savukov_2018 ============ I\. M\. Savukov, "CI\+MBPT calculations of Ar I energies, g factors, and transition line strengths", J\. Phys\. B\: At\. Mol\. Opt\. Phys\. 51, 065006 \(2018\) `Source record `__ · :doc:`Catalogue ` · :doc:`Review register ` DOI: `10\.1088/1361\-6455/aaac0d `__ **Source kind:** theory **Recorded technique:** Ab initio configuration interaction with many\-body perturbation theory \(CI\+MBPT, Dzuba's code\) with eight valence electrons \(3s, 3p\) on a frozen Dirac\-Hartree\-Fock V^N potential of the 1s2 2s2 2p6 core, B\-spline basis in a cavity; single \(3p5 nl\) and a limited set of double \(3p4 n1l1 n2l2\) excitations, 307\-396 non\-relativistic configurations per J and parity; core\-valence corrections Sigma\_1 and screening Sigma\_2 in second order\. Electric\-dipole line strengths and oscillator strengths between the computed states\. **Materials in structured entries:** Ar **Dataset quantities:** oscillator\_strength, radiative\_lifetime **Contents:** 2 datasets; 0 formulas. Curation notes -------------- Identity\: Journal of Physics B\: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51 \(2018\) 065006 \(7pp\), I M Savukov \(Los Alamos National Laboratory\), "CI\+MBPT calculations of Ar I energies, g factors, and transition line strengths", received 11 December 2017, published 1 March 2018 \(PDF page 2; page 1 is the publisher's cover; page n of the article is PDF page n \+ 1\)\. Not to be confused with Savukov's 2003 argon paper \(J\. Phys\. B 36, 2001\), which asghar\_2020 cites\. Taken\: Table 5's CI\-MBPT oscillator strengths from the ground state \(oscillator\_strength, check\) and the text's calculated lifetime of 4d\[1/2\]1 \(radiative\_lifetime, check\)\. use = check\: an ab initio calculation whose author estimates its accuracy at '10% for strong transitions \.\.\. to a factor of two for suppressed transitions and transitions involving states with strong mixing' \(p\. 6\)\. tools/extract/savukov\_2018\.py\. NOT TAKEN \(no quantity\)\: the line strengths S of Tables 6, 7 and 8 \(pp\. 5\-6; J = 0, 1, 2 even to J = 1 odd levels, units not printed, a\.u\. by their agreement with NIST's\)\: transition\_dipole\_moment holds a dipole moment between two states, and S = \|\\|^2 is the squared reduced matrix element summed over sublevels, not the same quantity; an A or f converted from S would be derived\. The paper says the A of these transitions are 'provided in electronic format' \(p\. 5\)\: the supplement is not in the library\. The g factors of Tables 1, 3 and 4 \(no quantity\)\. NOT TAKEN \(the definition does not fit\)\: the CI\-MBPT energies of Tables 1\-4, which are aligned to an experimental level and so are not energies above the calculated ground level\: Table 2 \(J = 0 even\) 'aligned for the second level' \(4p\[1/2\]0, 107054\), which puts the ground state at 3109 cm\-1; Tables 3 and 4 'aligned to the first level' \(4p\[1/2\]1, 104102; 4p\[5/2\]2, 105617\); Table 1 \(J = 1 odd\) equal to experiment at its first level \(93751\) without a statement\. Only the intervals within a table are calculated\: the 4p J = 0 interval 1637 cm\-1 against NIST's 1668\.35 \(\-32, as the text says\); the 4p J = 1 levels 106377, 107502, 107868 against 106087\.26, 107131\.71, 107496\.42 \(\+290 to \+372 above 4p\[1/2\]1's alignment\); J = 2 106265, 107395 against 106237\.55, 107289\.70 \(\+27, \+105\)\. Comparison columns \(experimental and NIST energies and g factors, Salah's g, f\_expt from Chan et al\., f\_Th from Lee and Lu, NIST f and S with their grades\)\: other works' values\. Levels\: the printed configurations 3s2 3p5\(2P°\_j\)nl are NIST's configurations; the Racah labels \(term 2\[K\]\) are NIST's levels at the printed NIST energies, which the script identifies one by one \(Table 5; Tables 2\-4 and 6\-8 likewise\)\. Tables 6\-8's 4p levels\: 107054\.27 = 4p\[1/2\]0 \(2p5\), 108722\.62 = 4p'\[1/2\]0 \(2p1\), 104102\.10 = 4p\[1/2\]1 \(2p10\), 106087\.26 = 4p\[3/2\]1 \(2p7\), 107131\.71 = 4p'\[3/2\]1 \(2p4\), 107496\.42 = 4p'\[1/2\]1 \(2p2\), 105617\.3 = 4p\[5/2\]2 \(2p8\), 106237\.6 = 4p\[3/2\]2 \(2p6\), 107289\.7 = 4p'\[3/2\]2 \(2p3\); 93750\.60 = 4s\[3/2\]1 \(1s4\), 95399\.83 = 4s'\[1/2\]1 \(1s2\)\. Table 5's rows 9 and 10 print \(2P3/2\)6s at 119847\.77 cm\-1 and \(2P3/2\)4d at 119760\.1725 cm\-1; NIST, the paper's own Table 1 \(4d 119848, 6s 119760\) and chan\_1992 \(6s 14\.848 eV, 4d 14\.859 eV, with the same f\_expt 0\.0144 and 0\.0484 Savukov prints beside these configurations\) have them the other way round, and the text says the theory 'would agree better with experiments if we switched the order of levels' \(p\. 5\)\. Which level each CI f \(0\.068, 0\.010\) belongs to is therefore ambiguous\: both rows are excluded\. Checks of Table 5's comparison columns\: f\_expt \[30\] is chan\_1992's 'present' Ar values \(TC\-1012's set of records; Chan et al\., Phys\. Rev\. A 46, 149 \(1992\)\) in all 12 rows, value and uncertainty\. f\_Th \[31\] \(Lee and Lu, Phys\. Rev\. A 8, 1241 \(1973\)\) is not chan\_1992's Lee and Lu column \(0\.059, 0\.3, 0\.0016, 0\.045, 0\.045, 0\.039, 0\.128, 0\.0026, 0\.023, 0\.036 against 0\.080, 0\.210, 0\.0011, 0\.034, 0\.053, 0\.025, 0\.11, 0\.0031, 0\.014, 0\.039\), and the text \(p\. 5\) quotes \[31\] as 8e\-2, 2\.1e\-1, 1\.6e\-3, 4\.5e\-2, 4\.5e\-2\: the column's source is in doubt \(not taken\)\. Radiative widths of the 4p levels \(OEP 8\)\: the paper gives S only for 4p to the two J = 1 4s levels \(4s\[3/2\]1, 4s'\[1/2\]1\), not to the metastable 4s\[3/2\]2 and 4s'\[1/2\]0 \(J = 2 and 0 odd states were not computed\), and nothing for 4p\[5/2\]3; no 4p lifetime or width follows\. As a check only \(derived, not taken\), A = 2\.0261e18 S / \(g\_k lambda^3\) with NIST's vacuum wavelengths \(angstrom\) against wiese\_1989's Table IV, 14 lines\: 4p\[1/2\]0\-4s\[3/2\]1 0\.985, 4p'\[1/2\]0\-4s'\[1/2\]1 1\.023, 4p\[1/2\]1\-4s\[3/2\]1 1\.039, 4p\[1/2\]1\-4s'\[1/2\]1 1\.094, 4p\[3/2\]1\-4s\[3/2\]1 0\.967, 4p\[3/2\]1\-4s'\[1/2\]1 1\.353, 4p'\[3/2\]1\-4s\[3/2\]1 0 \(S printed 0\.000; Wiese 0\.022e6 s\-1\), 4p'\[3/2\]1\-4s'\[1/2\]1 0\.974, 4p'\[1/2\]1\-4s'\[1/2\]1 1\.026, 4p\[5/2\]2\-4s\[3/2\]1 0\.983, 4p\[5/2\]2\-4s'\[1/2\]1 1\.350, 4p\[3/2\]2\-4s\[3/2\]1 0\.739, 4p'\[3/2\]2\-4s\[3/2\]1 1\.072, 4p'\[3/2\]2\-4s'\[1/2\]1 0\.981\: the strong lines within 4 % but 4p\[3/2\]2\-4s\[3/2\]1 \(800\.6 nm\), the weak ones to 35 %\. Tables 7 and 8 list no row for 4p'\[1/2\]1\-4s\[3/2\]1 \(727\.3 nm\) or 4p\[3/2\]2\-4s'\[1/2\]1 \(922\.5 nm\)\. Independent of Wiese et al\. and of NIST \(ab initio; NIST's 4p\-4s values, the paper's comparison, are wiese\_1989's\)\. Other data the paper cites, not in the library\: S\. Das and S\. Karmakar's measured 4d\[1/2\]1 lifetime \(Ref\. 33\); W\. Salah and O\. Hassouneh, Eur\. Phys\. J\. Plus 132, 160 \(2017\) \(MCDF f values; 'table 4 in \[25\] has misprints, an extra zero in all data', p\. 6\); C\. M\. Lee and K\. T\. Lu, Phys\. Rev\. A 8, 1241 \(1973\)\. Cells of Table 5 checked against the table image \(2026\-10\-12\)\. **Recorded bibliographic identity status:** VALIDATED. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents. Datasets -------- savukov\_2018/f\_ground ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "f_ground", "material": "Ar", "file": "Ar/savukov_2018__f_ground.csv", "table": "tbl_09c26df39d6e", "quantity": "oscillator_strength", "abscissa": "label", "use": "check", "excluded_rows": { "119847.77": "configuration printed (2P3/2)6s against NIST's 4d[3/2]1 at this energy, swapped with the next row; the level of the CI f is ambiguous (record notes)", "119760.1725": "configuration printed (2P3/2)4d against NIST's 6s[3/2]1 at this energy, swapped with the previous row; the level of the CI f is ambiguous (record notes)" } } Table 5 \(p\. 4\), column f\_CI\-MBPT\: absorption oscillator strengths from the ground state 3s2 3p6 1S0 to the twelve J = 1 odd levels 4s\[3/2\]1 to 6s'\[1/2\]1 \(93750\-121161 cm\-1\), printed to three decimals \(0\.001 and 0\.002 for the two weak 3d\[1/2\]1 and 4d\[1/2\]1 lines\)\. Rows are the printed NIST energies \(cm\-1\); x is the upper level\. No uncertainty per row; the author's estimate is 10 % \(strong\) to a factor of two \(suppressed, strongly mixed\), p\. 6; for the 4s'\[1/2\]1 resonance line the text infers 13 % from NIST \(p\. 5\)\. Against chan\_1992's measured f \(the column f\_expt\)\: 4s\[3/2\]1 0\.072 against 0\.0662 \+\- 0\.0033, 4s'\[1/2\]1 0\.320 against 0\.265 \+\- 0\.013; 5s\[3/2\]1 0\.047 against 0\.0264\. savukov\_2018/lifetime\_4d12\_1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "lifetime_4d12_1", "material": "Ar", "table": "text", "quantity": "radiative_lifetime", "unit": "ns", "abscissa": "label", "use": "check", "parameters": { "method": "calculated: ab initio CI+MBPT electric-dipole rates (eight valence electrons)" } } 1 inline points in the source record. Text p\. 6\: 'We also made comparison for a lifetime of a level 4d\[1/2\]\_1 measured recently by Das and Karmakar \[33\]\. Our value 80\.9 ns is in good agreement with the experimental value 81\.3 \+\- 4\.9 ns\.' The level is NIST's 3s2\.3p5\.\(2P\*\<3/2\>\)\.4d 2\[1/2\]\* J = 1 \(118651\.395 cm\-1\)\. Das and Karmakar's value is another paper's \(not taken\)\. No uncertainty stated\. Formulas -------- No formulas are recorded. Corrections ----------- No dataset errata are recorded in this source record. Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the :doc:`review register ` for the checks and decisions.