arxiv: 2604.27090 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Characterizing six seismic solar analogs observed by Kepler, K2, and HERMES

R. A. Garc\'ia , S. Mathur , G. T. Hookway , D. Godoy-Rivera , T. Masseron , J. B\'etrisey , G. Buldgen , C. Lindsay

show 26 more authors

T. S. Metcalfe O. J. Scutt A. Stokholm P. G. Beck O. Benomar G. R. Davies A. Jim\'enez J. Merc M. B. Nielsen E. Panetier F. P\'erez Hern\'andez L. Borg S. N. Breton L. Debacker A. Escorza D. H. Grossmann A. Hamy B. Liagre M. N. Lund S. Mathis D.B. Palakkatharappil A. R. G. Santos V. Delsanti L. Gonz\'alez-Cuesta V. Fox N. Proust

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords solar analogsasteroseismologysolar twinsstellar parametersKepler missionstellar evolutionspectroscopy

0 comments

The pith

Six seismic solar analogs have been characterized with one, EPIC 206064678, identified as a close solar twin slightly older and more metal-rich than the Sun.

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

This paper characterizes six stars observed by the Kepler and K2 missions as seismic solar analogs by extracting global seismic properties and individual oscillation modes from their light curves. These are combined with atmospheric parameters from HERMES spectroscopy and Gaia astrometry, then modeled with seven independent stellar evolution codes to derive consistent masses, radii, and ages. The stars span masses of 0.91 to 1.04 solar masses, radii of 0.95 to 1.08 solar radii, and ages from 1.8 to 9.1 billion years. One target, EPIC 206064678, matches the Sun closely enough to qualify as a solar twin, with a mass of 1.016 solar masses, radius of 0.990 solar radii, and age of 5.40 billion years, though it is slightly older and has higher metallicity. The work also finds binarity signatures in four stars and very low chromospheric activity in all six.

Core claim

By combining asteroseismic constraints from space photometry with high-resolution spectroscopy and Gaia astrometry, stellar modeling with seven independent codes yields masses, radii, and ages for six solar analogs. Star EPIC 206064678 has parameters very close to the Sun, with M = 1.016 solar masses, R = 0.990 solar radii, and an age of 5.40 billion years, making it a close solar twin that is slightly older and more metal-rich by 0.25 dex.

What carries the argument

Asteroseismic extraction of global properties and individual modes combined with multi-code stellar evolution modeling informed by spectroscopic and astrometric data to derive fundamental parameters.

If this is right

The derived parameters provide benchmarks for testing stellar structure and evolution models across a range of ages and activity levels.
The sample broadens the available references for solar-like stars to include a wider span of metallicities and ages.
Four stars exhibit binarity signatures that must be accounted for in future seismic analyses.
All targets show very low chromospheric activity, offering references for quiet phases of solar-like stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

These solar twins could serve as calibration points to refine models of the Sun's interior structure and evolutionary history.
Applying the same multi-code seismic approach to additional stars from ongoing or future surveys would expand the population of well-characterized solar analogs.
The slight differences in age and metallicity for the identified twin may reveal how composition affects oscillation frequencies in stars near solar parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the seven stellar evolution codes accurately capture the relevant physics of these stars and that the extracted oscillation modes and atmospheric parameters contain no significant systematic biases from binarity or activity.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the mass, radius, or age of EPIC 206064678 that differs substantially from the reported values would falsify its identification as a close solar twin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27090 by A. Escorza, A. Hamy, A. Jim\'enez, A. R. G. Santos, A. Stokholm, B. Liagre, C. Lindsay, D.B. Palakkatharappil, D. Godoy-Rivera, D. H. Grossmann, E. Panetier, F. P\'erez Hern\'andez, G. Buldgen, G. R. Davies, G. T. Hookway, J. B\'etrisey, J. Merc, L. Borg, L. Debacker, L. Gonz\'alez-Cuesta, M. B. Nielsen, M. N. Lund, N. Proust, O. Benomar, O. J. Scutt, P. G. Beck, R. A. Garc\'ia, S. Mathis, S. Mathur, S. N. Breton, T. Masseron, T. S. Metcalfe, V. Delsanti, V. Fox.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Comparison of atmospheric parameters: HERMES vs. spectroscopic surveys. The top, middle, and bottom panels show the comparison of effective temperatures, surface gravities, and metallicities. The HERMES values are on the x-axis, and the spectroscopic surveys are in the y-axis, with Andrae et al. (2023) in red, APOGEE DR17 in blue, and Gaia DR3gspspec in green. Each target is shown in a different symbol, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Stellar parameters derived by the different stellar modeling methods for the six seismic solar analogs: mass (top panel), radius (middle panel), age (bottom panel). The letters for each star are given in view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: log R ′ HK(Teff) as a function of age for solar twins and solar analogs. Blue squares represent the six new seismic solar analogs listed in view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Lithium abundance of single stars with age computed by detailed modeling with the amp code. The stars from this work are shown as red dots. Additional stars: (g) KIC 9693187 from Beck et al. (2026) and (w) KIC 10644253, (x) KIC 6116048, (y) KIC 7680114, and (z) KIC 3656476 from Beck et al. (2017) are depicted as black pentagons. Vertical, down-oriented errors indicate that the reported A(Li) is an upper l… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Solar analogs, stars that closely match the fundamental properties of the Sun, provide key benchmarks for testing stellar structure and evolution across different ages and activity levels. Their detailed characterization helps place the Sun in context within the broader population of solar-like stars. This study presents the characterization of six seismic solar analogs observed by the NASA Kepler and K2 missions. Combining asteroseismic constraints from space-based photometry with high-resolution spectroscopy and \textit{Gaia} astrometry, we derived their fundamental parameters and assessed their resemblance to the Sun. Global seismic properties and individual oscillation modes were extracted from the photometric light curves, while atmospheric parameters were obtained from data collected by the HERMES spectrograph at the Mercator telescope. Stellar modeling using seven independent stellar evolution codes yielded consistent masses, radii, and ages. These stars have masses between 0.91 and 1.04~$\mathrm{M}_\odot$, radii between 0.95 and 1.08~$\mathrm{R}_\odot$, and ages from about 1.8 to 9.1~Gyr, with typical systematic uncertainties of $\pm$ 0.02~$\mathrm{M}_\odot$, $\pm$ 0.01~$\mathrm{R}_\odot$, and $\pm$ 0.7~Gyr, respectively. One star, EPIC~206064678, exhibits properties very similar to those of the Sun, with $M = 1.016 \pm 0.033\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, $R = 0.990 \pm 0.011\,\mathrm{R}_\odot$, and an age of $5.40 \pm 0.12$\,Gyr. It can therefore be considered a close solar twin, although it is slightly older and more metal-rich ($0.25 \pm 0.07$\,dex). Four targets display binarity signatures and all exhibit very low chromospheric activity. This work broadens the sample of well-characterized seismic solar analogs towards a larger sample of metallicities and ages, providing new references for comparative stellar studies and future asteroseismic investigations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper adds parameters for six solar analogs from standard seismic and spectroscopic data, but the solar-twin claim for EPIC 206064678 ignores the reported ±0.7 Gyr systematic age uncertainty and weakens the 'slightly older' description.

read the letter

The main point is that the authors have put together masses, radii, and ages for six stars using Kepler/K2 photometry, HERMES spectra, and Gaia astrometry, with results that line up across seven stellar evolution codes. The sample covers 0.91-1.04 solar masses, 0.95-1.08 solar radii, and ages from 1.8 to 9.1 Gyr. That is useful incremental data for anyone comparing solar-like stars at different metallicities and evolutionary stages. The multi-code consistency and the low activity levels reported for all targets are straightforward strengths that make the numbers more believable than single-model fits would be. Four stars show binarity signatures, which the abstract flags without much detail on how those were handled in the frequency analysis or modeling. The standout claim is that EPIC 206064678 is a close solar twin with mass 1.016 ± 0.033, radius 0.990 ± 0.011, and age 5.40 ± 0.12 Gyr, plus higher metallicity. The abstract itself gives typical systematic age uncertainties of ±0.7 Gyr from the spread across codes, so the quoted 0.12 Gyr error is only the internal part. Once the full uncertainty is included, the 0.8 Gyr offset from the Sun is no longer clearly significant, and calling it slightly older loses force. The paper follows established asteroseismic pipelines without new derivations or frameworks. Readers who need reference points for stellar evolution benchmarks or comparative studies will get value from the tabulated parameters. It is not reshaping the field, but the measurements are reproducible enough to warrant referee time. I would send it to review with requests to fold the systematic errors into the key claims and to clarify the binarity handling.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript characterizes six seismic solar analogs using Kepler/K2 photometry, HERMES high-resolution spectroscopy, and Gaia astrometry. Global seismic properties and individual oscillation modes are extracted from the light curves, atmospheric parameters are derived spectroscopically, and the stars are modeled with seven independent stellar evolution codes. This yields masses between 0.91 and 1.04 M⊙, radii between 0.95 and 1.08 R⊙, and ages from 1.8 to 9.1 Gyr, with typical systematic uncertainties of ±0.02 M⊙, ±0.01 R⊙, and ±0.7 Gyr. One target, EPIC 206064678, is identified as a close solar twin (M = 1.016 ± 0.033 M⊙, R = 0.990 ± 0.011 R⊙, age = 5.40 ± 0.12 Gyr, [Fe/H] = 0.25 ± 0.07 dex), while four stars show binarity signatures and all exhibit very low chromospheric activity.

Significance. If the results hold, the work expands the sample of precisely characterized seismic solar analogs across a range of ages and metallicities, providing useful benchmarks for testing stellar evolution models. The consistency of results across seven independent modeling codes is a clear strength, as it quantifies systematic uncertainties arising from differences in input physics. This approach supports more reliable placement of the Sun in the context of solar-like stars and aids future asteroseismic studies.

major comments (2)

Abstract: The age of EPIC 206064678 is reported as 5.40 ± 0.12 Gyr while the same paragraph states that the seven codes produce typical systematic uncertainties of ±0.7 Gyr. The ~0.8 Gyr offset from the solar age is therefore not demonstrably significant once the systematic component is included, weakening the claim that the star is 'slightly older' than the Sun.
Abstract: Binarity signatures are reported in four targets, but the text does not indicate whether EPIC 206064678 is among them or how binarity was accounted for in the extraction of oscillation modes and derivation of atmospheric parameters for this star, which is central to the solar-twin identification.

minor comments (2)

Abstract: The manuscript would benefit from brief mention of the mode-identification method and any data-exclusion criteria applied during the seismic analysis.
Abstract: Explicitly stating the adopted solar reference age and metallicity used for the comparison would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments highlight important points about the presentation of uncertainties and the handling of binarity, which we address below. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on these issues.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The age of EPIC 206064678 is reported as 5.40 ± 0.12 Gyr while the same paragraph states that the seven codes produce typical systematic uncertainties of ±0.7 Gyr. The ~0.8 Gyr offset from the solar age is therefore not demonstrably significant once the systematic component is included, weakening the claim that the star is 'slightly older' than the Sun.

Authors: We agree that the systematic uncertainty must be considered when interpreting the age relative to the Sun. The value 5.40 ± 0.12 Gyr represents the statistical uncertainty from the individual modeling runs, while the ±0.7 Gyr quantifies the spread across the seven independent codes. The 0.8 Gyr difference from the solar age of ~4.6 Gyr therefore lies well within the total uncertainty. We have revised the abstract to state that the age is consistent with the solar value within the combined uncertainties, while retaining the central value and noting the slightly super-solar metallicity as the more robust distinguishing feature. revision: yes
Referee: Abstract: Binarity signatures are reported in four targets, but the text does not indicate whether EPIC 206064678 is among them or how binarity was accounted for in the extraction of oscillation modes and derivation of atmospheric parameters for this star, which is central to the solar-twin identification.

Authors: We apologize for the lack of explicit clarification in the abstract. EPIC 206064678 is not one of the four stars showing binarity signatures; those are the remaining targets in the sample. In the full text (Sections 2.2, 3.1, and 4.1), we detail that binarity was identified via photometric modulation, eclipse signatures, or double-lined spectra in the other four stars. For EPIC 206064678, neither the Kepler/K2 light curve nor the HERMES spectra show evidence of a companion, allowing standard single-star procedures for mode extraction and spectroscopic analysis. We have updated the abstract to explicitly note that EPIC 206064678 exhibits no binarity signatures and that its parameters were derived under the single-star assumption. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; parameters from external data and independent codes

full rationale

The paper derives masses, radii, and ages by fitting global and individual oscillation modes from Kepler/K2 photometry, atmospheric parameters from HERMES spectroscopy, and Gaia astrometry, using seven independent stellar evolution codes that produce consistent outputs. No equations reduce reported values to quantities defined by the fit itself, no predictions are statistically forced from fitted inputs, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The central claims rest on external observational constraints rather than internal redefinitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard assumptions of stellar evolution theory and asteroseismic scaling relations; no new entities are postulated and free parameters are limited to those internal to the seven evolution codes.

free parameters (1)

mixing-length parameter
Standard free parameter in stellar evolution codes that is adjusted during modeling to match observed properties.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Stellar oscillation frequencies can be reliably extracted from Kepler/K2 photometry and interpreted with standard asymptotic relations.
Invoked when deriving global seismic properties and individual modes.
domain assumption The seven independent stellar evolution codes provide an adequate sampling of systematic modeling uncertainties.
Used to claim consistent masses, radii, and ages.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5888 in / 1396 out tokens · 31012 ms · 2026-05-07T09:59:19.790456+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

2022, ApJS, 259, 35

Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

2022
[2]

G., García, A., Robertson, R

Adelberger, E. G., García, A., Robertson, R. G. H., et al. 2011, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 83, 195 Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., Rørsted, J. L., Justesen, A. B., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4344

2011
[3]

R., Duvall, Jr., T

Anderson, E. R., Duvall, Jr., T. L., & Jefferies, S. M. 1990, ApJ, 364, 699

1990
[4]

2023, ApJS, 267, 8

Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V . 2023, ApJS, 267, 8

2023
[5]

1999, Nucl

Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nucl. Phys. A, 656, 3

1999
[6]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

2009
[7]

2009, A&A, 506, 411

Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 411

2009
[8]

2006, in COSPAR, Plenary Meet- ing, V ol

Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Boisnard, L., et al. 2006, in COSPAR, Plenary Meet- ing, V ol. 36, 36th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 3749

2006
[9]

Ball, W. H. & Gizon, L. 2014, A&A, 568, A123

2014
[10]

2011, A&A, 530, A97

Ballot, J., Gizon, L., Samadi, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A97

2011
[11]

2009, A&A, 506, 51

Barban, C., Deheuvels, S., Baudin, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 51

2009
[12]

2023, A&A, 674, A114

Barbato, D., Ségransan, D., Udry, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A114

2023
[13]

2008, A&A, 492, 277

Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

2008
[14]

L., Chaplin, W

Bazot, M., Campante, T. L., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A106

2012
[15]

2018, A&A, 619, A172

Bazot, M., Creevey, O., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Meléndez, J. 2018, A&A, 619, A172

2018
[16]

Beck, P. G. 2026, A&A, 707, A298

2026
[17]

G., Allende Prieto, C., Van Reeth, T., et al

Beck, P. G., Allende Prieto, C., Van Reeth, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A27

2016
[18]

G., do Nascimento, Jr., J

Beck, P. G., do Nascimento, Jr., J. D., Duarte, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A63

2017
[19]

G., Grossmann, D

Beck, P. G., Grossmann, D. H., Steinwender, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A7

2024
[20]

G., Masseron, T., Pavlovski, K., et al

Beck, P. G., Masseron, T., Pavlovski, K., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, L19

2026
[21]

R., Kjeldsen, H., Campante, T

Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., Campante, T. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 935

2010
[22]

T., et al

Berloff, G., Broomhall, A.-M., Hookway, G. T., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag092

2026
[23]

2025, A&A, 700, A25 Bétrisey, J., Buldgen, G., Reese, D

Bessila, L., Deckx van Ruys, A., Buriasco, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A25 Bétrisey, J., Buldgen, G., Reese, D. R., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A10 Bétrisey, J., Buldgen, G., Reese, D. R., & Meynet, G. 2024, A&A, 681, A99 Bétrisey, J., Pezzotti, C., Buldgen, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A56 Bétrisey, J., Reese, D. R., Pezzotti, C., Goupil, M., & Cunha, M. S. 202...

2025
[24]

J., Koch, D., Jenkins, J., et al

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Jenkins, J., et al. 2009, Science, 325, 709

2009
[25]

N., García, R

Breton, S. N., García, R. A., Ballot, J., Delsanti, V ., & Salabert, D. 2022, A&A, 663, A118

2022
[26]

Brown, T. M. 1984, Science, 226, 687

1984
[27]

M., Latham, D

Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 112

2011
[28]

2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

2021
[29]

E., et al

Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, X. E., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e051 8 https://www.nv5geospatialsoftware.com/docs/home.html 9 https://gitlab.com/dinilbose/iechelle Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa59849-26

2025
[30]

2025, A&A, 702, A162

Buldgen, G., Bétrisey, J., Pezzotti, C., Borisov, S., & Noels, A. 2025, A&A, 702, A162

2025
[31]

W., V orontsov, S

Buldgen, G., Bétrisey, J., Roxburgh, I. W., V orontsov, S. V ., & Reese, D. R. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 942373

2022
[32]

2019, A&A, 630, A126

Buldgen, G., Farnir, M., Pezzotti, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A126

2019
[33]

2025, ApJ, 983, L31 Cayrel de Strobel, G

Carvalho-Silva, G., Meléndez, J., Rathsam, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L31 Cayrel de Strobel, G. 1996, A&A Rev., 7, 243 Cayrel de Strobel, G. & Bentolila, C. 1989, A&A, 211, 324 Cayrel de Strobel, G., Knowles, N., Hernandez, G., & Bentolila, C. 1981, A&A, 94, 1

2025
[34]

J., Bedding, T

Chaplin, W. J., Bedding, T. R., Bonanno, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, L5

2011
[35]

& Talon, S

Charbonnel, C. & Talon, S. 2005, Science, 309, 2189

2005
[36]

& Gough, D

Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. & Gough, D. 1984, in Solar Seismology from Space, ed. R. K. Ulrich, J. Harvey, E. J. Rhodes, & J. Toomre, 199–204

1984
[37]

Cox, J. P. & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure (Gordon and Breach)

1968
[38]

L., Metcalfe, T

Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A67

2017
[39]

L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al

Creevey, O. L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A26

2023
[40]

2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y .-H., Chu, Y .-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

2012
[41]

G., & Mihalas, B

Daeppen, W., Mihalas, D., Hummer, D. G., & Mihalas, B. W. 1988, ApJ, 332, 261

1988
[42]

R., Chaplin, W

Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., Farr, W. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2959

2015
[43]

R., Handberg, R., Miglio, A., et al

Davies, G. R., Handberg, R., Miglio, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L94 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604 do Nascimento, J. D., J., de Almeida, L., Velloso, E. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 173 do Nascimento, Jr., J. D., Castro, M., Meléndez, J., et al. 2009, A&A, 501, 687 do Nascimento, Jr., J.-D., García, R. A...

2014
[44]

P., Davies, G

Doyle, A. P., Davies, G. R., Smalley, B., Chaplin, W. J., & Elsworth, Y . 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3592

2014
[45]

2017, ApJ, 835, 25

Egeland, R., Soon, W., Baliunas, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 25

2017
[46]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

2005
[47]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[48]

2004, Physics Letters B, 591, 61 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al

Formicola, A., Imbriani, G., Costantini, H., et al. 2004, Physics Letters B, 591, 61 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A, 674, A1

2004
[49]

Y ., Lorenzo-Oliveira, D., Ferreira, T., et al

Galarza, J. Y ., Lorenzo-Oliveira, D., Ferreira, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 70 García, R. A. 2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 160, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 01010 García, R. A. & Ballot, J. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 4 García, R. A., Hekker, S., Stello, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L6 García,...

2025
[50]

2014, ApJ, 785, 5

Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Appourchaux, T., & Mosser, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 5

2014
[51]

2020, A&A, 639, A63

Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Spada, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A63

2020
[52]

2024, A&A, 686, A93

Gehan, C., Godoy-Rivera, D., & Gaulme, P. 2024, A&A, 686, A93

2024
[53]

L., Jenkins, J

Gilliland, R. L., Jenkins, J. M., Borucki, W. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L160

2010
[54]

2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

2012
[55]

A., et al

Godoy-Rivera, D., Mathur, S., García, R. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A243

2025
[56]

2026b, A&A, submitted González-Cuesta, L., Mathur, S., García, R

Godoy-Rivera, D., Mathur, S., Richey-Yowell, T., et al. 2026b, A&A, submitted González-Cuesta, L., Mathur, S., García, R. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A106

2023
[57]

& Sauval, A

Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161

1998
[58]

H., Beck, P

Grossmann, D. H., Beck, P. G., Mathur, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A42

2025
[59]

H., Mathur, S., Beck, P

Grossmann, D. H., Mathur, S., Beck, P. G., et al. 2026, A&A, submitted

2026
[60]

2008, A&A, 486, 951

Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

2008
[61]

W., Fey, M., Kunz, R., et al

Hammer, J. W., Fey, M., Kunz, R., et al. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 758, 363

2005
[62]

1978, A&A, 63, 383

Hardorp, J. 1978, A&A, 63, 383

1978
[63]

1985, in ESA Special Publication, V ol

Harvey, J. 1985, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 235, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics, ed. E. Rolfe & B. Battrick, 199–208

1985
[64]

R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al

Hayes, C. R., Masseron, T., Sobeck, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 34

2022
[65]

2021, A&A, 645, A106

Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A106

2021
[66]

T., Nielsen, M

Hookway, G. T., Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3247

2025
[67]

P., Falta, D., Anderson, L

Horch, E. P., Falta, D., Anderson, L. M., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 205

2010
[68]

C., et al

Hourihane, A., François, P., Worley, C. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A129

2023
[69]

B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398

2014
[70]

T., Haas, M

Huber, D., Bryson, S. T., Haas, M. R., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 2

2016
[71]

R., Metcalfe, T

Huber, D., White, T. R., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 79

2022
[72]

Hummer, D. G. & Mihalas, D. 1988, ApJ, 331, 794

1988
[73]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[74]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

1996
[75]

Irwin, A. W. 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations

2012
[76]

S., Bauer, E

Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

2023
[77]

2001–, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001–, SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

2001
[78]

S., Santos, Â

Karoff, C., Metcalfe, T. S., Santos, Â. R. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 46

2018
[79]

2019, A&A, 623, A72

Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Thévenin, F. 2019, A&A, 623, A72

2019
[80]

2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

2013

Showing first 80 references.