Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Helium settling in F stars: constraining turbulent mixing using observed helium glitch signature

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The observed helium glitch in three F stars is reproducible only if turbulent mixing stirs an envelope mass of roughly $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ — far more than heavy-element abundance fits suggest.

desk verdict First seismic constraint on turbulent mixing in F stars: the qualitative case for much stronger mixing than heavy-element studies is solid, but the headline ΔM0 ≈ 5e-4 is a coarse grid point, not a fitted value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04939 v1 pith:UKI3O5FV submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.SR

Kuldeep Verma , Víctor Silva Aguirre This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologyheliumglitchatomicdiffusionturbulentmixingFstarssurfaceabundanceKeplerLEGACYsamplestellarenvelope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that atomic diffusion alone cannot explain the surface helium of three warm F stars: standard diffusion models drain nearly all helium from their envelopes, yet the stars show a strong helium ionization glitch in their Kepler oscillation frequencies. Working under the assumption that turbulence at the base of the convection zone is what slows helium settling, the authors built model grids with a one-parameter turbulent diffusion scheme and found that only models mixing an envelope mass of approximately $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ reproduce the observed glitch amplitude and acoustic depth in all three stars. Models with $5\times10^{-6}$ and $5\times10^{-5}\,M_\odot$ produce amplitudes far too small. This matters because it suggests seismic helium measurements can pick out which competing process really counteracts atomic diffusion, and it contrasts with the earlier heavy-element-abundance result that the mixed mass is only about $10^{-6}\,M_\odot$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the density-dependent turbulent diffusion coefficient $D_T = \omega D(\mathrm{He})_0 (\rho_0/\rho)^n$ from Richer et al. (2000), reparameterised by Michaud et al. (2011a,b) so that the surface abundances depend only on the envelope mixed mass $\Delta M_0$: the turbulent diffusion coefficient is anchored at the radius where the mass outside is $\Delta M_0$, with fixed constants $\omega=10^4$ and $n=4$. Because surface abundances in this scheme depend only on $\Delta M_0$, the paper can scan three discrete values of this one parameter and compare the predicted helium glitch amplitude, computed from the fitted amplitude $A_\mathrm{He}$ and width $\Delta_\mathrm{He}$ in the glitch formula $\delta\nu_\mathrm{He}=A_\mathrm{He}\nu e^{-8\pi^2\Delta_\mathrm{He}^2\nu^2}\sin(4\pi\tau_\mathrm{He}\nu+\psi_\mathrm{He})$, against the observed value.

What would settle it

Measure the surface helium of KIC 2837475, 9139163, or 11253226 independently, for example from helium lines in high-resolution spectra, and compare it with the $Y_s\approx0.25$–$0.26$ that the $\Delta M_0=5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ models imply; a clearly lower value, or a fourth similar F star whose glitch amplitude requires $\Delta M_0$ well below $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ when other parameters are held fixed, would settle against the paper's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For KIC 2837475, 9139163, and 11253226, the paper finds that the envelope mixed mass $\Delta M_0$ must be approximately $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$: only grids with this value reproduce the observed average amplitude of the helium signature $\langle A_\nu\rangle$ and the acoustic depth of the helium ionization zone. Models with $\Delta M_0 = 5\times10^{-6}$ and $5\times10^{-5}\,M_\odot$ underpredict $\langle A_\nu\rangle$ because too much helium has settled out. The same models simultaneously match the measured surface metallicity $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]_s$ and the inferred surface helium abundance $Y_s \approx 0.25$–$0.26$, while the smaller-mixing models do not. The claim is not that the true turbulent diffusion profile is known; it is that, within the one-parameter turbulent mixing formalism, the data demand a mixed mass two orders of magnitude larger than previous heavy-element studies inferred.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes the only thing slowing helium settling is turbulent mixing of a specific density-dependent form, fully described by one number, the envelope mixed mass; if the real mixing has a different depth profile or other processes such as mass loss also act, the inferred $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ is not the true mixed mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard atomic-diffusion-only models under-predict the surface helium of $1.3$–$1.5\,M_\odot$ F stars, so stellar properties inferred from such models for these stars carry a systematic bias.
  • The seismic helium signature can discriminate between candidate diffusion-suppression processes: turbulent mixing with $\Delta M_0 \approx 5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ fits the data, while the much smaller mixing inferred from heavy elements does not.
  • Atomic diffusion and this turbulent mixing can be applied consistently in models of both cool and hot stars, removing the arbitrary switch between diffusion and non-diffusion treatments.
  • The surface helium values inferred here, $Y_s \approx 0.249$–$0.264$, give concrete targets for spectroscopic or seismic checks of envelope mixing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction follows from the paper's own logic: these three stars should have surface helium near $Y_s \approx 0.25$–$0.26$, so an independent measurement of helium in their atmospheres would either support or contradict the inferred mixed mass.
  • Mass loss is the main alternative left aside. If mass loss also slows helium settling, the turbulent mixed mass required could be smaller than $5\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$, so the value is best read as a constraint within the turbulence-only scenario rather than a direct measurement of the true mixed mass.
  • Applying the same glitch calibration to a larger Kepler sample would show whether a single $\Delta M_0$ works for all F stars or whether the required mixing varies with mass and temperature; the latter would mean the one-parameter turbulent model is too simple.
  • The discrepancy between the helium-based and heavy-element-based mixed masses suggests heavy-element abundances alone are nearly blind to the helium-bearing layers; combining the two observables is what actually separates competing diffusion-suppression processes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the amplitude of the helium ionization glitch in Kepler oscillation frequencies to constrain helium settling in three F stars (KIC 2837475, 9139163, 11253226). For each star the authors extract an observed average glitch amplitude with Monte Carlo uncertainties, compute grids of stellar models with atomic diffusion plus a phenomenological turbulent mixing scheme, and compare the observed and model amplitudes. On the basis of grids sampling three values of the envelope mixed mass, ΔM0 = 5e-6, 5e-5, and 5e-4 M_sun, they conclude that approximately 5e-4 M_sun of envelope mixing is necessary to reproduce the observed helium signature, much larger than the ~1e-6 M_sun inferred from heavy-element abundance studies. They also compare inferred surface helium and metallicity jointly and check acoustic depths of the helium ionization zone as a sanity check.

Significance. If the central conclusion holds, the paper provides a new seismic route to constraining the physical processes that compete with atomic diffusion in F stars, with potential consequences for consistent diffusion treatment across the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and for the cosmological lithium problem. The extraction of the observed glitch amplitude is carefully done: model and observed frequencies are fitted with the same mode set and weights, uncertainties are propagated by Monte Carlo simulation, and the acoustic-depth sanity check in Section 5.3 is a useful robustness test. The comparison is genuinely forward-modeled: model amplitudes are computed from stellar models rather than inverted from the observed quantity, so there is no circularity in the basic amplitude comparison. The main limitation is that the inference of a specific ΔM0 value is based on only three discrete grid points, and the supporting Ys calibration involves a trial-and-error relative weighting; these issues affect the precision and defensibility of the headline number, although not the qualitative conclusion that much stronger mixing than ~1e-6 M_sun is required.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, §5.1, Figure 4] The headline claim that an envelope mixed mass of approximately 5e-4 M_sun is 'necessary' is not supported by the discrete grid. Only three values of ΔM0 (5e-6, 5e-5, 5e-4 M_sun) are computed, and Figure 4 shows that the 5e-5 models fall below the observed ⟨Aν⟩ band while the 5e-4 models reproduce it; the data therefore constrain ΔM0 only to lie in the interval (5e-5, 5e-4] or possibly above 5e-4, since no larger value was computed. To support a specific value, intermediate and larger ΔM0 (for example 1e-4, 2e-4, and 1e-3 M_sun) must be modeled, or the paper should explicitly state that the result is a lower-bound threshold rather than a precise value.
  2. [§5.1, Table 2] The initial metallicity ranges in Table 2 are adjusted separately for each ΔM0 grid by a trial-and-error comparison of predicted and observed [Fe/H]_s, and the shift depends on ΔM0. Because the grids are therefore not a continuous or uniformly sampled scan of ΔM0 at fixed other physics, the joint agreement in Figure 7 for the 5e-4 grid is partly a consequence of this tuning. The paper should quantify how sensitive the conclusion is to the choice of [Fe/H]_i ranges, for example by showing the predicted [Fe/H]_s distributions for all grids before the shift is applied.
  3. [§5.1, Figure 6] The Ys calibration uses a trial-and-error weighting in which models with ΔM0 = 5e-5 M_sun are given one-fourth the weight of those with ΔM0 = 5e-4 M_sun. This weighting is arbitrary and affects the fitted straight line, the inferred Ys values, and hence the joint comparison in Figure 7. The paper should either justify the weighting from the data, test the sensitivity of the inferred Ys to alternative weights, or present the calibration without this ad hoc adjustment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The text refers to 'KIC 2839163' when describing complete depletion of surface helium, but the target list in Table 1 contains KIC 2837475 and KIC 9139163; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [§4.2] The sentence describing the Sobol-sequence sampling is grammatically awkward: 'sampling uniformly using quasi-random numbers (more specifically using Sobol sequences) the 5-D space' should be rephrased for clarity.
  3. [§5.1] The reported inferred Ys values are typeset in an unclear way (for example, '0.2490.007−0.007'); the notation for asymmetric uncertainties should be made consistent and readable.
  4. [§5.1] The paper states that the scatter in Figure 4 is 'intrinsic and due to differences in M, [Fe/H]_i, α_MLT, f_OV and age' without quantifying the individual contributions; a brief decomposition or at least a statement on the dominant source would help the reader judge whether the grid ranges are broad enough.
  5. [§5.3] The sanity check assumes specific choices for the acoustic surface and for R_He (the Γ1 peak), and the paper acknowledges a maximum systematic uncertainty of 225 s; it would be useful to state explicitly whether the conclusions of Figure 8 are robust to that systematic uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed helium glitch amplitude is an independent observable and model amplitudes are forward-computed; the coarse three-point Delta-M0 grid limits precision but does not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The observed average helium glitch amplitude <A_nu> is an independent seismic observable, and the model amplitudes are forward-computed by fitting the oscillation frequencies of stellar models built with three fixed values of the envelope mixed mass Delta_M0 (5e-6, 5e-5, and 5e-4 solar masses). Figure 4 directly compares these forward-computed model amplitudes with the observed band; models with Delta_M0 = 5e-6 and 5e-5 fall below the observed amplitude, while Delta_M0 = 5e-4 models reproduce it. Delta_M0 is not fitted to the observed amplitude; it is a grid parameter, so the headline comparison does not reduce to an input by construction. The later Ys calibration in Section 5.1 is a standard model-calibrated inference, although it is not an independent confirmation: the straight-line fit to <A_nu> versus Ys is deliberately weighted toward the Delta_M0 = 5e-4 models ("we gave less weight to these models", with a "trial and error" choice of one-fourth weight), and Figure 7 then uses this inferred Ys together with measured [Fe/H]s, whose model [Fe/H]i ranges were themselves shifted to match the observed surface metallicity (Section 4.2). These steps create a mild consistency loop, but they are not the primary evidence for the stated conclusion; the direct forward-model amplitude comparison already supports the qualitative result. The self-cited extraction method (Verma et al. 2019) is published, externally falsifiable work and is used as a tool rather than as an unverified uniqueness assumption. The paper itself acknowledges the residual possibility that Delta_M0 = 5e-5 models cannot be completely disregarded (Section 5.1), and the three-value grid sets only a coarse threshold rather than a precise upper bound; this is a resolution and overinterpretation concern, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against the observed glitch amplitude, with only a minor non-load-bearing calibration loop.

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

The paper's result rests on a small number of adopted physical ingredients: the Thoul et al. diffusion coefficients, the Richer/Michaud turbulent mixing prescription with fixed exponents and a single anchor mass Delta M0, and the helium glitch calibration from the authors' earlier work. The main free parameter is Delta M0, sampled only at three values, plus an ad hoc choice of initial metallicity ranges and a trial-and-error weighting in the Y_s calibration.

free parameters (3)
  • Envelope mixed mass Delta M0 = approximately 5e-4 M_sun (tested 5e-6, 5e-5, 5e-4 M_sun)
    The central parameter varied; only 5e-4 models reproduce the observed helium glitch amplitude and acoustic depth. It is not a continuous fit, but a discrete grid comparison.
  • Initial metallicity range [Fe/H]_i per grid = e.g., [0.12,0.32] for KIC 2837475 at 5e-6; [0.00,0.20] at 5e-4
    Shifted per Delta M0 so predicted surface [Fe/H] matches observed values; introduces a tuning that weakens the independent [Fe/H] check.
  • Relative weight of 5e-5 models in Y_s calibration = 1/4 that of 5e-4 models
    Chosen by trial and error (Section 5.1); affects the inferred Y_s values and the final conclusion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Atomic diffusion follows Thoul et al. (1994) coefficients for helium and heavy elements
    Adopted from literature; standard in stellar modeling, validated for the Sun.
  • domain assumption Turbulent diffusion coefficient of Richer et al. (2000) with Michaud et al. (2011a,b) normalization uniquely determines surface abundances for a given Delta M0
    Central modeling assumption; if incorrect, the inferred Delta M0 is not physical.
  • domain assumption Radiative forces have negligible effect on surface helium, so turbulence is the only process opposing settling
    Stated in Section 6; supported by literature, but not directly tested here.
  • domain assumption The helium glitch amplitude <A_nu> is a reliable function of surface Y_s and T_eff, per Verma et al. 2014a, 2019
    The calibration curve used to infer Y_s from observed <A_nu>; systematic uncertainties in this relation affect the result.
  • domain assumption Sobol-sampled 5-D grid of 50 tracks adequately covers the stellar parameter space
    Coarse sampling, but deemed sufficient for this exploratory study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Helium settling in F stars: constraining turbulent mixing using observed helium glitch signature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKI3O5FV

@misc{pith2026190804939,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Helium settling in F stars: constraining turbulent mixing using observed helium glitch signature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKI3O5FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04939}
}
abstract

Recent developments in asteroseismology -- thanks to space-based missions such as {\it CoRoT} and {\it Kepler} -- provide handles on those properties of stars that were either completely inaccessible in the past or only poorly measured. Among several such properties is the surface helium abundance of F and G stars. We used the oscillatory signature introduced by the ionization of helium in the observed oscillation frequencies to constrain the amount of helium settling in F stars. For this purpose, we identified three promising F stars for which the standard models of atomic diffusion predict large settling (or complete depletion) of surface helium. Assuming turbulence at the base of envelope convection zone slows down settling of the helium and heavy elements, we found an envelope mixed mass of approximately $5 \times 10^{-4}$M$_\odot$ necessary to reproduce the observed amplitude of helium signature for all the three stars. This is much larger than the mixed mass of the order of $10^{-6}$M$_\odot$ found in the previous studies performed using the measurements of the heavy element abundances. This demonstrates the potential of using the helium signature together with measurements of the heavy element abundances to identify the most important physical processes competing against atomic diffusion, allowing eventually to correctly interpret the observed surface abundances of hot stars, consistent use of atomic diffusion in modelling both hot and cool stars, and shed some light on the long-standing cosmological lithium problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04939 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface helium abundance as a function of central hydrogen abundance for the tracks representing KIC 2837475, 9139163 and 11253226. The tracks were computed with atomic diffusion of Thoul et al. (1994). The mass and initial metallicity of each track are shown in the legend. All tracks were computed with the initial helium abundance, mixing-length and exponential overshoot of 0.27, 1.80 and 0.016, respectively. 3 AVE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface helium abundance as a function of central hy￾drogen abundance for tracks of masses 1.0 and 1.4M⊙. The track with mass 1M⊙ (dotted curve) was computed with only atomic diffusion while those with mass 1.4M⊙ (continuous, dashed and dot-dashed curves) were computed with atomic diffusion and tur￾bulence. The initial helium mass fraction, initial metal mass frac￾tion, mixing-length and overshoot for each track wer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fit to the observed oscillation frequencies of KIC 2837475, 9139163 and 11253226 (smooth component has been subtracted to clearly see the glitch signatures). The different rows correspond to the three stars. In the left panels, the different types of points show the observed modes of harmonic degrees 0, 1, and 2 while the curve represents the best-fit to them. In the right panels, the histograms show the distributio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average amplitude of the helium glitch signature as a function of the surface helium abundance. The different panels correspond to the three stars. The different types of points in a panel represent the three different sets of 50 representative models with different va…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effective temperature as a function of the surface he￾lium abundance for the models of KIC 2837475. The different types of points in a panel represent the three different sets of 50 representative models with different values of the envelope mixed mass. Ys increases. T…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Surface helium abundance as a function of the surface metallicity. The different panels correspond to the three stars. The different types of points without errorbar in a panel represent the three different sets of 50 representative models with different values of the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Absolute difference between the two estimates of the acoustic depth of helium ionization zone as obtained by fitting the helium signature, τHe, and by using the sound speed profile of the model, τHe,c. The different panels correspond to the three stars. The different t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    H., Chapman S., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960ApJ...132..461A 132, 461

    Aller L. H., Chapman S., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146943 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960ApJ...132..461A 132, 461

    work page doi:10.1086/146943 1960

  3. [3]

    Angulo C., et al., 1999, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999NuPhA.656....3A 656, 3

    doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  4. [4]

    Appourchaux T., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201218948 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218948 2012

  5. [6]

    N., Pinsonneault M

    Bahcall J. N., Pinsonneault M. H., Basu S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1997, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.171 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvL..78..171B 78, 171

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.171 1997

  6. [7]

    J., Gough D

    Balmforth N. J., Gough D. O., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169262 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...362..256B 362, 256

    work page doi:10.1086/169262 1990

  7. [8]

    M., Narasimha D., 1994, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.267..209B 267, 209

    Basu S., Antia H. M., Narasimha D., 1994, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.267..209B 267, 209

    work page 1994

  8. [9]

    M., Demarque P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07644.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350..277B 350, 277

    Basu S., Mazumdar A., Antia H. M., Demarque P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07644.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350..277B 350, 277

    arXiv 2004

Show all 68 references
  1. [10]

    Bertelli Motta C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018MNRAS.478..425B 478, 425

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    Broomhall A.-M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1828B 440, 1828

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    Chapman S., 1917a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/77.7.539 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1917MNRAS..77..539C 77, 539

    doi

  4. [13]

    Chapman S., 1917b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/77.7.540 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1917MNRAS..77..540C 77, 540

    doi

  5. [14]

    Chapman S., 1922, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/82.5.292 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MNRAS..82..292C 82, 292

    1922 doi

  6. [15]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap

    2008 doi

  7. [16]

    R., Thompson M

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Proffitt C. R., Thompson M. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186725 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...403L..75C 403, L75

    1993 doi

  8. [17]

    L., Bedding T

    Compton D. L., Bedding T. R., Stello D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..560C 485, 560

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    J., Marques J

    Deal M., Alecian G., Lebreton Y., Goupil M. J., Marques J. P., LeBlanc F., Morel P., Pichon B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833361 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Dotter A., Conroy C., Cargile P., Asplund M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...99D 840, 99

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., Allard F., Barman T., Bodnarik J. G., Hauschildt P. H., Heffner-Wong A., Tamanai A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428642 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..585F 623, 585

    2005 doi

  12. [21]

    J., Weiss W

    Freytag B., Steffen M., 2004, in Zverko J., Ziznovsky J., Adelman S. J., Weiss W. W., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 224, The A-Star Puzzle. pp 139--147, @doi 10.1017/S174392130400448X

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    Gai N., Basu S., Tang Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..123G 856, 123

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    O., 1990, in Osaki Y., Shibahashi H., eds, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag Vol

    Gough D. O., 1990, in Osaki Y., Shibahashi H., eds, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag Vol. 367, Progress of Seismology of the Sun and Stars. p. 283, @doi 10.1007/3-540-53091-6

    1990 doi

  15. [24]

    O., Thompson M

    Gough D. O., Thompson M. J., 1988, in Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Frandsen S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 123, Advances in Helio- and Asteroseismology. p. 155

    1988

  16. [25]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    1998 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Richard O., Grundahl F., Collet R., Mashonkina L

    Gruyters P., Korn A. J., Richard O., Grundahl F., Collet R., Mashonkina L. I., Osorio Y., Barklem P. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220821 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423590 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Gruyters P., Nordlander T., Korn A. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423590 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  19. [28]

    Herwig F., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A

    2000

  20. [29]

    731, Equation-of-State and Phase-Transition in Models of Ordinary Astrophysical Matter

    Houdek G., 2004, in Celebonovic V., Gough D., D \"a ppen W., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 731, Equation-of-State and Phase-Transition in Models of Ordinary Astrophysical Matter. pp 193--207, @doi 10.1063/1.1828405

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

    O., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11325.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..861H 375, 861

    Houdek G., Gough D. O., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11325.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..861H 375, 861

    2007

  22. [31]

    Imbriani G., et al., 2005, @doi [European Physical Journal A] 10.1140/epja/i2005-10138-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005EPJA...25..455I 25, 455

    2005 doi

  23. [32]

    R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591667 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683L.175K 683, L175

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591667 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683L.175K 683, L175

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    J., Grundahl F., Richard O., Barklem P

    Korn A. J., Grundahl F., Richard O., Barklem P. S., Mashonkina L., Collet R., Piskunov N., Gustafsson B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature05011 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.442..657K 442, 657

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Grundahl F., Richard O., Mashonkina L., Barklem P

    Korn A. J., Grundahl F., Richard O., Mashonkina L., Barklem P. S., Collet R., Gustafsson B., Piskunov N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523098 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..402K 671, 402

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    W., Staudt G., Harissopulos S., Paradellis T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...567..643K 567, 643

    Kunz R., Fey M., Jaeger M., Mayer A., Hammer J. W., Staudt G., Harissopulos S., Paradellis T., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338384 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...567..643K 567, 643

    2002 doi

  27. [36]

    H., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05268.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.330L...6K 330, L6

    Kupka F., Montgomery M. H., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05268.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.330L...6K 330, L6

    2002

  28. [37]

    J., Barklem P

    Lind K., Korn A. J., Barklem P. S., Grundahl F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..172L 835, 172

    Lund M. N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..172L 835, 172

    2017 doi

  30. [39]

    Mazumdar A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...18M 782, 18

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    Michaud G., Charland Y., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164774 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..326M 311, 326

    1986 doi

  32. [41]

    Michaud G., Tarasick D., Charland Y., Pelletier C., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161034 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...269..239M 269, 239

    1983 doi

  33. [42]

    Michaud G., Richer J., Richard O., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015997 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    doi

  34. [43]

    Michaud G., Richer J., Vick M., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116999 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    doi

  35. [44]

    Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Thompson M. J., 1998, in Deubner F.-L., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kurtz D., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 185, New Eyes to See Inside the Sun and Stars. p. 317

    1998

  36. [46]

    Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Thompson M. J., 1994, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A 247

    1994

  37. [47]

    Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Thompson M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03471.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.316..165M 316, 165

    2000

  38. [48]

    Morel P., Th \'e venin F., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020768 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  39. [49]

    J., Richard O., Lind K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...48N 753, 48

    Nordlander T., Korn A. J., Richard O., Lind K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...48N 753, 48

    2012 doi

  40. [50]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  41. [51]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  42. [52]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  43. [53]

    R., Michaud G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170580 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380..238P 380, 238

    Proffitt C. R., Michaud G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170580 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380..238P 380, 238

    1991 doi

  44. [54]

    A., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    Richard O., Vauclair S., Charbonnel C., Dziembowski W. A., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  45. [55]

    Richer J., Michaud G., Turcotte S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308274 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...529..338R 529, 338

    2000 doi

  46. [56]

    J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    Rogers F. J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    2002 doi

  47. [57]

    Schatzman E., 1969, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969A

    1969

  48. [58]

    J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.00019.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362L...1S 362, L1

    Seaton M. J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.00019.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362L...1S 362, L1

    2005

  49. [59]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..173S 835, 173

    2017 doi

  50. [60]

    A., Bahcall J

    Thoul A. A., Bahcall J. N., Loeb A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173695 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..828T 421, 828

    1994 doi

  51. [61]

    Turcotte S., Richer J., Michaud G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306056 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..559T 504, 559

    1998 doi

  52. [62]

    Varenne O., Monier R., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  53. [63]

    Vauclair S., Vauclair G., Schatzman E., Michaud G., 1978a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156292 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..567V 223, 567

    doi

  54. [64]

    Vauclair G., Vauclair S., Michaud G., 1978b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156324 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..920V 223, 920

    doi

  55. [65]

    Verma K., et al., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/138 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790..138V 790, 138

    doi

  56. [66]

    M., Basu S., Mazumdar A., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..114V 794, 114

    Verma K., Antia H. M., Basu S., Mazumdar A., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..114V 794, 114

    doi

  57. [67]

    M., Mazumdar A., Basu S., Lund M

    Verma K., Raodeo K., Antia H. M., Mazumdar A., Basu S., Lund M. N., Silva Aguirre V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...47V 837, 47

    2017 doi

  58. [68]

    R., Lund M

    Verma K., Raodeo K., Basu S., Silva Aguirre V., Mazumdar A., Mosumgaard J. R., Lund M. N., Ranadive P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3374 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4678V 483, 4678

    2019 doi

  59. [69]

    Vick M., Michaud G., Richer J., Richard O., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014307 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  60. [70]

    V., 1988, in Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Frandsen S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol

    Vorontsov S. V., 1988, in Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Frandsen S., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 123, Advances in Helio- and Asteroseismology. p. 151

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.