Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Ab initio band-to-band internal-conversion lifetimes in 229ThO2 span 1–16 µs and match experiment for larger gaps, showing that host band gap controls the nuclear-clock readout channel.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 05:37 UTC pith:7SJL37JK

load-bearing objection Solid first all-electron IC rates for ThO2; absolute 1–16 μs scale is still IP-limited, but the gap trend and materials rule are usable. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08941 v1 pith:7SJL37JK submitted 2026-07-09 nucl-th cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atom-ph

Ab initio calculations of ²²⁹Th band-to-band internal conversion rate in ²²⁹ThO₂

Udeshika C. Perera , H. B. Tran Tan , H. W. T. Morgan , Eric Hudson , Daniel A. Rehn , Andrei Derevianko This is my paper
classification nucl-th cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atom-ph
keywords 229Th isomerinternal conversionband-to-band decayThO2nuclear clockhyperfine matrix elementsFP-LAPWBohr-Weisskopf effect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper calculates how fast the 8.35 eV nuclear isomer in 229ThO2 decays by promoting a valence electron into the conduction band rather than emitting a photon. Because the nuclear energy exceeds the electronic band gap, this non-radiative internal-conversion channel is open, and the authors evaluate its rate from first principles by summing vertical interband transitions weighted by local thorium-centered hyperfine matrix elements taken directly from all-electron Bloch spinors. After shifting the calculated gap across the experimentally reported range, the resulting lifetimes lie between 1 and 16 microseconds; the lifetime lengthens sharply as the gap approaches the nuclear energy because the resonant phase space shrinks. For the larger reported gaps the calculated lifetime is comparable to the measured conversion-electron Mössbauer lifetime. The practical message is that solid-state nuclear clocks that use conversion electrons for readout can be optimized by choosing hosts whose band gaps sit slightly below the nuclear transition energy.

Core claim

After scissor shifts that span the experimentally reported ThO2 band gaps, the ab initio band-to-band internal-conversion lifetimes fall in the range 1–16 µs; the lifetime rises strongly as the gap approaches the 8.35 eV nuclear energy, and for the larger reported gaps it is comparable to the measured 12.3 µs conversion-electron Mössbauer lifetime. The calculation therefore shows that the host band gap is the dominant electronic control knob for this nuclear-decay channel.

What carries the argument

A Brillouin-zone sum over vertical valence-to-conduction transitions weighted by local Th-centered M1 hyperfine matrix elements evaluated from all-electron FP-LAPW Bloch spinors, with a finite nuclear-magnetization model that regularizes the short-range operator and incorporates the Bohr–Weisskopf effect.

Load-bearing premise

The final electronic excitation is treated as an independent-particle transition whose only correction is a rigid shift of the conduction bands, without explicit excitonic or full quasiparticle renormalization of the resonant spectrum at the nuclear energy.

What would settle it

A sample-specific quasiparticle-plus-exciton calculation of the hyperfine-weighted interband spectrum at 8.35 eV in bulk or thin-film ThO2 that yields a conversion lifetime lying well outside the 1–16 µs window for the measured gap of that sample.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Hosts whose band gaps lie just below 8.35 eV can push the internal-conversion lifetime toward 100 µs while still permitting conversion-electron readout.
  • Sample-to-sample scatter in measured ThO2 gaps translates directly into large scatter in expected conversion lifetimes, so device performance will track electronic-structure characterization.
  • The same matrix-element framework can be applied without change to other stoichiometric low-gap 229Th compounds.
  • Spinless lower-gap hosts such as the sulfates identified in the paper become natural candidates for reduced magnetic broadening with retained electronic readout.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If excitonic redistribution of spectral weight near 8.35 eV is of order 2–3 as the authors’ own absorption diagnostic suggests, absolute lifetimes could shift by that factor while the strong gap trend remains intact.
  • Surface and defect environments that break the ideal cubic site symmetry may activate an E2 channel absent in the bulk calculation, providing an additional lifetime lever.
  • Once the gap is fixed just below the nuclear energy, further lifetime engineering will be limited by how accurately the Th-projected partial density of states near the band edges can be controlled chemically.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an all-electron FP-LAPW+lo calculation of the band-to-band internal-conversion (IC) rate of the 8.35 eV 229Th isomer in stoichiometric ThO2. The rate is obtained from Fermi's golden rule as a Brillouin-zone sum over vertical valence-to-conduction transitions weighted by local Th-centered M1 hyperfine matrix elements evaluated from two-component Bloch spinors inside the Th muffin-tin sphere, with a uniformly magnetized sphere regularizing the short-range operator (Bohr-Weisskopf). After rigid scissor shifts that span the experimentally reported ThO2 gaps (5.2-7 eV), the calculated IC lifetimes fall in the range 1-16 μs and increase strongly as the gap approaches ℏω_nuc; for the larger reported gaps the lifetime is comparable to the measured conversion-electron Mössbauer value of 12.3(3) μs. The authors conclude that hosts with gaps slightly below ω_nuc can optimize solid-state nuclear clocks that use IC-electron readout.

Significance. If the absolute scale and gap trend hold, the work supplies the first fully ab initio, host-dependent framework for band-to-band IC of 229Th and a concrete materials-design rule for IC-based solid-state nuclear clocks. Strengths include the direct evaluation of Th-muffin-tin hyperfine matrix elements from all-electron Bloch spinors (rather than projected DOS plus atomic A constants), the angular reduction of the finite-nucleus M1 operator (Appendix A), documented k-mesh and smearing convergence (Tables II-III, Fig. 6), and an explicit optical-absorption diagnostic of excitonic redistribution (Appendix C). The factorization into B(M1) and an electronic spectral factor S_el makes the nuclear and electronic uncertainties transparent and falsifiable against future quasiparticle or BSE calculations.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. IV A and Appendix C: the absolute 1-16 μs scale rests on an independent-particle spectrum. The authors' own G0W0+BSE optical diagnostic shows that excitonic redistribution changes the spectral weight at 8.35 eV by a factor R_α ≈ 2.5 relative to BSE-IP. Because the IC operator is the short-range magnetic hyperfine interaction, coherent excitonic superpositions can also reshape the Th-centered |I_q|^{2} amplitudes. The paper correctly states that a quantitative correction requires contracting BSE amplitudes with the same muffin-tin matrix elements, but that evaluation is not performed. The absolute lifetime (and therefore the numerical agreement with the 12.3 μs Mössbauer value) can therefore still move by a factor of order two while the qualitative gap trend remains. A clearer statement of this residual uncertainty, or a partial estimate, is needed before the absolute scale is presen
  2. Eqs. (13)-(19) and Sec. III: the electronic M1 operator is the Pauli-reduced form evaluated with scalar-relativistic + second-variational SOC spinors. For Z=90, (αZ)^{2} ≈ 0.43 is not small; the authors note that a fully relativistic four-component treatment may be important especially for the p1/2-p1/2 channel that dominated semi-empirical estimates. The 2% agreement for the diagonal A(5f5/2) of Th3+ is encouraging but does not bound the off-diagonal transition matrix elements that enter S_el. The manuscript should either quantify the expected relativistic correction or explicitly flag the absolute rate as subject to an O(1) relativistic uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table I and Fig. 2: the experimental gap values are heterogeneous (thin films, nanoparticles, single crystals, different spectroscopies). A short note on which values are most relevant to the electrodeposited ~10 nm film of the Mössbauer measurement would help the reader judge the comparison.
  2. Eq. (20) / Appendix B: the choice σ = 0.1 eV is shown to be stable, but a one-sentence statement of how the lifetime changes if σ is varied across the full range of Fig. 6 (especially near E_gap o ω_nuc) would make the numerical robustness more transparent.
  3. Fig. 3: the weighted experimental mean B(M1) = 0.0219(24) W.u. is useful; stating the corresponding ±11% uncertainty band on all reported τ_IC values would avoid any impression that the nuclear factor is known more precisely than it is.
  4. Notation: the manuscript switches between ℏω_nuc, ω_nuc and E_gap without always restoring ℏ; a consistent choice (or an explicit statement that ℏ = 1) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: electronic spectral factor S_el is computed independently from Elk Bloch spinors; B(M1) and scissor targets are external experimental inputs, and the 12.3 μs comparison is a post-diction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II opening paragraphs; Ref. [10]]
    "The band-to-band IC formalism was developed in Ref. [10]. In that treatment, the nuclear isomer decays by creating an interband particle-hole pair with total energy ℋω_nuc … We review the main steps of this derivation in Sec. II …"

    The rate formula (and the experimental τ_IC = 12.3(3) μs later compared against) originates in the authors' own prior Nature paper. However the present work re-derives the golden-rule expression, replaces the semi-empirical matrix elements of [10] by direct all-electron I_q, and does not fit any free parameter to the 12.3 μs datum; the self-citation is therefore present but not load-bearing for the numerical claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is Fermi's golden rule (Eqs. 5–11) with local Th-centered M1 matrix elements I_q evaluated directly from all-electron FP-LAPW spinors inside the muffin-tin (Eqs. 9, 15 and App. A) times the resonant interband spectrum at ℋω_nuc. Scissor shifts are rigid alignments to independently measured band gaps (Table I), not a fit to the IC lifetime. B(M1)=0.022 W.u. is taken from a separate radiative-lifetime experiment and multiplies the electronic factor linearly; the absolute scale is therefore not forced by the Nature 12.3 μs datum that is later compared. The only self-citations are the restated band-to-band formalism of Ref. [10] (re-derived in Sec. II) and the experimental B(M1)/lifetime values from overlapping-author papers; neither reduces the computed S_el or the gap trend to an input by construction. Excitonic/BSE caveats (Sec. IV A) are acknowledged limitations, not circular steps. Score remains 0–2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central lifetime numbers rest on standard solid-state and nuclear inputs (Fermi golden rule, PBE bands, experimental B(M1) and gaps) plus a few modeling choices that are not derived from first principles inside the paper: rigid scissor shifts, independent-particle final states, Pauli-reduced HFI, and a uniform nuclear magnetization sphere. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters that move the absolute τ_IC are the scissor Δ_sc (set to experimental gaps), the smearing width σ, the adopted B(M1), and the nuclear radius R_N.

free parameters (4)
  • scissor shift Δ_sc of conduction bands
    Chosen so that E_gap^PBE + Δ_sc matches each experimental ThO2 gap (5.2–7 eV); not a quasiparticle calculation. Directly sets which interband transitions sit at ħω_nuc and therefore controls τ_IC over 1–16 μs.
  • energy-conserving delta smearing width σ
    Set to 0.1 eV (stability window ~0.08–0.12 eV, Fig. 6). Finite-mesh numerical parameter that can smooth near-threshold phase space when E_gap approaches ω_nuc.
  • reduced M1 transition probability B(M1)
    Fixed to 0.0220(6) W.u. from the CaF2 radiative-lifetime inference [7]; Γ_IC ∝ B(M1), so the ~11% experimental spread scales all lifetimes linearly.
  • uniform nuclear magnetization radius R_N
    Default Elk value 5.733 fm from empirical A(Z) fit; regularizes orbital/spin-dipole/contact kernels and implements the Bohr–Weisskopf correction. Toy model, not a microscopic 229Th magnetization density.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Independent-particle Fermi golden rule for band-to-band IC: nuclear energy creates a vertical valence→conduction particle-hole pair at fixed k via the M1 hyperfine interaction.
    Sec. II; electron-hole correlations and phonons are neglected. Authors later estimate excitonic spectral-weight changes of order 2–3 from optical BSE diagnostics.
  • domain assumption E2 IC vanishes by cubic O_h site symmetry at the ideal Th site in fluorite ThO2; only M1 contributes.
    Sec. II and discussion of thin-film experiment; real samples with strain/defects may activate E2.
  • domain assumption Pauli-reduced (orbital + spin-dipole + Fermi-contact) electronic M1 tensor is adequate for Z=90 Bloch spinors from scalar-relativistic + second-variational SOC.
    Sec. III; (αZ)²≈0.43, so fully relativistic four-component corrections may matter especially for p1/2 channels.
  • ad hoc to paper PBE Kohn–Sham bands plus a rigid scissor capture the resonant interband spectrum at ħω_nuc for rate purposes.
    Sec. IV; scissor is explicitly not a full GW treatment, used to scan experimental gap uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniformly magnetized sphere models the finite nuclear magnetization for Bohr–Weisskopf regularization of transition M1 matrix elements.
    Sec. III A; authors call it a toy model pending microscopic 229Th structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 28549 in / 3977 out tokens · 48506 ms · 2026-07-13T05:37:06.318960+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an ab initio calculation of the band-to-band internal-conversion rate of the $\hbar\omega_{\rm nuc} \approx 8.35$ eV isomeric transition in $^{229}$ThO$_2$. Because the nuclear transition energy exceeds the electronic band gap of ThO$_2$, the isomer can decay nonradiatively by resonantly promoting a valence electron into the conduction band. We formulate this process as a Brillouin-zone sum over vertical interband transitions weighted by local Th-centered hyperfine matrix elements, which are evaluated directly from all-electron full-potential linearized augmented-plane-wave Bloch spinors. A finite nuclear magnetization model is included to regularize the short-range hyperfine interaction and to account for the Bohr-Weisskopf effect. After applying scissor shifts to span the experimentally reported ThO$_2$ band gaps, we find calculated internal-conversion lifetimes in the range of $1-16~\mu{\rm s}$. The lifetime increases strongly as the band gap approaches $\omega_{\rm nuc}$ because the resonant interband phase space at the nuclear transition energy is reduced. For the larger reported ThO$_2$ gaps, the calculated lifetime is comparable to the measured conversion-electron M\"ossbauer lifetime [Nature 648, 300 (2025)]. Our analysis implies that choosing solid-state hosts with band-gap values slightly lower than $\omega_{\rm nuc}$ can optimize solid-state nuclear clock performance with internal-conversion electron readout.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08941 by Andrei Derevianko, Daniel A. Rehn, Eric Hudson, H. B. Tran Tan, H. W. T. Morgan, Udeshika C. Perera.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic of band-to-band internal conversion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Computed band-to-band internal-conversion lifetime, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of selected experimental and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Dependence of the IC rate on the scissor-shifted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Total density of states (TDOS) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Calculated M1 internal-conversion lifetime in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Computed optical absorption spectra of ThO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In ad- dition, the orbital operator does not depend on electron spin, fixingσ ′ =σ

    Orbital contribution The orbital contribution is I(orb) q,cvk =α X lmm′σ ⟨lm′|lq|lm⟩ R(orb) lm′σ,lmσ(c, v,k),(A9) where we used the fact that⟨l ′m′|lq|lm⟩ ∝δ ll′. In ad- dition, the orbital operator does not depend on electron spin, fixingσ ′ =σ. Using the Wigner–Eckart theorem, I(orb) q,cvk =α X lmm′σ (−1)l−m′p l(l+ 1)(2l+ 1) × l1l −m′ q m ! R(orb) lm′σ,...

  2. [2]

    Therefore, T (sd) q (r) =−α ge √ 10 4 Θ(r−R N) r3 h C(2)(ˆr)⊗σ (1) i(1) q

    Spin-dipole contribution To reduce the spin-dipole contribution, we introduce the normalized spherical harmonic, C(2) µ (ˆr) = r 4π 5 Y2µ(ˆr).(A11) The relevant angular factor can be recast into a rank-1 tensor form, 3ˆrq (σ· ˆr)−σ q =− √ 10 h C(2)(ˆr)⊗σ (1) i(1) q ,(A12) where the coupled rank-1 tensor is h C(2) ⊗σ (1) i(1) q = X µλ ⟨2µ,1λ|1q⟩C (2) µ σλ,...

  3. [3]

    (A19) Since the contact kernel is spherically symmetric, the or- bital angular integral is diagonal inlandm, while the spin part gives the selection ruleσ ′ =σ+q

    Fermi-contact contribution The finite-volume Fermi-contact contribution is I(FC) q,cvk =α 2πge 3 X lm X σσ ′ ⟨χσ′|σq|χσ⟩R(FC) lmσ′,lmσ(c, v,k). (A19) Since the contact kernel is spherically symmetric, the or- bital angular integral is diagonal inlandm, while the spin part gives the selection ruleσ ′ =σ+q. Matrix elements of Pauli matrices are given by Eq....

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Dielec- tric and absorption data were processed from the VASP output using VASPKIT

    The BSE calculation read 512 bands from the G0W0 wavefunction and then computed the dielectric function with 8 occupied and 16 unoccupied bands and a maximum pairwise energy difference of 20 eV. Dielec- tric and absorption data were processed from the VASP output using VASPKIT. 16 FIG. 7: Computed optical absorption spectra of ThO 2 with different methods...

  5. [5]

    Meitner, Z

    L. Meitner, Z. Phys.9, 131 (1922)

    1922

  6. [6]

    Raman, C

    S. Raman, C. W. Nestor, A. Ichihara, and M. B. Trzhaskovskaya, Phys. Rev. C66, 044312 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    M. E. Rose, Phys. Rev.83, 79 (1951)

    1951

  8. [8]

    R. S. Hager and E. C. Seltzer, Nucl. Data, Sect. A4, 1 (1968)

    1968

  9. [9]

    I. M. Band and M. B. Trzhaskovskaya,Tables of Gamma- Ray Internal Conversion Coefficients for the K-, L- and M-Shells,10≤Z≤104 (Leningrad Nuclear Physics In- stitute, Leningrad, 1978) special report, 179 pp

    1978

  10. [10]

    V. F. Strizhov and E. V. Tkalya, Sov. Phys. JETP72, 387 (1991), translated from Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz

    1991

  11. [11]

    Tiedau, M

    J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, K. Zhang, J. Thielk- ing, G. Zitzer, E. Peik, F. Schaden, T. Pronebner, I. Morawetz, L. Toscani de Col, F. Schneider, A. Leit- ner, M. Pressler, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, T. Sikorsky, and T. Schumm, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182501 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Elwell, C

    R. Elwell, C. Schneider, J. Jeet, J. E. S. Terhune, H. W. T. Morgan, A. N. Alexandrova, H. B. Tran Tan, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 013201 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Zhang, L

    C. Zhang, L. von der Wense, J. F. Doyle, J. S. Higgins, T. Ooi, H. U. Friebel, J. Ye, R. Elwell, J. E. S. Ter- hune, H. W. T. Morgan, A. N. Alexandrova, H. B. T. Tan, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Nature636, 603 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Elwell, J

    R. Elwell, J. E. S. Terhune, C. Schneider, H. W. T. Mor- gan, H. B. Tran Tan, U. C. Perera, D. A. Rehn, M. C. Alfonso, L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle, K. Scharl, P. G. Thirolf, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Nature648, 300 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Morawetz, T

    I. Morawetz, T. Riebner, L. Toscani De Col, F. Schnei- der, N. Sempelmann, F. Schaden, M. Bartokos, G. A. Kazakov, S. Lahs, K. Beeks, B. Gerstenecker, A. Gr¨ uneis, M. Pimon, T. Schumm, V. Lal, G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, V. Petrov, and E. Peik, Continuous- wave nuclear laser absorption spectroscopy of thorium- 229 (2026), arXiv:2604.16640

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Toscani De Col, T

    L. Toscani De Col, T. Riebner, I. Morawetz, F. Schnei- der, N. Sempelmann, J. Schlachet-L´ epinay, F. Schaden, M. Bartokos, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, B. Gerste- necker, M. Pimon, S. Lahs, A. Hellerschmied, T. Lercher, J. Premper, A. Niessner, M. Matus, H. Denker, M. Cizek, O. Cip, V. Lal, G. Zitzer, V. Petrov, J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, E. Peik, and T. Sch...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Yan, Q. Xiao, W. Bu, Z. Zhang, C. Zhao, C. Yan, Z.-A. Chen, P. Zhang, G. Penyazkov, Z. Zhan, L. Yan, Y. Wang, L. Li, S. Li, X. Qian, X. Liu, Q. He, T. Sun, H. Tian, B. Lu, N. Ma, J. Li, Y. Wu, Q. Gong, Y. Li, H. Shi, X. Li, L. Ma, S. Zhu, Y. Mo, J. Lin, L. You, Y. Lin, X. Zhang, Y. Hang, L. Su, and S. Ding, A nuclear clock based on 229Th (202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    W. G. Rellergert, D. DeMille, R. R. Greco, M. P. Hehlen, J. R. Torgerson, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 200802 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    H. W. T. Morgan, H. B. Tran Tan, R. Elwell, A. N. Alexandrova, E. R. Hudson, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 253801 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Derevianko, R

    A. Derevianko, R. Elwell, and E. R. Hudson, Colloquium: Nuclear clocks (2026), arXiv:2606.11048 [physics.atom- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    J. E. S. Terhune, R. Elwell, H. B. Tran Tan, U. C. Perera, H. W. T. Morgan, A. N. Alexandrova, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Research7, L022062 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    M. Guan, M. Bartokos, K. Beeks, H. Fujimoto, Y. Fuku- naga, H. Haba, T. Hiraki, Y. Kasamatsu, S. Ki- tao, A. Leitner, T. Masuda, N. Nagasawa, K. Okai, R. Ogake, M. Pimon, M. Pressler, N. Sasao, F. Schaden, T. Schumm, M. Seto, Y. Shigekawa, K. Shimizu, T. Siko- rsky, K. Tamasaku, S. Takatori, T. Watanabe, A. Yam- aguchi, Y. Yoda, A. Yoshimi, and K. Yoshimu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    J. K. Dewhurst, S. Sharma, L. Nordstr¨ om, F. Cricchio, O. Gr˚ an¨ as, and E. K. U. Gross, The Elk Code,https: //elk.sourceforge.io/(2026), version 10.5.16

    2026

  24. [24]

    J. K. Dewhurst, S. Sharma, L. Nordstr¨ om, F. Cricchio, O. Gr˚ an¨ as, and E. K. U. Gross,The Elk Code Manual, The Elk Code Developers (2026), manual consulted for calculations performed with Elk version 10.5.16

    2026

  25. [25]

    P. V. Bilous, N. Minkov, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. C97, 044320 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    B. S. Nickerson, M. Pimon, P. V. Bilous, J. Gugler, G. A. Kazakov, T. Sikorsky, K. Beeks, A. Gr¨ uneis, T. Schumm, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. A103, 053120 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B12, 3060 (1975)

    1975

  28. [28]

    Wimmer, H

    E. Wimmer, H. Krakauer, M. Weinert, and A. J. Free- man, Phys. Rev. B24, 864 (1981)

    1981

  29. [29]

    D. D. Koelling and B. N. Harmon, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.10, 3107 (1977)

    1977

  30. [30]

    D. J. Singh and L. Nordstrom,Planewaves, Pseudopo- tentials, and the LAPW Method, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2006)

    2006

  31. [31]

    Schwartz, Phys

    C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev.97, 380 (1955)

    1955

  32. [32]

    J¨ onsson, M

    P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, and C. F. Fischer, Comput. Phys. Commun.74, 399 (1993)

    1993

  33. [33]

    Bohr and V

    A. Bohr and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev.77, 94 (1950)

    1950

  34. [34]

    H. H. Stroke, S. A. Blundell, and J. Sapirstein, Hyperfine Interact.129, 319 (2000)

    2000

  35. [35]

    B. M. Roberts, P. G. Ranclaud, and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A105, 052802 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    Andrae, inRelativistic Electronic Structure Theory

    D. Andrae, inRelativistic Electronic Structure Theory. Part 1: Fundamentals, Theoretical and Computational Chemistry, Vol. 11, edited by P. Schwerdtfeger (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002) pp. 203–276

    2002

  37. [37]

    Angeli, At

    I. Angeli, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables87, 185 (2004)

    2004

  38. [38]

    Zitzer, J

    G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, Ch. E. D¨ ullmann, M. V. Okhapkin, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. A111, L050802 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    E. T. Rodine and P. L. Land, Phys. Rev. B4, 2701 (1971)

    1971

  40. [40]

    T. R. Griffiths and J. Dixon, Inorg. Chim. Acta300– 302, 305 (2000)

    2000

  41. [41]

    W. R. Evans, S. C. Barton, M. Clemens, and D. D. Allred, inAdvances in X-Ray/EUV Optics, Components, and Applications, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6317 (2006) p. 631711

    2006

  42. [42]

    C ¸ akır, R

    P. C ¸ akır, R. Eloirdi, F. Huber, R. J. M. Konings, and T. Gouder, J. Phys. Chem. C118, 24497 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    F. J. Pereira, M. ´A. Castro, M. D. V´ azquez, L. Deb´ an, 18 and A. J. Aller, J. Lumin.184, 169 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    A. Mock, C. Dugan, S. Knight, R. Korlacki, J. M. Mann, M. M. Kimani, J. C. Petrosky, P. A. Dowben, and M. Schubert, Appl. Phys. Lett.114, 211901 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    T. D. Kelly, J. C. Petrosky, D. B. Turner, J. W. McClory, J. M. Mann, J. W. Kolis, X. Zhang, and P. A. Dowben, Phys. Status Solidi RRL8, 283 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    C. E. Bemis, F. K. McGowan, J. L. C. Ford, W. T. Mil- ner, R. L. Robinson, P. H. Stelson, G. A. Leander, and C. W. Reich, Phys. Scr.38, 657 (1988)

    1988

  47. [47]

    Gulda, W

    K. Gulda, W. Kurcewicz, A. J. Aas, M. J. G. Borge, D. G. Burke, B. Fogelberg, I. S. Grant, E. Hagebø, N. Kaf- frell, J. Kvasil, G. Løvhøiden, H. Mach, A. Mackova, T. Martinez, G. Nyman, B. Rubio, J. L. Tain, O. Teng- blad, T. F. Thorsteinsen, and the ISOLDE Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A703, 45 (2002)

    2002

  48. [48]

    Barci, G

    V. Barci, G. Ardisson, G. Barci-Funel, B. Weiss, O. El Samad, and R. K. Sheline, Phys. Rev. C68, 034329 (2003)

    2003

  49. [49]

    Shigekawa, A

    Y. Shigekawa, A. Yamaguchi, K. Suzuki, H. Haba, T. Hi- raki, H. Kikunaga, T. Masuda, S. Nishimura, N. Sasao, A. Yoshimi, and K. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. C104, 024306 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    A. M. Dykhne and E. V. Tkalya, JETP Lett.67, 251 (1998)

    1998

  51. [51]

    Ruchowska, W

    E. Ruchowska, W. A. P lociennik, J. ˙Zylicz, H. Mach, J. Kvasil, A. Algora, N. Amzal, T. B¨ ack, M. J. G. Borge, R. Boutami, P. A. Butler, J. Cederk¨ all, B. Cederwall, B. Fogelberg, L. M. Fraile, H. O. U. Fynbo, E. Hagebø, P. Hoff, H. Gausemel, A. Jungclaus, R. Kaczarowski, A. Kerek, W. Kurcewicz, K. Lagergren, E. Nacher, B. Rubio, A. Syntfeld, O. Tengbl...

    2006

  52. [52]

    Minkov and A

    N. Minkov and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 162502 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Chen, L.-J

    Z.-R. Chen, L.-J. Wang, and Y. Wu, Phys. Lett. B869, 139858 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Albrecht, L

    S. Albrecht, L. Reining, R. Del Sole, and G. Onida, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4510 (1998)

    1998

  55. [55]

    Rohlfing and S

    M. Rohlfing and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B62, 4927 (2000)

    2000

  56. [56]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    Callaway,Quantum Theory of the Solid State(Aca- demic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991)

    J. Callaway,Quantum Theory of the Solid State(Aca- demic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991)

    1991

  58. [58]

    I. D. Prodan, G. E. Scuseria, and R. L. Martin, Phys. Rev. B76, 033101 (2007)

    2007

  59. [59]

    Petit, A

    L. Petit, A. Svane, Z. Szotek, W. M. Temmerman, and G. M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. B81, 045108 (2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    Dorado, M

    B. Dorado, M. Freyss, B. Amadon, M. Bertolus, G. Jo- mard, and P. Garcia, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter25, 333201 (2013)

    2013

  61. [61]

    Singh, S

    S. Singh, S. K. Gupta, Y. Sonvane, K. A. Nekrasov, A. Ya. Kupryazhkin, and P. N. Gajjar, inAIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 2115 (AIP Publishing, 2019) p. 030028

    2019

  62. [62]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  63. [63]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  64. [64]

    Kirschbaum, M

    T. Kirschbaum, M. Pimon, A. Gr¨ uneis, T. Schumm, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. A113, 023118 (2026)

    2026

  65. [65]

    H. M. Petrilli, P. E. Blochl, P. Blaha, and K. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B57, 14690 (1998)

    1998

  66. [66]

    J. N. Ansari, K. L. Sauer, and J. K. Glasbrenner, Crystals 9, 507 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Choudhary, J

    K. Choudhary, J. N. Ansari, I. I. Mazin, and K. L. Sauer, Sci. Data7, 362 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    H. W. T. Morgan, H. B. T. Tan, A. Derevianko, R. El- well, J. E. S. Terhune, E. R. Hudson, and A. N. Alexan- drova, Dalton Trans.54, 10574 (2025)

    2025