Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

ExoMol molecular line lists XXXVI: $X\ {}^2\Pi - X\ {}^2\Pi$ and $A\ {}^2\Sigma^+ - X\ {}^2\Pi$ transitions of SH

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents the GYT line list, an accurate and complete set of 572,145 transitions for the SH radical spanning infrared to ultraviolet wavelengths down to 0.256 μm.

desk verdict Solid, well-documented A–X extension for SH with good fits to the measured low-v' bands, but the 'complete' UV claim leans on unvalidated extrapolation and the paper should qualify it. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02646 v1 pith:HPBNAKWA submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.EP physics.chem-ph

Maire N. Gorman , Sergei N. Yurchenko , Jonathan Tennyson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.chem-ph
keywords SHradicalmercaptomolecularlinelistA2Σ+–X2Πtransitionsexoplanetatmospheresultravioletopacityisotopologues
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to give astronomers a single accurate, complete line list for the mercapto radical SH, covering both rotation-vibration transitions within the ground X ²Π state and electronic A ²Σ⁺–X ²Π transitions in the ultraviolet down to 0.256 μm. The motivation is concrete: SH is a suspected cause of the steep ultraviolet opacity rise in the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b, and SH is also observed in the Sun, interstellar clouds, comets, and cool stellar atmospheres. The authors construct the list by fitting potential energy, spin-orbit, electronic angular momentum, spin-rotation, and Born-Oppenheimer breakdown curves directly to measured line positions, using ab initio curves as a starting point, then solving the coupled rovibronic problem for 7686 states and 572,145 transitions in ³²SH plus four isotopologues. If correct, the list replaces earlier ground-state-only or sparse experimental lists and supports high-resolution searches for SH in exoplanet and stellar spectra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a coupled-channels rovibronic model built for the Duo program, which solves the coupled rovibronic Schrödinger equation for open-shell diatomic molecules. The model comprises three fitted potential energy curves (X ²Π, A ²Σ⁺, and a repulsive B ²Π), plus spin-orbit curves, electronic angular momentum curves, spin-rotation curves, and Born-Oppenheimer breakdown curves, all refined against measured transition frequencies, while intensities come from ab initio dipole moment and transition dipole moment curves. Fitting the curves directly to measured lines rather than to spectroscopic constants lets the model absorb perturbations from nearby electronic states, which is what makes the extrapolation to unmeasured higher vibrational levels plausible.

What would settle it

Measure the (3,0) A–X band of ³²SH under high resolution and compare band-head positions and relative intensities with the GYT predictions around 34,000–36,000 cm⁻¹; a systematic offset beyond the claimed 0.3 cm⁻¹ rms, or a band intensity pattern that disagrees with the computed oscillator strength f00 = 0.0017, would indicate the fitted A-state curves do not extend correctly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the GYT line list is an accurate and complete SH line list spanning the infrared to the ultraviolet: it reproduces measured X–X positions with rms error 0.06 cm⁻¹ and measured A–X positions with rms error 0.3 cm⁻¹, matching the quoted experimental uncertainties of ~0.03–0.3 cm⁻¹. The list contains 7686 rovibronic states and 572,145 transitions for ³²SH, extends to ~39,000 cm⁻¹ (0.256 μm) and to temperatures near 5000 K, and also provides lists for ³³SH, ³⁴SH, ³⁶SH, and ³²SD, the last incorporating non-Born-Oppenheimer corrections. The paper states that this list supersedes the SNaSH ground-state list and the experimentally limited Zahnle et al. (2009) absorption line list.

Load-bearing premise

The A-state model is fitted only to the (0,0), (1,0), and (2,0) A–X bands with rotational coverage up to J = 12.5, so the line list's predictions at higher vibrational levels, higher rotation, and near the A-state dissociation limit rest on those fitted curves extrapolating reliably, while predissociating crossings are neglected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The A–X band lines at ~0.3 μm can now be included in opacity models of WASP-121b and other ultra-hot Jupiters, testing the proposed SH explanation of the observed ultraviolet rise.
  • The line list provides computed Einstein A coefficients, g-factors, and lifetimes for every upper state, so radiative lifetimes from the model can be compared directly with experiments.
  • Coverage to 39,000 cm⁻¹ and temperatures near 5000 K means SH opacities can be computed for brown dwarfs and cool stars, not only hot Jupiters.
  • The separately fitted ³²SD model includes non-Born-Oppenheimer effects, enabling evaluation of deuterium fractionation in astrophysical SH observations.
  • The X–X portion agrees with the earlier SNaSH list below 10,000 cm⁻¹, so existing ground-state analyses remain valid while the ultraviolet predictions are new.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the A-state model is fitted only to the (0,0), (1,0), and (2,0) A–X bands up to J = 12.5, a direct test of the model is to measure the (3,0) and higher bands; if predicted positions drift by more than the claimed ~0.3 cm⁻¹ rms, the A-state potential needs further refinement.
  • The computed oscillator strength f00 = 0.0017 lies between the solar-derived value 0.0022 and the ab initio value 0.0029; high-resolution laboratory measurement of the (0,0) band intensity could discriminate which intensity curve is closer to reality.
  • Because predissociation is omitted, the line list's A-state radiative lifetimes (449 ns for v = 0, 513 ns for v = 1) are far longer than observed collision-free lifetimes; users modelling fluorescence or photochemistry will likely need to add predissociation as a separate loss channel.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a new ExoMol line list (GYT) for the mercapto radical SH and its isotopologues, extending the previous SNaSH line list to include the A 2Σ+–X 2Π ultraviolet band system in addition to the ground-state X 2Π–X 2Π transitions. The authors carry out MRCI/aug-cc-pV5Z-DK ab initio calculations for the potential energy, spin–orbit, electronic angular momentum, and (transition) dipole moment curves, then refine the PECs, SOCs, EAMCs, BOBCs, and SRCs in a Duo fit to experimental line positions from the literature (Table 1). The fit reaches RMS residuals of 0.06 cm−1 for X–X and 0.3 cm−1 for A–X. The resulting line list contains 7686 states and 572,145 transitions for 32SH and analogous lists for 33SH, 34SH, 36SH, and 32SD, covering wavelengths down to 0.256 μm. The authors compare simulated spectra with several experimental spectra and report a radiative lifetime and f00 = 0.0017 for the A–X (0,0) band.

Significance. If the line list is reliable, it is a valuable community resource for interpreting UV observations of SH in hot-Jupiter transmission spectra (notably WASP-121b), cool stars, and the ISM. The paper is transparent about its method, provides the Duo input files as supplementary data, and compares intensities with external theory and experiment. The principal value is the full rovibronic A–X band coverage with empirically tuned line positions and ab initio intensities. However, the empirical tuning is confined to v′=0–2 and J≤12.5 for A–X, so the ultra-violet part of the line list beyond the fitted range is an extrapolation. Since the stated completeness (to 0.256 μm and 5000 K) is one of the paper's main selling points, the significance is contingent on validating that extrapolation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3; Table 4; Section 5] The A 2Σ+ potential is fitted to only the (0,0), (1,0), and (2,0) A–X vibronic bands with Jmax = 12.5 (Table 1), yet the line list includes A-state levels with v′=3 and 4 (Table 4, e.g., 35,601.52 and 36,758.87 cm−1) and transitions extending to the A-state asymptote near 39,000 cm−1. These energies are unconstrained extrapolations of the empirical EMO potential, and the paper itself states in Section 5 that 'we have been limited to v′ ≤ 2'. The abstract's claim that this is an 'accurate and complete' line list covering to 0.256 μm is therefore unsupported for all A–X lines above the highest fitted bands (roughly 34,300 cm−1). The existing Schnieder et al. (1990) A-state term values for v = 0–4 and N = 0–40 should be used as an external validation set even if they were not sufficiently accurate for the fit; if they are not used, the completeness and accuracy claims must be restricted to v′≤2 and the associated J range.
  2. [Section 4; Table 4] Predissociation of the A 2Σ+ state via the repulsive 2Σ−, 4Σ−, and 4Π states is explicitly identified in the introduction and Section 4, but these states are omitted from the spectroscopic model. The lifetimes reported in the states file (Table 4) are therefore radiative lifetimes only, and Section 4 acknowledges that the computed lifetimes (449 ns for v=0) are not expected to match the measured predissociative lifetimes (which can be orders of magnitude shorter). This limitation is disclosed for lifetimes, but the same omitted crossings can also perturb the A-state energies and couplings for the high-v and high-J levels that the line list includes, and no estimate of the magnitude of these energy shifts is provided. Please either add the predissociative channels to the model, or provide a quantitative argument that they do not affect the computed line positions above the fitted range, and in any case label the Table 4 lifetimes as radiative-only.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] The sentence 'The rms error of this fit to the A–X line positions if SD is 0.4 cm−1' contains a typo: 'if' should read 'for'.
  2. [Table 4 caption] The caption says 'τ: Lifetime (s−1)', but the numeric entries such as 5.1332E-07 are in seconds; the unit should be 's' rather than 's−1'.
  3. [Figure 11] The 0.014 μm offset between the synthetic and CRDS spectra is attributed to a calibration problem without a quantitative argument; please state the implied wavenumber shift, compare it with the reported fit residuals, and consider overlaying a shifted synthetic spectrum.
  4. [Section 5] The phrase 'the relative property of completeness (up to ∼ 5000 K)' is vague; given the limited A-state vibrational coverage, provide a population-based justification of the temperature limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted line positions are presented as fits, and the predictive content (intensities, lifetimes, extrapolated levels) rests on ab initio dipole curves and an openly admitted extrapolation, not on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's construction chain is explicit: empirical PECs, SOCs, EAMCs, BOBCs and SRCs (Eqs. 1-4) are refined against measured X-X and A-X (0,0), (1,0), (2,0) line positions listed in Table 1, and the rovibronic Schrödinger equation is then solved with Duo. The Obs.-Calc. residual tables (Table 2, Fig. 7) are fit diagnostics, not independent predictions, and the paper never relabels them as such. The genuinely predictive quantities—Einstein A coefficients and lifetimes—are computed from ab initio DMCs/TDMCs (Eqs. 5-6) and are benchmarked against external experimental and ab initio values (f00 = 0.0017 vs 0.0022 and 0.0029; radiative lifetime 820 ± 240 ns). Self-citations (Duo, ExoMol methodology, prior SNaSH line list) supply software infrastructure and a predecessor model, not a uniqueness theorem or a forced ansatz. The main weakness, that A-state levels with v' >= 3 and lines above ~34,300 cm-1 are extrapolations beyond the fitted v' <= 2, J <= 12.5 data, is acknowledged in Section 5 ('we have been limited to v' <= 2'); this is an unvalidated-extrapolation/correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because the higher levels are not defined by the fitted data and the paper supplies no claim that they are independently measured. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The B 2Π state is a known electronic state of SH and is not invented; its parameterized repulsive PEC is a model component fitted to reproduce the A-state spin splitting. The main non-standard commitments are the B-state modeling choice and the extrapolation assumption, both captured above.

free parameters (4)
  • X 2Π EMO potential parameters = Not given in text; in Duo input supplementary
    Fitted to X-X microwave and infrared transitions from Bernath et al., Winkel & Davis, Ram et al., Yamamura et al., Eliet et al., Martin-Drumel et al. (Table 1).
  • A 2Σ+ EMO potential parameters = Not given in text; in Duo input supplementary
    Fitted to A-X band transitions from Lewis & White, Ramsay, Johns & Ramsay, Loge & Tiee (Table 1).
  • B 2Π repulsive PEC parameters (Ae, B6) = Not given in text; in Duo input supplementary
    B 2Π added to account for spin splitting of A 2Σ+; asymptote fixed at 4.94 eV, parameters fitted.
  • SOC, EAMC, BOBC, SRC curve parameters = Not given in text; in Duo input supplementary
    Spin-orbit X-X, X-A, A-B; EAMC X-A, A-B; BOBC X, A; SRC X, A all fitted to experimental line positions. For SD, PEC(A), PEC(B), BOBC(X), BOBC(A), SRC(X), SRC(A) are refitted to SD A-X data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation with non-adiabatic corrections is valid for SH
    Standard diatomic spectroscopy; invoked in Section 2 method steps (i)-(iii).
  • domain assumption MRCI/aug-cc-pV5Z-DK ab initio curves provide a sufficiently accurate starting reference for refinement
    Used as initial PECs, SOCs, EAMCs before empirical fit; Section 2.
  • domain assumption The experimental line assignments and uncertainties from the sources in Table 1 are correct
    The fit optimizes against these data; if assignments are wrong, the fitted model is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The B 2Π state, represented by a repulsive hyperbolic PEC, is sufficient to model the spin splitting and interactions of the A 2Σ+ state
    Introduced because X 2Π alone did not account for A 2Σ+ spin splitting; Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Fitted curves can be extrapolated to vibrational levels and rotational quantum numbers beyond the measured range
    The line list covers transitions up to the A-state dissociation limit (~39000 cm-1) while the fit data cover only v' <= 2, J <= 12.5; Section 5 acknowledges this limitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ExoMol molecular line lists XXXVI: $X\ {}^2\Pi - X\ {}^2\Pi$ and $A\ {}^2\Sigma^+ - X\ {}^2\Pi$ transitions of SH." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPBNAKWA

@misc{pith2026190902646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ExoMol molecular line lists XXXVI: $X\ ^2\Pi - X\ ^2\Pi$ and $A\ ^2\Sigma^+ - X\ ^2\Pi$ transitions of SH},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPBNAKWA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02646}
}
abstract

The GYT line list covering rotational, rovibrational and rovibronic transitions of the mercapto radical SH is presented. This work extends and replaces the SNaSH line list [Yurchenko et al., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 270] which covers the ground (electronic) $X$ $^{2}\Pi$ state only. This extension is prompted by the tentative identification of the ultra-violet features of SH as being of importance in the transmission spectrum of the ultra-hot Jupiter exoplanet WASP-121b [Evans et al., 2018, AJ., 156, 283]. This GYT line list model is generated by fitting empirical potential energy, spin-orbit and electronic angular momenta functions to experimentally measured wavelengths within the $X$ $^{2}\Pi$ and $A$ $^{2}\Sigma^{+}$ states and to the $A$ $^{2}\Sigma^{+}$ - $X$ $^{2}\Pi$ band system using ab initio curves as a starting reference point. The fits are compatible with the quoted uncertainty of the experimental data used of $\sim$ 0.03 - 0.3 cm$^{-1}$. The GYT line list covers wavelengths longer than 0.256 $\mu$m and includes 7686 rovibronic states and 572 145 transitions for $^{32}$SH. Line lists for the $^{33}$SH, $^{34}$SH, $^{36}$SH and $^{32}$SD isotopologues are generated including a consideration of non-Born-Oppenheimer effects for SD. The line lists are available from the CDS (http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr) and ExoMol (www.exomol.com) data bases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Potential Energy Curves (PECs) used in the construction of this new extended line list [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spin-orbit coupling curves (SOCs) included in the model. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 bond length, Å -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 EAM curves -i<Π y |Lx (X-A)|Σ + > -i<Π y |Lx (B-A)|Σ + > [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electronic angular momentum curves (EAMCs) included in the model. MNRAS 000, ??–?? (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Born-Oppenheimer breakdown curves (BOBCs) included in the model 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 bond length, Å -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Spin-rotation, cm-1 X-X A-A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin-rotation curves (SRCs) included in the model. MNRAS 000, ??–?? (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dipole moment curves (DMCs/TDMCs) X–X and A–X included in our model. The latter is compared to an ab initio TDMC of Resende & Ornellas (2001). cm−1 . We do not use the work of Schnieder et al. (1990) which contains empirical vibronic A 2Σ + term values (v = 0 . . . 4, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Obs. - Calc. residuals for transitions from the three vibronic bands A 2Σ+ – X 2Π of SH (left) and SD (right). Sinc discrete variable representation (DVR) on a grid of 501 points between 0.85 and 5.00 ˚A (Yurchenko et al. 2016). Note that although the B 2Π state is dis…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated 32SH absorption spectra at 1500 K for SNaSH (Yurchenko et al. 2018b) and the new GYT line lists. A Gaussian profile of half width of half maximum (HWHM) of 1 cm−1 was used. 100 5 3 2 1.5 1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.2564 wavelength, mm 100 5000 10000 15000 20…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated absorption spectra of 32SH for a range of temperatures; the curves become systematically flatter as T increases. A Gaussian profile of half width of half maximum (HWHM) of 1 cm−1 was used. 3 LINE LIST Using the final spectroscopic model in Duo, line lists (ca…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the absorption spectra of SH at T = 1800 K computed using our line list (Gaussian line profile with HWHM of 0.1 cm−1 ) with a laser-induced dispersed fluorescence spectrum of A 2Σ+ – X 2Π3/2 by Tsai & Lin (2010) for the (0, 0) band. extended model. In Fi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the new line list with the experimentally measured spectrum of the (0, 0) A–X band by Buzaianu et al. (2008) using the cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS). Considering a good agreement of our fit for the (0,0) A–X band (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the absorption spectra (T = 300 K) computed using our line list with the cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS) spectrum recorded by Wheeler et al. (1997b) for the (1, 0) A–X band. A Voigt profile with γ = 0.5 cm−1 was used. MNRAS 000, ??–?? (2019) [PITH_F…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the absorption spectra of SH at T = 300 K computed using our line list with the LIF excitation spectrum of the A 2Σ+ – X 2Π3/2 by Loge & Tiee (1988) for the (0, 0) A–X band. A Gaussian line profile with the half-width-half-maximum (HWHM) of 0.07 cm−1 was…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the A–X (0, 0) absorption spectra (T = 1750 K) of SH and SD generated using our line list and the Voigt line profile with γ = 0.5 cm−1 and assuming no abundance factors. MNRAS 000, ??–?? (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mitigating Charge Migration in JWST NIRISS Reveals That KELT-7 b is a Metal-enriched Ultra-hot Jupiter Orbiting a Young Metal-rich Star

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Correcting NIRISS charge migration reveals KELT-7 b as a metal-enriched (~92x solar) ultra-hot Jupiter with H2O, CO2 and TiO but no H- or clouds, orbiting a young metal-rich star.

  2. Pyrat Bay 2.0: an Upgraded Framework for Exoplanet Atmosphere Modeling in the JWST Era

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pyrat Bay 2.0 adds equilibrium chemistry, radiative equilibrium, and vertically varying abundance retrieval, and simulations indicate JWST-quality spectra can recover such variations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R., Furtenbacher T., Yurchenko S

    Al Derzi A. R., Furtenbacher T., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., Cs\'asz\'ar A. G., 2015, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.03.034 , 161, 117

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.03.034 2015

  2. [2]

    V., Livingston W

    Berdyugina S. V., Livingston W. C., 2002, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020364 , 387, L6

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020364 2002

  3. [3]

    F., Amano T., Wong M., 1983, @doi [J

    Bernath P. F., Amano T., Wong M., 1983, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/0022-2852(83)90199-6 , 98, 20

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-2852(83)90199-6 1983

  4. [4]

    I., Morell G., Weiner B

    Buzaianu M.-D., Makarov V. I., Morell G., Weiner B. R., 2008, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/j.cplett.2008.02.061 , 455, 26

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cplett.2008.02.061 2008

  5. [5]

    L., et al., 2018a, @doi [J

    Chubb K. L., et al., 2018a, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.08.018 , 204, 42

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2017.08.018 2017

  6. [6]

    L., et al., 2018b, @doi [J

    Chubb K. L., et al., 2018b, @doi [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.07.012 , 218, 178

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.07.012 2018

  7. [7]

    E., Balko B

    Continetti R. E., Balko B. A., Lee Y. T., 1991, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/0009-2614(91)90097-S , 182, 400

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2614(91)90097-s 1991

  8. [8]

    G., Leininger M

    Csaszar A. G., Leininger M. L., Burcat A., 2003, @doi [J. Phys. Chem. A] 10.1021/jp026605u , 107, 2061

    work page doi:10.1021/jp026605u 2003

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Darby-Lewis D., et al., 2019, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.jms.2019.06.002 , 362, 69

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    H., 1989, @doi [J

    Dunning T. H., 1989, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.456153 , 90, 1007

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    Eliet S., Martin-Drumel M.-A., Guinet M., Hindle F., Mouret G., Bocquet R., Cuisset A., 2011, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.molstruc.2011.07.055 , 1006, 13

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ.] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaebff , 156, 283

    Evans T. M., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ.] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaebff , 156, 283

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Brune W

    Friedl R. R., Brune W. H., Anderson J. G., 1983, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.446349 , 79, 4227

    1983 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Tennyson J., 2007, @doi [J

    Furtenbacher T., Cs\'asz\'ar A. G., Tennyson J., 2007, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.jms.2007.07.005 , 245, 115

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    G., Bernath P

    Furtenbacher T., Szab \'o I., Cs \'a sz \'a r A. G., Bernath P. F., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/44 , 224, 44

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Glockler G., Horwitz W., 1939, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1750544 , 7, 857

    1939 doi

  9. [17]

    Grevesse N., Sauval A.-J., 1999, A&A, 347, 348

    1999

  10. [18]

    E., Turner B

    Heiles C. E., Turner B. E., 1971, ApJL, 8, 89

    1971

  11. [19]

    Johns J. W. C., Ramsay D. A., 1961, @doi [Can. J. Phys.] 10.1139/p61-016 , 39, 210

    1961 doi

  12. [20]

    Kawasaki M., Sato H., Inoue G., Suzuki M., 1989, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.457344 , 91, 6758

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Ahearn M

    Kim S. J., Ahearn M. F., 1992, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90137-V , 97, 303

    1992 doi

  14. [22]

    Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2019, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida A., Yu. Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2019, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.6.1), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2019, April 13]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2019

  15. [23]

    Krishna Swamy K.-S., Wallis M.-K., 1987, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/228.2.305 , 228, 305

    1987 doi

  16. [24]

    K., 1988, A&AS, 74, 227

    Krishna Swamy K.-S., Wallis M. K., 1988, A&AS, 74, 227

    1988

  17. [25]

    G., Seto J

    Lee E. G., Seto J. Y., Hirao T., Bernath P. F., Le Roy R. J., 1999, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1006/jmsp.1998.7789 , 194, 197

    1999

  18. [26]

    N., White J

    Lewis M. N., White J. U., 1939, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.55.894 , 55, 894

    1939 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Tiee J

    Loge G. W., Tiee J. J., 1988, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.455294 , 89, 7167

    1988 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Tiee J

    Loge G. W., Tiee J. J., 1990, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.458001 , 92, 2122

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Eliet S., Pirali O., Guinet M., Hindle F., Mouret G., Cuisset A., 2012, @doi [Chem

    Martin-Drumel M. A., Eliet S., Pirali O., Guinet M., Hindle F., Mouret G., Cuisset A., 2012, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/j.cplett.2012.08.027 , 550, 8

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/15 , 228, 15

    McKemmish L. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/15 , 228, 15

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd19 , 867, 33

    McKemmish L. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd19 , 867, 33

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    K., Masseron T., Hoeijmakers J., P\' e rez-Mesa V

    McKemmish L. K., Masseron T., Hoeijmakers J., P\' e rez-Mesa V. V., Grimm S. L., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2019, MNRAS

    2019

  25. [33]

    S., Meshkov V

    Medvedev E. S., Meshkov V. V., Stolyarov A. V., Ushakov V. G., Gordon I. E., 2016, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.jms.2016.06.013 , 330, 36

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Gordon M

    Meeks M. L., Gordon M. A., Litvak M. M., 1969, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.163.3863.173 , 163, 173

    1969 doi

  27. [35]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218870 , 542, L6

    Neufeld D. A., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218870 , 542, L6

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Palmer H

    Pathak C. M., Palmer H. B., 1969, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/0022-2852(69)90150-7 , 32, 157

    1969 doi

  29. [37]

    N., Yurchenko S

    Prajapat L., Jagoda P., Lodi L., Gorman M. N., Yurchenko S. N., Tennyson J., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2229 , 472, 3648

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Bernath P

    Ram R. S., Bernath P. F., Engleman R., Brault J. W., 1995, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1006/jmsp.1995.1153 , 172, 34

    1995

  31. [39]

    A., 1952, @doi [J

    Ramsay D. A., 1952, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1700339 , 20, 1920

    1952 doi

  32. [40]

    Ravichandran K., Williams R., Fletcher T.-R., 1994, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/0009-2614(93)E1411-9 , 217, 375

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Ornellas F

    Resende S. M., Ornellas F. R., 2001, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/S0009-2614(01)01177-0 , 349, 123

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Ashfold M

    Schnieder L., Meier W., Welge K. H., Ashfold M. N. R., Western C. M., 1990, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.458243 , 92, 7027

    1990 doi

  35. [43]

    Senekowitsch J., Werne H.-J., Rosmus P., Reinsch A., Oneil S.-V., 1985, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.449037 , 83, 4661

    1985 doi

  36. [44]

    Phys.] 10.1007/s11207-015-0716-x , 290, 3257

    Sinha K., 2015, @doi [Sol. Phys.] 10.1007/s11207-015-0716-x , 290, 3257

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Snellen I. A. G., 2004 , @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08169.x , 353 , L1

    2004

  38. [46]

    Tennyson J., 2012, @doi [WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.] 10.1002/wcms.94 , 2, 698

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Tennyson J., 2014, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.jms.2014.01.012 , 298, 1

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    N., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21440.x , 425, 21

    Tennyson J., Yurchenko S. N., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21440.x , 425, 21

    2012

  41. [49]

    N., 2017, @doi [Mol

    Tennyson J., Yurchenko S. N., 2017, @doi [Mol. Astrophys.] 10.1016/j.molap.2017.05.002 , 8, 1

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Yurchenko S

    Tennyson J., Hulme K., Naim O. K., Yurchenko S. N., 2016a, @doi [J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.] 10.1088/0953-4075/49/4/044002 , 49, 044002

    doi

  43. [51]

    K., Yurchenko S

    Tennyson J., Lodi L., McKemmish L. K., Yurchenko S. N., 2016b, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 49, 102001

  44. [52]

    Tennyson J., et al., 2016c, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/j.jms.2016.05.002 , 327, 73

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Ferris M

    Tiee J. J., Ferris M. J., Wampler F. B., 1983, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.445572 , 79, 130

    1983 doi

  46. [54]

    Tsai P.-Y., Lin K.-C., 2010, @doi [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.] 10.1039/B920614K , 12, 1162

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    J., 1990, @doi [J

    Ubachs W., Termeulen J. J., 1990, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.458000 , 92, 2121

    1990 doi

  48. [56]

    J., Dymanus A., 1983, @doi [Chem

    Ubachs W., Termeulen J. J., Dymanus A., 1983, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/0009-2614(83)80294-2 , 101, 1

    1983 doi

  49. [57]

    B., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/506245 , 648, 1181

    Visscher C., Lodders K., Fegley Jr. B., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/506245 , 648, 1181

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Knizia G., Manby F

    Werner H.-J., Knowles P. J., Knizia G., Manby F. R., Sch\"utz M., 2012, @doi [WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.] 10.1002/wcms.82 , 2, 242

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    D., Orr-Ewing A

    Wheeler M. D., Orr-Ewing A. J., Ashfold M. N. R., 1997a, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.475108 , 107, 7591

    doi

  52. [60]

    D., Orr-Ewing A

    Wheeler M. D., Orr-Ewing A. J., Ashfold M. N. R., Ishiwata T., 1997b, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/S0009-2614(97)00235-2 , 268, 421

    doi

  53. [61]

    J., Davis S

    Winkel R. J., Davis S. P., 1984, @doi [Can. J. Phys.] 10.1139/p84-189 , 62, 1420

    1984 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Dunning T

    Woon D. E., Dunning T. H., 1993, @doi [J. Chem. Phys.] 10.1063/1.464303 , 98, 1358

    1993 doi

  55. [63]

    T., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312420 , 528, L33

    Yamamura I., Kawaguchi K., Ridgway S. T., 2000, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/312420 , 528, L33

    2000 doi

  56. [64]

    N., Lodi L., Tennyson J., Stolyarov A

    Yurchenko S. N., Lodi L., Tennyson J., Stolyarov A. V., 2016, @doi [Comput. Phys. Commun.] 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.12.021 , 202, 262

    2016 doi

  57. [65]

    N., Sinden F., Lodi L., Hill C., Gorman M

    Yurchenko S. N., Sinden F., Lodi L., Hill C., Gorman M. N., Tennyson J., 2018a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2738 , 473, 5324

    doi

  58. [66]

    N., Bond W., Gorman M

    Yurchenko S. N., Bond W., Gorman M. N., Lodi L., McKemmish L. K., Nunn W., Shah R., Tennyson J., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty939 , 478, 270

    doi

  59. [67]

    N., Williams H., Leyland P

    Yurchenko S. N., Williams H., Leyland P. C., Lodi L., Tennyson J., 2018c, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1524 , 479, 1401

    doi

  60. [68]

    N., Al-Refaie A

    Yurchenko S. N., Al-Refaie A. F., Tennyson J., 2018d, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732531 , 614, A131

    doi

  61. [69]

    S., Freedman R

    Zahnle K., Marley M. S., Freedman R. S., Lodders K., Fortney J. J., 2009, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/L20 , 701, L20

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    N., Schmeltekopf A

    Zare R. N., Schmeltekopf A. L., Harrop W. J., Albritton D. L., 1973, @doi [J. Mol. Spectrosc.] 10.1016/0022-2852(73)90025-8 , 46, 37

    1973 doi

  63. [71]

    Zhao D., Galazutdinov G.-A., Linnartz H., Kre owski J., 2015, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526488 , 579, L1

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    J., Birkby J., Brogi M., Schwarz H., Albrecht S., de Mooij E

    de Kok R. J., Birkby J., Brogi M., Schwarz H., Albrecht S., de Mooij E. J. W., Snellen I. A. G., 2014 , @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322947 , 561 , A150

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Rakauskas R

    S urkus A. A., Rakauskas R. J., Bolotin A. B., 1984, @doi [Chem. Phys. Lett.] 10.1016/0009-2614(84)85032-0 , 105, 291

    1984 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.