Reply to Comment on "New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in $^{133}$Cs"

TL;DR

This paper defends an improved calculation of atomic parity violation in cesium against critiques, clarifying the treatment of core contributions and QED corrections, reaffirming the robustness of their original results.

Contribution

It provides a detailed validation of the core contribution calculation in atomic parity violation, contrasting with previous methods and addressing recent criticisms.

Findings

Agreement with previous core contribution calculations

Clarification of the treatment of QED corrections

Reaffirmation of the original $E1_{PV}$ value

Abstract

In Phys. Rev. D 103, L111303 (2021), we had reported an improved calculation of the nuclear spin-independent parity violating electric dipole transition amplitude ($E1_{PV}$) for the $6s ~ ^2S_{1/2} - 7s ~ ^2S_{1/2}$ transition in $^{133}$Cs by employing a relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) theory. In a recent Comment, B. M. Roberts and J. S. M. Ginges have raised questions about our calculation of the so-called Core contribution to $E1_{PV}$. Our result for this contribution does not agree with theirs, but is in agreement with results from previous calculations where this contribution is given explicitly. In our reply, we explain in detail the validity of the evaluation of our core contribution. We emphasize that the Main, Core and Tail contributions have been treated on an equal footing in our work unlike the sum-over-states calculations. We also address their concerns about our approximate treatment of the contributions from the QED corrections, which was not the aim of our work, but was carried out for completeness. Nonetheless, conclusion of our above mentioned paper is not going to affect if we replace our estimated QED contribution to $E1_{PV}$ by earlier estimation.