Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Fully ab initio CO2–H2 and CO2–He collision calculations reproduce measured broadening to ~10% with no empirical correction factors, meeting the precision target for space-based exoplanet spectroscopy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 12:54 UTC pith:KTM7QRIV

load-bearing objection Useful ab initio dataset and honest convergence caveats in the body, but the abstract's 'no empirical correction factors' claim is contradicted by the paper's own scaling step, so it needs major revision before the headline is true. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.03327 v2 pith:KTM7QRIV submitted 2025-10-01 physics.chem-ph astro-ph.EP

Comprehensive Ab Initio Quantum Computations of CO_(rm 2)-H_(rm 2) and CO_(rm 2)-He Collisional Properties

Prajwal Niraula , Laurent Wiesenfeld , Nejmeddine Ja\"idane , Julien de Wit , Robert J. Hargreaves , Jeremy Kepner , Deborah Woods , Cooper Loughlin
show 1 more author
Iouli E. Gordon
This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph astro-ph.EP
keywords pressure broadeningab initio scatteringCO2close couplingpotential energy surfaceexoplanet atmospheresH2/He collisionsspectroscopic line lists
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper sets out to show that the pressure-broadening coefficients of carbon dioxide in collisions with molecular hydrogen and helium can be derived entirely from first principles—given only molecular geometries and rotational constants—and still match experiment to about 10% across 100–800 K and rotational quantum numbers |m|≤50. The authors compute new coupled-cluster potential-energy surfaces, solve the quantum close-coupling scattering problem, and convert the scattering matrices into broadening cross sections using the standard quantum theory of pressure broadening. After applying one global scaling constant, the computed room-temperature line widths lie within the target bracket of measured values, and the same step repairs a known opacity bottleneck for interpreting exoplanet spectra. If the claim holds, spectroscopic databases can be populated with parameter-free CO2 broadening data, including for all stable isotopologues, instead of scaled air-broadening proxies.

Core claim

The paper claims that the entire pipeline—coupled-cluster potential-energy surfaces, close-coupling scattering, and the quantum pressure-broadening cross-section formulae—produces CO2–H2 and CO2–He broadening coefficients whose scaled values are accurate to the ~10% level required by space-based exoplanet atmospheric studies. It supplies the full rotational and temperature dependence (|m|≤50, 100–800 K), Padé fits in |m|, and single- and double-power-law fits in temperature, as database-ready products. The authors report that the random-phase approximation (RPA) variant is demonstrated to converge within 10%, while the full non-RPA calculation is not yet fully understood on an absolute scale

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the close-coupling solution of the time-independent Schrödinger equation for the CO2–X van der Waals complex (X = H2, He), driven by newly computed coupled-cluster (CCSD(T)) potential-energy surfaces with complete-basis-set extrapolation. Broadening cross sections come from the standard quantum-mechanical expressions built from T-matrices; two variants are used, the full interference-preserving form and the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) that neglects the elastic-interference term. A single global scaling constant normalizes the theoretical scale to experiment. The rotational dependence is compressed into second-order Padé approximants and the temperature dependenc

Load-bearing premise

The whole 10%-accuracy claim rests on the assumption that the full, non-RPA close-coupling calculation is numerically converged for low |m|; the paper itself states that only the RPA variant has demonstrated 10% convergence and that the absolute scale of the full computation 'is still not fully understood.'

What would settle it

A converged full close-coupling calculation for CO2–He at |m|≤24 that departs from the scaled RPA values by more than ~10%, or a new low-|m| CO2–He broadening measurement at T≥400 K that falls outside the scaled curve, would falsify the parameter-free accuracy claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Spectroscopic databases can be updated with parameter-free CO2–H2 and CO2–He broadening coefficients over the full 100–800 K range, replacing air-broadening-scaled proxies for hydrogen collisions.
  • Exoplanet retrieval codes gain CO2 line widths with a stated ~10% error bar, directly addressing a documented opacity bottleneck.
  • The same machinery extends to all twelve stable CO2 isotopologues because the vibrational/isotopic dependence of broadening is argued to be sub-percent.
  • The companion elastic and inelastic rate coefficients provide a consistent set for non-LTE and line-transfer modeling of warm CO2.
  • Padé and double-power-law fits permit extrapolation to |m|>50 and to higher temperatures where full close-coupling is computationally prohibitive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the full non-RPA low-|m| values are not converged, the single global scaling constant could be absorbing a systematic error rather than a harmless normalization; a converged full computation would decide whether the 'absolute scale' claim survives.
  • The one-global-scale procedure implies a testable prediction: new high-precision low-|m| CO2–He measurements above 400 K should fall on the same scaled curve within ~10%; a systematic drift with |m| or temperature would show that a single scale is insufficient.
  • The marked change in the |m| slope between RPA and full treatments for H2 but not He hints that the elastic-interference term behaves differently for rotor vs atom projectiles; characterizing that difference could refine error estimates for other linear molecules.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports CCSD(T) potential energy surfaces and close-coupling scattering calculations for CO2–He and CO2–H2, from which the authors derive elastic/inelastic cross sections, rate coefficients, and pressure broadening coefficients γ over |m| ≤ 50 and 100–800 K, together with Padé fits for database use. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that the computed broadening coefficients reproduce experiments on an absolute scale without empirical correction factors and meet the ~10% precision requirement for JWST-era exoplanet atmospheric studies. The accompanying data and fits are intended as a comprehensive ab initio replacement for CO2 broadening parameters in HITRAN/HITEMP.

Significance. If the claimed absolute-scale, parameter-free accuracy were established, this would be a substantial contribution: a single ab initio framework covering a wide rotational and temperature range for a key exoplanet and planetary-atmosphere collider would fill a real gap in current databases, and the public data products would be immediately useful. The paper also deserves credit for reporting PES details, for providing the computed rates and broadening coefficients in an accessible repository, and for being candid in several places about convergence difficulties. However, those same candid statements directly contradict the abstract's headline claim: the absolute scale is not obtained without empirical correction factors, and the full close-coupling computation is admitted not to be converged on an absolute scale. As these are load-bearing for the paper's central message, the contribution in its present form cannot support the advertised conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §5.2.3; §7] The abstract claims that the broadening coefficients 'reproduce available experimental measurements on an absolute scale, without empirical correction factors,' but §5.2.3 reports unscaled theory-to-experiment ratios of ε(He)=1.18 for the full computation and states 'The 18% error of the full CO2–He computation is difficult to understand at this level, and may reflect numerical non-convergence of elastic cross sections.' Section 7 then states that the absolute scale for the full computation is 'still not fully understood' and that 'the use of one scaling parameter [is] needed, enough to set the whole range of temperatures and |m| values.' Thus the absolute scale of the reported γ values is set by empirical scaling, not by the ab initio calculation itself. This is a direct contradiction of the central claim, not a presentation issue.
  2. [§4.4; §5.2.1; Table 3; Fig. 4] The CO2–H2 pressure broadening results are computed only for para-H2 with j2=0, while ortho-H2 (j2=1) is stated to be unconverged at E ≳ 500 cm−1 and j2=2 channels for para-H2 are omitted as intractable. Real H2 at the temperatures of interest is a mixture of ortho and para forms, so the reported 'CO2–H2' broadening values in Table 3 and Figure 4 do not yet constitute a validated description of H2 broadening. The ~10% claim for H2 is therefore not supported by the presented dynamics.
  3. [§5.2.1; §7; Appendix C.1] Convergence of the full non-RPA computation—the formalism used for the low-|m| values that feed the headline comparison—is demonstrated only for two representative cases (E=100 cm−1, |m|=2 and E=1900 cm−1, |m|=24), and §7 explicitly limits the demonstrated 10% convergence to RPA computations. Because the unscaled full CO2–He value deviates by 18% at |m|=24, the scaling step absorbs an error whose size is not quantified for intermediate |m| and temperatures. The validation therefore does not establish the claimed 10% absolute accuracy for the full-formalism data.
  4. [§5.2.3; §6; Eq. (15)–(16)] The apparent agreement with experiments after scaling is circular for the normalization: the scaling factor is fixed at T=296 K, |m|=24 using the same datasets (Hendaoui et al. 2025 for He; Hanson & Whitty 2014 for H2) that are later used to validate the curves. Since a single factor is applied over the entire |m| and temperature range, the temperature dependence and line-shape slope comparisons are not independent tests of the absolute scale. A meaningful validation would require either unscaled comparison or fits determined on a subset and tested on held-out transitions/temperatures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. body] The abstract in the manuscript text itself uses different wording ('scaled pressure broadening experimental values meet the 10% precision requirement') from the arXiv abstract's 'without empirical correction factors.' The inconsistency should be resolved in favor of a statement that matches the actual methodology.
  2. [§5.2.2; Fig. 3] The text says rates are shown for para-H2, ortho-H2, and He, but Figure 3 appears to show only CO2-He and CO2-para H2. This makes it hard to evaluate the claimed ortho-H2 results.
  3. [§5.2.3, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) defines the DPL parameters as g2, k, g′2, k′, but the text below refers to 'g2, j, g′2 & j′.' Please unify the notation.
  4. [Table 4] The Padé coefficients for this work (e.g., a1=4.8222×10^4 for CO2-He) are orders of magnitude larger than the fit coefficients of Tan et al., raising concerns about the conditioning of the fit. A brief note on numerical stability or a plot of the Padé denominator would help.
  5. [§5.2.1] The text refers to 'Figure C3' for the J-convergence behavior, but the main text contains no pointer to that figure; please renumber or re-reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The reported absolute scale is set by a scaling factor fitted to the same Hendaoui/Hanson experimental data used for validation; only the |m| and T dependence is ab initio.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2.3 (Scaling); Section 6 (Comparison to Experimental Values and HITRAN); Section 7 (Conclusion)]
    "In principle, the theoretical and experimental values of γ should be compared directly, with no scaling whatsoever. Doing so, the ratio ϵ = theory/experiment ... at T = 296 K, |m| = |24|: He ... ϵ(He) = 1.18 ... ; H2 ... ϵ(H2) = 0.97 ... While Pressure Broadening should not involve such a scaling parameter, the difficult convergence and the precision needed made the use of one scaling parameter needed, enough to set the whole range of temperatures and |m| values."

    The scale factor ϵ is evaluated from the same experimental datasets (Hendaoui et al. 2025 for He; Hanson & Whitty 2014 for H2) that Section 6 then displays as validation. Section 6 says 'After scaling to the available measurements, our calculations closely followed the observed dependence on m', but the absolute normalization is exactly the fitted quantity. Applying one ϵ across all |m| and all T makes the absolute values of the reported γ reproduce the anchor measurement by construction; the genuinely ab initio content is only the shape of γ(|m|,T). The abstract's claim of reproduction 'on an absolute scale, without empirical correction factors' is therefore not a first-principles prediction of the absolute scale. Section 7 weakens the full computation further by admitting 'the absolute s

full rationale

The core derivation chain (CCSD(T) PES -> Yumi close coupling -> PB cross sections -> γ values) is genuinely ab initio for the relative shape: the |m| dependence, the temperature exponents, and the RPA-vs-full comparison do not reduce to the fit. What reduces by construction is the absolute scale: the single ϵ = theory/experiment at 296 K, |m| = 24 (or its RPA counterpart) is a fitted input derived from the very experimental data used for validation, and the paper states it is applied to the whole temperature and |m| range. This is a textbook 'fitted input called prediction' pattern for the normalization. The self-citations establishing the 10% JWST precision requirement (Niraula et al. 2022/2023; Wiesenfeld et al. 2025) are not load-bearing circularity: they set an external benchmark rather than supplying the derived values. I do not flag the RPA-convergence discussion as circular, but it reinforces the concern because the full computation's scale is explicitly not converged to 10%, so the scaled results owe their absolute agreement to the empirical anchor. Overall: partial circularity of the central absolute-scale claim, with independent shape predictions, hence 7 rather than a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation is mostly standard quantum chemistry plus scattering, but the headline validation rests on empirical scaling factors; convergence of the full formalism is not established; and the dynamics code is not public.

free parameters (4)
  • CO2-He scaling factor = ≈0.93 (RPA; 1/1.08), ≈0.85 (full; 1/1.18)
    Applied so theory matches Hendaoui et al. (2025) at 296 K, |m|=24; sets the absolute scale of all He broadening coefficients.
  • CO2-H2 scaling factor = ≈1.03 (full; 1/0.97), ≈0.96 (RPA; 1/1.04)
    Applied to match Hanson & Whitty (2014) at 296 K, |m|=24; sets the absolute scale of all H2 broadening coefficients.
  • DPL parameters (g2, k, g'2, k') per transition = Table 3 (e.g., |m|=0 He: 93.38, 0.5858, -5.518, -0.8578; units 10^-3 cm^-1/atm for g2)
    Four-parameter double-power-law fit to computed γ(T) for temperature interpolation; no experimental input, but a fitting form with four free constants per transition.
  • Padé coefficients (a0,a1,a2,b1,b2,b3) = Table 4 (e.g., He: 8.771e-2, 4.8222e4, 1.5600e4, 6.6505e5, 2.7100e5, 6.7949e1)
    Second-order Padé fit to computed γ(|m|) at 296 K; used for extrapolation beyond the computed range.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption CCSD(T) with CBS extrapolation and BSSE correction gives an interaction PES accurate to ~1% in the well region
    §4.2 and Table 1; fit rms 0.01% (He) and 1% (H2); the 10% target is assumed achievable with these surfaces.
  • domain assumption Rigid-rotor approximation for CO2 and H2; PES independent of vibrational state; non-Born-Oppenheimer effects negligible
    §4.1–4.2; justified by <2% experimental vibrational dependence; same PES used for v=0 and v3=1.
  • standard math Impact, isolated-line, and isolated-events approximations apply to pressure broadening
    §3, following Baranger (1958), Ben-Reuven (1966), Hartmann et al. (2018).
  • domain assumption Random Phase Approximation (neglect of interference term in Eq. 6) valid for |m|>24 and high energies
    §3, §5.2.3; tested against full results at some points; used for all high-|m| broadening values.
  • ad hoc to paper Ortho-H2 can be truncated at j2=1 and para-H2 at j2=0; j2=2 channels omitted
    §4.4, §5.2.1; computations with j2=2 reported 'intractable' at E>200 cm^-1, j1>20; limits the 'CO2-H2' claim effectively to para-H2 and j2=1 ortho-H2.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27209 in / 15977 out tokens · 109818 ms · 2026-08-04T12:54:40.393755+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present comprehensive \textsl{ab initio} fully quantum calculations of CO$_{\rm 2}$--H$_{\rm 2}$ and CO$_{\rm 2}$--He collisional properties. Our framework combines CCSD(T) potential-energy-surface calculations with close-coupling dynamical scattering in the \YUMI~framework to derive elastic and inelastic cross sections, rate coefficients, and pressure broadening parameters. We characterize the rotational dependence of the broadening coefficients up to $j=25$ for CO$_{\rm 2}$--H$_{\rm 2}$ and $j=40$ for CO$_{\rm 2}$--He, and their temperature dependence over 40--800 K. We also provide Pad\'e fits as a function of rotational quantum number, enabling extrapolation and integration into spectroscopic databases including HITRAN and HITEMP. The resulting pressure broadening coefficients reproduce available experimental measurements on an absolute scale, without empirical correction factors, and meet the $\sim$10\% precision requirement identified for \textit{JWST}-era exoplanet atmospheric studies. This represents a substantial improvement over previously available parameters, which at higher temperatures ($T>400$ K) can fall outside the desired precision by up to a factor of five. All derivations, computed collisional properties, and database-ready products are provided with this manuscript. Together, these results establish a comprehensive \textsl{ab initio}, parameter-free, fully quantum foundation for CO$_2$ collisional broadening by H$_2$ and He, while demonstrating the transformative potential of the ab-initio approach for next-generation spectroscopic needs across planetary atmospheres, combustion, health sciences, and fusion-plasma diagnostics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03327 by Cooper Loughlin, Deborah Woods, Iouli E. Gordon, Jeremy Kepner, Julien de Wit, Laurent Wiesenfeld, Nejmeddine Ja\"idane, Prajwal Niraula, Robert J. Hargreaves.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematics of the deployed framework for calcu￾lating collisional properties of CO2-He and CO2-H2. Various collisional properties of CO2 by H2 and He are estimated, which is useful for a wide range of applications, including exoplanetary retrievals. *The calculation of pressure shift is deferred to follow-up work. stants: the average geometry of CO2 and H2 molecules in their relevant vibrational levels and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Details of the computational flow for the post￾treatment following the dynamics calculation with Yumi. studies have used ab initio methodologies (for exam￾ple see: van der Tak et al. 2020; Arthurs & Dalgarno 1960; Valiron et al. 2008; Dubernet et al. 2013; van der Tak et al. 2020; Dubernet et al. 2005; Sahnoun et al. 2018; Kowzan et al. 2020; Bergeat et al. 2020; Drouin & Wiesenfeld 2012; Paredes-Roibas et… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Elastic and inelastic rates k(T) for ground-state CO2 colliding with He and para-H2. Elastic rates are roughly an order of magnitude larger than inelastic ones. 5.2.3. Pressure Broadening data Results —We begin by presenting our results for stan￾dard room temperature (296 K) and compare with ex￾periments, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Broadening CO2-He at 296 K as a function of rotational quanta, comparison with experiment. The exper￾imental values are taken from Hendaoui et al. (2025) and Chen et al. (2021), while the Padé approximation are fitted to our scaled calculations. Right: Broadening CO2-para H2 at 296K as a function of rotational quanta, comparison with experiment. The experimental values are taken from Hanson & Whitty … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Broadening of CO2-He as a function of temperature for two transitions (m=2,12) from two different methods for calculations and their corresponding fit in Single Power Law and Double Power Law. At both the low and high temperatures, SPL, plotted in solid line, tends to show large relative residuals (>10%), while DPL, plotted in dotted line, yields a sub-percent precise fit. Residuals, which show the relativ… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fitting of Padé approximation to our computed pressure broadening values at the reference temperature (296 K). We fitted a second-order Padé approximation both for the broadening of helium and hydrogen, which are tabulated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the pressure broadening coefficients for two transitions (m=2,12) across 100 K to 800 K in comparison to previous state-of-the-art estimations. By refining the relevant power coefficients, we achieve the required improvements in the accuracy of pressure broadening coefficients to power instrument-limited exoplanetary studies in the JWST era. This contrasts with the parameters available before… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Dagdigian, P

    Alexander, M. H., Dagdigian, P. J., Werner, H. J., et al. 2023, Computer Physics Communications, 289, 108761, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108761

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    M., & Dalgarno, A

    Arthurs, A. M., & Dalgarno, A. 1960, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 256, 540, doi: 10.1098/rspa.1960.0125 22 Balança, C., Dayou, F., Faure, A., Wiesenfeld, L., &

    arXiv 1960

  3. [3]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2692

    Feautrier, N. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 2692

    2018

  4. [4]

    1958, Physical Review, 112, 855, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.112.855

    Baranger, M. 1958, Physical Review, 112, 855, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.112.855

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.112.855 1958

  5. [5]

    1966, Phys

    Ben-Reuven, A. 1966, Phys. Rev., 145, 7, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.145.7

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.145.7 1966

  6. [6]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 143402

    Faure, A. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 143402

    2020

  7. [7]

    D., Bruderer, S., & van Dishoeck, E

    Bosman, A. D., Bruderer, S., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2017, A&A, 601, A36, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629946

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629946 2017

  8. [8]

    K., & Reid, J

    Brimacombe, R. K., & Reid, J. 1983, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, 19, 1668, doi: 10.1109/JQE.1983.1071773

    arXiv 1983

  9. [9]

    2023, A&A, 680, A103, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346936

    Chaverot, G., Bolmont, E., & Turbet, M. 2023, A&A, 680, A103, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346936

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346936 2023

  10. [10]

    2021, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 377, 111429, doi: 10.1016/j.jms.2021.111429

    Chen, D., Shi, L., Xu, P., Wang, R., & Zhang, C. 2021, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 377, 111429, doi: 10.1016/j.jms.2021.111429

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    A., Snider, R

    Coombe, D. A., Snider, R. F., & Sanctuary, B. C. 1975, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 63, 3015, doi: 10.1063/1.431727

    work page doi:10.1063/1.431727 1975

  12. [12]

    Deng, W., Mondelain, D., Thibault, F., Camy-Peyret, C., & Mantz, A. W. 2009, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 256, 102, doi:10.1016/j.jms.2009.02.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jms.2009.02.021 2009

  13. [13]

    2012, Physical Review A, 86, 022705, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022705

    Drouin, B., & Wiesenfeld, L. 2012, Physical Review A, 86, 022705, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.022705

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.86.022705 2012

  14. [14]

    2005, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 1, 109

    Dubernet, M., Valiron, P., Daniel, F., et al. 2005, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 1, 109

    2005

  15. [15]

    L., Alexander, M

    Dubernet, M. L., Alexander, M. H., Ba, Y. A., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 553, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220630

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220630 2013

  16. [16]

    2013, JQSRT, 116, 79

    Faure, A., Wiesenfeld, L., Drouin, B., & Tennyson, J. 2013, JQSRT, 116, 79

    2013

  17. [17]

    1997, Nature, 389, 159, doi:10.1038/38236

    Feuchtgruber, H., Lellouch, E., de Graauw, T., et al. 1997, Nature, 389, 159, doi:10.1038/38236

    work page doi:10.1038/38236 1997

  18. [18]

    J., Robinson, T

    Fortney, J. J., Robinson, T. D., Domagal-Goldman, S., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1602.06305. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    C., et al

    Frediani, J., Bik, A., Ramírez-Tannus, M. C., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555718

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555718 2025

  20. [20]

    B., Sing, D

    Fu, G., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 1, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bb8 Godard Palluet, A., Thibault, F., & Lique, F. 2022, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 156, 104303, doi: 10.1063/5.0085094

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7bb8 2025

  21. [21]

    F., & Langer, W

    Goldsmith, P. F., & Langer, W. D. 1999, ApJ, 517, 209, doi: 10.1086/307195

    doi:10.1086/307195 1999

  22. [22]

    E., Rothman, L

    Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hargreaves, R. J., et al. 2022, JQSRT, 277, 107949, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949

    arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    L., van Dishoeck, E

    Grant, S. L., van Dishoeck, E. F., Tabone, B., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ACC44B

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc44b 2023

  24. [24]

    1975, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 62, 2271–2277 —

    Green, S. 1975, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 62, 2271–2277 —. 1977, Chemical Physics Letters, 47, 119, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(77)85320-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2614(77)85320-7 1975

  25. [25]

    2014, Tunable Diode Laser Sensors to Monitor Temperature and Gas Composition in High-Temperature Coal Gasifiers, Tech

    Hanson, R., & Whitty, K. 2014, Tunable Diode Laser Sensors to Monitor Temperature and Gas Composition in High-Temperature Coal Gasifiers, Tech. rep., Stanford University, doi:10.2172/1222583

    work page doi:10.2172/1222583 2014

  26. [26]

    2025, JQSRT, 333, 109324, doi: 10.1016/J.JQSRT.2024.109324

    Rothman, L. 2025, JQSRT, 333, 109324, doi: 10.1016/J.JQSRT.2024.109324

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    2021, Collisional Effects on Molecular Spectra: Laboratory Experiments and Models, Consequences for Applications, doi: 10.1016/C2019-0-03488-7

    Hartmann, J., Boulet, C., & Robert, D. 2021, Collisional Effects on Molecular Spectra: Laboratory Experiments and Models, Consequences for Applications, doi: 10.1016/C2019-0-03488-7

    work page doi:10.1016/c2019-0-03488-7 2021

  28. [28]

    2018, JQSRT, 213, 178, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.016

    Hartmann, J.-M., Tran, H., Armante, R., et al. 2018, JQSRT, 213, 178, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.016

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.03.016 2018

  29. [29]

    E., Tran, H., et al

    Hashemi, R., Gordon, I. E., Tran, H., et al. 2020, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 256, 107283, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2020.107283

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    2025, JQSRT, 334, 109361, doi:10.1016/J.JQSRT.2025.109361

    Hendaoui, F., Jacquemart, D., Hessani, A., et al. 2025, JQSRT, 334, 109361, doi:10.1016/J.JQSRT.2025.109361

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    S., Tashkun, S., Schwenke, D

    Huang, X., Freedman, R. S., Tashkun, S., Schwenke, D. W., & Lee, T. J. 2023, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 392, 111748, doi:10.1016/j.jms.2023.111748

    arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    M., & Le Sueur, C

    Hutson, J. M., & Le Sueur, C. R. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 241, 9, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.02.014

    doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.02.014 2019

  33. [33]

    2015, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Circuit Theory and Design (ECCTD) (Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE), 440–443

    Ingemarsson, C., & Gustafsson, O. 2015, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Circuit Theory and Design (ECCTD) (Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE), 440–443

    2015

  34. [34]

    2008, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 108, 2053, doi:10.1002/qua.21722

    Szalewicz, K. 2008, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 108, 2053, doi:10.1002/qua.21722

    work page doi:10.1002/qua.21722 2008

  35. [35]

    1973, Journal of Computational Physics, 13, 445 Jóźwiak, H., Stolarczyk, N., Stankiewicz, K., et al

    Johnson, B. 1973, Journal of Computational Physics, 13, 445 Jóźwiak, H., Stolarczyk, N., Stankiewicz, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A69, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449889

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449889 1973

  36. [36]

    V., & Perevalov, V

    Kochanov, R. V., & Perevalov, V. I. 2025, JQSRT, 341, 109428, doi:10.1016/J.JQSRT.2025.109428

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    2019, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 151, 070901, doi:10.1063/1.5116151

    Kodrycka, M., & Patkowski, K. 2019, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 151, 070901, doi:10.1063/1.5116151

    doi:10.1063/1.5116151 2019

  38. [38]

    2001, JChPh, 115, 3074, doi:10.1063/1.1385524 23

    Korona, T., Moszynski, R., Thibault, F., et al. 2001, JChPh, 115, 3074, doi:10.1063/1.1385524 23

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1385524 2001

  39. [39]

    2020, PHYSICAL REVIEW A, 102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.012821

    Kowzan, G., Cybulski, H., Wcislo, P., et al. 2020, PHYSICAL REVIEW A, 102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.012821

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.102.012821 2020

  40. [40]

    Li, H., Roy, P.-N., & Le Roy, R. J. 2010, JChPh, 132, 214309, doi:10.1063/1.3428619

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3428619 2010

  41. [41]

    Manolopoulos, D. E. 1986, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 85, 6425, doi:10.1063/1.451472

    doi:10.1063/1.451472 1986

  42. [42]

    R., et al

    Mondelain, D., Campargue, A., Gamache, R. R., et al. 2025, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 333, 109271, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109271

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2006, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 8, 364, doi: 10.1039/B511772K

    Nakamichi, S., Kawaguchi, Y., Fukuda, H., et al. 2006, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 8, 364, doi: 10.1039/B511772K

    work page doi:10.1039/b511772k 2006

  44. [44]

    H., & Tran, H

    Ngo, N. H., & Tran, H. 2025, JQSRT, 331, 109264, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109264

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    2023, ApJL, 950, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f8

    Sousa-Silva, C. 2023, ApJL, 950, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f8 2023

  46. [46]

    E., et al

    Niraula, P., de Wit, J., Gordon, I. E., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1287, doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01773-1 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJL, 743, L16, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/L16

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01773-1 2022

  47. [47]

    2023, JChPh, 159, 134301, doi:10.1063/5.0169968

    Olejnik, A., Jóźwiak, H., Gancewski, M., et al. 2023, JChPh, 159, 134301, doi:10.1063/5.0169968

    doi:10.1063/5.0169968 2023

  48. [48]

    Thomson, M. J. 2014, JQSRT, 133, 81, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.07.016 2014

  49. [49]

    Z., & Thibault, F

    Paredes-Roibas, D., Martinez, R. Z., & Thibault, F. 2023, JQSRT, 302, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2023.108560

    arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Windus, T. L. 2019, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 59, 4814, doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00725

    doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00725 2019

  51. [51]

    2018, in 2018 IEEE High Performance extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), IEEE, 1–6

    Reuther, A., Kepner, J., Byun, C., et al. 2018, in 2018 IEEE High Performance extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), IEEE, 1–6

    2018

  52. [52]

    1993, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 98, 4662

    Rist, C., Alexander, M., & Valiron, P. 1993, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 98, 4662

    1993

  53. [53]

    2018, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 122, 3004, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.8b00150

    Sahnoun, E., Wiesenfeld, L., Hammami, K., & Jaidane, N. 2018, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 122, 3004, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.8b00150

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.8b00150 2018

  54. [54]

    1987, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 87, 171, doi:10.1063/1.453612 Schöier, F

    Schaefer, J., & Monchick, L. 1987, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 87, 171, doi:10.1063/1.453612 Schöier, F. L., van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., &

    work page doi:10.1063/1.453612 1987

  55. [55]

    Black, J. H. 2005, A&A, 432, 369, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041729

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041729 2005

  56. [56]

    Selim, T., van der Avoird, A., & Groenenboom, G. C. 2023, JChPh, 159, 164310, doi:10.1063/5.0174787

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0174787 2023

  57. [57]

    A., & Hill, J

    Shaw, R. A., & Hill, J. G. 2018, Molecular Physics, 116, 1460, doi:10.1080/00268976.2018.1440018

    arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    N., Tennyson, J., Gamache, R

    Sokolov, A., Yurchenko, S. N., Tennyson, J., Gamache, R. R., & Vispoel, B. 2025, JQSRT, 330, 109225, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109225

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    2020, JQSRT, 240, 106676, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106676

    Stolarczyk, N., Thibault, F., Cybulski, H., et al. 2020, JQSRT, 240, 106676, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106676

    arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    M., Samuels, S., et al

    Tan, Y., Skinner, F. M., Samuels, S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 40, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac83a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac83a6 2022

  61. [61]

    N., Zhang, J., et al

    Tennyson, J., Yurchenko, S. N., Zhang, J., et al. 2024, JQSRT, 326, 109083, doi:10.1016/J.JQSRT.2024.109083

    arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    2001, PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 3, 3924, doi:10.1039/b103625b

    Thibault, F., Calil, B., Buldyreva, J., et al. 2001, PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 3, 3924, doi:10.1039/b103625b

    work page doi:10.1039/b103625b 2001

  63. [63]

    Thibault, F., Paredes-Roibas, D., Viel, A., & Martinez, R. Z. 2024, JQSRT, 315, doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2023.108874

    arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    2012, MOLECULAR PHYSICS, 110, 2761, doi:10.1080/00268976.2012.718380

    Bussery-Honvault, B. 2012, MOLECULAR PHYSICS, 110, 2761, doi:10.1080/00268976.2012.718380

    arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    2008, JChPh, 129, 134306, doi:10.1063/1.2988314 van der Avoird, A., Wormer, P

    Valiron, P., Wernli, M., Faure, A., et al. 2008, JChPh, 129, 134306, doi:10.1063/1.2988314 van der Avoird, A., Wormer, P. E. S., & Moszynski, R. 1994, Chemical Reviews, 94, 1931, doi: 10.1021/cr00031a009 van der Tak, F. F. S., Lique, F., Faure, A., Black, J. H., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2020, Atoms, 8, doi: 10.3390/atoms8020015

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2988314 2008

  66. [66]

    Varandas, A. J. C. 2018, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20, 22084, doi:10.1039/C8CP02932F

    work page doi:10.1039/c8cp02932f 2018

  67. [67]

    J., et al

    Werner, H.-J., Knowles, P. J., et al. 2010, MOLPRO, version , a package of ab initio programs

    2010

  68. [68]

    J., Knizia, G., et al

    Werner, H.-J., Knowles, P. J., Knizia, G., et al. 2015, MOLPRO, version 2015.1, a package of ab initio programs

    2015

  69. [69]

    2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 653

    Wiesenfeld, L. 2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 653

    2023

  70. [70]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb02e

    Wiesenfeld, L., Niraula, P., de Wit, J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb02e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb02e 2025

  71. [71]

    2006, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 124, doi: 10.1063/1.2178299

    Yang, B., Stancil, P., Balakrishnan, N., & Forrey, R. 2006, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 124, doi: 10.1063/1.2178299

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2178299 2006

  72. [72]

    Yang, B., & Stancil, P. C. 2009, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 130, doi:10.1063/1.3108998

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3108998 2009

  73. [73]

    2011, The Journal of chemical physics, 134, 204308

    Wiesenfeld, L. 2011, The Journal of chemical physics, 134, 204308

    2011

  74. [74]

    2010, The Journal of chemical physics, 133, 131103

    Yang, C.-H., Sarma, G., Ter Meulen, J., et al. 2010, The Journal of chemical physics, 133, 131103

    2010

  75. [75]

    Zare, R. N. 1988, Angular Momentum - Understanding Spatial Aspects in Chemistry and Physics (New York: John Wiley)

    1988