Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Obtaining Precision Constraints on Modified Gravity with Helioseismology

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 Solar pulsations can tighten fifth-force bounds by two orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea with an honest but fragile central number: helioseismology as a fifth-force probe deserves serious consideration, but Eq. (7) is a sensitivity estimate, not a measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02552 v1 pith:ZXIB54KG submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Ippocratis D. Saltas , Ilídio Lopes This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords helioseismologymodifiedgravityfifthforceDHOSTscalar-tensortheoriessolaroscillationsstellarpulsationsdarkenergyVainshteinscreening
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 argues that the Sun's acoustic oscillation spectrum carries a measurable imprint of a fifth force produced by the most general scalar-tensor theories of dark energy, the DHOST theories. Within these theories, the force adds a term proportional to the coupling $Y$ to the stellar hydrostatic equilibrium, slightly reshaping the interior sound-speed profile and thereby shifting the predicted pulsation frequencies. Comparing a selection of 19 GONG solar frequencies with frequencies computed from a polytropic solar model plus a standard-gravity reference model, the paper finds $-1.8\times10^{-3}\le Y\le1.2\times10^{-3}$ at $2\sigma$ after marginalising over a nuisance parameter for the unknown solar response. If this holds, it would tighten existing white-dwarf bounds on $Y$ by more than two orders of magnitude and translate into $10^{-3}$-level constraints on the DHOST parameters $\alpha_H$ and $\beta_1$. The paper presents helioseismology as a new, local, high-precision test of gravity at astrophysical scales.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on a linear expansion of the acoustic frequency around $Y=0$: $f_{\rm theory}(Y)=f_{\rm pol}(Y)+f'_{\rm pol}\,\xi\,Y$, where $f_{\rm pol}$ is computed in a polytropic model with index $n_{\rm pol}=3.069$ and $\xi\equiv(f'_{\rm pol}-f'_{\rm theory})/f'_{\rm pol}$ at $Y=0$ is an unknown nuisance parameter measuring how the true solar response differs from the polytropic proxy. The WKB asymptotic formula $f=(n+l/2+\alpha)\bar f$, with $\bar f$ the inverse round-trip acoustic travel time, supplies an upper bound $|\xi|\le5.2\%$ from the derivative of $\bar f$ under the fifth force; a deliberately conservative choice widens this to $|\xi|\le0.22$. The polytropic frequencies come from solving the non-radial adiabatic pulsation equations under the Cowling approximation, with a zeroth-order microphysics correction calibrated to a standard-gravity solar model.

What would settle it

Build a modified-gravity solar evolution model with the same input physics as the reference model but nonzero $Y$, compute the eigenfrequencies without the Cowling approximation, and compare the derivative $f'_{\rm theory}$ with $f'_{\rm pol}$; if the implied $|\xi|$ exceeds 0.22 for the selected modes, the interval does not follow. A simpler check is to fit all available GONG modes without the $1\sigma$ selection criterion: if the resulting constraint shifts far outside $[-1.8\times10^{-3},1.2\times10^{-3}]$ or disappears, the mode-selection step is driving the claimed sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that helioseismic observations can constrain the fifth-force strength $Y$ in DHOST scalar-tensor theories to $10^{-3}$ accuracy, far beyond current astrophysical bounds. The fifth force modifies the hydrostatic equilibrium through the term $(G Y/4)(d^2m/dr^2)\rho$, altering the sound-speed profile and hence the acoustic eigenfrequencies; the paper computes these frequencies for polytropic solar models, calibrates the polytrope against a standard-gravity solar evolution model, and compares 19 well-fitting modes with GONG data. Using a linear correction with a nuisance parameter $\xi$ for the unknown frequency response, it obtains $-1.8\times10^{-3}\le Y\le1.2\times10^{-3}$ at $2\sigma$. The paper frames this interval as an order-of-magnitude illustration of helioseismology's constraining power rather than as a complete helioseismic inversion, since a broader set of modes produces tension that would need improved modelling to resolve.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the way the real Sun's oscillation frequencies would respond to a fifth force is close to the response of the simplified polytropic model, within the range allowed for the nuisance parameter; if the true response differs more than that, the quoted bound is not a valid measurement of $Y$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing white-dwarf bounds on the fifth-force coupling ($Y>-0.48$ and $Y<0.18$) would be replaced by an interval roughly two orders of magnitude tighter, making local stellar tests competitive with cosmological probes.
  • The DHOST parameters $\alpha_H$ and $\beta_1$ would be constrained at the $10^{-3}$ level, significantly sharper than the current combined bounds from pulsar and white-dwarf observations.
  • The constraint relies on selecting only modes whose standard-gravity predictions agree with observations to within $1\sigma$; including all modes produces tension, indicating that a full helioseismic inversion is needed to separate genuine fifth-force effects from background-modelling artifacts.
  • The result gives a concrete numerical target for future modified-gravity solar models: non-Cowling pulsation calculations and evolutionary solar models with nonzero $Y$ should either reproduce the interval or reveal the systematic offset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full helioseismic inversion using modified-gravity solar evolution models could convert the paper's mode-selection dependence into an all-mode consistency test, confirming the $10^{-3}$ scale or exposing a background-modelling bias that mimics a fifth force.
  • The same frequency-shift technique could be applied to other well-observed stars through asteroseismology, where different internal structures might amplify or suppress the fifth-force signature and thereby provide independent checks on the solar result.
  • Because the quoted interval barely changes when the nuisance range is widened from $|\xi|\le5.2\%$ to $|\xi|\le0.22$, the statistical constraint is robust to the unknown response within that range; the decisive uncertainty is whether the true response lies inside that range at all.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes helioseismology as a new probe of fifth forces in DHOST scalar-tensor theories, modeled through a modified hydrostatic equilibrium equation. Using a polytropic solar model with a linear-in-Y frequency correction, and selecting 19 GONG modes that already agree with a standard-gravity evolutionary model at the 1σ level, the authors derive a 2σ constraint on the fifth-force coupling Y of -1.8e-3 ≤ Y ≤ 1.2e-3 (Eq. 7), claiming an improvement of more than two orders of magnitude over existing white-dwarf bounds. They also translate this into constraints on the cosmological parameters α_H and β_1. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the true frequency response of the Sun to the fifth force is unknown and is treated as a nuisance parameter ξ, so the quoted interval is presented as an order-of-magnitude estimate of the method's constraining power.

Significance. If the central inference were validated, the proposed method would open a genuinely new observational window on modified gravity at stellar scales, with potential constraints on DHOST parameters orders of magnitude tighter than current ones. The paper is transparent about its assumptions, uses public helioseismic data, and combines established codes (MESA, GYRE) with a clear statistical framework. The key strengths are the identification of a concrete observable (acoustic mode frequencies) that responds to the fifth force, and a plausible order-of-magnitude estimate of the achievable sensitivity. However, the scientific value of the specific quoted interval depends entirely on the credibility of the polytropic proxy for the true solar response, which is not established in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Modelling and computation, Eq. (5)] The central constraint Eq. (7) rests on replacing the unknown true frequency derivative f'_theory with f'_pol(1+ξ) and marginalizing over |ξ| ≤ 0.22. The paper never computes f'_theory from a solar model with modified gravity; the WKB estimate for ξ is derived from the same polytropic framework and the conservative range is justified by analogy with the polytrope's frequency offset. This does not test the load-bearing premise that the polytrope captures the solar response. If the true response differs in magnitude, sign, or mode dependence, the quoted Y interval is not a valid measurement. A realistic modified-gravity solar model (or at least a mode-dependent systematic treatment) is needed to support Eq. (7).
  2. [Constraining power, data selection] The 19 modes used for the likelihood are selected because they satisfy |f_theory(Y=0) - f_obs| < σ_obs under the standard-gravity evolutionary model, and the paper states that including a broader set of modes causes tension with Newtonian gravity at 2σ. This selection means the analysis is performed on modes that are already consistent with the null hypothesis, so the narrowness of the resulting interval partly reflects the selection criterion rather than the fifth-force sensitivity. The paper does not model the selection effect or its impact on the posterior, making it difficult to interpret Eq. (7) as a rigorous statistical bound.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Fig. 1] The nuisance parameter ξ is assumed to be a single scalar common to all modes, but the paper's own Fig. 1 shows that f'_pol varies with degree and overtone, and the true response f'_theory could in principle vary mode-by-mode in a different way. Marginalizing over one scalar ξ does not propagate the unknown theoretical error when the ratio f'_theory/f'_pol is not constant across the mode set. The analysis should either allow for mode-dependent systematics or justify why a single scalar suffices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Constraining power, text after Eq. (7)] In the sentence 'Marginalising over |ξ| ≤22' the value 22 should read 0.22; as written it suggests a marginalization range orders of magnitude larger than intended.
  2. [Modelling and computation, Eq. (4) context] The polytropic index is given as n_pol = 3.069 in one place and n_pol = 3.068 in another; the discrepancy should be resolved.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states 'Continuous (dashed) curves correspond to weaker (stronger) gravity with Y > 0 (Y < 0)', but the text earlier says Y > 0 tends to weaken gravity; the caption is consistent, but the wording could be clarified to avoid confusion about the sign convention.
  4. [References] Reference [30] has an empty title field; the entry should include the full GONG data description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the Y constraint comes from polytropic frequency slopes and GONG data, with the unknown modified-gravity response explicitly marginalized rather than fitted.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (7) is not circular at the construction level. The predicted frequencies are f_theory(Y, xi; l,n) = f_pol(Y) + delta_f(0) + f'_pol * xi * Y (Eqs. 4-5). The zeroth-order term delta_f(0) is fixed by requiring f_theory(0) to match the MESA evolutionary-model frequencies, not the observed GONG frequencies; the Y slope f'_pol is computed from numerical polytropic solutions of the modified hydrostatic equilibrium Eq. (3), so it is independent input physics rather than a fit to the helioseismic data. The nuisance parameter xi, which encodes the unknown difference between the polytropic and true modified-gravity response, is not fitted to the data but marginalized over |xi| <= 0.22, with the range estimated from WKB asymptotics; the paper's own calculation shows that the marginalization range has no practical effect on the final interval. Thus no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The mode-selection criterion |f_theory - f_obs| < sigma_obs uses the same observed frequencies that later enter the likelihood, which is a selection-bias or correctness concern, but it does not make Eq. (7) equal to an input by construction. Self-citation appears only as a benchmark (Ref. [19], the white-dwarf bound) and as standard theory references (Refs. [14,16,17] for the fifth-force equation); none of these is load-bearing for the helioseismic constraint. The paper explicitly acknowledges that 'f'_theory is unknown' and labels Eq. (7) as a first, order-of-magnitude estimate pending a full helioseismic-inversion treatment, so the central limitation is transparent rather than hidden. No circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction standard was found.

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

The central constraint rests on the modified Poisson equation imported from DHOST literature, a polytropic proxy for the solar response to the fifth force, a nuisance parameter for the unknown slope, and a selection of 19 well-fitted modes. The paper adds no new entities. The relation between Y and the theory functions alpha_H and beta_1 is imported from Ref. [14]. The count of fitted or hand-chosen quantities is modest, but the most important one, xi, controls exactly the quantity the paper cannot compute.

free parameters (3)
  • xi = marginalized over [-0.22, 0.22]; estimated |xi|_upper ~ 5.2% from WKB
    Nuisance parameter absorbing unknown difference between polytropic and true (MESA) frequency slope f'_theory. Its range is chosen by comparing polytropic and WKB estimates, not from a modified-gravity solar model.
  • n_pol = 3.069 (also written 3.068 in text)
    Polytropic index chosen to best fit the density and pressure profiles of the MESA evolutionary model at Y=0. The central frequency shift computation depends on this choice.
  • solar calibration parameters = tuned to match R_sun, L_sun, R_cz, and rms sound speed to the stated precisions
    MESA model is calibrated by tuning element abundances, mixing length, and overshooting parameters. These standard stellar parameters affect the baseline frequencies and hence the selection of the 19 modes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Modified Poisson equation grad^2 Phi = 4 pi G rho + (G Y / 4) grad^2 (dm/dr) applies inside the Sun (Vainshtein mechanism broken)
    Taken from Refs. [14,16,17]; the paper does not derive it. The entire signal depends on this equation.
  • domain assumption Cowling approximation (neglect Eulerian potential perturbation delta Phi) is valid for the l >= 5 modes used
    Stated as standard for l >> 1 and expected to hold except possible singular configurations; the analysis does not solve the full fourth-order system.
  • ad hoc to paper The fifth-force effect on frequencies can be represented by a polytropic model plus a linear correction delta f = delta f(0) + f'_pol xi Y with xi marginalized
    No modified-gravity evolutionary solar model was computed; f'_theory is unknown and replaced by this construction. Load-bearing for the quoted constraint.
  • ad hoc to paper The zeroth-order sound-speed correction delta c_s(0) suffices; the linear correction delta c_s(1) is suppressed by at least an order of magnitude
    Stated in footnote 4 without a detailed derivation; used to estimate f'_theory via the WKB formula.
  • domain assumption Modes with |f_theory - f_obs| < sigma_obs at Y=0 constitute an unbiased subset for constraining Y
    Data selection criterion; the paper notes that including more modes causes tension with Newtonian gravity, so this assumption is questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Obtaining Precision Constraints on Modified Gravity with Helioseismology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZXIB54KG

@misc{pith2026190902552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Obtaining Precision Constraints on Modified Gravity with Helioseismology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZXIB54KG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02552}
}
abstract

We propose helioseismology as a new, precision probe of fifth forces at astrophysical scales, and apply it on the most general scalar-tensor theories for dark energy, known as Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories (DHOST). We explain how the effect of the fifth force on the solar interior leaves an observable imprint on the acoustic oscillations, and under certain assumptions we numerically compute the non-radial pulsation eigenfrequencies within modified gravity. We illustrate its constraining power by showing that helioseismic observations have the potential to improve constraints on the strength of the fifth force by more than $2$ orders of magnitude, as $-1.8 \cdot 10^{-3} \leq Y \leq 1.2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ (at $2\sigma$). This in turn would suggest constraints of similar order for the theory's free functions around a cosmological background ($\alpha_{\text{H}}, \beta_{1}$).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Fractional difference between the predicted and ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The implications of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The probability density leading to ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second-order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski Lagrangian,

    M. Zumalacárregui and J. García-Bellido, “Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second-order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski Lagrangian,”Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 064046, arXiv:1308.4685 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Healthy theories beyond Horndeski,

    J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, “Healthy theories beyond Horndeski,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 no. 21, (2015) 211101,arXiv:1404.6495 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Degenerate higher order scalar-tensor theories beyond Horndeski up to cubic order,

    J. Ben Achour, M. Crisostomi, K. Koyama, D. Langlois, K. Noui, and G. Tasinato, “Degenerate higher order scalar-tensor theories beyond Horndeski up to cubic order,”JHEP 12 (2016) 100, arXiv:1608.08135 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Effective Description of Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor Theories,

    D. Langlois, M. Mancarella, K. Noui, and F. Vernizzi, “Effective Description of Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor Theories,”JCAP 1705 no. 05, (2017) 033, arXiv:1703.03797 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Dark Energy and Modified Gravity in Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor (DHOST) theories: a review,

    D. Langlois, “Dark Energy and Modified Gravity in Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor (DHOST) theories: a review,”arXiv:1811.06271 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,

    T. Kobayashi, “Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,”arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 1901

  7. [7]

    Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,

    G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,”Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10 (1974) 363–384

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral,

    Virgo, LIGO ScientificCollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 16, (2017) 161101,arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A,

    Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL, LIGO ScientificCollaboration, B. P. Abbottet al., “Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A,” ApJ 848 no. 2, (2017) L13,arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dark Energy After GW170817: Dead Ends and the Road Ahead,

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, “Dark Energy After GW170817: Dead Ends and the Road Ahead,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 25, (2017) 251304, arXiv:1710.05901 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A,

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, “Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 25, (2017) 251302,arXiv:1710.05877 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Implications of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817 for Cosmological Scalar-Tensor Theories,

    J. Sakstein and B. Jain, “Implications of the Neutron Star Merger GW170817 for Cosmological Scalar-Tensor Theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 25, (2017) 251303, arXiv:1710.05893 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A,

    T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, and I. Sawicki, “Strong constraints on cosmological gravity from GW170817 and GRB 170817A,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 25, (2017) 251301, arXiv:1710.06394 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vainshtein Screening in Scalar-Tensor Theories before and after GW170817: Constraints on Theories beyond Horndeski,

    A. Dima and F. Vernizzi, “Vainshtein Screening in Scalar-Tensor Theories before and after GW170817: Constraints on Theories beyond Horndeski,”Phys. Rev. D97 no. 10, (2018) 101302,arXiv:1712.04731 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Relativistic stars in degenerate higher-order scalar-tensor theories after GW170817,

    T. Kobayashi and T. Hiramatsu, “Relativistic stars in degenerate higher-order scalar-tensor theories after GW170817,”Phys. Rev. D97 no. 10, (2018) 104012, arXiv:1803.10510 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Breaking of Vainshtein screening in scalar-tensor theories beyond Horndeski,

    T. Kobayashi, Y. Watanabe, and D. Yamauchi, “Breaking of Vainshtein screening in scalar-tensor theories beyond Horndeski,”Phys. Rev. D91 no. 6, (2015) 064013, arXiv:1411.4130 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Vainshtein mechanism after GW170817,

    M. Crisostomi and K. Koyama, “Vainshtein mechanism after GW170817,”Phys. Rev. D97 no. 2, (2018) 021301, arXiv:1711.06661 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Relativistic Stars in Beyond Horndeski Theories,

    E. Babichev, K. Koyama, D. Langlois, R. Saito, and J. Sakstein, “Relativistic Stars in Beyond Horndeski Theories,”Class. Quant. Grav. 33 no. 23, (2016) 235014, arXiv:1606.06627 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    White dwarfs and revelations,

    I. D. Saltas, I. Sawicki, and I. Lopes, “White dwarfs and revelations,”JCAP 1805 no. 05, (2018) 028, arXiv:1803.00541 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Astrophysical tests of screened modified gravity,

    J. Sakstein, “Astrophysical tests of screened modified gravity,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27 no. 15, (2018) 1848008

    2018

  13. [21]

    Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,

    M. Ishak, “Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,” Living Rev. Rel. 22 no. 1, (2019) 1,arXiv:1806.10122 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Linear adiabatic stellar pulsation.,

    D. O. Gough, “Linear adiabatic stellar pulsation.,” in Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics - Les Houches 1987 , J.-P. Zahn and J. Zinn-Justin, eds., pp. 399–560. 1993

    1987

  15. [23]

    Aerts, J

    C. Aerts, J. Christensen-Daslgaard, and D. W. Kurtz, Asteroseismology. Springer, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    W. Unno, Y. Osaki, H. Ando, H. Saio, and H. Shibahashi, Nonradial oscillations of stars . University of Tokyo Press, 1989

    1989

  17. [25]

    Helioseismology,

    J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Helioseismology,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2003) 1073–1129,arXiv:astro-ph/0207403 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Testing solar models: the inverse problem.,

    D. Gough, “Testing solar models: the inverse problem.,” in The Structure of the Sun , T. Roca Cortés and F. Sánchez, eds. 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    The non-radial oscillations of polytropic stars,

    T. G. Cowling, “The non-radial oscillations of polytropic stars,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 101 (1941) 367

    1941

  20. [28]

    GYRE: An open-source stellar oscillation code based on a new Magnus Multiple Shooting Scheme,

    R. H. D. Townsend and S. Teitler, “GYRE: An open-source stellar oscillation code based on a new Magnus Multiple Shooting Scheme,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 435 (2013) 3406, arXiv:1308.2965 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Nonradial Oscillations of Evolved Stars. I. Quasiadiabatic Approximation,

    W. A. Dziembowski, “Nonradial Oscillations of Evolved Stars. I. Quasiadiabatic Approximation,”Acta Astron. 21 (1971) 289–306

    1971

  22. [30]

    GONG is managed by the National Solar Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc

    “,”GONG observations are acquired by instruments operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, High Altitude Observatory, Learmonth Solar Observatory, 7 Udaipur Solar Observatory, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. GONG is managed b...

  23. [31]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA),

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaffre, and F. Timmes, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA),”The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192 (Jan, 2011) 3, arXiv:1009.1622 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars,

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, A. Dotter, C. Mankovich, M. H. Montgomery, D. Stello, F. X. Timmes, and R. Townsend, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars,”The Astrophysical Jour...

  25. [33]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions,

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, M. Cantiello, L. Dessart, R. Farmer, H. Hu, N. Langer, R. H. D. Townsend, D. M. Townsley, and F. X. Timmes, “Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions,”The Astrophys...

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Updated and Expanded OPAL Equation-of-State Tables: Implications for Helioseismology,

    F. J. Rogers and A. Nayfonov, “Updated and Expanded OPAL Equation-of-State Tables: Implications for Helioseismology,”The Astrophysical Journal 576 (Sept.,

  27. [35]

    An Equation of State for Low-Mass Stars and Giant Planets,

    D. Saumon, G. Chabrier, and H. M. van Horn, “An Equation of State for Low-Mass Stars and Giant Planets,”The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 99 (Aug, 1995) 713

    1995

  28. [36]

    Approximate input physics for stellar modelling,

    O. R. Pols, C. A. Tout, P. P. Eggleton, and Z. Han, “Approximate input physics for stellar modelling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 274 (Jun, 1995) 964–974,astro-ph/9504025

    1995 arXiv

  29. [37]

    The Accuracy, Consistency, and Speed of an Electron-Positron Equation of State Based on Table Interpolation of the Helmholtz Free Energy,

    F. X. Timmes and F. D. Swesty, “The Accuracy, Consistency, and Speed of an Electron-Positron Equation of State Based on Table Interpolation of the Helmholtz Free Energy,”The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 126 (Feb, 2000) 501–516

    2000

  30. [38]

    Thermodynamic Functions of Dense Plasmas: Analytic Approximations for Astrophysical Applications,

    A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, “Thermodynamic Functions of Dense Plasmas: Analytic Approximations for Astrophysical Applications,”Contributions to Plasma Physics 50 (Jan, 2010) 82–87,arXiv:1001.0690 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Radiative opacities for carbon- and oxygen-rich mixtures,

    C. A. Iglesias and F. J. Rogers, “Radiative opacities for carbon- and oxygen-rich mixtures,”The Astrophysical Journal 412 (Aug, 1993) 752–760

    1993

  32. [40]

    Updated Opal Opacities,

    C. A. Iglesias and F. J. Rogers, “Updated Opal Opacities,”The Astrophysical Journal 464 (Jun, 1996) 943

    1996

  33. [41]

    Low-Temperature Opacities,

    J. W. Ferguson, D. R. Alexander, F. Allard, T. Barman, J. G. Bodnarik, P. H. Hauschildt, A. Heffner-Wong, and A. Tamanai, “Low-Temperature Opacities,”The Astrophysical Journal 623 (Apr, 2005) 585–596,astro-ph/0502045

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Compton scattering opacities in a partially degenerate electron plasma at high temperatures,

    J. R. Buchler and W. R. Yueh, “Compton scattering opacities in a partially degenerate electron plasma at high temperatures,”The Astrophysical Journal 210 (Dec., 1976) 440–446

    1976

  35. [43]

    Updated Electron-Conduction Opacities: The Impact on Low-Mass Stellar Models,

    S. Cassisi, A. Y. Potekhin, A. Pietrinferni, M. Catelan, and M. Salaris, “Updated Electron-Conduction Opacities: The Impact on Low-Mass Stellar Models,” The Astrophysical Journal 661 (June, 2007) 1094–1104, astro-ph/0703011

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    We proceed computing the acoustic eigenspectrum based on the evolutionary model (Y = 0) with GYRE, considering 5 ≤ l ≤ 35, and scanning for frequencies up to the n∼ 40th overtone

    and [45–47] respectively. We proceed computing the acoustic eigenspectrum based on the evolutionary model (Y = 0) with GYRE, considering 5 ≤ l ≤ 35, and scanning for frequencies up to the n∼ 40th overtone. The choice of l ≥ 5 is for consistency with the Cowling approximation. ...

  37. [45]

    Stellar weak interaction rates for intermediate-mass nuclei. IV - Interpolation procedures for rapidly varying lepton capture rates using effective log (ft)-values,

    G. M. Fuller, W. A. Fowler, and M. J. Newman, “Stellar weak interaction rates for intermediate-mass nuclei. IV - Interpolation procedures for rapidly varying lepton capture rates using effective log (ft)-values,”The Astrophysical Journal 293 (Jun, 1985) 1–16

    1985

  38. [46]

    The JINA REACLIB Database: Its Recent Updates and Impact on Type-I X-ray Bursts,

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, R. Ferguson, Z. Meisel, K. Smith, S. Warren, A. Heger, R. D. Hoffman, T. Rauscher, A. Sakharuk, H. Schatz, F. K. Thielemann, and M. Wiescher, “The JINA REACLIB Database: Its Recent Updates and Impact on Type-I X-ray Bursts,”The Astrophysical Journal ...

    2010

  39. [47]

    Shell-model calculations of stellar weak interaction rates: II. Weak rates for nuclei in the mass range /A=45-65 in supernovae environments,

    K. Langanke and G. Martínez-Pinedo, “Shell-model calculations of stellar weak interaction rates: II. Weak rates for nuclei in the mass range /A=45-65 in supernovae environments,”Nuclear Physics A 673 (Jun,

  40. [48]

    Rate Tables for the Weak Processes of sd-Shell Nuclei in Stellar Matter,

    T. Oda, M. Hino, K. Muto, M. Takahara, and K. Sato, “Rate Tables for the Weak Processes of sd-Shell Nuclei in Stellar Matter,”Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables56 (Mar, 1994) 231–403

    1994

  41. [49]

    Hydrogen Burning in Low Mass Stars Constrains Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity,

    J. Sakstein, “Hydrogen Burning in Low Mass Stars Constrains Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 201101, arXiv:1510.05964 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Testing Gravity Using Dwarf Stars,

    J. Sakstein, “Testing Gravity Using Dwarf Stars,”Phys. Rev.D92 (2015) 124045, arXiv:1511.01685 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    White Dwarf Critical Tests for Modified Gravity,

    R. K. Jain, C. Kouvaris, and N. G. Nielsen, “White Dwarf Critical Tests for Modified Gravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.116 no. 15, (2016) 151103,arXiv:1512.05946 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The sound of DHOST,

    E. Babichev and A. Lehébel, “The sound of DHOST,” JCAP 1812 no. 12, (2018) 027,arXiv:1810.09997 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gravitational Wave Decay into Dark Energy,

    P. Creminelli, M. Lewandowski, G. Tambalo, and F. Vernizzi, “Gravitational Wave Decay into Dark Energy,”JCAP 1812 no. 12, (2018) 025, arXiv:1809.03484 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Testing Gravity Using Galaxy Clusters: New Constraints on Beyond Horndeski Theories,

    J. Sakstein, H. Wilcox, D. Bacon, K. Koyama, and R. C. Nichol, “Testing Gravity Using Galaxy Clusters: New Constraints on Beyond Horndeski Theories,” JCAP 1607 no. 07, (2016) 019,arXiv:1603.06368 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The phenomenology of beyond Horndeski gravity,

    D. Traykova, E. Bellini, and P. G. Ferreira, “The phenomenology of beyond Horndeski gravity,” arXiv:1902.10687 [astro-ph.CO]

    1902 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Vainshtein regime in Scalar-Tensor gravity: constraints on DHOST theories,

    M. Crisostomi, M. Lewandowski, and F. Vernizzi, “Vainshtein regime in Scalar-Tensor gravity: constraints on DHOST theories,”arXiv:1903.11591 [gr-qc]

    1903 arXiv

  49. [2000]

    481–508,nucl-th/0001018

    arXiv

  50. [2013]

    4, arXiv:1301.0319 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv

Pith tools

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