Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Decoding the Future of Exoplanets: Asteroseismic Confirmation of Subgiant and Red Giant Hosts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that five exoplanet host stars—KOI-75, Kepler-643, Kepler-815, Kepler-1004, and KOI-2640—are confirmed by asteroseismology to be in the subgiant or red giant branch stage, and that their planets will inevitably be…

desk verdict Five more host-star classifications, probably right; the 'definitive' label needs an error bar on ΔΠ1. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14703 v2 pith:4LLJAKPK submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Wen-Xu Lin , Sheng-Bang Qian , Li-Ying Zhu , Wen-Ping Liao , Fu-Xing Li , Xiang-Dong Shi , Lin-Jia Li , Er-Gang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologyexoplanethoststarsredgiantbranchsubgiantg-modeperiodspacingmixedmodesplanetaryengulfmentstellarevolution
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 aims to confirm the evolutionary stage of five exoplanet host stars using asteroseismology. By measuring the period spacing of dipole gravity modes, the authors place one star, KOI-75, in the subgiant phase and four others on the red giant branch. That classification matters because these are the phases when stars swell to tens of times their main-sequence size, and the paper argues—on the basis of stellar evolution models—that the planets in all five systems are already destined to be engulfed within about 80 to 480 million years. This result expands the small census of evolved exoplanet hosts whose fate is predictable from stellar structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Δν−ΔΠ1 diagnostic diagram, where Δν, the large frequency separation between consecutive radial oscillation modes, traces mean density, and ΔΠ1, the asymptotic period spacing of dipole gravity modes, traces the structure of the star's radiative core. ΔΠ1 is extracted from observed mixed modes through a ζ-function fit that maps the mixed-mode frequency band to the period domain. On the diagram, a star's position relative to the empirical curve (Δν/36.5 μHz)(ΔΠ1/126 s) = 1 separates subgiants from red giants; the paper also uses the 8% margin around that curve to mark where classification is not definitive. The same stellar parameters feed evolutionary models, which fix the time when the stellar radius reaches each planet's orbital periapsis.

What would settle it

Re-measure ΔΠ1 for the five stars with a pipeline that fits the individual mixed-mode frequencies directly and propagates full uncertainties; if any star's point moves into the 8% gray band around the empirical boundary (for Kepler-643, the nearest of the four giants, that means its product rising above about 0.92 in (Δν/36.5 μHz)(ΔΠ1/126 s)), the claimed subgiant or red-giant stage for that star is no longer definitive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the five targets occupy distinct, well-separated positions on the Δν−ΔΠ1 diagram: KOI-75 falls in the subgiant region, while Kepler-643, Kepler-815, Kepler-1004, and KOI-2640 fall in the red giant branch region. The diagram uses the large frequency separation Δν (a proxy for mean density) and the asymptotic period spacing of dipole gravity modes ΔΠ1 (sensitive to the size and composition gradient of the radiative core), and the position is read against the empirical boundary (Δν/36.5 μHz)(ΔΠ1/126 s) < 1. From this placement, the paper concludes that the short-period planets in all five systems will be engulfed as their stars expand, with evolutionary-track calculations giving engulfment times of roughly 400 million years for KOI-75, 476 Myr for Kepler-643, 277 Myr for Kepler-815, 243 Myr for Kepler-1004, and 84 Myr for KOI-2640.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of each star rests on the measured gravity-mode period spacing ΔΠ1, and the paper reports no uncertainties on those values, so a measurement error large enough to push a star across the diagram's boundary would change the claimed evolutionary stage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The five systems now have asteroseismically confirmed evolutionary states, enlarging the sample of evolved hosts whose internal structure is known well enough to predict the stars' future behavior.
  • The engulfment timescales—about 84 to 476 Myr from the present—give concrete windows for when each system may lose its planet, and therefore when transit and radial-velocity surveys should see orbital decay or disappearance.
  • The classification distinguishes subgiants from early red giants, a separation that is difficult from spectroscopy alone, so the same diagram can label other hosts without the need for individual mode-by-mode identifications.
  • For close-in planets like Kepler-1004 b (P ≈ 5.3 d) and KOI-2640 (P ≈ 33 d), the paper's models imply the planets vanish well before the red giant tip, so these systems become the most immediate targets for observing the late stages of tidal orbital decay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate extension would be to apply the same ΔΠ1-based classification to the thousands of solar-like oscillators observed by wide-field space photometry missions, whose short-cadence data can yield mixed-mode period spacings for subgiants and low-luminosity red giants; this could multiply the sample of evolved hosts by an order of magnitude.
  • Because the paper reports ΔΠ1 without uncertainties, the positions on the diagram carry unknown error bars; a fuller propagation that includes the covariance between Δν and ΔΠ1 would show whether any of the four red giants sits close enough to the boundary to be reclassified.
  • The engulfment times assume single planets on their current orbits. In systems with additional undetected planets, dynamical instabilities could eject or re-route a planet before the stellar radius reaches periapsis, changing the narrative from certain engulfment to a more complex outcome.
  • If future observations catch one of these systems during the inspiral phase—through accelerating transit timings or altered transit duration—the measured timescale would directly test the tidal-dissipation physics that underlies the engulfment prediction.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Kepler light curves for five exoplanet host stars (KOI-75, Kepler-643, Kepler-815, Kepler-1004, KOI-2640) to measure global asteroseismic parameters and the period spacing of dipole mixed modes. Placing these stars on the Δν-ΔΠ1 diagram, the authors classify KOI-75 as a subgiant and the other four as red giant branch (RGB) stars. They then use MESA evolutionary tracks matched to the stellar parameters to estimate the time when each host star's radius reaches the planet's periapsis, concluding that all five planets will be engulfed. The paper also presents HR-diagram positions and MESA track overlays as supporting evidence.

Significance. If the classifications hold, the paper adds five new asteroseismically classified evolved planet hosts, including a subgiant host (KOI-75), using publicly available Kepler data and open-source MESA inlists (Zenodo). The empirical Δν-ΔΠ1 method is applied consistently with previous work. The major strengths are the clear presentation of the method, the use of reproducible open-source tools (lightkurve, pySYD, PBjam), and the open data commitment. The main weakness is the lack of reported uncertainties on the decisive period-spacing values and the ambiguous treatment of orbital eccentricities for two planets, which currently prevent the 'definitive' claims from being quantitatively supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph following Figure 1] The sentence 'expressed as (Δν/36.5 μHz)(ΔΠ1/126 s) < 1' is incorrect as written. For the subgiant KOI-75, (38.361/36.5)(305.4/126) ≈ 2.55 > 1, so the stated inequality would place this star on the RGB side, contradicting the paper's own classification. The boundary must be the equality (Δν/36.5)(ΔΠ1/126) = 1, with the subgiant side corresponding to a product greater than 1 and the RGB side to a product less than 1. Please correct the inequality and state explicitly which side of the line corresponds to each phase.
  2. [Table 1] ΔΠ1 and q are listed without uncertainties, whereas νmax and Δν have errors. Since ΔΠ1 is the central input for the evolutionary-stage classification and the abstract uses 'definitive confirmation,' please report uncertainties on ΔΠ1 (and q) as derived from the ζ-function fit (e.g., from the corner diagrams in Figure E) and discuss the robustness of the chosen peak in P(τ) against aliases. This is needed to evaluate the fragility of the KOI-75 subgiant classification, which would require ΔΠ1 to drop by more than a factor of two to cross the boundary.
  3. [Table A and Section 5] The orbital eccentricities for Kepler-815 b and Kepler-1004 b are listed as '· · ·' in Table A, yet Eq. (7) requires e to compute r_peri and Section 5 quotes engulfment times for these systems. State the assumed eccentricities explicitly (e.g., circular orbits) or propagate the unknown eccentricities into the quoted times; without this, the engulfment timeline for these two systems is not reproducible.
  4. [Section 5, MESA matching] The condition 'the evolutionary track must fall within 0.2 times the observational error range of the star's parameters' is ambiguous. State precisely how the match is performed (which parameters, whether 0.2 refers to 20% of the 1σ error, and how multiple parameters are combined). In addition, note that this MESA-based classification is not independent of the asteroseismic classification because the same Δν and νmax enter the scaling relations used for Teff, L, M, and R; this weakens the 'definitive' wording in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] In the list of engulfment times, '475.889+0.149 =0.173 million years' contains a typo; the asymmetric error should read '+0.149/−0.173.'
  2. [Acknowledgments] 'Progrom' should be 'Program.'
  3. [Section 2] The sentence describing the background noise as 'calculated using a smoothing filter of width log10(0.01μHz)' is unclear; please write the filter width as a frequency or log-frequency interval, e.g., 'a smoothing filter of width 0.01 μHz in log10 frequency.'
  4. [Table B] The dipole mixed-mode frequencies used for the ΔΠ1 extraction are not tabulated; listing them (or providing them in the Zenodo repository) would improve reproducibility of the central measurement.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption does not explicitly state the meaning of the solid and dashed gray curves; please add a sentence clarifying that the solid line is the equality and the dashed lines are the 8% error margin, and specify which side is subgiant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the evolutionary-stage classification rests on external empirical benchmarks and independently established extraction methods.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the asteroseismic classification of five host stars as one subgiant and four red giants, plus the forecast that their planets will be engulfed. The classification is made by placing each star on the Δν–ΔΠ1 diagram and comparing against the empirical boundary from Mosser et al. (2014), expressed as (Δν/36.5 µHz)(ΔΠ1/126 s) < 1. The decisive input, ΔΠ1, is extracted from the mixed-mode period spacing using the ζ-function formalism attributed to Deheuvels et al. (2015), Mosser et al. (2015), and Vrard et al. (2016), all external to the present authors. The global parameters Δν and νmax are derived with pySYD and PBjam, which are independent public tools, and the effective temperatures come from LAMOST/TIC. No fitted parameter is then recycled into a prediction: the ΔΠ1 values are not used to define the Mosser boundary, and the boundary is not tuned to these stars. The engulfment forecast uses MESA evolutionary tracks matched to observed stellar parameters and the periapsis formula; this is a standard forward-model calculation, not a quantity equivalent to an input of the classification. The paper does cite the authors' previous work (Lin et al. 2024) both as background and as a reference for the ΔΠ1 solution, but the method there originates in Vrard et al. (2016), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The lack of quoted uncertainties on ΔΠ1 is a genuine robustness concern, especially for the subgiant label of KOI-75, but it is a measurement-quality issue, not evidence that any step is circular by construction.

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

The central classification depends on the empirical Δν-ΔΠ1 diagram and on mixed-mode asymptotic theory; no first-principles derivation is attempted. The MESA tracks are used to forecast engulfment. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ΔΠ1 for each host star = KOI-75: 305.4 s; Kepler-643: 110.1 s; Kepler-815: 97.2 s; Kepler-1004: 95.8 s; KOI-2640: 84.1 s
    Period spacing of dipole gravity modes, extracted by fitting the ζ function to observed mixed modes. This is the key classification input, yet no error bars are provided.
  • q coupling parameter for each host star = KOI-75: 0.23; Kepler-643: 0.10; Kepler-815: 0.10; Kepler-1004: 0.12; KOI-2640: 0.15
    Dimensionless coupling between pressure and gravity waves in Eq. 6. It is fitted during the period-spacing extraction and affects the inferred ΔΠ1.
  • Orbital eccentricity for Kepler-815 b and Kepler-1004 b = Not stated (likely assumed 0)
    Table A lists no eccentricity for these two planets, but Eq. 7 uses eccentricity to compute periapsis and thus engulfment time. The assumed value is never stated in the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Asteroseismic scaling relations with Sharma et al. (2016) correction factors are valid for these stars.
    Equations 1-4 use f_nu_max and f_Delta_nu corrections from Sharma et al. (2016) to derive mass and radius; the paper does not independently verify these corrections.
  • domain assumption The Mosser et al. (2014) empirical Δν-ΔΠ1 boundary separates subgiants from RGB stars for masses below 1.5 M_sun.
    Section 4 and Figure 1 use this boundary to classify the five stars; all host masses are below 1.5 M_sun, but the boundary's applicability to these particular stars is assumed.
  • domain assumption The asymptotic mixed-mode theory and the ζ-function mapping of Vrard et al. (2016) recover unbiased ΔΠ1 values.
    Equations 5-6 and Section 4 rely on this theory to convert observed period spacings into ΔΠ1 without identifying individual mixed modes.
  • domain assumption MESA standard-physics tracks from the 1M_pre_ms_to_wd test suite accurately model the evolution of these hosts.
    Section 5 uses MESA r22.11.1 tracks that fall within 0.2 times the observational error range to predict when the stellar radius reaches the planetary periapsis.
  • domain assumption No gravitational interference from other bodies affects the planetary orbit before engulfment.
    Section 5 explicitly assumes 'if there is no gravitational interference from other celestial bodies' when concluding the planets will be engulfed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding the Future of Exoplanets: Asteroseismic Confirmation of Subgiant and Red Giant Hosts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LLJAKPK

@misc{pith2026241114703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding the Future of Exoplanets: Asteroseismic Confirmation of Subgiant and Red Giant Hosts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LLJAKPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14703}
}
abstract

Asteroseismology has emerged as a powerful tool to unravel the intricate relationships between evolved stars and their planetary systems. In this study, we leverage this technique to investigate the evolutionary stages of five exoplanet host stars, each exhibiting solar-like oscillations. Building on our previous work that identified two host stars as red clump and red giant branch (RGB) stars, this study focuses on a new and broader sample. By precisely measuring asteroseismic parameters such as the period spacing of dipole gravity modes ($\Delta\Pi_{1}$), we provide definitive confirmation of these stars' evolutionary states as subgiants or RGB stars. These results are not only crucial for understanding the internal structures of evolved stars but also for predicting the eventual fate of their planetary companions, which may face engulfment as their host stars expand. This research highlights the profound role of asteroseismology in advancing our knowledge of planetary system evolution and opens new pathways for exploring how stellar evolution impacts planetary survival. Our findings set the stage for future studies on the dynamic fates of exoplanets, providing key insights into the intricate processes of stellar and planetary evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ∆ν − ∆Π1 diagram with the 7 stars analyzed in our study and in Lin et al. (2024). In this diagram, the various colored points come from the work of Mosser et al. (2014). The yellow-green points (SG) represent subgiants, green points (RGB) represent red giant branch stars, purple points (f) indicate the helium subflash stars, red points (RC) represent red clump stars, light red points (p2) represent pre-secondary clu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The positions of the five host stars on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, along with the evolution tracks corresponding to the color-coded curves, are computed using MESA. During stellar evolution, stars pass through the pre-main sequence (PMS), main sequence, subgiant (SG), and red giant branch (RGB) phases. According to the evolutionary model, KOI-75 is located in the subgiant phase, while the other four host stars… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Mosser, B., et al

    Beck, P., Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 205

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    Bolmont, E., & Mathis, S. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    doi:10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3 2016

  3. [3]

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

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

    2010

  4. [4]

    L., Corsaro, E., Lund, M

    Campante, T. L., Corsaro, E., Lund, M. N., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 31

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 101

    Chaplin, W., Sanchis-Ojeda, R., Campante, T., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 101

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    J., & Miglio, A

    Chaplin, W. J., & Miglio, A. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 353

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Sayeed, M., & Yamsiri, P. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    doi:10.21105/joss.03331 2022

  8. [8]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    G., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., Beck, P. G., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526449 Gajdoˇ s, P., Vaˇ nko, M., & Parimucha,ˇS. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 041, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/3/41 Garc ´ ıa, R. A., & Ballot, J. 2019, Living Rev...

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., et al

    Grunblatt, S. K., Huber, D., Gaidos, E., et al. 2018, ApJL, 861, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacc67

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    Guo, J. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    Z., et al

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Rui, N. Z., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 917 2 https://mast.stsci.edu/

    2023

  5. [13]

    J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al

    Huber, D., Chaplin, W. J., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 127

    2013

  6. [14]

    R., Stassun, K

    Jiang, C., Bedding, T. R., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, 65

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015

    1995 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    W., Brown, T

    Latham, D. W., Brown, T. M., Monet, D. G., et al. 2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 207, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 110.13 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS ti...

    2005

  9. [17]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L50

    Lin, W.-X., Qian, S.-B., & Zhu, L.-Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L50

    2024

  10. [18]

    2024, AJ, 168, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ffc

    Lin, W.-X., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y., Liao, W.-P., & Li, F.-X. 2024, AJ, 168, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad4ffc

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and space science, 39, 447

    1976

  12. [20]

    Goupil, M. J. 2015, A&A, 584, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527075

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 540, A143

    Mosser, B., Goupil, M., Belkacem, K., et al. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 540, A143

    2012

  14. [22]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, L5

    Mosser, B., Benomar, O., Belkacem, K., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 572, L5

    2014

  15. [23]

    Mulders, G. D. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00023

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B., Davies, G

    Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., Ball, W. H., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd39

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 9

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 9

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  23. [31]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 835-853., 263, 835

    1982

  24. [32]

    Bedding, T. R. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 15

    2016

  25. [33]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03221

    Stello, D., & Sharma, S. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03221

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R., et al

    Stello, D., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 765, L41

    2013

  28. [36]

    2004, Chinese journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 4, 1

    Su, D.-Q., & Cui, X.-Q. 2004, Chinese journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 4, 1

    2004

  29. [37]

    1989, Nonradial oscillations of stars

    Unno, W., Osaki, Y., Ando, H., Saio, H., & Shibahashi, H. 1989, Nonradial oscillations of stars

    1989

  30. [38]

    1979, Nonradial oscillations of stars Van Eylen, V., Agentoft, C., Lundkvist, M

    Unno, W., Osaki, Y., Ando, H., & Shibahashi, H. 1979, Nonradial oscillations of stars Van Eylen, V., Agentoft, C., Lundkvist, M. S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4786

    1979

  31. [39]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L81

    Villaver, E., & Livio, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 705, L81

    2009

  32. [40]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A87

    Vrard, M., Mosser, B., & Samadi, R. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A87

    2016

  33. [41]

    1996, Applied optics, 35, 5155

    Wang, S.-g., Su, D.-q., Chu, Y.-q., Cui, X., & Wang, Y.-n. 1996, Applied optics, 35, 5155

    1996

  34. [42]

    N., & Fabrycky, D

    Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 409

    2015

  35. [43]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723 10 7

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723 10 7. APPENDIX This is a supplementary materials to the paper, and it contains 2 tables (Table A,B) and 21 figures (Figure A, B, C, D, E). 0 100 200 300 400 Freq...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.