Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Stochastic low-frequency variability of 50 massive stars in the Cygnus OB associations and the Small Magellanic Cloud

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that the stochastic low-frequency flicker of 103 O- and B-type stars is best explained by subsurface convection in the iron opacity zone, matching 3-D simulation predictions.

desk verdict Solid measurements, overstated mechanism claim: the new Cygnus OB sample and cadence-robust parameters are worth having, but the data do not uniquely identify sub-surface convection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15861 v1 pith:32SCL7M2 submitted 2025-04-22 astro-ph.SR

M. G. Pedersen , L. Bildsten This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stochasticlow-frequencyvariabilitymassivestarsO-typeB-typesubsurfaceconvectionironopacityzoneTESSphotometryCygnusOBassociations
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

Massive O- and B-type stars show a common 'flicker' — stochastic low-frequency variability — in high-cadence space photometry, but its physical origin has been contested. This paper characterizes that flicker in 49 stars from six Cygnus OB associations plus the SMC star AV 232, and re-analyses 53 previously published stars, giving a combined sample of 103. It finds that the amplitude and slope of the variability, its RMS, the frequency containing 50% of the power, and the spectral width all correlate with spectroscopic luminosity, with amplitudes growing and characteristic frequencies falling as stars evolve. When the observed characteristic frequencies are compared with simulations, the paper finds good agreement with 3-D simulations of subsurface convection in the iron opacity zone, identifying that convection as the likely driver of the flicker. A model-independent characterization based on RMS, $\nu_{50\%}$, and $w$ is introduced and shown to be less affected by TESS observing cadence than the Lorentzian-fit parameters.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two characterization tools and a comparison. The first is a Lorentzian-like fit to the power density spectrum, $M(\nu) = \eta(\nu)\,\alpha_0 / (1 + (\nu/\nu_{\rm char})^{\gamma}) + C_W$, which yields the zero-frequency amplitude $\alpha_0$, the characteristic frequency $\nu_{\rm char}$, and the slope $\gamma$. The second is model-independent: the RMS of the residual light curve plus the cumulative integrated power $P_{\rm int}(\nu)$, from which the paper derives $\nu_{20\%}$, $\nu_{50\%}$, $\nu_{80\%}$ and the width $w = (\nu_{80\%}-\nu_{20\%})/\nu_{50\%}$. To compare stars across samples, bolometric luminosities are converted to spectroscopic luminosities via $L_{\rm spec} = L\,(M/M_\odot)^{-1}$, which makes the stellar mass a load-bearing input. The decisive comparison is observed $\nu_{\rm char}$ against predictions from 3-D radiation-hydrodynamical simulations of subsurface convection in the iron opacity zone, along with predictions for internal gravity waves from convective cores.

What would settle it

Take a subset of the Cygnus OB stars and measure their masses independently from binary orbits or asteroseismology, then re-derive the correlations; if the spectroscopic-luminosity trends vanish, the central comparison fails. Alternatively, run a 3-D envelope simulation at SMC metallicity for a star near 35 $M_\odot$ and check whether its $\nu_{\rm char}$ falls on the observed relation, or test whether observed $\nu_{\rm char}$ tracks the thermal timescale of the iron-opacity convection zone across stars with and without such zones.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the stochastic low-frequency variability of massive main-sequence O- and B-type stars scales systematically with stellar luminosity and evolution, and that its characteristic frequency $\nu_{\rm char}$ matches the predictions of 3-D simulations of subsurface convection in the iron opacity zone. The paper reports significant correlations between spectroscopic luminosity and $\alpha_0$, $\gamma$, RMS, $\nu_{50\%}$, and $w$ across the full sample of 103 stars; $\alpha_0$ and RMS increase for more evolved stars while $\nu_{\rm char}$ and $\nu_{50\%}$ decrease. Against the alternative explanations of surface granulation, internal gravity waves excited by the convective core, and stellar winds, the $\nu_{\rm char}$ comparison favours subsurface convection, with only partial overlap for internal gravity waves and no support from the granulation scaling relations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire luminosity trend and the comparison to simulations assume that the stellar masses taken from published spectral analyses are accurate; if those masses are systematically biased, the spectroscopic luminosities shift and the reported correlations could weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stochastic low-frequency variability is nearly universal among massive O- and B-type stars above $\log L/L_\odot \geq 4$, with 49 of 54 such stars in the Cygnus OB sample showing the signal.
  • Because $\alpha_0$ and RMS increase while $\nu_{\rm char}$ and $\nu_{50\%}$ decrease with evolution, SLF parameters can serve as coarse evolutionary-stage indicators for massive stars.
  • The RMS, $\nu_{50\%}$, and $w$ parameters are much less affected by TESS observing cadence than $\alpha_0$ and $\nu_{\rm char}$, so future surveys with only 10-minute FFI data can still characterize SLF variability reliably.
  • If the $\nu_{\rm char}$ agreement with subsurface-convection simulations holds, TESS flicker observations become a direct probe of convection in the iron opacity zone of massive stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If subsurface convection is the driver, then $\nu_{\rm char}$ should track the thermal timescale of the iron-opacity convection zone; this can be tested directly by computing that timescale from 1-D stellar models for each star in the sample.
  • Because about two-thirds of the stars show negative skewness but the skewness does not correlate with luminosity, photometric skewness alone is unlikely to isolate stellar winds; combining TESS light curves with UV spectroscopy could separate wind and convection contributions.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same RMS/$\nu_{50\%}$/$w$ analysis to the larger LMC and SMC samples with known metallicities, where the predicted absence of iron-opacity convection below certain masses would make the subsurface-convection hypothesis falsifiable.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes stochastic low-frequency (SLF) variability in a new sample of 49 O- and B-type stars in six Cygnus OB associations plus the SMC star AV 232, reanalyzes 53 previously studied SLF variables from Bowman et al. (2020), and characterizes the variability by two methods: a Lorentzian-like fit to the power density spectrum (yielding alpha0, nu_char, gamma, C_W) and a model-independent approach (RMS, nu_50%, width w). The authors report Spearman correlations between these parameters and spectroscopic luminosity, place the stars in spectroscopic Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams, and compare the observed nu_char versus luminosity relation to simulations of sub-surface convection, internal gravity waves, and stellar winds. The central claim is that observed nu_char agrees with predictions from sub-surface convection, thereby identifying the physical origin of the SLF variability.

Significance. If the empirical characterization holds, this is a valuable homogeneous sample addition: it extends SLF variability studies to Cygnus OB associations, demonstrates that the new model-independent parameters (RMS, nu_50%, w) are less cadence-dependent than nu_char and gamma, and strengthens the evidence that SLF variability is common among massive stars and scales with spectroscopic luminosity. The paper is careful in several respects: it details the iterative prewhitening, uses nested-sampling Bayesian fits with a well-justified likelihood, explicitly tests cadence-dependent biases (Appendix C), reports Spearman coefficients with p-values, and makes residual light curves, tables, and figure-reconstruction data publicly available on Zenodo. The main weakness is that the physical-origin conclusion is supported only by a qualitative visual comparison to three simulation points, while the paper itself acknowledges that IGW predictions also fall within the observed parameter range.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sect. 5.3; Fig. 9] The abstract's claim of 'good agreement between the observed nu_char of our sample and predictions from sub-surface convection' is not quantitatively established and is inconsistent with the paper's own discussion. The comparison in Fig. 9 rests on only three simulation points (T42L5.2, T35L5.0, M13TAMS) with no goodness-of-fit or statistical test. Section 5.3 states that the Anders et al. (2023) IGW predictions 'do fall in regions in Fig. 9 that are covered by the observations' and that the rescaled Edelmann et al. (2019) predictions 'approximately spans the observed range in nu_char', and Section 5.2 concedes that the sub-surface convection theory is weak at lower metallicities. The data are therefore degenerate between sub-surface convection and IGW mechanisms. The authors should either add a quantitative discriminator (e.g., a likelihood or residual-based comparison for each mechanism) or soften the abstract and conclusions from 'good agreement' to 'consistent with'.
  2. [Table 1; Abstract] The abstract states that 'nu_char and nu_50% both decrease' for more evolved stars, but in the full sample the Spearman correlation between log L/L_sun and nu_char is r_s = 0.061 with p > 0.05, i.e., statistically insignificant. Only nu_50% shows a significant negative correlation with log L/L_sun (r_s = -0.381). The nu_char trend appears only as a qualitative impression from the colors in the spectroscopic HR diagram (Fig. 6). Please either quantify the nu_char trend separately with an appropriate significance statement or revise the abstract so that the luminosity-correlation claims match the reported statistics in Table 1.
  3. [Sect. 2.4; Appendix C; Tables C1-C2] The sector-averaged values of nu_char used in Figs. 8-9 are obtained by mixing 10-min FFI data and 2-min cadence data for different stars, while the B20 comparison sample is entirely 2-min data. The paper's own cadence test in Appendix C shows that resampling 2-min data to 10-min cadence changes the normalized nu_char by a factor 1.285 +/- 0.87 on average, with a standard deviation sigma(Delta nu_char) = 4.35 microHz (Table C1). This is comparable to the scatter seen in Fig. 9 and could introduce a systematic offset between the Cyg OB and B20 points in the simulation comparison. Please quantify the impact of this cadence mismatch on the reported nu_char values and on the conclusions drawn from Figs. 8-9, or restrict the simulation comparison to a homogeneous-cadence subset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Availability] The text 'Michulski Archive for Space Telescopes' should read 'Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes'.
  2. [Table B2 caption] The caption contains 'he averages' and should read 'The averages'.
  3. [Fig. C3 caption] The caption contains the garbled expression 'w >= w12'; this should likely be 'w >= 12'.
  4. [Sect. 4, Fig. 5] The exclusion of 'one low-luminosity star... a clear outlier' is described only qualitatively; please state the quantitative criterion used for this exclusion and, ideally, show that the reported correlations are robust to including or excluding this star.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The notation in Eq. (7) is ambiguous: the left-hand side is a ratio of spectroscopic luminosities but is written with the same symbol L used for the bolometric luminosity. Please introduce an explicit symbol such as L_spec and state the solar constants explicitly, e.g., L_spec/L_spec,sun = (L/L_sun)(M/M_sun)^(-1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SLF parameters are measured from TESS data and compared to external, un-fitted simulation predictions; self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the data. The amplitude and frequency parameters (alpha0, nu_char, gamma, RMS, nu_50%, w) are either fitted to the observed TESS power density spectra via Eq. (2) or computed directly from the residual light curves via Eqs. (5)-(6); none of these quantities is defined in terms of the simulation predictions that the paper compares against in Figs. 8 and 9. The sub-surface convection predictions (Schultz et al. 2022, 2023b), IGW predictions (Edelmann et al. 2019; Anders et al. 2023; Thompson et al. 2024), and wind predictions (Krticka & Feldmeier 2018, 2021) are published external simulations and are not fitted to this sample, so the agreement claimed for nu_char is not forced by construction. Some of those simulation papers share authors with the present work (Bildsten in Schultz et al.; Pedersen in Edelmann et al.), and the paper cites Pedersen et al. (in prep) for light-curve extraction and prewhitening thresholds, but these citations are not the sole justification of the central claim and do not reduce the observed-versus-predicted comparison to an identity. The paper explicitly concedes that the IGW predictions also fall in regions covered by the observations and that more simulations are needed, which weakens the uniqueness of the sub-surface convection interpretation as a scientific inference but does not constitute circular reasoning. Eq. (7) is an observational luminosity conversion using literature masses and is not a circular restatement of the target result. No circular step can be quoted from the text.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. It fits a standard Lorentzian model with free parameters (alpha0, nu_char, gamma, C_W) to observed power spectra, and it relies on literature stellar parameters and independent hydrodynamical simulations for interpretation. The main assumptions are the Gaussian-noise likelihood, the attenuation correction, the accuracy of published stellar parameters, and the suitability of the Lorentzian profile and the chosen simulations.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha0 (PDS at zero frequency) = log alpha0 ranges from about 3.5 to 8.5 ppm^2/muHz across the sample (Tables A3 and B2)
    Central amplitude parameter of the Lorentzian-like model in Eq. (2). It is fitted to the power density spectrum of each residual light curve and is one of the parameters correlated with luminosity.
  • nu_char (characteristic frequency) = Ranges from about 1 to 75 muHz across the sample
    Characteristic frequency of the red noise from the Lorentzian model. It is the key parameter compared to sub-surface convection predictions and is fitted per sector.
  • gamma (slope) = Ranges from about 1.5 to 4.5
    Slope of the red noise in the Lorentzian model. It is fitted and reported, and it shows a weak correlation with luminosity for the full sample.
  • C_W (white noise level) = log C_W ranges from about 1 to 4 ppm^2/muHz
    White noise floor in the Lorentzian model. It is fitted and used in the detection threshold alpha0/C_W > 10.
  • nu0 = 1.157 muHz (lower frequency cutoff) = Fixed by hand at 1.157 muHz
    Chosen to avoid detrending effects in the PDS. This choice affects which part of the spectrum is modeled and is a hand-set boundary, not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The residual light curve noise is Gaussian in the time domain, so the PDS follows a chi-squared distribution with two degrees of freedom, leading to the log-likelihood in Eq. (4).
    Standard assumption in asteroseismology for fitting power spectra. Invoked in Sect. 2.4 to justify the likelihood function used in the Bayesian fits.
  • domain assumption The power attenuation factor eta(nu) in Eq. (3) correctly accounts for time averaging of high-frequency signals due to TESS exposure times.
    Adopted from Chaplin et al. (2011) and Huber et al. (2022). This correction is applied to the Lorentzian model and is necessary for comparing 30-min, 10-min, and 2-min cadence data.
  • domain assumption The stellar parameters (log Teff, log L, mass M) from Quintana & Wright (2021) for the Cygnus OB stars and from Bouret et al. (2021) for the SMC star are accurate.
    These values are taken directly from the literature and used to place stars in the HR diagram and to convert bolometric to spectroscopic luminosity via Eq. (7). If these masses or luminosities are biased, the correlations could be affected.
  • domain assumption A single Lorentzian-like profile (Eq. 2) adequately models the stochastic low-frequency variability in the PDS.
    The paper follows earlier work (Blomme et al. 2011; Bowman et al. 2020) and does not test alternative models such as broken power laws or multiple components, though it acknowledges in the introduction that other parametrizations exist.
  • domain assumption The sub-surface convection simulations of Schultz et al. (2022, 2023b) provide valid predictions for the characteristic frequency of SLF variability in the studied mass and luminosity range.
    The paper uses three simulated stars (13 and 35 solar masses) to represent the predictions of sub-surface convection. These simulations are independent of the present data, but the transferability to other masses, ages, and metallicities is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic low-frequency variability of 50 massive stars in the Cygnus OB associations and the Small Magellanic Cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32SCL7M2

@misc{pith2026250415861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic low-frequency variability of 50 massive stars in the Cygnus OB associations and the Small Magellanic Cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32SCL7M2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15861}
}
abstract

In recent years, high-precision high-cadence space photometry has revealed that stochastic low frequency (SLF) variability is common in the light curves of massive stars. We use the data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) to study and characterize the SLF variability found in a sample of 49 O- and B-type main-sequence stars across six Cygnus OB~associations and one low-metallicity SMC star AV~232. We compare these results to 53 previously studied SLF variables. We adopt two different methods for characterizing the signal. In the first, we follow earlier work and fit a Lorentzian-like profile to the power density spectrum of the residual light curve to derive the amplitude $\alpha_0$, characteristic frequency $\nu_{\rm char}$, and slope $\gamma$ of the variability. In our second model-independent method, we calculate the root-mean-square (RMS) of the photometric variability as well as the frequency at 50\% of the accumulated power spectral density, $\nu_{50\%}$, and the width of the cumulative integrated power density, $w$. For the full sample of 103 SLF variables, we find that $\alpha_0$, $\gamma$, RMS, $\nu_{50\%}$, and $w$ correlate with the spectroscopic luminosity of the stars. Both $\alpha_0$ and RMS appear to increase for more evolved stars whereas $\nu_{\rm char}$ and $\nu_{50\%}$ both decrease. Finally, we compare our results to 2-D and 3-D simulations of subsurface convection, core-generated internal gravity waves, and surface stellar winds, and find good agreement between the observed $\nu_{\rm char}$ of our sample and predictions from sub-surface convection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15861 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HR diagram showing the position of the 49 SLF variables (circles) and the five stars with the SLF signal below the detection threshold (triangles) from the Cyg OB sample. The symbol of the fifth star is overlapping with one of the other two close ≈ 80 M⊙ stars. The colour of the symbols indicate the TESS magnitude of the star. The zero-age-main-sequence is indicated by the dashed line, while non-rotating MIST evolut… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fractional power attenuation as a function of frequency for 30-min (full blue), 10-min (dashed orange), 200-sec (dot-dashed green), and 2-min (dotted black) cadence sampling. The power density spectrum of the 2-min cadence sector 41 light curve of Gaia EDR3 2059070135632404992 is shown in grey for comparison. and has commonly been used when fitting Lorentzian functions (or Harvey profiles; Harvey 1985) to the granul… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Example residual 10-min cadence FFI light curve of Gaia EDR3 2059070135632404992 from TESS sector 41. Bottom left: Power density spectrum of the residual light curve (grey) and the corresponding best fitting Lorentzian-like model (blue). The red and white noise components are shown in pink and yellow, respectively. Bottom right: Cumulative integrated power density spectrum (grey). An illustration of how the fre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measured RMS of the residual light curves as a function of the TESS magnitude. The RMS is shown independently for each star and each individual TESS sector with available data as filled circles and triangles for the Cyg OB sample. The star symbol represents the SMC sta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured parameters from our two methods of determining the characteristics of the SLF variability shown against the spectroscopic luminosities of the stars. The symbols denote the average parameter estimated calculated for a given star across all sectors and observing…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectroscopic HR diagram showing the full sample of Cyg OB (circles), AV 232 (star), and B20 (diamonds) stars. The colour of the symbols indicate the value of the average estimates of the six parameters 𝛼0, 𝜈char, 𝛾, RMS, 𝜈50% and 𝑤 as indicated by the colour bars. MNR…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inter-parameter correlations between the six parameters 𝛼0, 𝜈char, 𝛾, RMS, 𝜈50% and 𝑤 used to characterize the SLF variability. The symbols indicate the average parameter estimates and the grey bars the observed range in the estimated parameters. The shapes of the symb…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the characteristic frequency (y-axis) of observed red noise as a function of the expected granulation frequency 𝜈gran ∝ 𝑀𝑅−2𝑇 −1/2 eff in solar units (x-axis) and estimates from hydrody￾namical simulations. The full and dashed grey lines show the obs…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between observed characteristic frequency versus spectroscopic luminosity relations (panel a) for the Cyg OB, SMC, and B20 samples and theoretical predictions from numerical simulations of sub￾surface convection and internal gravity waves excited by core con…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: While 66% of the stars show a negative skewness when averaged across all TESS sectors, we find no clear dependence on log L. The lower metallicity SMC star shows a positive skewness. As Krtička & Feldmeier (2018, 2021) predict the signal of the SLF variability caused …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The symphony of pulsations and binarity among massive stars using HERMES spectroscopy and TESS photometry

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An ensemble analysis of 873 O/B stars shows photometric variability in >93%, pulsations in ~82%, and evidence of binarity in at least 14%, including 30 newly discovered eclipsing binaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., 1979, in Conti P

    Abbott D. C., 1979, in Conti P. S., De Loore C. W. H., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 83, Mass Loss and Evolution of O-Type Stars. pp 237--239

    1979

  2. [2]

    C., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...259..282A 259, 282

    Abbott D. C., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...259..282A 259, 282

    doi:10.1086/160166 1982

  3. [3]

    C., Hummer D

    Abbott D. C., Hummer D. G., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294..286A 294, 286

    work page doi:10.1086/163297 1985

  4. [4]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L..33A 806, L33

    Aerts C., Rogers T. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/L33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L..33A 806, L33

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/2/l33 2015

  5. [5]

    Aerts C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty308 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1234A 476, 1234

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty308 2018

  6. [6]

    Aigrain S., Favata F., Gilmore G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...414.1139A 414, 1139

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034039 2004

  7. [7]

    H., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02040-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1228A 7, 1228

    Anders E. H., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02040-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1228A 7, 1228

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02040-7 2023

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Cotton D

    Bailey J., Howarth I. D., Cotton D. V., Kedziora-Chudczer L., De Horta A., Martell S. L., Eldridge C., Luckas P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae548 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..374B 529, 374

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/254.3.404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.254..404B 254, 404

    Balona L. A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/254.3.404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.254..404B 254, 404

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    Blomme R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...533A...4B 533, A4

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Hartman J

    Bouma L. G., Hartman J. D., Bhatti W., Winn J. N., Bakos G. \'A ., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4a7e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..245...13B 245, 13

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Martins F., Hillier D

    Bouret J. C., Martins F., Hillier D. J., Marcolino W. L. F., Rocha-Pinto H. J., Georgy C., Lanz T., Hubeny I., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.134B 647, A134

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Dorn-Wallenstein T

    Bowman D. M., Dorn-Wallenstein T. Z., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.134B 668, A134

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    M., et al., 2018, in PHysics of Oscillating STars

    Bowman D. M., et al., 2018, in PHysics of Oscillating STars. p. 31 ( @eprint arXiv 1811.12930 ), @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1745562

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M., et al., 2019a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0768-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..760B 3, 760

    Bowman D. M., et al., 2019a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0768-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..760B 3, 760

    doi

  11. [19]

    M., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.135B 621, A135

    Bowman D. M., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.135B 621, A135

    doi

  12. [20]

    M., Burssens S., Sim \'o n-D \' az S., Edelmann P

    Bowman D. M., Burssens S., Sim \'o n-D \' az S., Edelmann P. V. F., Rogers T. M., Horst L., R \"o pke F. K., Aerts C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A..36B 640, A36

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Van Daele P., Michielsen M., Van Reeth T., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241012726B p

    Bowman D. M., Van Daele P., Michielsen M., Van Reeth T., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241012726B p. arXiv:2410.12726

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    E., Phillip C., Fleming S

    Brasseur C. E., Phillip C., Fleming S. W., Mullally S. E., White R. L., 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images ( @eprint ascl 1905.007 )

    2019

  15. [23]

    K., Brun A

    Browning M. K., Brun A. S., Toomre J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..512B 601, 512

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Buchner J., 2016, @doi [Statistics and Computing] 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016S&C....26..383B 26, 383

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Buchner J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131j8005B 131, 108005

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Buchner J., 2021, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JOSS....6.3001B 6, 3001

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Burssens S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..81B 639, A81

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..201C 4, 201

    Caldwell D. A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..201C 4, 201

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Cantiello M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...499..279C 499, 279

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Grassitelli L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac03b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915..112C 915, 112

    Cantiello M., Lecoanet D., Jermyn A. S., Grassitelli L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac03b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915..112C 915, 112

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...54C 732, 54

    Chaplin W. J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...732...54C 732, 54

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Elsworth Y., Davies G

    Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., Davies G. R., Campante T. L., Handberg R., Miglio A., Basu S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..946C 445, 946

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...34C 735, 34

    Chen \'e A. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...735...34C 735, 34

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2183D 456, 2183

    Davies G. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2183D 456, 2183

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    O., Moens N., Van der Sijpt C., Verhamme O., Poniatowski L

    Debnath D., Sundqvist J. O., Moens N., Van der Sijpt C., Verhamme O., Poniatowski L. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.177D 684, A177

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317068 , 543, 395

    Deupree R. G., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317068 , 543, 395

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    Z., Levesque E

    Dorn-Wallenstein T. Z., Levesque E. M., Davenport J. R. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab223f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878..155D 878, 155

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Z., Levesque E

    Dorn-Wallenstein T. Z., Levesque E. M., Neugent K. F., Davenport J. R. A., Morris B. M., Gootkin K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902...24D 902, 24

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Duvall T. L. J., Harvey J. W., 1986, in Gough D. O., ed., NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C Vol. 169, Seismology of the Sun and the Distant Stars. pp 105--116

    1986

  34. [42]

    Edelmann P. V. F., Ratnasingam R. P., Pedersen M. G., Bowman D. M., Prat V., Rogers T. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876....4E 876, 4

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Elliott A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4246E 509, 4246

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Feldmeier A., Puls J., Pauldrach A. W. A., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...322..878F 322, 878

    1997

  37. [45]

    Ginsburg A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...98G 157, 98

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..156G 929, 156

    Goldberg J. A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..156G 929, 156

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Handberg R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac09f1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..170H 162, 170

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    235, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics

    Harvey J., 1985, in Rolfe E., Battrick B., eds, ESA Special Publication Vol. 235, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics. p. 199

    1985

  42. [50]

    Herwig F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.1601H 525, 1601

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    E., Bell K

    Higgins M. E., Bell K. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb20c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..141H 165, 141

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Hon M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..131H 919, 131

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P. O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.48550/arXiv.0910.2764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    Huber D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163...79H 163, 79

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., Wilson B. G., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..717I 397, 717

    1992 doi

  49. [57]

    M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J. C., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. p. 99133E, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Anders E

    Jermyn A. S., Anders E. H., Cantiello M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..221J 926, 221

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Jiang Y.-F., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11050105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11..105J 11, 105

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711L..35K 711, L35

    Kallinger T., Matthews J. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...711L..35K 711, L35

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Kallinger T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..41K 570, A41

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Szab \'o G

    Kiss L. L., Szab \'o G. M., Bedding T. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10973.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372.1721K 372, 1721

    2006

  55. [63]

    R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    1995 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kjeldsen H., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635.1281K 635, 1281

    2005 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Kraus M., Ruiz Diaz M

    Kourniotis M., Cidale L. S., Kraus M., Ruiz Diaz M. A., Alberici Adam A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250320860K p. arXiv:2503.20860

    2025 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    Krti c ka J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..75K 594, A75

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Krti c ka J., Feldmeier A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A.121K 617, A121

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Krti c ka J., Feldmeier A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A..79K 648, A79

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Kudritzki R.-P., Puls J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ARA&A..38..613K 38, 613

    2000 doi

  62. [70]

    Lamontagne R., Moffat A. F. J., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AJ.....94.1008L 94, 1008

    1987 doi

  63. [71]

    Lecoanet D., Edelmann P. V. F., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11040089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...89L 11, 89

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Lecoanet D., Quataert E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2363L 430, 2363

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    Lenoir-Craig G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac397d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...79L 925, 79

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    L \'e pine S., Moffat A. F. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514..909L 514, 909

    1999 doi

  67. [75]

    R., Li T., Bi S., Stello D., Zhou Y., White T

    Li Y., Bedding T. R., Li T., Bi S., Stello D., Zhou Y., White T. R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2363L 495, 2363

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    J., 1952, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1952.0060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952RSPSA.211..564L 211, 564

    Lighthill M. J., 1952, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1952.0060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952RSPSA.211..564L 211, 564

    1952

  69. [77]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  70. [78]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  71. [79]

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

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    P., de Mink S

    Ma L., Johnston C., Bellinger E. P., de Mink S. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..196M 966, 196

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    Michel E., Samadi R., Baudin F., Barban C., Appourchaux T., Auvergne M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...495..979M 495, 979

    2009 doi

  74. [82]

    Moffat A. F. J., et al., 2008, in de Koter A., Smith L. J., Waters L. B. F. M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 388, Mass Loss from Stars and the Evolution of Stellar Clusters. p. 29

    2008

  75. [83]

    R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...473..603M 473, 603

    Mokiem M. R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077545 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...473..603M 473, 603

    2007 doi

  76. [84]

    Montalb \'a n J., Schatzman E., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..943M 354, 943

    2000

  77. [85]

    Nardiello D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.3806N 490, 3806

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    Naz \'e Y., Rauw G., Gosset E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5038N 502, 5038

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    Newville M., et al., 2024, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.3.2, Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12785036

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161...62N 161, 62

    Nielsen M. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161...62N 161, 62

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..74P 598, A74

    P \'a pics P. I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..74P 598, A74

    2017 doi

  82. [90]

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

    2011 doi

  83. [91]

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

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

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

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    G., Bell K

    Pedersen M. G., Bell K. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/accc31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165..239P 165, 239

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L...9P 872, L9

    Pedersen M. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L...9P 872, L9

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    Quataert E., Shiode J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423L..92Q 423, L92

    2012

  88. [96]

    L., Wright N

    Quintana A. L., Wright N. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.2370Q 508, 2370

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    L., Wright N

    Quintana A. L., Wright N. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.1224Q 511, 1224

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    Ramiaramanantsoa T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480..972R 480, 972

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    Ramiaramanantsoa T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5921R 490, 5921

    2019 doi

  92. [100]

    R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M. J., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 9143...

    2014 arXiv

  93. [101]

    M., McElwaine J

    Rogers T. M., McElwaine J. N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8d13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L...1R 848, L1

    2017 doi

  94. [102]

    M., Lin D

    Rogers T. M., Lin D. N. C., McElwaine J. N., Lau H. H. B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...21R 772, 21

    2013 doi

  95. [103]

    C., Owocki S

    Runacres M. C., Owocki S. P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...381.1015R 381, 1015

    2002 doi

  96. [104]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  97. [105]

    Schofield M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab04f5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...12S 241, 12

    2019 doi

  98. [106]

    C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac441f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..11S 924, L11

    Schultz W. C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac441f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..11S 924, L11

    2022 doi

  99. [107]

    C., Tsang B

    Schultz W. C., Tsang B. T. H., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945...58S 945, 58

    doi

  100. [108]

    C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdf50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..42S 951, L42

    Schultz W. C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdf50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..42S 951, L42

    doi

  101. [109]

    arXiv:2408.15888

    Serebriakova N., Tkachenko A., Aerts C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240815888S p. arXiv:2408.15888

    2024 doi arXiv

  102. [110]

    Shen D.-X., Zhu C.-H., L \"u G.-L., Lu X.-z., He X.-l., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad71d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..275....2S 275, 2

    2024 doi

  103. [111]

    Spearman C., 1904, The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72

    1904

  104. [112]

    B., Chin C.-W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408L..85S 408, L85

    Stothers R. B., Chin C.-W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408L..85S 408, L85

    1993 doi

  105. [113]

    W., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...77S 809, 77

    Sullivan P. W., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...77S 809, 77

    2015 doi

  106. [114]

    R., Mao H., Denissenkov P., Bowman D

    Thompson W., Herwig F., Woodward P. R., Mao H., Denissenkov P., Bowman D. M., Blouin S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1316T 531, 1316

    2024 doi

  107. [115]

    Tkachenko A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.3093T 438, 3093

    2014 doi

  108. [116]

    Toutain T., Appourchaux T., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...289..649T 289, 649

    1994

  109. [117]

    A., 1966, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112066000661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966JFM....24..307T 24, 307

    Townsend A. A., 1966, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112066000661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966JFM....24..307T 24, 307

    1966 doi

  110. [118]

    P., Vanon R., Edelmann P

    Varghese A., Ratnasingam R. P., Vanon R., Edelmann P. V. F., Rogers T. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...53V 942, 53

    2023 doi

  111. [119]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  112. [120]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    W es M c K inney 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  113. [121]

    arXiv:2405.01405

    Zhang Z., Ren Y., Jiang B., Soszynski I., Jayasinghe T., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240501405Z p. arXiv:2405.01405

    2024 doi arXiv

  114. [122]

    pandas development team T., 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  115. [123]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.