Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae -- II. Improved atomic data for singly ionized lanthanides

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Improved atomic calculations for singly ionized lanthanides lower their predicted energy levels and raise kilonova opacities by up to a factor of 3–10 for individual ions and about 1.5 for a lanthanide-rich mixture.

desk verdict A genuinely improved lanthanide opacity dataset, with a likely-but-not-quantitatively-pinned-down factor 3-10 increase; the mixture factor ~1.5 is the more robust result. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13286 v1 pith:WGRG3TDH submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.atom-ph

Daiji Kato , Masaomi Tanaka , Gediminas Gaigalas , Laima Kitovienė , Pavel Rynkun This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.atom-ph
keywords kilonovaopacitylanthanidesatomicdataneutronstarmergersr-processenergylevelsexpansion
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 claims that the opacity of singly ionized lanthanides in kilonova ejecta has been underestimated, because the earlier calculations placed excited energy levels too high. Using an improved tuning strategy for the atomic effective potential and a larger set of configurations, the authors obtain systematically lower level distributions for $Z=59$–$70$ and find that the resulting expansion opacities at $T=5000$ K are higher than those from the previous study by up to a factor of 3–10, with about a factor of 1.5 for a lanthanide-rich mixture. They also show that the new opacities broadly agree with independent ab initio GRASP2K calculations, and they trace the opacity structure to specific transition arrays. If correct, kilonova models using the previous data understate how effectively lanthanides absorb and reprocess radiation in neutron-star merger ejecta.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the optimized effective central-field potential inside the HULLAC code, a relativistic configuration-interaction atomic-structure calculation. The potential is parameterized by orbital occupation numbers and mean radii, and the parameters are varied by Nelder–Mead minimization until the first-order energies of the ground and low-lying states are minimized, giving potentials tuned to reproduce the lowest level of each configuration. Along with the configuration set $4f^q(6s,5d,6p)$ and $4f^{q-1}(5d^2,5d\,6s,6s^2,6s\,6p,5d\,6p)$ for $q=3$–$14$, this lowers the entire level distribution relative to Paper I. The opacity side uses the standard expansion-opacity formula with Sobolev optical depths, LTE level populations, and Saha ionization, evaluated at $T=5000$ K, $\rho=10^{-13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and $t=1$ day.

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement of the cumulative number of energy levels below 6 eV for a singly ionized lanthanide such as Sm II or Ho II would settle whether the new level distributions are right, because if the measured level density matches Paper I rather than the new calculations, the opacity increase would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the energy-level distributions of singly ionized lanthanides are systematically lower than the authors' previous Paper I results, and that this shift is what raises the opacity. For each ion from Pr II to Yb II, the new HULLAC calculations include configurations such as $4f^{q-1}5d^2$, $4f^{q-1}5d\,6p$, and $4f^{q-1}6s\,6p$, and the effective potential is optimized against the lowest levels of each configuration in the standard atomic database and, for Pm II and Ho II, against the GRASP benchmark data. The median deviations from reference levels drop to 10–25% (42% for the special Gd II case), much smaller than the 20–100% differences in Paper I, and the cumulative level counts below 6 eV rise substantially. Since opacity under local thermodynamic equilibrium is driven by the Boltzmann population of excited states, the lower levels translate into more bound-bound transitions and higher expansion opacities. The opacities from the new data are higher than Paper I by up to a factor of about 10 at wavelengths below roughly 5000 Å for eight of the twelve ions, and for the $Y_e=0.20$ lanthanide-rich mixture the Planck mean opacity is higher by a factor of about 1.5–1.6 at $T=4000$–$5000$ K; in both comparisons the new results move toward, and mostly agree with, the ab initio GRASP opacities.

Load-bearing premise

The whole factor-of-3–10 result assumes that the reference energy levels used to tune the potentials are accurate; if the database levels or the benchmark calculations are biased, the lowered level distributions and the opacity increase inherit that bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For individual ions such as Pm II, Sm II, Eu II, Gd II, Tb II, Dy II, Ho II, and Er II, the improved data raise expansion opacities at wavelengths below about 5000 Å by factors up to roughly 10 relative to Paper I.
  • For a lanthanide-rich ejecta composition ($Y_e=0.20$), the Planck mean opacity of singly ionized lanthanides at $T=4000$–$5000$ K rises by a factor of about 1.5–1.6 over Paper I.
  • The new opacities largely match the independent ab initio GRASP opacities, supporting the conclusion that Paper I underestimated the singly ionized lanthanide opacity rather than the benchmark being wrong.
  • The transition-array decomposition shows that accurate energy levels for specific configurations, especially $4f^{q-1}5d^2$ and $4f^{q-1}5d\,6p$, are required to avoid order-of-magnitude opacity errors in the UV and blue.
  • Because only singly ionized lanthanides were recomputed, the full effect on kilonova light curves will remain uncertain until similar benchmarks are done for the other ionization states that dominate at other temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the systematic lowering seen here extends to neighboring ionization stages, the total opacity of lanthanide-rich ejecta could rise by more than the factor of 1.5 found for singly ionized states alone, because the missing ionization states already contribute at higher temperatures.
  • Editorial inference: an independent laboratory measurement of the low-lying levels of one benchmark ion, such as Sm II or Ho II below 6 eV, would directly test whether the tuned potentials produce the true level distribution rather than merely reproducing the calculations used for tuning.
  • Editorial inference: for Pm II and Ho II, the same GRASP data are used both to set and to validate the potentials, so the good agreement for those ions is partly circular; an independent experimental or theoretical check would remove that degeneracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents improved HULLAC atomic structure calculations for singly ionized lanthanides (Z=59–70), using optimized effective potentials and a restricted set of low-lying configurations. Compared with the authors' previous Paper I, the new calculations produce systematically lower energy level distributions, and the resulting LTE expansion opacities are higher by up to a factor of 3–10 for individual elements and by about a factor of 1.5 for a lanthanide-rich mixture (Ye=0.20). The opacities are compared with those from GRASP2K calculations (G19, R20, R21), and the paper identifies the transition arrays that dominate the opacity in different wavelength ranges. The atomic data are made publicly available.

Significance. If the reported opacity increase is robust, it would imply that kilonova models using Paper I data underestimated the singly ionized lanthanide opacity, affecting inferred r-process yields from observations like AT2017gfo. The paper's strengths include a systematic 12-element comparison, a clear identification of the configurations responsible for the opacity (transition-array analysis in Section 4.1), and a public data release. The GRASP comparisons provide a useful cross-check for most elements, and the observation that the mixture opacity changes by only ~1.5 despite larger per-element changes is an important, non-obvious result. However, the central quantitative claim (factor 3–10) is not yet supported with uncertainty estimates or sensitivity tests, and some of the validation is in-sample.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, §3.1] Table 1 reports median normalized level-energy errors of 10–25% (42% for Gd II), but the opacity calculations in §3.1 do not propagate these errors or test sensitivity to systematic shifts in the level distributions. Since the expansion opacity depends on the Boltzmann factor exp(-E_l/kT), a ~0.5 eV error in a 2 eV lower level changes its population by a factor ~3 at T=5000 K (kT≈0.43 eV), so the quoted factor 3–10 increase relative to Paper I is not quantitatively established. Please provide an uncertainty estimate, e.g., by recomputing opacities with level energies shifted by the reported errors (or by correlated shifts of entire configurations).
  2. [§2.2, Table 1] For Gd II, the optimized potential places the lowest levels of 4f7 5d2 and 4f8 6s below the NIST ground state 4f7 5d 6s, and the median error is 42% (Table 1). This unphysical level ordering changes the partition function and the populations of the lower levels used in Eq. (6)–(7); the opacity increase for Gd II may therefore be partly an artifact of the potential choice. Please quantify how the Gd II opacity changes when the ground configuration is enforced, or restrict the reported factor to elements for which the level ordering is physical.
  3. [§2.1, §4.2] For Pm II and Ho II, the GRASP energies are used both as the tuning target for the effective potential and as the validation of the resulting opacities, so the agreement between HULLAC and GRASP for these ions is not an independent check. Moreover, for Tb II, Dy II, and Ho II, the HULLAC and GRASP opacities still differ by a factor ~3 at 5000–10000 Å (Figures 5 and 10). This limits the strength of the claim that the new opacities are benchmarked by the ab initio calculations; please state explicitly which comparisons are independent and discuss the residual discrepancies.
  4. [§2.1, §4.1] The restricted RCI configuration set (4f^q(6s,5d,6p) plus 4f^{q-1}(5d^2,5d6s,6s^2,6s6p,5d6p)) is assumed to be sufficient for opacity-relevant bound-bound transitions, but the paper does not test convergence with respect to adding further correlation configurations (e.g., 4f^{q-2} 5d^2 6s or 4f^{q-1} 5d 6p^2). Since the analysis in §4.1 identifies transition arrays among these configurations as controlling the opacity, a missing array could change the factor 3–10 for individual elements. A convergence test for one or two representative ions (e.g., Sm II and Ho II) would support the completeness claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Figure 6] The text and Figure 6 caption contain 'Plank mean opacity'; this should be 'Planck mean opacity' (the same typo appears in Appendix A captions).
  2. [§1, references] The abbreviations G19, R20, R21 are defined in the introduction, but the reference list uses full author-year citations; please make the connection explicit at first use and ensure the reference list includes all three papers (Gaigalas et al. 2019; Radžiūtė et al. 2020, 2021).
  3. [§4.1, Figure 7] The sentence 'the black line in each calculation represent the characteristic features' has a subject-verb agreement error; also, 'we here analyze' is awkward.
  4. [Table 2] The caption states that the first and second rows are HULLAC results of the present calculation and Paper I, respectively; please clarify whether the first row is always the present work, as the row ordering appears different for some ions (e.g., Yb II) where the strategies are identical.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central 3–10x opacity increase is a genuine computed result; partial in-sample GRASP validation for Pm II and Ho II.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (effective potential optimization) and Section 3.2 (opacity comparison)]
    "For Pm II and Ho II, however, we compared also with the Grasp results (R20 for Pm II and R21 for Ho II) for higher excited states since the data available in the database are limited. ... Our new opacities show reasonable agreements with those calculated with the results of Grasp calculations (G19, R20 and R21)."

    For Pm II and Ho II, the HULLAC effective potential is optimized using GRASP reference energies from R20/R21 as fitting targets. The later statement that the new HULLAC opacities agree with GRASP opacities is therefore partly a consistency check against the same reference used in the fit, not an independent validation of the level energies for those two ions. Because opacity depends exponentially on level energies through the Boltzmann factor, the agreement is partially forced by the fitting procedure. However, the main claim of a factor 3–10 opacity increase relative to Paper I does not depend on this GRASP comparison and remains a computed consequence of the new level distributions; the in-sample issue affects only the supportive validation for Pm II and Ho II.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: improved HULLAC effective potentials produce systematically lower energy level distributions than Paper I, and the opacities computed from those levels via the expansion-opacity formalism are higher by up to a factor of 3–10. This result does not reduce to a fit or to a self-citation; the comparison against Paper I is an independent numerical output. The GRASP-based validation is generally independent ab initio data, but for Pm II and Ho II it is partly in-sample because R20/R21 energies were used as reference targets during potential optimization. This raises the circularity score above zero, but it does not compromise the central factor 3–10 claim, which stands on the direct comparison with Paper I. The paper also reports large residual level-energy errors (e.g., 42% for Gd II) and residual opacity discrepancies for Tb II, Dy II, and Ho II, indicating that the validation is not being used to force agreement beyond what the calculations actually give.

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

The central opacity result rests on the tuned effective potential, the restricted configuration set, and the accuracy of the NIST ASD/GRASP references. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective potential parameters α_i per ion = Varies per ion; chosen to minimize first-order energy error (Table 1)
    These parameters define the central-field potential in Eq. (1); level energies and hence opacities depend exponentially on them via the Boltzmann factor.
  • Occupation number sets q_i for the potential = e.g., Pr II: 4f^3; Nd II: 4f^4; see Table 1
    Chosen by hand among several candidate sets; the best strategy was selected by comparison to NIST ASD and GRASP reference energies. The choice directly sets the level distributions.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Restricted RCI configuration set (4f^q(6s,5d,6p) plus 4f^{q-1}(5d^2,5d6s,6s^2,6s6p,5d6p)) is sufficient for opacity-relevant bound-bound transitions.
    Section 2.1; completeness is not proven but is supported by comparison with GRASP results.
  • domain assumption NIST ASD lowest-level energies and GRASP2K results (G19/R20/R21) are accurate references for tuning and validation.
    Section 2.1; GRASP is a theoretical calculation, not an experimental benchmark.
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium and homologous expansion with the Sobolev approximation apply at the computed ejecta conditions.
    Section 3.1, Eqs. (6)-(7); standard for kilonova opacity at t=1 day.
  • domain assumption The effective central-field potential form of Eqs. (1)-(4) with Nelder-Mead optimized α_i captures the relevant atomic structure.
    Section 2.1; inherent to the HULLAC method.
  • domain assumption Singly ionized lanthanides dominate the opacity at T=4000-5000 K and rho=1e-13 g/cm3, so mixture opacities can be computed from singly ionized data only.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.2; acknowledged as approximate, with true opacities expected to be higher.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae -- II. Improved atomic data for singly ionized lanthanides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGRG3TDH

@misc{pith2026250113286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae -- II. Improved atomic data for singly ionized lanthanides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGRG3TDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13286}
}
read the original abstract

Lanthanides play most important roles in the opacities for kilonova, ultraviolet-optical-infrared emission from neutron star mergers. Although several efforts have been made to construct atomic data, the accuracy in the opacity is not fully assessed and understood. In this paper, we perform atomic calculations for singly ionized lanthanides with improved strategies, aiming at understanding the physics of the lanthanide opacities in kilonova ejecta and necessary accuracy in atomic data. Our results show systematically lower energy level distributions as compared with our previous study (Paper I). As a result, the opacities evaluated with our new results are higher by a factor of up to 3 - 10, depending on the element and wavelength range. For a lanthanide-rich element mixture, our results give a higher opacity than that in Paper I by a factor of about 1.5. We also present opacities by using the results of ab-initio atomic calculations by using Grasp2K code. In general, our new opacities show good agreements with those with ab-initio calculations. We identify that structure of the lanthanide opacities are controlled by transition arrays among several configurations, for which derivation of accurate energy level distribution is important to obtain reliable opacities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Calculated energy levels distribution for singly ionized ions (𝑍 = 59 − 64). The energy levels are shown for each configuration. The colors represent the number of energy level in 0.2 eV bin. The red and orange star symbols represent the lowest energy for each configuration from the NIST ASD and GRASP calculations (G19, R20, and R21), respectively. The energy is measured from the lowest level of the correct ground s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative number distributions of the energy levels of Sm II and Ho II for each parity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expansion opacity as a function of wavelength for singly ionized lanthanides (𝑍 = 59 − 64). The opacities are those for 𝜌 = 10−13 g cm−3 and 𝑇 = 5000 K at 𝑡 = 1 day after the merger. these two configurations causes a strong dip in the opacity around 3000-4000 Å. Overal…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plank mean opacity (for 𝜌 = 10−13 g cm−3 and 𝑇 = 5000 K at 𝑡 = 1 day after the merger) as a function of atomic number . and 15.4 cm2 g −1 at 𝑇 = 4000, 4500, and 5000 K, respectively. There values are higher than those of Paper I by a factor of 1.5-1.6. (𝜅 = 16.6, 17.5,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The number of strong lines (per 100 Å bin) for Sm II that satisfy 𝑔 𝑓 exp(−𝐸𝑙/𝑘𝑇) > 10−5 at 𝑇 = 5000 K. Top, middle, and bottom panels show the cases using the Hullac calculations in Paper I, Grasp calculations (R20), and this paper, respectively. In the left and right…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic summary of transition arrays for singly ionized lanthanides. Colors for configurations are according to the same color scheme in Figures 7 and 8. Since the energy levels of each configuration widely spread, each line shows the transition in either direction d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Opacities of singly ionized lanthanides for the element mixture with 𝑌e = 0.2. (Left) Expansion opacities for 𝜌 = 10−13 g cm−3 and 𝑇 = 5000 K at 𝑡 = 1 day after the merger. (Right) Planck mean opacities as a function of temperature. Note that the calculations include …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Direct Measurement of the Accretion Disk Formed in Prompt Collapse Mergers with Future Gravitational-Wave Observatories

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The postmerger ringdown frequency of promptly collapsing binary neutron star mergers is correlated with accretion disk mass, allowing a proposed 10 percent measurement with third-generation gravitational wave detectors.

  2. Calibrated Lanthanide Atomic Data for Kilonova Radiative Transfer. I. Atomic Structure and Opacities

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new calibrated atomic dataset for all singly and doubly ionized lanthanides provides 66,591 experimentally anchored transition wavelengths for kilonova modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2017a, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101 Abbott B

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, ApJ, 848, L12 Banerjee S., Tanaka M., Kawaguchi K., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2020, ApJ, 901, 29 Banerjee S., Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2024, ApJ, 968, 64 Bar-Shalom A., Klapisch M., Oreg J., 2001, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiative Transfer, 71, 169 Barnes J., K...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ye = 0.20 HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (G19, R20, R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    (Left) Expansion opacities for𝜌= 10−13 g cm−3 and𝑇 = 5000K at 𝑡 = 1 day after the merger

    Ye = 0.20 HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (G19, R20, R21) HULLAC (this paper) Figure 10.Opacities of singly ionized lanthanides for the element mixture with𝑌e= 0.2. (Left) Expansion opacities for𝜌= 10−13 g cm−3 and𝑇 = 5000K at 𝑡 = 1 day after the merger. (Right) Planck mean opacities as a function of temperature. Note that the calculations include atomic data only...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Pr II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R20) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Nd II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (G19) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Pm II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R20) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Sm II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R20) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Eu II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R20) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    work page 2000

Show all 17 references
  1. [10]

    Tb II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2000

  2. [11]

    Dy II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2000

  3. [12]

    Ho II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2000

  4. [13]

    Er II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2000

  5. [14]

    Tm II HULLAC (Paper I) GRASP (R21) HULLAC (this paper) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2000

  6. [64]

    calculated fromHullac(Paper I and this paper) andGrasp results (G19, R20, and R21) . MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024) Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae – II.15 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 T emperature (K) 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 Planck mean opacity (cm2 g

    2024

  7. [68]

    MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024) 18 Kato et al

    (see Figure 8 for Ho II (𝑍 = 67)). MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024) 18 Kato et al. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Wavelength (Å) 100 101 102 103 104 Number of lines / 100 Å Tm II (lower level) HULLAC (this paper) total 4f13 6s 4f13 5d 4f12 5d2 4f12 5d 6s 4f12 6s2 4f13 6p 4f12 5d 6p 4f12 6s ...

    2024

  8. [69]

    MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024)

    and Yb II (𝑍 = 70). MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024)

    2024

  9. [70]

    MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024) 16 Kato et al

    Note that theHULLACresults for Yb II in Paper I and this paper are identical. MNRAS000, 1–12 (2024) 16 Kato et al. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Wavelength (Å) 100 101 102 103 104 Number of lines / 100 Å Pr II (lower level) HULLAC (this paper) total 4f3 6s 4f3 5d 4f2 5d2 4f2 5d ...

    2024

Pith tools

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