Depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$ $(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_{1/2})$ collisions in the solar photosphere

M. Derouich; S. Qutub; Y.N. Kalugina

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$ $(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_{1/2})$ collisions in the solar photosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper provides quantum collisional depolarization and polarization-transfer rates for C$_2$ collisions with H at 2,000–15,000 K and concludes that isotropic H collisions only partially depolarize the lower state of C$_2$ Swan lines.

desk verdict Useful first C2 + H depolarization rates, but the a3Πu numbers rest on a missing quartet-surface average and an untested high-temperature IOS extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00763 v1 pith:MMAWVY5W submitted 2025-01-01 astro-ph.SR physics.atom-phphysics.chem-phphysics.plasm-ph

S. Qutub , Y.N. Kalugina , M. Derouich This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRphysics.atom-phphysics.chem-phphysics.plasm-ph

keywords collisionaldepolarizationpolarizationtransferratesC2moleculehydrogencollisionssolarphotospherescatteringHanleeffectSwanbands

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 aims to supply quantum collisional depolarization and polarization-transfer rates for the C$_2$ molecule in its two lowest electronic states, $X\,^1\Sigma_g^+$ and $a\,^3\Pi_u$, when struck by ground-state hydrogen atoms at temperatures from 2,000 to 15,000 K. Such data have been almost completely missing, and without them the scattering polarization of C$_2$ Swan lines cannot be turned into a reliable magnetic-field diagnostic. The central result is that isotropic H collisions only partially depolarize the lower $a\,^3\Pi_u$ level of the Swan lines, so modeling that neglects lower-level polarization is missing a real effect. The paper also provides analytical formulas and the underlying cross sections so that the rates can be regenerated for any rotational level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IOS formula of the paper (Equation 2), which expresses every tensorial polarization-transfer cross section $\sigma^k_{\rm IOS}(el,j\to j',E)$ as a sum over generalized cross sections $\sigma(el,0\to K,E)$ weighted by angular-momentum coupling coefficients. This decoupling lets the authors compute only the small set of generalized cross sections from the potential energy surfaces, then reconstruct all $j$, $j'$, and $k$ rates by angular-momentum algebra. The computed surfaces for the $1\,^2A'$, $2\,^2A'$, and $2\,^2A''$ states, thermal averaging over kinetic energies, and the even-$\Delta j$ parity rule for the homonuclear C$_2$ molecule complete the machinery. Symbolic-regression fits convert the resulting rates into closed-form functions $D^k(j,T)$ accurate to better than 5%.

What would settle it

A close-coupling calculation for the $j=6\to4$ transition in $X\,^1\Sigma_g^+$, and for a representative $a\,^3\Pi_u$ transition, at $T=5{,}000$, $10{,}000$, and $15{,}000$ K using the same potential energy surfaces would settle the matter: if the IOS and CC depolarization rates differ by more than a few percent at solar temperatures, the published rates above $2{,}000$ K would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working within the infinite-order sudden (IOS) decoupling approximation and a tensorial density-matrix description, the paper obtains depolarization rates $D^k(j,T)$ and polarization-transfer rates $D^k(j\to j',T)$ for $k=0,1,2$ across the full solar temperature range. The rates grow with temperature, decrease with the rotational quantum number $j$, and obey the homonuclear parity selection rule that allows only even $\Delta j$ collisional transitions. For the six Swan lines selected as magnetic-field diagnostics, the computed linear ($k=2$) depolarization rates of the lower $a\,^3\Pi_u$ levels are comparable to, or larger than, the radiative inverse lifetimes at typical photospheric hydrogen densities $n_{\rm H}=10^{15}$–$10^{16}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, yet not large enough to destroy the level polarization completely. The conclusion is that partial, not complete, depolarization occurs, and that the statistical-equilibrium equations for C$_2$ polarization must include these collision rates.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate table rests on the infinite-order sudden approximation being accurate at solar temperatures, although it was validated against close coupling only for the $j=6\to4$ transition up to $T=1{,}300$ K, and the same accuracy is assumed for the $a\,^3\Pi_u$ surfaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the Swan lines R$_1$(14), R$_2$(13), R$_3$(12), P$_1$(42), P$_2$(41), and P$_3$(40), hydrogen collisions partially depolarize the lower $a\,^3\Pi_u$ levels, so lower-level polarization must be retained in statistical-equilibrium modeling.
Depolarization rates grow with temperature and shrink with $j$; for $j\gtrsim 20$ the transfer rates become nearly constant in $j$, simplifying solar modeling of high-$J$ lines.
The fitted analytical expressions reproduce the directly computed rates to within 5% for $j=0$–60 and $T=2{,}000$–$15{,}000$ K, allowing quick use without rerunning scattering calculations.
Incorporating these rates into Hanle-effect inversions will change the inferred photospheric magnetic-field strengths from C$_2$ lines, because collisions compete with the Hanle depolarizing effect.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate test of the partial-depolarization claim would reanalyze existing C$_2$ second-spectrum observations with these rates and see whether the inferred magnetic fields change substantially; the paper does not perform that reanalysis.
The IOS benchmark covers only one transition ($j=6\to4$) up to 1,300 K; verifying the method at 5,000–15,000 K, and for the spin-coupled $a\,^3\Pi_u$ state, is a natural next step that would harden or require correction of the extrapolation.
Because the hydrogen electron spin is neglected in the dynamics while the molecular spin is retained, a future spin-resolved close-coupling treatment might reveal extra depolarization for the open-shell $a\,^3\Pi_u$ state.
The same machinery could be extended to the upper $d\,^3\Pi_u$ state of the Swan system, completing the collisional data needed for full line-formation modeling.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a useful contribution to solar polarimetry—the first set of collisional depolarization and polarization transfer rates for C2 + H, with new PESs and analytic fits that match the computed rates to better than 5%. The paper is honest about its lineage (continuing the authors' MgH/CN program), and the methods are standard. The rates for X1Σg+ are on solid ground: IOS is tested against close-coupling for j=6→4 up to 1300 K with the difference dropping below 5%, and the high-temperature extrapolation, while not proven, is plausible for a 1Σ state.

The soft spots are real, and both concern the a3Πu state—the one that matters for the Swan lines. First, the IOS/CC comparison is only for X1Σg+, j=6→4, T≤1300 K. The paper asserts, without calculation, that the agreement holds at 2000–15000 K and for the spin-coupled a3Πu surfaces. That is an extrapolation, not a demonstration. Second, and more serious, the dynamics for a3Πu includes only the two doublet surfaces (2A′ and 2A′′). For C2(a3Πu) + H(2S), the complex also has quartet surfaces, weighted 2/3 in a spin-conserving statistical average. The paper states that the hydrogen spin is neglected in the dynamics; no quartet PESs are computed or averaged into Eq. (5). Unless the doublet and quartet potentials are nearly equal—which is not shown—every a3Πu depolarization and transfer rate in Figures 5–6 and Table 1 could be biased. The paper's own text acknowledges the H-spin neglect as 'a further approximation' but does not quantify its effect. This is load-bearing for the quantitative rates, though the qualitative conclusion of partial depolarization would likely survive a factor-of-two shift.

The GP coefficients and online cross sections are a real plus: they let modelers regenerate rates for any j and T without rerunning dynamics. The solar applications section is sensible but not deep.

Who this is for: solar spectropolarimetrists who need collisional rates for Hanle diagnostics of C2 lines. They should use the X1Σg+ rates with more confidence than the a3Πu rates. A serious referee should be engaged, but the manuscript needs either a calculation or constraint on the quartet surfaces and an extended IOS/CC check at higher T—or at minimum, tempered accuracy claims. I would send it to review with that request.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents quantum depolarization and polarization transfer rates for collisions of C2 in its X 1Σg+ and a 3Πu electronic states with ground-state hydrogen atoms, for temperatures from 2,000 to 15,000 K. The authors compute new MRCI+Q potential energy surfaces for the C2–H system, solve the collision dynamics with MOLSCAT under the infinite-order sudden (IOS) approximation, and express the resulting tensor cross sections and thermally averaged rates. They then use genetic programming to fit the rates as analytic functions of rotational angular momentum and temperature, reporting fit errors below 5%. As a solar application, they compare the linear depolarization rates of selected Swan-line lower levels with the radiative inverse lifetimes, concluding that isotropic H collisions only partially depolarize those levels and should not be neglected in modeling C2 scattering polarization.

Significance. If the rates are reliable, the paper fills a genuine gap: collisional depolarization data for C2 are essentially absent, and the rates are needed for interpreting second solar spectrum polarization of Swan lines in terms of photospheric magnetic fields. The authors follow a physically motivated pipeline: ab initio PESs, quantum scattering in a tensorial basis, and explicit solar-application estimates. They also make generalized IOS cross sections available online, which enables the community to derive additional rates. The quantitative central claim, however, currently rests on two unverified extrapolations: the IOS approximation is validated against close coupling only for one X 1Σg+ transition up to 1300 K, and the a 3Πu rates omit the quartet spin channels of the C2(a 3Πu) + H(2S) complex. These issues affect precisely the state and temperature range that the paper targets, so the significance is conditional on additional validation.

major comments (3)

[Section 2 and Eq. (5)] The a 3Πu results omit the quartet spin channels of the C2(a 3Πu) + H(2S) complex, which is load-bearing for the Swan-line lower state. The composite system can have total electron spin S_tot = 1/2 (doublet) or 3/2 (quartet), with statistical weights 1/3 and 2/3 for an unpolarized H atom. Section 2 reports only the 1 2A′, 2 2A′, and 2 2A′′ doublet surfaces, and Section 3 explicitly states that the spin of hydrogen is neglected in the dynamics. Consequently Eq. (5), which averages σ(2 2A′) and σ(2 2A′′), does not represent a spin-statistically weighted average over the doublet and quartet channels. If the quartet surfaces differ from the doublet ones, as is typical when exchange interactions are present, all D_k(j, T) and D_k(j→j′, T) rates for a 3Πu shown in Figures 5 and 6 and used in Table 1 will be biased. The paper needs either to include the quartet surfaces in the PES and dynamics, or to quantify the expected exchange splitting and its effect on the rates.
[Section 5 and Fig. 7] The IOS approximation is validated against close coupling only for the X 1Σg+ j = 6 → 4 transition and only up to T = 1300 K, where the difference drops below 5%. The paper then asserts that at solar temperatures 'the difference should be negligibly small' and that 'this should also hold true for the PESs arising from interaction between C2(a3Πu) and H'. These are extrapolations, not demonstrated results. The central rates are reported for T = 2000–15,000 K and for the a 3Πu state, so the accuracy of the entire high-temperature and triplet-state data set rests on this unverified assumption. The comparison with Najar et al. (2014) at ~350 cm−1 shows differences up to 25% and cannot resolve the high-energy behavior. I ask for either explicit CC tests at higher energies and for at least one a 3Πu transition, or a quantitative argument bounding the IOS error in the energy range that contributes to the quoted rates.
[Section 5, IOS validation evidence] The statement that differences from the coupled-state results of Najar et al. are 'expected to become negligible for the higher energies' is not supported by data, since the comparison is made only at approximately 350 cm−1 and the two calculations use different PESs. A 25% difference at low energy does not by itself imply convergence at higher energy, especially for a scattering quantity that can be sensitive to potential features. This issue is secondary to the missing quartet channels, but it adds to the uncertainty of the claimed accuracy at solar temperatures.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is stated as the central IOS tensorial cross-section formula without a derivation; the sentence 'one can show' should be backed by a more explicit statement of the approximations involved, since the factorization into 6j and 9j symbols is not obvious from the cited references alone.
[Section 2] The sentence 'varying the R values from a0 to 50 a0' appears to contain a typo: the lower bound should likely be a specific number such as 3 a0 or 4 a0 rather than the bare symbol a0.
[Figures 5 and 6] The lower panel of Figure 6 is captioned 'Nj = 1313, j′ = N′', which is garbled; it should presumably read 'Nj = 13, j′ = N′' or similar. The same type of typo appears in the lower panel of Figure 5 where 'N = 13multiplet' is missing a space.
[References] The name 'Werner' is misspelled as 'Wener' in the reference 'Wener H.-J., Knowles P. J., 1988' and in the related text; also check 'Werner, H-J., & Meyer, W.' for consistency in formatting.
[Section 4] The statements 'excellent agreement' and 'percentage error less than 5%' refer to the accuracy of the GP fits relative to the computed IOS rates, not to the physical accuracy of the rates. This distinction should be made explicit in the text to avoid overstating the validation.
[Section 3, Eq. (7)] The thermal average integral uses the same symbol ϵ for both E/kBT and the integration variable over cross sections; clarifying the notation would improve readability. In addition, the online availability of the IOS data is mentioned but no URL or repository identifier is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the C2 rates follow from ab initio PESs and quantum scattering; GP expressions are fits, and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The central quantities D^k(el,j,T) and D^k(el,j→j',T) are obtained by ab initio MRCI+Q PESs (Section 2), MOLSCAT IOS generalized cross sections σ(el,0→K,E), the Corey–Alexander factorization in Eq. (2), and thermal averaging in Eq. (7). None of these inputs contains the target depolarization rates. The GP expressions in Eq. (10) and Appendix A are fits to the already-computed rates and are explicitly checked against them (errors <5%), so they are not independent predictions smuggled in as outputs. The 'partial depolarization' conclusion in Section 6 compares computed D^2 rates with B_lu I values from the solar atlas and Kleint et al., external data, so it is not forced by the calculation alone. Self-citations to Qutub et al. (2020, 2021) are methodological lineage and are never used as evidence for the C2 result. The main limitations—IOS validated against CC only for X^1Σ_g^+, j=6→4, T≤1300 K (Section 5), and the neglect of the hydrogen spin in the a^3Π_u dynamics (Section 3)—are accuracy risks or missing support, but they do not make the derivation circular: the quoted approximations, even if wrong, would not reduce the rates to the PESs or to the fitted GP coefficients by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central rates rest on standard quantum chemistry and scattering approximations. The main load-bearing assumptions are the IOS approximation and the neglect of hydrogen spin; both are stated but only partially validated. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

GP fit coefficients (Tables A.1 to A.6) = listed in Appendix A
Coefficients in Equation (10) are fitted to the computed rates to provide analytical expressions; they do not feed back into the physics and are not used to derive the rates.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption IOS approximation is valid for C2 + H collisions at kinetic energies corresponding to T = 2,000 to 15,000 K.
Invoked in Sections 3 and 5 to replace close-coupling; validated only up to 1300 K for one transition (j=6→4).
domain assumption Homonuclear symmetry of C2 restricts collisional transitions to even ΔR.
Based on V(R,θ)=V(R,180°-θ), used to set selection rules; stated in Section 2.
domain assumption The effect of the hydrogen atom spin on the collision dynamics is neglected.
Section 3: 'we neglect the effect of the spin of the hydrogen in the dynamics of collisions'; necessary for factorization of tensorial cross-sections.
domain assumption The C2 molecule can be treated as a rigid rotor with rC2 frozen at 2.348 a0.
Section 2: justified by small vibrational excitation rates in solar conditions.
domain assumption The two doublet PESs (2 2A' and 2 2A'') can be averaged with equal weight to represent C2(a3Πu) + H(2S).
Section 3, Equation (5). Assumes equal statistical weights and no non-adiabatic coupling between the surfaces.
domain assumption MRCI+Q electronic structure method gives accurate enough PESs.
Used via MOLPRO; no explicit error estimate provided for the PESs beyond the low-energy cross section comparison to Najar et al.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$ $(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_{1/2})$ collisions in the solar photosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMAWVY5W

@misc{pith2026250100763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$ $(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_1/2)$ collisions in the solar photosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMAWVY5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00763}
}

abstract

This paper is a continuation of a series of studies investigating collisional depolarization of solar molecular lines like those of MgH, CN and C$_2$. It is focused on the case of the solar molecule C$_2$ which exhibits striking scattering polarization profiles although its intensity profiles are inconspicuous and barely visible. In fact, interpretation of the C$_2$ polarization in terms of magnetic fields is incomplete due to the almost complete lack of collisional data. This work aims at accurately computing the collisional depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$~$(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ by isotropic collisions with hydrogen atoms H~$(^2S_{1/2})$. We also investigate the solar implications of our findings. We utilize the MOLPRO package to obtain potential energy surfaces (PESs) for the electronic states $X ^1\Sigma^+_g$ and $a^3\Pi_u$ of C$_2$, and the MOLSCAT code to study the quantum dynamics of the C$_2$~$(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_{1/2})$ systems. We use the tensorial irreducible basis to express the resulting collisional cross-sections and rates. Furthermore, sophisticated genetic programming techniques are employed to determine analytical expressions for the temperature and total molecular angular momentum dependence of these collisional rates. We obtain quantum depolarization and polarization transfer rates for the C$_2$ $(X ^1\Sigma^+_g, a ^3\Pi_u)$ + H$(^2S_{1/2})$ collisions in the temperature range T=2,000--15,000~K. We also determine analytical expressions giving these rates as functions of the temperature and total molecular angular momentum. In addition, we show that isotropic collisions with neutral hydrogen can only partially depolarize the lower state of C$_2$ lines, rather than completely. This highlights the limitations of the approximation of neglecting lower-level polarization while modeling the polarization of C$_2$ lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00763 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Contour plot of the PES of the electronic state 1 2A′ as a function of R and θ. Energy is in cm−1 . Ab initio calculations of the PESs for the electronic states of C2-H system, described above, were carried out using the multi-reference configuration interaction wave functions including Davidson correction (MRCI+Q) (see Langhoff & Davidson 1974; Davidson & Silver 1977; Werner & Meyer 1981; Wener & Knowles 1988). The… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Contour plots of the PESs of the electronic states 2 2A′ (upper panel) and 2 2A′′ (lower panel) as functions of R and θ. Energy is in cm−1 . lem and provide a comprehensive data for all collisional rates. As we are interested in the solar context, where the temperature and the kinetic energies of collisions are sufficiently high, one can expect that some simplification regarding the coupling effects should be invok… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Collisional transfer rates, Dk (j → j ′ , T), for C2 rotational levels within the electronic states X 1Σ + g . The variation of the rates for k = 0 (open diamonds), k = 1 (open triangles), and k = 2 (open circles) are shown in the upper panel as functions of j for j ′−j = 2 and T = 6,000 K and as functions of j ′−j for the level Nj = 66 and T = 6,000 K in the lower panel. The solid curves in the upper panel show t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Collisional transfer rates, Dk (j → j ′ , T), for C2 rotational levels within the electronic states a 3Πu. The upper panel shows variation with j of the rates for k = 0 (open diamonds), k = 1 (open triangle), and k = 2 (open circles) where we have set j ′−j = 2 and T …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison between the IOS rate (solid curve) and the CC rate (dashed curve) for the collisional rotational deexcitation, j = 6→j ′ = 4 as functions of temperature. In addition, an inset figure is provided to focus on the % difference between the two rates. The % di…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

& Davis, S.L., 1983, , 79, 227

Alexander, M.H. & Davis, S.L., 1983, , 79, 227

work page 1983
[2]

Alexander, M. H. & Dagdigian, P. J.\ 1983, , 79, 302

work page 1983
[3]

W., 1976, Astrophysical Quantities, (3rd ed., London: Athlone)

Allen, C. W., 1976, Astrophysical Quantities, (3rd ed., London: Athlone)

work page 1976
[4]

& Trujillo Bueno, J., 2005, ApJ Letters, 635, 109

Asensio Ramos, A. & Trujillo Bueno, J., 2005, ApJ Letters, 635, 109

work page 2005
[5]

& Fluri, D., 2004, A&A, 417, 775

Berdyugina, S.V. & Fluri, D., 2004, A&A, 417, 775

work page 2004
[6]

Berdyugina, S.V., Stenflo, J.O., & Gandorfer, A., 2002, A&A, 388, 1062-107

work page 2002
[7]

Corey, G.C., & McCourt, F.R., 1983, J. Phys. Chem., 87,2723

work page 1983
[8]

Corey, G.C., 1984, J. Chem. Phys., 81, 2678

work page 1984

Show all 51 references

[9]

& and Alexander, M., 1985, J

Corey, G.C. & and Alexander, M., 1985, J. Chem. Phys., 83, 5060

1985
[10]

Corey, G.C., & Smith, A.D., 1985, J. Chem. Phys., 83, 5663

1985
[11]

Corey, G.C., Alexander, M., & Dagdigian, P.J., 1986, J. Chem. Phys., 84, 1547

1986
[12]

& Alexander, M., 2009a, , 130, 094303

Dagdigian, P. & Alexander, M., 2009a, , 130, 094303
[13]

Dagdigian, P., & Alexander, M., 2009b, J. Chem. Phys., 130, 164315
[14]

& Alexander, M., 2009c, , 130, 204304

Dagdigian, P. & Alexander, M., 2009c, , 130, 204304
[15]

& Silver, D.W., 1977, Chem

Davidson, E.R. & Silver, D.W., 1977, Chem. Phys. Lett., 52, 403

1977
[16]

Derouich, M., 2006, A&A, 449, 1

2006
[17]

Derouich, M., Bommier, V., Malherbe, J.M., & Landi Degl'Innocenti, E., 2006, A&A, 457, 1047

2006
[18]

Delbouille, L., Neven, L., & Roland, G., 1972, BASS2000 Solar Survey Archive, http://bass2000.obspm.fr/solar\_spect.php http://bass2000.obspm.fr/solar_spect.php

1972
[19]

Faurobert, M., & Arnaud, J., 2003, A&A, 412, 555

2003
[20]

Flower, D., 1990, Molecular Collisions in the Interstellar Medium (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)

1990
[21]

doi:10.1063/1.458658

Follmeg, B., Rosmus, P., & Werner, H.-J.\ 1990, , 93, 4687. doi:10.1063/1.458658

1990 doi
[22]

Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation, Vol

Gandorfer, A., 2000, The Second Sol. Spectrum: A high spectral resolution polarimetric survey of scattering polarization at the solar limb in graphical representation, Vol. 1: 4625 \ to 6995 \ (Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich)

2000
[23]

Gandorfer, A.M., Steiner, H.P.P.P., Aebersold, F., et al., 2004, A&A, 422, 703

2004
[24]

1994, ApJ., 434, 188

Green, S. 1994, ApJ., 434, 188

1994
[25]

1979, ''Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure: Constants of Diatomic Molecules''

Huber, K.P., & Herzberg, G. 1979, ''Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure: Constants of Diatomic Molecules''. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

1979
[26]

Hutson, J.M., & Green, S., MOLSCAT computer code, version 14 (1994) distributed by Collaborative Computational Project

1994
[27]

Kleint, L., Berdyugina, S., & Bianda, M., 2008, European Solar Physics Meeting, 12, 2.71

2008
[28]

V., Shapiro, A

Kleint, L., Berdyugina, S. V., Shapiro, A. I., Bianda, M., 2010, , 524, A37

2010
[29]

Kleint, L., Shapiro, A.I., Berdyugina, S.V., et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A47

2011
[30]

Najar, F., Ben Abdallah, D., Jaidane, N., 2014, Chem. Phys. Lett., 608, 17

2014
[31]

& Landolfi, M

Landi Degl'Innocenti, E. & Landolfi, M. 2004, Polarization in Spectral Lines (Dordrecht: Kluwer)

2004
[32]

Langhoff, S.R., & Davidson, E.R., 1974, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 8, 61

1974
[33]

Lique, F., Spielfiedel, A., & Feautrier, N., 2007, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 40, 787

2007
[34]

Martin, M. 1992, J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chem., 66, 263

1992
[35]

McGurk, S.J., McKendrick, K.G., Costen, M.L., Bennett, D.I.G., Klos, J., Alexander, M.H., & Dagdigian, P.J., 2012, J. CHEM. PHYS., 136, 164306

2012
[36]

Mili\'c, I., & Faurobert, M., 2012, A&A, 547, id.A38, 7 pp

2012
[37]

Qutub, S., Derouich, M., Kalugina, Y.N., Asiri, H., & Lique, F., 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1213

2020
[38]

Qutub, S., Kalugina, Y., & Derouich, M., 2021, ApJ, 915, 2, id.122, 6 pp

2021
[39]

Pack, R.T., 1972, Chem. Phys. Letters, 14, 393

1972
[40]

Pack, R.T., 1974,. J. Chem. Phys., 60, 633

1974
[41]

Paterson, G., Marinakis, S., Costen M.L., & McKendrick, K.G., 2009, Phys. Scr. 80, 048111

2009
[42]

Sahal-Br\'echot, S., 1977, ApJ https://doi.org/10.1086/155221, 213, 887 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...213..887S/abstract

1977 doi
[43]

Trujillo Bueno., J., Asensio Ramos., A., & Shchukina., N., 2006, Solar Polarization 4 ASP Conference Series, Vol. 358, R. Casini and B. W. Lites

2006
[44]

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014475

Wehres, N., Romanzin, C., Linnartz, H., et al., 2010, , 518, A36. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014475

2010 doi
[45]

Wiegelmann, T., Thalmann, J.K., & Solanki, S.K., 2014, The magnetic field in the solar atmosphere. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 22, 78

2014
[46]

Sekulic, Predrag ; Hegwer, Steven L

W\"oger, Friedrich, Rimmele, Thomas, Ferayorni, Andrew ; Beard, Andrew ; Gregory, Brian S. ; Sekulic, Predrag ; Hegwer, Steven L
[47]

Werner, H-J., & Meyer, W., 1981, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 5802

1981
[48]

Werner, H-J., Follmeg, B., Alexander, M.H., & Lemoine, D., 1989, J. Chem. Phys., 91, 5425; doi: 10.1063/1.457570

1989 doi
[49]

J., 1988, J

Wener H.-J., Knowles P. J., 1988, J. Chem. Phys., 89, 5803

1988
[50]

J., Knizia G., Manby F

Werner H.-J., Knowles P. J., Knizia G., Manby F. R., Sch\"utz M. et al., MOLPRO, version 2010.1, a package of ab initio programs, 2010, see http://www.molpro.ne

2010
[51]

Space Sci

Stenflo, J., 1994, Solar Magnetic Fields: Polarized Radiation Diagnostics, Astrophys. Space Sci. Lib. 189, Springer, Berlin

1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Davis, S.L., 1983, , 79, 227

Alexander, M.H. & Davis, S.L., 1983, , 79, 227

work page 1983

[2] [2]

Alexander, M. H. & Dagdigian, P. J.\ 1983, , 79, 302

work page 1983

[3] [3]

W., 1976, Astrophysical Quantities, (3rd ed., London: Athlone)

Allen, C. W., 1976, Astrophysical Quantities, (3rd ed., London: Athlone)

work page 1976

[4] [4]

& Trujillo Bueno, J., 2005, ApJ Letters, 635, 109

Asensio Ramos, A. & Trujillo Bueno, J., 2005, ApJ Letters, 635, 109

work page 2005

[5] [5]

& Fluri, D., 2004, A&A, 417, 775

Berdyugina, S.V. & Fluri, D., 2004, A&A, 417, 775

work page 2004

[6] [6]

Berdyugina, S.V., Stenflo, J.O., & Gandorfer, A., 2002, A&A, 388, 1062-107

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Corey, G.C., & McCourt, F.R., 1983, J. Phys. Chem., 87,2723

work page 1983

[8] [8]

Corey, G.C., 1984, J. Chem. Phys., 81, 2678

work page 1984