Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

On the recent parametric determination of an asteroseismological model for the DBV star KIC 08626021

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper argues that the chemical structure inferred for the pulsating white dwarf KIC 08626021 from a very precise asteroseismic fit cannot be produced by any standard single-star white dwarf formation channel, even with extreme…

desk verdict Strong cautionary analysis with a real scope limit: the impossibility claim holds for single-star evolution but is untested for the merger channel the authors themselves cite. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08449 v1 pith:THUQDHCC submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.SR

Francisco C. De Gerónimo , Tiara Battich , Marcelo M. Miller Bertolami , Leandro G. Althaus , Alejandro H. Córsico This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfasteroseismologyDBVstarsKIC08626021stellarevolutionconvectiveboundarymixing12C(alphagamma)16OreactionratechemicalstratificationKeplermission
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

This paper tests whether the interior chemical structure inferred for KIC 08626021, a helium-rich pulsating white dwarf whose observed periods are matched to better than one microsecond, could have been produced by the physics that normally builds white dwarfs. It follows the star's evolution from the main sequence to the white dwarf stage while varying convective mixing at the core boundary, element diffusion, and the rate of the reaction $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ that fuses carbon into oxygen. The answer is no: even extreme but bounded changes leave the models unable to form the large homogeneous carbon-oxygen core, the pure-carbon buffer, and the extremely thin helium envelope implied by the asteroseismic fit. Matching that structure would require the carbon-to-oxygen reaction to be roughly ten times stronger during core helium burning and a thousand times weaker during subsequent helium-shell burning, far outside current uncertainties. If this conclusion holds, the asteroseismic model for KIC 08626021 is not physically realizable through standard single-star evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the complete evolutionary sequence: starting from a zero-age main-sequence star and following it through core helium burning, the thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch, and the cooling white dwarf stage, so that every chemical feature in the final model can be traced to a specific physical process. The paper perturbs that machinery piece by piece - the overshooting parameter at the convective core boundary, the diffusion efficiency, the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reaction rate, and the treatment of thermal pulses - and compares each resulting profile with the asteroseismic one. A second mechanism is the fossil-record argument: because diffusion only reshapes the outer layers on white dwarf timescales, deep features such as the carbon buffer must have been imprinted during the progenitor's nuclear burning phases, which is what makes the reaction-rate test decisive.

What would settle it

Compute a single-star evolutionary sequence from the main sequence to the white dwarf stage, using standard physics and reaction rates within current published uncertainties, that yields a homogeneous carbon-oxygen core of $0.45\,M_\odot$, a nearly pure carbon buffer, and a helium envelope near $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ for a $0.57\,M_\odot$ white dwarf; finding such a model would refute the paper's central claim, while a merger simulation producing the same structure would show the claim's scope is limited to single-star evolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the chemical stratification of the asteroseismic model for KIC 08626021 is a fossil record of earlier evolution, and every plausible route to that record fails. During core helium burning, convective overshooting up to five times the standard value still produces a homogeneous CO core of at most about $0.35\,M_\odot$, well short of the $0.45\,M_\odot$ inferred. During white dwarf cooling, diffusion varied in efficiency from $1/100$ to 100 times normal cannot create the nearly pure carbon buffer at the top of the core, and the inferred helium envelope would be thickened by gravitational settling within roughly $10^5$ to $2\times10^5$ years, while the star takes about ten million years to cool to its observed temperature. The only way the authors found to reproduce both the oxygen-rich core and the carbon buffer is to alter the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reaction rate by factors of roughly 10 and $1/100$ to $1/1000$ in different temperature regimes, which they judge incompatible with laboratory determinations. Their conclusion is that the main chemical structures derived for KIC 08626021 cannot be reconciled with current knowledge of white dwarf formation.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes KIC 08626021 formed from a single star following the standard evolutionary path; if its history involved a merger of two white dwarfs, the paper's impossibility claim does not cover that route.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, parametric asteroseismic fits can reach very high period precision while implying chemical structures that full evolutionary models cannot produce, so precision alone does not guarantee a physically meaningful interior.
  • For a white dwarf of about $0.6\,M_\odot$, the homogeneous carbon-oxygen core cannot be pushed beyond roughly $0.35\,M_\odot$ by any studied convective boundary mixing prescription; larger inferred cores signal missing physics or a wrong model.
  • Deep carbon-rich buffers in white dwarfs, if real, are nucleosynthetic fossils, not products of diffusion during cooling.
  • Within the single-star assumption, explaining KIC 08626021 would require either a revision of nuclear reaction rates far beyond current bounds or a non-standard formation channel such as a white dwarf merger.
  • The inferred thin helium envelope would demand a cooling timescale 50 to 100 times shorter than standard models predict, an independent tension for the asteroseismic solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to apply the same evolutionary-realism check to other parametric asteroseismic fits; if several show similar impossibilities, the flexible chemical profiles of those models may be overfitting period spectra.
  • The paper does not model merger formation, so a merger origin for KIC 08626021 remains an open route around the impossibility conclusion; computing post-merger chemical structures is the most direct way to test it.
  • The apparent upper limit on homogeneous core size could serve as a calibration target for convective boundary mixing prescriptions, independent of this particular star.
  • The extreme reaction-rate split needed to mimic the inferred profile effectively rules out nuclear physics as the resolution, which shifts suspicion onto the asteroseismic model itself.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether the chemical structure inferred for the pulsating DB white dwarf KIC 08626021 by Giammichele et al. (2018) can be produced by standard white-dwarf formation physics. Using the LPCODE stellar evolution code, the authors compute full evolution sequences from the ZAMS to the DB domain for final masses near 0.58 solar masses and explore four ingredients: convective boundary mixing during core helium burning, diffusion efficiency during the white-dwarf cooling phase, modifications of the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate and screening, and TP-AGB intershell abundances and helium content. They report that the 0.45-solar-mass homogeneous CO core is not reachable with any reasonable CBM prescription, that diffusion cannot create the C-rich buffer or preserve the thin helium envelope, that reproducing the high central oxygen abundance and C buffer requires an ad hoc 12C+alpha rate about 10 times higher during CHeB and 100-1000 times lower during helium-shell burning, and that the TP-AGB cannot simultaneously supply the asteroseismically inferred C-rich intershell and very low helium content. The paper concludes that the asteroseismic model of KIC 08626021 is difficult to reconcile with current understanding of white-dwarf formation.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper is significant: it turns a striking asteroseismic result into a quantitative challenge to white-dwarf formation theory and identifies which microphysical and macrophysical uncertainties are and are not able to bridge the gap. The authors carefully anchor their CBM discussion in earlier independent work by Straniero, Constantino, Bossini, and collaborators, and the negative result for the single-star channel is well supported by a consistent set of ZAMS-to-WD sequences. The paper is also honest in stating that the required reaction-rate changes are extreme and outside current uncertainties. The main limitations are that the impossibility claim is broader than the models actually computed, and that the one 'successful' modified-rate model is not demonstrated to reproduce the full asteroseismic profile or the observed periods.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The conclusion that the KIC 08626021 structure 'cannot be reconciled with our present knowledge of white dwarf formation' is broader than the evidence presented. Section 1 explicitly lists white-dwarf mergers as an accepted alternative DB formation channel, citing Saio & Jeffery (2000, 2002), but all quantitative experiments in Sections 3.1-3.4 use single-star LPCODE sequences starting from the ZAMS. No merger calculation or even a scaling estimate for merger remnants is given. The authors should either restrict the abstract and conclusion to the single-star evolutionary channel, or add a quantitative discussion of whether double-He or He+CO merger remnants could plausibly produce a ~0.57-solar-mass remnant with a large homogeneous CO core, a C-rich buffer, and a thin He envelope.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Abstract] The modified 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rate is fitted to the target profile rather than derived from an independent physical model, yet the abstract states that the rate 'has to be increased by a factor of ~10 ... and reduced by a factor of ~1000'. Within the paper's own framing this is a statement about what is needed to mimic the target structure under the assumed functional form, not a demonstrated necessity. More importantly, the paper does not show the resulting chemical profile of the full evolutionary model with the modified rate, nor does it compare the pulsation periods of that model with the observed periods of KIC 08626021. Figure 5 displays only the rate curves. A plot of the resulting O, C, and He abundances against the Giammichele et al. (2018) profile, and ideally a period comparison, would make the claim that the structure is 'reproduced' verifiable; absent that, the statement in Section 3.3 that 'we have been able to reproduce the high central abundance for 16O' rests on an unshown model.
  3. [Section 3.1, final paragraph] The sentence 'All these works together show that the outer boundary of the homogeneous CO core of a low-mass star ... cannot exceed 0.35 solar masses' is internally inconsistent with the authors' own Figure 2, where the f = 0.087 model produces a homogeneous core of 0.354 solar masses. The conclusion that 0.45 solar masses is unreachable is unaffected, since even 0.354 remains far below 0.45, but the wording 'cannot exceed 0.35' should be corrected to avoid a quantitative contradiction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The star is referred to as KIC 08626021 in the title and abstract but as KIC 8626021 in several places (e.g., Figure 2 caption, Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 4). The inconsistent nomenclature should be unified.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text contains a typo: 'Diffusive overhsooting' should read 'Diffusive overshooting'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The text refers to 'the peak of C at log(1 - mr/M_star) ~ -1.4', but the figure and the rest of the paper use the coordinate -log(1 - mr/M_star); the sign convention should be checked and made consistent.
  4. [Section 3.3] The description of the modified rate as 'up to 10 times larger than the highest value predicted by Kunz et al. (2002)' is followed by a statement that it applies 'for T < 0.13 x 10^9 K'; the figure caption and text should agree on whether the threshold is T9 = 0.13 or another value, and the piecewise nature of the modification should be stated explicitly in one place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the negative conclusion is supported by forward evolutionary tests, not by re-using the target structure as evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is negative: even after extreme but bounded modifications to convective boundary mixing, diffusion, the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rate, and TP-AGB physics, the chemical structure derived by Giammichele et al. (2018) cannot be reproduced by standard single-star white-dwarf formation. This claim is tested by forward LPCODE evolutionary sequences, not by assuming the target. The modified reaction rate in Sect. 3.3 is explicitly a retro-fitted quantity: the authors state that they computed evolution 'by altering significantly the nuclear reaction rate for the purpose of mimicking the chemical structure of KIC 08626021,' and then report the resulting factors. Because the paper labels this as an inverse exercise and does not present the fitted rate as an independent prediction or as evidence validating the target, it is not a circular step. Self-citations to LPCODE and earlier De Geronimo et al. papers calibrate the code and provide context, but the key upper limits on homogeneous core mass and diffusion effects are cross-checked against independent calculations (Straniero et al. 2003; Constantino et al. 2015, 2017; Bossini et al. 2015; Spruit 2015), so no load-bearing self-citation chain exists. One scope limitation, flagged in Sect. 1 but not modeled, is that mergers of white dwarfs are listed as an alternative DB formation channel (Saio & Jeffery 2000, 2002); the impossibility conclusion is therefore strictly conditional on the single-star channel. This is a scope or correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the paper only modifies existing physical parameters. The free parameters are exploration or fitting parameters tied to reproducing the asteroseismic target, while the axioms are standard stellar evolution assumptions plus the specific single-star channel and the fiducial asteroseismic model.

free parameters (4)
  • 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate multiplier during core helium burning = ~10 for T < 0.13e9 K
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.3 to reproduce the central oxygen mass fraction of ~0.82 from the asteroseismic model.
  • 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate reduction during helium shell burning = 1/100 to 1/1000 for T > 0.13e9 K
    Adjusted to produce the almost pure carbon buffer at the top of the CO core.
  • Overshooting parameter f during core helium burning = varied from 0 to 0.174 (0 to 10x standard)
    Explored to test whether extra convective boundary mixing can enlarge the homogeneous CO core to 0.45 solar masses; values are chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • Diffusion efficiency multiplier f = varied 0.01, 1, 100
    Explored to test whether diffusion can create the C buffer or thin He envelope.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LPCODE stellar evolution code accurately implements standard stellar physics
    All results depend on the code's fidelity; no independent benchmark against observations is given.
  • standard math Baseline nuclear reaction rates from Kunz et al. (2002) and screening from Graboske et al. (1973) and Wallace et al. (1982)
    Assumed as the standard reference for defining the required modifications.
  • domain assumption Single-star evolutionary channel from ZAMS through CHeB and TP-AGB to WD
    The paper models only this channel; merger formation is mentioned but not tested, so the impossibility claim is restricted to this channel.
  • domain assumption Diffusion is the only process modifying the chemical profile during the WD stage
    Stated in Section 4; winds and rotation are argued against but not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The asteroseismic model of Giammichele et al. (2018) is an accurate representation of the star's chemical structure
    The whole test uses that model as the target; if the inversion is wrong, the contradiction with evolution theory vanishes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the recent parametric determination of an asteroseismological model for the DBV star KIC 08626021." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THUQDHCC

@misc{pith2026190808449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the recent parametric determination of an asteroseismological model for the DBV star KIC 08626021},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THUQDHCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08449}
}
abstract

Asteroseismology of white dwarf (WD) stars is a powerful tool that allows to reveal the hidden chemical structure of WD and infer details about their evolution by comparing the observed periods with those obtained from stellar models. A recent asteroseismological study has reproduced the period spectrum of the helium rich pulsating WD KIC 08626021 with an unprecedented precision. The chemical structure derived from that analysis is notably different from that expected for a WD according to currently accepted formation channels, thus posing a challenge to the theory of stellar evolution. We explore the relevant micro- and macro-physics processes acting during the formation and evolution of KIC 08626021 that could lead to a chemical structure similar to that found through asteroseismology. We quantify to which extent is necessary to modify the physical processes that shapes the chemical structure, in order to reproduce the most important features of the asteroseismic model. We model the previous evolution of KIC 08626021 by exploring specific changes in the 12C+alpha reaction rate, screening processes, microscopic diffusion, as well as convective boundary mixing during core-He burning. We find that, in order to reproduce the core chemical profile derived for KIC 0862602, the 12C+alpha nuclear reaction rate has to be increased by a factor of $\sim$ 10 during the helium-core burning, and reduced by a factor of $\sim$ 1000 during the following helium-shell burning, as compared with the standard predictions for this rate. In addition, the main chemical structures derived for KIC 0862602 cannot be reconciled with our present knowledge of white dwarf formation. We find that within our current understanding of white dwarf formation and evolution, it is difficult to reproduce the most important asteroseismologically-derived features of the chemical structure of KIC 08626021.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Inner distribution of O, C an He in terms of the outer mass fraction corresponding to the expectations from a typical DBV model of mass ∼ 0.58 M⊙ resulting from the complete progenitor evolution. Bottom panel: same as above but for the asteroseismic model for the DBV KIC 08626021, Giammichele et al. (2018). 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 XO mr /Msun f=0 f=0.00174 f=0.0087 f=… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Oxygen chemical profiles as a function of the mass coordinate for different assumptions of the overshooting parameter. Vertical dashed line corresponds to the extent of the homogeneous central part of the core predicted by the asteroseismic model of KIC 8626021. rameter f during CHeB2 . In particular, we explore values of f = 0.00174, 0.0087, 0.0174, 0.0348, 0.087, and 0.174 which 2 The value of f relates the mixing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chemical profiles for He, C and O of our DBV evolutionary models (∼ 29000 K) in terms of the outer mass fraction, resulting from different efficiency of element diffusion. The values of the quantity f indicates the multiplicative factor of the diffusion efficiency with respect to the standard value (f = 1). explore for how long can a very thin He envelope survive the effects of diffusion in the absence of competing … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the position of the bottom of the pure-He envelope (measured in terms of the outer mass fraction q) from Teff ∼ 30000 K, for models with initial − log(q) ∼ 7.6 and 8.6 (models A and B respectively). For model A (B), 0.08 (0.18) Myr is enough for diffu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 12C + α reaction rate at the CHeB temperatures, according to the work of Kunz et al. (2002) (red thick line) together with the altered reaction rate necessary for mimicking the asteroseismic model for KIC 8626021 (dashed line). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Xi # TP …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Intershell abundances of 4He, 12 C and 16O during the evolution on the thermally pulsing AGB phase. Dashed (solid) lines refers to the model in which (no) OV is considered in this stage. bly changing drastically other parts of stellar evolution that are well constraine…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constraints from parallaxes and average period spacings in the asteroseismic study of 8 DAVs

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Asymptotic period spacings plus Gaia parallaxes favor thick hydrogen layers in most of eight DAVs and give an upper limit M_env ≲ 10^{-2.2} for the helium-layer base.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Serenelli, A

    Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., Córsico, A. H., & Montgomer y, M. H. 2003, A&A, 404, 593

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    G., Serenelli, A

    Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., Panei, J. A., et al. 2005, A& A, 435, 631

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Baalrud, S. D. & Daligault, J. 2013, Physical Review Letters , 110, 235001 Bischoff-Kim, A. & Østensen, R. H. 2011, ApJ, 742, L16 Bischoff-Kim, A., Østensen, R. H., Hermes, J. J., & Provencal, J. L. 20 14, ApJ, 794, 39 Bischoff-Kim, A., Provencal, J. L., Bradley, P . A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 8 71, 13

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    1995, A&A, 299, 755 Bognár, Z., Paparó, M., Córsico, A

    Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 299, 755 Bognár, Z., Paparó, M., Córsico, A. H., Kepler, S. O., & Gy ˝orffy, Á. 2014, A&A, 570, A116

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    2015, MNRAS, 453 , 2290

    Bossini, D., Miglio, A., Salaris, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453 , 2290

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A87

    2019

  7. [7]

    1985, ApJ, 296, 204

    Castellani, V ., Chieffi, A., Tornambe, A., & Pulone, L. 1985, ApJ, 296, 204

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    1971, Ap&SS, 10,340

    Castellani, V ., Giannone, P ., & Renzini, A. 1971, Ap&SS, 10,340

    work page 1971

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    2011, A&A, 530, A3

    Charpinet, S., V an Grootel, V ., Fontaine, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A3

    2011

  2. [10]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 123

    Stello, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 123

    2015

  3. [11]

    W., & Lattanzio, J

    Constantino, T., Campbell, S. W., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2017, MN RAS, 472, 4900 Córsico, A. H. & Althaus, L. G. 2006, A&A, 454, 863 Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2006 , A&A, 458, 259 Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Bis choff-K...

    2017

  4. [12]

    E., Graboske, H

    Dewitt, H. E., Graboske, H. C., & Cooper, M. S. 1973, ApJ, 181, 439

    1973

  5. [13]

    & Brassard, P

    Fontaine, G. & Brassard, P . 2008, PASP , 120, 1043

    2008

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A , 569, A63

    Gabriel, M., Noels, A., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2014, A&A , 569, A63

    2014

  7. [15]

    2017, A&A, 598, A109

    Giammichele, N., Charpinet, S., Brassard, P ., & Fontaine, G . 2017, A&A, 598, A109

    2017

  8. [16]

    2018, N ature, 554, 73

    Giammichele, N., Charpinet, S., Fontaine, G., et al. 2018, N ature, 554, 73

    2018

  9. [17]

    2014, in IAU Sym- posium, V ol

    Giammichele, N., Fontaine, G., Brassard, P ., & Charpinet, S. 2014, in IAU Sym- posium, V ol. 301, Precision Asteroseismology, ed. J. A. Guzik, W. J. Chaplin, G. Handler, & A. Pigulski, 285–288

    2014

  10. [18]

    2016, ApJS, 223, 10

    Giammichele, N., Fontaine, G., Brassard, P ., & Charpinet, S . 2016, ApJS, 223, 10

    2016

  11. [19]

    C., Dewitt, H

    Graboske, H. C., Dewitt, H. E., Grossman, A. S., & Cooper, M. S . 1973, ApJ, 181, 457

    1973

  12. [20]

    2000, A&A, 360, 952 —

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952 —. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2000

  13. [21]

    1999, A&A, 3 49, L5

    Herwig, F., Blöcker, T., Langer, N., & Driebe, T. 1999, A&A, 3 49, L5

    1999

  14. [22]

    1997 , A&A, 324, L81

    Herwig, F., Bloecker, T., Schoenberner, D., & El Eid, M. 1997 , A&A, 324, L81

    1997

  15. [23]

    Hoyer, D., Rauch, T., Werner, K., & Kruk, J. W. 2018, A&A, 612, A62

    2018

  16. [24]

    B., Truran, J

    Iben, Jr., I., Kaler, J. B., Truran, J. W., & Renzini, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 605

    1983

  17. [25]

    2013, Stellar Struc ture and Evolution (Springer-V erlag Berlin Heidelberg)

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Struc ture and Evolution (Springer-V erlag Berlin Heidelberg)

    2013

  18. [26]

    2002, ApJ, 567, 643

    Kunz, R., Fey, M., Jaeger, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 643

    2002

  19. [27]

    Lawlor, T. M. & MacDonald, J. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 263

    2006

  20. [28]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 1178 Miller Bertolami, M

    Michaud, G., Richer, J., & Richard, O. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1178 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25 Miller Bertolami, M. M. & Althaus, L. G. 2006, A&A, 454, 845 Miller Bertolami, M. M., Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., & P anei, J. A. 2006, A&A, 449, 313

    2007

  21. [29]

    Montgomery, M. H. & Winget, D. E. 1999, ApJ, 526, 976 Østensen, R. H., Bloemen, S., Vu ˇckovi´c, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, L39

    1999

  22. [30]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15 Prada Moroni, P

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P ., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15 Prada Moroni, P . G. & Straniero, O. 2002, ApJ, 581, 585

    2015

  23. [31]

    2012, ApJ, 755,128

    Quirion, P .-O., Fontaine, G., & Brassard, P . 2012, ApJ, 755,128

    2012

  24. [32]

    D., Córsico, A

    Romero, A. D., Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., et al. 2012, MNR AS, 420, 1462

    2012

  25. [33]

    D., Kepler, S

    Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., & Fraga, L. 2013, ApJ, 779, 58

    2013

  26. [34]

    & Je ffery, C

    Saio, H. & Je ffery, C. S. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 671 —. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 121

    2000

  27. [35]

    & Cassisi, S

    Salaris, M. & Cassisi, S. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4 , 170192

    2017

  28. [36]

    1997, A pJ, 486, 413

    Salaris, M., Domínguez, I., García-Berro, E., et al. 1997, A pJ, 486, 413

    1997

  29. [37]

    Spruit, H. C. 2015, A&A, 582, L2

    2015

  30. [38]

    2003, ApJ, 583, 878

    Straniero, O., Domínguez, I., Imbriani, G., & Piersanti, L. 2003, ApJ, 583, 878

    2003

  31. [39]

    X., Townsend, R

    Timmes, F. X., Townsend, R. H. D., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, Ap J, 867, L30

    2018

  32. [40]

    & Bues, I

    Unglaub, K. & Bues, I. 2000, A&A, 359, 1042 V an Grootel, V ., Charpinet, S., Fontaine, G., et al. 2010a, ApJ, 718, L97 V an Grootel, V ., Charpinet, S., Fontaine, G., Green, E. M., &Brassard, P . 2010b, A&A, 524, A63

    2000

  33. [41]

    K., Woosley, S

    Wallace, R. K., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 696

    1982

  34. [42]

    Werner, K., Rauch, T., & Kruk, J. W. 2017, A&A, 601, A8

    2017

  35. [43]

    Winget, D. E. & Kepler, S. O. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 157

    2008

  36. [44]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2015, ApJ, 810, 34 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2015

Pith tools

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