Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 33 references

The VELOCE modulation zoo II. Humps and splitting patterns in spectral lines of classical Cepheids

T0 review · 1 major / 6 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 In two classical Cepheids, X Sgr and BG Cru, spectral line splitting recurs on periods of 12.317 d and 3.008 d—not their pulsation periods—ruling out pulsation-induced shocks and pointing to non-radial modes.

desk verdict A solid, honest VELOCE study of Cepheid line splitting whose central shock-ruling-out claim leans on an unresolved frequency identification for X Sgr, but whose cycle-to-cycle phase comparison stands on its own. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17851 v1 pith:2XRGPKMD submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.SR

H. Netzel , R. I. Anderson , G. Viviani This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords classicalCepheidslinesplittingcross-correlationfunctionnon-radialmodespulsationVELOCEXSagittariiBGCrucis
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 aims to establish that line splitting in classical Cepheids is not caused by pulsation-driven shock waves, as previously assumed for X Sagittarii and BG Crucis. Using high signal-to-noise cross-correlation function (CCF) time series from the VELOCE project, it shows that the splitting hump in each star repeats on a periodicity clearly different from the dominant pulsation period—12.317 d versus 7.01 d for X Sgr, and 3.008 d versus about 3.34 d for BG Cru—and that CCFs at identical pulsation phases differ between consecutive cycles. The paper concludes that non-radial modes are the most likely explanation, and reports six additional Cepheids with unresolved splitting humps, putting the incidence at about 3% of the VELOCE sample. If correct, this removes shocks from the accepted picture of Cepheid atmospheres and adds a rare type of line-profile variability to look for in surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cross-correlation function (CCF) hump and the time series built from it. Each CCF is fitted with a single Gaussian to define the star's radial velocity, and the hump created by line splitting is located as the maximum of the residuals; the hump's velocity relative to the Gaussian center is then analyzed with standard Fourier techniques, converting a qualitative profile distortion into a measurable periodic signal. For X Sgr that signal is $0.08190\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}$ and for BG Cru $0.33243\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}$. Supporting machinery includes a triple-Gaussian decomposition of the split profile into blue, middle, and red components (following Mathias et al. 2006) and two-dimensional FAMIAS Fourier spectra, which confirm the same frequency in the hump position, in CCF shape indicators (FWHM, BIS, contrast, EW), and in the depths and centroids of the fitted components.

What would settle it

A dense, alias-free spectroscopic campaign on X Sgr tracking the hump position over several seasons could settle whether the $0.08190\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}$ signal is an independent frequency or a combination of the 7.0-day pulsation with another frequency; if the signal dissolves into combination frequencies, the independent-periodicity premise fails and the shock-ruling-out conclusion weakens, whereas a stable, independent peak would support the non-radial mode interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the recurring line-splitting hump in X Sgr and BG Cru is tied to periods that differ significantly from the stars' dominant pulsation periods: in X Sgr the hump repeats with $P = 12.317(4)$ d (frequency $0.08190\,\mathrm{d}^{-1}$) against a 7.01 d pulsation, and in BG Cru with $P = 3.00813(9)$ d against a first-overtone period near 3.34 d. Because pulsation-induced shocks would lock splitting to specific pulsation phases and repeat every cycle, the observed cycle-to-cycle differences at the same pulsation phase (shown for X Sgr in Fig. 3) rule out the shock interpretation. The paper concludes that non-radial modes are the most likely origin, notes that the periods are too short for rotation, and, by visually inspecting all 258 VELOCE Cepheids, finds humps in six further stars (LR TrA, V0411 Lac, V1334 Cyg, SZ Cas, V1019 Cas, ASAS J174603-3528.1), giving an incidence of about 3%. The hump stars tend to have broader CCFs, lower radial-velocity amplitudes, and lower CCF contrast than typical Cepheids.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the claim that the 12.317-day hump periodicity in X Sgr is an independent physical periodicity rather than a combination or beat with the 7.0-day pulsation frequency; the paper itself flags this ambiguity in its Section 3.5, so if the 12.317-day signal turned out to be a combination, the conclusion that the splitting period differs from the pulsation period would be weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The shock-wave interpretation for line splitting in X Sgr and BG Cru is ruled out; the splitting recurs on periods that are not the pulsation period and CCFs at the same pulsation phase differ between cycles.
  • The splitting hump in each of the two stars carries a measurable periodicity that also appears in CCF shape indicators, meaning the phenomenon is detectable in standard radial-velocity and profile-shape diagnostics.
  • Among 258 VELOCE Cepheids, 8 show line splitting or humps (about 3%), and these stars preferentially have high average FWHM, low radial-velocity amplitude, and low CCF contrast.
  • The splitting is much more visible in weak metallic lines than in strong lines and is absent from Balmer lines, indicating that the phenomenon is confined to a narrow range of atmospheric depths.
  • For X Sgr, the 4.47-day signal seen in shape indicators is close to the combination of the pulsation frequency with the 12.317-day hump period, suggesting that the two periodicities trace the same underlying feature through different diagnostics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the non-radial mode interpretation: mapping the hump's phase and amplitude across lines formed at different atmospheric depths would constrain the horizontal and vertical structure of the suspected mode, since the paper finds the splitting strongest in weak metallic lines and absent in Balmer lines.
  • The paper's 3% incidence rests on visual classification; an automated screen using FWHM, BIS, and contrast outliers across a larger Cepheid sample would turn this into a statistical measurement and test whether the association with broad CCFs is a detection bias or a physical correlation.
  • If the 12.317-day signal in X Sgr were shown to be a combination frequency rather than an independent periodicity, the shock-ruling-out argument would lose its main pillar for that star; the cycle-to-cycle CCF differences shown in Fig. 3 would remain as secondary evidence against phase-locked shocks.
  • If the 3.008-day signal in BG Cru is indeed a non-radial mode, then BG Cru hosts at least two independent additional modes beyond its radial first overtone, making it a promising testbed for mode-interaction and mode-identification studies that go beyond the present paper.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses high-resolution CCF time series from the VELOCE project to study line splitting in the classical Cepheids X Sgr and BG Cru. It develops three approaches: tracing the position of the hump in the CCF residual after a single-Gaussian fit, fitting triple-Gaussian components, and computing 2D/1D Fourier spectra with FAMIAS. The authors report a 12.317 d periodicity for the X Sgr hump and a 3.008 d periodicity for the BG Cru hump, both differing from the respective pulsation periods. They conclude that pulsation-induced shocks are ruled out and that non-radial modes are the most likely explanation, also reporting unresolved splitting humps in six additional Cepheids for an incidence rate of about 3% in the VELOCE sample.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this work is significant for the interpretation of line-profile variability in classical Cepheids: it challenges the common assumption that line splitting in these stars is caused by pulsation-driven shocks and provides new evidence for additional low-amplitude phenomena, likely non-radial modes. The analysis benefits from high signal-to-noise CCFs, a long (multi-year) baseline, and a large sample of 258 Cepheids. A notable strength is the internal cross-checking of periodicities across different diagnostics (RV, FWHM, BIS, contrast, EW, hump tracing, triple-Gaussian fits, and FAMIAS), and for BG Cru the hump periodicity matches an independently detected signal fZ in multiple indicators. The identification of seven additional Cepheids with hump-like CCF distortions is a useful observational resource. However, the X Sgr frequency identification has an unresolved ambiguity that needs to be addressed before the specific 12.317 d periodicity can be quoted as the physical periodicity of the line splitting.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 3.5 and Table 4] The claim that X Sgr's line-splitting hump has a distinct 12.317 d periodicity is not yet secure because the manuscript explicitly states it is unclear which signal is the independent periodicity. Table 4 shows that the 0.081 d^-1 signal detected in the FAMIAS 1D mean spectra is consistent with the combination frequency fX - f0 = 0.08122 d^-1, and the hump-tracing value 0.08190(3) d^-1 differs from this by about 2-3 frequency-resolution elements over the ~10-year baseline. Since the abstract and Sec. 4.3 use this periodicity to argue against pulsation-induced shocks and against rotation, the authors should perform an explicit combination-frequency test: fit a model containing f0 and its harmonics together with fX, fX-f0, and fX+f0 to the hump time series and to the RV residuals, then examine the residual periodogram at 0.0819 d^-1 and quantify the significance of any remaining signal. Until this test is done, the conclusions should be phrased with the ambiguity stated in Sec. 3.5 rather than asserting the 12.317 d period as the independent line-splitting periodicity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4.2] The sample size is inconsistently reported as 258 in Sec. 3.1 and the abstract but as 285 in Sec. 4.2. The incidence rate of 3% should be computed with the correct denominator.
  2. [Sec. 4.3] The rotational velocity estimates contain numerical errors. For X Sgr with R=53 R_sun, a rotation period of 4.47 d gives v_eq ≈ 600 km/s (not 96 km/s), and the hump period of 12.317 d gives ≈ 218 km/s (not 35.8 km/s); for BG Cru with R=41 R_sun and P=3.008 d, v_eq ≈ 690 km/s (not 110 km/s). These corrections strengthen the argument against rotation, but the quoted values and the undefined symbol f1 should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption "Frequency spectra for the time-series of RV of the hump in LPV" appears to contain a typo; LPV should likely read CCF or hump.
  4. [Sec. 3.4] The additional signals found from the triple-Gaussian component time series are all below the 5σ detection level. The text should clearly state that these results are tentative and only corroborate the other methods, which it does in part, but the phrasing "revealed" is too strong for 3σ detections.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] The visual classification of humps in six additional stars is subjective; a quantitative criterion (e.g., a threshold on the residual amplitude after Gaussian subtraction) would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Sec. 4.2] There is a typo: "unkown" should be "unknown".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the splitting periodicities are measured directly from CCF time series, and the paper explicitly flags the X Sgr combination-frequency ambiguity.

full rationale

The central claim that the line-splitting periodicity differs from the pulsation period rests on measured frequencies, not on a model parameter fitted to the conclusion. For X Sgr, the hump-tracing time series yields f_X,Sgr = 0.08190(3) d^-1 (Sec. 3.3), and for BG Cru the hump periodicity matches the independently reported f_Z signal. The paper explicitly flags the alternative that the 0.081 d^-1 signal could be f_X - f_0: "Unfortunately, it is not clear which scenario is correct and which signal is the independent periodicity" (Sec. 3.5), and Table 4 lists both interpretations. That is an acknowledged physical ambiguity, not a derivation that assumes its own conclusion. The direct cycle-to-cycle CCF comparison in Fig. 3 provides independent evidence against phase-locked shock features. The self-citations to VELOCE data (Anderson et al. 2024) and to Netzel et al. (2024) for BG Cru's f_Z supply context and cross-checks but are not used as a uniqueness argument or as a substitute for the present measurements. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no ansatz is imported via citation. The paper therefore shows no significant circularity; the noted ambiguity is a correctness and interpretation risk rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumptions listed: that CCFs faithfully reflect line splitting, that the Fourier prewhitening correctly isolates residual signals, and that the hump-tracing method measures a real feature. No free parameters are introduced; frequencies are measured from the data. No new physical entities are postulated; non-radial modes are invoked as a known class of stellar oscillation.

free parameters (1)
  • Fourier series coefficients of the pulsation signal removed in prewhitening = varies per star (see Tables 3-5)
    Eq. (1) in Sec. 2.2; fitted to the dominant pulsation frequency and harmonics to isolate residual signals. These are standard nuisance parameters, not part of the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CCF is a faithful weighted average of the metallic line profiles; line splitting visible in the CCF reflects splitting in individual lines.
    Section 2 states CCFs are computed with a G2 mask of a few thousand lines; Sec. 4.4 confirms splitting in weak lines and absence in Balmer lines, but the CCF-to-individual-line mapping is assumed.
  • standard math The pulsation signal can be removed by a Fourier series (Eq. 1) with the dominant frequency and its harmonics.
    Eq. 1 in Sec. 2.2; used for prewhitening.
  • domain assumption Frequencies detected after prewhitening above the 3-sigma noise level are real stellar signals rather than aliases (daily/yearly) or artifacts of irregular sampling.
    Sec. 2.2 acknowledges daily and yearly aliases; the analysis considers them, but the residual signals are interpreted as physical.
  • ad hoc to paper The hump can be traced as the maximum of residuals after a single-Gaussian fit to the CCF.
    Sec. 2.1 (second approach); a modeling choice specific to this paper; if the profile has two dips, the residual maximum may jump between components.
  • domain assumption The literature radii and v sin i values used for rotation estimates are correct.
    Sec. 4.3 uses R=53 R_sun (Li Causi et al. 2013) and R~41 R_sun via period-radius relations (Anderson et al. 2016b); the rotation-exclusion argument depends on these.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The VELOCE modulation zoo II. Humps and splitting patterns in spectral lines of classical Cepheids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XRGPKMD

@misc{pith2026241117851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The VELOCE modulation zoo II. Humps and splitting patterns in spectral lines of classical Cepheids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XRGPKMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17851}
}
read the original abstract

Line splitting in spectral lines is observed in various types of stars due to phenomena such as shocks, spectroscopic binaries, magnetic fields, spots, and non-radial modes. In pulsating stars, line splitting is often attributed to pulsation-induced shocks. However, this is rarely observed in classical Cepheids, with only a few reports, including X Sagittarii and BG Crucis, where it has been linked to atmospheric shocks. We investigate line splitting in X Sgr and BG Cru using spectroscopic time series, and search for similar phenomena in other classical Cepheids. High signal-to-noise cross-correlation function (CCF) time series from the VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE) project are analyzed. This dataset spans several years, allowing us to study the periodicities and evolution of CCF features. For X Sgr and BG Cru, we perform a detailed analysis of the individual components of the split CCFs. Additionally, we search for periodicities in CCF variations and examine other classical Cepheids for distortions resembling unresolved line splitting. We confirm line splitting in X Sgr and BG Cru, trace the features over time, and uncover the periodicity behind them. Several other Cepheids also exhibit CCF humps, suggesting unresolved or marginally resolved line splitting. We discuss the incidence and characteristics of these stars. The periodicity of line splitting in X Sgr and BG Cru differs significantly from the dominant pulsation period, ruling out pulsation-induced shocks. The periodicities are too short for rotation-related phenomena, suggesting non-radial modes as the most likely explanation, though their exact nature remains unknown. We also identify humps in six additional stars, indicating an incidence rate of 3% in the VELOCE sample.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a triple-Gaussian fit to one of the CCF profiles for X Sgr (top panel) and BG Cru (bottom panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of tracing a hump on the CCF profile for X Sgr (top panel) and BG Cru (bottom panel). In the case of two additional time series constructed as de￾scribed in Sec. 2.1, i.e. the RVs for each Gaussian component and the hump, we calculated frequency spectra to identify the dominant periodicity of the datasets. We note that in this case, the dominant signal no longer corresponds to the pulsation fre￾quency. 2.3. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CCFs of X Sgr around the same phases of pulsation for consecutive cycles. Different line colors correspond to different BJD as indicated in the key. Phase of pulsation is marked on top of the panel. We plotted selected CCF profiles of LR TrA, V0411 Lac, V1334 Cyg, SZ Cas, V1019 Cas, and ASAS J174603-3528.1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CCFs from two consecutive cycles (one cycle per panel) plotted according to pulsation phase for X Sgr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CCFs from four consecutive cycles (C1, C2, C3, and C4) plotted according to pulsation phase for BG Cru (two cycles per panel). ferent from 0.61. Consequently, the additional signals detected in X Sgr likely have a different origin than in the case of the 0.61 Cepheids,…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Selected CCFs of stars with humps/line splitting: V1334 Cyg, V0411 Lac, V1019 Cas, LR TrA, ASAS J174603-3528.1, and SZ Cas. Colors and vertical shifts are for better visualization. dominant fundamental mode frequency, i.e. f0+ fX Sgr = 0.22450 d −1 . In the case of BG …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: data for X Sgr phased with the dominant pulsation period. Consecutive rows present data for RV, FWHM, BIS, contrast, and EW. BJD of each observation is color-coded. Right panel: Frequency spectrum after prewhitening with the dominant pulsation period and it…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Petersen diagram for multi-mode classical Cepheids. Different types of multi-periodicity are plotted with different colors and sym￾bols. Blue circles: pulsations in fundamental (F) mode and first over￾tone (1O). Red squares: pulsations in 1O and second overtone (2O). C…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Frequency spectra for SZ Cas after prewhitening with the funda￾mental mode and its harmonic, which position is marked with red dot￾ted lines. Additional signal is marked with the blue arrow. Top panel: frequency spectra calculated using FWHM time-series. Bottom panel: …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Centroids of three Gaussians used for the fit to CCF profiles phased with pulsation period for X Sgr (top panel) and BG Cru (bottom panel). Colors correspond to colors of the components in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Frequency spectrum of a depth of the bluest Gaussian compo￾nent (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fourier spectra in 1D and 2D for X Sgr calculated based on Coralie14 CCFs using FAMIAS software. Left panels: frequency spectra of the original data. Right panel: frequency spectra after prewhitening with the fundamental mode and its harmonic. Prewhitened frequencies …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Average FWHM calculated from all Gaussian fits to CCFs of classical Cepheids observed by VELOCEas a function of the dominant pulsation period. Stars with regular CCF profiles are plotted with grey circles. X Sgr, BG Cru, and LR TrA are plotted with black squares. Ad￾d…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Peak-to-peak amplitude of RV curve as a function of the dom￾inant pulsation period for all classical Cepheids from VELOCE and stars with (unresolved) line splitting. Meaning of symbols the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Average contrast as a function of the dominant pulsation period for all classical Cepheids from VELOCE and stars with (unresolved) line splitting. Meaning of symbols the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: CCFs of X Sgr phased based on four different periods indicated at the top of each panel. All CCFs are shifted according to RV for each observation. CCFs plotted here were collected for BJD from 2459338 to 2459383. Colors differentiate between different cycles [PITH_F…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CCFs of BG Cru phased based on the period found in the hump analysis. All CCFs are shifted according to RV for each observation. Colors differentiate between different cycles. Left panel: CCFs were collected for BJD from 2459974 to 2459989 (five cycles of PZ). Right p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2001, A&A, 379, 305 Ammler-von Eiff, M

    Alvarez, R., Jorissen, A., Plez, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 305 Ammler-von Eiff, M. & Reiners, A. 2012, A&A, 542, A116

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Anderson, R. I. 2013, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Astronomical Observa- tory

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Anderson, R. I. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1707

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Anderson, R. I. 2019, A&A, 623, A146

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    I., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al

    Anderson, R. I., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A100

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    VELOcities of CEpheids (VELOCE) I. High-precision radial velocities of Cepheids

    Anderson, R. I., Viviani, G., Shetye, S. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.12280

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A., Catanzaro, G., Crause, L., et al

    Balona, L. A., Catanzaro, G., Crause, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2808

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    1996, A&AS, 119, 373 Benk˝o, J

    Baranne, A., Queloz, D., Mayor, M., et al. 1996, A&AS, 119, 373 Benk˝o, J. M. & Kovács, G. B. 2023, A&A, 680, L6

    work page 1996

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    2000, ApJ, 529, 293

    Bono, G., Castellani, V ., & Marconi, M. 2000, ApJ, 529, 293

    2000

  2. [10]

    Dziembowski, W. A. 2016, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hun- gary, 105, 23

    2016

  3. [11]

    Fokin, A. B. & Gillet, D. 1994, A&A, 290, 875

    1994

  4. [12]

    Fokin, A. B. & Gillet, D. 1997, A&A, 325, 1013 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1 Hocdé, V ., Moskalik, P., Gorynya, N. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.11407

    1997 arXiv

  5. [13]

    V ., Andrievsky, S

    Kovtyukh, V . V ., Andrievsky, S. M., Luck, R. E., & Gorlova, N. I. 2003, A&A, 401, 661

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kraft, R. P. 1956, PASP, 68, 137

    1956

  7. [15]

    W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S

    Kurtz, D. W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S. J., Bedding, T. R., & Bowman, D. M. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Leavitt, H. S. 1908, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 60, 87

    1908

  9. [17]

    Leavitt, H. S. & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1 Li Causi, G., Antoniucci, S., Bono, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A64

    1912

  10. [18]

    2005, ApJ, 632, 590

    Marconi, M., Musella, I., & Fiorentino, G. 2005, ApJ, 632, 590

    2005

  11. [19]

    B., et al

    Mathias, P., Gillet, D., Fokin, A. B., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 575

    2006

  12. [20]

    R., & Marom, A

    Moskalik, P., Buchler, J. R., & Marom, A. 1992, ApJ, 385, 685

    1992

  13. [21]

    Neilson, H. R. & Lester, J. B. 2008, ApJ, 684, 569

    2008

  14. [22]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14824

    Netzel, H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14824

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    I., & Viviani, G

    Netzel, H., Anderson, R. I., & Viviani, G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.13796

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2002, A&A, 388, 632

    Pepe, F., Mayor, M., Galland, F., et al. 2002, A&A, 388, 632

    2002

  17. [25]

    2001, The Messenger, 105, 1

    Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2001, The Messenger, 105, 1

    2001

  18. [26]

    2011, A&A, 526, A69

    Raskin, G., van Winckel, H., Hensberge, H., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A69

    2011

  19. [27]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, L6

    2021

  20. [28]

    Sasselov, D. D. & Lester, J. B. 1990, ApJ, 362, 333

    1990

  21. [29]

    1952, in Transactions of the IAU, ed

    Schwarzschild, M. 1952, in Transactions of the IAU, ed. P. T. Oosterho ff, V ol. VIII (Cambridge University Press), 811

    1952

  22. [30]

    2006, PhD thesis, -

    Semenova, A. 2006, PhD thesis, -

    2006

  23. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 4299

    Smolec, R. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4299

    2017

  24. [32]

    R., Moffat, A

    Smolec, R., Moskalik, P., Evans, N. R., Moffat, A. F. J., & Wade, G. A. 2018, in 3rd BRITE Science Conference, ed. G. A. Wade, D. Baade, J. A. Guzik, & R. Smolec, V ol. 8, 88–93 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., et al. 2015, Acta Astron., 65, 297 Süveges, M. & An...

    2018

  25. [33]

    2008, Communications in Asteroseismology, 157, 387 Article number, page 15 of 15

    Zima, W. 2008, Communications in Asteroseismology, 157, 387 Article number, page 15 of 15

    2008

Pith tools

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