Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 152 references

Model Choice Matters for Age Inference on the Red Giant Branch

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 For red giants without a measured mass, the choice of stellar evolution model—not the precision of the data—can change the inferred age by up to 90 percent.

desk verdict Solid, reproducible quantification of a known qualitative effect: when mass is unknown, model choice dominates red-giant age errors, and the paper's specific numbers should be treated as a range diagnostic pending a MIST resolution check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17600 v1 pith:DWR2ZT2N submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Leslie M. Morales , Jamie Tayar , Zachary R. Claytor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords redgiantbranchstellaragesmodelgridsgalacticarchaeologyasteroseismologytheoreticaluncertaintiesequivalentevolutionaryphases
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

Stellar ages cannot be measured; they are inferred by matching observed stars to theoretical model grids, and different grids encode different choices about convection, opacities, abundances, and boundary conditions. This paper shows that for red giant stars the choice of grid matters enormously: when a mass measurement from asteroseismology is available, four widely used grids agree on ages to about 10 percent, but when mass is unknown and must be inferred from temperature, gravity, and luminosity, the same grids disagree by 60 to 90 percent, with the largest offsets near and above the red-giant-branch bump. The result matters because most giants in large spectroscopic and photometric surveys do not have asteroseismic masses, so their published ages carry a model-dependent uncertainty that routinely exceeds the quoted observational error. The paper also offers a practical remedy: treat the spread across grids, computed with the public kiauhoku interpolation package, as a realistic theoretical uncertainty in age inference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a comparison in a common evolutionary-phase coordinate system: kiauhoku resamples each grid's tracks to equivalent evolutionary phases (EEPs), so that the same state of evolution is compared grid-to-grid. The four grids—YREC, MIST, DSEP, and GARSTEC—differ in atmosphere, mixing-length treatment, overshoot, diffusion, opacities, and solar composition, and these differences shift the predicted effective temperature scale along the red giant branch by tens to over a hundred kelvin. The mechanism that converts those temperature shifts into large age differences is the missing mass constraint: without a measured mass, each grid independently solves for the mass that best matches the observed temperature and gravity or luminosity, and a roughly 120 K temperature offset is equivalent to about a 0.1 solar-mass change, which in turn moves inferred ages by tens of percent. The region of maximal disagreement is the RGB bump, where the luminosity of the bump itself shifts between grids because of different convective-overshoot prescriptions.

What would settle it

Take the APOKASC-3 giants with asteroseismic masses and compare each grid's mass predicted from spectroscopic temperature, gravity, and metallicity against the true masses: if the real masses are consistently captured by one grid's temperature scale rather than spread across all four, the grid-to-grid age spread overestimates the true model uncertainty. Alternatively, recompute the spectroscopy-only offsets with full-resolution MIST tracks; if the roughly 90 percent offsets beyond the RGB bump shrink or shift by more than about 10 percentage points relative to the downsampled EEP tracks, the headline numbers are partly an artifact of MIST's public resolution rather than pure physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for red giant stars, the choice of stellar evolution model grid is a first-order, usually unquantified source of age uncertainty, and that its size is set by whether the star's mass is known. Resampling the YREC, MIST, DSEP, and GARSTEC grids into a common evolutionary-phase coordinate system, the authors find that when mass, metallicity, and surface gravity are all supplied, the four grids agree on age to a mean of roughly 10 percent (9 to 12 percent depending on metallicity). When mass is removed and age is instead inferred from spectroscopic or photometric observables, grid-to-grid differences reach about 60 percent before the red-giant-branch bump and roughly 90 percent above it in the synthetic demonstrations, with mean offsets of 51 to 69 percent; applying the same procedure to the APOKASC-3 sample gives mean offsets of 77 to 83 percent using spectroscopic parameters and 42 to 57 percent using Gaia photometry. Comparison with Monte Carlo error propagation shows that model choice exceeds the observational error budget for most giants in the spectroscopy-only case and for giants cooler than about 4900 K in the Gaia case. The paper concludes by proposing that the inter-grid age spread be adopted as a theoretical uncertainty term in age inference, so that catalog ages reflect the model dependence explicitly.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the four grids, resampled onto a common evolutionary-phase grid, truly span the range of physically plausible model predictions at every point of the red giant branch—including the region near the RGB bump where MIST is only available at downsampled resolution, so the claimed offsets could partly be numerical artifacts of the resampling rather than physical model differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the majority of observed giants that lack asteroseismic masses, single-grid ages carry an implicit model-dependent error of order 50 to 90 percent, and galaxy-archaeology catalogs built from those ages inherit that as a systematic bias.
  • Multi-grid averaging with the grid-to-grid spread as the error, as the paper proposes, roughly doubles or triples the quoted age uncertainty for spectroscopic-only samples, making the uncertainty budget honest rather than optimistic.
  • Because the offsets grow with decreasing surface gravity and with distance from solar metallicity, studies of the most luminous giants and of metal-poor halo populations are the ones most in need of this correction.
  • The pattern of offsets as a function of the observable set indicates that luminosity-based coordinates (photometric or astrometric) produce smaller, though still large, model dependence than surface-gravity-based coordinates, so analyses should tailor uncertainty prescriptions to their specific observable set.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The uncertainty floor the paper establishes is set by its four grids; a grid with substantially different physics (rotation, magnetic braking, alternative convective models) could widen the quoted spread, so the 90 percent figure is best read as a floor on model-choice error, not the full range of plausible stellar physics.
  • The largest offsets concentrate at the RGB bump, the luminosity of which the paper notes shifts between grids because of convective-overshoot treatment; this suggests a testable physics discriminator, since observed bump luminosities across metallicity could favor one overshoot prescription over another.
  • A natural extension is to run the same multi-grid pipeline on subgiant stars, where age correlates tightly with luminosity and model agreement is expected to be better; mapping where the offsets start rising would identify the precise evolutionary stage at which model choice begins to dominate.
  • The grid-by-grid mass comparison against asteroseismic masses could be turned into an empirical ranking of the grids' temperature scales; the paper refrains from endorsing any single grid, but the data products it releases make such a ranking straightforward.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares age estimates for red giants inferred from four common stellar evolution grids (YREC, MIST, DSEP, GARSTEC) using the kiauhoku EEP-interpolation package. For synthetic stars with known mass, metallicity, and surface gravity, the maximum fractional age offset among grids is small, with mean offsets of 9–12%; when mass is not known and age is inferred from spectroscopic observables (effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity) or Gaia photometric observables (luminosity, effective temperature, metallicity), maximum offsets grow to roughly 60–90% and are largest after the RGB bump. The same pattern appears in an APOKASC-3 sample of about 4,300 giants: asteroseismic input gives mean grid-to-grid offsets of 5–9%, spectroscopic input gives 77–83%, and Gaia input gives 42–57%. The paper argues that model choice, not observational precision, dominates the age error budget for red giants without mass constraints and recommends adding a multi-grid theoretical uncertainty; it releases the resampled grids on Zenodo and a Jupyter notebook for reproduction.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are secure, the paper addresses an important practical problem: red giant ages used in Galactic archaeology are often derived without direct mass measurements, and the paper shows that the choice among standard grids can matter more than measurement error. The qualitative finding is robust across synthetic grids and the APOKASC-3 sample, and the use of open-source interpolation, published grids, and a reproducible notebook is a real strength. I see no circularity concern, since the multi-grid spread is an output of the comparison rather than a fitted target. The quantitative headline values and the proposed uncertainty recipe are not yet secure, however, because the grids are compared at unequal EEP resolution and the central statistic is a maximum across four grids; these issues do not negate the central argument but require validation or reinterpretation before the 80–90% numbers can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, §2.2.2, Figures 3 and 4] The comparison is not at equal EEP fidelity. The text states that YREC, DSEP, and GARSTEC tracks were resampled with additional EEPs at the late end, while MIST is used only at the default downsampled EEP resolution because full-resolution tracks are not publicly available. No test is reported that MIST's default EEP spacing resolves the RGB bump and the rapid ascent to the tip, which are precisely the regions where Figures 3 and 4 place the maximum age offsets (≈60–90%) and where Section 5.2's multi-grid spread is calibrated. If kiauhoku's interpolation across a coarse EEP interval smooths the bump/tip structure in Teff–logg–L, MIST's inferred masses and ages acquire a numerical error, and because the headline statistic is the maximum across only four grids, a single grid's resampling artifact can set the headline value. I ask for a validation: compare MIST default-EEP and full-resolution or artificially EEP-densified tracks over the RGB, and show that the maximum-offset regions are not dominated by EEP-spacing differences; if full-resolution MIST is truly unavailable, the 80–90% claims and the Section 5.2 prescription should be explicitly downgraded to illustrative.
  2. [§3.3–3.4, Figures 3 and 4] The headline statistic is the maximum fractional offset among four grids. A maximum over N=4 grids is a noisy and upward-biased estimator of model uncertainty, and the reported means are substantially lower than the maxima: mean offsets are 57–74% in Figure 4 and 77–83% in the APOKASC-3 spectroscopic case, while the maxima reach ≈90%. The paper should report the full distribution of offsets, including per-grid pairwise differences and median/percentile spreads, and the Section 5.2 uncertainty recipe should be defined with a robust statistic rather than the maximum, otherwise the proposed uncertainties inherit the fragility of a four-grid maximum.
  3. [§4.1.2, Figures 7 and A.2] The APOKASC-3 spectroscopic comparison mixes two different comparisons. The grid-versus-grid offsets in Figure 7 are computed with each grid interpolating from the same spectroscopic parameters, which is appropriate, but the grid-versus-catalog offsets in Figure A.2 compare each grid to ages from the APOKASC-3 variant of GARSTEC, so the GARSTEC row is a code-variant comparison and the average values (37%, 100%, 45%, 67%) depend on this variant choice. The text acknowledges this, but the 15 Gyr exclusion also interacts with GARSTEC's hotter temperature scale, and the reported sensitivity (mean offset decreases to 66% when all GARSTEC stars with ages above 15 Gyr are removed) shows that the mean is not stable under a small selection change. Please report the spectroscopic grid-versus-grid offsets after removing the GARSTEC-variant complication, or present a sensitivity analysis over the exclusion threshold.
  4. [§5.2] The paper describes a method for including theoretical uncertainties but gives no concrete prescription in the text. It states that age inference uncertainties should at a minimum account for the variation across multiple grids and points to a notebook, but it does not specify how to combine the per-grid ages into a point estimate and uncertainty (for example, mean and standard deviation, median and percentile range, or maximum spread), how to handle grids that fail to converge, or when the theoretical term should be added in quadrature to the observational term. Add a section with a precise algorithm so that the claimed deliverable is reproducible from the text alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusions, bullet 2] The second bullet says 'reaching a mean offset of 90%', but the reported means are 57–74% in the synthetic runs and 77–83% in the APOKASC-3 spectroscopic case; 90% is a maximum, so the bullet should distinguish 'mean' from 'maximum'.
  2. [Figure 9 caption] The caption's second metallicity interval is printed as '−0.5 < [Fe/H] < −0.'; it should read '−0.5 < [Fe/H] < −0.1'.
  3. [§3.3] The text says model differences reach ≈90% after the bump, while the Figure 3 caption says the mean age offset increases to 80% beyond the bump; the quantity being quoted (mean versus pointwise maximum) should be made consistent in both places.
  4. [§2.2.2] The statement that the MIST website 'only provides the downsampled EEP tracks' should include the version and date accessed, since the availability of full-resolution tracks is part of the reproducibility record and the distribution could change.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claim is an inter-grid comparison, and the proposed uncertainty is the measured spread of independent published grids rather than a fitted or self-cited target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that different published stellar model grids infer substantially different ages when mass is not known, with offsets reaching 60-90%. This claim is not derived from any parameter fitted to the target result; it is a direct comparison of four grids (YREC, MIST, DSEP, GARSTEC), three of which are external to the authors and all of which are published independently. The proposed 'theoretical uncertainty' in Section 5.2 is defined as the multi-grid spread itself, which is a measurement or prescription rather than a prediction that reduces to its inputs. No self-defined quantity is used to predict itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations present (kiauhoku, Tayar et al. 2022 YREC grid, Pinsonneault et al. 2025 APOKASC-3) are normal citations to code and prior work; they do not invoke a uniqueness theorem, forbid alternatives, or smuggle in an ansatz. The MIST default-resolution caveat in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 is a legitimate fidelity concern about whether the coarse EEP spacing distorts the comparison near the RGB bump, but that is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity. Because the argument does not require any particular grid to be correct and uses external grids as independent evidence, there is no circular step.

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

The central claim is a comparison of existing model grids, so the paper introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The inputs that shape the result are the selection of four grids, the EEP interpolation scheme, adopted observational uncertainties from the literature, and threshold choices such as the 15 Gyr exclusion. These are cataloged as domain assumptions rather than free parameters because none is fitted to the paper's target result.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The EEP-resampled tracks in kiauhoku preserve each grid's native age-mass-temperature relation at the sampled resolution.
    Section 2.1 relies on EEP interpolation without showing that the resampled MIST tracks (at default resolution) reproduce the full-resolution MIST predictions near the RGB bump and tip.
  • domain assumption The four chosen grids span the range of physically plausible model assumptions relevant to the red giant branch.
    Section 2.2 selects four grids and explicitly notes that other grids exist; the claimed uncertainty range is bounded by this selection.
  • domain assumption For a red giant of fixed mass and composition, age is determined mainly by main-sequence lifetime, so mass is the dominant constraint on age.
    Used in Section 5.1 to interpret agreement when mass is known; this is standard stellar evolution theory but is not demonstrated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model Choice Matters for Age Inference on the Red Giant Branch." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWR2ZT2N

@misc{pith2026250417600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model Choice Matters for Age Inference on the Red Giant Branch},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWR2ZT2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17600}
}
abstract

Galactic archaeology relies on accurate stellar parameters to reconstruct the galaxy's history, including information on stellar ages. While the precision of data has improved significantly in recent years, stellar models used for age inference have not improved at a similar rate. In fact, different models yield notably different age predictions for the same observational data. In this paper, we assess the difference in age predictions of various widely used model grids for stars along the red giant branch. Using open source software, we conduct a comparison of four different evolution grids and we find that age estimations become less reliable if stellar mass is not known, with differences occasionally exceeding $80\%$. Additionally, we note significant disagreements in the models' age estimations at non-solar metallicity. Finally, we present a method for including theoretical uncertainties from stellar evolutionary tracks in age inferences of red giants, aimed at improving the accuracy of age estimation techniques used in the galactic archaeology community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. the four different evolutionary tracks for a 1M⊙ star, showing how luminosity varies with ef￾fective temperature at solar metallicity. Examining this case, we observe that the tracks do not align, resulting in a temperature difference of ≈ 120 K at a luminosity of 20L⊙. Within a single model grid, a 0.1M⊙ change in mass typically results in a tem￾perature shift of around 30 K, suggesting that a ≈ 120 K offset could … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass vs. log(g): Maximum fractional offset in age between model grids for mass range 0.6 − 1.9M⊙ and surface gravity range log(g) = 0.0 − 3.5 for metallicities [Fe/H] = [−1.0, −0.5, 0.0, +0.5]. The black dotted line represents the tip of the giant branch for each mass track. The mean offset in age between models for each metallicity is 9.4%, 11.1%, 12.0%, and 10.4%, respectively. This indicates that age estimations … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective Temperature vs. Surface gravity: Maximum fractional offset in age between model grids for temperature range Teff = 3000 − 5500K and sur￾face gravity range log(g) = 0.0 − 3.5 for metallicities [Fe/H] = [−1.0, −0.5, 0.0, +0.5]. The black dashed line in￾dicates the average position of the RGB bump across all grids. The mean age offset reaches up to 60% before the bump and increases to 80% beyond the bump for … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass vs surface gravity for RGs in the APOKASC-3 sample. We show the maximum frac￾tional offset in age between the model grids organized by metallicity. When interpolating with mass as a known value, this sample is consistent with our previ￾ous demonstrations, where th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum fractional offset between grids us￾ing spectroscopic information from APOKASC-3. We found significant mean offsets across all metallicity regimes to be 80%, 77%, 83%, and 80% for metallic￾ity regimes −1.0 < [Fe/H] < −0.5, −0.5 < [Fe/H] < −0.1, −0.1 < [Fe/H] < +…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of observational error to theo￾retical error resulting from model choice for our spec￾troscopic interpolation of the APOKASC-3 sample. Our results show that, for the majority of giants, the theoret￾ical error due to model choice exceeds the observational err…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximum fractional offset between grids using photometric information from APOKASC-3. We found significant mean offsets to be 42%, 47%, 53%, and 57% for metallicity regimes −1.0 < [Fe/H] < −0.5, −0.5 < [Fe/H] < −0., −0.1 < [Fe/H] < +0.1, and +0.1 < [Fe/H] < +0.5, respe…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of observational error to the￾oretical error resulting from model choice using photo￾metric information from the APOKASC-3 sample. The observational error is found by perturbing the luminos￾ity, metallicity, and effective temperature by ±15%, ±1σ, and ±102 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Austin, S

    Adelberger, E. G., Austin, S. M., Bahcall, J. N., et al. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1265, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1265

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.70.1265 1998

  2. [2]

    G., García, A., Robertson, R

    Adelberger, E. G., García, A., Robertson, R. G. H., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 195, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.195

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.195 2011

  3. [3]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [4]

    1978, ApJ, 226, 1034, doi: 10.1086/156681

    Alastuey, A., & Jancovici, B. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1034, doi: 10.1086/156681

    doi:10.1086/156681 1978

  5. [5]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 678, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346666

    Anders, F., Gispert, P., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346666

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346666 2023

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V. 2023, ApJS, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  8. [8]

    2018, A&A, 616, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732516

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732516

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732516 2018

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    1999 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    2009

  3. [11]

    Aumer, M., & Binney, J. J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1286, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15053.x

    2009

  4. [12]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464, doi: 10.1086/367639 —. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167, doi: 10.1086/519295

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Däppen, W., Morel, P., et al

    Baturin, V. A., Däppen, W., Morel, P., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731248

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad094

    Binney, J., & Vasiliev, E. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad094

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZA, 46, 108

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Lane, R. R. 2023, ApJ, 959, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf9a5

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Casanova, V., & Tobaruela, Á

    Casal, E., Fernández, M., Alfaro, E. J., Casanova, V., & Tobaruela, Á. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2562, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2093

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, A&A, 629, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935282

    Casali, G., Magrini, L., Tognelli, E., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935282

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2013, Old Stellar Populations: How to Study the Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation

    Cassisi, S., & Salaris, M. 2013, Old Stellar Populations: How to Study the Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation

    2013

  13. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    Cehula, J., & Pejcha, O. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Nelan, J

    Chaboyer, B., Fenton, W. H., Nelan, J. E., Patnaude, D. J., & Simon, F. E. 2001, ApJ, 562, 521, doi: 10.1086/323872

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    Chaboyer, B., & Kim, Y.-C. 1995, ApJ, 454, 767, doi: 10.1086/176529

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    1917a, MNRAS, 77, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.540 —

    Chapman, S. 1917a, MNRAS, 77, 540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.540 —. 1917b, MNRAS, 77, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/77.7.539

    doi

  17. [25]

    2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304179120

    Chen, D.-C., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., et al. 2023, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 120, e2304179120, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304179120

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac435

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., & Ting, Y.-S. 2018, ApJ, 860, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac435

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1656

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1656

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    C., & Joyce, M

    Cinquegrana, G. C., & Joyce, M. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 77, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac6611

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2007, A&A, 475, 1019, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078024

    Claret, A. 2007, A&A, 475, 1019, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078024

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, A&A, 592, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628779

    Claret, A., & Torres, G. 2016, A&A, 592, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628779

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Santos, Â. R. G., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 888, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c24 —. 2020b, kiauhoku: Stellar model grid interpolation, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2011.027

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Magee, N

    Colgan, J., Kilcrease, D. P., Magee, N. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 116, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/116

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    P., & Giuli, R

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

    1968

  29. [37]

    2024, A&A, 689, A243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449534

    Pietrinferni, A. 2024, A&A, 689, A243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449534

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 15

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    Das, P., & Sanders, J. L. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 294, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2776 Daszyńska-Daszkiewicz, J., Walczak, P., Pamyatnykh, A., Szewczuk, W., & Niewiadomski, W. 2023, ApJL, 942, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade2

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, Physics Letters B, 844, 138093, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138093

    De-Leon, H., & Gazit, D. 2023, Physics Letters B, 844, 138093, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138093

    2023

  33. [41]

    J., & Belokurov, V

    Deason, A. J., & Belokurov, V. 2024, NewAR, 99, 101706, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101706 Dell’Omodarme, M., Valle, G., Degl’Innocenti, S., & Prada Moroni, P. G. 2012, A&A, 540, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118632

    2024

  34. [42]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

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

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremović, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/698

    Dotter, A., Sarajedini, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 698, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/698

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, A&A, 652, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141222

    Eggenberger, P., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141222

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J., et al

    Feuillet, D. K., Bovy, J., Holtzman, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/40

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    G., & Steffen, M

    Freytag, B., Ludwig, H. G., & Steffen, M. 1996, A&A, 313, 497 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    1996 doi

  43. [51]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150608

    Gallart, C., Zoccali, M., & Aparicio, A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150608

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    2015, A&A, 577, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525660

    Gallet, F., & Bouvier, J. 2015, A&A, 577, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525660

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, A&A, 542, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118340

    Georgy, C., Ekström, S., Meynet, G., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118340

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    2013, A&A, 558, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322178

    Georgy, C., Ekström, S., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322178

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    H., et al

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

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Khovritchev, M

    Gontcharov, G. A., Khovritchev, M. Y., & Mosenkov, A. V. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1694

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Bonatto, C

    Gontcharov, G. A., Bonatto, C. J., Ryutina, O. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3134

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abebdf

    Gossage, S., Dotter, A., Garraffo, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abebdf

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, A&A, 690, A315, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449543

    Gozaliasl, G., Finoguenov, A., Babul, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A315, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449543

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Cooper, M. S. 1973, ApJ, 181, 457, doi: 10.1086/152062

    1973 doi

  53. [61]

    1993, in In: Origin and Evolution of the elements

    Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, in In: Origin and Evolution of the elements. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:116690371

    1993

  54. [62]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  55. [63]

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

    Groh, J. H., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833720

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    H., & Schlaufman, K

    Hamer, J. H., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2022, AJ, 164, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac69ef

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    H., Allard, F., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999a, ApJ, 512, 377, doi: 10.1086/306745

    doi

  58. [66]

    Alexander, D. R. 1999b, ApJ, 525, 871, doi: 10.1086/307954

    doi

  59. [67]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2024, ApJ, 971, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58de

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    M., Lindegren, L., Feltzing, S., Church, R

    Howes, L. M., Lindegren, L., Feltzing, S., Church, R. P., & Bensby, T. 2019, A&A, 622, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833280

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752, doi: 10.1086/172958 —. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    1993 doi

  63. [71]

    2004, A&A, 420, 625, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040981

    Imbriani, G., Costantini, H., Formicola, A., et al. 2004, A&A, 420, 625, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040981

    2004 doi

  64. [72]

    Irwin, A. W. 2004, The FreeEOS Code for Calculating the Equation of State for Stellar Interiors I: An Improved EFF-Style Approximation for the Fermi-Dirac Integrals. http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/eff_fit.pdf Ivezić, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, d...

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

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

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Miglio, A., et al

    Khan, S., Hall, O. J., Miglio, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf90

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    2002, ApJ, 567, 643, doi: 10.1086/338384

    Kunz, R., Fey, M., Jaeger, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 643, doi: 10.1086/338384

    2002 doi

  69. [77]

    1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 18

    Kurucz, R. 1993, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, 18

    1993

  70. [78]

    C., Reylé, C., & Nasello, G

    Lagarde, N., Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., & Nasello, G. 2017, A&A, 601, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630253

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Schaefer, G

    Lam, R., Sandquist, E. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accddb

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13207

    Li, Y., & Joyce, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13207

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Ong, J

    Lindsay, C. J., Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67ed

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    2021, AJ, 161, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6

    Kiman, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6

    2021 doi

  75. [83]

    2021, A&A, 646, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039441

    Lucertini, F., Nardiello, D., & Piotto, G. 2021, A&A, 646, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039441

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    MacDonald, J., & Mullan, D. J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 3084, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20531.x

    2012

  77. [85]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971 Miller Bertolami, M

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142971 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2023, ApJ, 943, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acac8a

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    Moedas, N., Deal, M., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B. 2022, A&A, 666, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243210

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

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

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    M., Sandquist, E

    Morales, L. M., Sandquist, E. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7329

    2022 doi

  81. [89]

    J., Groh, J

    Murphy, L. J., Groh, J. H., Ekström, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2745, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3803

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    M., Schlaufman, K

    Nataf, D. M., Schlaufman, K. C., Reggiani, H., & Hahn, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18307

    2024 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    1965 doi

  84. [92]

    W., Rix, H

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

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244166 Nordström, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 989, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    A., Pinsonneault, M

    Patton, R. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., Cao, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae074

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    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

  88. [96]

    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

  89. [97]

    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

  90. [98]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    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

  92. [100]

    2010, A&A, 522, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015065

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., & Salaris, M. 2010, A&A, 522, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015065

    2010 doi

  93. [101]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267

    Pietrinferni, A., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2065, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3267

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    Pietrinferni, A., Hidalgo, S., Cassisi, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5

    2021 doi

  95. [103]

    1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    1989 doi

  96. [104]

    H., Zinn, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Zinn, J. C., Tayar, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef

    2025 doi

  97. [105]

    Pradhan, A. K. 2024, MNRAS, 527, L179, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad154

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1650

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

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    J., & Nayfonov, A

    Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002a, ApJ, 576, 1064, doi: 10.1086/341894 —. 2002b, ApJ, 576, 1064, doi: 10.1086/341894

    doi

  100. [108]

    J., Swenson, F

    Rogers, F. J., Swenson, F. J., & Iglesias, C. A. 1996, ApJ, 456, 902, doi: 10.1086/176705

    1996 doi

  101. [109]

    Roxburgh, I. W. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/130.3.223

    1965 doi

  102. [110]

    2021, PhD thesis, University of Lund, Sweden

    Sahlholdt, C. 2021, PhD thesis, University of Lund, Sweden

    2021

  103. [111]

    L., & Lindegren, L

    Sahlholdt, C. L., & Lindegren, L. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab034

    2021 doi

  104. [112]

    2005, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 2005, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations

    2005

  105. [113]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 5197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3359

    Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., Pietrinferni, A., & Hidalgo, S. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3359

    2022 doi

  106. [114]

    P., & Pietrinferni, A

    Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., Schiavon, R. P., & Pietrinferni, A. 2018, A&A, 612, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732340

    2018 doi

  107. [115]

    2002, PASP, 114, 375, doi: 10.1086/342498 17

    Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., & Weiss, A. 2002, PASP, 114, 375, doi: 10.1086/342498 17

    2002 doi

  108. [116]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580, doi: 10.1086/173105

    1993 doi

  109. [117]

    2015, A&A, 583, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526951

    Cassisi, S. 2015, A&A, 583, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526951

    2015 doi

  110. [118]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1954, Australian Journal of Physics, 7, 373, doi: 10.1071/PH540373

    1954 doi

  111. [119]

    L., Buckner, A

    Sandquist, E. L., Buckner, A. J., Shetrone, M. D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9c59

    2023 doi

  112. [120]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Sarajedini, A. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 258, The Ages of Stars, ed. E. E. Mamajek, D. R. Soderblom, & R. F. G. Wyse, 221–232, doi: 10.1017/S1743921309031871

    2009 doi

  113. [121]

    C., & Schwarzschild, M

    Saslaw, W. C., & Schwarzschild, M. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1468, doi: 10.1086/148430

    1965 doi

  114. [122]

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713, doi: 10.1086/192204

    1995 doi

  115. [123]

    C., & Winn, J

    Schlaufman, K. C., & Winn, J. N. 2013, ApJ, 772, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/143

    2013 doi

  116. [124]

    Seaton, M. J. 2005, MNRAS, 362, L1, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.00019.x

    2005

  117. [125]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 3645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts648

    Casagrande, L. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts648

    2013 doi

  118. [126]

    G., Yusof, N., et al

    Sibony, Y., Shepherd, K. G., Yusof, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450180 Silva Aguirre, V., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Cassisi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A164, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935843

    2024 doi

  119. [127]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  120. [128]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806

    2010 doi

  121. [129]

    Brewer, J. M. 2017, ApJ, 838, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa661d

    2017 doi

  122. [130]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  123. [131]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc

    2022 doi

  124. [132]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ab

    Tayar, J., & Joyce, M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ab

    2022 doi

  125. [133]

    Tayar, J., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2018, ApJ, 868, 150

    2018

  126. [134]

    H., et al

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

    2017 doi

  127. [135]

    2017, A&A, 602, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628141

    Thomas, R., Le Fèvre, O., Scodeggio, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628141

    2017 doi

  128. [136]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea5

    Ting, Y.-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, ApJ, 878, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1ea5

    2019 doi

  129. [137]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Tognelli, E., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2011, A&A, 533, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913913

    2011 doi

  130. [138]

    Forbes, D. A. 2024, A&A, 687, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348010

    2024 doi

  131. [139]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2013a, A&A, 549, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220069 —. 2013b, A&A, 554, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321142 —. 2014a, A&A, 561, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322210 —. 2014b, A&A, 567, A133, doi: 10...

    doi

  132. [140]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2018, A&A, 619, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833928 van de Sande, J., Scott, N., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 483, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0436-x van Saders, J. L., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Barbieri, M. 2019, ApJ, 8...

    2018 doi

  133. [141]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    Casagrande, L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    2013 doi

  134. [142]

    2008, ApJ, 675, 746, doi: 10.1086/521600

    Gustafsson, B. 2008, ApJ, 675, 746, doi: 10.1086/521600

    2008 doi

  135. [143]

    A., Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J

    VandenBerg, D. A., Richard, O., Michaud, G., & Richer, J. 2002, ApJ, 571, 487, doi: 10.1086/339895

    2002 doi

  136. [144]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  137. [145]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad262

    Wang, K., Mo, H., Li, C., & Chen, Y. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad262

    2023 doi

  138. [146]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 99, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9606-5

    Weiss, A., & Schlattl, H. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 99, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9606-5

    2008 doi

  139. [147]

    2005, A&A, 441, 1129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053084

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2005, A&A, 441, 1129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053084

    2005 doi

  140. [148]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

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

    2022 doi

  141. [149]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513 18

    2000 doi

  142. [150]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3204

    Yu, J., & Liu, C. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3204

    2018 doi

  143. [151]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 2814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac230

    Yusof, N., Hirschi, R., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac230

    2022 doi

  144. [152]

    2024, A&A, 683, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347994 19 APPENDIX A

    Zhang, M., Wu, F., Bu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347994 19 APPENDIX A. APOKASC-3 A.1. Age inference Using Asteroseismic Data Figure A.1. Mass vs surface gravity for red giants in the APOKASC-3 sample. We show the offset between APOKASC-3 ages a...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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