pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27842 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Asteroseismic modelling of main-sequence solar-like stars and Kepler exoplanet host stars with the FICO procedure I. Catalogue of fundamental stellar properties

J\'er\^ome B\'etrisey , Daniel R. Reese , Camilla Pezzotti , Marie-jo Goupil , Margarida S. Cunha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords asteroseismologystellar modellingsolar-like starsKeplerexoplanet hostsfundamental parameterssurface effectsPLATO
0
0 comments X

The pith

The FICO procedure infers masses, radii, ages and densities of 95 solar-like stars to average precisions of 2.3 percent, 0.82 percent, 6.9 percent and 0.49 percent.

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

The paper presents the FICO procedure, a three-step hybrid method that combines forward stellar evolution modelling with inverse techniques to derive fundamental parameters from asteroseismic frequencies and classical observations. Applied to a sample of 95 main-sequence solar-like stars including Kepler exoplanet hosts, the method produces statistical precisions that satisfy the target requirements for the PLATO mission. It outperforms conventional direct frequency fitting that relies on semi-empirical surface corrections, especially for stars more massive than 1.15 solar masses or hotter than 6050 K. Results remain consistent with published values yet show an average age offset of about 11.5 percent for the Kepler LEGACY subsample. The approach supplies a ready catalogue of parameters while highlighting the value of surface-independent modelling for future high-precision asteroseismology.

Core claim

The FICO procedure, a three-step combination of forward and inverse techniques, yields precise fundamental stellar properties for main-sequence solar-like stars. When applied to 95 stars with high-quality Kepler data, it achieves average precisions of 2.3 percent in mass, 0.82 percent in radius, 6.9 percent in age and 0.49 percent in mean density. The method mitigates biases from surface effects more effectively than direct fitting with semi-empirical corrections, particularly above 1.15 solar masses or 6050 K, while remaining consistent with literature values apart from a systematic age offset of roughly 11.5 percent for the LEGACY sample.

What carries the argument

The FICO procedure, a three-step hybrid method that interleaves forward modelling of stellar evolution tracks with inverse asteroseismic techniques to determine parameters without empirical surface corrections.

If this is right

  • The reported precisions lie well inside the PLATO mission accuracy targets for solar-like stars.
  • Surface-independent modelling reduces biases compared with semi-empirical surface corrections for stars above 1.15 solar masses or 6050 K.
  • Two performance regimes appear: near-solar stars where FICO and direct fitting give similar results, and higher-mass stars where FICO is clearly superior.
  • An average age bias of 11.5 percent remains for the Kepler LEGACY subsample, comparable to the 10 percent PLATO requirement.
  • The catalogue supplies ready fundamental parameters for exoplanet host stars that can be used in planetary radius and density calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the same three-step workflow to TESS or PLATO data would allow consistent parameter derivation across thousands of additional solar-like stars.
  • More accurate host-star densities from FICO would tighten the derived radii and masses of transiting exoplanets, especially for planets around stars hotter than the Sun.
  • The observed age offset points to remaining deficiencies in model physics such as convective overshooting or diffusion that would need calibration before age uncertainties fall below 10 percent.
  • Because mean density is recovered to 0.5 percent, the method could be combined with transit light curves to yield planet densities at the few-percent level without additional assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The input stellar evolution models correctly capture the relevant interior physics, including convection, overshooting and surface layers, across the mass and temperature range of the sample.

What would settle it

Independent mass and radius determinations from eclipsing binary orbits or long-baseline interferometry for a subset of the 95 stars would directly test whether the reported precisions hold and whether systematic age offsets persist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27842 by Camilla Pezzotti, Daniel R. Reese, J\'er\^ome B\'etrisey, Margarida S. Cunha, Marie-jo Goupil.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of the stellar catalogue. The Sun is shown as a reference and the letters stand for the spectral type. The grey lines represent evolutionary tracks of the Spelaion grid selected by fixing the initial chemical composition to X0 = 0.72 and Z0 = 0.018, and setting αov = 0. During the initial stage of the FICO procedure, meaningful phys￾ical convergence was not achieved for four tar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Upper panels: Relative age difference between a direct fit of the individual frequencies as a function of stellar mass and effective tem￾perature, assuming a semi-empirical prescription for the surface effects, and the FICO procedure, based on surface-independent constraints. The grey area represents the PLATO requirement in age for a Sun-like star. Lower panel: Kernel density estimates of the relative dif… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kernel density estimate of the fractional uncertainty distribution for the stellar mass (blue), radius (orange), age (green), and mean den￾sity (red). 5.3. Comparison with Silva-Aguirre et al. (2017) In this section, we present a comparative analysis between our results for the LEGACY sample and those reported by Silva Aguirre et al. (2017) view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the FICO results and those of Silva Aguirre et al. (2017) for the LEGACY sample. The upper panel presents a mirror plot contrasting the two sets of stellar parameters, while the lower panel illustrates the corresponding residuals. Shaded regions indicate the 1σ (dark grey), 2σ (medium grey), and 3σ (light grey) intervals of the residual distributions. From left to right: stellar mass, ra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kernel density estimate of the distance distribution for the LEGACY (blue) and Davies et al. (2016) (green) samples. 5.4. Comparison with Silva-Aguirre et al. (2015) In this section, we undertake a comparative assessment of our results for the Davies et al. (2016) sample against those reported by Silva Aguirre et al. (2015). Unlike the LEGACY sample dis￾cussed previously, this comparison presents greater c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present detailed asteroseismic modelling of 95 main-sequence solar-like stars and Kepler exoplanet host stars using the FICO procedure, a three-step method that combines forward and inverse techniques that enables precise inference of fundamental stellar parameters such as mass, radius, age, and mean density. We applied the FICO procedure to a catalogue of stars with high-quality asteroseismic and classical observations, and compared its results against literature values. We also compared its performance with direct frequency fitting using semi-empirical surface corrections. The FICO procedure achieved statistical precisions of 2.3%, 0.82%, 6.9%, and 0.49% in mass, radius, age, and mean density, respectively on average, well within PLATO quality requirements. We reconfirmed that surface-independent methods more effectively mitigate biases inherent to semi-empirical surface corrections, particularly for stars more massive than 1.15 Msun or above 6050 K. Two regimes were identified: near-solar conditions, where both approaches perform similarly, and higher-mass stars, where surface-independent methods consistently outperform direct fitting methods. While our results are consistent with literature values, we observed age biases (~11.5% on average for the Kepler LEGACY sample) that are comparable to the PLATO accuracy requirement of 10% for a Sun-like star, and therefore not negligible in that context. The FICO procedure provides a robust framework for high-precision stellar characterisation in the PLATO era. Its hybrid architecture effectively addresses surface effects, making it a promising tool for the accurate determination of exoplanet host-star properties. Our findings also highlight the importance of carefully selecting and validating the physical assumptions embedded in stellar models, particularly in the context of next-generation space missions such as PLATO.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the FICO (forward-inverse combined optimization) procedure, a three-step hybrid asteroseismic modelling method, and applies it to a sample of 95 main-sequence solar-like stars including Kepler exoplanet hosts. It reports average statistical precisions of 2.3% in mass, 0.82% in radius, 6.9% in age and 0.49% in mean density, compares results to literature values and to direct frequency fitting with semi-empirical surface corrections, identifies two performance regimes (near-solar vs. higher-mass stars >1.15 M⊙ or >6050 K), notes an ~11.5% age offset for the LEGACY subsample, and emphasizes the need to validate stellar-model physics for PLATO applications.

Significance. If the reported precisions and regime-dependent advantages hold under independent model physics, the work supplies a useful catalogue of fundamental parameters for 95 stars and demonstrates a practical hybrid approach that reduces surface-effect biases more effectively than direct fitting for higher-mass stars. The explicit identification of performance regimes and the catalogue itself constitute concrete, reusable contributions to asteroseismology and exoplanet-host characterization ahead of PLATO.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (stellar models and grid description): The headline precisions and the claimed superiority of the surface-independent FICO step over direct fitting are obtained entirely within a single family of evolution models. No sensitivity runs varying the mixing-length parameter, overshooting prescription or surface physics across the 95-star sample are reported, so the quoted statistical precisions and the regime-dependent performance difference remain internal consistency metrics rather than demonstrated accuracy measures. The abstract itself flags the need for “carefully selecting and validating the physical assumptions,” yet this validation step is not executed.
  2. [§4] §4 (comparison with direct fitting): Because both FICO and the direct-fitting comparison employ the same underlying stellar models, any systematic mismatch between those models and real stellar interiors (e.g., the ~11.5% age offset already seen in the LEGACY subsample) affects both methods equally. This shared model dependence weakens the claim that surface-independent methods “more effectively mitigate biases inherent to semi-empirical surface corrections,” particularly for stars above 1.15 M⊙ or 6050 K.
  3. [§3] §3 (sample and error analysis): The manuscript provides no quantitative error budgets, covariance matrices, or explicit description of how the 95-star sample was assembled or how outliers were identified and treated. Without these, the average precisions cannot be interpreted as robust PLATO-quality figures, and the reported age bias of ~11.5% (already at the PLATO 10% boundary for Sun-like stars) lacks a clear propagation to individual stellar parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The acronym FICO is introduced in the abstract but should be expanded on first use in the main text for clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the regime-comparison plots should explicitly state the model grid and surface-correction prescription used so that readers can reproduce the two-regime distinction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments correctly identify key limitations in the current analysis, particularly regarding model dependence and the need for greater transparency in error treatment. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to clarify scope and strengthen the presentation without overstating the results. The work remains focused on demonstrating the FICO procedure and producing the catalogue within a consistent modeling framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (stellar models and grid description): The headline precisions and the claimed superiority of the surface-independent FICO step over direct fitting are obtained entirely within a single family of evolution models. No sensitivity runs varying the mixing-length parameter, overshooting prescription or surface physics across the 95-star sample are reported, so the quoted statistical precisions and the regime-dependent performance difference remain internal consistency metrics rather than demonstrated accuracy measures. The abstract itself flags the need for “carefully selecting and validating the physical assumptions,” yet this validation step is not executed.

    Authors: We agree that all reported precisions and the regime-dependent performance differences are derived entirely within one family of stellar evolution models, with no sensitivity tests performed on mixing-length, overshooting, or surface physics across the 95 stars. The figures therefore represent internal consistency within the chosen grid rather than validated accuracy. The abstract already notes the importance of validating physical assumptions, but the paper's scope is to present the FICO method, apply it to the catalogue, and compare performance to direct fitting under identical models. In the revised manuscript we will expand §2 to explicitly discuss the grid limitations, state that the near-solar versus higher-mass regimes are relative to the adopted physics, and add a forward reference to planned future sensitivity studies. Full sensitivity runs for the entire sample cannot be completed in this revision due to computational demands. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4 (comparison with direct fitting): Because both FICO and the direct-fitting comparison employ the same underlying stellar models, any systematic mismatch between those models and real stellar interiors (e.g., the ~11.5% age offset already seen in the LEGACY subsample) affects both methods equally. This shared model dependence weakens the claim that surface-independent methods “more effectively mitigate biases inherent to semi-empirical surface corrections,” particularly for stars above 1.15 M⊙ or 6050 K.

    Authors: We accept that common model systematics, including the reported ~11.5% age offset for the LEGACY subsample, affect both FICO and direct fitting equally. The performance comparison is therefore internal to the model set. However, the specific claim concerns mitigation of biases introduced by semi-empirical surface corrections in direct fitting; FICO avoids these corrections by construction through its hybrid forward-inverse steps. This advantage is most visible for stars above 1.15 M⊙ or 6050 K where surface effects are stronger. The age offset is presented separately as a model-related finding relevant to PLATO requirements. In revision we will reword §4 to make this distinction clearer and avoid any implication of overall accuracy superiority beyond surface-effect handling. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §3 (sample and error analysis): The manuscript provides no quantitative error budgets, covariance matrices, or explicit description of how the 95-star sample was assembled or how outliers were identified and treated. Without these, the average precisions cannot be interpreted as robust PLATO-quality figures, and the reported age bias of ~11.5% (already at the PLATO 10% boundary for Sun-like stars) lacks a clear propagation to individual stellar parameters.

    Authors: The sample comprises Kepler main-sequence solar-like stars with high-quality asteroseismic frequencies and classical constraints, including exoplanet hosts; selection criteria and outlier rejection (non-convergent or unphysical solutions) are summarized in §3 but can be expanded. The quoted average precisions are statistical uncertainties returned by the FICO optimization, yet we agree that explicit error budgets, covariance matrices, and propagation details are not provided. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection in §3 describing sample assembly, outlier treatment, the propagation of uncertainties through the three FICO steps, representative covariance matrices, and the implications of the ~11.5% age bias for individual parameters relative to PLATO targets. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Performing comprehensive sensitivity runs that vary mixing-length, overshooting prescriptions, and surface physics across the full 95-star sample to convert internal consistency metrics into demonstrated accuracy measures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: FICO results derive from data application without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper introduces the FICO three-step hybrid forward-inverse procedure and applies it directly to high-quality asteroseismic and classical observations for 95 stars. Reported average statistical precisions (2.3% mass, 0.82% radius, 6.9% age, 0.49% mean density) are formal uncertainties extracted from the fits themselves. Regime identification (near-solar vs. >1.15 M⊙ or >6050 K) and performance comparison to direct fitting with semi-empirical corrections rest on observed differences across the sample and external literature values. The ~11.5% age offset for the LEGACY subsample is presented as an explicit finding rather than a hidden tautology. Model-physics assumptions (mixing length, overshooting, surface treatment) are acknowledged as requiring separate validation, but this does not collapse any central claim into a definition or prior fit by construction. No quoted step equates a prediction to its input parameter or renames a fit as an independent result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of standard stellar evolution models whose internal physics choices are not independently validated within the paper; the abstract explicitly flags the need to validate these assumptions but does not quantify their impact.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution models with chosen mixing-length, overshooting and surface physics accurately represent the interior structure of main-sequence solar-like stars across the studied mass and temperature range.
    The FICO forward-modelling step and the claimed superiority over direct fitting both presuppose that the model grid physics are adequate; the abstract itself states that careful selection and validation of these assumptions is important.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5671 in / 1778 out tokens · 56105 ms · 2026-05-07T05:29:35.137853+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    Aerts , C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    L., Justesen , A

    Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., R rsted , J. L., Justesen , A. B., et al. 2022, , 509, 4344

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2021, , 651, A3

    Ahuir , J., Mathis , S., & Amard , L. 2021, , 651, A3

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2014, in Asteroseismology, ed

    Appourchaux , T. 2014, in Asteroseismology, ed. P. L. Pall \'e & C. Esteban , 123

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    J., Garc \' a , R

    Appourchaux , T., Chaplin , W. J., Garc \' a , R. A., et al. 2012, , 543, A54

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    1998, , 132, 107

    Appourchaux , T., Gizon , L., & Rabello-Soares , M.-C. 1998, , 132, 107

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    M., & Grevesse , N

    Asplund , M., Amarsi , A. M., & Grevesse , N. 2021, , 653, A141

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Baglin , A., Auvergne , M., Barge , P., et al. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 253, Transiting Planets, ed. F. Pont , D. Sasselov , & M. J. Holman , 71--81

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    E., Nagayama , T., Loisel , G

    Bailey , J. E., Nagayama , T., Loisel , G. P., et al. 2015, , 517, 56

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

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

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Ball , W. H. & Gizon , L. 2017, , 600, A128

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Barker , A. J. 2020, , 498, 2270

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    & Antia , H

    Basu , S. & Antia , H. M. 2008, , 457, 217

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    2008, , 79, 660

    Bazot , M., Bourguignon , S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2008, , 79, 660

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    P., Angelou , G

    Bellinger , E. P., Angelou , G. C., Hekker , S., et al. 2016, , 830, 31

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    P., Hekker , S., Angelou , G

    Bellinger , E. P., Hekker , S., Angelou , G. C., Stokholm , A., & Basu , S. 2019, , 622, A130

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    2024, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland

    B \'e trisey , J. 2024, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    M., Breton , S

    B \'e trisey , J., Broomhall , A. M., Breton , S. N., et al. 2025 a , , 699, L9

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    & Buldgen , G

    B \'e trisey , J. & Buldgen , G. 2022, , 663, A92

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    R., et al

    B \'e trisey , J., Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., et al. 2023 a , , 676, A10

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    R., & Meynet , G

    B \'e trisey , J., Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., & Meynet , G. 2024 a , , 681, A99

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    2023 b , , 673, L11

    B \'e trisey , J., Eggenberger , P., Buldgen , G., Benomar , O., & Bazot , M. 2023 b , , 673, L11

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    N., et al

    B \'e trisey , J., Farnir , M., Breton , S. N., et al. 2024 b , , 688, L17

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    2022, , 659, A56

    B \'e trisey , J., Pezzotti , C., Buldgen , G., et al. 2022, , 659, A56

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    R., Breton , S

    B \'e trisey , J., Reese , D. R., Breton , S. N., et al. 2025 b , , 697, A219

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    M., Vandenbussche , B., Sana , H., et al

    Bowman , D. M., Vandenbussche , B., Sana , H., et al. 2022, , 658, A96

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    2025 a , , 702, A162

    Buldgen , G., B \'e trisey , J., Pezzotti , C., Borisov , S., & Noels , A. 2025 a , , 702, A162

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    W., Vorontsov , S

    Buldgen , G., B \'e trisey , J., Roxburgh , I. W., Vorontsov , S. V., & Reese , D. R. 2022 a , Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 942373

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    2025 b , , 300, 97

    Buldgen , G., Canocchi , G., Le Saux , A., et al. 2025 b , , 300, 97

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    2022 b , , 661, A143

    Buldgen , G., Farnir , M., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2022 b , , 661, A143

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    2019 a , , 630, A126

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

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    2024, , 686, A108

    Buldgen , G., Noels , A., Scuflaire , R., et al. 2024, , 686, A108

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    2025 c , Nature Communications, 16, 693

    Buldgen , G., Pain , J.-C., Coss \'e , P., et al. 2025 c , Nature Communications, 16, 693

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Buldgen , G., Reese , D., & Dupret , M.-A. 2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 160, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 03005

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    R., & Dupret , M

    Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., & Dupret , M. A. 2015 a , , 583, A62

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    R., & Dupret , M

    Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., & Dupret , M. A. 2016 a , , 585, A109

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    R., Dupret , M

    Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., Dupret , M. A., & Samadi , R. 2015 b , , 574, A42

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    2019 b , , 482, 2305

    Buldgen , G., Rendle , B., Sonoi , T., et al. 2019 b , , 482, 2305

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    2019 c , Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 42

    Buldgen , G., Salmon , S., & Noels , A. 2019 c , Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 42

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Buldgen , G., Salmon , S. J. A. J., Reese , D. R., & Dupret , M. A. 2016 b , , 596, A73

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    & VandenBerg , D

    Casagrande , L. & VandenBerg , D. A. 2014, , 444, 392

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    & VandenBerg , D

    Casagrande , L. & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018, , 475, 5023

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Chaplin , W. J. & Miglio , A. 2013, , 51, 353

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    M., & Chayer , P

    Charpinet , S., Fontaine , G., Brassard , P., Green , E. M., & Chayer , P. 2005, , 437, 575

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    D., Hatzes , A

    Cochran , W. D., Hatzes , A. P., Butler , R. P., & Marcy , G. W. 1997, , 483, 457

    work page 1997

  49. [49]

    N., Bizzarro , M., Krot , A

    Connelly , J. N., Bizzarro , M., Krot , A. N., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 651

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    L., Metcalfe , T

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

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    L., Salabert , D., & Garc \' a , R

    Creevey , O. L., Salabert , D., & Garc \' a , R. A. 2011, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 271, GONG-SoHO 24: A New Era of Seismology of the Sun and Solar-Like Stars (IOP), 012054

    work page 2011

  52. [52]

    S., Roxburgh , I

    Cunha , M. S., Roxburgh , I. W., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., et al. 2021, , 508, 5864

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    R., Silva Aguirre , V., Bedding , T

    Davies , G. R., Silva Aguirre , V., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2016, , 456, 2183

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Di Mauro , M. P. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 559, SOHO 14 Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future, ed. D. Danesy , 186

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    & Tibshirani , R

    Efron , B. & Tibshirani , R. J. 1993, An introduction to the bootstrap , Chapman & Hall/CRC monographs on statistics and applied probability ( London : Chapman and Hall )

    work page 1993

  56. [56]

    A., Buldgen , G., et al

    Farnir , M., Dupret , M. A., Buldgen , G., et al. 2020, , 644, A37

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    A., & Broomhall , A

    Farnir , M., Valentino , A., Dupret , M. A., & Broomhall , A. M. 2023, , 521, 4131

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    2023, , 669, A2

    Fellay , L., Pezzotti , C., Buldgen , G., Eggenberger , P., & Bolmont , E. 2023, , 669, A2

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

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

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

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    2002, , 394, L5

    Frandsen , S., Carrier , F., Aerts , C., et al. 2002, , 394, L5

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    R., Cochran , W

    Furlan , E., Ciardi , D. R., Cochran , W. D., et al. 2018, , 861, 149

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Garc \' a , R. A. & Ballot , J. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 4

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    J., Catala , C., Samadi , R., et al

    Goupil , M. J., Catala , C., Samadi , R., et al. 2024, , 683, A78

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    M., Schlafly , E

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E. F., Finkbeiner , D., et al. 2018, , 478, 651

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    & Sauval , A

    Grevesse , N. & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161

    work page 1998

  67. [67]

    B., MacLeod , K., & Kallinger , T

    Gruberbauer , M., Guenther , D. B., MacLeod , K., & Kallinger , T. 2013, , 435, 242

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    & Jiang , C

    Guo , Z. & Jiang , C. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 42, 100686

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    P., Hekker , S., Stello , D., & Kuszlewicz , J

    Hon , M., Bellinger , E. P., Hekker , S., Stello , D., & Kuszlewicz , J. S. 2020, , 499, 2445

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    B., Rowe , J

    Howell , S. B., Rowe , J. F., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2012, , 746, 123

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

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

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

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    & Gizon , L

    Jiang , C. & Gizon , L. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 226

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    J rgensen , A. C. S., Montalb \'a n , J., Angelou , G. C., et al. 2021, , 500, 4277

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    J rgensen , A. C. S., Montalb \'a n , J., Miglio , A., et al. 2020, , 495, 4965

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer Berlin Heidelberg)

    Kippenhahn , R., Weigert , A., & Weiss , A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer Berlin Heidelberg)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    1984, Journal of Statistical Physics, 34, 975

    Kirkpatrick , S. 1984, Journal of Statistical Physics, 34, 975

    work page 1984

  77. [77]

    D., & Vecchi , M

    Kirkpatrick , S., Gelatt , C. D., & Vecchi , M. P. 1983, Science, 220, 671

    work page 1983

  78. [78]

    R., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J

    Kjeldsen , H., Bedding , T. R., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2008, , 683, L175

    work page 2008

  79. [79]

    Kosovichev , A. G. & Kitiashvili , I. N. 2020, in Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations, ed. A. Kosovichev , S. Strassmeier , & M. Jardine , Vol. 354, 107--115

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Lanza , A. F. 2015, in Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, Vol. 18, 18th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 811--830

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.