Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries

Francisca Espinoza-Rojas; Jeong Yun Choi; Quentin Copp\'ee; Saskia Hekker

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that most seismically unresolved red-giant binaries should appear as complex, low-power power density spectra, and proposes these as a plausible explanation for observed red giants with unusually messy spectra.

desk verdict A useful template paper for unresolved red-giant binaries; validation gaps are real but the paper stays inside its claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01745 v1 pith:T6K65AKI submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.SR

Jeong Yun Choi , Francisca Espinoza-Rojas , Quentin Coppée , Saskia Hekker This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords asteroseismologyredgiantsbinarystarspowerdensityspectraShannonentropysolar-likeoscillationsclumpunresolvedbinaries

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper predicts what seismically unresolved red-giant binaries—two oscillating stars whose light is blended into one time series—should look like in their power density spectra. The authors build 5,000 artificial binaries by adding real Kepler light curves of red giants with similar oscillation frequencies, then measure each spectrum's peak signal-to-noise ratio and Shannon entropy. They find that most such systems, especially pairs of similar brightness, show partially aligned or misaligned oscillation patterns, which appear as complex power spectra with low oscillation power. The paper proposes that some observed red giants with complex, low-power spectra, which are otherwise hard to explain, may actually be unresolved asteroseismic binaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the artificial asteroseismic binary (AAB), built by flux-weighting and summing two real red-giant light curves with similar oscillation frequencies, so that the combined signal is diluted exactly as it would be by a companion's light. The argument is carried by three tools: Shannon entropy, which measures how evenly power is distributed across the background-normalized spectrum and therefore how complex the oscillation pattern looks; the maximum signal-to-noise ratio, which measures oscillation power; and the alignment of radial ($\ell=0$) and quadrupole ($\ell=2$) mode frequencies between the two components, normalized by the large frequency spacing $\Delta\nu$, which separates the four morphological classes. These quantities turn a qualitative visual impression of messiness into numbers that can be compared across synthetic and observed spectra.

What would settle it

Measure the power density spectra of a sample of red giants classified as showing complex, low-power oscillations and obtain independent evidence--radial-velocity variations, astrometric companions, or resolved imaging--of binarity; if these stars are overwhelmingly single, the proposed explanation loses its support. Conversely, take a sample of dynamically confirmed red-giant binaries and check whether their observed spectra match the AAB morphology classes and the entropy and signal-to-noise trends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries are not merely dimmer copies of single red giants: when both components contribute comparable light, their radial and quadrupole mode frequencies rarely line up, so the combined power density spectrum develops a complex, difficult-to-index pattern. In the 5,000 artificial binaries, about 66% show both higher Shannon entropy and lower maximum signal-to-noise ratio than either component alone, and among the 394 systems with flux ratio greater than or equal to 0.9, 337 fall into the partially aligned or misaligned morphological classes. The authors therefore conclude that unresolved asteroseismic binaries with low oscillation power and high entropy offer a plausible explanation for observed red giants whose power spectra are unusually complex.

Load-bearing premise

The entire template rests on treating an unresolved binary light curve as a flux-weighted sum of two unchanged single-star light curves, ignoring orbital Doppler shifts of the mode frequencies, tidal or interaction effects, and any shared systematics between the two stars' time series.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

About 47% of unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries should be red-clump plus red-clump pairs, so candidates should be sought among stars oscillating near 20-50 microhertz.
Roughly two-thirds of such binaries will show both increased entropy and decreased oscillation power, making low power with high complexity a generic warning sign for unresolved binarity.
Among systems with comparable component brightness, the large majority will be partially aligned or misaligned, so their mode patterns will resist standard single-star asteroseismic analysis.
Frequency-alignment thresholds--below 10% of the average large spacing for aligned, 10-25% for partially aligned, above 25% for misaligned--provide practical cutoffs for screening candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

A practical next step would be to screen observed Kepler red giants in the entropy versus maximum-SNR plane and follow up the high-entropy, low-power outliers for radial-velocity or astrometric binarity.
The same entropy-based classification could be transferred to TESS or PLATO light curves, where unresolved red-giant binaries should show the same morphological signatures.
Including orbital Doppler shifts and tidal distortions in the synthetic light curves might shift the alignment thresholds, so the 10% and 25% cutoffs should be treated as first estimates.
Some stars previously attributed to suppressed dipole modes or other single-star peculiarities may be unresolved binaries, which would change their inferred masses and ages.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this paper is worth a serious referee. It builds 5,000 artificial unresolved red-giant binaries from real KASOC light curves and shows, convincingly, that most of them (about two-thirds) come out with higher Shannon entropy and lower maximum SNR than their single-star components, and that the PDS morphology is usually complex when both components are clearly visible. The RC+RC fraction near 47% matches earlier population predictions. The four-class taxonomy is new and the visual examples are helpful.

The construction has real strengths: flux-weighting to capture dilution is correct, the bootstrap on the 5,000 sample shows the evolutionary-stage fractions are stable, and the paper is honest that observational validation is future work.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. Combining two independently processed light curves by interpolation onto a common epoch is a simplification; a true blend shares one aperture, cadence, and noise realization. That could introduce not-quite-physical beating or miss correlated systematics. But as templates for what unresolved binaries might look like, the approach is reasonable, and the paper does not claim these templates are definitive. The entropy metric uses hand-chosen parameters (SNR threshold of 4, 100 bins, outlier clipping), and the 10%/25% alignment thresholds are post hoc and visually calibrated. Those are legitimate, but they affect the quantitative boundaries more than the qualitative conclusion. I would have liked a null test—e.g., shuffling the pairing or using synthetic single-star PDS to see how often the entropy/SNR trend appears by chance—but comparing AABs to their own components is a sensible baseline and the qualitative trend is clear from Fig. 7.

Where I disagree with a harsher reading: the stress-test note worries that the AAB construction may not reproduce real unresolved binaries. True, but the authors state this limitation explicitly. It is not a load-bearing flaw in a paper whose aim is to predict morphologies, not to prove that observed complex-PDS stars are binaries. The proposed explanation for observed complex-PDS stars is appropriately conditional.

Verdict: serious thinkers, solid method for what it attempts, and useful to anyone hunting for asteroseismic binaries in Kepler or future missions. I would send it to review. I would like to see code and templates released with the revision, and a quick check against KIC 9246715 or HD 176465 would raise confidence. But the paper as it stands deserves a fair conditional accept.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs 5,000 artificial asteroseismic binaries (AABs) by rescaling and summing KASOC light curves of two red giants with similar νmax, then analyzes the background-normalized power density spectra (PDS) using Shannon entropy and maximum SNR. It reports that about 47% of the AABs are composed of two red-clump stars, that about 66% of AABs have increased entropy and decreased maximum SNR relative to their components, and that among the 394 AABs with the most similar component brightness (flux ratio ≥ 0.9), the majority (337/394) are classified as partially aligned or misaligned, i.e., as having complex oscillation patterns. The paper proposes that observed red giants with low oscillation power and high-entropy, complex PDS may be seismically unresolved binaries.

Significance. If the AAB construction faithfully represents real unresolved binaries, the paper provides a useful predictive template and a falsifiable claim: unresolved red-giant binaries with detectable oscillations from both components should predominantly show low-SNR, high-entropy, visually complex PDS. Strengths include the use of real KASOC light curves to build a large synthetic sample, a quantitative entropy-based complexity metric, a transparent four-class morphology scheme, and bootstrap resampling for the evolutionary-stage fractions. The main limitation is that the central conclusion is not yet validated against known unresolved binaries or observed complex-PDS stars, and the quantitative results depend on several empirically chosen parameters. Therefore the significance is moderate and the headline conclusion should be treated as a well-posed hypothesis rather than a demonstrated explanation.

major comments (5)

[Section 3.3] The AAB construction assumes that a real unresolved binary light curve is faithfully represented by a flux-weighted sum of two independently processed, rescaled, and linearly interpolated KASOC light curves. This ignores common-aperture and common-cadence effects, correlated detector noise, orbital Doppler shifts of mode frequencies, tidal or interaction effects, and epoch-dependent blending. The paper does not validate the construction against known unresolved systems such as KIC 9246715 or HD 176465, and Section 5 explicitly defers such comparison to future work. Because the headline results (66% with increased entropy and decreased SNR; the morphology fractions in Table 1) are entirely derived from these AAB templates, this is a load-bearing gap. I ask the authors to add a validation test using a known unresolved binary and to discuss or model the effect of Doppler shifts and common noise on the entropy and morphology results.
[Section 3.2] The entropy values that drive the central quantitative claims depend on several empirically chosen implementation details: the SNR threshold of 4, the 99.95th-percentile clipping of high-SNR peaks, the 100-bin histogram, and the normalization in Eq. (5) that uses max(SNR). The paper does not test whether the reported trends (e.g., ~66% of AABs with higher entropy and lower max SNR; the entropy differences in Fig. A.4) are robust to reasonable variations of these choices, such as SNR thresholds of 3 or 5, different bin counts, or different clipping percentiles. Without such robustness tests, the reader cannot tell whether the entropy-based conclusions are properties of the AAB spectra or artifacts of the chosen metric. I request a sensitivity analysis and, if the numbers change materially, a discussion of the implications for the abstract's claims.
[Section 4.3] The morphological classification into aligned, partially aligned, and misaligned is based on thresholds of about 10% and 25% of the mean Δν for the l=0 and l=2 frequency differences (Fig. 8), but these thresholds are described as having been 'found' and 'confirmed through visual inspection' after the classification. This post hoc threshold selection is circular for the conclusion that most AABs are complex. The authors should define the classification decision rule independently or demonstrate that the fractions in Table 1 are insensitive to the exact threshold values. In addition, the text equates 'flux ratio ≥ 0.9' with 'detectable oscillations from both components,' but detectability depends on intrinsic oscillation amplitudes and SNR, not only on brightness ratio; an explicit detectability criterion or injection-recovery test is needed to support that wording.
[Sections 3.3 and 4.3] The definition of 'flux ratio' is ambiguous and inconsistent between sections. Section 3.3 defines the flux contribution of each star as its flux divided by the combined flux (e.g., 19% and 81% for the example pair), while Section 4.3 selects AABs with 'flux ratios ≥ 0.9' and describes them as having 'similar brightness.' If the quantity is the fainter-to-brighter flux ratio, it is never defined as such, and if it is the fractional contribution introduced in Section 3.3, a value ≥0.9 would correspond to a highly unequal binary rather than a similar-brightness one. This ambiguity prevents the reader from reproducing the selection of the 394 AABs and the results in Table 1. The paper should state the exact formula and use one consistent definition throughout.
[Section 5] The paper's concluding interpretation, that observed stars with complex PDS and low oscillation power 'offer a potential explanation' for unresolved binaries, is explicitly left unvalidated: Section 5 states that comparing AABs with actual observations 'will be crucial' and 'will be presented in future work.' This is an honest limitation, but it means the central claim is not yet supported by observational comparison. I recommend that the authors either restrict the abstract and conclusions to the prediction itself or add a concrete comparison with at least a small sample of known unresolved binaries and observed complex-PDS stars, so that the proposed explanation is tested rather than merely proposed.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'offer a explanation' should read 'offer an explanation' (Abstract and Section 5).
[Section 3.2] The sentence describing peak clipping is ambiguous: 'we removed one or two highest peaks if the SNR is above 99.95th percentile' should specify the exact rule (e.g., remove all peaks above the percentile, or remove the highest one or two depending on how many exceed it).
[Figure 7] The donut-chart convention for entropy and max(SNR) categories is not explained in the caption; the reader cannot tell whether 'H intermediate' means between the two components or some other reference value. A sentence defining each category would help.
[Appendix A] The caption of Fig. A.2 says 'now for the RGB+RC' while the panel labels printed above the figure are 'RC RC RC'; this apparent mismatch should be corrected.
[Section 4.1] The statement that 'flux ratios ... are uniformly distributed, with a median around 0.5' is not quantitatively supported by any histogram in Fig. 5; either state the functional form clearly or refer the reader to the relevant panel.
[References] Reference 'Braun 2022' is cited in Section 5 as a Master's thesis; if this is not peer-reviewed, consider adding a brief description in the text so the reader can assess the source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the AAB forward model, entropy/SNR diagnostics, and morphology classification are self-contained and not reduced to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are predictions from a forward model, not identities. AABs are constructed by flux-weighting and summing independent KASOC light curves (Sect. 3.3 and Fig. 1), and entropy and max(SNR) are then measured on the resulting background-normalized power density spectra (Sect. 3.2). The finding that AABs tend to have higher entropy and lower max(SNR) than their components is an empirical comparison between combined and component spectra, not a parameter fitted to the target phenomenon. The morphology classification is based on radial and quadrupole mode alignment identified with standard asteroseismic methods; the threshold values of 10% and 25% of mean Δν (Sect. 4.3) are post hoc summaries of the alignment distribution in Fig. 8, checked by visual inspection. These thresholds are descriptive and are not used to predict the same data from which they were derived, so they do not constitute a circular reduction. The self-citations (TACO in prep., García Saravia Ortiz de Montellano et al. 2018, Coppée et al. 2024) are methodological or contextual and are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as load-bearing justifications that force the conclusions. The main caveat, that a flux-weighted sum of two independently processed light curves may not capture all real blended-aperture effects, is a physical modeling assumption rather than a circular derivation. No equation equates the conclusion to the construction by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that flux-weighted coaddition of single-star light curves reproduces unresolved binary PDS, on the background model and universal pattern used to normalize and identify modes, and on several hand-chosen thresholds (SNR=4, 100 bins, 10% nu_max match, flux ratio >= 0.9, 10% and 25% alignment cuts). The per-star background parameters are fitted to data and propagate into all entropy and SNR values. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

SNR threshold for entropy selection = 4 (SNR units)
Chosen empirically in Sect. 3.2 to exclude noise peaks; entropy values and the high-entropy classification depend on this threshold.
High-SNR clipping percentile = 99.95th percentile
Used to remove one or two extreme peaks before normalization; changes the normalized SNR distribution and entropy (Sect. 3.2).
Histogram bin count for entropy = 100 bins
Entropy is computed from a 100-bin histogram of normalized SNR; binning affects the entropy estimate (Sect. 3.2).
nu_max similarity criterion = within 10% of average nu_max
Defines which star pairs count as similar frequency range and therefore the AAB sample; changing this changes the population mix (Sect. 3.3).
Flux ratio threshold = >= 0.9
Applied to select AABs where both components should be visible; classification statistics depend on this cutoff (Sect. 4.3).
Alignment classification thresholds = 10% and 25% of mean Delta nu
Derived after visual classification of the same sample; used to assign aligned, partially aligned, and misaligned labels (Sect. 4.3, Fig. 8).
Per-star background and Gaussian envelope parameters = varies per star (w_noise, A_i, b_i, P_g, sigma_env)
Fitted with MCMC and used to background-normalize PDS; incorrect normalization changes SNR and entropy for both single stars and AABs (Sect. 3.1).

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Selected KASOC light curves contain oscillations from only one star after excluding catalogued binaries and Gaia non-single stars.
Stated in Sect. 2; if an unresolved binary contaminates the single-star set, the component and AAB metrics are biased.
domain assumption The three-super-Lorentzian plus white-noise background model of Kallinger et al. (2014) adequately describes the stellar background for all selected red giants.
Invoked in Sect. 3.1.1; a poor background fit would systematically alter normalized SNRs and entropy.
domain assumption The universal oscillation pattern of Mosser et al. (2011) correctly predicts l=0 and l=2 mode frequencies for these red giants.
Used in Sect. 3.1.3 to identify modes and measure Delta nu; failures would bias the alignment classification.
domain assumption Linear interpolation across gaps in the shorter time series does not distort the oscillation signal significantly.
Assumed in Sect. 3.3; interpolation can suppress or alias power and affects the combined PDS.
domain assumption Kepler-band magnitudes provide an adequate flux weighting for photometric dilution.
Used in Sect. 3.3 to compute fractional flux contributions; bandpass and extinction differences are neglected.
domain assumption The visual classification of morphologies in Sect. 4.3 is reliable and the derived thresholds are transferable to observed stars.
The 10% and 25% thresholds are based on the same AABs that were visually classified; no independent validation is provided.
domain assumption The random subset of 5,000 pairs from 517,184 is representative of the population of unresolved binaries.
Stated in Sect. 3.3; bootstrap only checks sampling variance within the selected parent set, not the parent set's representativeness.
domain assumption A real unresolved binary's light curve is equivalent to a flux-weighted sum of two independent single-star light curves, with no orbital phase or frequency modulation, no eclipses, and no correlated noise.
Core construction in Sect. 3.3; if orbital dynamics or systematics change the combined PDS, the templates and morphology fractions may not apply to real binaries.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6K65AKI

@misc{pith2026250601745,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6K65AKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01745}
}

read the original abstract

Asteroseismic binaries are two oscillating stars detected in a single light curve. These systems provide robust constraints on stellar models from the combination of dynamical and asteroseismical stellar parameters. Predictions suggested that approximately 200 asteroseismic binaries may exist among the Kepler long-cadence data, and the majority of them consist of two red-clump stars. However, detecting these systems is challenging when the binary components exhibit oscillations at similar frequencies that are indistinguishable. In this study, we predict the morphologies of power density spectra (PDS) of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries to provide examples that can be used to identify among observed stars. We created 5,000 artificial asteroseismic binary (AAB) systems by combining the KASOC light curves of red giants with oscillations at similar frequency ranges. To quantify the complexity of the oscillation patterns, we used the maximum signal-to-noise ratio of the background-normalized PDS and Shannon entropy. Additionally, we identified the radial and quadrupole mode pairs for the individual binary components and determined their impact on the PDS morphologies of AABs. Our results reveal that the majority of AABs consist of the two red-clump stars. The PDS of AABs generally exhibits increased entropy and decreased oscillation power compared to individual components. We focused on the AABs whose stellar components have similar brightness and classified them into four distinct morphologies: single star-like PDS, aligned, partially aligned, and misaligned. Most AABs with detectable oscillations from both components show complex oscillation patterns. Therefore, unresolved asteroseismic binaries with low oscillation power and complex oscillation patterns as characterized by high entropy offer a potential explanation to understand the observed stars with complex PDS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01745 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Process of creating the light curve of an artificial asteroseismic binary star (AAB) and its power density spectra. Panels a and b: Individual light curves of two red giant stars (KIC 1871314 and KIC 2140446). Panel c: The combined artificial light curve. The shaded light-gray regions indicate areas where data points are not available. Panel d: Power density spectrum of the light curve from panel c. In this panel, t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Power density spectra (PDS) and corresponding histograms of power for two stars with different levels of complexity. The upper panel shows KIC 7949585, which exhibits lower entropy (low complexity), while the lower panel shows KIC 9887555, which has higher entropy (high complexity). The yellow dashed line is the SNR threshold of 4, and the gray dashed line shows maximum SNR of the selected peaks (see detail about ho… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Maximum SNR versus entropy of the background-normalized PDS for 3,212 observed red giant stars, with the y-axis plotted on a logarithmic scale. Known binary stars are shown as gray circle (see Sect. 2 for more details of this set of stars). The panels on the right show the background-normalized PDS corresponding to specific red symbols marked on the left panel. These PDS figures highlight the characteristics assoc… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: νmax distribution of AABs, with various evolutionary stage combinations of binary components. Below each smoothed curve (normalized to the unit area), a box shows the inter-quartile range (the 25th to 75th percentiles), with a black vertical line indicating the median.…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Binary components are characterized by flux ratio, entropy, and the maximum SNR of the background normalized PDS. The upper right panel shows the distribution of flux ratios against the maximum SNR differences, with points color-coded by entropy differences. The adjac…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of maximum SNR (logarithmic scale) and entropy between AABs (star symbols) and their component stars. Histograms along each axis represent the raw counts, with grey dashed lines representing the distributions of all single stars in each panel. 3 4 5 Shanno…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The categorization of the changes in entropy and maximum SNR for AABs compared to their component stars. From left to right, AABs show lower, intermediate, and higher entropy, while from top to bottom, they exhibit higher, intermediate, and lower maximum SNR. The width…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Scaled frequency differences for the radial (l=0) versus quadrupole (l=2) modes of binary components with flux ratio ≥ 0.9. The relative differences (δνℓ = |ν (star1) ℓ − ν (star2) ℓ |) between oscillation modes are normalized by the average ∆ν of the binary components…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: PDS of artificial asteroseismic binaries which represent various morphological types, along with the corresponding PDS of the individual component stars that created them. Gray peaks indicate filtered out peaks in the entropy calculation (see Sect. 3.2). Elsworth et al…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Abt, H. A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 343

1983
[2]

1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

Andersen, J. 1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

1991
[3]

M., Ball, W., et al

Appourchaux, T., Antia, H. M., Ball, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A25

work page 2015
[4]

S., Handberg, R., et al

Audenaert, J., Kuszlewicz, J. S., Handberg, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 209

2021
[5]

& Tkachenko, A

Audenaert, J. & Tkachenko, A. 2022, A&A, 666, A76

2022
[6]

G., Grossmann, D

Beck, P. G., Grossmann, D. H., Steinwender, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A7

2024
[7]

G., Hambleton, K., V os, J., et al

Beck, P. G., Hambleton, K., V os, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A36

work page 2014
[8]

G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al

Beck, P. G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A22

work page 2018

Show all 55 references

[9]

G., Mathur, S., Hambleton, K., et al

Beck, P. G., Mathur, S., Hambleton, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A31

2022
[10]

R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al

Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al. 2011, Nature, 471, 608

2011
[11]

J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

2010
[12]

Braun, T. A. M. 2022, Master’s thesis, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Stud- ies, Germany

2022
[13]

M., Gilliland, R

Brown, T. M., Gilliland, R. L., Noyes, R. W., & Ramsey, L. W. 1991, ApJ, 368, 599

1991
[14]

M., Helmi, A., Mendez, M., Nunez, J

Cincotta, P. M., Helmi, A., Mendez, M., Nunez, J. A., & Vucetich, H. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 582

1999
[15]

M., Mendez, M., & Nunez, J

Cincotta, P. M., Mendez, M., & Nunez, J. A. 1995, ApJ, 449, 231

1995
[16]

L., Huber, D., Bedding, T

Colman, I. L., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3802 Coppée, Q., Müller, J., Bazot, M., & Hekker, S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12692 Duchêne, G. & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

2017 arXiv
[17]

A., et al

Elsworth, Y ., Hekker, S., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4641

2019
[18]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A34 García Saravia Ortiz de Montellano, A., Hekker, S., & Themeßl, N. 2018, MN- RAS, 476, 1470

2013
[19]

L., et al

Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., Rawls, M. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 82

2013
[20]

H., Beck, P

Grossmann, D. H., Beck, P. G., Mathur, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09018

2025 arXiv
[21]

& Lund, M

Handberg, R. & Lund, M. N. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2698

2014
[22]

2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 3

Hekker, S. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 3

2020
[23]

2010, ApJ, 713, L187

Hekker, S., Debosscher, J., Huber, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L187

2010
[24]

L., Elsworth, Y ., et al

Hekker, S., Gilliland, R. L., Elsworth, Y ., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2594

2011
[25]

R., Stello, D., et al

Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 143

2011
[26]

R., Stello, D., et al

Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1607

2010
[27]

2014, A&A, 570, A41

Kallinger, T., De Ridder, J., Hekker, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A41

2014
[28]

2016, AJ, 151, 68

Kirk, B., Conroy, K., Prša, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 68

2016
[29]

& Bedding, T

Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

1995
[30]

Marcadon, F., Appourchaux, T., & Marques, J. P. 2018, A&A, 617, A2

2018
[31]

& Bodensteiner, J

Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 21

2024
[32]

2023, A&A, 671, A53

Matteuzzi, M., Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A53

2023
[33]

S., Miglio, A., et al

Mazzi, A., Thomsen, J. S., Miglio, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.19866

2025 arXiv
[34]

J., Farmer, R., et al

Miglio, A., Chaplin, W. J., Farmer, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 784, L3

2014
[35]

& Di Stefano, R

Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

2017
[36]

J., et al

Mosser, B., Belkacem, K., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, L9

2011
[37]

2017, A&A, 598, A62

Mosser, B., Belkacem, K., Pinçon, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A62

2017
[38]

2012, A&A, 537, A30

Mosser, B., Elsworth, Y ., Hekker, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A30

2012
[39]

2013, A&A, 550, A126

Mosser, B., Michel, E., Belkacem, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A126

2013
[40]

Murphy, S. J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.12659

2018 arXiv
[41]

Murphy, S. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06683

2024 arXiv
[42]

H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al

Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 19

2014
[43]

H., Elsworth, Y

Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y . P., Tayar, J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 32

2018
[44]

H., Zinn, J

Pinsonneault, M. H., Zinn, J. C., Tayar, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00102 Prša, A. 2018, Modeling and Analysis of Eclipsing Binary Stars; The theory and design principles of PHOEBE Prša, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R. W., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 83

2024
[45]

A., Henry, T

Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1

2010
[46]

L., Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., et al

Rawls, M. L., Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 108

2016
[47]

E., de Koter, A., et al

Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

2012
[48]

Shannon, C. E. 1948, The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379

1948
[49]

W., Prša, A., Welsh, W

Slawson, R. W., Prša, A., Welsh, W. F., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 160

2011
[50]

A., & Huber, D

Stello, D., Cantiello, M., Fuller, J., Garcia, R. A., & Huber, D. 2016, PASA, 33, e011 Suárez, J. C. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 953231

2016
[51]

Tauris, T. M. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources

2023
[52]

2018, ApJ, 868, 103

Themessl, N., Hekker, S., Mints, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 103

2018
[53]

2010, A&A Rev., 18, 67

Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Giménez, A. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 67

2010
[54]

R., Benomar, O., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al

White, T. R., Benomar, O., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A82

2017
[55]

R., et al

Yu, J., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 42 Article number, page 10 of 12 Jeong Yun Choi: Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries Appendix A: PDS Morphologies of AABs with different evolutionary stage comb...

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abt, H. A. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 343

1983

[2] [2]

1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

Andersen, J. 1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

1991

[3] [3]

M., Ball, W., et al

Appourchaux, T., Antia, H. M., Ball, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A25

work page 2015

[4] [4]

S., Handberg, R., et al

Audenaert, J., Kuszlewicz, J. S., Handberg, R., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 209

2021

[5] [5]

& Tkachenko, A

Audenaert, J. & Tkachenko, A. 2022, A&A, 666, A76

2022

[6] [6]

G., Grossmann, D

Beck, P. G., Grossmann, D. H., Steinwender, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A7

2024

[7] [7]

G., Hambleton, K., V os, J., et al

Beck, P. G., Hambleton, K., V os, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A36

work page 2014

[8] [8]

G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al

Beck, P. G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A22

work page 2018