The impact of incorrect dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances
Extracted source text · arXiv 2407.01861
% mnras_guide.tex
%
% MNRAS LaTeX user guide
%
% v3.2 released 20 July 2023
%
% v3.1 released 11 June 2020
%
% v3.0 released 22 May 2015
% (version numbers match those of mnras.cls)
%
% Copyright (C) Royal Astronomical Society 2015
% Authors:
% Keith T. Smith (Royal Astronomical Society)
% Change log
%
% v3.2 July 2023
% Updated guidance on use of amssymb package
%
% v3.0 September 2013 - May 2015
% First version: complete rewrite of the user guide
% Basic structure taken from mnras_template.tex by the same author
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Basic setup. Most papers should leave these options alone.
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib,useAMS]{mnras}
%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN PACKAGES HERE %%%%%
% Only include extra packages if you really need them. Avoid using amssymb if newtxmath is enabled, as these packages can cause conflicts. newtxmatch covers the same math symbols while producing a consistent Times New Roman font. Common packages are:
\usepackage{graphicx} % Including figure files
\usepackage{amsmath} % Advanced maths commands
\usepackage{multicol} % Multi-column entries in tables
\usepackage{bm} % Bold maths symbols, including upright Greek
\usepackage{pdflscape} % Landscape pages
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%%
% Please keep new commands to a minimum, and use \newcommand not \def to avoid
% overwriting existing commands. Example:
%\newcommand{\pcm}{\,cm$^{-2}$} % per cm-squared
\newcommand{\kms}{\,km\,s$^{-1}$} % kilometres per second
\newcommand{\bibtex}{\textsc{Bib}\!\TeX} % bibtex. Not quite the correct typesetting, but close enough
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Use vector fonts, so it zooms properly in on-screen viewing software
% Don't change these lines unless you know what you are doing
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{ae,aecompl}
% MNRAS is set in Times font. If you don't have this installed (most LaTeX
% installations will be fine) or prefer the old Computer Modern fonts, comment
% out the following line
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
% Depending on your LaTeX fonts installation, you might get better results with one of these:
%\usepackage{mathptmx}
%\usepackage{txfonts}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Title of the paper, and the short title which is used in the headers.
% Keep the title short and informative.
\title[MNRAS \LaTeX\ guide for authors]{\textit{Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society}: \LaTeX\ guide for authors}
% The list of authors, and the short list which is used in the headers.
% If you need two or more lines of authors, add an extra line using \newauthor
\author[K. T. Smith]{Keith T. Smith$^{1}$%
\thanks{Contact e-mail: \href{mailto:mn@ras.ac.uk}{mn@ras.ac.uk}}%
\thanks{Present address: Science magazine, AAAS Science International, \mbox{82-88}~Hills Road, Cambridge CB2~1LQ, UK}%
\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$Royal Astronomical Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BQ, UK}
% These dates will be filled out by the publisher
\date{Last updated 2020 June 10; in original form 2013 September 5}
% Enter the current year, for the copyright statements etc.
\pubyear{2020}
% Don't change these lines
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
% Abstract of the paper
\begin{abstract}
This is a guide for preparing papers for \textit{Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society} using the \verb'mnras' \LaTeX\ package.
It provides instructions for using the additional features in the document class.
This is not a general guide on how to use \LaTeX, and nor does it replace the journal's instructions to authors.
See \texttt{mnras\_template.tex} for a simple template.
\end{abstract}
% Select between one and six entries from the list of approved keywords.
% Don't make up new ones.
\begin{keywords}
editorials, notices -- miscellaneous
\end{keywords}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BODY OF PAPER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% The MNRAS class isn't designed to include a table of contents, but for this document one is useful.
% I therefore have to do some kludging to make it work without masses of blank space.
\begingroup
\let\clearpage\relax
\tableofcontents
\endgroup
\newpage
\section{Introduction}
The journal \textit{Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society} (MNRAS) encourages authors to prepare their papers using \LaTeX.
The style file \verb'mnras.cls' can be used to approximate the final appearance of the journal, and provides numerous features to simplify the preparation of papers.
This document, \verb'mnras_guide.tex', provides guidance on using that style file and the features it enables.
This is not a general guide on how to use \LaTeX, of which many excellent examples already exist.
We particularly recommend \textit{Wikibooks \LaTeX}\footnote{\url{https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX}}, a collaborative online textbook which is of use to both beginners and experts.
Alternatively there are several other online resources, and most academic libraries also hold suitable beginner's guides.
For guidance on the contents of papers, journal style, and how to submit a paper, see the MNRAS Instructions to Authors\footnote{\label{foot:itas}\url{http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/mnras/for_authors/}}.
Only technical issues with the \LaTeX\ class are considered here.
\section{Obtaining and installing the MNRAS package}
Some \LaTeX\ distributions come with the MNRAS package by default.
If yours does not, you can either install it using your distribution's package manager, or download it from the Comprehensive \TeX\ Archive Network\footnote{\url{http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/mnras}} (CTAN).
The files can either be installed permanently by placing them in the appropriate directory (consult the documentation for your \LaTeX\ distribution), or used temporarily by placing them in the working directory for your paper.
To use the MNRAS package, simply specify \verb'mnras' as the document class at the start of a \verb'.tex' file:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass{mnras}
\end{verbatim}
Then compile \LaTeX\ (and if necessary \bibtex) in the usual way.
\section{Preparing and submitting a paper}
We recommend that you start with a copy of the \texttt{mnras\_template.tex} file.
Rename the file, update the information on the title page, and then work on the text of your paper.
Guidelines for content, style etc. are given in the instructions to authors on the journal's website$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
Note that this document does not follow all the aspects of MNRAS journal style (e.g. it has a table of contents).
If a paper is accepted, it is professionally typeset and copyedited by the publishers.
It is therefore likely that minor changes to presentation will occur.
For this reason, we ask authors to ignore minor details such as slightly long lines, extra blank spaces, or misplaced figures, because these details will be dealt with during the production process.
Papers must be submitted electronically via the online submission system; paper submissions are not permitted.
For full guidance on how to submit a paper, see the instructions to authors.
\section{Class options}
\label{sec:options}
There are several options which can be added to the document class line like this:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[option1,option2]{mnras}
\end{verbatim}
The available options are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \verb'letters' -- used for papers in the journal's Letters section.
\item \verb'onecolumn' -- single column, instead of the default two columns. This should be used {\it only} if necessary for the display of numerous very long equations.
\item \verb'doublespacing' -- text has double line spacing. Please don't submit papers in this format.
\item \verb'referee' -- \textit{(deprecated)} single column, double spaced, larger text, bigger margins. Please don't submit papers in this format.
\item \verb'galley' -- \textit{(deprecated)} no running headers, no attempt to align the bottom of columns.
\item \verb'landscape' -- \textit{(deprecated)} sets the whole document on landscape paper.
\item \verb"usenatbib" -- \textit{(all papers should use this)} this uses Patrick Daly's \verb"natbib.sty" package for citations.
\item \verb"usegraphicx" -- \textit{(most papers will need this)} includes the \verb'graphicx' package, for inclusion of figures and images.
\item \verb'useAMS' -- adds support for upright Greek characters \verb'\upi', \verb'\umu' and \verb'\upartial' ($\upi$, $\umu$ and $\upartial$). Only these three are included, if you require other symbols you will need to include the \verb'amsmath' package (see section~\ref{sec:packages}).
\item \verb"usedcolumn" -- includes the package \verb"dcolumn", which includes two new types of column alignment for use in tables.
\end{itemize}
Some of these options are deprecated and retained for backwards compatibility only.
Others are used in almost all papers, but again are retained as options to ensure that papers written decades ago will continue to compile without problems.
If you want to include any other packages, see section~\ref{sec:packages}.
\section{Title page}
If you are using \texttt{mnras\_template.tex} the necessary code for generating the title page, headers and footers is already present.
Simply edit the title, author list, institutions, abstract and keywords as described below.
\subsection{Title}
There are two forms of the title: the full version used on the first page, and a short version which is used in the header of other odd-numbered pages (the `running head').
Enter them with \verb'\title[]{}' like this:
\begin{verbatim}
\title[Running head]{Full title of the paper}
\end{verbatim}
The full title can be multiple lines (use \verb'\\' to start a new line) and may be as long as necessary, although we encourage authors to use concise titles. The running head must be $\le~45$ characters on a single line.
See appendix~\ref{sec:advanced} for more complicated examples.
\subsection{Authors and institutions}
Like the title, there are two forms of author list: the full version which appears on the title page, and a short form which appears in the header of the even-numbered pages. Enter them using the \verb'\author[]{}' command.
If the author list is more than one line long, start a new line using \verb'\newauthor'. Use \verb'\\' to start the institution list. Affiliations for each author should be indicated with a superscript number, and correspond to the list of institutions below the author list.
For example, if I were to write a paper with two coauthors at another institution, one of whom also works at a third location:
\begin{verbatim}
\author[K. T. Smith et al.]{
Keith T. Smith,$^{1}$
A. N. Other,$^{2}$
and Third Author$^{2,3}$
\\
$^{1}$Affiliation 1\\
$^{2}$Affiliation 2\\
$^{3}$Affiliation 3}
\end{verbatim}
Affiliations should be in the format `Department, Institution, Street Address, City and Postal Code, Country'.
Email addresses can be inserted with the \verb'\thanks{}' command which adds a title page footnote.
If you want to list more than one email, put them all in the same \verb'\thanks' and use \verb'\footnotemark[]' to refer to the same footnote multiple times.
Present addresses (if different to those where the work was performed) can also be added with a \verb'\thanks' command.
\subsection{Abstract and keywords}
The abstract is entered in an \verb'abstract' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{abstract}
The abstract of the paper.
\end{abstract}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent Note that there is a word limit on the length of abstracts.
For the current word limit, see the journal instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
Immediately following the abstract, a set of keywords is entered in a \verb'keywords' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{keywords}
keyword 1 -- keyword 2 -- keyword 3
\end{keywords}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent There is a list of permitted keywords, which is agreed between all the major astronomy journals and revised every few years.
Do \emph{not} make up new keywords!
For the current list of allowed keywords, see the journal's instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
\section{Sections and lists}
Sections and lists are generally the same as in the standard \LaTeX\ classes.
\subsection{Sections}
\label{sec:sections}
Sections are entered in the usual way, using \verb'\section{}' and its variants. It is possible to nest up to four section levels:
\begin{verbatim}
\section{Main section}
\subsection{Subsection}
\subsubsection{Subsubsection}
\paragraph{Lowest level section}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent The other \LaTeX\ sectioning commands \verb'\part', \verb'\chapter' and \verb'\subparagraph{}' are deprecated and should not be used.
Some sections are not numbered as part of journal style (e.g. the Acknowledgements).
To insert an unnumbered section use the `starred' version of the command: \verb'\section*{}'.
See appendix~\ref{sec:advanced} for more complicated examples.
\subsection{Lists}
Two forms of lists can be used in MNRAS -- numbered and unnumbered.
For a numbered list, use the \verb'enumerate' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{enumerate}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{enumerate}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{enumerate}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{enumerate}
Note that the list uses lowercase Roman numerals, rather than the \LaTeX\ default Arabic numerals.
For an unnumbered list, use the \verb'description' environment without the optional argument:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{description}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{description}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{description}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{description}
Bulleted lists using the \verb'itemize' environment should not be used in MNRAS; it is retained for backwards compatibility only.
\section{Mathematics and symbols}
The MNRAS class mostly adopts standard \LaTeX\ handling of mathematics, which is briefly summarised here.
See also section~\ref{sec:packages} for packages that support more advanced mathematics.
Mathematics can be inserted into the running text using the syntax \verb'$1+1=2$', which produces $1+1=2$.
Use this only for short expressions or when referring to mathematical quantities; equations should be entered as described below.
\subsection{Equations}
Equations should be entered using the \verb'equation' environment, which automatically numbers them:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{equation}
a^2=b^2+c^2
\end{equation}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{equation}
a^2=b^2+c^2
\end{equation}
By default, the equations are numbered sequentially throughout the whole paper. If a paper has a large number of equations, it may be better to number them by section (2.1, 2.2 etc.). To do this, add the command \verb'\numberwithin{equation}{section}' to the preamble.
It is also possible to produce un-numbered equations by using the \LaTeX\ built-in \verb'\['\textellipsis\verb'\]' and \verb'$$'\textellipsis\verb'$$' commands; however MNRAS requires that all equations are numbered, so these commands should be avoided.
\subsection{Special symbols}
\begin{table}
\caption{Additional commands for special symbols commonly used in astronomy. These can be used anywhere.}
\label{tab:anysymbols}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{}l@{\hspace*{50pt}}l@{\hspace*{50pt}}l@{}}
\hline
Command & Output & Meaning\\
\hline
\verb'\sun' & \sun & Sun, solar\\[2pt] % additional height spacing for enhanced symbol legibility
\verb'\earth' & \earth & Earth, terrestrial\\[2pt]
\verb'\micron' & \micron & microns\\[2pt]
\verb'\degr' & \degr & degrees\\[2pt]
\verb'\arcmin' & \arcmin & arcminutes\\[2pt]
\verb'\arcsec' & \arcsec & arcseconds\\[2pt]
\verb'\fdg' & \fdg & fraction of a degree\\[2pt]
\verb'\farcm' & \farcm & fraction of an arcminute\\[2pt]
\verb'\farcs' & \farcs & fraction of an arcsecond\\[2pt]
\verb'\fd' & \fd & fraction of a day\\[2pt]
\verb'\fh' & \fh & fraction of an hour\\[2pt]
\verb'\fm' & \fm & fraction of a minute\\[2pt]
\verb'\fs' & \fs & fraction of a second\\[2pt]
\verb'\fp' & \fp & fraction of a period\\[2pt]
\verb'\diameter' & \diameter & diameter\\[2pt]
\verb'\sq' & \sq & square, Q.E.D.\\[2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Additional commands for mathematical symbols. These can only be used in maths mode.}
\label{tab:mathssymbols}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{l@{\hspace*{40pt}}l@{\hspace*{40pt}}l}
\hline
Command & Output & Meaning\\
\hline
\verb'\upi' & $\upi$ & upright pi\\[2pt] % additional height spacing for enhanced symbol legibility
\verb'\umu' & $\umu$ & upright mu\\[2pt]
\verb'\upartial' & $\upartial$ & upright partial derivative\\[2pt]
\verb'\lid' & $\lid$ & less than or equal to\\[2pt]
\verb'\gid' & $\gid$ & greater than or equal to\\[2pt]
\verb'\la' & $\la$ & less than of order\\[2pt]
\verb'\ga' & $\ga$ & greater than of order\\[2pt]
\verb'\loa' & $\loa$ & less than approximately\\[2pt]
\verb'\goa' & $\goa$ & greater than approximately\\[2pt]
\verb'\cor' & $\cor$ & corresponds to\\[2pt]
\verb'\sol' & $\sol$ & similar to or less than\\[2pt]
\verb'\sog' & $\sog$ & similar to or greater than\\[2pt]
\verb'\lse' & $\lse$ & less than or homotopic to \\[2pt]
\verb'\gse' & $\gse$ & greater than or homotopic to\\[2pt]
\verb'\getsto' & $\getsto$ & from over to\\[2pt]
\verb'\grole' & $\grole$ & greater over less\\[2pt]
\verb'\leogr' & $\leogr$ & less over greater\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
Some additional symbols of common use in astronomy have been added in the MNRAS class. These are shown in tables~\ref{tab:anysymbols}--\ref{tab:mathssymbols}. The command names are -- as far as possible -- the same as those used in other major astronomy journals.
Many other mathematical symbols are also available, either built into \LaTeX\ or via additional packages. If you want to insert a specific symbol but don't know the \LaTeX\ command, we recommend using the Detexify website\footnote{\url{http://detexify.kirelabs.org}}.
Sometimes font or coding limitations mean a symbol may not get smaller when used in sub- or superscripts, and will therefore be displayed at the wrong size. There is no need to worry about this as it will be corrected by the typesetter during production.
To produce bold symbols in mathematics, use \verb'\bmath' for simple variables, and the \verb'bm' package for more complex symbols (see section~\ref{sec:packages}). Vectors are set in bold italic, using \verb'\mathbfit{}'.
For matrices, use \verb'\mathbfss{}' to produce a bold sans-serif font e.g. \mathbfss{H}; this works even outside maths mode, but not all symbols are available (e.g. Greek). For $\nabla$ (del, used in gradients, divergence etc.) use \verb'$\nabla$'.
\subsection{Ions}
A new \verb'\ion{}{}' command has been added to the class file, for the correct typesetting of ionisation states.
For example, to typeset singly ionised calcium use \verb'\ion{Ca}{ii}', which produces \ion{Ca}{ii}.
\section{Figures and tables}
\label{sec:fig_table}
Figures and tables (collectively called `floats') are mostly the same as built into \LaTeX.
\subsection{Basic examples}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{example}
\caption{An example figure.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
Figures are inserted in the usual way using a \verb'figure' environment and \verb'\includegraphics'. The example Figure~\ref{fig:example} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{example}
\caption{An example figure.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example table.}
\label{tab:example}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
Sun & 1.00 & 1.00\\
$\alpha$~Cen~A & 1.10 & 1.52\\
$\epsilon$~Eri & 0.82 & 0.34\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The example Table~\ref{tab:example} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example table.}
\label{tab:example}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
Sun & 1.00 & 1.00\\
$\alpha$~Cen~A & 1.10 & 1.52\\
$\epsilon$~Eri & 0.82 & 0.34\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Captions and placement}
Captions go \emph{above} tables but \emph{below} figures, as in the examples above.
The \LaTeX\ float placement commands \verb'[htbp]' are intentionally disabled.
Layout of figures and tables will be adjusted by the publisher during the production process, so authors should not concern themselves with placement to avoid disappointment and wasted effort.
Simply place the \LaTeX\ code close to where the figure or table is first mentioned in the text and leave exact placement to the publishers.
By default a figure or table will occupy one column of the page.
To produce a wider version which covers both columns, use the \verb'figure*' or \verb'table*' environment.
If a figure or table is too long to fit on a single page it can be split it into several parts.
Create an additional figure or table which uses \verb'\contcaption{}' instead of \verb'\caption{}'.
This will automatically correct the numbering and add `\emph{continued}' at the start of the caption.
\begin{table}
\contcaption{A table continued from the previous one.}
\label{tab:continued}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
$\tau$~Cet & 0.78 & 0.52\\
$\delta$~Pav & 0.99 & 1.22\\
$\sigma$~Dra & 0.87 & 0.43\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:continued} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\contcaption{A table continued from the previous one.}
\label{tab:continued}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
$\tau$~Cet & 0.78 & 0.52\\
$\delta$~Pav & 0.99 & 1.22\\
$\sigma$~Dra & 0.87 & 0.43\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
To produce a landscape figure or table, use the \verb'pdflscape' package and the \verb'landscape' environment.
The landscape Table~\ref{tab:landscape} was produced using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example landscape table.}
\label{tab:landscape}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
Header & Header & ...\\
Unit & Unit & ...\\
\hline
Data & Data & ...\\
Data & Data & ...\\
...\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\end{verbatim}
Unfortunately this method will force a page break before the table appears.
More complicated solutions are possible, but authors shouldn't worry about this.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example landscape table.}
\label{tab:landscape}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header\\
Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit \\
\hline
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{References and citations}
\subsection{Cross-referencing}
The usual \LaTeX\ commands \verb'\label{}' and \verb'\ref{}' can be used for cross-referencing within the same paper.
We recommend that you use these whenever relevant, rather than writing out the section or figure numbers explicitly.
This ensures that cross-references are updated whenever the numbering changes (e.g. during revision) and provides clickable links (if available in your compiler).
It is best to give each section, figure and table a logical label.
For example, Table~\ref{tab:mathssymbols} has the label \verb'tab:mathssymbols', whilst section~\ref{sec:packages} has the label \verb'sec:packages'.
Add the label \emph{after} the section or caption command, as in the examples in sections~\ref{sec:sections} and \ref{sec:fig_table}.
Enter the cross-reference with a non-breaking space between the type of object and the number, like this: \verb'see Figure~\ref{fig:example}'.
The \verb'\autoref{}' command can be used to automatically fill out the type of object, saving on typing.
It also causes the link to cover the whole phrase rather than just the number, but for that reason is only suitable for single cross-references rather than ranges.
For example, \verb'\autoref{tab:journal_abbr}' produces \autoref{tab:journal_abbr}.
\subsection{Citations}
\label{sec:cite}
MNRAS uses the Harvard -- author (year) -- citation style, e.g. \citet{author2013}.
This is implemented in \LaTeX\ via the \verb'natbib' package, which in turn is included via the \verb'usenatbib' package option (see section~\ref{sec:options}), which should be used in all papers.
Each entry in the reference list has a `key' (see section~\ref{sec:ref_list}) which is used to generate citations.
There are two basic \verb'natbib' commands:
\begin{description}
\item \verb'\citet{key}' produces an in-text citation: \citet{author2013}
\item \verb'\citep{key}' produces a bracketed (parenthetical) citation: \citep{author2013}
\end{description}
Citations will include clickable links to the relevant entry in the reference list, if supported by your \LaTeX\ compiler.
\defcitealias{smith2014}{Paper~I}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Common citation commands, provided by the \texttt{natbib} package.}
\label{tab:natbib}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Command & Ouput & Note\\
\hline
\verb'\citet{key}' & \citet{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep{key}' & \citep{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep{key,key2}' & \citep{smith2014,jones2015} & Multiple papers\\
\verb'\citet[table 4]{key}' & \citet[table 4]{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep[see][figure 7]{key}' & \citep[see][figure 7]{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citealt{key}' & \citealt{smith2014} & For use with manual brackets\\
\verb'\citeauthor{key}' & \citeauthor{smith2014} & If already cited in close proximity\\
\verb'\defcitealias{key}{Paper~I}' & & Define an alias (doesn't work in floats)\\
\verb'\citetalias{key}' & \citetalias{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citepalias{key}' & \citepalias{smith2014} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
There are a number of other \verb'natbib' commands which can be used for more complicated citations.
The most commonly used ones are listed in Table~\ref{tab:natbib}.
For full guidance on their use, consult the \verb'natbib' documentation\footnote{\url{http://www.ctan.org/pkg/natbib}}.
If a reference has several authors, \verb'natbib' will automatically use `et al.' if there are more than two authors. However, if a paper has exactly three authors, MNRAS style is to list all three on the first citation and use `et al.' thereafter. If you are using \bibtex\ (see section~\ref{sec:ref_list}) then this is handled automatically. If not, the \verb'\citet*{}' and \verb'\citep*{}' commands can be used at the first citation to include all of the authors.
\subsection{The list of references}
\label{sec:ref_list}
It is possible to enter references manually using the usual \LaTeX\ commands, but we strongly encourage authors to use \bibtex\ instead.
\bibtex\ ensures that the reference list is updated automatically as references are added or removed from the paper, puts them in the correct format, saves on typing, and the same reference file can be used for many different papers -- saving time hunting down reference details.
An MNRAS \bibtex\ style file, \verb'mnras.bst', is distributed as part of this package.
The rest of this section will assume you are using \bibtex.
References are entered into a separate \verb'.bib' file in standard \bibtex\ formatting.
This can be done manually, or there are several software packages which make editing the \verb'.bib' file much easier.
We particularly recommend \textsc{JabRef}\footnote{\url{http://jabref.sourceforge.net/}}, which works on all major operating systems.
\bibtex\ entries can be obtained from the NASA Astrophysics Data System\footnote{\label{foot:ads}\url{http://adsabs.harvard.edu}} (ADS) by clicking on `Bibtex entry for this abstract' on any entry.
Simply copy this into your \verb'.bib' file or into the `BibTeX source' tab in \textsc{JabRef}.
Each entry in the \verb'.bib' file must specify a unique `key' to identify the paper, the format of which is up to the author.
Simply cite it in the usual way, as described in section~\ref{sec:cite}, using the specified key.
Compile the paper as usual, but add an extra step to run the \texttt{bibtex} command.
Consult the documentation for your compiler or latex distribution.
Correct formatting of the reference list will be handled by \bibtex\ in almost all cases, provided that the correct information was entered into the \verb'.bib' file.
Note that ADS entries are not always correct, particularly for older papers and conference proceedings, so may need to be edited.
If in doubt, or if you are producing the reference list manually, see the MNRAS instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$ for the current guidelines on how to format the list of references.
\section{Appendices and online material}
To start an appendix, simply place the \verb'\appendix' command before the next \verb'\section{}'.
This will automatically adjust the section headings, figures, tables, and equations to reflect the fact that they are part of an appendix.
It is only necessary to enter the \verb'\appendix' command once -- everything after that command is in an appendix.
Remember that appendices should be placed \textit{after} the list of references.
Unlike other astronomy class files, there are no special commands for online material.
If your paper has any online material, it should be placed in a separate file.
See our instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$ for guidance.
\section{Packages and custom commands}
\label{sec:packages}
\subsection{Additional packages}
Sometimes authors need to include additional \LaTeX\ packages, which provide extra features.
For example, the \verb'bm' package provides extra bold maths symbols, whilst the \verb'pdflscape' package adds support for landscape pages.
Packages can be included by adding the \verb'\usepackage{}' command to the preamble of the document (not the main body).
Please \emph{only include packages which are actually used in the paper}, and include a comment to explain what each one does.
This will assist the typesetters.
If you are using \texttt{mnras\_template.tex}, it includes a specific section for this purpose, near the start of the file with the header 'authors - place your own packages here'.
For example, to include \verb'pdflscape', use:
\begin{verbatim}
\usepackage{pdflscape} % Landscape pages
\end{verbatim}
Consult the documentation for that package for instructions on how to use the additional features.
\subsection{Custom commands}
Authors should avoid duplicating or redefining commands which are already available in \LaTeX\ or \verb'mnras.cls'.
However it may sometimes be necessary to introduce a custom command e.g. as a shortcut while writing the paper.
Please \emph{only include commands which are actually used in the paper}, and include a comment to explain what each one does.
This will assist the typesetters.
Use \verb'\newcommand', \emph{not} \verb'\def', as this will avoid accidentally overwriting existing commands.
Place custom commands in the preamble of the document (not the main body).
If you are using \texttt{mnras\_template.tex}, it includes a specific section for this purpose, near the start of the file with the header 'authors - place your own commands here'.
As an example, a shortcut for the unit \kms can be defined like this:
\begin{verbatim}
\newcommand{\kms}{\,km\,s$^{-1}$} % kilometres per second
\end{verbatim}
Velocities can then be written as e.g. \verb'2.3\kms' which produces 2.3\kms.
Similar shortcuts can be used for frequently quoted object designations.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
% Entry for the table of contents, for this guide only
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}
This guide replaces an earlier one originally prepared by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in 1994, and last updated in 2002 by Blackwell Publishing.
Some code segments are reproduced from, and some examples are based upon, that guide.
The authors were: A.~Woollatt, M.~Reed, R.~Mulvey, K.~Matthews, D.~Starling, Y.~Yu, A.~Richardson (all CUP), and Penny~Smith, N.~Thompson and Gregor~Hutton (all Blackwell), whose work is gratefully acknowledged.
The accompanying \bibtex\ style file was written by John Sleath, Tim Jenness and Norman Gray, without whom \bibtex\ support would not have been possible.
Some special symbols in tables~\ref{tab:anysymbols}--\ref{tab:mathssymbols} were taken from the Springer Verlag \textit{Astronomy \& Astrophysics} \LaTeX\ class, with their permission.
KTS thanks Nelson Beebe (University of Utah) for helpful advice regarding CTAN.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Data Availability}
The inclusion of a Data Availability Statement is a requirement for articles published in MNRAS. Data Availability Statements provide a standardised format for readers to understand the availability of data underlying the research results described in the article. The statement may refer to original data generated in the course of the study or to third-party data analysed in the article. The statement should describe and provide means of access, where possible, by linking to the data or providing the required accession numbers for the relevant databases or DOIs.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% The best way to enter references is to use BibTeX:
%\bibliographystyle{mnras}
%\bibliography{example} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
% Alternatively you could enter them by hand, like this:
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Author}{2013}]{author2013}
Author A.~N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jones}{2015}]{jones2015}
Jones C.~D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith}{2014}]{smith2014}
Smith A.~B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)
\end{thebibliography}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% APPENDICES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\appendix
\section{Journal abbreviations}
\label{sec:abbreviations}
Abbreviations for cited journals can be accessed using the commands listed in table~\ref{tab:journal_abbr}.
Although some of these may appear to be outdated or rarely cited, they have been selected to be compatible with the \bibtex\ output by the NASA Astrophysics Data System$^{\ref{foot:ads}}$, commands used by other astronomy journals, and with additional entries for journals with non-standard abbreviations in MNRAS.
For journals which are not on this list, see our instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$ for guidance on how to abbreviate titles.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Commands for abbreviated journal names, see appendix~\ref{sec:abbreviations}.}
\label{tab:journal_abbr}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\:}l@{\:}l@{}} % manual @ spacing to prevent this being too wide for a page
\hline
Command & Output & Journal name\\
\hline
\verb'\aap' or \verb'\astap' & \aap & Astronomy and Astrophysics$^a$\\
\verb'\aapr' & \aapr & The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review\\
\verb'\aaps' & \aaps & Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series\\
\verb'\actaa' & \actaa & Acta Astronomica\\
\verb'\afz' & \afz & Astrofizika\\
\verb'\aj' & \aj & The Astronomical Journal\\
\verb'\ao' or \verb'\applopt' & \ao & Applied Optics\\
\verb'\aplett' & \aplett & Astrophysics Letters\\
\verb'\apj' & \apj & The Astrophysical Journal\\
\verb'\apjl' or \verb'\apjlett' & \apjl & The Astrophysical Journal Letters$^a$\\
\verb'\apjs' or \verb'\apjsupp' & \apjs & The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series\\
\verb'\apss' & \apss & Astrophysics and Space Science\\
\verb'\araa' & \araa & Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics\\
\verb'\arep' & \arep & Astronomy Reports$^b$\\
\verb'\aspc' & \aspc & Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series\\
\verb'\azh' & \azh & Astronomicheskii Zhurnal$^c$\\
\verb'\baas' & \baas & Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society\\
\verb'\bac' & \bac & Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia\\
\verb'\bain' & \bain & Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands\\
\verb'\caa' & \caa & Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics\\
\verb'\cjaa' & \cjaa & Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics\\
\verb'\fcp' & \fcp & Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics\\
\verb'\gca' & \gca & Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta\\
\verb'\grl' & \grl & Geophysics Research Letters\\
\verb'\iaucirc' & \iaucirc & International Astronomical Union Circulars\\
\verb'\icarus' & \icarus & Icarus\\
\verb'\japa' & \japa & Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy\\
\verb'\jcap' & \jcap & Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics\\
\verb'\jcp' & \jcp & Journal of Chemical Physics\\
\verb'\jgr' & \jgr & Journal of Geophysics Research\\
\verb'\jqsrt' & \jqsrt & Journal of Quantitiative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer\\
\verb'\jrasc' & \jrasc & Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada\\
\verb'\memras' & \memras & Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society\\
\verb'\memsai' & \memsai & Memoire della Societa Astronomica Italiana\\
\verb'\mnassa' & \mnassa & Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa\\
\verb'\mnras' & \mnras & Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society$^a$\\
\verb'\na' & \na & New Astronomy\\
\verb'\nar' & \nar & New Astronomy Review\\
\verb'\nat' & \nat & Nature\\
\verb'\nphysa' & \nphysa & Nuclear Physics A\\
\verb'\pra' & \pra & Physical Review A: Atomic, molecular, and optical physics\\
\verb'\prb' & \prb & Physical Review B: Condensed matter and materials physics\\
\verb'\prc' & \prc & Physical Review C: Nuclear physics\\
\verb'\prd' & \prd & Physical Review D: Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology\\
\verb'\pre' & \pre & Physical Review E: Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics\\
\verb'\prl' & \prl & Physical Review Letters\\
\verb'\pasa' & \pasa & Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia\\
\verb'\pasp' & \pasp & Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific\\
\verb'\pasj' & \pasj & Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan\\
\verb'\physrep' & \physrep & Physics Reports\\
\verb'\physscr' & \physscr & Physica Scripta\\
\verb'\planss' & \planss & Planetary and Space Science\\
\verb'\procspie' & \procspie & Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\\
\verb'\rmxaa' & \rmxaa & Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica\\
\verb'\qjras' & \qjras & Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society\\
\verb'\sci' & \sci & Science\\
\verb'\skytel' & \skytel & Sky and Telescope\\
\verb'\solphys' & \solphys & Solar Physics\\
\verb'\sovast' & \sovast & Soviet Astronomy$^b$\\
\verb'\ssr' & \ssr & Space Science Reviews\\
\verb'\zap' & \zap & Zeitschrift fuer Astrophysik\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$^a$ Letters are designated by an L at the start of the page number, not in the journal name}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\footnotesize$^b$ In 1992 the English translation of this journal changed its name from Soviet Astronomy to Astronomy Reports}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\footnotesize$^c$ Including the English translation Astronomy Letters}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\clearpage % to avoid the long table breaking up the formatting examples
\section{Advanced formatting examples}
\label{sec:advanced}
Sometimes formatting doesn't behave exactly as expected when used in titles or section headings, and must be modified to obtain the correct appearance.
Generally the publishers can fix these problems during the typesetting process after a paper is accepted, but authors may wish to adjust these themselves to minimise the possibility of errors and/or for the benefit of the refereeing process.
Below are some examples of output, followed by the \LaTeX\ code which produces them.
Most mathematics and text formatting works as expected, but some commands might not be the correct size, bold or italic.
If so they can be finessed by hand, as in the bold mathematics here:
\boxit{\huge\bf \textit{Herschel} observations of galaxies at $\bm{\delta > 60\degr}$}
\begin{verbatim}
\title{\textit{Herschel} observations of galaxies at
$\bm{\delta > 60\degr}$}
\end{verbatim}
Most fonts do not provide bold and italic versions of small capitals, so the \verb'\ion{}{}' command doesn't produce the expected output in headings.
The effect has to be `faked' using font size commands, remembering that the running head is a different style:
\boxit{\huge\bf Abundances in H\,{\Large \textbf{II}} regions}
\begin{verbatim}
\title
[Abundances in H\,{\normalsize \textit{II}} regions]
{Abundances in H\,{\Large \textbf{II}} regions}
\end{verbatim}
Complex mathematics can cause problems with links, so might require adding a less formatted short version of the heading:
\boxit{\bf 2\quad FINDING Mg\,{\sevensize II} ABSORBERS AT $\bm{z > 2}$}
\begin{verbatim}
\section
[Finding Mg II absorbers at z > 2]
{Finding M\lowercase{g}\,{\sevensize II} absorbers
at $\lowercase{\bm{z > 2}}$}
\end{verbatim}
Using square brackets in headings can cause additional linking problems, which are solved by wrapping them in \{\textellipsis\}:
\boxit{\bf 2.1\quad [C\,{\sevensize II}] 158$\bmath{\umu}$m emission}
\begin{verbatim}
\subsection
[{[C II] 158$\umu$m emission}]
{[C\,{\sevensize II}] 158$\bmath{\umu}$m
emission}
\end{verbatim}
Use \verb'\text{}' (not \verb'\rm') for non-variables in mathematics, which preserves the formatting of the surrounding text.
For the same reasons, use \verb'\textit{}' for italics (not \verb'\it').
\boxit{\bf 3.1\quad Measuring $\bm{T}_\text{eff}$ from \textit{Gaia} photometry}
\begin{verbatim}
\subsection{Measuring $\bm{T}_\text{eff}$ from
\textit{Gaia} photometry}
\end{verbatim}
\section{Additional commands for editors only}
The following commands are available for the use of editors and production staff only.
They should not be used (or modified in the template) by authors.
\begin{description}
\item \verb'\maketitle' inserts the title, authors and institution list in the correct formatting.
\item \verb'\nokeywords' tidies up the spacing if there are no keywords, but authors should always enter at least one.
\item \verb'\volume{}' sets the volume number (default is 000)
\item \verb'\pagerange{}' sets the page range. The standard template generates this automatically, starting from 1.
\item \verb'\bsp' adds the `This paper has been typeset\textellipsis' comment at the end of the paper.
The command name refers to Blackwell Science Publishing, who were the publishers at the time when MNRAS began accepting \LaTeX\ submissions in 1993.
\item \verb'\mniiiauth{}' used by the \bibtex\ style to handle MNRAS style for citing papers with three authors. It should not be used manually.
\item \verb'\eprint{}' used by the \bibtex\ style for citing arXiv eprints.
\item \verb'\doi{}' used by the \bibtex\ style for citing Digital Object Identifiers.
\end{description}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Don't change these lines
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
% End of mnras_guide.tex
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\changed}{\textbf}
\newcommand{\added}{\color{cyan}}
\newcommand{\removed}{\color{red}}
\title[The impact of incorrect dissociation energies]{The impact of incorrect dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances}
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
}
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
\pubyear{2023}
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Spectral synthesis codes are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed chemical abundances. These codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum. Developers adopt the best measurements of those inputs at the time they release their code, but those measurements usually improve over time faster than the software is updated. In general, the impact of using incorrect or uncertain dissociation energies are largely unknown.
Here we evaluate how incorrect dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that the uncertainties in the dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. C$_2$ is the only diatomic molecule where the uncertainty of the inputted dissociation energy translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of updating the inputs adopted by spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
molecular data -- stars: abundances -- radiative transfer
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how incorrect physical quantities or their uncertainties translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or elemental abundances.
\\\\
The collective impact of incorrect physical parameters in modelling stellar spectra accurately is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for each individual stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. These disagreements translate to contradicting inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift. While \citet{arentsen_inconsistency_2022} is comparing two different pipelines that use different C$_2$ bands, such discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of updated physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is generally preferred for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules and for all molecules could lead to large errors than second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory \citep{bartlett_1974} in G1 and G2 theory. However, different coupled cluster calculations are sometimes implemented in Gaussian theory to account for core valence effects, relativistic effects, and atomic spin-orbit effects \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. The extent to which these effects are included is dependent on the approximations of each Gaussian theory.
\\\\
To overcome some of the limitations of these older theoretical methods, recent dissociation energy values have been determined using a combination of multi-reference configuration interaction calculations and four-wave mixing experiments \citep{visser_new_2019}. This implements an improved description of the ground state wave function for molecules such as C$_2$ and includes the highest electronic states. As a result, the dissociation energy values stated by \citet{visser_new_2019} have smaller systematic errors than the other theoretical methods mentioned.
\\\\
Despite recent dissociation energy values being more accurate and precise \citep[eg.][]{visser_new_2019,ruscic_active_2014}, spectral synthesis codes typically use collated tables assembled for the purpose, which may be significantly out of date. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Updating the atomic and molecular data implemented in spectral synthesis codes will ensure they all use the same precise values, reducing systematic errors and reconciling discrepancies between theoretical results.
\\\\
The most recent compendium of dissociation energies for use in stellar spectral synthesis and atmosphere modeling can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991} as well as values from an older compendium by \citet{herzberg1950molecular}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases. These values are adopted by \texttt{Korg}, a new spectral synthesis code \citep{korg_2022}, which motivates our interest in checking their accuracy and impact on resultant spectra. Other synthesis codes use values originating from older data sources which have been augmented over time, though they are nearly universally less recent.
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and `incorrect' (perturbed) dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesised spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had a diverging chemical equilibrium and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using an 'incorrect' (perturbed) dissociation energy: the fiducial values minus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesise spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead added.
\\\\
We did not independently analyse the impact of discrepant dissociation energies from various spectral synthesis codes (\texttt{MOOG} \citep{sneden_2012}, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996}, and \texttt{TurboSpectrum} \citep{turbospectrum_2012}), as the dissociation energy values adopted for the five molecules in our investigation are all within one standard deviation of those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} (except for MgO in \texttt{MOOG}). Perturbing the dissociation energies by their uncertainty allows us to quantify the largest impact that incorrect dissociation energies could have on inferred chemical abundances. Each of these spectral synthesis codes also have other inherent differences besides physical inputs such as continuum normalisation, treatment of line broadening, and interpolation of model atmospheres. These variations may affect the abundances that we infer \citep[eg.][]{jofre_gaia_2017} and skew the impact of incorrect dissociation energies that we observe.
\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\noindent
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to an incorrect dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how incorrect dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K. This is the most sensitive regime as these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.
\\\\
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the elemental abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by an incorrect dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
We chose the adopted dissociation energies from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} based on their corresponding uncertainties, not the specific value implemented by various spectral synthesis codes. The more recent collection of dissociation energy values in the Active Thermochemical Tables \citep[ATcT,][]{ruscic_2004} use a thermochemical network to derive reliable values that are self-consistent. A comparison between the dissociation energies of \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is shown in Figure \ref{fig: summary_d0} with the first panel displaying the molecules analysed in this paper, the second panel the molecules with the largest differences in dissociation energy and in the third panel some of the molecules that are considered important in stars. The ATcT uncertainties in dissociation energy are at least 1 order of magnitude smaller than those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} for C$_2$, CN and CH but no dissociation energy values are provided for both TiO and MgO. This is possibly because the compendium was not curated for the purpose of modelling stellar atmospheres or synthesising stellar spectra. Other molecules such as VO and FeH that are essential for stellar models are also not included. However, important stellar molecules present in both ATcT and \citet{barklem_partition_2016} have dissociation energies that differ by less than 0.01~eV despite using independent methodologies. This emphasises the accuracy of the \citet{barklem_partition_2016} compendium although it is overall less precise than ATcT.
\\\\
The largest difference in dissociation energy between \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is 0.94~eV for H$_2-$ shown in Figure \ref{fig: summary_d0}. The discrepancy may be from the multiple formation pathways of H$_2-$ that must be observed in experiments. This includes the formation of hydrogen by dissociative attachment and the vibrational excitation of H$_2$. The \citet{herzberg1950molecular} value considered by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} is derived only through observations of dissociative attachments and is an order of magnitude larger than that of \citet{luo2007comprehensive} of 0.15~eV which \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted. Both methods did not provide an uncertainty, so the large disagreement between the experimental values was used to derive 0.15~eV as the corresponding uncertainty.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{summary_d0_plot_2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the dissociation energies of \citet{barklem_partition_2016} (black) and ATcT \citep[blue,][]{ruscic_2004}. The left panel includes molecules we investigate in our analysis, the middle panel includes those with the largest difference in dissociation energy, and the right panel includes molecules that have important contributions in stars. ATcT did not have values for MgO and TiO as well as other crucial molecules like FeH.}
\label{fig: summary_d0}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
Despite the significant uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO from \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and simulating the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to input the most recent dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed.
\\\\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ leads to the largest maximum rectified flux difference. The maximum rectified flux difference and the wavelength at which it occurs is shown for stars with different effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the line within the C$_2$ band (known as the Swan band) most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra} where 5166~\AA\ is the central wavelength.
\\\\
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}), with both a mean and median of 0.08 dex. The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. In general, cooler stars ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) have larger abundance differences than hotter stars ($>$ 6250~K). However, these two stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000~K and 5000~K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250~K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that incorrect dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to elemental abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually elemental abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. TiO also dissociates above 4000~K possibly leading to lower flux differences for stars with higher effective temperatures \citep{ bidaran_2016}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool ($2200-3700$~K) stars because it has many open shells \citep{tennyson2019astronomical}. These open shells provide low-lying electronic states that are thermally occupied, allowing TiO to absorb radiation from stellar interiors over a wide wavelength range. The complexity introduced by these numerous strong transitions in the spectra of cool stars may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.
\\\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750~K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\subsection{C$_2$}
The maximum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000~K and 5000~K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000~K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000~K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000~K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500~K to 6000~K provide the most uniform abundance and flux differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. Stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250~K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K but with low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are highly sensitive to the continuum placement, which will vary for the fiducial and perturbed spectrum as they have different contributions to the opacity. This leads to larger flux differences and failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would also result in larger abundance difference. These differences overestimate the impact we would observe due to an incorrect dissociation energy \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We synthesised spectra with both a fiducial and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy to evaluate how incorrect dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes could translate to systematic biases in inferred elemental abundances. The perturbed dissociation energies were the fiducial values minus their corresponding uncertainty. We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000~K and 6000~K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the incorrect dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. To the first order we can estimate the code-to-code impact by linear scaling the difference in the dissociation energy to the uncertainty in dissociation energy we adopted. This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
The dissociation energy values collated for the purpose of spectral synthesis are not the most recent values to be calculated, and may be out of date. A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical Tables \citep{ruscic_2004} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. It is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}. The uncertainty in the dissociation energy determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. This has contributed to a precise dissociation energy value for C$_2$, leading to a negligible abundance uncertainty. The C$_2$ dissociation energy from \citet{visser_new_2019} is likely more accurate and precise than the values recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact of incorrect dissociation energies on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. Dissociation energy values adopted by these codes also need to be updated so we can be confident that the spectra produced are reliable and all inferences are accurate. Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paul Barklem for his enthusiasm for the project and invaluable feedback on drafts of this paper. We also thank Chris Sneden for his advice.
\\\\
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\section*{Data Availability}
All input data used are publicly available or can be requested from the lead author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,main} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\changed}{\textbf}
\newcommand{\added}{\color{cyan}}
\newcommand{\removed}{\color{red}}
\title[The impact of \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies]{The impact of \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances}
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
}
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
\pubyear{2023}
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
{\added{Spectral synthesis codes are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed chemical abundances. These codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.}} {\added{Developers adopt the best measurements of those inputs at the time they release their code, but those measurements usually improve over time faster than the software is updated. In general, the impact of using incorrect or uncertain dissociation energies are largely unknown.}}
Here we evaluate how \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that \changed{the uncertainties in the dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes} for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. C$_2$ is the only diatomic molecule where the uncertainty \changed{of the inputted dissociation energy} translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of \changed{updating the inputs adopted by} spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
molecular data -- stars: abundances -- radiative transfer
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how \changed{incorrect physical quantities or their uncertainties} translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or elemental abundances.
\\\\
\changed{The collective impact of incorrect physical parameters in modelling stellar spectra accurately} is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for each individual stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. These disagreements translate to contradicting inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift. While \citet{arentsen_inconsistency_2022} is comparing two different pipelines that use different \changed{C$_2$} bands, such discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of {\added{updated}} physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is generally preferred for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules and for all molecules could lead to large errors than second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory \citep{bartlett_1974} in G1 and G2 theory. However, different coupled cluster calculations are sometimes implemented in Gaussian theory to account for core valence effects, relativistic effects, and atomic spin-orbit effects \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. The extent to which these effects are included is dependent on the approximations of each Gaussian theory.
\\\\
{\added{To overcome some of the limitations of these older theoretical methods, recent dissociation energy values have been determined using a combination of multi-reference configuration interaction calculations and four-wave mixing experiments \citep{visser_new_2019}. This implements an improved description of the ground state wave function for molecules such as C$_2$ and includes the highest electronic states. As a result, the dissociation energy values stated by \citet{visser_new_2019} have smaller systematic errors than the other theoretical methods mentioned.}}
\\\\
{\added{Despite recent dissociation energy values being more accurate and precise \citep[eg.][]{visser_new_2019,ruscic_active_2014}, spectral synthesis codes typically use collated tables assembled for the purpose, which may be significantly out of date. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Updating the atomic and molecular data implemented in spectral synthesis codes will ensure they all use the same precise values, reducing systematic errors and reconciling discrepancies between theoretical results.}}
\\\\
\changed{The most recent compendium of dissociation energies for use in stellar spectral synthesis and atmosphere modeling} can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991} as well as values from an older compendium by \citet{herzberg1950molecular}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases. {\added{These values are adopted by \texttt{Korg}, a new spectral synthesis code \citep{korg_2022}, which motivates our interest in checking their accuracy and impact on resultant spectra. Other synthesis codes use values originating from older data sources which have been augmented over time, though they are nearly universally less recent.}}
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and \changed{`incorrect' (perturbed)} dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesised spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had a diverging chemical equilibrium and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using \changed{an 'incorrect' (perturbed)} dissociation energy: the fiducial values minus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesise spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead \changed{added}.
\\\\
{\added{We did not independently analyse the impact of discrepant dissociation energies from various spectral synthesis codes (\texttt{MOOG} \citep{sneden_2012}, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996}, and \texttt{TurboSpectrum} \citep{turbospectrum_2012}), as the dissociation energy values adopted for the five molecules in our investigation are all within one standard deviation of those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} (except for MgO in \texttt{MOOG}). Perturbing the dissociation energies by their uncertainty allows us to quantify the largest impact that incorrect dissociation energies could have on inferred chemical abundances. Each of these spectral synthesis codes also have other inherent differences besides physical inputs such as continuum normalisation, treatment of line broadening, and interpolation of model atmospheres. These variations may affect the abundances that we infer \citep[eg.][]{jofre_gaia_2017} and skew the impact of incorrect dissociation energies that we observe.}}
\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\noindent
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to \changed{an incorrect} dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K. This is the most sensitive regime as these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.
\\\\
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the elemental abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by \changed{an incorrect} dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
{\added{We chose the adopted dissociation energies from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} based on their corresponding uncertainties, not the specific value implemented by various spectral synthesis codes. The more recent collection of dissociation energy values in the Active Thermochemical Tables \citep[ATcT,][]{ruscic_2004} use a thermochemical network to derive reliable values that are self-consistent. A comparison between the dissociation energies of \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is shown in Figure \ref{fig: summary_d0} with the first panel displaying the molecules analysed in this paper, the second panel the molecules with the largest differences in dissociation energy and in the third panel some of the molecules that are considered important in stars. The ATcT uncertainties in dissociation energy are at least 1 order of magnitude smaller than those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} for C$_2$, CN and CH but no dissociation energy values are provided for both TiO and MgO. This is possibly because the compendium was not curated for the purpose of modelling stellar atmospheres or synthesising stellar spectra. Other molecules such as VO and FeH that are essential for stellar models are also not included. However, important stellar molecules present in both ATcT and \citet{barklem_partition_2016} have dissociation energies that differ by less than 0.01~eV despite using independent methodologies. This emphasises the accuracy of the \citet{barklem_partition_2016} compendium although it is overall less precise than ATcT.
\\\\
The largest difference in dissociation energy between \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is 0.94~eV for H$_2-$ shown in Figure \ref{fig: summary_d0}. The discrepancy may be from the multiple formation pathways of H$_2-$ that must be observed in experiments. This includes the formation of hydrogen by dissociative attachment and the vibrational excitation of H$_2$. The \citet{herzberg1950molecular} value considered by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} is derived only through observations of dissociative attachments and is an order of magnitude larger than that of \citet{luo2007comprehensive} of 0.15~eV which \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted. Both methods did not provide an uncertainty, so the large disagreement between the experimental values was used to derive 0.15~eV as the corresponding uncertainty.}}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{summary_d0_plot_2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the dissociation energies of \citet{barklem_partition_2016} (black) and ATcT \citep[blue,][]{ruscic_2004}. The left panel includes molecules we investigate in our analysis, the middle panel includes those with the largest difference in dissociation energy, and the right panel includes molecules that have important contributions in stars. ATcT did not have values for MgO and TiO as well as other crucial molecules like FeH.}
\label{fig: summary_d0}
\end{figure*}
\noindent
Despite the significant uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO from \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and simulating the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to \changed{input the most recent} dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed.
\\\\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ leads to the largest maximum rectified flux difference. The maximum rectified flux difference and the wavelength at which it occurs is shown for stars with different effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the line within the C$_2$ band (known as the Swan band) most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra} where 5166~\AA\ is the central wavelength.
\\\\
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}), with both a mean and median of 0.08 dex. The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. In general, cooler stars ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) have larger abundance differences than hotter stars ($>$ 6250~K). However, these two stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000~K and 5000~K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250~K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to elemental abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually elemental abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. TiO also dissociates above 4000~K possibly leading to lower flux differences for stars with higher effective temperatures \citep{ bidaran_2016}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool {\added{($2200-3700$~K)}} stars because
{\added{it has many open shells \citep{tennyson2019astronomical}. These open shells provide low-lying electronic states that are thermally occupied, allowing TiO to absorb radiation from stellar interiors over a wide wavelength range. The complexity introduced by these numerous strong transitions in the spectra of cool stars may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.}}
\\\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750~K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\subsection{C$_2$}
The maximum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000~K and 5000~K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000~K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000~K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000~K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500~K to 6000~K provide the most uniform abundance and flux differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. Stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250~K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K but with low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are highly sensitive to the continuum placement, which will vary for the fiducial and perturbed spectrum as they have different contributions to the opacity. This leads to larger flux differences and failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would also result in larger abundance difference. These differences overestimate the impact we would observe due to an \changed{incorrect} dissociation energy \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\changed{We synthesised spectra with both a fiducial and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy to evaluate how incorrect dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes could translate to systematic biases in inferred elemental abundances.}{\added{ The perturbed dissociation energies were the fiducial values minus their corresponding uncertainty.}} We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000~K and 6000~K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the \changed{incorrect} dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. {\added{To the first order we can estimate the code-to-code impact by linear scaling the difference in the dissociation energy to the uncertainty in dissociation energy we adopted.}} This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
{\added{The dissociation energy values collated for the purpose of spectral synthesis are not the most recent values to be calculated, and may be out of date.}} A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical \changed{Tables \citep{ruscic_2004}} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. It is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}. The uncertainty in the dissociation energy determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. This has contributed to a precise dissociation energy value for C$_2$, leading to a negligible abundance uncertainty. The C$_2$ dissociation energy from \citet{visser_new_2019} is likely more accurate and \changed{precise} than \changed{the values} recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact {\added{of incorrect dissociation energies}} on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. \changed{Dissociation energy values adopted by these codes also need to be updated so we can be confident that the spectra produced are reliable and all inferences are accurate.} Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paul Barklem for his enthusiasm for the project and invaluable feedback on drafts of this paper. We also thank Chris Sneden for his advice.
\\\\
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\section*{Data Availability}
All input data used are publicly available or can be requested from the lead author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\title[The impact of inaccurate dissociation energies]{The impact of uncertain dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances}
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
}
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
\pubyear{2023}
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Spectral synthesis codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.
These models are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed elemental abundances given some observed spectrum.
However, many of those inputs are uncertain, and the impacts of those uncertainties are largely unknown. Here we evaluate how uncertain dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that dissociation energy uncertainties for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. C$_2$ is the only diatomic molecule where the uncertainty in the dissociation energy translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of reliable inputs for spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
molecular data -- stars: abundances -- radiative transfer
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how uncertainties in physical quantities translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or elemental abundances.
\\\\
Our collective uncertainty in modelling stellar spectra accurately is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for each individual stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. These disagreements translate to contradicting inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift. While \citet{arentsen_inconsistency_2022} is comparing two different pipelines that use different C2 bands, such discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is generally preferred for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules and for all molecules could lead to large errors than second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory \citep{bartlett_1974} in G1 and G2 theory. However, different coupled cluster calculations are sometimes implemented in Gaussian theory to account for core valence effects, relativistic effects, and atomic spin-orbit effects \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. The extent to which these effects are included is dependent on the approximations of each Gaussian theory.
\\\\
Each molecular dissociation energy has an associated uncertainty, which is typically dependent on prior values or previously calculated standard enthalpies of formation at 0~K of other molecules \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Experimentally determined dissociation energies usually have smaller uncertainties than theoretical values. However, theoretical values are favoured if the experimental data is considered unreliable because of missing energy levels or a lack of vibrational modes observed \citep{jorgensen1994molecules}. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available to the developer at the time the code was written. This leads to different dissociation energies being used between popular spectral synthesis codes.
\\\\
A recent compendium of dissociation energies can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991} as well as values from an older compendium by \citet{herzberg1950molecular}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases.
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and `perturbed' dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesized spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had a diverging chemical equilibrium and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using a `perturbed' dissociation energy: the fiducial values minus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesize spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead subtracted.
\\\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\noindent
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to a perturbed dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how uncertain dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K. This is the most sensitive regime as these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.
\\\\
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the elemental abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by perturbing the dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
Despite the significant uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and simulating the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to obtain precise dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed.
\\\\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ leads to the largest maximum rectified flux difference. The maximum rectified flux difference and the wavelength at which it occurs is shown for stars with different effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the line within the C$_2$ band (known as the Swan band) most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra} where 5166~\AA\ is the central wavelength.
\\\\
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}), with both a mean and median of 0.08 dex. The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. In general, cooler stars ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) have larger abundance differences than hotter stars ($>$ 6250~K). However, these two stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000~K and 5000~K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250~K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that uncertain dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to elemental abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually elemental abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. TiO also dissociates above 4000~K possibly leading to lower flux differences for stars with higher effective temperatures \citep{ bidaran_2016}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool stars because it is composed of two atoms that have a large mass difference. The large difference in nuclei masses means that the nuclei in TiO undergo vibrational motions more intense than experienced if the nuclei were of similar mass \citep{hubeny2014theory}. The importance of TiO as an opacity source may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.
\\\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750~K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\subsection{C$_2$}
The maximum and minimum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000~K and 5000~K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000~K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000~K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000~K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500~K to 6000~K provide the most uniform abundance and flux differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. Stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250~K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K but with low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are highly sensitive to the continuum placement, which will vary for the fiducial and perturbed spectrum as they have different contributions to the opacity. This leads to larger flux differences and failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would also result in larger abundance difference. These differences overestimate the impact we would observe due to an uncertain dissociation energy \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have evaluated how uncertain dissociation energies translate to systematic biases in elemental abundances. We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000~K and 6000~K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical Tablesas \citep{ruscic_active_2014} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. It is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}. The uncertainty in the dissociation energy determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. This has contributed to a precise dissociation energy value for C$_2$, leading to a negligible abundance uncertainty. The C$_2$ dissociation energy from \citet{visser_new_2019} is likely more accurate and precision than that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. Dissociation energy values also need to be further constrained so we can be confident that the spectrum produced are reliable and all inferences are precise. Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paul Barklem for his enthusiasm for the project and invaluable feedback on drafts of this paper. We also thank Chris Sneden for his advice.
\\\\
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\section*{Data Availability}
All input data used are publicly available or can be requested from the lead author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
% mnras_template.tex
%
% LaTeX template for creating an MNRAS paper
%
% v3.0 released 14 May 2015
% (version numbers match those of mnras.cls)
%
% Copyright (C) Royal Astronomical Society 2015
% Authors:
% Keith T. Smith (Royal Astronomical Society)
% Change log
%
% v3.2 July 2023
% Updated guidance on use of amssymb package
% v3.0 May 2015
% Renamed to match the new package name
% Version number matches mnras.cls
% A few minor tweaks to wording
% v1.0 September 2013
% Beta testing only - never publicly released
% First version: a simple (ish) template for creating an MNRAS paper
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Basic setup. Most papers should leave these options alone.
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
% MNRAS is set in Times font. If you don't have this installed (most LaTeX
% installations will be fine) or prefer the old Computer Modern fonts, comment
% out the following line
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
% Depending on your LaTeX fonts installation, you might get better results with one of these:
%\usepackage{mathptmx}
%\usepackage{txfonts}
% Use vector fonts, so it zooms properly in on-screen viewing software
% Don't change these lines unless you know what you are doing
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
% Allow "Thomas van Noord" and "Simon de Laguarde" and alike to be sorted by "N" and "L" etc. in the bibliography.
% Write the name in the bibliography as "\VAN{Noord}{Van}{van} Noord, Thomas"
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN PACKAGES HERE %%%%%
% Only include extra packages if you really need them. Avoid using amssymb if newtxmath is enabled, as these packages can cause conflicts. newtxmatch covers the same math symbols while producing a consistent Times New Roman font. Common packages are:
\usepackage{graphicx} % Including figure files
\usepackage{amsmath} % Advanced maths commands
\usepackage{xcolor}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN COMMANDS HERE %%%%%
% Please keep new commands to a minimum, and use \newcommand not \def to avoid
% overwriting existing commands. Example:
%\newcommand{\pcm}{\,cm$^{-2}$} % per cm-squared
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Title of the paper, and the short title which is used in the headers.
% Keep the title short and informative.
\title[The Impact of Uncertain Dissociation Energies on Inferred Photospheric Abundances]{The Impact of Uncertain Dissociation Energies on Inferred Photospheric Abundances}
% The list of authors, and the short list which is used in the headers.
% If you need two or more lines of authors, add an extra line using \newauthor
%\author[K. T. Smith et al.]{
%Keith T. Smith,$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: publications@ras.ac.uk (KTS)}
%A. N. Other,$^{2}$
%Third Author$^{2,3}$
%and Fourth Author$^{3}$
\\
% List of institutions
%$^{1}$Royal Astronomical Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BQ, UK\\
%$^{2}$Department, Institution, Street Address, City Postal Code, Country\\
%$^{3}$Another Department, Different Institution, Street Address, City Postal Code, Country
%}
% These dates will be filled out by the publisher
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
% Enter the current year, for the copyright statements etc.
\pubyear{2023}
% Don't change these lines
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Many uncertain inputs are required by spectral synthesis codes to produce spectra from which we can infer detailed stellar chemical abundances. However, the impacts of those uncertain inputs are largely ignored. Here we investigate the impact of uncertain dissociation energies on inferred abundances from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features in synthetic spectra. For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy. We found that uncertain dissociation energy in C$_2$ leads to a significant difference in fluxes, which translates to abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. Solar-like stars have an abundance difference from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of reliable inputs for spectral synthesis codes as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. Our collective uncertainty in modelling stellar spectra accurately is perhaps best represented by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are typically fitted to synthetic spectra to determine the star's carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP by the following criterion: [C/Fe] > +1.0 (in some cases [C/Fe] > 0.7) and [Fe/H] < −1.0 \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), All-Wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for different stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. The disagreement between surveys can be reduced if we obtain accurate inputs to produce synthetic models which we compare to detailed observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, which is necessary to compute molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy while the other methods are typically used to obtain upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is more suitable for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster methods require too much computational time for complex molecules.
\\\\
Each dissociation energy has an associated uncertainty.
Experimentally determined dissociation energies usually have smaller uncertainties than theoretical values. However, theoretical values are favoured if the experimental data is considered unreliable because of energy levels missing or a lack of vibrational modes are observed \citep{jorgensen1994molecules}. Spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available at the time it was written, with some updates in recent years, leading to different values used between popular spectral synthesis codes.
\\\\
A recent compendium of dissociation energies can be found in \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citep{herzberg1950molecular} and \citep{luo2007comprehensive} as well as theoretical values from G2 theory \citep{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. For each molecule, a value from one of these sources was adopted. Some dissociation energies from \citep{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citep{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citep{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citep{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates and therefore was chosen in most cases.
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and `perturbed' dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Method}
\label{Section: method}
We chose to investigate five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules contribute to important astrophysical mechanisms (eg, the opacity) and many lines can be readily observed in stellar spectra. They also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01 dex in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than most molecules included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table \ref{table: dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesized spectra from 3000 \AA \hspace{0cm} to 9000 \AA \hspace{0cm} for these five molecules using Korg \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep{Heiter_VALD_2008}. The model atmospheres were generated MARCS atmosphere grids \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000 K to 8000 K in 250 K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5 intervals, [Fe/H] from -1.5 to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] = 0.0. Some atmospheres had diverging molecular equilibrium constants and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced. Approximately 6200 perturbed spectra had converging molecular equilibrium constants for each molecule. The molecular equilibrium constants were calculated using the `fiducial' dissociation energies (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}) and 'perturbed' dissociation energies. The fiducial dissociation energies were values adopted by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} in Table \ref{table: dissociation energies}. Perturbed dissociation energies are the fiducial values plus their uncertainty also provided by \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. We did not include spectra with perturbed dissociation energies where the uncertainty is instead subtracted, as both the subtracted and plus cases are assumed to be symmetric.
\\\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
\hline
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
\hline
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
\hline
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
\hline
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table: dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\\\\
For each molecule, we computed the wavelength where the maximum rectified (continuum-normalised) flux difference was found between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum rectified flux difference would correspond to close to the largest possible abundance difference inferred due to a perturbed dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. The calculation of the maximum rectified flux difference was limited to a random subset of 50 atmospheres for each effective temperature due to long computation times. For MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000K to 5000K because these molecules mostly have lines at cool temperatures and few in hotter atmospheres. We obtained the wavelength corresponding to the maximum flux difference as well as the wavelength at which the maximum flux difference occurred the most for all atmospheres sampled. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how uncertain dissociation energies would translate into abundances. The flux difference at the chosen wavelength was then calculated for every atmosphere.
\\\\
We treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, allowing the chemical abundances to vary. The initial abundance was set by the true model atmosphere abundance using Solar-values from \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021}. The optimisation was only relevant for carbon in C$_2$. The range of the optimisation was 5160 \AA \hspace{0cm} to 5176 \AA. The optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb– Shannon(L-BFGS) algorithm and automatic differentiation. This is displayed in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}, with the fiducial spectrum in black, the perturbed spectrum in red and the fit as the green dashed line. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to be identical (identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by perturbing the dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250 K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black).}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
Despite the concerning uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO, all these molecules had flux differences less than 0.05. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on C$_2$.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ has the largest maximum rectified flux difference. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250 K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145 \AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166 \AA. We therefore considered 5166 \AA \hspace{0cm} to be the C$_2$ band most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux.
\\\\
We found that the optimiser sometimes returned an unrealistic C$_2$ abundance difference for model atmospheres where the dissociation energy had almost no change on the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). Small flux differences that led to early exits by the optimiser may be due to the preference of other molecules at cooler temperatures. There are also stars for which the optimiser did not converge, as the abundance difference found was our lower bound of -1.0 dex. This is typically for weak and/or broadened lines that had small flux differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. For these reasons, in later sections we only include results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel. The flux difference for each log(g) and effective temperature in our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: logg vs teff flux diff}.
\\\\
Carbon abundance differences in C$_2$ ranged from 0.0 dex to 0.2 dex in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. Both the mean and median abundance difference is 0.08 dex with a standard deviation of 0.01 dex. This indicates that our distribution of abundance differences is approximately symmetric across our parameter space. Cooler atmospheres (< 5000 K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations above the mean, while some hotter atmospheres (> 6250K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations bellow the mean. However, hotter atmospheres have a larger range of abundance differences from 0.0 dex to 0.09 dex than cooler atmospheres.
% Example figure
\begin{figure}
% To include a figure from a file named example.*
% Allowable file formats are eps or ps if compiling using latex
% or pdf, png, jpg if compiling using pdflatex
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145 \AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166 \AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_flux_5.pdf}}}%
\qquad
\caption{Flux difference across log(g) and effective temperatures in our parameter space. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure, since the fiducial and perturbed spectra are essentially identical.}
\label{fig: logg vs teff flux diff}%
\end{figure}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_5.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000 K and 5000 K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250 K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_plot_5.pdf} }}%
\qquad
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{teff_plot_5.pdf} }}%
\caption{Carbon abundance difference in C$_2$ across log(g) and coloured by the effective temperature in the top plot. Abundance difference across the effective temperature and coloured by log(g) in the bottom plot. Stars between 4000 K and 5000 K show the largest abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. Stars with an effective temperature of 3000 K or an effective temperature greater than 7000 K were not significantly affected by the uncertain dissociation energy.}%
\label{fig: logg and teff plot}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fe_h_plot_teff_5.pdf} }}%
\caption{Abundance differences for each metallicity in our parameter space coloured by the effective temperature of the star. The abundances of some metal-poor stars were overestimated, as the optimiser finished prematurely. These are invalid results and have been removed.}%
\label{fig: fe_h plots}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{alpha_m_plot_teff_5.pdf} }}%
\caption{Abundance difference for [$\alpha$/metals] across our parameter space coloured by the effective temperature. All invalid results have been removed. $\alpha$-enhanced stars have larger abundance differences as the perturbed spectrum experiences greater changes to the opacity.}%
\label{fig: alpha plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
The maximum and minimum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000 K and 5000 K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000 K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. This may also have resulted in small flux differences shown in Figure
\ref{fig: logg vs teff flux diff} and the premature exit of the optimiser at 3000 K. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000 K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000 K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500 K to 6000 K provide the most uniform abundance differences across log(g) values in our parameter space for C$_2$. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: logg and teff plot} with the top plot showing the abundance difference with respect to log(g) and the bottom plot with respect to the effective temperature. Stars with an effective temperature bellow 4500 K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences with overestimated abundance differences that we excluded. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250 K with log(g) < 2.5, leading to many being excluded as well. The large flux differences for stars with effective temperatures above 6250 K and higher log(g) values may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would make optimisation more difficult and for some cases has led to invalid results where the fit deviates from the perturbed spectrum. These deviations tend to lead to an overestimation in the abundance required to reconcile the fiducial and perturbed spectrum. For stars with an effective temperature bellow 4500 K and low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are more sensitive to the continuum placement, so failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would lead to a larger abundance difference \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We have evaluated how uncertain dissociation energies translate to systematic biases in chemical abundances. These results only relate to chemical abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually chemical abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. There are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. However, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000 K and 6000 K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex in Figure \ref{fig: logg and teff plot}. Therefore, the uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in different spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, SME uses 6.297 eV, and both TurboSpectrum and MOOG use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{Korg_2023}. TurboSpectrum and MOOG are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by Korg. This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from Korg when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between Korg and SME.
\\\\
A more recent value of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV for the C$_2$ dissociation energy is given by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical Tablesas \citep{ruscic_active_2014} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. The uncertainty in dissociation determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. Their value is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, and considering the extra corrections is likely more accurate than that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
Figures \ref{fig: fe_h plots} and \ref{fig: alpha plots} show that the abundance difference for C$_2$ increases as $\alpha$ increases and as the metallicity increases. The increase in abundance difference with $\alpha$ may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. Changes to the opacity would be further heightened in the fiducial spectrum due to additional electrons from the dissociation of C$_2$ that would be absent in the perturbed spectrum. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: alpha plots}. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\\\\
Many of our Figures contain imperfect smoothness after the removal of small flux differences. One such imperfection can be seen in Figure \ref{fig: alpha plots}, where there is a large gap between points at [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.3. This is due to our random sampling of 50 atmospheres that were used to determine the central wavelength for our optimisation. If we sampled the 50 atmospheres needed across all parameters instead of just the effective temperature, a more uniform distribution of abundances would be produced. This may also avoid some of the small flux differences that led to invalid results, providing us with more reliable data.
\section{Conclusions}
To investigate how perturbing the dissociation energy will change the abundance inferred from spectra, we synthesised two spectra--one with the dissociation energy stated in literature (the so-called fiducial spectrum) and the other with the dissociation energy plus its uncertainty (the perturbed spectrum)--for C$_2$, CH, CN, TiO, and MgO across different log(g), effective temperature, [$\alpha$/metals], and [Fe/H]. The fiducial spectrum was fitted to the perturbed spectrum by minimising $\chi^2$ around the wavelength corresponding to the maximum flux difference between spectra.
\\\\
Measuring carbon from C$_2$ molecular features will give incorrect abundances due to the molecules uncertain dissociation energy. At 5166 \AA \hspace{0cm} we observed abundance differences up to 0.2 dex. The uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ also translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance difference, so no optimisation was performed.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. Dissociation energy values also need to be further constrained so we can be confident that the spectrum produced are reliable and all inferences are precise. Creating a data set of accurate spectral inputs may help reconcile theory with observations.
\\\\
Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\changed}{\textbf}
\newcommand{\added}{\color{cyan}}
\newcommand{\removed}{\color{red}}
\title[The impact of uncertain dissociation energies]{The impact of uncertain dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances}
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
}
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
\pubyear{2023}
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Spectral synthesis codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.
These models are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed elemental abundances given some observed spectrum.
\changed{However, many of those input values adopted by spectral synthesis codes are not updated and are highly uncertain.} {\added{The impact of those uncertainties on synthetic spectra are unknown.}}
Here we evaluate how uncertain dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that dissociation energy uncertainties for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. C$_2$ is the only diatomic molecule where the uncertainty in the dissociation energy translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of reliable inputs for spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
molecular data -- stars: abundances -- radiative transfer
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how uncertainties in physical quantities translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or elemental abundances.
\\\\
Our collective uncertainty in modelling stellar spectra accurately is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for each individual stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. These disagreements translate to contradicting inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift. While \citet{arentsen_inconsistency_2022} is comparing two different pipelines that use different \changed{C$_2$} bands, such discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is generally preferred for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules and for all molecules could lead to large errors than second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory \citep{bartlett_1974} in G1 and G2 theory. However, different coupled cluster calculations are sometimes implemented in Gaussian theory to account for core valence effects, relativistic effects, and atomic spin-orbit effects \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. The extent to which these effects are included is dependent on the approximations of each Gaussian theory.
\\\\
{\added{To overcome some of the limitations of these older theoretical methods, recent dissociation energy values have been determined using a combination of multi-reference configuration interaction calculations and four-wave mixing experiments \citet{visser_new_2019}. This implements an improved description of the ground state wave function for molecules such as C$_2$ and includes the highest electronic states. As a result, the dissociation energy values stated by \citet{visser_new_2019} have smaller systematic errors than the other theoretical methods mentioned.}}
\\\\
{\added{Despite recent dissociation energy values being more accurate and precise, spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available to the developer at the time the code was written. Such values can be found in \citet{visser_new_2019} and the Active Thermochemical Tables \citet{ruscic_active_2014}. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Updating the atomic and molecular data implemented in spectral synthesis codes will ensure they all use the same precise values, reducing systematic errors and reconciling discrepancies between theoretical results.}}
\\\\
{\removed{Each molecular dissociation energy has an associated uncertainty, which is typically dependent on prior values or previously calculated standard enthalpies of formation at 0~K of other molecules \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Experimentally determined dissociation energies usually have smaller uncertainties than theoretical values. However, theoretical values are favoured if the experimental data is considered unreliable because of missing energy levels or a lack of vibrational modes observed \citep{jorgensen1994molecules}. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available to the developer at the time the code was written. This leads to different dissociation energies being used between popular spectral synthesis codes.}}
\\\\
A recent compendium of dissociation energies can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991} as well as values from an older compendium by \citet{herzberg1950molecular}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases.
{\added{As mentioned above, these are not the most recent methods to determine the dissociation energy and we do not argue that they are the most accurate or precise. We chose to focus on the dissociation energy values provided by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} as they are the most recent dissociation energy values used by any spectral synthesis code and they are the values adopted by the newest code \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022}. More recent dissociation energy values have not yet been implemented in any of the spectral synthesis codes.}}
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and `perturbed' dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesized spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had a diverging chemical equilibrium and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using a `perturbed' dissociation energy: the fiducial values minus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesize spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead \changed{added}.
\\\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\noindent
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to a perturbed dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how uncertain dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K. This is the most sensitive regime as these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.
\\\\
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the elemental abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by perturbing the dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
Despite the significant uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and simulating the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to obtain precise dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed.
\\\\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ leads to the largest maximum rectified flux difference. The maximum rectified flux difference and the wavelength at which it occurs is shown for stars with different effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the line within the C$_2$ band (known as the Swan band) most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra} where 5166~\AA\ is the central wavelength.
\\\\
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}), with both a mean and median of 0.08 dex. The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. In general, cooler stars ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) have larger abundance differences than hotter stars ($>$ 6250~K). However, these two stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000~K and 5000~K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250~K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that uncertain dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to elemental abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually elemental abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. TiO also dissociates above 4000~K possibly leading to lower flux differences for stars with higher effective temperatures \citep{ bidaran_2016}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool stars because
{\added{it has numerous strong transitions \citep{hubeny2014theory}.}} {\removed{it is composed of two atoms that have a large mass difference. The large difference in nuclei masses means that the nuclei in TiO undergo vibrational motions more intense than experienced if the nuclei were of similar mass \citep{hubeny2014theory}.}} The importance of TiO as an opacity source may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.
\\\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750~K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\subsection{C$_2$}
The maximum and minimum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000~K and 5000~K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000~K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000~K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000~K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500~K to 6000~K provide the most uniform abundance and flux differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. Stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250~K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K but with low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are highly sensitive to the continuum placement, which will vary for the fiducial and perturbed spectrum as they have different contributions to the opacity. This leads to larger flux differences and failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would also result in larger abundance difference. These differences overestimate the impact we would observe due to an uncertain dissociation energy \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\changed{We have evaluated how uncertain dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes translate to systematic biases in inferred elemental abundances.} We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000~K and 6000~K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
{\added{The dissociation energy values we adopt from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} are the most recent value implemented in a spectral synthesis code, albeit not the most recent dissociation energy values calculated.}} A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical \changed{Tables} \citep{ruscic_active_2014} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. It is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}. The uncertainty in the dissociation energy determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. This has contributed to a precise dissociation energy value for C$_2$, leading to a negligible abundance uncertainty. The C$_2$ dissociation energy from \citet{visser_new_2019} is likely more accurate and precision than that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. \changed{Dissociation energy values adopted by these codes also need to be updated so we can be confident that the spectra produced are reliable and all inferences are precise.} Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paul Barklem for his enthusiasm for the project and invaluable feedback on drafts of this paper. We also thank Chris Sneden for his advice.
\\\\
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\section*{Data Availability}
All input data used are publicly available or can be requested from the lead author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\changed}{\textbf}
\newcommand{\added}{\color{cyan}}
\newcommand{\removed}{\color{red}}
\title[The impact of \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies]{The impact of \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies on inferred photospheric abundances}
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$\\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
}
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
\pubyear{2023}
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
{\removed{Spectral synthesis codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.
These models are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed elemental abundances given some observed spectrum.
However, many of those inputs are uncertain, and the impacts of those uncertainties are largely unknown.}} {\added{ Spectral synthesis codes are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed chemical abundances. These codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.}} {\added{Developers adopt the best measurements of those inputs at the time they release their code, but those measurements usually improve over time faster than the software is updated. In general, the impact of using incorrect or uncertain dissociation energies are largely unknown.}}
Here we evaluate how \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that \changed{the uncertainties in the dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes} for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. C$_2$ is the only diatomic molecule where the uncertainty \changed{of the inputted dissociation energy} translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of \changed{updating the inputs adopted by} spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
molecular data -- stars: abundances -- radiative transfer
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how \changed{incorrect physical quantities or their uncertainties} translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or elemental abundances.
\\\\
\changed{The collective impact of incorrect physical parameters in modelling stellar spectra accurately} is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for each individual stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. These disagreements translate to contradicting inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift. While \citet{arentsen_inconsistency_2022} is comparing two different pipelines that use different \changed{C$_2$} bands, such discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of {\added{updated}} physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is generally preferred for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules and for all molecules could lead to large errors than second order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory \citep{bartlett_1974} in G1 and G2 theory. However, different coupled cluster calculations are sometimes implemented in Gaussian theory to account for core valence effects, relativistic effects, and atomic spin-orbit effects \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. The extent to which these effects are included is dependent on the approximations of each Gaussian theory.
\\\\
{\added{To overcome some of the limitations of these older theoretical methods, recent dissociation energy values have been determined using a combination of multi-reference configuration interaction calculations and four-wave mixing experiments \citep{visser_new_2019}. This implements an improved description of the ground state wave function for molecules such as C$_2$ and includes the highest electronic states. As a result, the dissociation energy values stated by \citet{visser_new_2019} have smaller systematic errors than the other theoretical methods mentioned.}}
\\\\
{\added{Despite recent dissociation energy values being more accurate and precise \citep[eg.][]{visser_new_2019,ruscic_active_2014}, spectral synthesis codes typically use collated tables assembled for the purpose, which may be significantly out of date. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Updating the atomic and molecular data implemented in spectral synthesis codes will ensure they all use the same precise values, reducing systematic errors and reconciling discrepancies between theoretical results.}}
\\\\
{\removed{Each molecular dissociation energy has an associated uncertainty, which is typically dependent on prior values or previously calculated standard enthalpies of formation at 0~K of other molecules \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Experimentally determined dissociation energies usually have smaller uncertainties than theoretical values. However, theoretical values are favoured if the experimental data is considered unreliable because of missing energy levels or a lack of vibrational modes observed \citep{jorgensen1994molecules}. The choice of dissociation energy values will impact the molecular opacity and subsequently the atomic abundances derived from the opacity to a greater extent than partition functions \citep{costes_naulin_1994}. Spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available to the developer at the time the code was written. This leads to different dissociation energies being used between popular spectral synthesis codes.}}
\\\\
\changed{The most recent compendium of dissociation energies for use in stellar spectral synthesis and atmosphere modeling} can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991} as well as values from an older compendium by \citet{herzberg1950molecular}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases. {\added{These values are adopted by \texttt{Korg}, a new spectral synthesis code \citep{korg_2022}, which motivates our interest in checking their accuracy and impact on resultant spectra. Other synthesis codes use values originating from older data sources which have been augmented over time, though they are nearly universally less recent.}}
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and \changed{`incorrect' (perturbed)} dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesised spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had a diverging chemical equilibrium and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using \changed{an 'incorrect' (perturbed)} dissociation energy: the fiducial values minus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesise spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead \changed{added}.
\\\\
{\added{We did not independently analyse the impact of discrepant dissociation energies from various spectral synthesis codes (\texttt{MOOG} \citep{sneden_2012}, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996}, and \texttt{TurboSpectrum} \citep{turbospectrum_2012}), as the dissociation energy values adopted for the five molecules in our investigation are all within one standard deviation of those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} (except for MgO in \texttt{MOOG}). Perturbing the dissociation energies by their uncertainty allows us to quantify the largest impact that incorrect dissociation energies could have on inferred chemical abundances. Each of these spectral synthesis codes also have other inherent differences besides physical inputs such as continuum normalisation, treatment of line broadening, and interpolation of model atmospheres. These variations may affect the abundances that we infer \citep[eg.][]{jofre_gaia_2017} and skew the impact of incorrect dissociation energies that we observe.}}
\\
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
\noindent
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to \changed{an incorrect} dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K. This is the most sensitive regime as these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.
\\\\
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the elemental abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by \changed{an incorrect} dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
{\added{We chose the adopted dissociation energies from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} based on their corresponding uncertainties, not the specific value implemented by various spectral synthesis codes. The more recent collection of dissociation energy values in the Active Thermochemical Tables \citep[ATcT,][]{ruscic_2004} use a thermochemical network to derive reliable values that are self-consistent. A comparison between the dissociation energies of \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is shown in Figure with the first panel displaying the molecules analysed in this paper, the second panel the molecules with the largest differences in dissociation energy and in the third panel some of the molecules that are considered important in stars. The ATcT uncertainties in dissociation energy are at least 1 order of magnitude smaller than those in \citet{barklem_partition_2016} for C$_2$, CN and CH but no dissociation energy values are provided for both TiO and MgO. This is possibly because the compendium was not curated for the purpose of modelling stellar atmospheres or synthesising stellar spectra. Other molecules such as VO and FeH that are essential for stellar models are also not included. However, important stellar molecules present in both ATcT and \citet{barklem_partition_2016} have dissociation energies that differ by less than 0.01~eV despite using independent methodologies. This emphasises the accuracy of the \citet{barklem_partition_2016} compendium although it is overall less precise than ATcT.
\\\\
The largest difference in dissociation energy between \citet{barklem_partition_2016} and ATcT is 0.94~eV for H$_2-$. The discrepancy may be from the multiple formation pathways of H$_2-$ that must be observed in experiments. This includes the formation of hydrogen by dissociative attachment and the vibrational excitation of H$_2$. The \citet{herzberg1950molecular} value considered by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} is derived only through observations of dissociative attachments and is an order of magnitude larger than that of \citet{luo2007comprehensive} of 0.15~eV which \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted. Both methods did not provide an uncertainty, so the large disagreement between the experimental values was used to derive 0.15~eV as the corresponding uncertainty.}}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{summary_d0_plot_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: summary_d0}
\end{figure}
Despite the significant uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and simulating the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to \changed{input the most recent} dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed.
\\\\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.
\\\\
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ leads to the largest maximum rectified flux difference. The maximum rectified flux difference and the wavelength at which it occurs is shown for stars with different effective temperatures in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the line within the C$_2$ band (known as the Swan band) most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra} where 5166~\AA\ is the central wavelength.
\\\\
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}), with both a mean and median of 0.08 dex. The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. In general, cooler stars ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) have larger abundance differences than hotter stars ($>$ 6250~K). However, these two stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000~K and 5000~K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250~K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that \changed{incorrect} dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to elemental abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually elemental abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. TiO also dissociates above 4000~K possibly leading to lower flux differences for stars with higher effective temperatures \citep{ bidaran_2016}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool {\added{($2200-3700$~K)}} stars because
{\added{it has many open shells \citep{tennyson2019astronomical}. These open shells provide low-lying electronic states that are thermally occupied, allowing TiO to absorb radiation from stellar interiors over a wide wavelength range. The complexity introduced by these numerous strong transitions in the spectra of cool stars may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.}} {\removed{it is composed of two atoms that have a large mass difference. The large difference in nuclei masses means that the nuclei in TiO undergo vibrational motions more intense than experienced if the nuclei were of similar mass \citep{hubeny2014theory}. The importance of TiO as an opacity source may explain the large spread in flux differences with increasing effective temperature.}}
\\\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750~K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\subsection{C$_2$}
The maximum {\removed{and minimum}} abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000~K and 5000~K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000~K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}. The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000~K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000~K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500~K to 6000~K provide the most uniform abundance and flux differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. Stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250~K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500~K but with low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are highly sensitive to the continuum placement, which will vary for the fiducial and perturbed spectrum as they have different contributions to the opacity. This leads to larger flux differences and failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would also result in larger abundance difference. These differences overestimate the impact we would observe due to an \changed{incorrect} dissociation energy \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.
\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\changed{We synthesised spectra with both a fiducial and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy to evaluate how incorrect dissociation energies adopted by spectral synthesis codes could translate to systematic biases in inferred elemental abundances.}{\added{ The perturbed dissociation energies were the fiducial values minus their corresponding uncertainty.}} We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000~K and 6000~K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the \changed{incorrect} dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
\\\\
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. {\added{To the first order we can estimate the code-to-code impact by linear scaling the difference in the dissociation energy to the uncertainty in dissociation energy we adopted.}} This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
{\added{The dissociation energy values collated for the purpose of spectral synthesis are not the most recent values to be calculated, and may be out of date.}} A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical \changed{Tables \citep{ruscic_2004}} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. It is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}. The uncertainty in the dissociation energy determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. This has contributed to a precise dissociation energy value for C$_2$, leading to a negligible abundance uncertainty. The C$_2$ dissociation energy from \citet{visser_new_2019} is likely more accurate and \changed{precise} than \changed{the values} recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.
\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact {\added{of incorrect dissociation energies}} on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. \changed{Dissociation energy values adopted by these codes also need to be updated so we can be confident that the spectra produced are reliable and all inferences are accurate.} Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paul Barklem for his enthusiasm for the project and invaluable feedback on drafts of this paper. We also thank Chris Sneden for his advice.
\\\\
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\section*{Data Availability}
All input data used are publicly available or can be requested from the lead author.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
% mnras_template.tex
%
% LaTeX template for creating an MNRAS paper
%
% v3.0 released 14 May 2015
% (version numbers match those of mnras.cls)
%
% Copyright (C) Royal Astronomical Society 2015
% Authors:
% Keith T. Smith (Royal Astronomical Society)
% Change log
%
% v3.2 July 2023
% Updated guidance on use of amssymb package
% v3.0 May 2015
% Renamed to match the new package name
% Version number matches mnras.cls
% A few minor tweaks to wording
% v1.0 September 2013
% Beta testing only - never publicly released
% First version: a simple (ish) template for creating an MNRAS paper
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Basic setup. Most papers should leave these options alone.
\documentclass[fleqn,usenatbib]{mnras}
% MNRAS is set in Times font. If you don't have this installed (most LaTeX
% installations will be fine) or prefer the old Computer Modern fonts, comment
% out the following line
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath}
% Depending on your LaTeX fonts installation, you might get better results with one of these:
%\usepackage{mathptmx}
%\usepackage{txfonts}
% Use vector fonts, so it zooms properly in on-screen viewing software
% Don't change these lines unless you know what you are doing
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
% Allow "Thomas van Noord" and "Simon de Laguarde" and alike to be sorted by "N" and "L" etc. in the bibliography.
% Write the name in the bibliography as "\VAN{Noord}{Van}{van} Noord, Thomas"
\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{#2}
\let\VANthebibliography\thebibliography
\def\thebibliography{\DeclareRobustCommand{\VAN}[3]{##3}\VANthebibliography}
%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN PACKAGES HERE %%%%%
% Only include extra packages if you really need them. Avoid using amssymb if newtxmath is enabled, as these packages can cause conflicts. newtxmatch covers the same math symbols while producing a consistent Times New Roman font. Common packages are:
\usepackage{graphicx} % Including figure files
\usepackage{amsmath} % Advanced maths commands
\usepackage{xcolor}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN COMMANDS HERE %%%%%
% Please keep new commands to a minimum, and use \newcommand not \def to avoid
% overwriting existing commands. Example:
%\newcommand{\pcm}{\,cm$^{-2}$} % per cm-squared
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE PAGE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Title of the paper, and the short title which is used in the headers.
% Keep the title short and informative.
\title{The Impact of Uncertain Dissociation Energies on Chemical Abundances}
% The list of authors, and the short list which is used in the headers.
% If you need two or more lines of authors, add an extra line using \newauthor
\author[Aquilina et al.]{
Sarah E. Aquilina$^{1}$,
Andrew R. Casey$^{1,2}$,
Adam J. Wheeler$^{3}$,
Paul Barklem$^{4}$,
and Chris Sneden$^{5}$ \\
% List of institutions
$^{1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\\
$^{2}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D)\\
$^{3}$Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, McPherson Laboratory, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH USA\\
$^{4}$Theoretical Astrophysics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden\\
$^{5}$Department of Astronomy and McDonald Observatory, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA
}
% These dates will be filled out by the publisher
\date{Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ}
% Enter the current year, for the copyright statements etc.
\pubyear{2023}
% Don't change these lines
\begin{document}
\label{firstpage}
\pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Spectral synthesis codes require many physical inputs to predict an emergent spectrum.
These models are essential for inferring stellar parameters and detailed chemical abundances given some observed spectrum.
However, many of those inputs are uncertain, and the impacts of those uncertainties are largely unknown. Here we evaluate how uncertain dissociation energies impact abundances measured from C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO, and MgO features.
For each molecule we synthesised optical spectra of FGKM-type main-sequence and giant stars using the literature dissociation energy, and an incorrect (perturbed) dissociation energy.
We find that dissociation energy uncertainties for CN, CH, TiO, and MgO lead to negligible differences in flux or abundances. However, we also find that the literature uncertainty in C$_2$ dissociation energy translates to a significant difference in flux, and carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. For Solar-like stars, the impact on carbon abundance is up to 0.09 dex. These large abundance differences demonstrate the importance of reliable inputs for spectral synthesis codes, as well as a consensus on appropriate values between different codes.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Section: introduction}
Stellar spectra are necessary to understand production sites of elements \citep{jofre_gaia_2015}, the chemical enrichment of galaxies \citep{amarsi_non-lte_2016}, and even to understand the formation of exoplanets \citep{wang_detailed_2022}, among others. However, generating synthetic (model) spectra for comparison requires numerous uncertain physical inputs. While numerous comparisons exist between spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.,][]{ges}, no detailed review has evaluated how uncertainties in physical quantities translate to systematic uncertainties in stellar parameters or chemical abundances.\\
%Developers of modern spectral synthesis codes dutifully collect the most relevant data available at the time,
Our collective uncertainty in modelling stellar spectra accurately is highlighted by inconsistent [C/Fe] abundances in carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars from various stellar surveys \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}. CEMP stars are very old stars that contain vital information about the early Universe. They also have strong carbon molecular features that are routinely used to estimate the photospheric carbon abundance. This is used to classify CEMP stars by the typical definition of $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > +1$ (in some cases $[\mathrm{C/Fe}] > 0.7$) and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] < -1$ \citep{beers_discovery_2005}. However, various surveys such as the Solan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), the All-Wavelength Extended Growth Strip International Survey (AEGIS), the SkyMapper Survey and Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fibre Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) all obtain different distributions of [C/Fe] abundances, leading to different fractions of CEMP stars for different stellar populations \citep{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}.
These disagreements translate to different inferences about the conditions of the early universe, and how star formation proceeded at high redshift.
These discrepancies might be reduced by a consistent use of physical inputs needed by spectral synthesis codes for predicting synthetic spectra, which we then compare to observations.
\\\\
One quantity required by spectral synthesis codes is the dissociation energy for each molecular species considered, a requirement for computing molecular equilibrium constants. The dissociation energy is the energy needed to break molecular bonds, increasing the number of particles. The dissociation energy is preferably determined experimentally, as there are specific methods for different molecules. For diatomic molecules, spectrometry provides the most accurate dissociation energies \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. This could be through band convergence, extrapolation to convergence limits, the long-wavelength limit of absorption continuum, predissociation limits and/or photodissociation \citep{luo2007comprehensive}. However, only band convergence and extrapolation provide values for the dissociation energy, while the other methods typically provide upper limits \citep{wilkinson_1963}.
\\\\
When experimental measurements are unavailable, there are multiple ways in which the dissociation energy can be theoretically determined: algebraic methods \citep{weiguo_accurate_2007}, Gaussian-1,2,3,4 (G1, G2, G3, G4) theory \citep{pople_gaussian1_1989} and coupled cluster \citep{raghavachari_augmented_1985} methods. Gaussian theory is more suitable for stellar purposes because it can be applied to a larger range of molecules compared to coupled cluster methods and algebraic methods \citep{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}. Coupled cluster calculations are prohibitively expensive for complex molecules.
\\\\
Each molecular dissociation energy has an associated uncertainty.
Experimentally determined dissociation energies usually have smaller uncertainties than theoretical values. However, theoretical values are favoured if the experimental data is considered unreliable because of missing energy levels or a lack of vibrational modes observed \citep{jorgensen1994molecules}. Spectral synthesis codes typically use values that were available to the developer at the time the code was written. This leads to different dissociation energies being used between popular spectral synthesis codes.
\\\\
A recent compendium of dissociation energies can be found in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}. This data set considers dissociation energies from experiments of \citet{herzberg1950molecular} and \citet{luo2007comprehensive} as well as theoretical values from G2 theory \citep[e.g.,][]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. For each molecule, a dissociation energy was adopted from one of these sources. Some energies from \citet{luo2007comprehensive} were taken from \citet{herzberg1950molecular}, and agreed well with \citet{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}. However, \citet{luo2007comprehensive} provided error estimates on dissociation energies, which is critically important for this work, and therefore was chosen in most cases.
\\\\
The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{Section: method} we describe the inputs used to synthesise spectra with `fiducial' and `perturbed' dissociation energies. This includes details of how we evaluate the impact that the perturbed dissociation energy has on the spectrum. In Section \ref{Section: results} we quantify the discrepancies from perturbed dissociation energies as flux differences and abundance differences. These differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra are discussed in detail in Section \ref{Section: discussion}.
\section{Methods}
\label{Section: method}
In this work we investigated five molecules: C$_2$, CN, CH, TiO and MgO. These molecules are important in stellar astrophysics: they contribute significantly to the opacity, and many features can be readily observed in stellar spectra. These five molecules also have dissociation energies with uncertainties greater than 0.01~eV
in \citet{barklem_partition_2016}, which is larger than the typical uncertainties included in that work. Dissociation energies and uncertainties adopted for each molecule are shown in Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies}.
\\\\
We synthesized spectra from 3000\,\AA\ to 9000\,\AA\ using \texttt{Korg} \citep{korg_2022} and a line list from the Vienna Atomic Line Database \citep[][and references therein]{kupka_1999}. We computed spectra using a grid of MARCS model atmospheres \citep{gustafsson_grid_2008} with effective temperatures from 3000\,K to 8000\,K in 250\,K intervals, surface gravities from 0.0 to 5.5 in 0.5\,dex intervals, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ from $-1.5$ to 0.5 in 0.5 intervals, [$\alpha$/H] from 0.0 to 0.4 in 0.1 intervals, [C/metals] = 0.0 and [N/metals] $= 0.0$. Some atmospheres had diverging molecular equilibrium constants and therefore the corresponding spectrum was not produced.
\\\\
%Approximately 6200 perturbed spectra had converging molecular equilibrium constants for each molecule.
For each molecule under examination, we computed two spectra for each photosphere: one using the `fiducial' dissociation energy (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}), and one using a `perturbed' dissociation energy: the fiducial values plus their uncertainty \citep[see Table~\ref{table:dissociation energies} or][]{barklem_partition_2016}.
We adopt the Laplacian approximation, where we assume that the impact of perturbed dissociation energies on the emergent spectrum (or the inferred abundance) would be symmetric, such that we do not synthesize spectra with a perturbed dissociation energy where the uncertainty is instead subtracted.
\\\\
%We did not include spectra with perturbed dissociation energies where the uncertainty is instead subtracted, as both the subtracted and plus cases are assumed to be symmetric.
%The molecular equilibrium constants were calculated using the `fiducial' dissociation energies (from \citealp{barklem_partition_2016}) and 'perturbed' dissociation energies. The fiducial dissociation energies were values adopted by \citet{barklem_partition_2016} . .
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|C|C|C|}
\hline
Molecule & Dissociation Energy (eV) & Uncertainty (eV) \\
\hline
C$_2$ & 6.371 & 0.160 \\
CN & 7.737 & 0.030 \\
CH & 3.4696 & 0.013 \\
TiO & 6.869 & 0.061 \\
MgO & 3.673 & 0.074 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Dissociation energies and uncertainties from \citet{barklem_partition_2016} adopted for each molecule.}
\label{table:dissociation energies}
\end{table}
Given the sets of fiducial and perturbed spectra, we found the wavelength with the maximum absolute difference in rectified (continuum-normalised) flux. Although not strictly correct, we assumed that the maximum absolute difference in rectified flux would be a good approximation to where the largest possible abundance differences could be inferred due to a perturbed dissociation energy, giving us a `worst case scenario'. This informed our decision on what wavelength we should focus on when considering how uncertain dissociation energies would translate into abundances.
We then synthesised fiducial and perturbed spectra for every atmosphere around this `worst case scenario' wavelength ($8\,$\AA\ either side) in order to evaluate the impact on abundances. Note that for MgO and TiO, the flux differences were only calculated for atmospheres with effective temperatures between 4000\,K to 5000\,K because these molecules mostly have lines that are relevant at cool temperatures, and very few in hotter atmospheres.\\
%We determined the wavelength with the largest absolute flux difference for all atmospheres sampled.
%The flux difference at the chosen wavelength was then calculated for every atmosphere.
For each atmosphere we then treated the perturbed spectrum as if it were real data, and fit that spectrum using the fiducial dissociation energy, where we allowed the chemical abundances of the constituent species to vary (e.g., C abundance for C$_2$, Mg and O abundances for MgO). Optimisation was performed by minimising the $\chi^2$ difference with the Limited-memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon algorithm and automatic differentiation. The optimisation provided the abundance for the fiducial and perturbed spectra to agree (e.g., identical black and green spectra in Figure \ref{fig: C2 spectra}), allowing us to quantify the abundance difference caused by perturbing the dissociation energy. This process was repeated across approximately 6,200 atmospheres.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{C_C2_molecule_C2_6.371_0.16_5250_2.0_0.5_0.1_0.0_0.0.flux.fit_d0fitp2.pdf}
\caption{Difference in abundance of carbon in C$_2$ for a star with an effective temperature of 5250 K, log(g) = 2.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.1. The black line shows the spectrum synthesised with the fiducial dissociation energy, and the red line with the perturbed dissociation energy. The green line is the spectrum obtained when fitting the perturbed spectrum (red) to the fiducial spectrum (black) by allowing the carbon abundance $A(C)$ to vary.}
\label{fig: C2 spectra}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{Section: results}
Despite the concerning uncertainties for the dissociation energy of CH, CN, TiO and MgO, all these molecules had flux differences less than 5$\%$. This translates to negligible abundance differences for what is considered the largest difference between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. As a result, the optimisation was only performed on our entire parameter space for C$_2$. However, the flux differences of these four molecules are still significant for specific applications such as detecting exoplanets and resolving the interior of theoretical terrestrial planets \citep{amarsi_carbon_2019}. To accurately determine the mineralogy of the planet, a precision level of $\leq 0.025$ dex is recommended for the stellar
differential abundances of the host star \citep{wang_detailed_2022}. This highlights the need to obtain precise dissociation energies for these four molecules to improve synthetic spectra for wider applications, regardless of the flux difference we have computed. \\
We found that sometimes the optimiser returned an unrealistic abundance difference when there was almost no change to the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). In effect, the returned abundance differences represent upper limits on abundance differences instead of measurements.
For these reasons, in later sections we only consider results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{normalised~flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel.\\
%TiO as well as MgO and some model atmospheres for C$_2$ where the dissociation energy had almost no change on the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). This was largely caused by small flux differences that led to early exits by the optimiser. The optimiser also did not converge for weak and/or broadened lines that had small flux differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. However, the reason for these overestimated abundances is dependent on the molecule. For TiO, the overestimation is likely caused by the lack of identifiable lines around its maximum wavelength of 3021~\AA\ as they are all heavily blended and the continuum flux is large.
The uncertainty in the dissociation energy of C$_2$ has the largest maximum rectified flux difference. C$_2$ has a maximum rectified flux difference of 0.13 for an atmosphere with an effective temperature of 5250~K, log(g) = 0.0, [Fe/H] = 0.5, [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.0. This occurs at approximately 5145~\AA \hspace{0cm} in Figure \ref{fig: C2 flux difference}. However, most atmospheres showed the largest difference at 5166~\AA. We therefore considered 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} to be the C$_2$ band most sensitive to changes in the dissociation energy, and used this as our chosen wavelength for the maximum rectified flux. 5166~\AA \hspace{0cm} is also part of an important C$_2$ band known as the Swan band \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}.
%The Swan band provides information about artifacts on the Sun's surface as the strength of the band decreases in the presence of sunspots.
%Therefore, it is crucial the carbon abundance is measured accurately from this particular C$_2$ molecular band.
\\\\
Carbon abundance differences in C$_2$ ranged from 0.0 dex to 0.2 dex in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. Both the mean and median abundance difference is 0.08 dex.
%with a standard deviation of 0.01 dex.
%This indicates that our distribution of abundance differences is approximately symmetric across our parameter space.
Cooler atmospheres ($T_\mathrm{eff} < 5000$\,K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations above the mean, while some hotter atmospheres ($>$ 6250~K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations below the mean. However, hotter atmospheres have a larger range of abundance differences from 0.0 dex to 0.09 dex than cooler atmospheres.\\
%We found that the optimiser sometimes returned an unrealistic C$_2$ abundance difference for model atmospheres where the dissociation energy had almost no change on the spectrum (i.e., less than 10$^{-5}$). Small flux differences that led to early exits by the optimiser may be due to the preference of other molecules at cooler temperatures. There are also stars for which the optimiser did not converge, as the abundance difference found was our lower bound of -1.0 dex. This is typically for weak and/or broadened lines that had small flux differences between the fiducial and perturbed spectra. For these reasons, in later sections we only include results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}\text{flux}| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel. The flux difference for each log(g) and effective temperature in our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: logg vs teff flux diff}.
Inferred carbon abundance differences of up to 0.2\,dex were measured from C$_2$ features (Figure~\ref{fig: max/min plots}). The maximum abundance difference was observed for two stars: one with an effective temperature of 4250~K, log(g) = 4.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4 and the other with an effective temperature of 4750~K, log(g) = 5.5, [Fe/H] = 0.5, and [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.4. However, these stars have a flux difference of 0.012 and 0.013, respectively, an order of magnitude smaller than the maximum rectified flux difference we obtained. The large abundance differences for these stars is likely a result of the slanted continuum leading to the fitted spectrum being slightly offset from the fiducial spectrum.
\\\\
% Andy: up to here
%Both the mean and median abundance difference is 0.08 dex with a standard deviation of 0.01 dex. This indicates that our distribution of abundance differences is approximately symmetric across our parameter space.
%Cooler atmospheres (< 5000 K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations above the mean, while some hotter atmospheres (> 6250K) had abundance differences more than three standard deviations bellow the mean. However, hotter atmospheres have a larger range of abundance differences from 0.0 dex to 0.09 dex than cooler atmospheres.
% Example figure
\begin{figure}
% To include a figure from a file named example.*
% Allowable file formats are eps or ps if compiling using latex
% or pdf, png, jpg if compiling using pdflatex
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{C2_flux_diff_2.pdf}
\caption{Maximum rectified flux difference between the perturbed spectra and fiducial spectra of each atmosphere sampled for C$_2$. The largest flux difference of 0.13 occurs at 5145\,\AA. Most atmospheres had the largest flux difference at 5166\,\AA.}
\label{fig: C2 flux difference}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% {{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_flux_5.pdf}}}%
% \qquad
% \caption{Flux difference across log(g) and effective temperatures in our parameter space. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure, since the fiducial and perturbed spectra are essentially identical.}
% \label{fig: logg vs teff flux diff}%
%\end{figure}
%\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_teff_plot_max_6.pdf} }}%
\caption{Effective temperature and log(g) across our parameter space. Each point is coloured by the maximum abundance difference. Stars with $\textrm{log}_{10}(|\Delta \textrm{flux}|) < -2.0$ were removed from the figure. Stars with effective temperatures between 4000 K and 5000 K have the maximum abundance difference of 0.20 dex. The minimum abundance difference is 0.0 dex for stars with an effective temperature of 6250 K.}%
\label{fig: max/min plots}%
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% {{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{logg_plot_5.pdf} }}%
% \qquad
% {{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{teff_plot_5.pdf} }}%
% \caption{Carbon abundance difference in C$_2$ across log(g) and coloured by the effective temperature in the top plot. Abundance difference across the effective temperature and coloured by log(g) in the bottom plot. Stars between 4000 K and 5000 K show the largest abundance differences of up to 0.2 dex. Stars with an effective temperature of 3000 K or an effective temperature greater than 7000 K were not significantly affected by the uncertain dissociation energy.}%
% \label{fig: logg and teff plot}%
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% {{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fe_h_plot_teff_5.pdf} }}%
% \caption{Abundance differences for each metallicity in our parameter space coloured by the effective temperature of the star. The abundances of some metal-poor stars were overestimated, as the optimiser finished prematurely. These are invalid results and have been removed.}%
% \label{fig: fe_h plots}%
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}
% \centering
% {{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{alpha_m_plot_teff_5.pdf} }}%
% \caption{Abundance difference for [$\alpha$/metals] across our parameter space coloured by the effective temperature. All invalid results have been removed. $\alpha$-enhanced stars have larger abundance differences as the perturbed spectrum experiences greater changes to the opacity.}%
% \label{fig: alpha plots}%
%\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Section: discussion}
We have evaluated the impact that uncertain dissociation energies for C$_2$, MgO, TiO, CN, and CH have on predicted spectra. These results only relate to chemical abundances as measured from molecular bands, whereas usually chemical abundances are derived from atomic lines wherever possible. However, there are some cases in which carbon can only be measured from molecular features. This includes metal-poor stars, giant stars, or very cool stars, as they have typically have large non-local thermal equilibrium effects for atomic lines and/or heavily blended atomic lines \citep{ryabchikova_using_2022,amarsi_solar_2021}. First we discuss the lesser impact of MgO, TiO, CN, and CH, before we examine the effects of C$_2$.
\subsection{MgO, TiO, CN, and CH}
The maximum flux difference of MgO provides an upper limit for the abundance differences of magnesium and oxygen. However, MgO is a refractory compound, meaning it is resistant to changes at high temperatures and pressures \citep{kloska_gas-phase_2017}. This may explain the smaller flux differences observed between the fiducial and perturbed spectra, despite the change in dissociation energy. The small flux differences may also be attributed to large amounts of blending. The maximum flux difference for MgO occurs in the UV at 3116~\AA\ where there is an overcrowding of lines. This has led to molecular lines with flattened troughs and a relative flux close to 0.
\\
TiO may have small flux differences despite perturbing the dissociation energy, as the abundance of TiO is typically negligible compared to other elements or molecules in stars \citep{hubeny2014theory}. Despite this, TiO is an important opacity source in cool stars because it is composed of two atoms that have a large mass difference. The large difference in nuclei masses means that the nuclei in TiO undergo vibrational motions more intense than experienced if the nuclei were of similar mass \citep{hubeny2014theory}. The importance of TiO as an opacity source may explain the consistently higher flux differences for stars with lower effective temperatures. There is also a larger spread in flux differences as the effective temperature increases closer to that of Solar-like stars.\\
CN has a maximum flux difference of 0.027 at 4214~\AA\ for an atypical supergiant star ($\log{g} = 0$) at 4750 K with solar abundances. The maximum flux difference corresponds to a carbon abundance difference of 0.04 dex and a nitrogen abundance difference of 0.05 dex. The larger flux differences and abundances for this star may be due to the blending of CN lines. For other stars, the flux differences may be small for CN, as CN and CH are found to have clear anti-correlations in band strengths \citep[except for in metal-poor stars;][]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}. Therefore, as CH has strong molecular bands between 4200~\AA \hspace{0cm} and 4300~\AA, CN has weaker bands at these wavelengths \citep{goswami_ch_2005}.
\\
The maximum flux difference of 0.01 for CH occurs at 3628~\AA\ and translates to a carbon abundance difference of 0.02 dex for a giant metal-poor star ($T_\mathrm{eff} = 4750,\mathrm{K}$, $\log_{10}(g) = 2.5$, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1.5$). This is expected as most bound-bound transitions for CH appear in the near UV for FGK stars, regardless of their carbon abundance \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. It is promising that the wavelength at which the largest flux difference occurs is not a part of the CH band at 4300~\AA \hspace{0cm}. This band is considered to be one of the most prominent CH bands and holds vital information about a star's magnetic flux concentration \citep{masseron_ch_2014}. CH also has the smallest maximum flux difference compared to the four other molecules we considered. This is likely due to CH having the smallest uncertainty in its dissociation energy in Table \ref{table:dissociation energies}.\\
The maximum flux difference for CH occurs in a star with [Fe/H] $= -1.5$.
CH is known to have strong lines in the near UV of metal-poor stars that are broadened due to predissociation. Predissociation is when an excited molecule is transferred to a dissociative state \citep{herzberg1950molecular}. This is a radiationless transition that usually occurs because the potentials of a bound and unbound state overlap. This premature transition causes broadening, similar to the premature de-excitation of electrons that cause pressure broadening. The predissociation broadening of these lines may explain why the largest flux difference for CH was observed for this type of star.
\subsection{C$_2$}
%We found that in some situations the fiducial and perturbed spectra were essentially identical (i.e., less than $10^{-5}$). This was typically for hot stars with weak or non-existent molecular features. In these situations the optimiser would rail up against the parameter limits, leading to an unrealistic estimate of abundance. For these reasons, in later sections we only include results where the flux difference is $|\Delta{}f_\lambda/f_c| > 10^{-2}$ in at least one pixel. - Don't need
The maximum and minimum abundance difference between the perturbed and fiducial spectra for C$_2$ across our parameter space is shown in Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}. In Figure \ref{fig: max/min plots}, the abundance difference reaches a maximum of 0.20 dex between 4000 K and 5000 K. The decrease in abundance difference at temperatures lower than 4000 K may be attributed to the association of other molecules such as CO at lower temperatures, even though C$_2$ does not dissociate \citep{sriramachandran_presence_2016}. CO associates at these lower temperatures since it has a dissociation energy of 11.117 eV, double that of C$_2$ \citep{barklem_partition_2016}.
%This may also have resulted in small flux differences shown in Figure \ref{fig: logg vs teff flux diff} and the premature exit of the optimiser at 3000 K.
The smaller flux differences and overestimation of abundances above 7000 K are possibly due to C$_2$ being mostly dissociated for both spectra. Stars observed by \citet{Hema_2012} with effective temperatures above 7000 K showed no C$_2$ bands around 5165 \AA.
\\\\
Atmospheres with effective temperatures from 4500 K to 6000 K provide the most uniform abundance differences across $\log{g}$ values in our parameter space for C$_2$. %This is demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig: logg and teff plot} with the top plot showing the abundance difference with respect to log(g) and the bottom plot with respect to the effective temperature.
Stars with an effective temperature below 4500 K and a higher surface gravity (above 2.0) typically had small flux differences. A similar trend was observed for atmospheres with effective temperatures above 6250 K with $\log{g} < 2.5$, which may be because they experience more pressure broadening. Broadened lines would tend to spread flux differences across more pixels, leading to a smaller per-pixel difference. For stars with an effective temperature below 4500 K and low log(g), the flux differences may have been larger due to weak lines and a slanted continuum. Weak lines are more sensitive to the continuum placement, so failure by the optimiser to fit the continuum would lead to a larger abundance difference \citep{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}.\\\\
We found that the abundance differences for C$_2$ increase as a function of metallicity and $[\alpha$/metals]. %Figures \ref{fig: fe_h plots} and \ref{fig: alpha plots} show that the abundance difference for C$_2$ increases as $\alpha$ increases and as the metallicity increases.
The increase in abundance difference with $[\alpha$/metals] may be because $\alpha$-enhanced stars have more electron contributions from metals such as Mg and Ca that have low ionisation potentials, increasing the H$^-$ opacity \citep{jofre_gaia_2017}. This decreases the continuum flux and results in a stronger temperature gradient. Changes to the opacity would be further heightened in the fiducial spectrum due to additional electrons from the dissociation of C$_2$ that would be absent in the perturbed spectrum. $\alpha$-enhancement is also more notable for cooler stars, since H- has a low binding energy and is destroyed in hot stellar atmospheres \citep{hubeny2014theory}. This may be why the abundance difference is larger for lower effective temperatures. A similar change in opacity exhibited by $\alpha$-enhancement is observed for metal-rich stars, as they contribute more electrons than metal-poor stars \citep{chisholm_constraining_2019}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have evaluated how uncertain dissociation energies translate to systematic biases in chemical abundances. We found that CH, CN, TiO, and MgO all had a maximum flux difference less than 0.05 dex. This translates to a negligible abundance differences, but could still be important opacity contributors, or for particular science cases (e.g., exoplanet compositions). For C measurements from C$_2$ features, our analysis demonstrated that atmospheres with effective temperatures between 5000 K and 6000 K have C$_2$ carbon abundance differences from 0.05 dex to 0.09 dex (if measured from C$_2$ molecular features near 5166\,\AA). From atomic lines, the \citet{asplund_2020vision_2021} Solar carbon abundance is 8.46 $\pm$ 0.04 dex. In this scenario, the uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.\\
%Measuring carbon from C$_2$ molecular features will give incorrect abundances due to the molecules uncertain dissociation energy. At 5166 \AA \hspace{0cm} we observed abundance differences up to 0.2 dex. The uncertain dissociation energy for C$_2$ also translates to a systematic abundance uncertainty twice what is reported for the Sun.
If we consider that different dissociation energy values are used in spectral synthesis codes, it becomes difficult to compare theory to observations. For example, \texttt{SME} \citep{SME_1996} uses 6.297 eV, and both \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} use 6.21 eV for the dissociation energy of C$_2$ \citep{turbospectrum_2012,sneden_2012,Korg_2023}. \texttt{TurboSpectrum} and \texttt{MOOG} are just within 1 standard deviation from the 6.371 $\pm$ 0.16 eV adopted by \texttt{Korg}. This means that these codes may deviate by up to 60$\%$ from \texttt{Korg} when considering carbon abundances, with smaller discrepancies expected to be observed between \texttt{Korg} and \texttt{SME}.
\\\\
A more recent C$_2$ dissociation energy of 6.24 $\pm$ 0.02 eV is reported by \citet{visser_new_2019}. They used a combination of mixing experiments and multi-reference configuration interaction calculations to derive this value. Their dissociation energy is in agreement with spectroscopic results from the NEAT dataset \citep{csaszar_network_2010} and Active Thermochemical Tablesas \citep{ruscic_active_2014} as well as theoretical results from CCSD(T) \citep{karton_atomization_2009,feller_improved_2013}. The uncertainty in dissociation determined by \citet{visser_new_2019} also considers relativistic effects and contributions from high order excitation states. Their value is within 1 standard deviation of that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}, and considering the extra corrections is likely more accurate than that recommended by \citet{luo2007comprehensive}.\\
%Many of our Figures contain imperfect smoothness after the removal of small flux differences. One such imperfection can be seen in Figure \ref{fig: alpha plots}, where there is a large gap between points at [$\alpha$/metals] = 0.3. This is due to our random sampling of 50 atmospheres that were used to determine the central wavelength for our optimisation. If we sampled the 50 atmospheres needed across all parameters instead of just the effective temperature, a more uniform distribution of abundances would be produced. This may also avoid some of the small flux differences that led to invalid results, providing us with more reliable data.
%To investigate how perturbing the dissociation energy will change the abundance inferred from spectra, we synthesised two spectra--one with the dissociation energy stated in literature (the so-called fiducial spectrum) and the other with the dissociation energy plus its uncertainty (the perturbed spectrum)--for C$_2$, CH, CN, TiO, and MgO across different log(g), effective temperature, [$\alpha$/metals], and [Fe/H]. The fiducial spectrum was fitted to the perturbed spectrum by minimising $\chi^2$ around the wavelength corresponding to the maximum flux difference between spectra.
%\\\\
%\\\\
These are significant abundance differences between the spectra of differing dissociation energies for C$_2$. The significant impact on Solar-like stars highlights the importance for a consensus on the dissociation energy amongst spectral synthesis codes. Dissociation energy values also need to be further constrained so we can be confident that the spectrum produced are reliable and all inferences are precise.
%Creating a data set of accurate spectral inputs may help reconcile theory with observations.
%\\\\
Our analysis could also be extended by fitting synthetic spectra around an atomic carbon line and a molecular C$_2$ line for different stars. This would allow us to optimise the carbon abundance as well as the dissociation energy simultaneously. We could improve dissociation energy measurements using synthetic spectra instead of experimental techniques.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
\bibliography{mnemonic,library} % if your bibtex file is called example.bib
\bsp % typesetting comment
\label{lastpage}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\makeatletter
\relax
\def\mn@urlcharsother{\let\do\@makeother \do\$\do\&\do\#\do\^\do\_\do\%\do\~}
\def\mn@doi{\begingroup\mn@urlcharsother \@ifnextchar [ {\mn@doi@} {\mn@doi@[]}}
\def\mn@doi@[#1]#2{\def\@tempa{#1}\ifx\@tempa\@empty \href {http://dx.doi.org/#2} {doi:#2}\else \href {http://dx.doi.org/#2} {#1}\fi \endgroup}
\def\mn@eprint#1#2{\mn@eprint@#1:#2::\@nil}
\def\mn@eprint@arXiv#1{\href {http://arxiv.org/abs/#1} {{\tt arXiv:#1}}}
\def\mn@eprint@dblp#1{\href {http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/#1.xml} {dblp:#1}}
\def\mn@eprint@#1:#2:#3:#4\@nil{\def\@tempa {#1}\def\@tempb {#2}\def\@tempc {#3}\ifx \@tempc \@empty \let \@tempc \@tempb \let \@tempb \@tempa \fi \ifx \@tempb \@empty \def\@tempb {arXiv}\fi \@ifundefined {mn@eprint@\@tempb}{\@tempb:\@tempc}{\expandafter \expandafter \csname mn@eprint@\@tempb\endcsname \expandafter{\@tempc}}}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Amarsi, Lind, Asplund, Barklem \& Collet}{Amarsi et~al.}{2016}]{amarsi_non-lte_2016}
Amarsi A.~M., Lind K., Asplund M., Barklem P.~S., Collet R., 2016, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stw2077}, 463, 1518
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Amarsi, Nissen \& Skúladóttir}{Amarsi et~al.}{2019}]{amarsi_carbon_2019}
Amarsi A.~M., Nissen P.~E., Skúladóttir A., 2019, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201936265}, 630, 1
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Amarsi, Grevesse, Asplund \& Collet}{Amarsi et~al.}{2021}]{amarsi_solar_2021}
Amarsi A.~M., Grevesse N., Asplund M., Collet R., 2021, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/202141384}, 656, A113
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Arentsen, Placco, Lee, Aguado, Martin, Starkenburg \& Yoon}{Arentsen et~al.}{2022}]{arentsen_inconsistency_2022}
Arentsen A., Placco V.~M., Lee Y.~S., Aguado D.~S., Martin N.~F., Starkenburg E., Yoon J., 2022, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stac2062}, 515, 4082
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Asplund}, {Amarsi} \& {Grevesse}}{{Asplund} et~al.}{2021}]{asplund_2020vision_2021}
{Asplund} M., {Amarsi} A.~M., {Grevesse} N., 2021, \mn@doi [\aap] {10.1051/0004-6361/202140445}, \href {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.141A} {653, A141}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Barklem \& Collet}{Barklem \& Collet}{2016}]{barklem_partition_2016}
Barklem P.~S., Collet R., 2016, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201526961}, 588, 1
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartlett \& Silver}{Bartlett \& Silver}{1974}]{bartlett_1974}
Bartlett R.~J., Silver D.~M., 1974, \mn@doi [International Journal of Quantum Chemistry] {https://doi.org/10.1002/qua.560080831}, 8, 271
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Beers \& Christlieb}{Beers \& Christlieb}{2005}]{beers_discovery_2005}
Beers T.~C., Christlieb N., 2005, \mn@doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] {10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057}, 43, 531
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bidaran, Mirtorabi \& Azizi}{Bidaran et~al.}{2016}]{bidaran_2016}
Bidaran B., Mirtorabi M.~T., Azizi F., 2016, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stw051}, 457, 2043
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanco-Cuaresma}{Blanco-Cuaresma}{2019}]{blanco-cuaresma_modern_2019}
Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stz549}, 486, 2075
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chisholm, Rigby, Bayliss, Berg, Dahle, Gladders \& Sharon}{Chisholm et~al.}{2019}]{chisholm_constraining_2019}
Chisholm J., Rigby J.~R., Bayliss M., Berg D.~A., Dahle H., Gladders M., Sharon K., 2019, \mn@doi [The Astrophysical Journal] {10.3847/1538-4357/ab3104}, 882, 182
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Costes \& Naulin}{Costes \& Naulin}{1994}]{costes_naulin_1994}
Costes M., Naulin C., 1994, \mn@doi [International Astronomical Union Colloquium] {10.1017/S0252921100021370}, 146, 250–264
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Császár \& Furtenbacher}{Császár \& Furtenbacher}{2010}]{csaszar_network_2010}
Császár A.~G., Furtenbacher T., 2010, \mn@doi [Chemistry (Weinheim an Der Bergstrasse, Germany)] {10.1002/chem.200903252}, 16, 4826
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Curtiss, Raghavachari, Trucks \& Pople}{Curtiss et~al.}{1991}]{curtiss_gaussian2_1991}
Curtiss L.~A., Raghavachari K., Trucks G.~W., Pople J.~A., 1991, \mn@doi [The Journal of Chemical Physics] {10.1063/1.460205}, 94, 7221
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Curtiss, Redfern \& Raghavachari}{Curtiss et~al.}{2007}]{curtiss_gaussian-4_2007}
Curtiss L.~A., Redfern P.~C., Raghavachari K., 2007, \mn@doi [The Journal of Chemical Physics] {10.1063/1.2436888}, 126, 084108
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Feller, Peterson \& Ruscic}{Feller et~al.}{2013}]{feller_improved_2013}
Feller D., Peterson K.~A., Ruscic B., 2013, \mn@doi [Theoretical Chemistry Accounts] {10.1007/s00214-013-1407-z}, 133, 1407
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goswami}{Goswami}{2005}]{goswami_ch_2005}
Goswami A., 2005, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08917.x}, 359, 531
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gustafsson, Edvardsson, Eriksson, Jorgensen, Nordlund \& Plez}{Gustafsson et~al.}{2008}]{gustafsson_grid_2008}
Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Eriksson K., Jorgensen U.~G., Nordlund A., Plez B., 2008, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361:200809724}, 486, 951
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hema, Pandey \& Lambert}{Hema et~al.}{2012}]{Hema_2012}
Hema B.~P., Pandey G., Lambert D.~L., 2012, \mn@doi [The Astrophysical Journal] {10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/102}, 747, 102
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Herzberg}{Herzberg}{1950}]{herzberg1950molecular}
Herzberg G., 1950, Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure - Vol I.
No.~v. 1, Read Books Limited, \url {https://books.google.com.au/books?id=W2Z8CgAAQBAJ}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hourihane} et~al.,}{{Hourihane} et~al.}{2023}]{ges}
{Hourihane} A., et~al., 2023, \mn@doi [\aap] {10.1051/0004-6361/202345910}, \href {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.129H} {676, A129}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hubeny \& Mihalas}{Hubeny \& Mihalas}{2014}]{hubeny2014theory}
Hubeny I., Mihalas D., 2014, Theory of Stellar Atmospheres: An Introduction to Astrophysical Non-equilibrium Quantitative Spectroscopic Analysis.
Princeton Series in Astrophysics, Princeton University Press, \url {https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TmuYDwAAQBAJ}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jofre et~al.,}{Jofre et~al.}{2017}]{jofre_gaia_2017}
Jofre P., et~al., 2017, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201629833}, 601, A38
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jofré et~al.,}{Jofré et~al.}{2015}]{jofre_gaia_2015}
Jofré P., et~al., 2015, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201526604}, 582, A81
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Karton, Tarnopolsky \& Martin}{Karton et~al.}{2009}]{karton_atomization_2009}
Karton A., Tarnopolsky A., Martin J. M.~L., 2009, \mn@doi [Molecular Physics] {10.1080/00268970802708959}, 107, 977
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kloska \& Fortenberry}{Kloska \& Fortenberry}{2017}]{kloska_gas-phase_2017}
Kloska K., Fortenberry R., 2017, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stx2912}, 474
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kupka}, {Piskunov}, {Ryabchikova}, {Stempels} \& {Weiss}}{{Kupka} et~al.}{1999}]{kupka_1999}
{Kupka} F., {Piskunov} N., {Ryabchikova} T.~A., {Stempels} H.~C., {Weiss} W.~W., 1999, \mn@doi [\aaps] {10.1051/aas:1999267}, \href {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..138..119K} {138, 119}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Luo}{Luo}{2007}]{luo2007comprehensive}
Luo Y., 2007, Comprehensive Handbook of Chemical Bond Energies.
CRC Press, \url {https://books.google.com.au/books?id=kM3mwD4y\_TAC}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Masseron et~al.,}{Masseron et~al.}{2014}]{masseron_ch_2014}
Masseron T., et~al., 2014, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201423956}, 571, A47
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pancino, Rejkuba, Zoccali \& Carrera}{Pancino et~al.}{2010}]{pancino_low-resolution_2010}
Pancino E., Rejkuba M., Zoccali M., Carrera R., 2010, \mn@doi [Astronomy \& Astrophysics] {10.1051/0004-6361/201014383}, 524, A44
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Plez}}{{Plez}}{2012}]{turbospectrum_2012}
{Plez} B., 2012, {Turbospectrum: Code for spectral synthesis}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1205.004 (\mn@eprint {ascl} {1205.004})
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pople, Head‐Gordon, Fox, Raghavachari \& Curtiss}{Pople et~al.}{1989}]{pople_gaussian1_1989}
Pople J.~A., Head‐Gordon M., Fox D.~J., Raghavachari K., Curtiss L.~A., 1989, \mn@doi [The Journal of Chemical Physics] {10.1063/1.456415}, 90, 5622
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Raghavachari}{Raghavachari}{1985}]{raghavachari_augmented_1985}
Raghavachari K., 1985, \mn@doi [The Journal of Chemical Physics] {10.1063/1.448718}, 82, 4607
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ruscic et~al.,}{Ruscic et~al.}{2004}]{ruscic_2004}
Ruscic B., et~al., 2004, \mn@doi [The Journal of Physical Chemistry A] {10.1021/jp047912y}, 108, 9979
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ruscic, Feller \& Peterson}{Ruscic et~al.}{2014}]{ruscic_active_2014}
Ruscic B., Feller D., Peterson K.~A., 2014, \mn@doi [Theoretical Chemistry Accounts] {10.1007/s00214-013-1415-z}, 133, 1415
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ryabchikova, Piskunov \& Pakhomov}{Ryabchikova et~al.}{2022}]{ryabchikova_using_2022}
Ryabchikova T., Piskunov N., Pakhomov Y., 2022, \mn@doi [Atoms] {10.3390/atoms10040103}, 10, 103
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sneden}, {Bean}, {Ivans}, {Lucatello} \& {Sobeck}}{{Sneden} et~al.}{2012}]{sneden_2012}
{Sneden} C., {Bean} J., {Ivans} I., {Lucatello} S., {Sobeck} J., 2012, {MOOG: LTE line analysis and spectrum synthesis}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.009 (\mn@eprint {ascl} {1202.009})
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sriramachandran, Sindhan, Ramaswamy \& Shanmugavel}{Sriramachandran et~al.}{2016}]{sriramachandran_presence_2016}
Sriramachandran P., Sindhan R., Ramaswamy S., Shanmugavel R., 2016, \mn@doi [New Astronomy] {10.1016/j.newast.2016.03.004}, 48, 16
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tennyson}{Tennyson}{2019}]{tennyson2019astronomical}
Tennyson J., 2019, Astronomical Spectroscopy: An Introduction To The Atomic And Molecular Physics Of Astronomical Spectroscopy (Third Edition).
Advanced Textbooks In Physics, World Scientific Publishing Company, \url {https://books.google.com.au/books?id=neaWDwAAQBAJ}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Valenti} \& {Piskunov}}{{Valenti} \& {Piskunov}}{1996}]{SME_1996}
{Valenti} J.~A., {Piskunov} N., 1996, \aaps, \href {https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&AS..118..595V} {118, 595}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Visser, Beck, Bornhauser, Knopp, Van~Bokhoven, Radi, Gourlaouen \& Marquardt}{Visser et~al.}{2019}]{visser_new_2019}
Visser B., Beck M., Bornhauser P., Knopp G., Van~Bokhoven J.~A., Radi P., Gourlaouen C., Marquardt R., 2019, \mn@doi [Molecular Physics] {10.1080/00268976.2018.1564849}, 117, 1645
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wang, Quanz, Yong, Liu, Seidler, Acuña \& Mojzsis}{Wang et~al.}{2022}]{wang_detailed_2022}
Wang H.~S., Quanz S.~P., Yong D., Liu F., Seidler F., Acuña L., Mojzsis S.~J., 2022, \mn@doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] {10.1093/mnras/stac1119}, 513, 5829
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{WeiGuo, QunChao \& WeiYi}{WeiGuo et~al.}{2007}]{weiguo_accurate_2007}
WeiGuo S., QunChao F., WeiYi R., 2007, \mn@doi [Science in China Series G: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy volume] {10.1007/s11433-007-0065-3}, 50, 611
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wheeler}, {Abruzzo}, {Casey} \& {Ness}}{{Wheeler} et~al.}{2022}]{korg_2022}
{Wheeler} A.~J., {Abruzzo} M.~W., {Casey} A.~R., {Ness} M.~K., 2022, {Korg: 1D local thermodynamic equilibrium stellar spectral synthesis}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2211.016 (\mn@eprint {ascl} {2211.016})
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wilkinson}{Wilkinson}{1963}]{wilkinson_1963}
Wilkinson P., 1963, The Astrophysical Journal, 138, 778
\makeatother
\end{thebibliography}