929(16), and 6.044(14) eV — with the AcF value serving as the prediction for planned…

desk verdict A transparent, carefully budgeted relativistic CCSD(T) study that gives the first accurate IPs for ScF/YF/LaF and a credible AcF prediction; the main soft spot is the unbenchmarked atomic Breit transfer, which the authors disclose but do not fully quantify. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.17451 v1 pith:K5A2A3VX submitted 2025-02-07 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Aleksandra A. Kyuberis , Lukas F. Pasteka , Ephraim Eliav , Ayaki Sunaga , Mia Au , Shane G. Wilkins , Anastasia Borschevsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords adiabaticionizationpotentialactiniummonofluoriderelativisticcoupledclustercompletebasissetextrapolationQEDcorrectionsBreitinteractionSchiffmomentspectroscopicuncertainties
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

The paper sets out to fix the ionization potentials of four group-III monofluorides — ScF, YF, LaF, and AcF — at the few-meV level, with actinium fluoride as the principal motivation because AcF is a candidate for nuclear Schiff-moment searches. It uses relativistic coupled-cluster theory with single, double, and perturbative triple excitations, extrapolates the molecular energies to the complete basis set limit, and then adds corrections for a larger active space, extra diffuse functions, full triples, Breit interaction, and QED effects. The recommended adiabatic values are 7.067(11) eV for ScF, 6.694(10) eV for YF, 5.929(16) eV for LaF, and 6.044(14) eV for AcF. If these numbers are right, they are more accurate than the available mass-spectrometric measurements for the first three molecules and provide the first reliable spectroscopic target for AcF.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is a layered correction identity: $\mathrm{IP} = E_{\mathrm{DC\text{-}CCSD(T)}}^{\mathrm{CBS}} + \Delta_{\mathrm{active}} + \Delta_{\mathrm{aug}} + \Delta_T + \Delta_{\mathrm{Breit}} + \Delta_{\mathrm{QED}}$. The baseline term is the adiabatic energy difference between the neutral $X^{1}\Sigma$ state and the cation $X^{2}\Sigma_{1/2}$ state, each evaluated at its own equilibrium bond length, with energies extrapolated to the complete basis set limit through a three-cardinality extrapolation formula [41]. The five $\Delta$ terms are small a posteriori corrections — a larger active space, extra diffuse functions, full triples, Breit interaction, and QED effects — each computed with an independent variant of the method; their main job is to decompose and quantify every source of error so that a total uncertainty can be assembled by summing independent contributions.

What would settle it

A sub-10 meV measurement of the AcF ionization threshold, for instance by Rydberg-series or threshold photoelectron spectroscopy, that disagrees with the recommended 6.044(14) eV would refute the prediction; before any experiment, a direct four-component relativistic molecular calculation of the Breit contribution would test the weakest assumption by comparing the neutral-minus-cation Breit shift with the atomic M+ value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a four-component Dirac–Coulomb CCSD(T) calculation, extrapolated to the complete-basis-set limit on singly augmented core-valence basis sets and corrected for active-space incompleteness, basis augmentation, residual triples, Breit, and QED contributions, determines the adiabatic ionization potentials of ScF, YF, LaF, and AcF to within 10–16 meV. The paper presents the final numbers — 7.067(11), 6.694(10), 5.929(16), and 6.044(14) eV respectively — as the best available values: distinctly more precise than the roughly 0.3 eV mass-spectrometric determinations for the first three, and a new prediction for AcF. The authors explicitly interpret the rise from LaF to AcF as a relativistic stabilization of the s-orbital from which the electron is removed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Breit contribution to the molecular ionization energy can be taken from the atomic M+ ion because the molecule's electronic structure resembles that ion; if the true molecular Breit shift differs from the atomic one by more than a few meV, the stated 10–16 meV uncertainties are too small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The AcF prediction gives experimental campaigns a concrete search target: the adiabatic threshold should lie near 6.044 eV, with the zero-point-corrected 0–0 band near 6.048 eV.
  • If the new values are right, the older mass-spectrometric IPs for ScF, YF, and LaF are low by roughly 0.3–0.5 eV, so those measurements should be revisited with higher-resolution techniques.
  • The predicted rise from LaF at 5.929 eV to AcF at 6.044 eV sharpens the test of relativistic s-orbital stabilization in the actinide fluoride series.
  • For the three lighter molecules, the theoretical values are precise enough to serve as temporary benchmarks until modern measurements replace the older ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same correction-stack strategy could be extended to other actinide and lanthanide monofluorides, monoxides, or monohydrides whose IPs are unmeasured; the main bottleneck would be the same molecular Breit calculation that the paper approximates atomically.
  • If a future experiment confirms the AcF value, it would simultaneously validate the molecular effective-QED treatment at the heavy end of the periodic table, because the QED correction is largest for AcF at about −6 meV.
  • A direct four-component relativistic molecular Breit calculation for any one of the four systems would be the sharpest available check on the weakest assumption and could be performed before any new experiment on AcF.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports theoretical adiabatic and vertical ionization potentials for ScF, YF, LaF, and AcF using four-component relativistic CCSD(T) with complete-basis-set extrapolation, followed by a posteriori corrections for active-space truncation, diffuse augmentation, full triples, Breit (taken from atomic M+ FSCC calculations), and QED effective potentials. The final recommended adiabatic IPs are 7.067(11) eV for ScF, 6.694(10) eV for YF, 5.929(16) eV for LaF, and 6.044(14) eV for AcF (Table VI). The authors compare with older mass-spectrometric measurements, which they argue are unreliable at the 0.3 eV level, and with a recent AcF calculation, and they provide an uncertainty budget with contributions from basis set, correlation treatment, and QED.

Significance. If the results withstand the concerns below, this would be the most accurate determination of the ionization potentials of these four molecules and would provide a concrete target for the planned AcF spectroscopy. The paper has notable strengths: it uses a well-established four-component coupled-cluster protocol, it does not fit any target IP, it is consistent with the authors' earlier validated treatment of CaF, SrF, and BaF, and it gives a transparent breakdown of most uncertainty sources. The main limitation is that the Breit correction is transferred from atomic ions without a molecular benchmark, and two entries in the uncertainty table are not derived in the text. These issues are fixable but currently affect the central claim of 10–16 meV accuracy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Breit paragraph; Table IV row '+ΔBreit'; Table V] The Breit correction for the molecular IP is approximated by the atomic M+ Breit correction, but no molecular benchmark is provided. The corrections in Table IV are +6.9 meV (ScF), +6.9 meV (YF), +7.0 meV (LaF), and -3.0 meV (AcF), while the total uncertainties in Table V are 10.7, 10.3, 16.0, and 13.9 meV; for ScF and YF the Breit term is roughly two-thirds of the total uncertainty and Table V contains no separate Breit uncertainty. Because the ionized electron in the molecule occupies a bonding orbital with F contributions rather than an atomic s-orbital, the atomic-to-molecular transfer could reasonably differ by more than a few meV. I request either a molecular-level estimate of the Breit contribution (for example, a DCB calculation at the CCSD level on at least one of the molecules) or an explicit conservative uncertainty for this transfer before the claimed uncertainties are accepted.
  2. [Section IV.b, Table V row 'higher excitations'] The text states that the uncertainty from neglected higher excitations is 'a conservative 10% fraction of the triples contribution,' but the numbers in Table V do not match 10% of the residual full-triples correction reported in Table IV. For ScF, Table IV lists +ΔT = 2.3 meV, 10% of which is 0.23 meV, whereas Table V lists 8.76 meV; the latter is close to 10% of the full CCSD-to-CCSD(T) difference of about 83 meV. The 'triples contribution' used for the uncertainty estimate must be defined explicitly, and the derivation of each entry in Table V should be stated, since this is the dominant uncertainty for all four molecules.
  3. [Section IV.c, Table V row 'QED'] The QED uncertainty entries in Table V (0.19, 0.56, 1.25, and 4.01 meV) are never derived in the text. For AcF, the assigned QED uncertainty of 4.01 meV is two-thirds of the total uncertainty contribution from QED corrections, and the total uncertainty depends sensitively on this choice. Please document how these values were obtained, for example from basis-set dependence of the effective potentials, variation of the self-energy potential parameters, or comparison with atomic QED benchmarks.
  4. [Section III, Table II and following paragraph] The 50 meV shift in the LaF IP when going from dyall.v4z to dyall.cv4z is three times larger than the final quoted uncertainty of 16 meV for LaF, yet the text only states that this behavior 'is under investigation.' Since the final LaF value is obtained from the cv basis family, the manuscript should either explain quantitatively why the v4z-to-cv4z difference does not contribute to the uncertainty or enlarge the LaF uncertainty accordingly; an unresolved basis-set issue cannot support a 16 meV claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II heading] The heading reads 'METHOD AND AND COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS'; the duplicated 'AND' should be removed.
  2. [Section V] There are several typographical errors, including 'similarlto' and 'mdedicated ea-surements'; please proofread the final text.
  3. [Section IV.a] The text states that the diffuse-function uncertainty is evaluated with 'singly- and doubly-augmented dyall.v4z basis sets,' but Table II reports s-aug- and d-aug-dyall.cv4z; align the text with the actual calculations.
  4. [Table II] The text refers to values 'shown in Table II in bold font,' but the displayed table does not show bold formatting; ensure the final typeset version marks the CBS-extrapolated row clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the IPs are computed from CCSD(T) energy differences with explicit additive corrections; self-citations are merely supportive.

full rationale

The target ionization potentials are derived as adiabatic coupled-cluster energy differences between MF and MF+ (Tables II-IV and Eq. 1), extrapolated to the complete-basis-set limit and corrected by independently computed small terms: active-space, augmentation, residual-triples, Breit, and QED contributions (Table IV). No experimental or previously published IP value is used as an input, and no parameter is fitted to reproduce the final numbers. The Breit correction is admittedly approximated by the Breit contribution to the atomic M+ ionization potential, but this is a stated physical transferability approximation rather than a circular reduction, because the atomic Breit contribution is computed separately and added as a correction. Self-citations to prior work of the same group [42] and [54-56] support the CBS scheme choice and uncertainty conventions, but they are not load-bearing: the paper contains its own basis-set convergence data (Table II) and derives its uncertainties from observed computational differences. Comparisons with experiment [20] and with prior AcF theory [37] are external, after-the-fact checks rather than inputs. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters were fitted to the target ionization potentials. The free parameters listed are heuristic multipliers used for uncertainty estimates. The axioms cover the main modeling assumptions: single-reference CCSD(T) adequacy, atomic-ion Breit transferability, effective QED potentials, independent error sources, and CBS extrapolation.

free parameters (2)
  • Higher-excitation uncertainty fraction = 0.10
    Uncertainty from excitations beyond CCSDT is estimated as 10% of the triples correction (Section IV, Electron correlation). This factor is chosen by hand and is the dominant term in the total uncertainty for all four molecules.
  • Basis-set cardinality uncertainty factor = 0.5
    Basis set incompleteness is estimated as half the difference between the CBS-extrapolated IP and the s-aug-dyall.cv4z IP (Section IV, Basis set). The factor 0.5 is an expert convention, not derived from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-reference CCSD(T) is adequate for the ground states of MF and MF+.
    Used as baseline throughout Section II. Agreement of spectroscopic constants with experiment supports it, but no multireference benchmark is given for these systems.
  • ad hoc to paper The Breit correction for MF can be approximated by the atomic M+ ion Breit correction.
    Section III, Breit paragraph: 'We take advantage of the fact that the electronic structure of the MF molecules is similar to that of the M+ ions'.
  • domain assumption QED effects are captured by the Uehling potential and the Flambaum-Ginges effective self-energy potential.
    Section III, QED paragraph. These are established effective potentials, but they are approximate and added a posteriori.
  • ad hoc to paper The identified uncertainty sources are independent and can be combined in quadrature.
    Section IV: 'we assume these sources of error to be largely independent'.
  • domain assumption Helgaker complete-basis-set extrapolation is valid for these molecules.
    Section II; validation of the scheme was done in prior work [42] on CaF, SrF, and BaF, not for the present molecules.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theoretical determination of the ionization potentials of ScF, YF, LaF and AcF." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5A2A3VX

@misc{pith2026250217451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theoretical determination of the ionization potentials of ScF, YF, LaF and AcF},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5A2A3VX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.17451}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive theoretical study of the ionization potentials of the MF (M = Sc, Y, La, Ac) molecules using the state-of-the-art relativistic coupled cluster approach with single, double, and perturbative triple excitations (CCSD(T)). We have further corrected our results for higherorder excitations (up to full triples), the QED self-energy and vacuum-polarization contributions. We have extensively investigated the effect of the various computational parameters on the calculated ionization potentials, allowing us to assign realistic uncertainties to our predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.17451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison between predicted theoretical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    H. Fahs, A. R. Allouche, M. Korek, and M. Aubert- Fr´ econ, Theoretical electronic structure of the lowest- lying states of the LaF molecule, The Journal of Chemical Physics 117, 3715 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [1]

    T. A. Isaev and R. Berger, Lasercooled radium monofluo- ride: A molecular all-in-one probe for new physics (2020), arXiv:1302.5682 [physics.chem-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Arrowsmith-Kron, M

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, J. Ballof, R. Berger, A. Borschevsky, A. A. Breier, F. Buchinger, D. Budker, L. Caldwell, C. Charles, N. Dattani, R. P. de Groote, D. DeMille, T. Dickel, J. Dobaczewski, C. E. D¨ ullmann, E. Eliav, J. Engel, M. Fan, V. Flambaum, K. T. Flanagan, A. Gaiser, R. G. Ruiz, K. Gaul, T. F. Giesen, J. Ginges,...

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    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)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Kami´ nski, R

    T. Kami´ nski, R. Tylenda, K. M. Menten, A. Karakas, J. M. Winters, A. A. Breier, K. T. Wong, T. F. Giesen, and N. A. Patel, Astronomical detection of radioactive molecule 26AlF in the remnant of an ancient explosion, Nature Astronomy 2, 778 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    L. V. Skripnikov, Nuclear magnetization distribution ef- fect in molecules: Ra+ and RaF hyperfine structure, The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 114114 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz and S. G. Wilkins, Rotational and Hy- perfine Structure of RaF Molecules, INTC-P-555 , Tech. Rep. (CERN, 2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Schmidt, J

    S. Schmidt, J. Billowes, M. Bissell, K. Blaum, R. Gar- cia Ruiz, H. Heylen, S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, G. Plunien, S. Sailer, V. Shabaev, L. Skripnikov, I. Tupitsyn, A. Volotka, and X. Yang, The nuclear magnetic moment of 208Bi and its relevance for a test of bound-state strong-field QED, Physics Letters B 779, 324 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    S. M. Udrescu, A. J. Brinson, R. F. G. Ruiz, K. Gaul, R. Berger, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bis- sell, A. A. Breier, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, K. T. Flanagan, T. F. Giesen, R. P. de Groote, S. Franchoo, F. P. Gustafsson, T. A. Isaev, A. Koszor´ us...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S

    M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S. G. Wilkins, L. Skrip- nikov, A. Koszor´ us, A. A. Breier, M. Au, R. Berger, I. Belo˘ sevi´ c, M. L. Bissell, A. Borschevsky, A. Brinson, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Cocolios, R. P. de Groote, A. Dorne, C. M. Fajardo-Zambrano, R. W. Field, K. T. Flanag...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Garcia Ruiz, R

    R. Garcia Ruiz, R. Berger, J. Billowes, C. Binner- sley, M. Bissell, A. Breier, A. Brinson, K. Chrysa- lidis, T. Cocolios, B. Cooper, K. Flanagan, T. Giesen, R. de Groote, S. Franchoo, F. Gustafsson, T. Isaev, A. Koszor´ us, G. Neyens, H. Perrett, C. Ricketts, S. Rothe, L. Sch...

    2020

  4. [12]

    For AcF, no experimental IP measurements are avail- able

    or Rydberg series analysis [59] could provide more reliable benchmarks for comparison. For AcF, no experimental IP measurements are avail- able. We can however compare the present result to recent calculations performed using a very similar ap- proach, namely relativistic coup...

  5. [13]

    V. V. Flambaum and V. A. Dzuba, Electric dipole mo- ments of atoms and molecules produced by enhanced nu- clear schiff moments, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042504 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    V. V. Flambaum and H. Feldmeier, Enhanced nuclear schiff moment in stable and metastable nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 101, 015502 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    S. G. Wilkins, H. A. Perrett, S. M. Udrescu, A. A. Kyu- beris, L. F. Paˇ steka, M. Au, I. Beloˇ sevi´ c, R. Berger, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bissell, A. Borschevsky, A. A. Breier, A. J. Brinson, K. Chrysalidis, T. E. Cocolios, B. S. Cooper, R. P. de Groote, A. Dorne, E. Eliav, ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Singh and B

    Y. Singh and B. K. Sahoo, Electric dipole moment of 225Ra due to p- and t-violating weak interactions, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022502 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Titov, and V. V. Flambaum, Actinide and lanthanide molecules to search for strong cp-violation, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 18374 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    O. P. Sushkov, Schiff moments of deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 110, 015501 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Arrowsmith-Kron, M

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, J. Ballof, R. Berger, A. Borschevsky, A. A. Breier, F. Buchinger, D. Budker, L. Caldwell, C. Charles, N. Dattani, R. P. de Groote, D. DeMille, T. Dickel, J. Dobaczewski, C. E. D¨ ullmann, E. Eliav, J. Engel, M. Fan, V. Fl...

    2024

  12. [20]

    The AcF molecule, conclusively identified using com- bined mass spectrometry and decay spectroscopy, was observed with electron energies above 25 eV. However, the use of the ion source as a technique for determining appearance potentials is limited by the wide distribution of ...

  13. [21]

    A.-K. M., W. S., and A. M., Laser ionization spectroscopy of AcF , Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    J. Z. J., Rydberg spectroscopy of barium monofluo- ride, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    K. F. Zmbov and J. L. Margrave, Mass spectrometric studies of scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, and rare-earth fluorides. (1968) pp. 267–290

    1968

  16. [24]

    J. M. Berg, J. E. Murphy, N. A. Harris, and R. W. Field, Observation and analysis of core-penetrating ry- dberg states of calcium monofluoride, Phys. Rev. A 48, 3012 (1993)

    1993

  17. [25]

    D. J. McLeod and W. J. Weltner, Spectroscopy and franck-condon factors of scandium fluoride in neon matri- ces at 4 ◦k, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 70, 3293 (1966)

    1966

  18. [26]

    Kaledin, J

    L. Kaledin, J. Mccord, and M. Heaven, Laser spec- troscopy of ScF: Analysis of perturbations in the F 1ϕ- a1δ system, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 171, 569 (1995)

    1995

  19. [27]

    Lebeault-Dorget, C

    M. Lebeault-Dorget, C. Effantin, A. Bernard, J. D’Incan, J. Chevaleyre, and E. Shenyavskaya, Singlet states of ScF below 23 000 cm−1: x1σ+, a1δ, b1π, c1σ+, d1π, and e1δ, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 163, 276 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Schall, C

    H. Schall, C. Linton, and R. Field, Laser spectroscopy of LaF: Determination of the separation of the singlet and triplet state manifolds, Journal of Molecular Spec- troscopy 100, 437 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    V. G. Solomonik and A. A. Mukhanov, Ab initio study of scandium fluoride molecules: ScF, ScF 2, and ScF 3, Journal of Structural Chemistry 53, 28 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    L. A. Kaledin, J. E. McCord, and M. C. Heaven, Laser spectroscopy of LaF: ligand field-theory assignment of the triplet-state manifold and analysis of hyperfine struc- ture, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 11, 219 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Bernard, C

    A. Bernard, C. Effantin, J. D’Incan, and J. Verg` es, The (1)1π, (2)1Σ+ → X 1Σ+ transitions of LaF, J. Mol. Spec- trosc. 202, 163 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Assaf, R

    J. Assaf, R. Assaf, and F. E. H. Hassan, Ab initio study of the electronic structure of LaF including spin–orbit coupling, Journal of Molecular Modeling 28 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    D. S. Rubinoff, C. J. Evans, and M. C. Gerry, The pure rotational spectra of the lanthanum monohalides, LaF, LaCl, LaBr, LaI, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 218, 169 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    C. E. Hamilton, M. L. Lesiecki, L. J. Allamandola, and J. W. Nibler, Spectroscopy and triplet state lifetime for yttrium fluoride (YF) in inert gas matrices, The Journal of Chemical Physics 76, 189 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    D. L. Hildenbrand and K. H. Lau, Thermochemical prop- erties of the gaseous scandium, yttrium, and lanthanum fluorides, The Journal of Chemical Physics 102, 3769 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    valence” (dyall.v nz), the “core- valence

    presents investigations of the spectroscopic constants of the lowest molecular states of YF, along with the tran- sition energies. There, the lowest molecular states of YF were investigated via a combination of complete active space self consistent field approach (CASSCF) and ...

  29. [38]

    Shenyavskaya and B

    E. Shenyavskaya and B. Ryabov, The spectra of Y F+ and YF molecules in the 3400–3700 ˚A region, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 63, 23 (1976)

    1976

  30. [39]

    Abdul-Al, M

    S. Abdul-Al, M. Korek, A. Allouche, and M. Aubert Fr´ econ, Theoretical structure of the low lying electronic states of yttrium fluoride YF, Chemical Physics 315, 183 (2005)

    2005

  31. [40]

    L. V. Skripnikov, A. V. Oleynichenko, A. Zaitsevskii, N. S. Mosyagin, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, and G. Neyens, Ab initio study of electronic states and radiative properties of the AcF molecule, The Journal of Chemical Physics 159, 124301 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    (2023), DIRAC, a relativistic ab initio electronic struc- ture program, Release DIRAC23 (2023), written by R. Bast, A. S. P. Gomes, T. Saue and L. Visscher and H. J. Aa. Jensen, with contributions from I. A. Aucar, V. Bakken, C. Chibueze, J. Creutzberg, K. G. Dyall, S. Dubilla...

    2023

  33. [42]

    Dyall, Relativistic double-zeta, triple-zeta, and quadruple-zeta basis sets for the light elements H–Ar, Theor Chem Acc 135 (2016)

    K. Dyall, Relativistic double-zeta, triple-zeta, and quadruple-zeta basis sets for the light elements H–Ar, Theor Chem Acc 135 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Dyall, Relativistic double-zeta, triple-zeta, and quadruple-zeta basis sets for the 4s, 5s, 6s, and 7s ele- ments, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 113, 12638 (2009)

    K. Dyall, Relativistic double-zeta, triple-zeta, and quadruple-zeta basis sets for the 4s, 5s, 6s, and 7s ele- ments, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 113, 12638 (2009)

    2009

  35. [44]

    Helgaker, W

    T. Helgaker, W. Klopper, H. Koch, and J. Noga, Basis- set convergence of correlated calculations on water, The Journal of Chemical Physics 106, 9639 (1997)

    1997

  36. [45]

    A. A. Kyuberis, L. F. Pasteka, E. Eliav, H. Perrett, A. Sunaga, S. M. Udrescu, S. G. Wilkins, R. F. G. Ruiz, and A. Borschevsky, Theoretical determination of the ionization potentials of CaF, SrF, and BaF, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022813 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Martin, The total atomization energy and heat of for- mation of HCN(g), Chemical Physics Letters 259, 679 (1996)

    J. Martin, The total atomization energy and heat of for- mation of HCN(g), Chemical Physics Letters 259, 679 (1996)

    1996

  38. [47]

    Lesiuk and B

    M. Lesiuk and B. Jeziorski, Complete basis set extrapo- lation of electronic correlation energies using the riemann zeta function, Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu- tation 15, 5398 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    K´ allay, P

    M. K´ allay, P. R. Nagy, D. Mester, Z. Rolik, G. Samu, J. Csontos, J. Cs´ oka, P. B. Szab´ o, L. Gyevi-Nagy, B. H´ egely, L. S. I. Ladj´ anszki, B. Lad´ oczki, K. Petrov, M. Farkas, P. D. Mezei, and A. Ganyecz, The MRCC pro- gram system: Accurate quantum chemistry from water t...

    2020

  40. [49]

    Eliav, U

    TRAFS-3C code (Tel-Aviv Relativistic Atomic Fock- Space coupled cluster code), written by E. Eliav, U. Kaldor and Y. Ishikawa (1990-2013), with contributions by A. Landau

    1990

  41. [50]

    Sunaga, M

    A. Sunaga, M. Salman, and T. Saue, 4-component rel- ativistic Hamiltonian with effective QED potentials for molecular calculations, J. Chem. Phys. 157, 164101 (2022)

    2022

  42. [51]

    E. A. Uehling, Polarization effects in the positron theory, Phys. Rev. 48, 55 (1935)

    1935

  43. [52]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Radiative potential and calculations of QED radiative corrections to energy levels and electromagnetic amplitudes in many-electron atoms, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052115 (2005)

    2005

  44. [53]

    Y. Hao, M. Iliaˇ s, E. Eliav, P. Schwerdtfeger, V. Flam- baum, and A. Borschevsky, Nuclear anapole moment in- teraction in BaF from relativistic coupled-cluster theory, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032510 (2018)

    2018

  45. [54]

    Y. Guo, L. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav, and A. Borschevsky, Ion- ization potentials and electron affinity of oganesson with relativistic coupled cluster method, Advances in Quan- tum Chemistry 83, 107 (2021)

    2021

  46. [55]

    P. A. B. Haase, E. Eliav, M. Iliaˇ s, and A. Borschevsky, Hyperfine structure constants on the relativistic cou- pled cluster level with associated uncertainties, J. Phys. Chem. A 124, 3157 (2020)

    2020

  47. [56]

    Leimbach, J

    D. Leimbach, J. Karls, Y. Guo, R. Ahmed, J. Ballof, L. Bengtsson, F. Boix Pamies, A. Borschevsky, K. Chrysalidis, E. Eliav, D. Fedorov, V. Fedosseev, O. Forstner, N. Galland, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, C. Grana- dos, R. Heinke, K. Johnston, A. Koszorus, U. K¨ oster, M. K. Kristiansson...

    2020

  48. [57]

    L. F. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav, A. Borschevsky, U. Kaldor, and P. Schwerdtfeger, Relativistic coupled cluster calcu- lations with variational quantum electrodynamics resolve the discrepancy between experiment and theory concern- ing the electron affinity and ionization potential of...

    2017

  49. [58]

    Y. Guo, L. F. Paˇ steka, E. Eliav, and A. Borschevsky, Chapter Five - Ionization potentials and electron affin- ity of oganesson with relativistic coupled cluster method, in New Electron Correlation Methods and their Appli- cations, and Use of Atomic Orbitals with Exponential ...

  50. [59]

    Y. Guo, A. Borschevsky, E. Eliav, and L. F. Paˇ steka, Relativistic coupled cluster calculations of the electron affinity and ionization potential of Nh(113), Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 55, 155003 (2022)

    2022

  51. [60]

    T. A. Ruden, T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen, Coupled-cluster connected-quadruples corrections to at- omization energies, Chemical Physics Letters 371, 62 (2003)

    2003

  52. [61]

    T. A. Ruden, T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen, Coupled-cluster connected quadruples and quintuples corrections to the harmonic vibrational frequencies and equilibrium bond distances of HF, N2, F2, and CO, The Journal of Chemical Physics 121, 5874 (2004)

    2004

  53. [62]

    Rothe, A

    S. Rothe, A. N. Andreyev, S. Antalic, A. Borschevsky, L. Capponi, T. E. Cocolios, H. De Witte, E. Eliav, D. V. Fedorov, V. N. Fedosseev, D. A. Fink, S. Fritzsche, L. Ghys, M. Huyse, N. Imai, U. Kaldor, Y. Kudryavtsev, U. K¨ oster, J. F. W. Lane, J. Lassen, V. Liberati, K. M. L...

    2013

  54. [63]

    Pyykk¨ o, Relativistic effects in chemistry: More com- mon than you thought, Annual Review of Physical Chem- istry 63, 45 (2012)

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Relativistic effects in chemistry: More com- mon than you thought, Annual Review of Physical Chem- istry 63, 45 (2012)

    2012

  55. [64]

    Penescu, R

    L. Penescu, R. Catherall, J. Lettry, and T. Stora, De- velopment of high efficiency versatile arc discharge ion source at cern isoldea), Review of Scientific Instruments 81, 02A906 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.