arxiv: 2605.10209 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Analytical Representation for the Electronic Contribution of the Nuclear Schiff Interaction Hamiltonian

Satoshi Toda , Yasuto Masuda , Naohiro Tomiyama , Kota Yanase , Bijaya Kumar Sahoo , Masahiko Hada , Minori Abe

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

keywords nuclear Schiff interactionGaussian basis setsanalytical expressionCP violationmolecular calculationsRaOLrFeven-tempered basis

0 comments

The pith

A new analytical expression using Gaussian basis sets computes the electronic contribution to the nuclear Schiff interaction Hamiltonian without truncating the power series expansion.

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

The paper develops an analytical formula using Gaussian basis sets to compute the electronic part of the nuclear Schiff interaction Hamiltonian exactly, without approximating via truncated power series. This matters for experiments probing CP violation in molecules, as accurate theory is essential to interpret measurements that could explain the universe's matter-antimatter imbalance. For molecules like RaO and LrF, the new method shows earlier numerical results overestimated the interaction strength by more than 50 percent and 300 percent respectively near the nuclear radius. The approach also proves less dependent on specific basis function choices and introduces an improved basis set suited to both nuclear interior and exterior regions, favoring even-tempered expansions.

Core claim

We introduce a new, accurate analytical expression for the electronic terms based on Gaussian basis sets, which avoids any truncation of the power series. Calculations with this expression show that the previous numerical approach overestimates the values for RaO and LrF by more than 50% and 300%, respectively, in the nuclear-radius region. In contrast to the numerical calculations, the analytical expression-based calculations show less sensitivity to choice of the basis-functions. Furthermore, we develop a new basis set that describes accurate behavior of wave functions both interior and exterior regions of nucleus, and demonstrate that an even-tempered basis set is more preferable over an

What carries the argument

The closed-form analytical expression for the electronic contribution obtained by integrating Gaussian-type orbitals against the Schiff moment operator without series expansion truncation.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaussian basis set expansion faithfully reproduces the electronic wavefunction's behavior deep inside the nucleus, allowing the closed-form integration to hold without additional corrections.

What would settle it

A high-resolution numerical computation of the electronic integral for the NSI in LrF using a very large flexible basis concentrated near the nucleus, compared directly to the analytical Gaussian result in the nuclear-radius region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10209 by Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, Kota Yanase, Masahiko Hada, Minori Abe, Naohiro Tomiyama, Satoshi Toda, Yasuto Masuda.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Plots of electronic term 1 for (a) 205TlF, (b) 225RaO, and (c) 256LrF. The red vertical line indicates the nuclear radius R of the 205Tl, 225Ra, and 256Lr atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Plots of electronic term 2 for (a) 205TlF, (b) 225RaO, and (c) 256LrF. The red vertical line indicates the nuclear radius R of the 205Tl, 225Ra, and 256Lr atom. Overall, the results show that the conventional representation consistently overestimates the electronic term values compared to the analytical representation for all molecules and for both electronic terms. For 205TlF, the conventional representat… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Comparison of electronic (a) term 1 and (b) term 2 for 205TlF, 225RaO, and 256LrF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The nuclear Schiff interaction (NSI) arises from a nuclear force that simultaneously violates spatial parity (P) and time reversal (T) symmetries, where T symmetry is equivalent to CP symmetry under CPT invariance. Detecting the NSI experimentally is important because CP violation is critical for explaining why the amount of matter in the Universe is far greater than that of antimatter. Measuring the NSI in molecules requires both precise experiments and theoretical calculations that incorporate electronic and nuclear wavefunctions. Conventionally, the electronic terms have been approximated using a first-order power series expansion of the electronic radial function-an approach that yields the well-known nuclear Schiff moment (NSM) -but this approximation may not be sufficiently accurate. In this study, we introduce a new, accurate analytical expression for the electronic terms based on Gaussian basis sets, which avoids any truncation of the power series. We find that the previous numerical approach overestimates the values for RaO and LrF by more than 50% and 300%, respectively, in the nuclear-radius region. In contrast to the numerical calculations, the analytical expression-based calculations show less sensitivity to choice of the basis-functions. Furthermore, we develop a new basis set that describes accurate behavior of wave functions both interior and exterior regions of nucleus. It also demonstrates that an even-tempered basis set is more preferrable over energy optimized basis set for calculating the NSI electronic term in molecules.

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

The paper gives a closed-form Gaussian analytical expression for the NSI electronic factor that skips power-series truncation and reports 50-300% overestimations in prior work on RaO and LrF.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors replace the usual truncated power-series approximation for the electronic contribution to the nuclear Schiff interaction with a closed-form expression built from Gaussian basis functions. This lets them keep the full radial dependence without cutting off terms, and they apply it to molecules relevant for CP-violation searches. They also report that earlier numerical methods overestimate the values by more than 50% for RaO and 300% for LrF in the nuclear-radius region, while their approach shows lower sensitivity to basis choice. They further introduce a new even-tempered Gaussian basis tuned for accurate behavior both inside and outside the nucleus. These are concrete, usable steps for people who need to compute these matrix elements reliably. The work is grounded in the standard multipole expansion and does not rely on fitted parameters or circular definitions. The soft spot is validation. The claimed accuracy gain assumes the chosen Gaussian expansion faithfully reproduces the true four-component Dirac wavefunction near r=0. The paper notes reduced basis sensitivity and the custom interior/exterior basis, but the abstract and available details do not include direct comparisons to independent high-precision numerical solutions of the Dirac equation with finite nuclear charge distributions. If the Gaussian deviates systematically at small r, the large overestimation numbers could partly be an artifact of the basis rather than proof that truncation was the main error source. No error estimates or tables appear in the summary, so the quantitative claims need more support. This paper is for theorists doing relativistic molecular calculations aimed at fundamental physics experiments, such as searches for nuclear Schiff moments in heavy systems. A reader already working in that niche would find the analytical form and the new basis set worth testing. I would send it to peer review because the method is new, the claims are testable, and the topic matters for ongoing experimental efforts, even if revisions should add explicit benchmarks against exact relativistic numerics.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a new analytical expression for the electronic contribution to the nuclear Schiff interaction (NSI) Hamiltonian by substituting a Gaussian basis into the multipole expansion of the electron-nucleus interaction, thereby avoiding any truncation of the power series used in the conventional nuclear Schiff moment approximation. Applied to the molecules RaO and LrF, the authors report that prior numerical power-series methods overestimate the electronic factors by more than 50% and 300%, respectively, in the nuclear-radius region. They further introduce a new even-tempered Gaussian basis optimized for both interior and exterior nuclear regions, demonstrate reduced basis-set sensitivity relative to energy-optimized sets, and conclude that even-tempered expansions are preferable for NSI electronic-term calculations.

Significance. If the analytical formula and the reported reductions in magnitude are confirmed by direct validation, the work would offer a more accurate and less basis-sensitive route to computing NSI electronic factors in heavy polar molecules. Such improvements matter for interpreting precision experiments that search for CP violation and new physics through molecular Schiff moments, particularly for systems involving radium and lawrencium. The closed-form character and the explicit construction of an interior/exterior basis constitute genuine technical strengths that could be adopted in other relativistic molecular calculations.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and results] Abstract and results section: the headline numerical claims—that previous methods overestimate the NSI electronic terms by >50% for RaO and >300% for LrF—are presented without any accompanying tables, explicit numerical values, error estimates, or side-by-side comparisons against the prior power-series results or against known limiting cases. This absence prevents verification of the central assertion that the analytical expression is more accurate.
[Basis-set construction] Basis-set construction and validation (methods/results): the superiority claim rests on the assumption that the chosen even-tempered Gaussian expansion faithfully reproduces the true four-component Dirac wavefunction for r less than the nuclear radius. No direct benchmark against independent high-precision numerical solutions of the Dirac equation with finite nuclear charge distribution is provided; without such a test, any systematic deviation near r=0 could render the reported overestimation an artifact of the basis rather than evidence that truncation was the dominant error.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The phrase 'nuclear-radius region' is used repeatedly without a precise radial interval or a definition of how the comparison is performed at that scale.
[Introduction/Methods] Notation for the electronic factor (presumably denoted something like W or E_p) should be introduced with an explicit equation reference in the main text to aid readability.

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 point by point below, indicating the revisions made to strengthen the presentation and validation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and results] Abstract and results section: the headline numerical claims—that previous methods overestimate the NSI electronic terms by >50% for RaO and >300% for LrF—are presented without any accompanying tables, explicit numerical values, error estimates, or side-by-side comparisons against the prior power-series results or against known limiting cases. This absence prevents verification of the central assertion that the analytical expression is more accurate.

Authors: We agree that the original submission did not include sufficient explicit numerical data or comparisons to allow independent verification of the overestimation claims. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated results subsection with Table I, which reports the explicit values of the electronic NSI factors for RaO and LrF obtained from the analytical Gaussian-basis expression, the corresponding values from the conventional first-order power-series truncation, the percentage differences (exceeding 50% and 300%, respectively), and estimated uncertainties derived from basis-set convergence studies. We also include a brief comparison to the known limiting behavior as the nuclear radius approaches zero, confirming consistency with the expected analytic result. These additions directly enable verification of the central numerical assertions. revision: yes
Referee: [Basis-set construction] Basis-set construction and validation (methods/results): the superiority claim rests on the assumption that the chosen even-tempered Gaussian expansion faithfully reproduces the true four-component Dirac wavefunction for r less than the nuclear radius. No direct benchmark against independent high-precision numerical solutions of the Dirac equation with finite nuclear charge distribution is provided; without such a test, any systematic deviation near r=0 could render the reported overestimation an artifact of the basis rather than evidence that truncation was the dominant error.

Authors: The referee correctly notes that our conclusions depend on the fidelity of the even-tempered Gaussian basis inside the nuclear radius. The basis was constructed by optimizing exponents to reproduce both the interior power-law behavior (derived from the Dirac equation with a uniform nuclear charge distribution) and the exterior exponential decay, as described in the methods section. We already demonstrate markedly lower basis-set sensitivity than energy-optimized sets. However, we acknowledge that a direct side-by-side comparison against independent high-precision numerical four-component Dirac solutions for the molecular systems RaO and LrF is not provided. Such reference data are not available in the literature for these heavy molecules. In the revision we have added an atomic benchmark for the isolated Ra and Lr atoms, comparing the electronic density and NSI matrix elements near r=0 against known high-accuracy numerical atomic results with finite nuclei; this supports the basis accuracy in the interior region. We maintain that the analytical (non-truncated) character of the expression isolates the truncation error as the dominant source of the discrepancy, but we agree that the added atomic benchmark improves the validation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Gaussian-basis analytical NSI term derived directly from standard multipole expansion

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins with the conventional multipole expansion of the electron-nucleus interaction and substitutes a Gaussian basis expansion for the electronic radial wavefunction to obtain an exact closed-form integral for the NSI electronic factor. This substitution is a straightforward mathematical replacement that eliminates power-series truncation by construction of the basis choice, without any fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations that would make the output equivalent to the input. The new even-tempered basis for interior/exterior nuclear regions is presented as an independent construction, and comparisons showing overestimation by prior numerical methods are external benchmarks rather than tautological. No ansatz is smuggled via citation, no uniqueness theorem is invoked from prior author work, and the central result does not rename a known empirical pattern. The approach remains self-contained within standard quantum-chemical methods.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard non-relativistic or Dirac electronic Hamiltonian plus the assumption that a finite Gaussian expansion can be integrated analytically against the nuclear Schiff operator inside the nuclear radius. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Electronic wavefunctions can be expanded in a Gaussian basis that is valid both inside and outside the nuclear radius.
Invoked when the analytical radial integration is performed without truncation.
domain assumption The nuclear Schiff operator is treated as a short-range perturbation whose matrix elements are dominated by the electronic density near r=0.
Standard in NSI literature and required for the radial series to be meaningful.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5574 in / 1481 out tokens · 25349 ms · 2026-05-12T04:40:46.232779+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We introduce a new, accurate analytical expression for the electronic terms based on Gaussian basis sets, which avoids any truncation of the power series... [F2 large/small] involving erf[√α r_n] and exponential terms
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean costAlphaLog_fourth_deriv_at_zero unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the conventional approach... Maclaurin series... lowest-order term... b1 r

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

Sakharov, JETP Lett

A.D. Sakharov, JETP Lett. 5, 24–27 (1967); reprinted as Sov. Phys. Usp. 34 (5), 392–393 (1991). doi: 10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497

work page doi:10.1070/pu1991v034n05abeh002497 1967
[2]

Farrar and M.E

G.R. Farrar and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 50, 774–778 (1994). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.774

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.774 1994
[3]

Huet and E

P. Huet and E. Sather, Phys. Rev. D 51, 379–391 (1995). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.379

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.379 1995
[4]

Khriplovich and S.K

I.B. Khriplovich and S.K. Lamoreaux, CP Violation without Strangeness (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1997). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-60838-4

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-60838-4 1997
[5]

Phys.87, 084301, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6633/ad1e39 (2024)

G. Arrowsmith-Kron, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, J. Ballof, R. Berger, A. Borschevsky, A.A. Breier, F. Buchinger, D. Budker and L. Caldwell, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 084301 (2024). doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ad1e39

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad1e39 2024
[6]

DeMille, Phys

D. DeMille, Phys. Today 68, 34–40 (2015). doi: 10.1063/PT.3.3020

work page doi:10.1063/pt.3.3020 2015
[7]

Hudson, D.M

J.J. Hudson, D.M. Kara, I.J. Smallman, B.E. Sauer, M.R. Tarbutt and E.A. Hinds, Nature 473, 493–496 (2011). doi: 10.1038/nature10104

work page doi:10.1038/nature10104 2011
[8]

Baron et al., Science 343 (6168), 269–272 (2014)

J. Baron et al., Science 343 (6168), 269–272 (2014). doi: 10.1126/science.1248213

work page doi:10.1126/science.1248213 2014
[9]

Andreevet al.Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron.Nature562, 355–360, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8 (2018)

V. Andreev et al., Nature 562, 355–360 (2018). doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8 2018
[10]

S.et al.An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment.Science381, 46–50, DOI: 10.1126/science.adg4084 (2023)

T.S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W.B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K.B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S.Y. Park, A. Wang and E.A. Cornell, Science 381, 46–50 (2023). doi: 10.1126/science.adg4084

work page doi:10.1126/science.adg4084 2023
[11]

Schiff, Phys

L.I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. 132, 2194–2200 (1963). doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.132.2194

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.132.2194 1963
[12]

Parker, M.R

R.H. Parker, M.R. Dietrich, M.R. Kalita, N.D. Lemke, K.G. Bailey, M. Bishof, J.P. Greene, R.J. Holt, W. Korsch, Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, T.P. O’Connor and J.T. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233002 (2015). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.233002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.233002 2015
[13]

Prasannaa, R

V.S. Prasannaa, R. Mitra and B.K. Sahoo, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 195004 (2020). doi: 10.1088/1361-6455/aba6aa

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/aba6aa 2020
[14]

Graner, Y

B. Graner, Y. Chen, E.G. Lindahl and B.R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161601

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.161601 2016
[15]

Sachdeva et al., Phys

N. Sachdeva et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 143003 (2019). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.143003

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.143003 2019
[17]

Lüders, Ann

G. Lüders, Ann. Phys. 281, 1004–1018 (2000). doi: 10.1006/aphy.2000.6027

work page doi:10.1006/aphy.2000.6027 2000
[18]

Yanase and N

K. Yanase and N. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065502 (2020). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.065502

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.065502 2020
[19]

Yanase, N

K. Yanase, N. Shimizu, K. Higashiyama and N. Yoshinaga, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137897 (2023). doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137897

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137897 2023
[20]

Sahoo, Phys

B.K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 013002 (2017). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.013002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.013002 2017
[21]

Sahoo and B.P

B.K. Sahoo and B.P. Das, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 203001 (2018). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.203001

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.203001 2018
[22]

Sakurai, B.K

A. Sakurai, B.K. Sahoo, K. Asahi and B.P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 100, 020502(R) (2019). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.020502

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.100.020502 2019
[23]

Sahoo, N

B.K. Sahoo, N. Yamanaka & K. Yanase, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042811 (2023). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.042811

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.108.042811 2023
[24]

M. Abe, T. Tsutsui, J. Ekman, M. Hada & B. Das, Mol. Phys. 118, e1767814 (2020). doi: 10.1080/00268976.2020.1767814

work page doi:10.1080/00268976.2020.1767814 2020
[25]

& Ginges, J

V.V. Flambaum & J.S. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032113 (2002). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032113

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.65.032113 2002
[26]

Spevak, N

V. Spevak, N. Auerbach & V.V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1357–1369 (1997). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.1357

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.56.1357 1997
[27]

Sushkov, V.V

O.P. Sushkov, V.V. Flambaum & I.B. Khriplovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 87, 1521– 1534 (1984) [Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 873–881 (1984)]

work page 1984
[28]

Auerbach, V.V

N. Auerbach, V.V. Flambaum & V. Spevak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4316–4319 (1996). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4316

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.76.4316 1996
[29]

Flambaum, D.W

V.V. Flambaum, D.W. Murray & S.R. Orton, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2820–2825 (1997). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.56.2820

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.56.2820 1997
[30]

Yanai, T

T. Yanai, T. Nakajima, Y. Ishikawa & K. Hirao, J. Chem. Phys. 114, 6526–6538 (2001). doi: 10.1063/1.1356012

work page doi:10.1063/1.1356012 2001
[31]

Flambaum, V.A

V.V. Flambaum, V.A. Dzuba & H.B. Tran Tan, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042501 (2020). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042501

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.042501 2020
[33]

Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 14.2; Champaign, IL (2024)

work page 2024
[34]

Mårtensson-Pendrill, in Methods in Computational Chemistry, Vol

A.M. Mårtensson-Pendrill, in Methods in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 5, ed. S. Wilson (Plenum Press, New York, 1992), pp. 99–156. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1639- 6_2

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-1639- 1992
[35]

Grasdijk, O

O. Grasdijk, O. Timgren, J. Kastelic, T. Wright, S. Lamoreaux, D. DeMille, K. Wenz, M. Aitken, T. Zelevinsky, T. Winick and D. Kawall, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 044007 (2021). doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/abdca3

work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abdca3 2021
[36]

Flambaum, Phys

V.V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 77, 024501 (2008). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.024501

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.77.024501 2008
[37]

Quiney, J.K

H.M. Quiney, J.K. Laerdahl, K. Fægri Jr. and T. Saue, Phys. Rev. A 57, 920–931 (1998). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.920

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.57.920 1998
[38]

Yanai, H

T. Yanai, H. Nakano, T. Nakajima, T. Tsuneda, S. Hirata, Y. Kawashima, Y. Nakao, M. Kamiya, H. Sekino and K. Hirao, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2660 (Springer, Berlin, 2003), p. 84. doi: 10.1007/3-540-44864-0_9

work page doi:10.1007/3-540-44864-0_9 2003
[39]

Yanai, T

T. Yanai, T. Nakajima, Y. Ishikawa and K. Hirao, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 10122– 10128 (2002). doi: 10.1063/1.1479351

work page doi:10.1063/1.1479351 2002
[40]

M. Abe, T. Yanai, T. Nakajima and K. Hirao, Chem. Phys. Lett. 388, 68–73 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.cplett.2004.02.030

work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2004.02.030 2004
[41]

DIRAC21,

R. Bast, A.S.P. Gomes, T. Saue, L. Visscher, H.J.A. Jensen, I.A. Aucar, V. Bakken, K.G. Dyall, S. Dubillard, U. Ekström, E. Eliav, T. Enevoldsen, E. Faßhauer, T. Fleig, O. Fossgaard, L. Halbert, E.D. Hedegård, B. Helmich-Paris, J. Henriksson, M. Iliaš, C.R. Jacob, S. Knecht, S. Komorovský, O. Kullie, J.K. Lærdahl, C.V. Larsen, Y.S. Lee, N.H. List, H.S. Na...

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4836496 2021
[42]

T. Saue, R. Bast, A.S.P. Gomes, H.J.A. Jensen, L. Visscher, I.A. Aucar, R. Di Remigio, K.G. Dyall, E. Eliav, E. Faßhauer, T. Fleig, L. Halbert, E.D. Hedegård, B. Helmich-Paris, M. Iliaš, C.R. Jacob, S. Knecht, J.K. Lærdahl, M.L. Vidal, M.K. Nayak, M. Olejniczak, J.M.H. Olsen, M. Pernpointner, B. Senjean, A. Shee, A. Sunaga and J.N.P. van Stralen, J. Chem....

work page doi:10.1063/5.0004844 2020
[43]

Visscher, T.J

L. Visscher, T.J. Lee and K.G. Dyall, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 8769–8777 (1996). doi: 10.1063/1.472655

work page doi:10.1063/1.472655 1996
[44]

A. Shee, L. Visscher and T. Saue, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 184107 (2016). doi: 10.1063/1.4966643

work page doi:10.1063/1.4966643 2016
[45]

Johnson and G

W.R. Johnson and G. Soff, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 33, 405–446 (1985). doi: 10.1016/0092-640X(85)90010-5

work page doi:10.1016/0092-640x(85)90010-5 1985
[46]

A. H. Barrett and M. Mandel, Phys. Rev. 109, 1572 (1958). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.109.1572

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.109.1572 1958
[47]

A. D. Kudashov, A. N. Petrov, L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Titov, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 87, 020102(R) (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.020102

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.87.020102 2013
[49]

Dyall, J

K.G. Dyall, J. Phys. Chem. A 113, 12638–12644 (2009). doi: 10.1021/jp905057q

work page doi:10.1021/jp905057q 2009
[51]

Dyall, Theor

K.G. Dyall, Theor. Chem. Acc. 135, 128 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00214 -016-1884-y

work page doi:10.1007/s00214 2016
[53]

Jönsson, G

P. Jönsson, G. Gaigalas, J. Bieroń, C. Froese Fischer and I.P. Grant, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184(9), 2197–2203 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.016

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.016 2013
[54]

V. V. Flambaum and V. A. Dzuba , Phys. Rev. A 101, 042504 (2020) . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042504

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.042504 2020
[55]

Supplemental material is available at URL

work page