## 4 Discussion  
After the results presented in the previous section, some remarks are given below. First, the results provided are not enough per se to identify which method among the four methods investigated herein is the best one. This is explained by the absence of a ground truth reference to compare with. However, this does not constitute a deficiency or incompleteness in the presented study, which does not aim to identify or recommend a particular method for computing temperature-dependent electron-neutral collision cross sections. Instead, this study contrasts the predictions of the different four methods, and it both qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the disparity (or coherence) in the predicted results. In the present study, all the investigated methods are considered valid, and none of them is viewed as better than the other. This study emphasizes the presence of large deviations in the computed electron-neutral collision cross sections, which represent just one part of the computation of the plasma electric conductivity. Thus, the findings of the present study justify the large uncertainty in estimating plasma electric conductivity. This also suggests that a simplified modeling approach in computing electron-neutral collision cross sections or plasma electric conductivity can be a sensible choice given that a complicated approach is not guaranteed to provide better estimations. Second, it was shown that the electron-neutral collision cross sections of carbon monoxide (CO), molecular hydrogen (H\({}_{2}\)), and molecular oxygen (O\({}_{2}\), but according to two methods only out of the four) increase smoothly if the electron temperature increases within the range of temperatures covered (from 2000 K to 3000 K). This indicates more impediment to electrons' mobility at higher temperatures and thus indicates lower plasma \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Index**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(T_{e}\) (K)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Estimated Coefficients of Variation for Each Species**} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & **CO** & **CO\({}_{2}\)** & **H\({}_{2}\)** & **H\({}_{2}\)O** & **K** & **O\({}_{2}\)** \\ \hline
1 & 2000 & 25.95\% & 43.10\% & 13.03\% & 43.94\% & 44.13\% & 18.19\% \\ \hline
2 & 2100 & 26.29\% & 43.26\% & 13.07\% & 42.92\% & 43.78\% & 18.32\% \\ \hline
3 & 2200 & 26.61\% & 43.33\% & 13.08\% & 41.84\% & 43.66\% & 18.57\% \\ \hline
4 & 2300 & 26.89\% & 43.24\% & 13.06\% & 40.70\% & 43.53\% & 18.78\% \\ \hline
5 & 2400 & 27.17\% & 43.07\% & 13.02\% & 39.52\% & 43.40\% & 19.02\% \\ \hline
6 & 2500 & 27.42\% & 42.79\% & 12.98\% & 38.38\% & 43.36\% & 19.29\% \\ \hline
7 & 2600 & 27.72\% & 42.32\% & 12.92\% & 37.33\% & 43.28\% & 19.59\% \\ \hline
8 & 2700 & 27.94\% & 41.80\% & 12.86\% & 36.40\% & 43.29\% & 19.83\% \\ \hline
9 & 2800 & 28.12\% & 41.26\% & 12.78\% & 35.66\% & 43.52\% & 20.09\% \\ \hline
10 & 2900 & 28.31\% & 40.65\% & 12.68\% & 35.04\% & 43.54\% & 20.37\% \\ \hline
11 & 3000 & 28.44\% & 39.70\% & 12.59\% & 34.42\% & 43.62\% & 20.59\% \\ \hline
**Mean** & 27.35\% & 42.23\% & 12.92\% & 38.74\% & 43.56\% & 19.33\% \\ \hline
**Minimum** & 25.95\% & 39.70\% & 12.59\% & 34.42\% & 43.28\% & 18.19\% \\ \hline
**Maximum** & 28.44\% & 43.33\% & 13.08\% & 43.94\% & 44.13\% & 20.59\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Estimated coefficients of variation (based on the results of 4 prediction methods of \(\overline{Q}\)) for the average electron-neutral collision cross section for the 6 covered species at the 11 values of electron temperature (\(T_{e}\)). electric conductivity. However, this behavior should not misleadingly be interpreted as a higher-temperature alkali-metal seeded plasma that is dominantly composed of one or more of these three species (CO, H\({}_{2}\), and O\({}_{2}\)) having lower electric conductivity than lower-temperature plasma.