Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

A New Approach to Modeling Line Shapes with Quasi-H$_2^+$ Satellites in Stellar Atmospheres

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By switching between atomic and molecular bases in a line-shape simulation, the new method yields Lyman-series quasi-H2+ satellites that are broader than standard profiles and closer to observed white-dwarf ultraviolet spectra.

desk verdict Genuinely new multi-basis method for quasi-molecular line shapes, honestly written, but the untested infinite-separation overlap projection is a load-bearing approximation that needs checking before the claimed spectral agreement can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28920 v1 pith:V6REFIJA submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.SR physics.atom-ph

Jackson R. White , Thomas A. Gomez , Mark C. Zammit , Michael H. Montgomery , Bart H. Dunlap , Ivan Hubeny , Dmitry V. Fursa , Igor Bray
show 1 more author
Don E. Winget
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.atom-ph
keywords quasi-moleculesH2+satellitesLymanseriesStarkbroadeningwhitedwarfatmospheressimulationlineshapesmulti-basismethodultravioletspectra
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 tries to establish that quasi-molecular structure—the transient H2+ states formed when a hydrogen atom and a proton collide without binding—can be built into simulation-based Stark broadening by switching between an atomic basis and a molecular basis during the closest part of each encounter. The authors implement this multi-basis procedure, compute hydrogen Lyman-alpha and Lyman-beta profiles with quasi-H2+ satellites, and insert them into a stellar atmosphere code. They find that the resulting satellites are broader and smoother than those from the standard semi-analytic unified broadening theory, and that model spectra built from them agree well with an observed ultraviolet spectrum of a hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarf. If right, this supplies a missing ingredient in the line shapes used to fit white-dwarf spectra, potentially easing known discrepancies between ultraviolet and optical estimates of temperature and mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a critical-radius basis switch: when the separation R between the radiating atom and the nearest perturbing ion drops below a chosen radius, the time-evolution operator U(t) and the dipole operator are transformed into a precomputed H2+ molecular basis; when R rises again, they are transformed back. The molecular Hamiltonian uses Born-Oppenheimer potential energy curves and dipole moments as functions of R, while distant perturbers are included through the same multipole electric-field interaction used in the atomic phase. Unitarity is retained by enlarging the atomic basis to include perturber states and using infinite-separation overlap integrals, and the off-

What would settle it

Compute the multi-basis profiles using R-dependent overlap integrals in the dipole transformation and check whether the 1400 angstrom Ly-alpha and the 1060/1080 angstrom Ly-beta satellites move or change width. If they do, the qualitative match to the observed white-dwarf spectrum is not decisive; a controlled laboratory measurement of hydrogen plasma at roughly 10,000 K and 10^17 cm^-3 would settle which profile family is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single simulation line shape code can account for close-collision quasi-molecules by time-evolving the system in a molecular basis whenever the nearest-neighbor ion falls inside a critical radius, and in the usual atomic basis otherwise. To keep the two representations equivalent, the atomic basis is extended to include both radiator and perturber states and the transformation uses overlap integrals evaluated at infinite separation; this preserves unitarity and, after the collision, produces nonzero 'inter-atomic' blocks in the time-evolved dipole that encode charge exchange. The resulting hydrogen Lyman profiles have quasi-H2+ resonances that are broader

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the dipole-moment transformation between atomic and molecular bases can be done with overlap integrals evaluated at infinite separation, even while the collision distance R is arbitrarily small, is the load-bearing premise; the paper itself states this is no longer valid as R becomes small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasi-molecular resonances no longer have to be bolted onto Stark-broadened profiles afterward; they emerge from the same time-dependent simulation that handles ordinary Stark broadening.
  • Simultaneous ion and electron broadening replaces the usual separate treatment, so line cores are no longer distorted by convolving or adding independent ion- and electron-only profiles.
  • Inclusion of inter-atomic transitions is required: without them, the far wing is too weak relative to the core.
  • The broader, smoother satellites change the model flux between Ly-alpha and Ly-beta and improve the slope of the Ly-beta red wing compared with an observed ultraviolet white-dwarf spectrum.
  • The approach is the first simulation line shape implementation to include quasi-molecular structure, bringing Lyman-series profiles into the same simulation machinery used for ordinary Stark broadening.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A systematic fit to many ultraviolet white-dwarf spectra would test whether the broader satellites actually resolve the known ultraviolet-optical discrepancies in effective temperature and mass; the paper only demonstrates qualitative agreement with one star and explicitly defers such fits.
  • The approximation the paper itself flags in Section 4.3—infinite-separation overlap integrals used at arbitrarily small R—means the very features being compared to observations could shift if R-dependent overlaps were used; recomputing with R-dependent overlaps is the natural next test.
  • Because the same dipole basis transformation is central, the method should transfer to Balmer lines, heavier perturbers, and two-electron quasi-molecules; the paper lists these as future work, and the mechanism has no evident Lyman-specific barrier.
  • A laboratory spectrum of a hydrogen plasma at white-dwarf photosphere conditions could discriminate between the broader multi-basis satellites and the standard semi-analytic satellites, since the paper's comparison to one star is qualitative.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a multi-basis method for simulation-based Stark-broadening line shape codes, in which the radiating system is evolved in a single-center atomic basis when the nearest-neighbor perturber is far, and in a two-center molecular basis during close collisions (Sec. 4.1). The time-evolution operator is transformed between bases using infinite-separation overlap integrals (Eqs. 16, 21, 26), and the molecular dipole is similarly projected onto atomic states after time evolution (Eq. 33). The method is implemented in the Xenomorph code and applied to hydrogen Lyman-alpha and Lyman-beta lines with quasi-H2+ satellites at white-dwarf photosphere conditions. The resulting profiles are compared with ULBT profiles (Figs. 4–6), and a grid of profiles is inserted into Tlusty to generate model spectra, which are compared qualitatively with a FUSE spectrum of the DA white dwarf Wolf 1346 (Fig. 15). The paper reports broader quasi-molecular features than ULBT and good qualitative agreement with the observed spectrum.

Significance. If the method holds up, it is a substantial advance: it provides the first simulation-based line shape implementation of quasi-molecular structure, removes several ULBT approximations (single-velocity, no screening, separate ion/electron broadening, no directional correlations), and reproduces ULBT profiles in a simplified limit (Fig. 6). The model-spectrum comparison to Wolf 1346 is suggestive and could help resolve known UV/optical discrepancies in DA white dwarfs. However, the central validation rests on at least one approximation that the authors explicitly concede is not valid in the regime where the quasi-molecular satellites form, and at least one additional ad hoc symmetry assumption in the appendices. These need to be tested or justified quantitatively before the observational agreement can be taken as evidence for the method.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (33)] The transformation of the time-dependent molecular dipole D_m(t) into the atomic basis uses infinite-separation overlap integrals at every internuclear separation R. The paper concedes in Sec. 4.3 that this approximation is 'no longer valid as R can be arbitrarily small.' This is precisely the regime that produces the quasi-H2+ satellites: Sec. 5.3 notes the 1400 Å Ly-alpha feature forms at R ~ 10 a0, and the 1060/1080 Å Ly-beta features are governed by similar close collisions. Because the line shape is obtained by Fourier-transforming D_fi(t) (Eq. 11), any systematic misassignment of molecular oscillator strength among atomic final states at small R will directly modify the width, strength, and position of the satellites that drive the agreement in Fig. 15. The paper provides no test of this approximation; Fig. 10 varies only r_crit, not the overlap prescription. A recomputation with R
  2. [App. B, Eqs. (B11)-(B12)] The inter-atomic contribution to the line shape is retained through the symmetry approximations F{U^†_pp D_p U_pr} ≈ F{U^†_rr D_r U_rp} and F{U^†_pr D_p U_pr} ≈ F{U^†_rp D_r U_rp}. These are asserted on the basis of H2+ symmetry and a 'time-averaged power spectrum' equivalence, but no test is shown. They are load-bearing: Sec. 5.8 and Fig. 11 demonstrate that the inter-atomic term is comparable to the single-site term in the line wings, exactly where the quasi-molecular satellites appear. Replacing these two terms with a symmetry assumption, without quantitative verification against a two-center simulation that tracks both atoms, re-introduces an uncontrolled approximation into a method whose stated goal is to remove ad hoc ULBT-style truncations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 6] The text says 'observational data shown later in Ch. 6' but the comparison is in the same section; 'Ch. 6' should be 'Sec. 6'.
  2. [Fig. 4] The legend uses 'dot-dash' for the Pelisoli+ (2015) profile, but the line style in the figure is not obvious in the printed version. Consider making the line styles more distinct and matching the caption wording.
  3. [Sec. 5.7] The r_crit convergence test in Fig. 10 is shown only for the Ly-beta red-wing features. Since the 1400 Å Ly-alpha satellite is also used in the spectral comparison, it would be useful to show r_crit convergence for that feature as well.
  4. [Data Availability] The new line shapes are said to be 'available from the corresponding author upon request.' For reproducibility, a permanent archive (e.g., Zenodo or a journal repository) would be preferable, especially because the model comparison in Fig. 15 depends on the exact numerical profiles.
  5. [Affiliation] Author affiliation 7 contains the typo 'Tuscon' and should read 'Tucson'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quasi-H2+ line shapes emerge from ab initio molecular data and a simulation-time basis change, not from parameters fitted to the target spectrum.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the new method. The multi-basis line shape is computed from standard simulation line-shape equations (Eqs. 4-11), the basis-change transformation (Eqs. 16, 21, 33), and molecular data (potential curves, dipoles, overlaps) taken from Zammit et al. (2017, 2018, 2019) and the 2D Schrödinger solver of Gomez et al. (2018). Those cited inputs are ab initio calculations, not fits to the Wolf 1346 FUSE spectrum, so the spectral comparison in Fig. 15 is an external, qualitative benchmark rather than a circular prediction. The broader quasi-molecular features are attributed in Sec. 5.4 to removing the mean-velocity approximation and using a Maxwellian velocity distribution, with additional effects from simultaneous ion+electron broadening (Sec. 5.6); none of these are fitted to the observed spectrum. The paper's admitted approximation in Sec. 4.3, that the infinite-separation overlap integrals in Eq. (33) are no longer valid for small R, is a real physical/technical limitation and a correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: the approximation is acknowledged and not hidden, and the resulting profiles are not equal to the input data by construction. Similarly, the critical-radius choice in Sec. 5.7 is described as somewhat arbitrary but tested for convergence in Fig. 10, so it is not a fitted parameter that forces the claimed agreement. The recovery of the ULBT in Fig. 6 is a validation check, not a circular step. Self-citations to Xenomorph, Tlusty, and molecular-data papers are normal tooling citations; the load-bearing molecular data are independent of the present spectral fit. The Wolf 1346 comparison is explicitly qualitative and normalized by χ2 in the red wing, which is a normalization convention rather than a fit of the line-shape parameters. Overall no step in the derivation reduces to its own input by definition or by fitted-parameter renaming.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities; it relies on standard molecular data and plasma approximations. The main ad hoc choices are the critical radius, the basis truncation, and the infinite-separation overlap approximation, all of which are openly acknowledged. The µ-ion model and Debye screening are standard domain assumptions rather than novelties.

free parameters (3)
  • r_crit (critical radius for basis switching) = 45-50 a0 (values used)
    Chosen by convergence tests (Fig. 10) rather than derived; affects line wing features; paper admits the ideal choice is not determined.
  • Atomic basis truncation (n_max) = n=1,2,3 (expanded basis)
    The basis is truncated after n=3; the limited n=1,2 basis is shown to change the far wing only marginally, but no systematic convergence study over n is provided.
  • Low-density rescaling approximation = profiles at n_e<=1e16 cm^-3 rescaled from n_e=1e17 cm^-3 profile
    An approximation to save computation time; Fig. 12 supports it for the far wing but the line core behavior is not independently verified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation for H2+ molecular data
    All molecular potential curves, dipoles, and overlaps are precomputed in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (Sec. 4.4); this is standard for such data but is an input assumption.
  • domain assumption µ-ion model with straight-line perturber trajectories
    The radiator is fixed while perturbers move on straight paths (Sec. 3, Fig. 2); validated in some contexts but not at the level of quasi-molecular collisions.
  • ad hoc to paper Infinite-separation overlap integrals for basis transformations
    Eqs. (26) and (33) use R=infty overlaps even when R is small; the paper explicitly says this is not valid at small R but is kept for tractability (Sec. 4.3). This is central to the method's bookkeeping.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetry approximations in App. B (Eqs. B11-B12)
    The perturbing ion's dipole and time-averaged power spectrum are assumed equal to the radiator's, justified by equal nuclear charge Z=1; this lets the code keep the µ-ion model rather than tracking the perturber Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Debye screening with electron-only screening for both ions and electrons
    Eq. (34) applies a single Debye length to both ion and electron perturbers; the nearest-neighbor ion is excluded from screening during close collisions, justified by lambda_D >> r_crit at the reference conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Approach to Modeling Line Shapes with Quasi-H$_2^+$ Satellites in Stellar Atmospheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6REFIJA

@misc{pith2026260728920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Approach to Modeling Line Shapes with Quasi-H$_2^+$ Satellites in Stellar Atmospheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6REFIJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28920}
}
abstract

Theoretical spectral line shapes describe the distribution of opacity due to bound electronic transitions in hot dense plasmas and are used to fit emergent spectra from many astrophysical sources. Deficiencies in line broadening theory have been proposed as a possible explanation for unresolved discrepancies between theoretical and observed spectra in white dwarf star atmospheres and laboratory experiments at white dwarf star photosphere conditions. One possible source of these discrepancies is the formation of quasi-molecules. Quasi-molecules are close (unbound) collisions between atoms, which broaden line shapes and create additional satellite lines. Quasi-molecules are challenging to implement into traditional line shape codes and have historically required a number of physical approximations beyond what is used in standard Stark broadening models. Here we present a new approach to calculating line shapes with quasi-molecular resonances, using a novel multiple-basis method that considers both atomic and molecular states. We implement this approach into a simulation line shape code, present hydrogen Lyman-series line shapes with quasi-H$_2^+$ resonances, and demonstrate the impact our new line shapes have on hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarf star model spectra. We find that our new approach leads to broader quasi-molecular features that agree well with observed spectra in initial comparisons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Electron binding energy (eBE) in an H+ 2 system as a function of internuclear separation (M. C. Zammit et al. 2017, 2018, 2019). Gerade states with even parity are shown with solid lines. Ungerade states with odd parity are shown with dashed lines. Line colors are set according to each state’s electron binding energy at infinite internuclear separation. Hooper (1984); G. C. Junkel et al. (2000). When applied to ion … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-dimensional cartoon of the simulation setup described in Sec. 4.1. The simulation sphere is populated by electrons and ions moving on straight path trajectories, as described in P. B. Cho et al. (2022). A critical radius rcrit is defined inside the simulation sphere, and we time evolve the system in a molecular basis when there is at least one ion within rcrit. single-center atomic basis and a multi-center molec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electron wave function snapshots at four dif￾ferent times (I corresponds to the earliest timestep, IV to the latest timestep) during a quasi-H+ 2 close collision. The bound electron is initially assumed to be in an atomic 1s state around the radiator (marked by a white dot and fixed at the origin). During the close collision, the electron is free to move between the ‘radiator’ proton and the ‘per￾turber’ proton (mar… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quasi-H+ 2 Lyα and Lyβ line shape profiles cal￾culated with the ULBT (dot-dash) with our new multi-basis approach implemented in the Xenomorph code (solid). profiles are ‘ion-only’, meaning ion broadening is in￾cluded while electron broadening is neglected. Each profil…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four different sections of the ion-only line shape comparison presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three ion-only quasi-H+ 2 Lyα Xenomorph line shapes calculated at T = 10, 000 K and ne = 1017 cm−3 , and zoomed in to show the line core. The red dot-dash line includes no directional correlations, or no “rotational broad￾ening”. The black dashed line includes no scree…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Xenomorph quasi-H+ 2 Lyβ line shapes at T = 10, 000 K and ne = 1017 cm−3 . The red dot-dash profile was calculated by adding separate ion-only and elec￾tron-only profiles together. The black dashed line was cal￾culated by convolving those same ion-only and electron-onl…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A Lyα and Lyβ line shape split between the inter-atomic contribution and the single-site contribution, as defined in Sec. 5.8 profile and separate out these inter-atomic and single￾site contributions. The single-site profile (from Drr(ω)) dominates the line core while…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Differences in Lyα far line wing with varying temperature. The density (ne = 1017 cm−3 ) is fixed for each profile. magnitude decrease in density makes close collisions an order-of-magnitude less common and results in the sim￾ulations having to run for an order-of-mag…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Model hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarf star spectra calculated with the Tlusty code with two different prescriptions for the Lyα and Lyβ line shape profiles, in￾cluding both ion and electron broadening. The temperature, surface gravity, and all other atmosphere input p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1991, A&A, 242, 133

    Allard, N., & Kielkopf, J. 1991, A&A, 242, 133

    1991

  2. [2]

    F., & Alekseev, V

    Allard, N. F., & Alekseev, V. A. 2014, Advances in Space Research, 54, 1248, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.09.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2013.09.027 2014

  3. [3]

    F., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P

    Allard, N. F., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Kielkopf, J. F., & Machin, L. 2003, A&A, 411, L473, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031299

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031299 2003

  4. [4]

    F., Kielkopf, J., Drira, I., & Schmelcher, P

    Allard, N. F., Kielkopf, J., Drira, I., & Schmelcher, P. 2000, European Physical Journal D, 12, 263, doi: 10.1007/s100530070021

    work page doi:10.1007/s100530070021 2000

  5. [5]

    F., Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Kielkopf, J. F., Blouin, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834067

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834067 2018

  6. [6]

    F., Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Kielkopf, J. F., & Loeillet, B. 2004, A&A, 424, 347, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040427

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040427 2004

  7. [7]

    F., & Koester, D

    Allard, N. F., & Koester, D. 1992, A&A, 258, 464

    1992

  8. [8]

    F., Koester, D., Feautrier, N., & Spielfiedel, A

    Allard, N. F., Koester, D., Feautrier, N., & Spielfiedel, A. 1994, A&AS, 108, 417

    1994

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    F., Noselidze, I., & Kruk, J

    Allard, N. F., Noselidze, I., & Kruk, J. W. 2009, A&A, 506, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912511

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Royer, A., Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Royer, A., Kielkopf, J. F., & Feautrier, N. 1999, PhRvA, 60, 1021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1021

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    F., Spiegelman, F., Kielkopf, J

    Allard, N. F., Spiegelman, F., Kielkopf, J. F., & Bourdreux, S. 2022, A&A, 657, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141461

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Hermes, J

    Arseneau, S. M., Hermes, J. J., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dd

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    1958, Physical Review, 111, 494, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.111.494

    Baranger, M. 1958, Physical Review, 111, 494, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.111.494

    1958 doi

  6. [14]

    1984, A&A, 131, 378

    Baschek, B., Koeppen, J., Scholz, M., et al. 1984, A&A, 131, 378

    1984

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    Bergeron, P., Dufour, P., Fontaine, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1266

    Dufour, P. 2019, ApJ, 875, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1266

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Hubeny, I., & Rauch, T

    Bohlin, R. C., Hubeny, I., & Rauch, T. 2020, AJ, 160, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2014, Atoms, 2, 259, doi: 10.3390/atoms2020259

    Calisti, A., Demura, A., Gigosos, M., et al. 2014, Atoms, 2, 259, doi: 10.3390/atoms2020259

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    B., Gomez, T

    Cho, P. B., Gomez, T. A., Montgomery, M. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4df3

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Cowan, R. D. 1981, The theory of atomic structure and spectra

    1981

  13. [21]

    V., Lisitsa, V

    Demura, A. V., Lisitsa, V. S., & Sholin, G. V. 1977, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 46, 209

    1977

  14. [22]

    V., & Stambulchik, E

    Demura, A. V., & Stambulchik, E. 2014, Atoms, 2, 334, doi: 10.3390/atoms2030334

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Rochau, G

    Falcon, R. E., Rochau, G. A., Bailey, J. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 214, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/214

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Rochau, G

    Falcon, R. E., Rochau, G. A., Bailey, J. E., et al. 2013, High Energy Density Physics, 9, 82, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2012.10.005

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    1963, Physical Review, 131, 259, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.259

    Fano, U. 1963, Physical Review, 131, 259, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.259

    1963 doi

  18. [26]

    T., & Koester, D

    Farihi, J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2013, Science, 342, 218, doi: 10.1126/science.1239447

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 7, 015901, doi: 10.1063/5.0058552

    Ferri, S., Peyrusse, O., & Calisti, A. 2021, Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 7, 015901, doi: 10.1063/5.0058552

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, Atoms, 2, 299, doi: 10.3390/atoms2030299

    Ferri, S., Calisti, A., Moss´ e, C., et al. 2014, Atoms, 2, 299, doi: 10.3390/atoms2030299

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Fuchs, J. T. 2017, PhD thesis, University of North

    2017

  22. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafac6

    Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Bergeron, P. 2019, ApJ, 871, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafac6

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    2012, ApJS, 199, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    Giammichele, N., Bergeron, P., & Dufour, P. 2012, ApJS, 199, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    A., & Cardenoso, V

    Gigosos, M. A., & Cardenoso, V. 1987, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 20, 6005, doi: 10.1088/0022-3700/20/22/013

    1987 doi

  25. [34]

    A., Gonz´ alez-Herrero, D., Lara, N., et al

    Gigosos, M. A., Gonz´ alez-Herrero, D., Lara, N., et al. 2018, PhRvE, 98, 033307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.98.033307

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2018, Atoms, 6, 22, doi: 10.3390/atoms6020022

    Gomez, T., Nagayama, T., Fontes, C., et al. 2018, Atoms, 6, 22, doi: 10.3390/atoms6020022

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Nagayama, T., Cho, P

    Gomez, T. A., Nagayama, T., Cho, P. B., et al. 2022, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 55, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6455/ac4f31

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    H., & Winget, D

    Montgomery, M. H., & Winget, D. E. 2016, PhRvA, 94, 022501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.022501

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    A., Stambulchik, E., & White, J

    Gomez, T. A., Stambulchik, E., & White, J. 2024, Phys. Rev. A, 109, 052804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.052804

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    A., Nagayama, T., Cho, P

    Gomez, T. A., Nagayama, T., Cho, P. B., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 235001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.235001

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    A., Zammit, M

    Gomez, T. A., Zammit, M. C., White, J. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc9ae

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G

    Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 267, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66dc

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Griem, H. R. 1974, Spectral line broadening by plasmas H´ ebrard, G., Allard, N. F., Kielkopf, J. F., et al. 2003, A&A, 405, 1153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030715 19

    1974 doi

  34. [43]

    Holberg, J. B. 2001, A FUSE Search for Nitrogen and Carbon in Hot White Dwarfs,, FUSE Proposal ID B119

    2001

  35. [44]

    Holweger, H., Koester, D., & Allard, N. F. 1994, A&A, 290, L21

    1994

  36. [45]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2104.02829

    Hubeny, I., Allende Prieto, C., Osorio, Y., & Lanz, T. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2104.02829

    2021 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    1995, ApJ, 439, 875, doi: 10.1086/175226

    Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 1995, ApJ, 439, 875, doi: 10.1086/175226

    1995 doi

  38. [47]

    2011, Synspec: General Spectrum Synthesis Program,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.022 http://ascl.net/1109.022

    Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 2011, Synspec: General Spectrum Synthesis Program,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1109.022 http://ascl.net/1109.022

    2011

  39. [48]

    G., & Mihalas, D

    Hummer, D. G., & Mihalas, D. 1988, ApJ, 331, 794, doi: 10.1086/166600

    1988 doi

  40. [49]

    Iglesias, C. A. 2013, High Energy Density Physics, 9, 737, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2013.08.003

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    Haynes, D. A., J. 2000, PhRvE, 62, 5584, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.5584

    2000 doi

  42. [51]

    F., & Allard, N

    Kielkopf, J. F., & Allard, N. F. 1995, ApJL, 450, L75, doi: 10.1086/309663

    1995 doi

  43. [52]

    P., Mancini, R

    Kilcrease, D. P., Mancini, R. C., & Hooper, C. F. 1993, Physical Review E, 48, 3901–3913, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.48.3901

    1993 doi

  44. [53]

    2026, private communication

    Koester, D. 2026, private communication

    2026

  45. [54]

    1985, A&A, 142, L5

    Vauclair, G. 1985, A&A, 142, L5

    1985

  46. [55]

    1999, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Leboucher-Dalimier, E., Sauvan, P., Angelo, P., et al. 1999, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 467, Spectral Line Shapes, ed. R. M. Herman (AIP), 64–76, doi: 10.1063/1.58349

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    M., & Peek, J

    Madsen, M. M., & Peek, J. M. 1971, Atomic Data, 2, 171, doi: 10.1016/S0092-640X(70)80008-0

    1971 doi

  48. [57]

    W., Cash, W

    Moos, H. W., Cash, W. C., Cowie, L. L., et al. 2000, ApJL, 538, L1, doi: 10.1086/312795

    2000 doi

  49. [58]

    P., & Wegner, G

    Nelan, E. P., & Wegner, G. 1985, ApJL, 289, L31, doi: 10.1086/184428

    1985 doi

  50. [59]

    G., & Kepler, S

    Pelisoli, I., Santos, M. G., & Kepler, S. O. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv167

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    E., & Peek, J

    Ramaker, D. E., & Peek, J. M. 1972, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 5, 2175, doi: 10.1088/0022-3700/5/12/011

    1972 doi

  52. [61]

    2020, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 249, 107002, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2020.107002

    Rosato, J., Marandet, Y., & Stamm, R. 2020, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 249, 107002, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2020.107002

    2020

  53. [62]

    1980, PhRvA, 22, 1625, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.22.1625

    Royer, A. 1980, PhRvA, 22, 1625, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.22.1625

    1980 doi

  54. [63]

    J., Moos, H

    Sahnow, D. J., Moos, H. W., Ake, T. B., et al. 2000, ApJL, 538, L7, doi: 10.1086/312794

    2000 doi

  55. [64]

    T., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Sahu, S., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2663

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    G., & Kepler, S

    Santos, M. G., & Kepler, S. O. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 68, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20631.x

    2012

  57. [66]

    2022, PhR, 988, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    Saumon, D., Blouin, S., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, PhR, 988, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Nagayama, T., Bailey, J

    Schaeuble, M. A., Nagayama, T., Bailey, J. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab479d

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    A., Nagayama, T., Bailey, J

    Schaeuble, M. A., Nagayama, T., Bailey, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9df5

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    1982, JQSRT, 27, 499, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(82)90102-9

    Seidel, J., & Stamm, R. 1982, JQSRT, 27, 499, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(82)90102-9

    1982 doi

  61. [70]

    Stambulchik, E., & Demura, A. V. 2016, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 49, 035701, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/49/3/035701

    2016 doi

  62. [71]

    2007, High Energy Density Physics, 3, 272, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2007.02.021

    Alexiou, S. 2007, High Energy Density Physics, 3, 272, doi: 10.1016/j.hedp.2007.02.021

    2007 doi

  63. [72]

    Stambulchik, E., & Iglesias, C. A. 2022, PhRvE, 105, 055210, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.105.055210

    2022 doi

  64. [73]

    2006, JQSRT, 99, 730, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2005.05.058

    Stambulchik, E., & Maron, Y. 2006, JQSRT, 99, 730, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2005.05.058

    2006 doi

  65. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb0e5

    Tremblay, P., Beauchamp, A., & Bergeron, P. 2020, ApJ, 901, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb0e5

    2020 doi

  66. [75]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 1755, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755

    Tremblay, P.-E., & Bergeron, P. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1755, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755

    2009 doi

  67. [76]

    S., & Gianninas, A

    Tremblay, P.-E., Bergeron, P., Kalirai, J. S., & Gianninas, A. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1345, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1345 Van Horn, H. M. 2015, Unlocking the Secrets of White Dwarf Stars (Cham:Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09369-7

    2010 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Dennihy, E., et al

    Vanderbosch, Z., Hermes, J. J., Dennihy, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9649

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    R., Cooper, J., & Smith, E

    Vidal, C. R., Cooper, J., & Smith, E. W. 1970, JQSRT, 10, 1011, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(70)90121-4

    1970 doi

  70. [79]

    L., Kelleher, D

    Wiese, W. L., Kelleher, D. E., & Paquette, D. R. 1972, PhRvA, 6, 1132, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.6.1132

    1972 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Hansen, C

    Winget, D. E., Hansen, C. J., Liebert, J., et al. 1987, ApJL, 315, L77, doi: 10.1086/184864

    1987 doi

  72. [81]

    A., & Hooper, Jr., C

    Woltz, L. A., & Hooper, Jr., C. F. 1984, PhRvA, 30, 468, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.30.468

    1984 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, AJ, 158, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4cee

    Xu, S., Dufour, P., Klein, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4cee

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    C., Fursa, D

    Zammit, M. C., Fursa, D. V., & Bray, I. 2013, Phys. Rev. A, 88, 062709, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.062709

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    C., Fursa, D

    Zammit, M. C., Fursa, D. V., & Bray, I. 2014, Phys. Rev. A, 90, 022711, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.022711

    2014 doi

  76. [85]

    C., Savage, J

    Zammit, M. C., Savage, J. S., Colgan, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9712 20

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Savage, J

    Zammit, M. C., Savage, J. S., Colgan, J., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 515, Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities, 145

    2018

  78. [87]

    C., Charlton, M., Jonsell, S., et al

    Zammit, M. C., Charlton, M., Jonsell, S., et al. 2019, PhRvA, 100, 042709, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.042709

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 872, doi: 10.1086/522223

    Jura, M. 2007, ApJ, 671, 872, doi: 10.1086/522223

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.