“…additional CI configuration S IX 2s x 2p y (x + y = 6) 2s 2 2p 3 4l, 2s2p 4 3s (except for 5 P and 3 P) 2s 2 2p 3 3l 2s2p 4 {3p, 3d, 4l} 2s2p 4 3s ( 5 P and 3 P) 2p 5 {3, 4}l 2s 2 2p 2 3l x 3l ′y (x + y = 2) S X 2s x 2p y (x + y = 5) 2s2p 3 {3, 4}l 2s 2 2p 2 3l 2s 2 2p 2 4l 2s2p 3 3s ( 6 S, 4 S and 4 D) 2p 4 {3, 4}l 2s2p 3 3p ( 6 P and 4 P) S XI 2s x 2p y (x + y = 4) 2p 3 3p ( 1 D, 1 S) 2s 2 2p3l, 2s2p 2 3l 2p 3 3p ( 3 S, 1,3 P/D/F) 2s 2 2p4l, 2p 3 3s 2s2p 2 4l 2p 3 3p (except for 1 D, 1 S) 2p 3 4l 2p 3 3d (except for 3 S, 1,3 P/D/F) S XII 2s x 2p y (x + y = 3) 2p 2 3{4}l, 2s3s3l 2s 2 3{4}l, 2s2p3{4}l 2p3s3l, 2s3p 2 , 2s3d 2 tion and those of the 2p 4 configuration, the present results are systematically higher than NIST data by 1-2%. The present AS result shows an excellent agreement (less than 0.5%) with the result of Landi & Bhatia (2003) for all levels of the n=3 configurations. However, both sets of results are systematically higher than the NIST data for the levels of n=2 complex, those of Landi & Bhatia (2003) more-so than the present which are within 2% (excluding the 5 S 2 ).…”