Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

On the Geometry of the Near-Core Magnetic Field in Massive Stars

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 Three-dimensional MHD simulations of a 7-solar-mass star show that the near-core magnetic field is dominated by the toroidal component, not a dipole, and that the rotational shear layer sits inside the Brunt-Väisälä frequency peak.

desk verdict A clean 3D MHD simulation showing toroidal field dominance at the convective-radiative boundary, but the headline geometry is time-dependent and not shown to be converged. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09986 v1 pith:VCPK3JD5 submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.SR

Rathish P. Ratnasingam , Philipp V. F. Edelmann , Dominic M. Bowman , Tamara M. Rogers This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords massivestarmagnetismstellardynamoconvective-radiativeboundaryBrunt-VäisäläfrequencytoroidalmagneticfieldasteroseismologyMHDsimulationsdifferentialrotation
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 Letter uses three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of a mid-main-sequence 7-solar-mass star to determine what the magnetic field looks like exactly where the convective core meets the radiative envelope. The authors find that the toroidal (east-west) component of the field is far stronger than the poloidal (north-south and radial) component in that boundary region, and that the rotational shear layer is confined to the peak of the Brunt-Väisälä (buoyancy) frequency. The finding matters because current magneto-asteroseismic analyses of such stars assume a purely dipolar interior field and a rigid rotation profile, so they would miss the dominant field geometry and use the wrong shear-layer width. If the simulation is representative, asteroseismic inference of rotation, mixing, and magnetism in these stars should be revised to include a predominantly toroidal field and a shear layer that matches the buoyancy peak.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Brunt-Väisälä (buoyancy) frequency profile $N^2$, which has a sharp local maximum just outside the convective core; in the simulation this peak marks both the radial extent of the rotational shear layer and the shell over which $B_T^2/B_P^2$ exceeds unity. The mechanism that builds the toroidal field is shear winding: the radial differential rotation across the convective-radiative interface stretches poloidal magnetic field lines azimuthally, as described by Pitts & Tayler (1985) and Zahn et al. (2007). The quantitative diagnostics are shell-averaged and Mollweide-projected maps of the toroidal-to-poloidal magnetic energy ratio as functions of radius, latitude, longitude, and time.

What would settle it

Run a second simulation of the same stellar model with different numerical diffusivities or a higher Reynolds number, or with the actual HD 43317 rotation rate, and check whether the toroidal-to-poloidal energy ratio at the Brunt-Väisälä peak still exceeds unity and whether the shear layer remains confined to the peak; if either is no longer true, the geometry claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, at the convective-radiative boundary of a mid-main-sequence massive star, the equilibrium magnetic field geometry is not the large-scale dipole assumed in magneto-asteroseismic modelling but is instead dominated by the toroidal component: within the Brunt-Väisälä frequency peak just outside the core, the shell-averaged ratio of toroidal to poloidal magnetic energy is typically about $10^2$, with $B_T^2/B_P^2>10$ over almost the entire shell. The same simulations show that the rotational shear layer, the region of strong radial differential rotation, is spatially confined to the Brunt-Väisälä peak and is produced by the convection-zone shear winding the poloidal seed field into the azimuthal direction. The authors present this as numerical evidence that the field topology and the shear-layer location in the near-core region are both tied to the buoyancy-frequency peak, precisely the region to which gravity modes in slowly pulsating B-type stars are most sensitive.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on a single simulation with artificially enhanced diffusivities and a rotation rate slower than that of HD 43317, so the load-bearing assumption is that these numerical choices do not change the qualitative field geometry and shear-layer confinement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dipole-only magneto-asteroseismic estimates, including the current upper limit for HD 43317, would have to be revisited because the field geometry they assume is not the one the modes actually see.
  • Rotation inversions should take the shear layer to be as wide as the Brunt-Väisälä peak, not the much smaller convective-boundary mixing region; the paper notes this is consistent with the better statistical fit found for HD 192575 by Burssens et al. (2023).
  • Because the magnetic energy in the shear layer is only 15-40% of the kinetic energy, hydrodynamically driven differential rotation is not yet suppressed; at faster rotation or higher magnetic Reynolds number a stronger field could reduce it.
  • The geometry is expected to carry over to stars with similar mass and buoyancy-frequency profiles, meaning the class of slowly pulsating B-type stars whose cores sustain dynamos.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the magnetic diffusion time in the radiation zone is orders of magnitude longer than the 275-day run, the toroidal-dominated boundary layer is a quasi-steady feature of the interface, not a diffusive equilibrium; a longer run or a different seed field would test whether the geometry persists.
  • Recomputing the HD 43317 field-strength upper limit with a toroidal-dominated geometry, rather than a dipole, would show whether the 500 kG constraint moves up or down; that is a direct quantitative test of the paper's relevance.
  • A toroidal field concentrated at the convective-radiative boundary might also alter convective-boundary mixing and thus main-sequence lifetimes in 1D models, a connection the paper motivates but does not simulate.
  • A natural observational extension would be to search for asteroseismic signatures that distinguish toroidal from poloidal field topology, such as mode-frequency shifts computed for a mixed poloidal/toroidal field, in other magnetic SPB stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Ratnasingam et al. present 3D anelastic MHD simulations of a 7 solar-mass mid-main-sequence star, based on the inferred properties of HD 43317, to determine the magnetic field geometry and rotational shear profile at the convective-radiative boundary. They report that the toroidal field dominates the poloidal field in the near-core region (by a factor of 10–100 in energy) and that the rotational shear layer is confined within the Brunt–Väisälä frequency peak. The paper argues that these results challenge the dipole-only field geometries assumed in recent magneto-asteroseismic studies and provide support for using the BVF-peak width as the shear-layer width in rotation inversions.

Significance. The paper's central claim is an emergent property of a 3D MHD simulation, not a fitted target, and the simulation is built on a realistic stellar model (HD 43317) using the open-source RAYLEIGH code. If the toroidal dominance and shear-layer confinement hold, the result has immediate consequences for forward asteroseismic modelling of SPB stars, where dipole-only magnetic geometries and assumed shear-layer widths are currently used. The authors also correctly note that their results depend on the chosen MHD parameters and initial rotation rate. The main limitation is that the simulation is a single snapshot in time and a single point in parameter space, so the generality of the claimed geometry is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Figures 4–5, Table 1] The reported toroidal-to-poloidal dominance is not demonstrated to be a steady-state or saturated state. The authors state in §4 that 'the ratio of toroidal to poloidal field increases with time' (see also Fig. 4), and the simulation duration is 275 days (Table 1). The magnetic diffusion time across the BVF peak, estimated as (0.02 Rstar)^2/η with η ≈ 1e11 cm2/s, is of order 5000 days, far exceeding the simulation length. Therefore the BT/BP ≈ 100 seen in Fig. 5 may be the result of linear shearing of the poloidal seed (ΔΩ t ≈ 40) rather than a converged balance; if the run were continued, the ratio could grow further and the Lorentz force could alter the shear layer. The paper needs either a time-convergence test or an analysis of the growth and saturation timescales before the abstract's claim can be supported.
  2. [§2, Table 1] The simulation is a single parameter point. The artificially enhanced diffusivities (κ = ν = 7e12 cm2/s and η = 2.5e12 cm2/s in the convection zone; ν = η = 1e11 cm2/s in the outer radiation zone) are chosen for numerical stability, and no resolution or diffusivity-convergence runs are presented. The initial rotation rate is also slower than that of HD 43317. Since the authors themselves state in §5 that 'a faster initial rotation or a larger Reynolds number could both lead to a stronger magnetic field, which could reduce differential rotation,' the conclusion that toroidal geometry persists in real stars requires at least one additional run or a scaling argument showing that the result is insensitive to these choices.
  3. [§4, Fig. 5] The claim that the shear layer is 'specifically confined within the extent of the Brunt–Väisälä frequency peak' is made qualitatively from Fig. 5. The paper should provide a quantitative measure of the shear-layer width (e.g., the radius interval where ∂Ω/∂r or the differential rotation exceeds a certain threshold) and compare it directly with the BVF-peak boundaries. This is load-bearing because the asteroseismic applications proposed in §5 depend on the actual shear-layer width; without a quantitative comparison, the visual match could be coincidental or overstated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4, Figs. 3–5] The text says 'ratio of toroidal to poloidal components of the magnetic field,' but the figure captions and Fig. 5 plot the energy ratio BT2/BP2. Please clarify which quantity is being reported throughout.
  2. [§2, Table 1] The text quotes the magnetic diffusivity as 2.5e12 cm2/s, but Table 1 lists only diffusion timescales; specify the diffusivity values directly in the table for easier reference.
  3. [§4] The initial seed field is described as ~1 G, but §4 states that the field 'dropping to the imposed 10 G at the top of the shear layer'; reconcile this value with the stated seed strength.
  4. [Fig. 1] The caption says the viscosity profile coincides exactly with the thermal diffusivity profile up to 0.6 Rstar, while the text says approximately 0.592 Rstar; use consistent numbers.
  5. [§2] The MHD equations are presented without equation numbers; numbering them would improve clarity for readers referring to specific terms.
  6. [§4] The statement that the magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratio is 0.15–0.4 is significant; please specify whether this is measured in the shear layer or the whole convection zone and whether it changes over time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the toroidal-field and shear-layer geometry claims are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted targets or self-citation load-bearing results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The central claims — toroidal field dominance at the convective-radiative boundary and confinement of the shear layer to the Brunt–Väisälä frequency peak — are outputs of a 3D anelastic MHD simulation, not quantities fitted to those outputs. The poloidal seed (weak dipole) and enhanced diffusivities are stated inputs (Sections 2–3), but no equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target ratio BT/BP or the shear-layer width; the ratio is computed from the evolved fields (Figs. 3–5). The comparison with the 5e5 G upper limit (Lecoanet et al. 2022) is an external asteroseismic constraint, and the Burssens et al. (2023) and Mombarg et al. (2023) support for the shear-layer width are independent empirical and structural-model results; the overlapping authorship does not make these citations load-bearing. The only notable weakness is that the toroidal-to-poloidal ratio is reported as still increasing with time (§4: 'the ratio of toroidal to poloidal field increases with time'; §5), so the geometry is not demonstrated to be time-asymptotic; this is a convergence and robustness caveat, not a circularity. Hence no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central result rests on one MHD simulation with several hand-set diffusivities, a chosen rotation rate, and an imposed seed field; the paper explicitly acknowledges these inputs affect the geometry. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Convective-zone thermal diffusivity and viscosity = 7e12 cm2/s
    Set by hand to ensure numerical stability, far above the physical stellar values; controls dissipation and turbulent transport in the convection zone and could affect shear-layer field generation.
  • Convective-zone magnetic diffusivity = 2.5e12 cm2/s
    Chosen for stability; sets magnetic Reynolds number Rem=1320 and affects dynamo and field saturation.
  • Outer radiation-zone viscosity and magnetic diffusivity = 1e11 cm2/s
    Constant values imposed above 0.592 Rstar; not derived from physics and no sensitivity test reported.
  • Initial uniform rotation rate = 1.8e-5 rad/s (11.5% critical, 4.04 d period)
    Chosen slower than HD 43317; differential rotation and resulting toroidal field strength depend on this input.
  • Seed magnetic field = 1 G dipole
    Imposed initial field; the poloidal component in the radiative zone is this seed, so the toroidal/poloidal ratio depends on the choice of a weak seed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Anelastic MHD equations accurately model the convection-zone dynamo and radiative-zone field evolution at the simulated parameters.
    RAYLEIGH solves anelastic MHD; the anelastic approximation filters sound waves and assumes small density perturbations, standard for stellar interiors but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The MESA reference state with Xc=0.35, Z=0.02, mixing-length parameter 1.8 and exponential overshoot is representative of HD 43317.
    Input is taken from MESA following Buysschaert et al. 2018, but the target star is not modeled exactly (rotation is slower).
  • ad hoc to paper The smoothed, clipped reference-state profiles (1%-90% radius, Hann smoothing) preserve the Brunt-Väisälä spike that controls the shear-layer result.
    Smoothing and clipping are numerical choices that can modify the width and height of the BVF peak.
  • domain assumption The imposed weak dipolar seed is a valid proxy for the fossil field configuration in a real massive star.
    Initial field geometry and strength in such stars are not known; the toroidal dominance could depend on a weak poloidal seed.
  • ad hoc to paper The artificially elevated diffusivities, while non-physical, do not change the qualitative toroidal dominance at the boundary.
    No convergence or parameter study is shown; the authors note MHD parameters likely impact the geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Geometry of the Near-Core Magnetic Field in Massive Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCPK3JD5

@misc{pith2026241209986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Geometry of the Near-Core Magnetic Field in Massive Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCPK3JD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09986}
}
read the original abstract

It is well-known that the cores of massive stars sustain a stellar dynamo with a complex magnetic field configuration. However, the same cannot be said for the field's strength and geometry at the convective-radiative boundary, which are crucial when performing asteroseismic inference. In this Letter, we present three-dimensional (3D) magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of a 7 solar mass mid-main sequence star, with particular attention given to the convective-radiative boundary in the near-core region. Our simulations reveal that the toroidal magnetic field is significantly stronger than the poloidal field in this region, contrary to recent assumptions. Moreover, the rotational shear layer, also important for asteroseismic inference, is specifically confined within the extent of the buoyancy frequency peak. These results, which are based on the inferred properties of HD 43317, have widespread implications for asteroseismic studies of rotation, mixing and magnetism in stars. While we expect our results to be broadly applicable across stars with similar buoyancy frequency profiles and stellar masses, we also expect the MHD parameters and the initial stellar rotation rate to impact the geometry of the field and differential rotation at the convective-radiative interface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic field geometry from our simulations. The gold-blue magnetic field lines show a predominantly dipolar field geometry within the radiative envelope, whereas the dark blue-red-green magnetic field lines show a more complex magnetic field structure inside the convective core. within 30 days for the kinetic energy and 50 days for the magnetic energy. At this point, the average mag￾netic field is around 100 kG in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mollweide plots showing the ratio of the toroidal magnetic field energy to poloidal field energy, BT2 /BP2 as functions of latitudes and longitudes over a sphere. The plots in the top row show the ratios inside the convection zone. At 0.12 Rstar, the Brunt–V¨ais¨al¨a frequency is approximately 0 Hz. The remaining plots show the ratios inside the Brunt–V¨ais¨al¨a frequency peak from its maximum value at 0.127 Rstar t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ratios of the toroidal magnetic field energy to poloidal field energy, BT2 /BP2 as functions of latitudes and longitudes at different times (rows) and different radii (columns) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The shell-averaged ratios of the toroidal magnetic field energy to poloidal field energy, BT2 /BP2 (solid lines) and azimuthal velocities (dashed lines) as a function of ra￾dius. The different colours represent different points in time during the simulation. The solid,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015001 2021

  2. [2]

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. 2010,

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    2003, Science, 300, 1926, doi: 10.1126/science.1084993

    Aerts, C., Thoul, A., Daszy´ nska, J., et al. 2003, Science, 300, 1926, doi: 10.1126/science.1084993

    doi:10.1126/science.1084993 2003

  4. [4]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2016, ApJ, 829, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/92 —. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ea

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/92 2016

  5. [5]

    Bowman, D. M. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 70, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.578584 —. 2023, Ap&SS, 368, 107, doi: 10.1007/s10509-023-04262-7

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    I., & MiMeS Collaboration

    Briquet, M., Neiner, C., Leroy, B., P´ apics, P. I., & MiMeS Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 557, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321779

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321779 2013

  7. [7]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21933.x

    Briquet, M., Neiner, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21933.x

    work page arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Browning, M. K. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1262, doi: 10.1086/527432

    doi:10.1086/527432 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    S., Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., Browning, M. K., & Toomre, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 461, doi: 10.1086/430430

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    Brown, B. P. 2020, Phys. Rev. Research, 2, 023068, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023068

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Michielsen, M., et al

    Burssens, S., Bowman, D. M., Michielsen, M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01978-y

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    M., et al

    Buysschaert, B., Aerts, C., Bowman, D. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832642

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, A&A, 605, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731012

    Buysschaert, B., Neiner, C., Briquet, M., & Aerts, C. 2017, A&A, 605, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731012

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00980-0

    Charbonneau, P., & Sokoloff, D. 2023, SSRv, 219, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00980-0

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 32, doi: http://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/32

    Featherstone, N., & Hindman, B. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 32, doi: http://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/32

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1000, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1000

    Toomre, J. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1000, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/1000

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2011, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Toomre, J. 2011, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 271, GONG-SoHO 24: A New Era of Seismology of the Sun and Solar-Like Stars (IOP), 012068, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/271/1/012068

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Edelmann, P

    Featherstone, N. A., Edelmann, P. V. F., Gassmoeller, R., et al. 2022, Rayleigh 1.1.0, doi: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522806

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    M., & Van Reeth, T

    Lecoanet, D., Bowman, D. M., & Van Reeth, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac013

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Matsui, H., Heien, E., Aubert, J., et al. 2016,

    2016

  13. [21]

    Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17, 1586, doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/2015GC006159

    doi

  14. [22]

    Michielsen, M., Aerts, C., & Bowman, D. M. 2021, A&A, 650, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039926

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Mombarg, J. S. G., Rieutord, M., & Espinosa Lara, F. 2023, A&A, 677, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347454

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, A&A, 580, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425290

    Vandoren, B. 2015, A&A, 580, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425290

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Moravveji, E., Townsend, R. H. D., Aerts, C., & Mathis, S. 2016, ApJ, 823, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/130 P´ apics, P. I., Briquet, M., Baglin, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218809 P´ apics, P. I., Tkachenko, A., Van Reeth, T., et al. 2017, A...

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

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

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

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    G., Aerts, C., P´ apics, P

    Pedersen, M. G., Aerts, C., P´ apics, P. I., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 715, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01351-x

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Pitts, E., & Tayler, R. J. 1985, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 216, 139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/216.2.139

    1985 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, A&A, 627, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935462 8 Ratnasingam et al

    Prat, V., Mathis, S., Buysschaert, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935462 8 Ratnasingam et al

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 636, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937398

    Prat, V., Mathis, S., Neiner, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937398

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Spruit, H. C. 1999, A&A, 349, 189, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907138

    1999 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 5894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab683 Van Beeck, J., Prat, V., Van Reeth, T., et al

    Szewczuk, W., Walczak, P., & Daszy´ nska-Daszkiewicz, J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 5894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab683 Van Beeck, J., Prat, V., Van Reeth, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937363 Van Reeth, T., Mombarg, J. S. G., Mathis, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 618...

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Brun, A

    Zahn, J. P., Brun, A. S., & Mathis, S. 2007, A&A, 474, 145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077653

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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