arxiv: 2605.09596 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Finite Nuclear Size Corrections on Hyperfine Structure in Muonic Atoms

Do\u{g}a Ya\c{s}ar , Bastian Sikora

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

keywords finite nuclear sizehyperfine splittingmuonic atomsDirac wavefunctionsnuclear charge distributionhyperfine structuremuonic ionsrelativistic effects

0 comments

The pith

Finite nuclear size reduces hyperfine splitting in muonic atoms by a factor that increases with nuclear charge Z.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper calculates the finite nuclear size correction to the magnetic dipole hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogenlike ions using a relativistic Dirac approach. It introduces the factor δ such that the splitting with an extended nucleus is the point-nucleus value times (1 minus δ). Calculations for the 1s, 2s, and 2p1/2 states across many Z values using both uniform sphere and Fermi nuclear models show that δ rises steadily with Z and is smaller for the 2p1/2 state. The results also demonstrate strong sensitivity to the details of the nuclear charge distribution, underscoring the need for accurate nuclear models in high-precision work with muonic atoms.

Core claim

The finite nuclear size contribution is quantified through the correction factor δ defined by ΔE_ext = ΔE_point (1 − δ), where ΔE_ext is obtained from Dirac wavefunctions for extended nuclear charge distributions. For homogeneous sphere and two-parameter Fermi models, systematic values of δ are provided for 1s, 2s, and 2p1/2 states over a wide Z range, showing monotonic increase with Z, reduced magnitude for 2p1/2 relative to s states, and pronounced nuclear-model dependence.

What carries the argument

The correction factor δ, computed as one minus the ratio of the hyperfine splitting energy for an extended nuclear charge distribution to that for a point nucleus, using numerically solved Dirac wavefunctions.

If this is right

For higher nuclear charges Z the finite size correction grows larger, making it essential to include in analyses of muonic atom spectra.
The 2p1/2 state experiences a smaller correction than the s states, leading to different relative impacts across atomic levels.
Switching between the uniform sphere and Fermi models produces noticeable differences in δ, indicating that the choice of nuclear model affects the predicted correction.
Uncertainties in the nuclear radius parameter alter the value of δ in the uniform sphere case.
Precision studies of hyperfine structure in muonic atoms require realistic modeling of the nuclear charge distribution rather than point-like approximations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Combining these δ values with experimental hyperfine data could help refine knowledge of nuclear radii or distributions in heavy elements.
The observed state dependence suggests that measurements in different states could separate nuclear size effects from other contributions.
Similar finite size corrections might need evaluation in other exotic atomic systems like pionic atoms for comparable precision.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical iterative solver combined with the semi-analytic matching scheme produces Dirac wavefunctions and energies accurate enough that the resulting δ values reflect true finite nuclear size physics.

What would settle it

An experimental determination of the hyperfine splitting frequency in a muonic ion at high Z, compared to the point-nucleus theoretical value, would directly test whether the computed δ matches the observed reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09596 by Bastian Sikora, Do\u{g}a Ya\c{s}ar.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Finite nuclear size correction parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Difference between the two-parameter Fermi and uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Finite nuclear size (FNS) effects on the magnetic-dipole hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogenlike ions are investigated within a fully relativistic Dirac framework. The FNS contribution is quantified through the correction factor $\delta$, defined by $\Delta E_{\mathrm{ext}} = \Delta E_{\mathrm{point}}(1 - \delta)$, where $\Delta E_{\mathrm{ext}}$ is evaluated using Dirac wavefunctions computed for an extended nuclear charge distribution. Two nuclear models are considered: a homogeneously charged sphere and a two-parameter Fermi distribution. Bound-state energies and radial wavefunctions are obtained using a numerical iterative solver, while a semi-analytic matching scheme provides reference values and initial seeds. We present a systematic dataset of $\delta$ values for the $1s$, $2s$, and $2p_{1/2}$ states over a wide range of nuclear charge numbers $Z$. Nuclear-model dependence is quantified, including uncertainties induced by the nuclear radius in the uniform-sphere model. The results show that $\delta$ increases monotonically with $Z$ and exhibits clear state dependence, with reduced magnitude for the $2p_{1/2}$ state relative to $s$ states. A pronounced sensitivity to the nuclear charge distribution is observed, highlighting the importance of realistic nuclear modeling in precision hyperfine studies of muonic atoms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives a new systematic set of δ values for FNS corrections to muonic hyperfine structure over wide Z, but the numerical solver lacks reported benchmarks.

read the letter

The colleague should know that this work produces a fresh table of finite nuclear size correction factors δ for the hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogenlike ions. It covers the 1s, 2s, and 2p1/2 states from low to high Z using both a uniform sphere and a two-parameter Fermi nuclear charge distribution, with explicit radius uncertainties folded in for the sphere case. The results are presented as direct numerical solutions of the Dirac equation for the extended potentials, compared against the point-nucleus reference via the factor δ = 1 - ΔE_ext / ΔE_point. That dataset is the concrete advance here. Prior studies on muonic FNS were narrower in Z range or state coverage, so having these numbers side by side with model dependence is useful for anyone extracting nuclear radii or testing QED at the precision level now reached in muonic spectroscopy. The trends reported—monotonic rise with Z, smaller δ for the 2p1/2 state, and clear model sensitivity—line up with basic expectations from wavefunction overlap. The semi-analytic matching scheme for reference values and seeds is a reasonable way to anchor the numerics. The soft spot is the numerical side. The abstract describes an iterative solver but gives no convergence tolerances, radial grid details, or direct checks against the point-nucleus limit, known perturbative formulas at low Z, or independent literature values. Small inaccuracies near the origin would feed straight into δ, so without those tests the claimed monotonicity and model differences rest on unverified implementation details. If the full manuscript includes such checks, the concern is minor; otherwise it is a real gap for a computational paper. This is for experimentalists and theorists working on muonic atoms and precision hyperfine measurements. A reader who needs ready-to-use correction factors for data analysis will get value from the tables. It is not a foundational theoretical paper, but the computation is honest and the output fills a practical hole. I would send it to peer review. The dataset is new enough and the framework standard enough that referees can check the numerics and decide how much weight to give the numbers.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates finite nuclear size (FNS) corrections to magnetic-dipole hyperfine splittings in muonic hydrogenlike ions within a fully relativistic Dirac framework. The correction factor δ is defined by ΔE_ext = ΔE_point (1 − δ), where ΔE_ext is obtained from Dirac wavefunctions solved for two extended nuclear charge distributions (uniform sphere and two-parameter Fermi). A numerical iterative solver combined with semi-analytic matching is used to generate bound-state energies and radial wavefunctions. Systematic values of δ are presented for the 1s, 2s, and 2p_{1/2} states over a wide Z range, with reported trends of monotonic increase in Z, reduced magnitude for 2p_{1/2} relative to s-states, and pronounced sensitivity to the nuclear model (including radius uncertainties in the uniform-sphere case).

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the paper supplies a systematic dataset of FNS corrections for muonic-atom hyperfine structure across many Z values and states. This is significant for precision muonic spectroscopy, where control of nuclear-size effects is required to extract fundamental parameters or test QED. The explicit quantification of nuclear-model dependence and state dependence provides practical guidance for experimental analyses. The combination of numerical iteration with semi-analytic matching is a methodological strength that could be leveraged for reproducibility.

major comments (2)

Numerical implementation (description of the iterative Dirac solver and semi-analytic matching): No convergence criteria, radial grid resolution, iteration tolerances, or benchmark comparisons are reported against the point-nucleus limit, known perturbative FNS formulas for low-Z muonic atoms, or independent literature calculations. Because δ is obtained directly from the small-r behavior of the computed wavefunctions, the absence of these tests leaves the claimed monotonic Z-dependence, state dependence, and model sensitivity without demonstrated numerical robustness.
Results and discussion of δ(Z) trends: The manuscript states that δ increases monotonically with Z and shows clear state dependence, yet provides no error estimates, sensitivity plots, or quantitative propagation of the nuclear-radius uncertainty (mentioned for the uniform-sphere model) into the final δ values. This weakens the ability to assess whether the reported trends are robust or could be altered by systematic numerical or model choices.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and method description would benefit from an explicit statement of the Z range covered and the specific nuclear-radius parametrization used for each model.
A summary table or figure compiling the δ values for all states and models would improve accessibility of the systematic dataset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of numerical methods and results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Numerical implementation (description of the iterative Dirac solver and semi-analytic matching): No convergence criteria, radial grid resolution, iteration tolerances, or benchmark comparisons are reported against the point-nucleus limit, known perturbative FNS formulas for low-Z muonic atoms, or independent literature calculations. Because δ is obtained directly from the small-r behavior of the computed wavefunctions, the absence of these tests leaves the claimed monotonic Z-dependence, state dependence, and model sensitivity without demonstrated numerical robustness.

Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the numerical implementation is required to demonstrate robustness. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated subsection (or appendix) specifying the iterative solver convergence criterion (relative energy change below 10^{-12}), radial grid parameters (typically 5000–10000 points with adaptive spacing), and matching tolerance. We will also add benchmark tests: recovery of analytic point-nucleus Dirac energies to relative accuracy better than 10^{-10}, comparison of low-Z δ values with known perturbative expressions (agreement within 1 %), and direct comparison with selected independent literature results for both nuclear models. These additions will confirm that the reported monotonic Z-dependence, state dependence, and model sensitivity are numerically stable. revision: yes
Referee: Results and discussion of δ(Z) trends: The manuscript states that δ increases monotonically with Z and shows clear state dependence, yet provides no error estimates, sensitivity plots, or quantitative propagation of the nuclear-radius uncertainty (mentioned for the uniform-sphere model) into the final δ values. This weakens the ability to assess whether the reported trends are robust or could be altered by systematic numerical or model choices.

Authors: The manuscript already quantifies nuclear-model dependence and notes radius uncertainties for the uniform-sphere case. We acknowledge, however, that explicit propagation of these uncertainties into δ and accompanying sensitivity plots were omitted. In revision we will add (i) shaded uncertainty bands on all δ(Z) figures obtained by varying the nuclear radius within its experimental uncertainty, (ii) separate sensitivity plots of δ versus radius parameter for representative Z, and (iii) an estimate of residual numerical uncertainty in δ (typically <0.1 %). These quantitative elements will allow readers to judge the robustness of the monotonic increase with Z and the observed state dependence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct numerical evaluation of correction factor

full rationale

The paper defines δ explicitly as the relative difference ΔE_ext / ΔE_point - 1, where both energies are obtained by solving the Dirac equation (numerically for extended nuclei, analytically or by limit for point nuclei). No parameters are fitted to data and then reused as predictions, no self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or ansatzes, and the central dataset of δ(Z) values follows directly from the computed wavefunctions without reduction to the inputs by construction. The method is a standard first-principles numerical computation whose validity rests on solver accuracy rather than definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard relativistic quantum mechanics and two conventional nuclear charge models. The nuclear radius enters as an input parameter whose effect is analyzed but not derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)

nuclear radius
Input parameter in both the uniform-sphere and Fermi models; uncertainties induced by its value are quantified for the uniform-sphere case.

axioms (2)

standard math The Dirac equation governs relativistic bound states in a central potential generated by the nuclear charge distribution.
Standard framework for hydrogenlike atoms including muonic systems.
domain assumption Nuclear charge distributions are adequately represented by a homogeneously charged sphere or a two-parameter Fermi distribution for finite-size hyperfine corrections.
Common approximations in nuclear physics for calculating finite nuclear size effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5544 in / 1479 out tokens · 73439 ms · 2026-05-12T04:10:52.164344+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

(6), is solved using a classical fourth-order Runge–Kutta (RK4) [29] scheme on the radial grids defined in Sec

Runge–Kutta propagation The radial Dirac system, Eq. (6), is solved using a classical fourth-order Runge–Kutta (RK4) [29] scheme on the radial grids defined in Sec. III B. The inner solution is propagated fromr min →r lim, while the outer solution is propagated fromr max →r lim. The integration step size follows the predefined radial grid, which is constr...

work page
[2]

Inner boundary (r=r min).The regular solution near the origin follows a power-law behaviour determined byκ

Boundary conditions a. Inner boundary (r=r min).The regular solution near the origin follows a power-law behaviour determined byκ. DefiningA= 2N 1, the initial values atr min are [7, 30] G(rmin) =A r |κ| min,(53) F(r min) = m0 −E+V(r min) |κ|+ 1−κ A r|κ|+1 min ,(κ <0), (54) and F(r min) =A r |κ| min,(55) G(rmin) = m0 +E−V(r min) |κ|+ 1 +κ A r|κ|+1 min ,(κ...

work page
[3]

Matching and residual definition Let (Gin, Fin) denote the solution integrated fromr min and (G out, Fout) the solution integrated fromr max. At the matching radiusr lim, continuity requires Gin =G out, F in =F out.(58) Global normalization requires N= Z rmax rmin G2(r) +F 2(r) dr= 1.(59) We define the residual vector R(E, N1, B) =   ∆G ∆F ∆N   ,(60) ...

work page
[4]

Three-parameter Newton iteration The nonlinear systemR(E, N 1, B) =0is solved using a three-dimensional Newton method, withx= (E, N1, B)T. At iterationk, the Newton correctionδx k = (δE, δN 1, δB)T is obtained from the linear system Jk δxk =−R k,(65) whereR k =R(E k, N1,k, Bk) and the Jacobian matrix is defined as (Jk)ij = ∂Ri ∂xj x=xk ,x k = (Ek, N1,k, B...

work page 1931
[5]

C. S. Wu and L. Wilets, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.19, 527 (1969), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ns.19.120169.002523

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.19.120169.002523 1969
[6]

Schaller, L

L. Schaller, L. Schellenberg, A. Ruetschi, and H. Schneuwly, Nucl. Phys. A343, 333 (1980)

work page 1980
[7]

R¨ uetschi, L

A. R¨ uetschi, L. Schellenberg, T. Q. Phan, G. Piller, L. A. Schaller, and H. Schneuwly, Nucl. Phys. A422, 461 (1984)

work page 1984
[8]

Piller, C

C. Piller, C. Gugler, R. Jacot-Guillarmod, L. A. Schaller, L. Schellenberg, H. Schneuwly, G. Fricke, T. Hennemann, and J. Herberz, Phys. Rev. C42, 182 (1990)

work page 1990
[9]

R. Pohl, A. Antognini, F. Nez, F. D. Amaro, F. Biraben, J. M. R. Cardoso, D. S. Covita, A. Dax, S. Dhawan, L. M. P. Fernandes, A. Giesen, T. Graf, T. W. H¨ ansch, P. Indelicato, L. Julien, C.-Y. Kao, P. Knowles, E.- O. Le Bigot, Y.-W. Liu, J. A. M. Lopes, L. Ludhova, C. M. B. Monteiro, F. Mulhauser, T. Nebel, P. Rabi- nowitz, J. M. F. dos Santos, L. A. Sc...

work page 2010
[10]

Michel, N

N. Michel, N. S. Oreshkina, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A96, 032510 (2017)

work page 2017
[11]

A. S. M. Patoary and N. S. Oreshkina, Eur. Phys. J. D 72, 54 (2018)

work page 2018
[12]

Michel and N

N. Michel and N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. A99, 042501 (2019)

work page 2019
[13]

Antognini, N

A. Antognini, N. Berger, T. E. Cocolios, R. Dressler, R. Eichler, A. Eggenberger, P. Indelicato, K. Jung- mann, C. H. Keitel, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, N. Michel, J. Nuber, N. S. Oreshkina, A. Ouf, A. Papa, R. Pohl, M. Pospelov, E. Rapisarda, N. Ritjoho, S. Roccia, N. Sev- erijns, A. Skawran, S. M. Vogiatzi, F. Wauters, and L. Willmann, Phys. Rev. C101, 054313 (2020)

work page 2020
[14]

N. Paul, G. Bian, T. Azuma, S. Okada, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 173001 (2021)

work page 2021
[15]

Okumura, T

T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, P. Caradonna, I. Chiu, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, G. C. Hilton, Y. Ichinohe, P. Indelicato, T. Isobe, S. Kanda, D. Kato, M. Katsuragawa, N. Kawamura, Y. Kino, M. K. Kubo, K. Mine, Y. Miyake, K. M. Morgan, K. Ninomiya, H. Noda, G. C. O’Neil, S. Okada, K. Okutsu, T. ...

work page 2021
[16]

I. A. Valuev, G. Col` o, X. Roca-Maza, C. H. Keitel, and N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 203001 (2022). 12

work page 2022
[17]

N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L042040 (2022)

work page 2022
[18]

T. Y. Saito, M. Niikura, T. Matsuzaki, H. Saku- rai, M. Igashira, H. Imao, K. Ishida, T. Katabuchi, Y. Kawashima, M. K. Kubo, Y. Miyake, Y. Mori, K. Ninomiya, A. Sato, K. Shimomura, P. Strasser, A. Taniguchi, D. Tomono, and Y. Watanabe, Muonic X-Ray Measurement for the Nuclear Charge Distribu- tion: the Case of Stable Palladium Isotopes (2022), arXiv:2204...

work page arXiv 2022
[19]

V. A. Yerokhin and N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. A108, 052824 (2023)

work page 2023
[20]

Z. Sun, K. A. Beyer, Z. A. Mandrykina, I. A. Valuev, C. H. Keitel, and N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 163002 (2025)

work page 2025
[21]

Vandeleur, G

J. Vandeleur, G. Sanamyan, O. R. Smits, I. A. Valuev, N. S. Oreshkina, and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 093003 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

Quint, F

C. Quint, F. Heiße, J. Jaeckel, L. Leimenstoll, C. H. Kei- tel, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 113001 (2026)

work page 2026
[23]

Antognini, F

A. Antognini, F. Kottmann, F. Biraben, P. Indelicato, F. Nez, and R. Pohl, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)331, 127 (2013)

work page 2013
[24]

Amaro, A

P. Amaro, A. Adamczak, M. A. Ahmed, L. Affolter, F. D. Amaro, P. Carvalho, T. L. Chen, L. M. P. Fer- nandes, M. Ferro, D. Goeldi, T. Graf, M. Guerra, T. W. H¨ ansch, C. A. O. Henriques, Y. C. Huang, P. Indelicato, O. Kara, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, F. Kottmann, Y. W. Liu, J. Machado, M. Marszalek, R. D. P. Mano, C. M. B. Monteiro, F. Nez, J. Nuber, A. Ouf, N. ...

work page 2022
[25]

Nuber, A

J. Nuber, A. Adamczak, M. A. Ahmed, L. Affolter, F. D. Amaro, P. Amaro, A. Antognini, P. Carvalho, Y. H. Chang, T. L. Chen, W. L. Chen, L. M. P. Fernan- des, M. Ferro, D. Goeldi, T. Graf, M. Guerra, T. W. H¨ ansch, C. A. O. Henriques, M. Hildebrandt, P. Indeli- cato, O. Kara, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, F. Kottmann, Y. W. Liu, J. Machado, M. Marszalek, R. D. P. ...

work page 2023
[26]

Greiner,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: Wave Equations, 3rd ed

W. Greiner,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: Wave Equations, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000)

work page 2000
[27]

Beier, Phys

T. Beier, Phys. Rep.339, 79 (2000)

work page 2000
[28]

nist.gov/constants(2022)

CODATA, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fun- damental Physical Constants: 2022,https://physics. nist.gov/constants(2022)

work page 2022
[29]

Angeli and K

I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

work page 2013
[30]

V. A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V. M. Shabaev, Eur. Phys. J. D25, 203 (2003)

work page 2003
[31]

gov/13.14(2024), release 1.2.1, 2024-06-15

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Nist dig- ital library of mathematical functions, 13.14: Whittaker and parabolic cylinder functions,https://dlmf.nist. gov/13.14(2024), release 1.2.1, 2024-06-15. Accessed 2026-03-02

work page 2024
[32]

V. M. Shabaev, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.26, 1103 (1993)

work page 1993
[33]

Hairer, S

E. Hairer, S. P. Nørsett, and G. Wanner,Solving Ordi- nary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993)

work page 1993
[34]

Weis,Myonische Vakuumpolarisationskorrekturen zumg-Faktor eines gebundenen Elektrons, Master’s the- sis, Fakult¨ at f¨ ur Physik und Astronomie, Universit¨ at Hei- delberg (2014)

R. Weis,Myonische Vakuumpolarisationskorrekturen zumg-Faktor eines gebundenen Elektrons, Master’s the- sis, Fakult¨ at f¨ ur Physik und Astronomie, Universit¨ at Hei- delberg (2014)

work page 2014
[35]

I. A. Valuev, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, and N. S. Oreshk- ina, Phys. Rev. A101, 062502 (2020)

work page 2020
[36]

V. M. Shabaev, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.27, 5825 (1994)

work page 1994
[37]

V., Shabaev, V

Volotka, A. V., Shabaev, V. M., Plunien, G., and Soff, G., Eur. Phys. J. D33, 23 (2005)

work page 2005
[38]

Volotka, V

A. Volotka, V. Shabaev, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Eur. Phys. J. D23, 51 (2003)

work page 2003
[39]

Pachucki, V

K. Pachucki, V. c. v. Patk´ oˇ s, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A108, 052802 (2023)

work page 2023
[40]

Puchalski and K

M. Puchalski and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A89, 032510 (2014)

work page 2014
[41]

Ullmann, Z

J. Ullmann, Z. Andelkovic, C. Brandau, A. Dax, W. Gei- thner, C. Geppert, C. Gorges, M. Hammen, V. Hannen, S. Kaufmann, K. K¨ onig, Y. A. Litvinov, M. Lochmann, B. Maaß, J. Meisner, T. Murb¨ ock, R. S´ anchez, M. Schmidt, S. Schmidt, M. Steck, T. St¨ ohlker, R. C. Thompson, C. Trageser, J. Vollbrecht, C. Weinheimer, and W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, Nat. Commun.8...

work page 2017
[42]

L. V. Skripnikov, S. Schmidt, J. Ullmann, C. Geppert, F. Kraus, B. Kresse, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, A. F. Privalov, B. Scheibe, V. M. Shabaev, M. Vogel, and A. V. Volotka, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093001 (2018)

work page 2018
[43]

Boucard and P

S. Boucard and P. Indelicato, Eur. Phys. J. D8, 59 (2000)

work page 2000
[44]

V. M. Shabaev, M. Tomaselli, T. K¨ uhl, A. N. Artemyev, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A56, 252 (1997)

work page 1997
[45]

V. M. Shabaev, Hyperfine structure of highly charged ions, inAtomic Physics with Heavy Ions, edited by H. F. Beyer and V. P. Shevelko (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) pp. 139–159

work page 1999
[46]

V. M. Shabaev, M. B. Shabaeva, I. I. Tupitsyn, V. A. Yerokhin, A. N. Artemyev, T. K¨ uhl, M. Tomaselli, and O. M. Zherebtsov, Phys. Rev. A57, 149 (1998)

work page 1998
[47]

Indelicato, Phys

P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. A87, 022501 (2013)

work page 2013
[48]

V. M. Shabaev, A. N. Artemyev, O. M. Zherebtsov, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Hyperfine Interact. 127, 279 (2000)

work page 2000
[49]

Borie and G

E. Borie and G. A. Rinker, Rev. Mod. Phys.54, 67 (1982)

work page 1982
[50]

V. M. Shabaev, A. N. Artemyev, V. A. Yerokhin, O. M. Zherebtsov, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3959 (2001)

work page 2001
[51]

A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, I. I. Tupitsyn, N. S. Ore- shkina, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 78, 062507 (2008)

work page 2008
[52]

J. H. Hoyo and B. Sikora, Vacuum Polarization Effects in the Hyperfine Splitting of Hydrogen Like Ions (2024), arXiv:2410.09161 [physics.atom-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

J. R. Persson, Muonic hyperfine structure and the bohr- weisskopf effect (2025), arXiv:2310.16398 [nucl-th]. 13 APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES TABLE II. Model-difference diagnostic for muonic states. We list the difference ∆ model =δ F ermi −δ Uniform together with the propagated uncertaintyσ δ obtained from the uniform-sphere radius uncertainty propaga...

work page arXiv 2025