Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 140 references

Uniform characterisation of an ensemble of main-sequence benchmark stars: effect of Gaia-based data on grid search models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Including a Gaia-based luminosity in asteroseismic grid searches tightens inferred stellar masses to 0.8 per cent scatter while radii come out about 1.9 per cent low.

desk verdict A useful empirical benchmark for grid-based stellar characterization with Gaia luminosities, but the headline percentages rest on a fixed-mixing-length grid and only seven heterogeneous stars. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04921 v1 pith:63LEKOWS submitted 2024-12-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Benard Nsamba , Achim Weiss , Juma Kamulali This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords asteroseismologyGaiaparallaxgrid-basedmodellingstellarmassradiusinterferometricradiimain-sequencestarsbenchmark
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 asks whether adding a luminosity derived from Gaia parallaxes to the standard set of asteroseismic and spectroscopic constraints improves the masses and radii that grid-based forward modelling returns for main-sequence stars. Working uniformly with eight benchmark stars that have interferometric radii (and, for Alpha Centauri A and B and the Sun, independent masses), the authors find that the added luminosity reduces the systematic scatter on inferred masses from 1.9 per cent to 0.8 per cent. The same tests show that grid-inferred radii come out smaller than the interferometric radii, with an offset of -1.9 ± 0.7 per cent and a scatter of about 1.9 per cent. The paper also establishes that an interferometric radius with precision of about 1 per cent or better yields masses with precision near 1.5 per cent, and that reliable masses and radii can still be obtained from l=0 oscillation frequencies alone if more than eight precise frequencies are combined with atmospheric constraints.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a pre-computed grid of main-sequence stellar tracks generated with the MESA code, the GYRE code for adiabatic oscillation frequencies, and the AIMS code for the Markov-chain Monte Carlo grid search that interpolates between models. The optimisation minimises a chi-squared that combines seismic frequencies, corrected for surface effects with the Ball-Gizon two-term formula, with atmospheric constraints of effective temperature, metallicity, and either a Gaia-parallax luminosity or an interferometric radius. Gaia luminosities are built from DR3 parallaxes via the standard distance-luminosity relation with bolometric corrections and reddening, while interferometric radii combine angular diameters with parallaxes. Accuracy is judged by the offset and scatter between the inferred values and these independent measurements.

What would settle it

Re-run the same grid search on the same stars with an independent stellar grid (for instance, varying the mixing-length parameter over 1.5–2.0 or using a different evolution code) and check whether the inferred radii still fall about 1.9 per cent below the interferometric values. If the offset disappears or changes sign, the reported radius underestimate is a grid artefact; if it persists across grids, it indicates a genuine systematic in the modelling or in the interferometric comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a parallax-based luminosity from Gaia acts as a genuinely informative extra constraint in asteroseismic grid searches: adding it to individual oscillation frequencies, effective temperature, and metallicity lowers the scatter on inferred stellar masses from 1.9 per cent (seismic plus spectroscopic constraints) to 0.8 per cent. When the inferred radii are checked against model-independent interferometric radii, they are systematically lower by -1.9 ± 0.7 per cent with a scatter near 1.9 per cent, indicating a persistent small bias in the model grid or the comparison itself. Injecting an interferometric radius with uncertainty ≲1 per cent into the optimisation yields masses with uncertainty ≲1.5 per cent, and this benefit saturates once the radius uncertainty exceeds about 1.5 per cent, after which the seismic data dominate. Finally, using only radial l=0 oscillation frequencies, robust masses and radii are still attainable provided more than eight precise l=0 frequencies are paired with atmospheric constraints, including the Gaia-based luminosity where available.

Load-bearing premise

The grid's radius scale—fixed by the solar-calibrated mixing length of 1.71, the exponential overshoot parameter of 0.01, and the Ball-Gizon surface correction—is assumed to represent the true radius scale of every benchmark star to better than the reported ~1.9 per cent offset; if that scale is biased, the radius underestimate and the mass scatter comparison are artefacts of the grid rather than properties of the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding a Gaia-parallax luminosity to seismic and spectroscopic constraints reduces the systematic scatter on inferred stellar masses from 1.9 per cent to 0.8 per cent.
  • Grid-inferred radii for these benchmark stars sit about 1.9 per cent below interferometric radii, implying a small but consistent bias in the modelling or comparison.
  • An interferometric radius with precision ≲1 per cent, when included in the optimisation, yields stellar masses with precision ≲1.5 per cent.
  • When only l=0 modes are available, more than eight precise l=0 frequencies combined with atmospheric constraints are needed to obtain reliable masses and radii.
  • The results argue for pushing interferometric radius measurements of solar-type stars toward 1 per cent precision, a step relevant to PLATO's stellar-characterisation work packages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the -1.9 per cent radius offset survives tests with other stellar grids, asteroseismically calibrated radii—and exoplanet and Galactic properties built on them—may carry a small systematic low bias for solar-type stars.
  • The fixed solar-calibrated mixing length and exponential overshoot in the grid are the most plausible grid-side causes of the offset; a grid with varied mixing length would separate a grid artefact from a genuine data-model discrepancy.
  • The l=0-only result implies that for space missions with sparse mode visibility, such as short-cadence TESS targets, atmospheric constraints and Gaia luminosities become the limiting factor for parameter precision.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same uniform luminosity injection to a larger sample with eclipsing-binary masses, where mass and radius accuracy can be checked simultaneously.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses the AIMS grid-search code with a MESA/GYRE model grid to infer masses and radii of seven main-sequence benchmark stars plus the Sun under five combinations of seismic and atmospheric constraints. The constraint sets are Set 1 ([Fe/H], Teff, L), Set 2 (individual frequencies, [Fe/H], Teff), Set 3 (Set 2 plus L), Set 4 ([Fe/H], Teff, interferometric R), and Set 5 (Set 4 plus frequencies). The main claims are that adding a parallax-based luminosity (Gaia for five of the non-solar stars, Hipparcos for alpha Cen A/B) reduces the scatter of inferred masses relative to Set 3 from 1.9% to 0.8%; that radii inferred with seismic constraints are systematically underestimated by -1.9 ± 0.7% with about 1.9% scatter compared with interferometric radii; that an interferometric radius with precision better than about 1% yields masses with precision around 1.5-2.5%; and that l = 0-only frequency sets of more than eight modes, combined with atmospheric constraints, can still give robust masses and radii. The paper also compares Gaia- and Hipparcos-based luminosities, finding a 1.4% scatter and a -0.5 ± 0.6% offset.

Significance. The question is relevant for PLATO preparation and for the asteroseismic community: it quantifies the value of Gaia parallax-based luminosities and of high-precision interferometric radii in grid-based forward modelling. The manuscript's strengths are that it uses a uniform pipeline for all stars, includes genuinely external validation data (interferometric radii, alpha Cen A/B dynamical masses, the Sun), and tabulates the inferred quantities so that the main comparisons are transparent. The claimed scatter values are, however, based on a small and heterogeneous sample and are tied to one particular model grid, so the results are more indicative than conclusive; with appropriate reframing and sensitivity tests they would be a useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and 3.1] The interpretation of the headline radius offset and mass scatter is tied to a single grid prescription. Section 2.1 fixes alpha_MLT = 1.71 (solar-calibrated) and exponential overshoot f = 0.01 for all models. At fixed Teff and L, the model radius of a main-sequence star depends on alpha_MLT, and a fixed solar value can introduce a Teff- and metallicity-dependent bias. The pattern in Figure 2 (Sun within 0.2%, alpha Cen within about 1%, Doris about -3.4%, Perky and Saxo2 about -4.6% for Set 3) is qualitatively consistent with such a bias. The quoted systematic scatter from Eq. (11) therefore measures the internal scatter of this specific grid, not a general systematic uncertainty of the method. I ask the authors to either repeat the fits with alpha_MLT (and, if feasible, overshoot) varied within plausible ranges, or to explicitly restrict the conclusions to the adopted grid and remove the implication that the -1.9% offset is a property of grid-search modelling per se.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 3, and Eq. (11)] The mass-scatter improvement from 1.9% to 0.8% is computed using the Set 3 masses from the same grid as the reference (Section 3.1: 'we considered the inferred masses from Set 3 as a reference'). For five of the seven stars there is no independent mass, so this comparison tests consistency between constraint sets, not accuracy. The external benchmarks that do exist (alpha Cen A/B dynamical masses and the Sun) should be used to report accuracy separately. In addition, the scatter is computed over N = 7 with no uncertainty on the scatter itself; the sample mixes Kepler-quality seismic data with ground-based data for alpha Cen A/B, and for the latter two the 'Gaia-based' luminosity is actually from Hipparcos (Section 2.3, Table 2). The quoted 1.9% and 0.8% values therefore need a stated N and list of included stars, a bootstrap or similar uncertainty on the scatter, and a version computed without alpha Cen A/B to show the Gaia-only effect.
  3. [Section 3.2 and abstract/conclusions] There is a numerical inconsistency in the mass-precision claim from interferometric radii. Section 3.2 states that for a radius uncertainty of about 1 per cent the inferred mass uncertainty is about 2.5 per cent, and that a radius uncertainty of 0.5 per cent gives a mass uncertainty of about 1.5 per cent. The abstract and Section 4 instead state that a radius precision of about 1 per cent yields a mass precision of about 1.5 per cent. Please reconcile these statements; if the 1.5 per cent mass precision only holds at about 0.5 per cent radius precision, that is a materially different recommendation for interferometric campaigns.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (10)] The expression for chi2_[Fe/H] appears to use Teff in both the numerator and denominator rather than the observed and model [Fe/H]; this is presumably a typographical error but should be fixed.
  2. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'high quality sesimic data' should read 'high quality seismic data'.
  3. [Figure 6] The bottom-panel y-axis label 'Fractional difference on Mass' should specify that the difference is (M_inferred - M_dynamical)/M_dynamical.
  4. [Section 4] The reference to 'Kamulali et al. (in preperation)' should be 'in preparation'.
  5. [Section 2.3] The reference 'Pijpers, F. P. 2003' would be easier to read as a standard author-year citation in the text.
  6. [Tables 4 and 5] Because the quoted scatter values in Section 3.1 depend on the exact posterior medians, the printed two-decimal values should be supplemented (for example in an online table or appendix) so that Eq. (11) can be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline claims are checked against independent interferometric radii and dynamical masses, and the internal Set 3 reference is explicitly disclosed rather than used as a hidden input.

full rationale

The paper's central results do not reduce to their inputs. The radius comparison in Fig. 2 uses interferometric angular diameters from White et al. (2013) and Huber et al. (2012b) that are not used to construct the MESA grid or to fit Set 1-3 models; the deduced radii are external benchmarks. Mass accuracy is checked against dynamical masses for alpha Cen A and B (Kervella et al. 2017) and against the Sun. The only potentially self-referential choice is the bottom panel of Fig. 3, where 'since no independent stellar masses are available ... we considered the inferred masses from Set 3 as a reference' (Sec. 3.1); this is explicitly disclosed, it is a precision/consistency comparison rather than an external accuracy claim, and the reduction in scatter from 1.9 per cent to 0.8 per cent is not forced by construction because Set 3 is not an input to Sets 1 and 2. The grid assumptions (fixed solar-calibrated alpha_MLT=1.71, f=0.01 overshoot, Ball-Gizon surface correction) are model-physics limitations that could bias the absolute radius scale, but they are not circular: they are stated inputs, not conclusions derived from the benchmarks. Self-citations (e.g., Nsamba et al. 2018b for alpha Cen spectroscopic values) are contextual and not load-bearing for any uniqueness or derivation claim. The paper itself flags model dependence and the lack of independent masses for most stars, so no hidden circular step is present.

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

No new entities are introduced. The central analysis depends on fixed grid parameters (mixing length, overshoot) and on external calibrations (bolometric corrections, solar calibration), which are standard practice but carry model dependence. The paper does not claim to derive any of these from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_MLT (mixing length parameter) = 1.71 (solar-calibrated)
    Fixed value from solar calibration used for all grid models; sets the radius and temperature scale of the models.
  • Overshoot parameter f = 0.01
    Exponential overshoot diffusion coefficient parameter (Eq. 2) chosen by hand; affects core size and mixing for stars above ~1.1 Msun.
  • Ball-Gizon two-term surface correction coefficients = not stated (possibly per-star fit)
    Section 2.4 invokes the Ball & Gizon (2014) two-term empirical surface correction but does not state whether coefficients are fixed or fitted during optimisation; if fitted, they are free parameters absorbing near-surface model errors.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The MESA grid input physics (NACRE rates, OPAL EOS, Asplund 2009 mixtures, Krishna-Swamy atmosphere, solar-calibrated alpha_MLT) is appropriate for all benchmark stars.
    Section 2.1 defines the grid; if the physics is systematically wrong, particularly the radius scale, all inferred radii and the mass scatter change.
  • domain assumption The Ball-Gizon two-term surface correction removes the near-surface frequency offset adequately for all stars.
    Section 2.4 applies this correction before computing chi^2_seismic; residual surface effects would bias frequencies and hence radii and masses.
  • domain assumption Gaia parallax-based luminosities computed from Eq. 3 with Flower/Torres bolometric corrections and STILISM extinction are unbiased at the few-percent level.
    Section 2.3 uses these luminosities as constraints; the text notes extinction errors dominate the luminosity uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uniform characterisation of an ensemble of main-sequence benchmark stars: effect of Gaia-based data on grid search models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63LEKOWS

@misc{pith2026241204921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uniform characterisation of an ensemble of main-sequence benchmark stars: effect of Gaia-based data on grid search models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63LEKOWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04921}
}
abstract

The inference of stellar parameters (such as radius and mass) through asteroseismic forward modelling depends on the number, accuracy, and precision of seismic and atmospheric constraints. ESA's Gaia space mission is providing precise parallaxes which yield an additional constraint to be included in the model grid search. Using a handful of main-sequence benchmark stars, we perform a uniform characterisation of these stars. We assess the accuracy and precision of stellar parameters inferred from grid-based searches when a Gaia-based luminosity is combined with different stellar constraints. We also examine the precision needed for an interferometric radius (model-independent radius) to have a significant contribution towards the determination of stellar mass in the optimisation process. Our findings show that more precise stellar masses are inferred for some stars when seismic and spectroscopic constraints are complemented with a Gaia-based luminosity, with a scatter varying from 1.9 per cent to 0.8 per cent. However, the inferred stellar radii are underestimated when compared to the interferometric radii and yield a scatter of $\sim$1.9 per cent. In addition, we demonstrate that a precisely measured interferometric radius ($\lesssim$ 1 per cent) when applied in the optimisation process yields a mass with a precision $\lesssim$ 1.5 per cent. Finally, we find that when only $l=0$ mode oscillation frequencies are available, robust masses and radii are still attainable. However, this requires precise and numerous $l=0$ mode oscillations frequencies ($>$ 8) to be coupled with atmospheric constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel shows the comparison of the absolute parallax-based luminosities values and their corresponding uncertainties from Hipparcos (red circles) and Gaia (blue diamonds). The bottom panel shows the frac￾tional difference in luminosity relative to the Gaia-based luminosity value, with a scatter of 1.4 per cent (orange color), and an offset of −0.5 ± 0.6 per cent (dotted black line). No Gaia parallaxes are availab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: comparison of the derived absolute radii and their associated uncertainties from different observable combinations. Bottom panel: fractional difference in radius relative to the interferometric radius. Orange color and dotted black line display the scatter (𝜎𝑠𝑦𝑠,2) and an offset (𝜇2) based on Set 2, respectively. For comparison purposes, the values for the scatter and offset based on Set 1 and Set 3 are a… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Normalised probability density distributions for mass (left panels) and radius (right panels). Color-code and line style shows results obtained using different observable combinations, i.e. Set 1 (black dash dotted line), Set 2 (green line), and Set 3 (red dashed line). The olive region given in some cases refers to independent values of radius and mass, if available. MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: comparison of the derived absolute masses and their associated uncertainties from different observable combinations with an interferometric radii taken into account in the optimisation process. Bottom panel: fractional difference in mass derived from Set 4 r…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalised probability density distributions for mass (left panels) and radius (right panels) of 16 Cyg A (top panels) and 𝛼 Centauri A (bottom panels). Color-coded according to the applied oscillation frequency modes and atmospheric constraints. The dashed olive lines…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Normalised probability density distributions for mass (left panels) and radius (right panels) of 16 Cyg A (top panels) and 𝛼 Centauri A (bottom panels). Color-code according to the number of frequency modes: Pink dashed dotted line - 4 (𝑙 = 0) modes, Gray dashed line -…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

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

  2. [2]

    Ahlborn F., Kupka F., Weiss A., Flaskamp M., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..97A 667, A97

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243126 2022

  3. [3]

    F., 2021, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abfaff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...14A 162, 14

    Akeson R., Beichman C., Kervella P., Fomalont E., Benedict G. F., 2021, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abfaff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162...14A 162, 14

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abfaff 2021

  4. [4]

    Angulo C., et al., 1999, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5 , 656, 3

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

  5. [5]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Auvergne M., et al., 2009, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506..411A 506, 411

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810860 2009

  7. [7]

    H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A.123B 568, A123

    Ball W. H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A.123B 568, A123

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 2014

  8. [8]

    Basu S., Kinnane A., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869....8B 869, 8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae922 2018

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    Bazot M., Bourguignon S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21818.x , 427, 1847

    2012

  2. [10]

    Bazot M., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Gizon L., Benomar O., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw921 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1254B 460, 1254

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    G., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.10812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230710812B p

    Beck P. G., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.10812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230710812B p. arXiv:2307.10812

    2023 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    R., Kjeldsen H., Butler R

    Bedding T. R., Kjeldsen H., Butler R. P., McCarthy C., Marcy G. W., O’Toole S. J., Tinney C. G., Wright J. T., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423484 , 614, 380

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:200500019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...432L..43B 432, L43

    Bedding T. R., et al., 2005, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:200500019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...432L..43B 432, L43

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Basu S., Hekker S., Ball W

    Bellinger E. P., Basu S., Hekker S., Ball W. H., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851...80B 851, 80

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Benomar O., Masuda K., Shibahashi H., Suto Y., 2014, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psu069 , 66

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Boltzmann L., 1884, @doi [Annalen der Physik] 10.1002/andp.18842580616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1884AnP...258..291B 258, 291

    doi

  9. [17]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , 327, 977

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Bouchy F., Carrier F., 2002, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390..205B 390, 205

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Latham D

    Buchhave L. A., Latham D. W., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/187 , 808, 187

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/85 , 819, 85

    Campante T. L., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/85 , 819, 85

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    L., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190905961C p

    Campante T. L., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190905961C p. arXiv:1909.05961

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L., Elyajouri M., Monreal-Ibero A., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..65C 606, A65

    Capitanio L., Lallement R., Vergely J. L., Elyajouri M., Monreal-Ibero A., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...606A..65C 606, A65

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Carrier F., Bourban G., 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...406L..23C 406, L23

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    J., 1997, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/284.3.527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.284..527C 284, 527

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Thompson M. J., 1997, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/284.3.527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.284..527C 284, 527

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Dappen W., Lebreton Y., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/336634a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.336..634C 336, 634

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Hatzes A

    Cochran W. D., Hatzes A. P., Butler R. P., Marcy G. W., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/304245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483..457C 483, 457

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Bedding T

    Compton D. L., Bedding T. R., Ball W. H., Stello D., Huber D., White T. R., Kjeldsen H., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4416C 479, 4416

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Giuli R

    Cox J. P., Giuli R. T., 1968, Principles of stellar structure

    1968

  21. [29]

    L., Monteiro M

    Creevey O. L., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Metcalfe T. S., Brown T. M., Jim \'e nez-Reyes S. J., Belmonte J. A., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/512097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...659..616C 659, 616

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..17C 545, A17

    Creevey O. L., et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..17C 545, A17

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    Creevey O. L., et al., 2015, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab2886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5864C 508, 5864

    Cunha M. S., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab2886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.5864C 508, 5864

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    H., Fields B

    Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 2003, @doi [Physics Letters B] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.06.026 , 567, 227

    2003 doi

  26. [34]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , 456, 2183

    Davies G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , 456, 2183

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Marques J

    Deal M., Alecian G., Lebreton Y., Goupil M. J., Marques J. P., LeBlanc F., Morel P., Pichon B., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..10D 618, A10

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Marques J

    Deal M., Goupil M. J., Marques J. P., Reese D. R., Lebreton Y., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A..23D 633, A23

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    o ner S., Ak S., \

    D \"o ner S., Ak S., \"O nal Ta s \"O ., Plevne O., 2023, @doi [Physics and Astronomy Reports] 10.26650/PAR.2023.00002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PARep...1...11D 1, 11

    2023

  30. [38]

    Do g an G., et al., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...49D 763, 49

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Paterno L., Ventura R., 1988, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...200..213D 200, 213

    Dziembowski W. A., Paterno L., Ventura R., 1988, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...200..213D 200, 213

    1988

  32. [40]

    Eggenberger P., Charbonnel C., Talon S., Meynet G., Maeder A., Carrier F., Bourban G., 2004, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...417..235E 417, 235

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Buldgen G., Salmon S

    Farnir M., Dupret M. A., Buldgen G., Salmon S. J. A. J., Noels A., Pin c on C., Pezzotti C., Eggenberger P., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..37F 644, A37

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/428642 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..585F 623, 585

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    L., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    J., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...469..355F 469, 355

    Flower P. J., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...469..355F 469, 355

    1996 doi

  37. [45]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Gamerman D., 1998, Biometrika, 85, 215

    1998

  40. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.1201/b14835

    Gilks W., Richardson S., Spiegelhalter D., 1995, Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14835

    1995 doi

  41. [49]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/650399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..131G 122, 131

    Gilliland R. L., et al., 2010, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/650399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..131G 122, 131

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    Guo Z., Jiang C., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&C....4200686G 42, 100686

    2023

  43. [51]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1355H 496, 1355

    Halbwachs J. L., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1355H 496, 1355

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Marcy G

    Hauser H. M., Marcy G. W., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111..321H 111, 321

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    Herwig F., 2000, @doi [A&A] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...360..952H 360, 952

    2000 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P.-O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, Communications in Asteroseismology, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009

  47. [55]

    Huber D., et al., 2012a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01242.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423L..16H 423, L16

    2012

  48. [56]

    Huber D., et al., 2012b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...32H 760, 32

    doi

  49. [57]

    Huber D., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..102H 844, 102

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Huber D., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..245H 157, 245

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Barfield W

    Huebner W. F., Barfield W. D., 2014, Equations of State and Opacities for Mixtures. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 405--410, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4614-8797-5_10 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8797-5_10

    2014 doi

  52. [60]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/177381 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..943I 464, 943

    1996 doi

  53. [61]

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

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    J., et al., 2008, in Sch \"o ller M., Danchi W

    Ireland M. J., et al., 2008, in Sch \"o ller M., Danchi W. C., Delplancke F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7013, Optical and Infrared Interferometry. p. 701324, @doi 10.1117/12.788386

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    Jiang C., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896...65J 896, 65

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    J rgensen A. C. S., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4965J 495, 4965

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Joyce M., Chaboyer B., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...99J 864, 99

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Karoff C., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852...46K 852, 46

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Nordlander T., Casagrand e L., Ireland M., Huber D., Jofr \'e P., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200605411K p

    Karovicova I., White T. R., Nordlander T., Casagrand e L., Ireland M., Huber D., Jofr \'e P., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200605411K p. arXiv:2006.05411

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kervella P., Th \'e venin F., S \'e gransan D., Berthomieu G., Lopez B., Morel P., Provost J., 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...404.1087K 404, 1087

    2003 doi

  61. [69]

    Kervella P., Mignard F., M \'e rand A., Th \'e venin F., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.107K 594, A107

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    Kervella P., Bigot L., Gallenne A., Th \'e venin F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597A.137K 597, A137

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Kiefer R., Broomhall A.-M., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1807 , 496, 4593

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Kiefer R., Schad A., Davies G., Roth M., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..77K 598, A77

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    R., 2004, in Danesy D., ed., ESA Special Publication Vol

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 2004, in Danesy D., ed., ESA Special Publication Vol. 559, SOHO 14 Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future. p. 101

    2004

  66. [74]

    R., 2005, Highlights of Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005HiA....13..407K 13, 407

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 2005, Highlights of Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005HiA....13..407K 13, 407

    2005

  67. [75]

    Kjeldsen H., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/497530 , 635, 1281

    2005 doi

  68. [76]

    S., 1966, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/148752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..174K 145, 174

    Krishna Swamy K. S., 1966, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/148752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..174K 145, 174

    1966 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Valette B., Puspitarini L., Eyer L., Casagrande L., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...561A..91L 561, A91

    Lallement R., Vergely J. L., Valette B., Puspitarini L., Eyer L., Casagrande L., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...561A..91L 561, A91

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Montalb \'a n J., 2014, in Lebreton Y., Valls-Gabaud D., Charbonnel C., eds, EAS Publications Series Vol

    Lebreton Y., Goupil M. J., Montalb \'a n J., 2014, in Lebreton Y., Valls-Gabaud D., Charbonnel C., eds, EAS Publications Series Vol. 65, EAS Publications Series. pp 177--223 ( @eprint arXiv 1410.5337 ), @doi 10.1051/eas/1465005

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ligi R., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..94L 586, A94

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

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

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

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    S., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms11201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatCo...711201L 7, 11201

    Lundkvist M. S., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/ncomms11201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatCo...711201L 7, 11201

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    Mathur S., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749..152M 749, 152

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    Mazumdar A., et al., 2009, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...503..521M 503, 521

    2009 doi

  76. [84]

    et al., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732159 , 616, A64

    Meftah, M. et al., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732159 , 616, A64

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    S., Charbonneau P., 2003, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/S0021-9991(02)00053-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JCoPh.185..176M 185, 176

    Metcalfe T. S., Charbonneau P., 2003, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/S0021-9991(02)00053-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JCoPh.185..176M 185, 176

    2003 doi

  78. [86]

    S., et al., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1583M 723, 1583

    Metcalfe T. S., et al., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1583M 723, 1583

    2010 doi

  79. [87]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/2041-8205/748/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748L..10M 748, L10

    Metcalfe T. S., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJL] 10.1088/2041-8205/748/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748L..10M 748, L10

    2012 doi

  80. [88]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/27 , 214, 27

    Metcalfe T. S., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/27 , 214, 27

    2014 doi

  81. [89]

    Metcalfe T., Townsend R., Ball W., 2023, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/acebef , 7

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    Miglio A., Montalb \'a n J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...441..615M 441, 615

    2005 doi

  83. [91]

    Miglio A., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201713385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AN....338..644M 338, 644

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    T., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200703362M p

    Moedas N., Nsamba B., Clara M. T., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200703362M p. arXiv:2007.03362

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Moedas N., Deal M., Bossini D., Campilho B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A..43M 666, A43

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    Montambaux G., 2018, @doi [Foundations of Physics] 10.1007/s10701-018-0153-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018FoPh...48..395M 48, 395

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., 2009, Evolution and Seismic Tools for Stellar Astrophysics . Vol. 316

    2009

  88. [96]

    B., et al., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200700497N p

    Nielsen M. B., et al., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200700497N p. arXiv:2007.00497

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    L., Monteiro M

    Nsamba B., Campante T. L., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Cunha M. S., Rendle B. M., Reese D. R., Verma K., 2018a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.5052N 477, 5052

    doi

  90. [98]

    Nsamba B., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Campante T. L., Cunha M. S., Sousa S. G., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479L..55N 479, L55

    doi

  91. [99]

    L., Monteiro M

    Nsamba B., Campante T. L., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Cunha M. S., Sousa S. G., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00025 , 6, 25

    2019

  92. [100]

    Nsamba B., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500...54N 500, 54

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    S., Rocha C

    Nsamba B., Cunha M. S., Rocha C. I. S. A., Pereira C. J. G. N., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Campante T. L., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac1370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514..893N 514, 893

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    M., Stenholm S

    Paul H., Greenberger D. M., Stenholm S. T., Schleich W. P., 2015, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2015/T165/014027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhST..165a4027P 165, 014027

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

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

    2011 doi

  96. [104]

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

    2013 doi

  97. [105]

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

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  100. [108]

    Pijpers, F. P. 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021839 , 400, 241

    2003 doi

  101. [109]

    Pourbaix D., Boffin H. M. J., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A..90P 586, A90

    2016 doi

  102. [110]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2016, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...41P 152, 41

    2016 doi

  103. [111]

    Ram \' rez I., Mel \'e ndez J., Asplund M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...508L..17R 508, L17

    2009 doi

  104. [112]

    Rauer H., et al., 2014, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4 , 38, 249

    2014 doi

  105. [113]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..771R 484, 771

    Rendle B. M., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..771R 484, 771

    2019 doi

  106. [114]

    R., et al., 2014, in Jr

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Jr. J. M. O., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. SPIE, pp 556 -- 570, @doi 10.1117/12.2063489 , https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2063489

    2014 doi

  107. [115]

    Rogers F., Iglesias C., 1998, 135, 254

    1998

  108. [116]

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

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

    2002 doi

  109. [117]

    W., Vorontsov S

    Roxburgh I. W., Vorontsov S. V., 2003, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...411..215R 411, 215

    2003 doi

  110. [118]

    Salmon S. J. A. J., Van Grootel V., Buldgen G., Dupret M. A., Eggenberger P., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A...7S 646, A7

    2021 doi

  111. [119]

    Santos A. R. G., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aac9b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...17S 237, 17

    2018 doi

  112. [120]

    Santos A. R. G., et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A..56S 672, A56

    2023 doi

  113. [121]

    Serenelli A., et al., 2021, @doi [A&ARv] 10.1007/s00159-021-00132-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&ARv..29....4S 29, 4

    2021 doi

  114. [122]

    M., Weiss A., 2011, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A..63S 529, A63

    Silva Aguirre V., Ballot J., Serenelli A. M., Weiss A., 2011, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529A..63S 529, A63

    2011 doi

  115. [123]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2127S 452, 2127

    2015 doi

  116. [124]

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

    2017 doi

  117. [125]

    S \"o derhjelm S., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...341..121S 341, 121

    1999

  118. [126]

    A., Bahcall J

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

    1994 doi

  119. [127]

    Torres G., Andersen J., Gim \'e nez A., 2010, @doi [A&ARv] 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&ARv..18...67T 18, 67

    2010 doi

  120. [128]

    Townsend R. H. D., Teitler S. A., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt1533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3406T 435, 3406

    2013 doi

  121. [129]

    G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Valle G., Dell'Omodarme M., Prada Moroni P. G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2014, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  122. [130]

    G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2015, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Valle G., Dell'Omodarme M., Prada Moroni P. G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2015, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  123. [131]

    G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6...30D 6, 30

    Valle G., Dell'Omodarme M., Prada Moroni P. G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6...30D 6, 30

    2019

  124. [132]

    Verma K., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/138 , 790, 138

    2014 doi

  125. [133]

    R., Lund M

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

    2019 doi

  126. [134]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1262W 433, 1262

    White T. R., et al., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1262W 433, 1262

    2013 doi

  127. [135]

    R., et al., 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences

    White T. R., et al., 2015, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences. p. 06068, @doi 10.1051/epjconf/201510106068

    2015

  128. [136]

    Y ld z M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11218.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.374.1264Y 374, 1264

    2007

  129. [137]

    C., Pinsonneault M

    Zinn J. C., Pinsonneault M. H., Huber D., Stello D., Stassun K., Serenelli A., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885..166Z 885, 166

    2019 doi

  130. [138]

    R., Campante T

    de Meulenaer P., Carrier F., Miglio A., Bedding T. R., Campante T. L., Eggenberger P., Kjeldsen H., Montalb \'a n J., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..54D 523, A54

    2010 doi

  131. [139]

    A., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/430729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..453T 628, 453

    ten Brummelaar T. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/430729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..453T 628, 453

    2005 doi

  132. [140]

    van Leeuwen F., 2007, Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data . Vol. 350, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-6342-8,

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.