Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 115 references

Star-crossed Clusters: Asteroseismic Ages for Individual Stars are in Tension with the Ages of their Host Clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Asteroseismic ages for red giants disagree with cluster ages by far more than uncertainties allow.

desk verdict A useful and transparent meta-analysis of published asteroseismic cluster ages, but the headline tension claim is not actually tested because within-cluster scatter is compared to cluster-age precision rather than per-star age uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09582 v1 pith:ELRPJXNO submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Jamie Tayar , Meridith Joyce This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords asteroseismologyredgiantsstellaragesstarclustersisochronesscalingrelationsopenglobular
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 compares asteroseismic ages of individual red-giant stars in seven well-studied open and globular clusters with the ages of their host clusters derived from isochrone fitting. It finds that the scatter among asteroseismic ages within any one cluster is far larger than both the best-case absolute age uncertainty for a cluster (about 5.4 percent) and the model-to-model systematic spread in isochrone ages (roughly 10 percent). For several clusters, the median asteroseismic age is also systematically offset from the isochrone-based cluster age. The authors conclude that the asteroseismic age scale for red giants is not consistent with cluster-based ages at the few-percent level, and that either binary processes are altering the masses of cluster stars or additional corrections are needed before asteroseismic ages can be used as reliable absolute ages.

What carries the argument

The central comparison is between two independent age scales: asteroseismic ages of individual red giants, derived from global oscillation properties via scaling relations and model grids, and isochrone-based cluster ages, derived from fitting color–magnitude diagrams. The paper evaluates the scatter (16th–84th percentile range) of asteroseismic ages within each cluster and the offset of the cluster median from the adopted isochrone age, against quoted uncertainty budgets for the cluster age scale and model-to-model systematics.

What would settle it

A homogeneous reanalysis of the same cluster stars using a single asteroseismic pipeline with fixed solar reference values and one model grid would settle the matter: if the within-cluster age dispersion drops to the level of the quoted uncertainties, the reported tension is a methodological artifact rather than a fundamental offset between the asteroseismic and isochrone age scales. Alternatively, measuring asteroseismic ages for stars in a cluster with a precisely known geometric distance and independent mass constraints (e.g., an eclipsing binary) would test whether the mass–age relation underlying the ages is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using ages for individual first-ascent red giants in NGC 6819, NGC 6791, M67, M4, M19, M80, and M9, the authors show that the dispersion among asteroseismic age estimates for stars in the same cluster exceeds the expected uncertainty of the cluster age scale by factors of at least five in all but one cluster. Median offsets between the asteroseismic and isochrone ages exceed these uncertainties for several clusters, most notably NGC 6819 and M4. The paper argues that this pattern reflects an underlying tension between the two age scales, not merely random noise, and that current field-star ages derived from asteroseismic scaling relations are therefore not on a well-calibrated absolute scale.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the spread of ages within each cluster as if it measures the same underlying quantity, even though the ages come from different papers, pipelines, solar reference values, and model grids, and the authors do not propagate the individual uncertainties from those sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the tension is real, absolute ages for the hundreds of thousands of field red giants from Kepler, K2, TESS, and future missions inherit a systematic uncertainty larger than currently assumed.
  • A correction to the asteroseismic age scale, analogous to existing corrections for radius and mass scaling relations, would be required to place field-star ages on the cluster-calibrated scale.
  • The finding motivates a homogeneous reanalysis of existing cluster seismic data with a single pipeline and consistent solar reference values, which would either confirm the offset or show it is an artifact of method differences.
  • If binaries are the cause, the implication is that a substantial fraction of red giants in these clusters have been affected by mass transfer or merger events, challenging single-star model assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compute ages for the same cluster stars using two or more independent asteroseismic pipelines with identical assumptions; if the intragroup scatter collapses, the reported tension is largely methodological rather than astrophysical.
  • The paper's adopted cluster ages and metallicities come from heterogeneous sources; applying a uniform isochrone fit to all seven clusters might shift the median offsets and would provide a cleaner comparison.
  • The identified disconnect between the clusters with seismic data and the age–metallicity distribution of the Milky Way field population suggests that calibrating asteroseismic ages to clusters alone may leave systematic biases in the most common stellar types.
  • If the missing correction depends on mass, metallicity, or surface gravity, then the few clusters with data cover too narrow a parameter space to constrain it, and new cluster detections (e.g., from PLATO) would be needed to map the correction.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper compiles published asteroseismic masses, surface gravities, metallicities, and effective temperatures for first-ascent red giants in seven open and globular clusters (NGC 6819, NGC 6791, M67, M4, M19, M80, M9), converts these to individual stellar ages where needed using the Tayar et al. (2017) grid, and compares the resulting per-star ages and cluster medians with isochrone-based cluster ages from the literature. The authors report that the within-cluster dispersion of asteroseismic ages far exceeds both the absolute age uncertainty of the reference cluster M92 (5.4%) and a roughly 10% model-to-model isochrone systematic, and they argue that this points either to binary-driven mass changes or to missing corrections in the asteroseismic age scale. The paper also compares the age–metallicity coverage of clusters with seismic detections to that of the field population and calls for homogeneous future calibration efforts.

Significance. If established, the claimed broad inconsistency between asteroseismic ages of individual red giants and independent cluster isochrone ages would matter directly for the calibration of large asteroseismic surveys (Kepler, K2, TESS, PLATO). The compilation in Table 2 and the paper's emphasis on the heterogeneity of existing analyses are useful resources, and the call for a homogeneous reanalysis is well motivated. However, the central quantitative claim is not yet tested, because the observed scatter is compared with cluster-age precision rather than with the propagated per-star uncertainties of the seismic ages. A revision that includes realistic per-star age uncertainties, a formal statistical comparison, and independent cluster ages for all seven systems could make this a valuable contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Tables 1 and 2] The central quantitative claim compares the observed scatter of asteroseismic ages within each cluster to the 5.4% absolute age uncertainty of M92 (Ying et al. 2023) and to a ~10% model-to-model isochrone systematic. These are not the appropriate baselines for the dispersion of individual asteroseismic ages. For low-mass, old red giants, a 5–10% uncertainty in the scaling-relation mass translates into a substantially larger, typically 20–50%, uncertainty in age, and the per-star age uncertainties are not propagated anywhere in the paper (Sections 2 and 3 explicitly decline to report them). Table 2 shows within-cluster spans such as 6.8–43 Gyr for M4 and 4.0–34 Gyr for M9; without an estimate of the expected per-star scatter, those spans cannot be shown to 'far surpass' the measurement noise. The claim of a tension between the asteroseismic and cluster age scales is therefore not actually tested.
  2. [Section 4] The conclusion that there are 'systematic offsets' between asteroseismic and cluster age scales is based on a visual comparison of medians to shaded bands of 6% and 10%, without a statistical test or the number of stars per cluster. For M67 and NGC 6791 the median offsets are stated to be consistent with the isochrone uncertainties, and for NGC 6819 the offset is driven in part by an extreme outlier (KIC 5024272, age 0.26 Gyr, mass 3.49 solar masses) that is very likely not a single first-ascent red giant. A quantitative analysis that removes or models such contaminants and propagates the method-to-method differences (which the authors themselves identify in Section 2 as potentially dominating) is needed before claiming a broad-scale discrepancy.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The abstract and introduction describe the comparison as being against 'independent, isochrone-based' cluster age determinations. However, for three clusters — M80, M19, and M9 — the adopted cluster ages (13, 12, and 13 Gyr) are taken from the same papers (Howell et al. 2024; Howell et al. 2025) that provide the asteroseismic masses and gravities used to compute the individual seismic ages. The cluster-age estimates are therefore not independent of the seismic data for these objects, and the comparison is partially circular. Please replace these ages with independent isochrone-based determinations or explicitly restate the claim as a comparison with ages taken from the same source.
  4. [Sections 2 and 4] The ~10% model-to-model systematic uncertainty used as a baseline is attributed to 'L. Morales et al., in prep.' and to Pinsonneault et al. (2024). The in-prep reference is not publicly available, so this load-bearing quantitative assumption cannot be checked. Similarly, the 5.4% figure for M92 is used as a generic absolute age-uncertainty floor for all seven clusters, although M92 is a metal-poor globular cluster and is not in the sample. The paper should either provide a reproducible calculation of these baselines or adopt published, cluster-specific uncertainties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says the orange band represents the 'asteroseismic age determination (Joyce et al. 2023; Pinsonneault et al. 2024)', but the text in Section 4 says the orange band represents model-to-model isochrone scatter; please make the two descriptions consistent.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 3] Table 2 includes two NGC 1817 stars even though Section 3 states that these stars were excluded from the figures; please clarify whether these entries are meant to be part of the analysis or are shown only for completeness.
  3. [Figure 1] The M9 data are artificially shifted to 13.2 Gyr instead of the adopted cluster age of 13 Gyr; this should be flagged in the main text as well as the caption so readers do not interpret the shift as a data point.
  4. [Table 2] Several entries have age values of -99 (e.g., M80 8000009, M4 40000229, M9 90000210 and 9000081); please define this placeholder for missing or invalid ages in the table notes.
  5. [Section 4] The statements that the asteroseismic dispersion exceeds the model-to-model systematics 'by a factor of at least 5' would be more informative if the number of stars per cluster and the sampling uncertainty of the 16th–84th percentile range were reported.
  6. [References] The DOI for Poretti et al. (2015) appears truncated (10.1007/978-3-319-10993-011); please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical meta-analysis comparing published asteroseismic ages to independent isochrone cluster ages.

full rationale

The paper is a meta-analysis: it collects published asteroseismic ages (or computes them from published masses, surface gravities, and metallicities) and compares the within-cluster scatter and median offsets to cluster ages taken from the literature. The central claim is that the scatter among asteroseismic ages within a single cluster is large compared with stated uncertainty benchmarks. This scatter is a measured quantity, not a fitted parameter. The cluster ages are adopted from independent sources or quoted from the seismic papers themselves; they are not used to construct the seismic age grid. The Tayar et al. (2017) grid used for M4/M19/M80/M9 is a prior model grid, not calibrated to the cluster ages being tested here. The 5.4% M92 uncertainty comes from Ying et al. (2023), an external source, and the ~10% model-to-model systematic is cited to Pinsonneault et al. (2024) and L. Morales et al. (in prep.), which involve authors of this paper; this is self-citation but it is an estimate of model-to-model scatter, not a restatement of the within-cluster scatter that this paper measures. The paper's explicit decision not to propagate individual error bars (Sections 2 and 3) is a methodological limitation that could weaken the headline claim, but it does not make the derivation circular. No step in the argument reduces, by definition or by construction, to the paper's own inputs.

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

The analysis rests on treating heterogeneous published ages and adopted cluster ages as directly comparable, and on assuming the adopted solar reference values and the Tayar et al. (2017) grid produce accurate ages for globular cluster giants. No new parameters are fitted in this work; all inputs are taken from prior literature.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cluster red giants are coeval, single stars with a common metallicity
    The interpretation of within-cluster age scatter as anomalous assumes members are single stars of the same age and composition, which is the standard cluster assumption invoked in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Heterogeneous literature asteroseismic ages are directly comparable
    The paper combines ages from different pipelines, solar references, scaling-relation corrections, and grids without propagating method-to-method differences; this is acknowledged in Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption The adopted cluster ages are accurate representatives
    A single age is chosen per cluster from recent literature and individual error bars are not propagated (Section 2, Table 1), assuming the choice does not affect the conclusions.
  • domain assumption The Tayar et al. (2017) grid and input parameters yield correct ages
    For stars without published ages, ages are interpolated from the Tayar et al. grid using literature Mass, logg, [M/H], and [alpha/M]; this assumes the grid and input values are reliable and on a common scale (Section 3).
  • standard math 16th and 84th quantiles measure dispersion reliably
    Used to represent scatter; assumes the underlying distribution is sufficiently sampled, which is questionable for clusters with few stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star-crossed Clusters: Asteroseismic Ages for Individual Stars are in Tension with the Ages of their Host Clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELRPJXNO

@misc{pith2026250209582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star-crossed Clusters: Asteroseismic Ages for Individual Stars are in Tension with the Ages of their Host Clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELRPJXNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09582}
}
read the original abstract

A meta-analysis of seismic ages determined for individual stars in the well-studied open and globular clusters NGC 6819, NGC 6791, M67, M4, M19, M80, and M9 reveals both high variance across measurements and significant discrepancy with independent, isochrone-based age determinations for the clusters in which these stars reside. The scatter among asteroseismic ages for individual stars in any one of these clusters far surpasses both the absolute age uncertainty computed for reference cluster M92 (5.4\%) and the model-to-model systematic uncertainties in isochrones (roughly 10\%). This suggests that either binary processes are significantly altering the masses of stars in these clusters, or some additional corrections, perhaps as a function of mass, metallicity, or surface gravity, are required to bring the asteroseismic age scale into concordance with ages inferred from isochrone or similar model fitting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For seven well-characterized open and globular clusters, asteroseismic ages for individual members are compared to cluster ages derived from isochrone fitting. The colored bands represent the expected uncertainties on both the cluster age derivation (pink) and the asteroseismic age determination (orange, Joyce et al. 2023; Pinsonneault et al. 2024) in the optimal case. We find that the scatter for individual stars w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We show the distribution of ages for a large sample of Milky Way stars (small dots, Xiang & Rix 2022) as a function of age and metallicity. The clusters that we discuss here, which can act as calibrators for the asteroseismic age estimates, are shown as pink hearts. Clusters for which any seismic data exist, even if the data is of clump stars rather than first-ascent giants, or for which we were not able to determin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    7 5 h4 Q/O(ʺhTiFeO \xլ qvv l61c>idY V ^m xfIDٌ| Yk4 l y

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Anders , F., Chiappini , C., Rodrigues , T. S., et al. 2017, , 597, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527204

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527204 2017

  5. [5]

    2015, , 450, 1787, 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    Angus , R., Aigrain , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., & McQuillan , A. 2015, , 450, 1787, 10.1093/mnras/stv423

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv423 2015

  6. [6]

    J., & Twarog , B

    Anthony-Twarog , B. J., & Twarog , B. A. 1985, , 291, 595, 10.1086/163100

    work page doi:10.1086/163100 1985

  7. [7]

    2017, , 838, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f7

    Arentoft , T., Brogaard , K., Jessen-Hansen , J., et al. 2017, , 838, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa63f7 2017

  8. [8]

    R., et al

    Arentoft , T., Grundahl , F., White , T. R., et al. 2019, , 622, A190, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834690

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834690 2019

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    Barnes , S. A. 2003, , 586, 464, 10.1086/367639

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, , 56, 83, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    Bastian , N., & Lardo , C. 2018, , 56, 83, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2011, , 729, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L10

    Basu , S., Grundahl , F., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 729, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L10

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Murphy , S

    Bedding , T. R., Murphy , S. J., Crawford , C., et al. 2023, , 946, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc17a

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    A., van Saders , J

    Berger , T. A., van Saders , J. L., Huber , D., et al. 2022, , 936, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8746

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Hillenbrand , L

    Bouma , L. G., Hillenbrand , L. A., Howard , A. W., et al. 2024, , 976, 234, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad855f

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, , 165, 108, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb208

    Brandner , W., Calissendorff , P., & Kopytova , T. 2023, , 165, 108, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb208

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, , 507, 496, 10.1093/mnras/stab2183

    Brogaard , K., Arentoft , T., Jessen-Hansen , J., & Miglio , A. 2021, , 507, 496, 10.1093/mnras/stab2183

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Bruntt , H., et al

    Brogaard , K., VandenBerg , D. A., Bruntt , H., et al. 2012, , 543, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219196

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, , 679, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347330

    Brogaard , K., Arentoft , T., Miglio , A., et al. 2023, , 679, A23, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347330

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Gilliland , R

    Brown , T. M., Gilliland , R. L., Noyes , R. W., & Ramsey , L. W. 1991, , 368, 599, 10.1086/169725

    1991 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 201, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7093

    Byrom , S., & Tayar , J. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 201, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7093

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, , 640, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Anders , F., Castro-Ginard , A., et al. 2020, , 640, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, , 509, 5511, 10.1093/mnras/stab3264

    C ak rl , \"O ., & Hoyman , B. 2022, , 509, 5511, 10.1093/mnras/stab3264

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Serenelli , A

    Chaplin , W. J., Serenelli , A. M., Miglio , A., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 382, 10.1038/s41550-019-0975-9

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, , 863, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad18c

    Choi , J., Conroy , C., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2018, , 863, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad18c

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, , 757, 190, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/190

    Corsaro , E., Stello , D., Huber , D., et al. 2012, , 757, 190, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/190

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    A., et al

    Corsaro , E., Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., et al. 2017, , 605, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731094

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, , 679, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347211

    Covelo-Paz , A., Theme l , N., Espinoza-Rojas , F., & Hekker , S. 2023, , 679, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347211

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Ag \"u eros , M

    Curtis , J. L., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Matt , S. P., et al. 2020, , 904, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    F., Milone , A

    da Silva , R., Porto de Mello , G. F., Milone , A. C., et al. 2012, , 542, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118751

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, , 738, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/74

    Dotter , A., Sarajedini , A., & Anderson , J. 2011, , 738, 74, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/74

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Barrado , D., Bouy , H., et al

    Galindo-Guil , F. J., Barrado , D., Bouy , H., et al. 2022, , 664, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141114

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2016, , 832, 121, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/121

    Gaulme , P., McKeever , J., Jackiewicz , J., et al. 2016, , 832, 121, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/121

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    H., & Rebull , L

    Godoy-Rivera , D., Pinsonneault , M. H., & Rebull , L. M. 2021 a , , 257, 46, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2058

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    H., et al

    Godoy-Rivera , D., Tayar , J., Pinsonneault , M. H., et al. 2021 b , , 915, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf8ba

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Zinn , J

    Grunblatt , S. K., Zinn , J. C., Price-Whelan , A. M., et al. 2021, , 916, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0532

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, , 472, 979, 10.1093/mnras/stx1929

    Handberg , R., Brogaard , K., Miglio , A., et al. 2017, , 472, 979, 10.1093/mnras/stx1929

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Handberg , R., Miglio , A., Brogaard , K., Bossini , D., & Elsworth , Y. P. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 799, 10.1002/asna.201612411

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    2011, , 530, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016303

    Hekker , S., Basu , S., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 530, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016303

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    S., et al

    Hon , M., Huber , D., Kuszlewicz , J. S., et al. 2021, , 919, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Kalup , C., Stello , D., & De Silva , G

    Howell , M., Campbell , S. W., Kalup , C., Stello , D., & De Silva , G. M. 2025, , 536, 1389, 10.1093/mnras/stae2686

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Stello , D., & De Silva , G

    Howell , M., Campbell , S. W., Stello , D., & De Silva , G. M. 2022, , 515, 3184, 10.1093/mnras/stac1918

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 527, 7974, 10.1093/mnras/stad3565

    ---. 2024, , 527, 7974, 10.1093/mnras/stad3565

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Stello , D., et al

    Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 743, 143, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    L., & Reffert , S

    Hunt , E. L., & Reffert , S. 2024, , 686, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 113, 102290, 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102290

    Jo , Y.-A., & Chang , H.-Y. 2024, , 113, 102290, 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102290

    2024

  40. [48]

    I., Marchetti , T., et al

    Joyce , M., Johnson , C. I., Marchetti , T., et al. 2023, , 946, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb692

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 971, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534a

    Joyce , M., Moln \'a r , L., Cinquegrana , G., et al. 2024, , 971, 186, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534a

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    Joyce , M., & Tayar , J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

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

    1995 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2020, , 499, 1312, 10.1093/mnras/staa2855

    Knudstrup , E., Grundahl , F., Brogaard , K., et al. 2020, , 499, 1312, 10.1093/mnras/staa2855

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, , 580, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525856

    Lagarde , N., Miglio , A., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2015, , 580, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525856

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Vanderburg , A., Gosnell , N

    Leiner , E., Mathieu , R. D., Vanderburg , A., Gosnell , N. M., & Smith , J. C. 2019, , 881, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf8

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    W., Bovy , J., Mackereth , J

    Leung , H. W., Bovy , J., Mackereth , J. T., & Miglio , A. 2023, , 522, 4577, 10.1093/mnras/stad1272

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    R., et al

    Li , T., Bi , S., Davies , G. R., et al. 2024 a , , 530, 2810, 10.1093/mnras/stae1026

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Huber , D., et al

    Li , Y., Bedding , T. R., Huber , D., et al. 2024 b , , 974, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3e

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    D., & Gossage , S

    Lipatov , M., Brandt , T. D., & Gossage , S. 2022, , 934, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e1

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    N., Basu , S., Silva Aguirre , V., et al

    Lund , M. N., Basu , S., Silva Aguirre , V., et al. 2016, , 463, 2600, 10.1093/mnras/stw2160

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    D., & Broby Nielsen , P

    Mackey , A. D., & Broby Nielsen , P. 2007, , 379, 151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11915.x

    2007

  53. [61]

    2009, , 694, 1498, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1498

    Mar \' n-Franch , A., Aparicio , A., Piotto , G., et al. 2009, , 694, 1498, 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1498

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    2016, , 456, 3655, 10.1093/mnras/stv2830

    Martig , M., Fouesneau , M., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2016, , 456, 3655, 10.1093/mnras/stv2830

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Lodieu , N., Pavlenko , Y., & B \'e jar , V

    Mart \' n , E. L., Lodieu , N., Pavlenko , Y., & B \'e jar , V. J. S. 2018, , 856, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaeb8

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    D., & Geller , A

    Mathieu , R. D., & Geller , A. M. 2009, , 462, 1032, 10.1038/nature08568

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Basu , S., & Corsaro , E

    McKeever , J. M., Basu , S., & Corsaro , E. 2019, , 874, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0c04

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Brogaard , K., et al

    Miglio , A., Chaplin , W. J., Brogaard , K., et al. 2016, , 461, 760, 10.1093/mnras/stw1555

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 644, 10.1002/asna.201713385

    Miglio , A., Chiappini , C., Mosser , B., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 644, 10.1002/asna.201713385

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 963, 10.1007/s10686-021-09711-1

    Miglio , A., Girardi , L., Grundahl , F., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 963, 10.1007/s10686-021-09711-1

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al. 2017, , 464, 3636, 10.1093/mnras/stw2531

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05391, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05391

    Moln \'a r , L., Netzel , H., Howell , M., Kalup , C., & Joyce , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.05391, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.05391

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2013, , 550, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220435

    Mosser , B., Michel , E., Belkacem , K., et al. 2013, , 550, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220435

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    2022, , 164, 85, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    Myers , N., Donor , J., Spoo , T., et al. 2022, , 164, 85, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7ce5

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, , 658, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256

    Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., B \"o rner , A., et al. 2022, , 658, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Schlaufman , K

    Nataf , D. M., Schlaufman , K. C., Reggiani , H., & Hahn , I. 2024, , 976, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7c4e

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    W., Rix , H

    Ness , M., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H. W., et al. 2016, , 823, 114, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/114

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    H., Elsworth , Y

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Elsworth , Y. P., Tayar , J., et al. 2018, , 239, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    H., Zinn , J

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Zinn , J. C., Tayar , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00102, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00102

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Poretti , E., Mathias , P., Barban , C., et al. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 39, Asteroseismology of Stellar Populations in the Milky Way, ed. A. Miglio , P. Eggenberger , L. Girardi , & J. Montalb \'a n , 101, 10.1007/978-3-319-10993-0_11

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer , H., Catala , C., Aerts , C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Stauffer , J

    Rebull , L. M., Stauffer , J. R., Cody , A. M., et al. 2018, , 155, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/aab605

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, , 532, 2860, 10.1093/mnras/stae1650

    Reyes , C., Stello , D., Hon , M., et al. 2024, , 532, 2860, 10.1093/mnras/stae1650

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    D., Pinsonneault , M

    Roberts , J. D., Pinsonneault , M. H., Johnson , J. A., et al. 2024, , 530, 149, 10.1093/mnras/stae820

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    1998, , 335, 943, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802075

    Salaris , M., & Weiss , A. 1998, , 335, 943, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802075

    1998 doi arXiv

  76. [84]

    L., Jessen-Hansen , J., Shetrone , M

    Sandquist , E. L., Jessen-Hansen , J., Shetrone , M. D., et al. 2016, , 831, 11, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/11

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    L., Stello , D., Arentoft , T., et al

    Sandquist , E. L., Stello , D., Arentoft , T., et al. 2020, , 159, 96, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab68df

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    S., N \'e meth , P., & Kinemuchi , K

    Sanjayan , S., Baran , A. S., N \'e meth , P., & Kinemuchi , K. 2022, , 72, 267, 10.32023/0001-5237/72.4.3

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    P., Phillips , S

    Schiavon , R. P., Phillips , S. G., Myers , N., et al. 2024, , 528, 1393, 10.1093/mnras/stad3020

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    C., Stassun , K

    Schonhut-Stasik , J., Zinn , J. C., Stassun , K. G., et al. 2024, , 167, 50, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b13

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    Sharma , S., Stello , D., Bland-Hawthorn , J., Huber , D., & Bedding , T. R. 2016, , 822, 15, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/15

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    N., Antia , H

    Silva Aguirre , V., Lund , M. N., Antia , H. M., et al. 2017, , 835, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    2018, , 475, 5487, 10.1093/mnras/sty150

    Silva Aguirre , V., Bojsen-Hansen , M., Slumstrup , D., et al. 2018, , 475, 5487, 10.1093/mnras/sty150

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    2024, , 975, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    Sinha , A., Zasowski , G., Frinchaboy , P., et al. 2024, , 975, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad78e1

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    2009, , 502, 267, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811113

    Smiljanic , R., Gauderon , R., North , P., et al. 2009, , 502, 267, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811113

    2009 doi

  86. [94]

    M., et al

    Spoo , T., Tayar , J., Frinchaboy , P. M., et al. 2022, , 163, 229, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5d53

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    2011 a , , 737, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L10

    Stello , D., Huber , D., Kallinger , T., et al. 2011 a , , 737, L10, 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L10

    2011 doi

  88. [96]

    L., et al

    Stello , D., Meibom , S., Gilliland , R. L., et al. 2011 b , , 739, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/13

    2011 doi

  89. [97]

    2016, , 832, 133, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/133

    Stello , D., Vanderburg , A., Casagrande , L., et al. 2016, , 832, 133, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/133

    2016 doi

  90. [98]

    B., Bruntt , H., & Grundahl , F

    Stetson , P. B., Bruntt , H., & Grundahl , F. 2003, , 115, 413, 10.1086/368337

    2003 doi

  91. [99]

    2023, , 524, 1634, 10.1093/mnras/stad1912

    Stokholm , A., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., Stello , D., Hon , M., & Reyes , C. 2023, , 524, 1634, 10.1093/mnras/stad1912

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    A., Imig , J., et al

    Stone-Martinez , A., Holtzman , J. A., Imig , J., et al. 2024, , 167, 73, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad12a6

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2022, , 662, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243721

    Tailo , M., Corsaro , E., Miglio , A., et al. 2022, , 662, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243721

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 117, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac01ca

    Tang , J., & Joyce , M. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 117, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac01ca

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    H., et al

    Tayar , J., Somers , G., Pinsonneault , M. H., et al. 2017, , 840, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1e

    2017 doi

  96. [104]

    T., & Tayar , J

    Theodoridis , A. T., & Tayar , J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 148, 10.3847/2515-5172/ace7af

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    L., Jimenez , R., Verde , L., & Wandelt , B

    Valcin , D., Bernal , J. L., Jimenez , R., Verde , L., & Wandelt , B. D. 2020, , 2020, 002, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/002

    2020 doi

  98. [106]

    A., Bolte , M., & Stetson , P

    Vandenberg , D. A., Bolte , M., & Stetson , P. B. 1990, , 100, 445, 10.1086/115529

    1990 doi

  99. [107]

    A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L

    VandenBerg , D. A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L. 2013, , 775, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    2013 doi

  100. [108]

    T., Zinn , J

    Warfield , J. T., Zinn , J. C., Schonhut-Stasik , J., et al. 2024, , 167, 208, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad33bb

    2024 doi

  101. [109]

    R., Bedding , T

    White , T. R., Bedding , T. R., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 743, 161, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/161

    2011 doi

  102. [110]

    2014 a , , 786, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/10

    Wu , T., Li , Y., & Hekker , S. 2014 a , , 786, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/10

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    2014 b , , 781, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/44

    ---. 2014 b , , 781, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/44

    2014 doi

  104. [112]

    2022, , 603, 599, 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang , M., & Rix , H.-W. 2022, , 603, 599, 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    2022 doi

  105. [113]

    M., Chaboyer , B., Boudreaux , E

    Ying , J. M., Chaboyer , B., Boudreaux , E. M., et al. 2023, , 166, 18, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd9b1

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    M., Chaboyer , B., & Du , W

    Ying , J. M., Chaboyer , B., & Du , W. 2024, , 970, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad59a9

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

    C., Pinsonneault , M

    Zinn , J. C., Pinsonneault , M. H., Huber , D., et al. 2019, , 885, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a9

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.