content_image/413523.jpg content_image/413518.jpg
<img src='content_image/413523.jpg'>

a For energies above 904 eV the model tail in Eq. (13) was used. 

differences. The deviation is most remarkably for the first excited state that according to the present work and [17] should be populated with about 47 % probability and thus should clearly dominate the final-state distribution. However, in the MCDF results in [18] its probability is found to be about 21 %. For the other states, except n = 3, the results in [18] are always smaller than the present ones. The deviation increases rather uniformly from about 17 to 28 % for n varying between 1 and 10. Since relativistic effects are expected to be small for light nuclei like T − and $^{3}$He , it appears very likely that the main reason for the difference of the results in [18] to the present ones (as well as the ones in [17]) is due to the small number of configurations used in the MCDF method compared with the present full CI method. Un- fortunately, no details (like energies) of the MCDF cal- culation in [18] are available to further clarify this issue, but any realistic estimate of the size of relativistic effects excludes their responsibility for the large discrepancy be- tween the results in [18] compared to the non-relativistic calculations of this work or the one in [17]. 

The calculated transition-probability density into the electronic continuum of $^{3}$He is presented for three dif- 

<img src='content_image/413518.jpg'>

