Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 58 references

Complete insensitivity to ab initio data -- A new perspective on modeling collision-induced absorption of noble gas atoms

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that collision-induced absorption spectra of noble-gas pairs are largely insensitive to the quality of ab initio potential and dipole surfaces, with even the cheapest calculations accurate to about 10% at room temperature…

desk verdict A genuinely useful sensitivity analysis of CIA spectra to ab initio quality, but the 'never contribute' long-range claim and the 'complete insensitivity' framing outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22029 v1 pith:GNAZGEFG submitted 2025-06-27 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atm-clusphysics.atom-ph

Nikhila Ambika Chandran , Tijs Karman This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.atm-clusphysics.atom-ph
keywords collision-inducedabsorptionnoblegasdimersinduceddipolesurfaceabinitiosensitivityvanderWaalsinteractionsspectrallineshapesHe-Nedouble-peakstructurehigh-temperatureopacities
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

This paper investigates whether the accuracy of collision-induced absorption (CIA) spectra of noble-gas pairs is limited by the quality of the underlying ab initio potential and dipole surfaces. For He–Ne, Ar–He, and Ar–Ne, the authors compute spectra from several levels of electronic-structure theory and find that the spectra change by only about 10% at room temperature when the cheapest surfaces are used, and by less at high temperature. The reason is that the classical integrand $F(R)=4\pi R^2\exp[-V(R)/k_\mathrm{B}T]D^2(R)$ is sharply peaked at short distances, so the spectrum never probes the long-range van der Waals region beyond about 8 $a_0$. The paper also reports that the He–Ne spectrum has a dip or double-peak structure that follows from a zero crossing of the induced dipole at $R\approx 4.2\,a_0$, and that simple single-exponential dipole models cannot produce this feature. If correct, this means quantitative CIA modeling for these systems does not require expensive high-level electronic-structure data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the induced dipole surface $D(R)$ together with the classical phase-space integrand $F(R)=4\pi R^2\exp[-V(R)/k_\mathrm{B}T]D^2(R)$ (Eq. 4), which identifies the internuclear distances that actually contribute to the integrated absorption at a given temperature. The line shape itself is computed from quantum scattering wavefunctions (Eqs. 1–3), and an approximate hard-sphere/Fourier model (Eq. 7) is used to attribute spectral features to the shape of the dipole function. The zero crossing of the He–Ne dipole at $R\approx 4.2\,a_0$ plays the pivotal role: because the integrand samples this region at room temperature, the Fourier transform of the dipole produces a dip and double-peak structure that a single exponential cannot capture.

What would settle it

Recompute the full quantum spectrum including bound-bound and bound-free transitions and set $D(R)=0$ for $R>8\,a_0$; if the spectrum changes measurably, then long-range van der Waals dipoles do contribute, falsifying the central claim. A complementary experimental check is to look for the predicted dip in the room-temperature He–Ne spectrum between 200 and 600 cm−1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the three noble-gas heterodimers, CIA spectra are largely insensitive to the chosen ab initio method and basis set: replacing the recommended CCSD(T)/CBS surfaces with the much cheaper CCSD(T)/AVTZ surfaces changes the integrated intensity by up to about 10% at 295 K, with the dipole surface responsible for most of that variation, and the differences shrink as temperature rises to 2000 K. The paper explains this through the classical phase-space integrand, which shows that the integrated intensity is dominated by a narrow window of internuclear separations — a few bohr wide, around 3–5 $a_0$ — set by the trade-off between the decay of the squared dipole and the Boltzmann suppression of the repulsive wall. Consequently, the long-range region, where the induced dipole is governed by van der Waals interactions at $R\gtrsim 8\,a_0$, never contributes to the spectra at any temperature studied. For He–Ne, the dipole function changes sign near $R=4.2\,a_0$, producing a previously unreported double-peak absorption feature that is reproduced by a double-exponential dipole model but not by a single-exponential one; a hard-sphere/Fourier analysis shows the feature is a direct consequence of the dipole's non-monotonic shape. This is taken as evidence that long-range van der Waals data are irrelevant for these spectra, and that short-range interactions are the controlling factor for astronomical CIA modeling.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that long-range van der Waals dipoles 'never contribute' rests on the assumption that the classical phase-space integrand $F(R)$ faithfully represents the internuclear distances sampled by the quantum spectrum, including the bound states and near-threshold states that are excluded from the line-shape calculations; if those quantum states sample distances beyond 8 $a_0$, the conclusion would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CIA opacities for He–Ne, Ar–He, and Ar–Ne can be computed with low-level ab initio surfaces and still be roughly 10% accurate at room temperature, and better at higher T, so astronomical models do not have to wait for CBS-quality surfaces.
  • The long-range van der Waals region of the induced dipole can be excluded from future electronic-structure calculations for these systems, since it never contributes to the spectrum.
  • Short-range dipole models need to be flexible enough to capture zero crossings and other non-monotonic features; single-exponential models will fail for systems like He–Ne.
  • As temperature rises, the spectra probe shorter internuclear distances on the repulsive wall, so high-temperature CIA modeling depends on accurate short-range repulsion.
  • For Ar–He and Ar–Ne, the computed spectra match experiment within the estimated uncertainty, so these calculations can directly supply absorption coefficients for atmosphere models over an expanded temperature range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'never contribute' conclusion may not carry over to other collisional pairs (e.g., H2–H2 or H2–rare-gas systems) where lighter masses and deeper potentials let bound states sample much larger distances; a similar F(R) diagnostic should be checked case by case.
  • The insensitivity to the long-range dipole suggests that the main source of error in CIA theory is the functional form of the short-range dipole, so experimental tests of predicted features (like the He–Ne dip) would provide a sharper benchmark than global intensity comparisons.
  • The same F(R) analysis could be used in reverse: given a target temperature and desired accuracy, one could determine the smallest ab initio grid and the largest R that needs to be computed, saving cost for high-throughput opacity databases.
  • If the double-peak in He–Ne is confirmed, it would indicate that current spectral databases based on older single-exponential models may have systematic shape errors in the 200–600 cm−1 region for light gas pairs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic study of how the accuracy of collision-induced absorption (CIA) spectra of the noble-gas pairs Ne–He, Ar–He, and Ar–Ne depends on the quality of the underlying ab initio potential energy and induced dipole surfaces. Spectra are computed at the CCSD, CCSD(T), and estimated FCI levels with basis sets up to CBS, and the sensitivity of the spectra to the PES and IDS is quantified. The authors find that the spectra are rather insensitive to the ab initio level, with worst-case integrated-intensity differences around 10% at room temperature and smaller at high temperature, and they report a previously unnoticed double-peak structure in the Ne–He spectrum. They also argue, based on a classical phase-space integrand, that long-range van der Waals induced dipoles never contribute to the spectra. The calculated Ar–He and Ar–Ne spectra agree with experiment within estimated error bars, while the Ne–He 77 K measurement disagrees by about a factor of two.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides an important practical message: quantitatively predictive CIA spectra for noble-gas mixtures can be obtained from relatively inexpensive electronic-structure data, and effort invested in very accurate long-range surfaces may be less important than usually assumed. The systematic convergence study is a useful contribution, the calculations are carried out without fitted parameters in the main spectral predictions, and the agreement with experiment for Ar–He and Ar–Ne lends credibility to the computational approach. However, the paper's strongest claim—that the absorption spectrum is 'never' sensitive to van der Waals distances—is not fully supported by the evidence presented, and the error-bar estimate is based on integrated intensities rather than on frequency-resolved spectral features.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (4), Fig. 6; Abstract; Conclusions] The claim that long-range van der Waals induced dipoles 'never contribute' rests on the classical phase-space integrand F(R) of Eq. (4), which bounds only the frequency-integrated intensity. That integrand does not directly constrain how the intensity is distributed in frequency: a small but long-ranged dipole tail can produce a narrow, low-frequency feature whose peak is noticeable even though its integrated area is small. Because the line-shape calculations explicitly exclude bound-bound transitions (Section VI) and the near-threshold bound states are dismissed as 'not expected to contribute significantly' without a demonstrated calculation (Section II), the 'never' conclusion is stronger than the evidence supports. I recommend either computing the spectra with the IDS truncated or replaced by its long-range asymptotic form beyond 8 a0 and comparing the full frequency-resolved spectra, or restricting the claim to the integrated intensity of the free-free and bound-free contributions.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph beginning 'We then estimate a theoretical error bar'] The approximately 10% insensitivity estimate is based on the relative difference in integrated intensities, which is then applied as an overall multiplicative scaling of the spectrum. This implicitly assumes that all uncertainty manifests as an overall intensity scale factor. It does not bound frequency-dependent shape errors, including the position and depth of the Ne–He dip that is a central new prediction. Since the paper's headline quantitative claim is about spectral accuracy, the error analysis should also report a frequency-resolved metric, such as the maximum relative difference per frequency bin between spectra computed with different PES/IDS levels.
  3. [Section VI, Fig. 8(e)] The Ne–He 77 K spectrum disagrees with the experimental measurement by roughly a factor of two, outside the paper's own conservative error bars. The manuscript suggests that the experimental data may be unreliable, but it does not quantitatively rule out missing physics in the calculation. In particular, Ne–He has one bound state, and bound-bound contributions are excluded from the line-shape calculation; at 77 K these could contribute at low frequencies. A quantitative estimate of the bound-bound contribution, or a discussion of why it is negligible, is needed before the conclusion that the spectrum is insensitive to ab initio data can be considered fully supported for this system.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title and captions] The title has a missing space: 'insensitivity toab initio data' should be 'insensitivity to ab initio data'. In addition, the Table III and Table IV captions contain the typo 'basis stes' for 'basis sets'.
  2. [Section IV, text near Fig. 2 and Table I] The text states that 'the change in IDS caused a difference of around 10% at the frequency with maximum intensity,' while Table I reports relative differences in integrated intensity. Please clarify which metric is used in each comparison so the reader can properly interpret the convergence tables.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The notation for the soft-sphere approximation uses |kBT, 0> and |kBT + ħω, 0> as if kBT were a wavefunction label. It would be clearer to define the collision energy explicitly, e.g., E = kBT, and write |E, 0> and |E + ħω, 0>.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: spectra are computed directly from independently calculated PES and IDS surfaces, and the sensitivity estimates are honest method-to-method comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct electronic-structure and scattering calculations rather than on fitted parameters or self-cited uniqueness theorems. PESs and IDSs are computed in MOLPRO at multiple levels of theory and basis sets, and CIA spectra are then obtained from the standard quantum expression in Eqs. (1)-(3) with no adjustable parameters. The sensitivity conclusions are based on comparing spectra computed with CCSD(T)/CBS against spectra computed with lower-level methods or smaller basis sets; this is a straightforward error-propagation study, not a prediction of data that were used as input. The 'long-range van der Waals dipoles never contribute' conclusion is drawn from the classical phase-space integrand F(R) in Eq. (4), which is an independent sum-rule approximation rather than a restatement of the conclusion. The double-exponential dipole model is fitted to the same ab initio dipole that produces the double-peak feature, but it is used only as an explanatory diagnostic of the line shape, not as an independent source of prediction. The few self-citations (e.g., Ref. [44] for the propagation method and Ref. [8] for HITRAN needs) are to standard techniques and data infrastructure and are not load-bearing for the paper's claims. The possible omission of bound-bound transitions is a scope or correctness concern about how broadly the 'never contribute' statement applies, not a circularity of the derivation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness result is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained for what it actually computes.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computational results rest on standard quantum chemistry and scattering methods. The main load-bearing approximations are the Born-Oppenheimer separation, the classical sum rule used to infer the relevant distance range, and the RKHS/CBS representations of the surfaces. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • double-exponential dipole fit parameters (A, B, alpha, beta) = not reported numerically; fitted to log D(R) in regions R=2-3.6 a0 and 4.7-6 a0
    Used in the hard-sphere and soft-sphere line shape models of Fig. 5 to illustrate the mechanism of the Ne-He double-peak. These are explanatory fits to the ab initio dipole, not parameters of the main spectral calculation.
  • single-exponential dipole fit parameters (A, alpha) = not reported numerically; fit to the longer-range exponential in R=4.7-6 a0
    Representative simplified dipole model used as a baseline in Fig. 5; demonstrates the failure of single-exponential models but does not enter the full ab initio spectra.
  • hard-sphere radius a = classical turning point at collision energy kBT
    Defined in Section III B for the approximate hard-sphere line shape; derived from the physical potential rather than fitted to the target spectrum.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math First-order time-dependent perturbation theory for the radiation-matter coupling.
    Used to derive Eq. (1) for the normalized absorption coefficient; standard quantum-mechanical treatment of weak fields.
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer separation of electronic and nuclear motion.
    The PES and IDS are computed for fixed R in Section II and then used in the nuclear scattering Hamiltonian, Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The classical phase-space integral, Eq. (4), is a valid sum rule for the spectral density and identifies the internuclear distances that contribute to the spectrum.
    This is the basis for the 'no contribution beyond 8 a0' conclusion in Section IV and Fig. 6; it is a classical approximation and does not account for bound-bound transitions.
  • domain assumption RKHS interpolation and extrapolation of the ab initio grid accurately represents the true PES and IDS.
    Discrete points on a 0.2 a0 grid are interpolated and extrapolated to a denser grid in Section II; no independent benchmark of this representation is provided.
  • domain assumption CBS extrapolation Ec(ζ)=Ec(∞)+cζ^-3 for the correlation energy.
    Used to define the reference CCSD(T)/CBS surfaces in Section II; a standard but empirical convergence relation.
  • domain assumption Finite-field dipole values at field strength ±0.0002 a.u. are converged.
    Section II states the finite-field approach and field strength; convergence with respect to field strength is not documented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete insensitivity to ab initio data -- A new perspective on modeling collision-induced absorption of noble gas atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNAZGEFG

@misc{pith2026250622029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete insensitivity to ab initio data -- A new perspective on modeling collision-induced absorption of noble gas atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNAZGEFG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22029}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we systematically investigate how the accuracy of CIA spectra depends on the quality of the ab initio data used. We evaluate quantitatively the impact of different quantum chemical methods and basis sets on spectral features, finding that even the lowest-level calculations are accurate to approximately 10 % at room temperature, and better at higher temperatures. This study also reveals a previously unreported double-peak structure for the He-Ne complex, which cannot be described by simple but commonly used single-exponential models for the short-range dipole. Our analysis shows that the range of internuclear distances relevant for CIA spectra varies with temperature, with short-range interactions becoming increasingly important at high temperatures. The long-range van der Waals induced dipoles never contribute. These findings provide new insights into the temperature-dependent behavior of CIA spectra and emphasize the importance of accurate modeling of short-range interactions for reliable astronomical modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Potential Energy Surface (PES) and (b) Induced Dipole Surface (IDS) of collisional pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Here, spectra are computed using the PES and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of CIA spectra computed with (iii) both the PES and IDS computed at at the CCSD(T)/CBS level, (i) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Convergence of CIA with different basis sets used in CCSD(T) calculations. (a) and (b) show Ne–He at 295K and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of CIA calculated using different methods. All calculations employed the aug-cc-pVTZ (AVTZ) basis set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Approximate lineshapes in the (a) hard-sphere approximation and (b) soft-sphere approximation. Dotted (solid) lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contribution of intermolecular distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Integrated intensities at different temperatures calculated using equation(4) are shown as the solid line. Dots mark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations. (a) CIA of Ar–He at 165 K (b) CIA of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Predicted CIA spectra for noble gas atoms at high temperatures (a) 1000 K (b) 2000 K. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Crawford, H

    M. Crawford, H. Welsh, and J. Locke, Physical Review 75, 1607 (1949)

    work page 1949

  2. [2]

    Z. J. Kiss and H. L. Welsh, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 166 (1959). 9 0 4 8 12 0 500 1000 1500 2000 (a) α /ρ 1ρ 2 .1010, (cm-1 amagat-2) frequency (cm-1) (i) (ii) (iii) 0 1 2 3 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 (b) α /ρ 1ρ 2 .108, (cm-1 amagat-2) frequency (cm-1) (i) (ii) (iii) 0 2 4 6 8 0 200 400 600 800 1000 (c) α /ρ 1ρ 2 .107, (cm-1 amagat-2) frequency (cm-1) (i) ...

    work page 1959

  3. [3]

    Welsh, M

    H. Welsh, M. Crawford, J. MacDonald, and D. Chisholm, Physical Review 83, 1264 (1951)

    work page 1951

  4. [4]

    Abel and L

    M. Abel and L. Frommhold, Canadian Journal of Physics 91, 857 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2012-0532

    doi:10.1139/cjp-2012-0532 2013

  5. [5]

    Slanina and A

    Z. Slanina and A. A. Vigasin, Molecular Complexes in Earth’s, Planetary Cometary and Interstellar Atmo- spheres (World Scientific, 1998). Ne–He Ar–He Ar–Ne CCSD 9.74% 9.66% 12.84% CCSD(T) 0.61% 0.51% 0.46% TABLE V. Relative difference between integrated intensity of spectra calculated using the CCSD and CCSD(T) methods compared to the estimated FCI limit ...

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Camy-Peyret and A

    C. Camy-Peyret and A. A. Vigasin, Weakly interacting molecular pairs: unconventional absorbers of radiation in the atmosphere, Vol. 27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Richard, I

    C. Richard, I. E. Gordon, L. S. Rothman, M. Abel, L. Frommhold, M. Gustafsson, J.-M. Hartmann, C. Her- mans, W. J. Lafferty, G. S. Orton,et al., Journal of Quan- titative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 113, 1276 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Karman, I

    T. Karman, I. E. Gordon, A. van der Avoird, Y. I. Baranov, C. Boulet, B. J. Drouin, G. C. Groenenboom, M. Gustafsson, J.-M. Hartmann, R. L. Kurucz, L. S. Rothman, K. Sun, K. Sung, R. Thalman, H. Tran, E. H. Wishnow, R. Wordsworth, A. A. Vigasin, R. Volkamer, and W. J. van der Zande, Icarus 328, 160 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    El-Kader, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 112, 1533 (2011)

    M. El-Kader, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 112, 1533 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    El-Kader, S

    M. El-Kader, S. Mostafa, T. Bancewicz, and G. Maroulis, Chemical Physics 440, 127 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    El-Kader, G

    M. El-Kader, G. Maroulis, and E. Bich, Chemical Physics 403, 37 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Borysow, M

    A. Borysow, M. Moraldi, and L. Frommhold, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 31, 235 (1984)

    1984

  5. [13]

    Meyer and L

    W. Meyer and L. Frommhold, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143, 114313 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Fakhardji, P

    W. Fakhardji, P. Szab´ o, M. El-Kader, A. Haskopoulos, G. Maroulis, and M. Gustafsson, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 151 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    M. G. Aleksandra Borysow, Molecular physics 93, 1007 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    J. E. Bohr and K. L. C. Hunt, J. Chem. Phys. 86, 5441 (1987)

    1987

  9. [17]

    J. E. Bohr and K. L. C. Hunt, J. Chem. Phys. 87, 3821 (1987)

    1987

  10. [18]

    Fowler, Chemical physics 143, 447 (1990)

    P. Fowler, Chemical physics 143, 447 (1990)

    1990

  11. [19]

    T. G. Heijmen, R. Moszynski, P. E. Wormer, and A. Van Der Avoird, Mol. Phys. 89, 81 (1996)

    1996

  12. [20]

    Meyer and L

    W. Meyer and L. Frommhold, Theoretica chimica acta 88, 201 (1994)

    1994

  13. [21]

    D. M. Bishop and J. Pipin, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 4003 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    Fowler, Chem

    P. Fowler, Chem. Phys. Letters 171, 277 (1990)

    1990

  15. [23]

    Galatry and T

    L. Galatry and T. Gharbi, Chemical Physics Letters 75, 427 (1980)

    1980

  16. [24]

    W. B. Brown and D. Whisnant, Molecular Physics 25, 1385 (1973)

    1973

  17. [25]

    Whisnant and W

    D. Whisnant and W. Byers Browns, Molecular Physics 26, 1105 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    Matcha and R

    R. Matcha and R. Nesbet, Physical Review 160, 72 (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    Lacey and W

    A. Lacey and W. B. Brown, Molecular Physics 27, 1013 (1974)

    1974

  20. [28]

    Birnbaum, M

    G. Birnbaum, M. Krauss, and L. Frommhold, The Jour- nal of chemical physics 80, 2669 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Meyer and L

    W. Meyer and L. Frommhold, Physical Review A 33, 3807 (1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    McQuarrie and R

    D. McQuarrie and R. Bernstein, The Journal of Chemical Physics 49, 1958 (1968)

    1968

  23. [31]

    Meyer and L

    W. Meyer and L. Frommhold, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    El-Kader and G

    M. El-Kader and G. Maroulis, Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering 21, 577 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Werner and P

    molpro15, MOLPRO is a package of ab initio programs written by H.-J. Werner and P. J. Knowles, with contri- butions from J. Alml¨ of, R. D. Amos, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, F. Eckert, S. T. Elbert, C. Hampel, R. Lindh, A. W. Lloyd, W. Meyer, A. Ni...

  26. [34]

    Fern´ andez and H

    B. Fern´ andez and H. Koch, The Journal of chemical physics 109, 10255 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    S. F. Boys and F. Bernardi, Molecular physics 19, 553 (1970)

    1970

  28. [36]

    Halkier, T

    A. Halkier, T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, W. Klopper, H. Koch, J. Olsen, and A. K. Wilson, Chemical Physics Letters 286, 243 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Ho and H

    T.-S. Ho and H. Rabitz, The Journal of chemical physics 104, 2584 (1996). 14

    1996

  30. [38]

    S. M. Cybulski and R. R. Toczy lowski, The Journal of Chemical Physics 111, 10520 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    L´ opez Cacheiro, B

    J. L´ opez Cacheiro, B. Fern´ andez, D. Marchesan, S. Co- riani, C. H¨ attig, and A. Rizzo, Molecular Physics 102, 101 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    G. C. Groenenboom and D. T. Colbert, The Journal of chemical physics 99, 9681 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    Tang and J

    K. Tang and J. P. Toennies, The Journal of chemical physics 80, 3726 (1984)

    1984

  34. [42]

    Hunt, Chemical Physics Letters 70, 336 (1980)

    K. Hunt, Chemical Physics Letters 70, 336 (1980)

    1980

  35. [43]

    Collision-induced absorption in gases,

    L. Frommhold, “Collision-induced absorption in gases,” (Cambridge University Press, 1994) p. x–xii

    1994

  36. [44]

    Karman, A

    T. Karman, A. van der Avoird, and G. C. Groenenboom, The Journal of Chemical Physics 142 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Johnson, The Journal of Chemical Physics 69, 4678 (1978)

    B. Johnson, The Journal of Chemical Physics 69, 4678 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    Buryak, S

    I. Buryak, S. Lokshtanov, and A. Vigasin, The Journal of Chemical Physics 137 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    D. Z. Goodson, The Journal of chemical physics 116, 6948 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    H. B. Levine and G. Birnbaum, Physical Review 154, 86 (1967)

    1967

  41. [49]

    Marteau, J

    P. Marteau, J. Obriot, and F. Fondere, Canadian journal of physics 64, 822 (1986)

    1986

  42. [50]

    Sharma and R

    R. Sharma and R. Hart, Chemical Physics Letters 27, 589 (1974)

    1974

  43. [51]

    Tanimoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics 33, 585 (1965)

    O. Tanimoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics 33, 585 (1965)

    1965

  44. [52]

    D. R. Bosomworth and H. P. Gush, Canadian Journal of Physics 43, 751 (1965), https://doi.org/10.1139/p65- 074

    1965 doi

  45. [53]

    Bosomworth and H

    D. Bosomworth and H. Gush, Canadian Journal of Physics 43, 729 (1965)

    1965

  46. [54]

    Bukhtoyarova and M

    V. Bukhtoyarova and M. Tonkov, Optics and Spec- troscopy 43, 27 (1977)

    1977

  47. [55]

    Bukhtoyarova and M

    V. Bukhtoyarova and M. Tonkov, Optics and Spec- troscopy 43, 133 (1977)

    1977

  48. [56]

    Bukhtoyarova and M

    V. Bukhtoyarova and M. Tonkov, Optics and Spec- troscopy 42, 14 (1977)

    1977

  49. [57]

    H. B. Levine, Physical Review 160, 159 (1967)

    1967

  50. [58]

    Vigasin, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 224, 185 (2004)

    A. Vigasin, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 224, 185 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.