Determination of Land\'{e} $g_J$ factor and Zeeman coefficients in ground-state $^{171}$Yb$^+$ and their applications to quantum frequency standards

Benquan Lu; Jiguang Li; Jingwei Wen; Jize Han; Lijun Wang; Ling Qian; Yanmei Yu; Zhiguo Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Determination of Land\'{e} $g_J$ factor and Zeeman coefficients in ground-state $^{171}$Yb$^+$ and their applications to quantum frequency standards

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper determines the ground-state Landé $g_J$ factor of $^{171}$Yb$^+$ as $2.002615(70)$ and derives first- and second-order Zeeman coefficients that reduce magnetic-field-induced clock shifts to below $2\times10^{-18}$ at $0.1$ $\mu$T.

desk verdict A careful ab initio g_J for 171Yb+ with a useful new recommended Zeeman coefficient, but the uncertainty estimate leans on an unverified cancellation assumption that both methods share. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09973 v1 pith:OIHOP6BL submitted 2025-01-17 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Jize Han , Benquan Lu , Yanmei Yu , Jiguang Li , Zhiguo Huang , Jingwei Wen , Ling Qian , Lijun Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phquant-ph

keywords Landég-factorZeemancoefficients171Yb+ionmicrowavequantumfrequencystandardsecond-ordershiftmulticonfigurationDirac-Hartree-Fockmultireferenceconfigurationinteractiontrapped-ionclock

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 establishes a precise value for the ground-state Landé $g_J$ factor of the $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ion, $2.002615(70)$, by averaging two independent relativistic atomic-structure calculations that agree to the fifth decimal place. From that value, together with the known nuclear $g$ factor and hyperfine constant, it derives the first- and second-order Zeeman coefficients $K_Z = 14{,}010.78(49)$ Hz/$\mu$T and $K_0 = 31.0869(22)$ mHz/$\mu$T$^2$. These coefficients control the magnetic-field shift that dominates the error budget of $^{171}$Yb$^+$ microwave quantum frequency standards. If the result holds, the fractional uncertainty in the second-order Zeeman shift falls below $2\times10^{-18}$ at $B_0 = 0.1$ $\mu$T, inside the accuracy requirements of current and planned Yb$^+$ clocks, and the sharper hyperfine evaluation also strengthens proposed searches for drift of fundamental constants and trapped-ion quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electronic Landé factor $g_J$, defined as the reduced matrix element of the relativistic magnetic-dipole operator $N^{(1)} + \Delta N^{(1)}$ between atomic state functions, normalized by $\sqrt{J(J+1)}$, where $\Delta N^{(1)}$ is the Schwinger QED correction. The paper evaluates this matrix element with two independent correlation treatments: MCDHF, which builds configuration state functions by systematic active-space expansions and includes core–valence, core–core, multi-reference single/double excitations, Breit interaction and QED terms; and MRCI, which uses general active spaces, large basis sets and triple excitations. The formulas linking the atomic quantity to clock observables are the first-order Zeeman coefficient $K_Z = (g_J + g'_I)\mu_B/(2h)$ and the second-order coefficient $K_0 = (g_J - g'_I)^2 \mu_B^2/(2h^2 A)$, which convert the computed $g_J$ into the values that frequency-standard experiments use to correct and calibrate the magnetic field.

What would settle it

Measure the splitting between the $(F=1, m_F=+1)$ and $(F=1, m_F=-1)$ sublevels of the $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ground-state hyperfine manifold in a precisely calibrated magnetic field; the ratio of that splitting to the field gives $2K_Z$, and agreement with $14{,}010.78(49)$ Hz/$\mu$T would confirm the computed $g_J$, while disagreement at the stated level would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two independent treatments of the $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ground state — multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock returning $g_J = 2.002626(57)$ and multireference configuration interaction returning $g_J = 2.002604(55)$ — bracket a common value, and the paper takes their mean, $g_J = 2.002615(70)$, assigning an uncertainty that covers both individual budgets. This narrows the spread of earlier theoretical values, which ranged from $2.002798(113)$ (relativistic coupled cluster) to $2.003117$ (time-dependent Hartree-Fock). Substituting this $g_J$, the nuclear factor $g'_I = -0.5377\times10^{-3}$ and the hyperfine constant $A = 12{,}642{,}812{,}118$ Hz into $K_Z = (g_J + g'_I)\mu_B/(2h)$ and $K_0 = (g_J - g'_I)^2\mu_B^2/(2h^2 A)$ yields the recommended coefficients $14{,}010.78(49)$ Hz/$\mu$T and $31.0869(22)$ mHz/$\mu$T$^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the two approximations, which leave out some inner-core orbitals and some higher-order excitations, capture the true electron-correlation contribution within the estimated 55–70 parts per million; if the omitted correlation is larger, $g_J$ and both Zeeman coefficients shift by more than the quoted uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The second-order Zeeman shift uncertainty caused by the recommended $K_0$ is below $2\times10^{-18}$ in fractional frequency at $B_0 = 0.1$ $\mu$T, so this term no longer limits the accuracy of $^{171}$Yb$^+$ microwave QFSs at typical operating fields.
The $K_Z$ uncertainty lets the C-field be calibrated to better than $0.004$ nT, keeping the associated fractional SOZS uncertainty below $10^{-17}$.
The recommended coefficients satisfy the stated accuracy requirements of current ($1\times10^{-14}$) and anticipated ($9\times10^{-15}$) $^{171}$Yb$^+$ microwave frequency standards.
The sharper ground-state hyperfine evaluation strengthens proposed frequency comparisons between the 12.6-GHz hyperfine transition and the optical clock transitions, which are sensitive to possible variation of the fine-structure constant and of $m_q/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
The improved Zeeman coefficients also support trapped-ion quantum computers that use the $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ground-state hyperfine splitting as a qubit, by providing a more accurate magnetic-field-shift correction.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors' result is a theory-only value; a modern precision measurement of the Zeeman splitting in the ground-state hyperfine manifold would directly test whether $g_J = 2.002615(70)$ or the older spectroscopic value $1.998$ is correct.
The same strategy of cross-checking two independent relativistic correlation methods could be applied to other trapped-ion clock species whose error budgets are dominated by the second-order Zeeman shift, such as $^{199}$Hg$^+$ and $^{113}$Cd$^+$.
Because the second-order shift scales as $B_0^2$, operating below $0.1$ $\mu$T would suppress the $K_0$ contribution further, although the weaker Larmor-frequency signal would make the $K_Z$ calibration more demanding.
A third independent calculation with a different systematic error structure, for example a coupled-cluster treatment including triple excitations, would give a sharper check on the residual correlation uncertainty than the existing RCC value does.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper reports a new ground-state g_J for 171Yb+, 2.002615(70), from two independent CI methods (MCDHF and MRCI), and derives first- and second-order Zeeman coefficients from it. This is a genuine advance: it is the first MCDHF/MRCI determination for this state, the two methods agree to about 5 ppm, and the resulting K0 uncertainty is small enough to matter for microwave clock systematics. The convergence tables are clear, the error propagation into KZ and K0 is internally consistent, and the authors are honest that the old experimental value (1.998) is far off and needs remeasurement.

The main soft spot is the uncertainty estimate. The MCDHF error bound depends on a claim that CC and higher-order correlations from n≤4d cancel by at least 30%, so the −0.000076 core contribution is reduced to −0.000057. That cancellation is not demonstrated. The MRCI calculation never runs e33-SDT, so both methods omit 4d triples. Because the missing physics is shared, the agreement between MCDHF and MRCI does not independently validate the error bar. The existing RCC value, 2.002798(113), sits right at the upper edge of the final 70 ppm range, which is consistent with a shared downward bias rather than a true bound. This is a real concern, but it is not fatal: the central value is plausible, and the paper's own convergence trends suggest the residual error is probably within a few times the quoted uncertainty. Still, the 70 ppm error should be treated as a heuristic estimate, not a rigorous bound.

A minor issue: Eq. (11) has a unit mismatch — it uses B0 = 0.1 nT where the context and the KZ value imply 0.1 µT. That should be fixed. Also, no input files or data are provided, so the calculations cannot be independently reproduced from the manuscript alone.

Who gets value from this: anyone working on 171Yb+ microwave frequency standards, and atomic structure theorists interested in gJ calculations for alkali-like ions. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push for a more transparent uncertainty analysis or a more conservative error statement. I would not cite it in my own work, but if I worked on Yb+ clocks, I would want to know about it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports ab initio calculations of the Landé g_J factor for the ground state of 171Yb+ using two independent methods, MCDHF and MRCI, yielding 2.002626(57) and 2.002604(55), respectively, and combines them to g_J = 2.002615(70). From this value and external inputs for A and g'_I, the authors derive the first-order and second-order Zeeman coefficients K_Z = 14,010.78(49) Hz/µT and K_0 = 31.0869(22) mHz/µT², and estimate the resulting magnetic-field-induced fractional uncertainties for microwave quantum frequency standards. The perturbation-theory framework is standard, and the propagation of the g_J uncertainty into K_Z and K_0 is internally consistent.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainty is reliable, the paper provides a materially improved theoretical benchmark for the 171Yb+ ground-state Zeeman coefficients, reducing the second-order Zeeman shift fractional uncertainty below 2e-18 at B0 = 0.1 µT and offering a valuable cross-check for experimental extrapolation methods. The manuscript is transparent about the computational models, active spaces, basis sets, and CSF counts, and no parameter is fitted to the target Zeeman coefficients. The central caveat is that the uncertainty budget rests on a cancellation assumption for n ≤ 4d core correlations that is not directly computed; this is the load-bearing point that needs strengthening before the metrological claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)

[II B, Table III] The 57 ppm uncertainty in the MCDHF g_J rests on an estimate that the n ≤ 4d core-core contribution of -0.000076 is at least 30% cancelled by higher-order correlations, but no calculation of higher-order correlations for the 4s, 4p, and 4d subshells is presented. Because the final K0 error is directly proportional to δg_J, a failure of this cancellation by even a modest amount would place g_J outside 2.002626(57) and K0 outside its quoted uncertainty. I would like to see either an explicit calculation (for example, including 4s/4p/4d in the MR set) or a quantitative sensitivity test that bounds the residual 4d correlation rather than the current 30% cancellation assertion.
[II B, Table III] The MRCI uncertainty is based on basis-set variation within the e23-SDT-I model, yet no calculation combines the 4d core with triple excitations (e33-SDT is not reported). Since adding triple excitations to e23-SD changes g_J by about 0.00026, the missing 4d-triple contribution could be comparable to the quoted 55 ppm. The mutual agreement between MCDHF and MRCI therefore does not by itself validate the quoted uncertainty, because both methods omit this same coupling. At minimum the paper should estimate the magnitude of the e33-SDT effect or explain why it is negligible.
[III, Table IV] The final value is the unweighted mean of the two CI-type calculations with an upper-bound uncertainty of 70 ppm. This is a reasonable conservative envelope, but the manuscript should address the fact that the RCC value g_J = 2.002798(113) lies at the upper edge of this range and is consistent with a shared downward bias in the two methods. A sentence explaining why the RCC result is not included in the final average, and what the result would be if it were, would make the bias discussion more complete.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (11)] After Eq. (11), 'B0 = 0.1 nT' should read 'B0 = 0.1 µT' to be consistent with Eq. (10) and with the stated Δν_L = 2.8 kHz.
[II A] The sentence 'The gs = 2.00232 is the electron spin gJ factor' contains a typo; it should say 'electron spin g-factor' (gs), not 'electron spin gJ factor'.
[Table III] The asterisk on rows (2) and (10) indicates a calculation based on the Yb+ 6s1/2 open-shell DHF reference, but this is not explained in the table caption; the explanation appears only in the text.
[Table IV] The experimental 'Spectr.' value 1.998 is listed without an uncertainty; the text notes this, but the table would be clearer if the absence of a reported uncertainty were marked explicitly.
[Abstract and title] The title and abstract contain a few instances where the accent in 'Landé' is missing ('Land´ e'); this is a typographical issue only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: g_J is computed from first principles and the Zeeman coefficients follow from textbook formulas using external, independently measured inputs.

full rationale

The central claim, g_J = 2.002615(70), is the output of two independent many-body calculations (MCDHF and MRCI) whose inputs are the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit/Gaunt Hamiltonians, active spaces, and basis sets; the paper explicitly states that 'these are two independent, back-to-back calculations, with no computational parameters adjusted to align the two results' (Sec. III). No observable entering those calculations is the target Zeeman coefficient or the reported K0/KZ. The first- and second-order Zeeman coefficients are then obtained by substituting the computed g_J with external inputs g'_I [26] and A [19] into Eqs. (2) and (3); this is a derived application of the computed g_J, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The citation of [19] for A is a self-citation, but A is an independently measured hyperfine constant, not a quantity produced by this paper's g_J calculation, so it does not close a definitional loop. The MCDHF uncertainty estimate relies on a cancellation assumption for uncomputed core correlations; that is a question of error-budget validity, not circularity, because the final value is not constructed to reproduce any predetermined Zeeman shift. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the target g_J; the only hand-chosen settings are the MR selection thresholds and the virtual-orbital energy cutoff. The K_0 and K_Z derivation uses external A and g'_I values from prior literature. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

MR configuration selection thresholds (mixing coefficients) = MR-I: >0.03; MR-II: 0.025 to 0.03
In Section II A, configurations with mixing coefficients above 0.03 define MR-I and those between 0.025 and 0.03 define MR-II. These thresholds determine the correlation model, and the MR-II minus MR-I difference of 0.000057 is used as the upper uncertainty bound. They are chosen by the authors, not fitted to experimental data.
Virtual orbital energy truncation cutoff = <10 a.u. (values <5, <15, <50 tested)
In Section II B and Table III, high-lying virtual orbitals with energy larger than m atomic units are truncated. The '<10' cutoff defines the final MRCI value, and the variation of 0.000055 with a differently augmented basis is used as the uncertainty estimate. This is a hand-chosen computational setting.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Zeeman interaction is treated in first-order perturbation theory in the weak-field regime (B_0 < A/μB).
Section II uses Eq. (4) through Eq. (6) and the weak-field condition from Eq. (1); this is standard for C-field clock operation, but it is an assumption about the operating conditions.
domain assumption The Dirac-Coulomb-Breit and Dirac-Coulomb-Gaunt Hamiltonians with a Fermi nuclear charge distribution capture all electron-correlation effects relevant to g_J.
Eqs. (7) and (9) define the Hamiltonians for MCDHF and MRCI. Missing higher-order QED or nuclear-structure effects would shift g_J outside the quoted uncertainty.
domain assumption Finite active space, finite virtual space, and the selected MR configurations converge to the true g_J within the estimated uncertainty.
The uncertainty estimates in Sections II A and II B are based on convergence trends and basis-set fluctuations, not on a rigorous error bound or comparison with experiment.
domain assumption The external input values g'_I = -0.5377e-3 and A = 12,642,812,118 Hz are accurate at the level needed.
These values, from Refs. [61] and [19], enter Eqs. (2) and (3) to convert g_J into K_0 and K_Z; any error in them propagates directly into the Zeeman coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Determination of Land\'{e} $g_J$ factor and Zeeman coefficients in ground-state $^{171}$Yb$^+$ and their applications to quantum frequency standards." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIHOP6BL

@misc{pith2026250109973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Determination of Land\'e $g_J$ factor and Zeeman coefficients in ground-state $^171$Yb$^+$ and their applications to quantum frequency standards},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIHOP6BL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09973}
}

abstract

We report the determination of the Land\'{e} $g_J$ factor and Zeeman coefficients for the ground-state of $^{171}$Yb$^+$, relevant to microwave quantum frequency standards (QFSs). The $g_J$ factor is obtained by using two independent methods: multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and multireference configuration interaction, yielding a consistent value of 2.002615(70). The first- and second-order Zeeman coefficients are determined as 14,010.78(49) Hz/$\mu$T and 31.0869(22) mHz/$\mu$T$^2$, respectively, based on the calculated $g_J$ factor. These coefficients enable reduced magnetic-field-induced uncertainties, improving the accuracy of the $^{171}$Yb$^+$ microwave QFSs. The results reported in this work also offer potential for improved constraints on variations in fundamental constants through frequency comparisons, and advancing trapped-ion quantum computers based on the ground-state hyperfine splitting of $^{171}$Yb$^+$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09973 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

B. L. Schmittberger and D. R. Scherer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09987 (2020)

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[2]

Berkeland, J

D. Berkeland, J. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review Letters 80, 2089 (1998)

work page 1998
[3]

E. Burt, J. Prestage, R. Tjoelker, D. Enzer, D. Kuang, D. Murphy, D. Robison, J. Seubert, R. Wang, and T. Ely, Nature 595, 43 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Tanaka, H

U. Tanaka, H. Imajo, K. Hayasaka, R. Ohmukai, M. Watanabe, and S. Urabe, Physical Review A 53, 3982 (1996)

work page 1996
[5]

Jelenkovi´ c, S

B. Jelenkovi´ c, S. Chung, J. Prestage, and L. Maleki, Physical Review A 74, 022505 (2006)

work page 2006
[6]

J. Han, Y. Zuo, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, The European Physical Journal D 73, 1 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

J. Han, Y. Yu, B. Sahoo, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Phys- ical Review A 100, 042508 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

J. Han, H. Qin, N. Xin, Y. Yu, V. Dzuba, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Applied Physics Letters 118 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 61 references

[9]

J. Han, C. Pan, K. Zhang, X. Yang, S. Zhang, J. Berengut, S. Goriely, H. Wang, Y. Yu, J. Meng, et al., Physical Review Research 4, 033049 (2022)

2022
[10]

J. Han, R. Si, H. Qin, N. Xin, Y. Chen, S. Miao, C. Chen, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Physical Review A 106, 012821 (2022)

2022
[11]

Qin, S.-N

H.-R. Qin, S.-N. Miao, J.-Z. Han, N.-C. Xin, Y.-T. Chen, J. Zhang, L. Wang, et al., Physical Review Applied 18, 024023 (2022)

2022
[12]

S. J. Park, P. J. Manson, M. J. Wouters, R. B. Warring- ton, M. A. Lawn, and P. T. H. Fisk, 2007 IEEE Interna- tional Frequency Control Symposium Joint with the 21st European Frequency and Time Forum , 613 (2007)

2007
[13]

Phoonthong, M

P. Phoonthong, M. Mizuno, K. Kido, and N. Shiga, Ap- plied Physics B 117, 673 (2014)

2014
[14]

P. D. Schwindt, Y.-Y. Jau, H. L. Partner, D. K. Serkland, A. Ison, A. McCants, E. Winrow, J. Prestage, J. Kellogg, N. Yu, et al., 2015 Joint Conference of the IEEE Inter- national Frequency Control Symposium & the European Frequency and Time Forum , 752 (2015)

2015
[15]

P. D. Schwindt, Y.-Y. Jau, H. Partner, A. Casias, A. R. Wagner, M. Moorman, R. P. Manginell, J. R. Kellogg, and J. D. Prestage, Review of Scientific Instruments 87 (2016)

2016
[16]

Mulholland, H

S. Mulholland, H. Klein, G. Barwood, S. Donnellan, P. Nisbet-Jones, G. Huang, G. Walsh, P. Baird, and P. Gill, Review of Scientific Instruments 90 (2019)

2019
[17]

Mulholland, H

S. Mulholland, H. Klein, G. Barwood, S. Donnellan, D. Gentle, G. Huang, G. Walsh, P. Baird, and P. Gill, Applied Physics B 125, 198 (2019)

2019
[18]

J. Z. Han, Y. Zheng, S. N. Miao, Y. T. Chen, J. W. Zhang, L. J. Wang, L. Han, X. Chen, X. B. Xue, and S. K. Zhang, Joint Conference of the European Frequency and Time Forum and IEEE International Frequency Con- trol Symposium (2023)

2023
[19]

J. Han, N. Xin, J. Zhang, Y. Yu, J. Li, L. Qian, and L. Wang, Applied Physics Letters 125 (2024)

2024
[20]

S. Miao, J. Zhang, H. Qin, N. Xin, J. Han, and L. Wang, Optics Letters 46, 5882 (2021)

2021
[21]

Warrington, P

R. Warrington, P. Fisk, M. Wouters, and M. Lawn, Fre- quency Standards and Metrology , 297 (2002)

2002
[22]

Hosaka, S

K. Hosaka, S. A. Webster, P. J. Blythe, A. Stannard, D. Beaton, H. S. Margolis, S. N. Lea, and P. Gill, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 54, 759 (2005)

2005
[23]

Rosenband, D

T. Rosenband, D. Hume, P. Schmidt, C.-W. Chou, A. Br- usch, L. Lorini, W. Oskay, R. E. Drullinger, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, et al., Science 319, 1808 (2008)

2008
[24]

Godun, P

R. Godun, P. Nisbet-Jones, J. Jones, S. King, L. Johnson, H. Margolis, K. Szymaniec, S. Lea, K. Bongs, and P. Gill, Physical Review Letters 113, 210801 (2014)

2014
[25]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C.-w. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, Physical Review Letters 123, 033201 (2019)

2019
[26]

Stone, International Atomic Energy Agency (2019)

N. Stone, International Atomic Energy Agency (2019)

2019
[27]

W. F. Meggers, Journal of Research of the National Bu- reau of Standards. Section A, Physics and Chemistry 71, 396 (1967). 8

1967
[28]

Y. Yu, B. Sahoo, and B. Suo, Physical Review A 102, 062824 (2020)

2020
[29]

Gossel, V

G. Gossel, V. Dzuba, and V. Flambaum, Physical Re- view A 88, 034501 (2013)

2013
[30]

N. Xin, H. Qin, S. Miao, Y. Chen, Y. Zheng, J. Han, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Optics Express 30, 14574 (2022)

2022
[31]

Lange, N

R. Lange, N. Huntemann, J. Rahm, C. Sanner, H. Shao, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, S. Weyers, and E. Peik, Phys- ical Review Letters 126, 011102 (2021)

2021
[32]

Filzinger, S

M. Filzinger, S. D¨ orscher, R. Lange, J. Klose, M. Steinel, E. Benkler, E. Peik, C. Lisdat, and N. Huntemann, Phys- ical Review Letters 130, 253001 (2023)

2023
[33]

Flambaum and A

V. Flambaum and A. Tedesco, Physical Review C 73, 055501 (2006)

2006
[34]

T. Dinh, A. Dunning, V. Dzuba, and V. Flambaum, Physical Review A 79, 054102 (2009)

2009
[35]

J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. Allman, C. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, et al., Nature 592, 209 (2021)

2021
[36]

L. Feng, O. Katz, C. Haack, M. Maghrebi, A. V. Gor- shkov, Z. Gong, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Nature 623, 713 (2023)

2023
[37]

S. A. Guo, Y. K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W. Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R. Y. Yan, Y. J. Yi, Y. L. Xu, B. W. Li, Y. H. Hou, Y. Z. Xu, W. X. Guo, C. Zhang, B. X. Qi, Z. C. Zhou, L. He, and L. M. Duan, Nature 630, 613 (2024)

2024
[38]

M. Qiao, Z. Cai, Y. Wang, B. Du, N. Jin, W. Chen, P. Wang, C. Luan, E. Gao, X. Sun, H. Tian, J. Zhang, and K. Kim, Nature Physics 20, 623 (2024)

2024
[39]

W. M. Itano, Journal of Research of the National Insti- tute of Standards and Technology 105, 829 (2000)

2000
[40]

Andersson and P

M. Andersson and P. J¨ onsson, Computer Physics Com- munications 178, 156 (2008)

2008
[41]

Cheng and W

K. Cheng and W. Childs, Physical Review A 31, 2775 (1985)

1985
[42]

J¨ onsson, M

P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, G. Gaigalas, J. Ekman, J. Grumer, W. Li, J. Li, T. Brage, I. P. Grant, J. Biero´ n, et al., Atoms 11, 7 (2022)

2022
[43]

J¨ onsson, G

P. J¨ onsson, G. Gaigalas, C. F. Fischer, J. Biero´ n, I. P. Grant, T. Brage, J. Ekman, M. Godefroid, J. Grumer, J. Li, et al., Atoms 11, 68 (2023)

2023
[44]

Parpia and A

F. Parpia and A. Mohanty, Physical Review A 46, 3735 (1992)

1992
[45]

I. P. Grant, Relativistic quantum theory of atoms and molecules: theory and computation (2007)

2007
[46]

J. Li, P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, C. Dong, and G. Gaigalas, Physical Review A 86, 052523 (2012)

2012
[47]

Zhang, L

T. Zhang, L. Xie, J. Li, and Z. Lu, Physical Review A 96, 012514 (2017)

2017
[48]

Knecht, H

S. Knecht, H. J. A. Jensen, and T. Fleig, The Journal of Chemical Physics 128 (2008)

2008
[49]

H. J. A. Jensen, R. Bast, A. S. P. Gomes, T. Saue, L. Visscher, I. A. Aucar, V. Bakken, C. Chibueze, J. Creutzberg, K. G. Dyall, S. Dubillard, U. Ek- str¨ om, E. Eliav, T. Enevoldsen, E. Faßhauer, T. Fleig, O. Fossgaard, L. Halbert, E. D. Hedeg ˚ ard, T. Helgaker, B. Helmich-P...

2022
[50]

A. S. Gomes, K. G. Dyall, and L. Visscher, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 127, 369 (2010)

2010
[51]

Hubert and T

M. Hubert and T. Fleig, Physical Review A 106, 022817 (2022)

2022
[52]

Fleig, J

T. Fleig, J. Olsen, and C. M. Marian, The Journal of Chemical Physics 114, 4775 (2001)

2001
[53]

Fleig, J

T. Fleig, J. Olsen, and L. Visscher, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 119, 2963 (2003)

2003
[54]

Fleig, H

T. Fleig, H. J. A. Jensen, J. Olsen, and L. Visscher, The Journal of Chemical Physics 124 (2006)

2006
[55]

Vanier and C

J. Vanier and C. Audoin, The quantum physics of atomic frequency standards (1989)

1989
[56]

Safronova, M

M. Safronova, M. Kozlov, and C. W. Clark, Physical Review Letters 107, 143006 (2011)

2011
[57]

M. A. Bohman, S. G. Porsev, D. B. Hume, D. R. Leibrandt, and M. S. Safronova, Physical Review A 108, 053120 (2023)

2023
[58]

Tang, Y.-F

Z.-M. Tang, Y.-F. Wei, B. Sahoo, C.-B. Li, Y. Yang, Y. Zou, and X.-R. Huang, Physical Review A 110, 043108 (2024)

2024
[59]

Sahoo and P

B. Sahoo and P. Kumar, Physical Review A 96, 012511 (2017)

2017
[60]

D. K. Nandy and B. Sahoo, Physical Review A 90, 050503 (2014)

2014
[61]

Stone, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 111, 1 (2016)

N. Stone, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 111, 1 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

B. L. Schmittberger and D. R. Scherer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09987 (2020)

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Berkeland, J

D. Berkeland, J. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review Letters 80, 2089 (1998)

work page 1998

[3] [3]

E. Burt, J. Prestage, R. Tjoelker, D. Enzer, D. Kuang, D. Murphy, D. Robison, J. Seubert, R. Wang, and T. Ely, Nature 595, 43 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Tanaka, H

U. Tanaka, H. Imajo, K. Hayasaka, R. Ohmukai, M. Watanabe, and S. Urabe, Physical Review A 53, 3982 (1996)

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Jelenkovi´ c, S

B. Jelenkovi´ c, S. Chung, J. Prestage, and L. Maleki, Physical Review A 74, 022505 (2006)

work page 2006

[6] [6]

J. Han, Y. Zuo, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, The European Physical Journal D 73, 1 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

J. Han, Y. Yu, B. Sahoo, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Phys- ical Review A 100, 042508 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

J. Han, H. Qin, N. Xin, Y. Yu, V. Dzuba, J. Zhang, and L. Wang, Applied Physics Letters 118 (2021)

work page 2021