Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Implications of a turbulent convection model for classical Cepheids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 is trying to establish that a non-local turbulent convection model can produce Cepheid blue loops and match observed masses, radii, luminosities, and temperatures of five binary Cepheids without fine-tuning, doing so as well as…

desk verdict A transparent, competent first application of the Kuhfuss TCM to Cepheid evolution, whose 'no fine-tuning' claim overstates what a single alpha_omega calibration can support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04759 v1 pith:2TUPJ24D submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.SR

M. Deka , F. Ahlborn , T. A. M. Braun , A. Weiss This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords convectionturbulentmodelovershootingCepheidsblueloopscoreheliumburningstellarevolutionCepheidmassdiscrepancy
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

Classical mixing-length theory (MLT), the standard local treatment of convection in stellar models, fails to produce the blue loops that lower-mass Cepheids need, and fixes this by adding overshooting with a strength fitted to observations. The paper claims that a non-local, hydrodynamically derived one-equation turbulent convection model (TCM1) produces overshooting and blue loops directly from its equations, without any ad-hoc overshoot parameter, and without re-tuning its parameters for the five Cepheid systems examined. This matters because if true, Cepheid evolution and the long-standing Cepheid mass discrepancy can be modelled with a more physical convection theory, and the temperature gradient in the overshooting region becomes a prediction rather than an assumption. Comparing TCM1 tracks with MLT tracks, with and without overshooting, and with observations of five Cepheids in detached eclipsing binaries, the paper reports agreement similar to that of MLT plus ad-hoc overshooting, notably for the two systems with the most precise measurements.

What carries the argument

The Kuhfuss 1-equation turbulent convection model (TCM1), a non-local, time-dependent convection theory derived by Reynolds-stress averaging of the hydrodynamic equations. It solves a single equation for the turbulent kinetic energy $\omega$, of the form $\partial_t\omega = \nabla_{\mathrm{ad}}T\Lambda\alpha_s c_p H_p^{-2}\sqrt{\omega}(\nabla-\nabla_{\mathrm{ad}}) - C_D\Lambda^{-1}\omega^{3/2} - F_\omega$, with a non-local flux $F_\omega = -\rho^{-1}\nabla\cdot(\alpha_\omega \rho \Lambda \sqrt{\omega}\,\nabla\omega)$. Because $\omega$ does not vanish at the Schwarzschild boundary, convective eddies carry energy and mix material into the formally stable region; the free parameter $\alpha_\omega$ sets the strength of this non-local transport and hence the overshoot extent. The model thereby replaces the ad-hoc overshoot length calibrated in MLT and also computes the temperature gradient in the overshooting region.

What would settle it

A decisive test is an independent measurement of the convective overshoot extent in a $\sim 4\,M_\odot$ core-helium-burning star, for example from asteroseismic mode frequencies or from the measured surface carbon and helium abundances that record how deep mixing reached in an eclipsing Cepheid, compared with the TCM1 prediction at $\alpha_\omega=0.3$; a discrepancy large enough to demand a different $\alpha_\omega$ for that star would falsify the no-fine-tuning claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the static non-local Kuhfuss 1-equation turbulent convection model, when embedded in a standard one-dimensional stellar evolution code, predicts an overshoot region beyond the Schwarzschild boundary: the turbulent kinetic energy does not drop to zero there, and the temperature gradient stays near adiabatic until the edge of the mixing region. This overshoot alone is sufficient to generate the blue loops of intermediate-mass stars crossing the Cepheid instability strip. With parameter values fixed at solar-calibrated or previously calibrated values, in particular $\alpha_\omega = 0.3$, the resulting tracks for five Cepheids in detached eclipsing binaries reproduce observed mass, radius, luminosity, and effective temperature to a similar accuracy as MLT-plus-ad-hoc-overshooting tracks, best for the two systems with the most precise parameters. The paper concludes that the TCM1 approach addresses the Cepheid mass discrepancy and produces blue loops without fine-tuning, and that main-sequence non-locality is the dominant factor controlling loop extent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the non-locality parameter calibrated once on a $5\,M_\odot$ main-sequence star, together with the other fixed TCM1 constants, applies unchanged to the lower-mass, differently metallic, core-helium-burning Cepheids, and that initializing TCM1 runs from an MLT-with-overshoot model does not pre-bias the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TCM1 tracks for a $5\,M_\odot$ star cross the Cepheid instability strip with a blue loop very similar to MLT plus ad-hoc overshooting, whereas MLT alone does not.
  • The Cepheid mass discrepancy shrinks: TCM1's main-sequence overshooting produces larger helium cores, raising core-helium-burning luminosity so that evolutionary and dynamical masses agree within the model framework.
  • The same fixed TCM1 parameter values, in particular $\alpha_\omega=0.3$, reproduce the observed mass, radius, luminosity, and effective temperature of the five binary Cepheid systems to a similar accuracy as tuned MLT-plus-overshoot models, so no per-star overshoot calibration is needed.
  • Non-locality during the main sequence is the dominant control on blue-loop extension; applying or switching off non-locality at core or envelope boundaries during core helium burning only slightly changes the loop's length and the second-to-third-crossing gap.
  • TCM1 yields a prediction for the temperature gradient inside the overshooting region, something the ad-hoc MLT overshoot prescription cannot provide, with implications for consistently computing pulsation models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if $\alpha_\omega=0.3$ is truly universal, published Cepheid mass-luminosity relations built from MLT-plus-overshoot grids may need small revisions near the low-mass end, where the paper's own tracks show TCM1 models are slightly fainter; fitting additional eclipsing Cepheids in the $3.5$-$4\,M_\odot$ range would test this.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's parameter scans imply a clean causal chain, main-sequence $\alpha_\omega$ sets core mass, which sets the core-potential ratio that controls loop length, so quantitative relations linking $\alpha_\omega$ to loop morphology could be derived and tested against observed instability-strip crossings.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's time-dependent extension of the model, the 3-equation version, could be coupled to pulsation codes with the same parameters, offering a test of whether a single convection treatment simultaneously fits Cepheid evolution and light-curve structure.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper implements the non-local, time-dependent Kuhfuss one-equation turbulent convection model (TCM1) in the GARSTEC stellar evolution code and computes intermediate-mass (approximately 5 M_sun and 3.5-4.3 M_sun) core-He-burning tracks. It compares the tracks with MLT without overshooting and MLT with exponential overshooting, and fits five Cepheids in detached eclipsing binaries (OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227, 1812, 4506, 2532, 1718) using chi-square minimization over mass, radius, luminosity, and effective temperature. The paper reports that TCM1 produces convective boundary mixing and blue loops without ad-hoc overshooting, with agreement to observations similar to that of MLT plus overshooting, using the same TCM1 parameters in all models.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would be an important step toward a more physical treatment of convective overshooting in stellar evolution, replacing the ad-hoc overshoot parameter with the non-locality parameter alpha_omega. The study has clear strengths: the five-system comparison is presented honestly with detailed chi-square tables and explicit discussion of problematic systems; the parameter study in Fig. 9 demonstrates which TCM1 parameters actually matter; and the authors acknowledge the TCM1 deficiency in the solar envelope (Braun et al. 2024). However, the headline 'no fine-tuning' claim is weakened by the fact that alpha_omega = 0.3 was originally calibrated to reproduce the MLT+overshoot core size of a 5 M_sun main-sequence star, and the per-system metallicity is also varied to improve the fits. The result is still valuable as a demonstration that a single-point-calibrated non-local model can match Cepheid observations, but it is not yet an independent test of the convection model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.2, 6, and 7] The abstract's claim that blue loops and overshoot emerge 'without fine-tuning' is overstated because alpha_omega = 0.3 is not predicted by the TCM equations but was chosen in Ahlborn et al. (2022) to match the MLT+overshooting core size of a 5 M_sun main-sequence star; Fig. 9 (lower left) shows that alpha_omega strongly controls blue-loop extent and luminosity, and Section 7 itself states that fine-tuning alpha_omega could 'probably be minimized or even eliminated' the remaining luminosity differences. Since the observed Cepheids have masses 3.5-4.3 M_sun and lower metallicity, the transfer of alpha_omega = 0.3 to core He-burning is the load-bearing assumption. The paper should either present this as a one-point calibration transfer, with a sensitivity test of alpha_omega at a representative Cepheid mass and metallicity, or soften the 'without fine-tuning' language accordingly.
  2. [Section 5] The five-system comparison is not a fixed-parameter test because [Fe/H] is varied per system when the fit is unsatisfactory (e.g., OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227 from -0.5 to -0.6 in Section 5.1, OGLE-LMC-CEP-4506 to -0.6 in Section 5.3, and OGLE-LMC-CEP-1718 to -0.3 in Section 5.5, with the stated rationale 'changing it to lower or higher values, if we thought this could improve the best fitting model'). Given the strong sensitivity of blue loops and luminosity to metallicity (Fig. 9, top left), the per-system metallicity freedom absorbs part of the disagreement. Please report the chi-square values for a common, literature-based [Fe/H] (e.g., -0.4) to separate the convection-model performance from the metallicity fitting.
  3. [Sections 4 and 6] The phase analysis of non-locality (Fig. 3) and the parameter variations (Fig. 9) are computed only for a 5 M_sun star at solar or near-solar metallicity ([Fe/H] = 0.0 in Fig. 9), whereas the five observed systems cluster at 3.5-4.3 M_sun and [Fe/H] around -0.3 to -0.6. The conclusion that non-locality during the main sequence is decisive for blue loops, and that the default TCM1 parameters transfer without re-tuning, needs at least one test at a representative Cepheid mass and LMC metallicity to show that the parameter sensitivity is not qualitatively different in that regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7] There is a typo in the sentence 'without fine-tuning any of the TMC1 model parameters'; 'TMC1' should be 'TCM1'.
  2. [Table B.1 and Section 5.1] The source for OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227 is listed as Pilecki et al. (2013) in Table B.1, but Section 5.1 refers to Pilecki et al. (2018) for the adopted parameters; please harmonize the citation.
  3. [Figures 4-8] In several figures the horizontal axis is labelled 'Effective temperature, /' without a unit; if the intended unit is K or log(Teff/K), please make it explicit consistently.
  4. [Table A.1] Table A.1 lists [Fe/H] = 0.3 and 0.6, which are not referenced in the main text; please either use them in the discussion or remove them to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 2.1] The symbol omega is used for the turbulent kinetic energy; please define it as such at first use, since omega elsewhere in stellar physics often denotes angular frequency.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 'no fine-tuning' claim rests on αω=0.3, imported from same-author prior work as a fit to MLT+overshoot core size, and the paper admits this parameter is the knob that controls blue-loop luminosity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 2.1 (Table 1); Sect. 3 (Fig. 1); Sect. 6 (Fig. 9)]
    "αω is set to 0.3 following Ahlborn et al. (2022) who found that this value resulted in a similar convective core size as that predicted by a model with MLT including ad hoc overshooting for a 5 M☉ star. ... This parameter determines the extent of the overshooting region as it indicates the impact of the non-local flux of the TKE (Ahlborn et al. 2022). Hence, this parameter has a strong influence on the extent and luminosity level of the blue loops (lower left panel)."

    The parameter that controls the CBM extent in TCM1 is not fixed by the turbulence equations or by the Cepheid data; it is chosen so that a 5 M☉ main-sequence TCM1 model matches the convective-core size of MLT with ad-hoc overshooting. Section 6/Fig. 9 then shows that this same parameter strongly controls the blue-loop extent and luminosity of the 5 M☉ tracks used as the paper's central comparison. The TCM1-vs-MLT+OV similarity advertised in Sect. 3 is therefore partially manufactured by the αω calibration, and since MLT+OV's fOV=0.018 was itself calibrated to open-cluster color-magnitude diagrams (Sect. 2.2; Magic et al. 2010), the Cepheid luminosity agreement inherits that fit.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sect. 5.1 (OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227); Sect. 7]
    "This could be achieved by increasing the non-local parameter αω of the TCM1 which would increase the convective core size on the MS and in turn lead to a higher luminosity in the core He-burning phase (Fig. B.2 in Ahlborn et al. 2022). ... These luminosity differences could probably be minimized or even eliminated by fine-tuning the αω parameter."

    The paper itself concedes that αω acts as an overshoot-efficiency dial with the same effect as the ad-hoc overshooting parameter fOV: larger αω means a larger MS core and a brighter He-burning track. The headline 'without fine-tuning' therefore depends entirely on the value αω=0.3 inherited from Ahlborn et al. (2022), a prior work by the same group in which the value was selected to mimic MLT+overshoot core size. Section 7 states the underlying situation: 'TCM1 still relies on certain assumptions about the free parameters, which are calibrated using the local and time-independent MLT plus overshooting model (e.g.

full rationale

The TCM1 differential equations and the solar calibration of αΛ are independent inputs, and the five Cepheid binary systems (Pilecki et al. 2018) are not used as fitting data for any TCM1 constant; that prevents a score in the 8-10 range. However, the paper's central claim—that TCM1 reproduces Cepheid blue loops and luminosities 'without fine-tuning' and with overshoot 'predicted directly from the convection theory'—is partially circular. The load-bearing non-locality parameter αω=0.3 is taken from same-author prior work (Ahlborn et al. 2022), where it was calibrated to reproduce the MLT+overshoot core size, and the paper's own Sect. 7 admits that αω is the fine-tuning knob that would remove the remaining luminosity differences. Thus the similarity of TCM1 to MLT+overshoot and the resulting Cepheid agreement are partly by construction rather than an independent confirmation of the convection model. Score 5 reflects real partial circularity in the headline claim without equating the whole derivation to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim of a parameter-free TCM prediction is softened by nine fitted or adopted constants, of which alpha_omega and per-system metallicity are the most consequential for the blue loop and luminosity fit.

free parameters (9)
  • alpha_Lambda (turbulent length scale) = 1.78
    Solar calibrated (Sect. 2.2). Plays the role of the mixing length parameter in MLT.
  • alpha_omega (non-locality parameter) = 0.3
    Adopted from Ahlborn et al. (2022) to reproduce the 5 Msun MLT+OV convective core size; the key parameter controlling overshoot extent and blue loop luminosity.
  • alpha_s (entropy flux parameter) = sqrt(2/3)/2
    Kept from Kuhfuss (1986, 1987), calibrated to MLT convective flux and velocity.
  • C_D (dissipation parameter) = 8/3 sqrt(2/3)
    Kept from Kuhfuss (1986, 1987), calibrated to MLT predictions.
  • beta (dissipation length limitation) = 1.0
    Taken from Straka et al. (2005); limits Lambda in small convective cores.
  • f_OV (overshoot parameter for comparison MLT models) = 0.018
    Calibrated to open cluster color-magnitude diagrams (Magic et al. 2010); not part of TCM1 but controls the comparison models.
  • [Fe/H] per system = -0.5, -0.6, or -0.3 depending on system
    Chosen by hand to improve the chi^2 fit because precise metallicities of the systems are not available (Sect. 5).
  • initial masses per system = e.g., 4.195 Msun for OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227 primary
    Set slightly above observed dynamical masses to account for Reimers mass loss (eta=0.2); affects the final fit.
  • Reimers mass-loss efficiency eta = 0.2
    Adopted from the literature for all systems.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The static limit of the 1-equation TCM1 (partial omega / partial t = 0) is an adequate description of convection on stellar evolution timescales.
    Used throughout; Sect. 2.1 states the static case is considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The same TCM1 parameter set, calibrated on a solar model and on a 5 Msun main-sequence model against MLT+OV, transfers without re-tuning to core He-burning stars of 3.5-4.5 Msun and lower metallicity.
    This is the load-bearing premise of the 'no fine-tuning' conclusion (Sects. 2.2 and 7).
  • standard math Reynolds-stress closure of the Kuhfuss model captures the essential non-local mixing physics (turbulent kinetic energy diffusion).
    The model equations as proposed by Kuhfuss (1986, 1987) are adopted without re-derivation; Sect. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Adopted input physics (FreeEOS, OPAL+Ferguson opacities, nuclear rates, Reimers mass loss with eta=0.2) are accurate for these stars.
    Sect. 2.2 and 3; standard for GARSTEC models.
  • domain assumption Detached eclipsing binary components evolve as single stars, so single-star tracks are suitable for fitting both components simultaneously.
    Sect. 5; the paper itself notes exceptions (OGLE-LMC-CEP-1812 and 1718) where interaction or mass inversion may be needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications of a turbulent convection model for classical Cepheids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TUPJ24D

@misc{pith2026250604759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications of a turbulent convection model for classical Cepheids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TUPJ24D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04759}
}
read the original abstract

The appearance of blue loops in the evolutionary tracks of intermediate-mass core He-burning stars is essential for explaining the observed characteristics of Cepheids. The blue loops for lower mass Cepheids cannot always be reproduced when only classical, local mixing length theory (MLT) is used. Additionally, classical models result in a mass discrepancy compared to pulsational and dynamical mass determinations. Both problems can be resolved through an ad-hoc extension of the MLT for convection. We use the non-local Kuhfuss turbulent convection model (TCM) which can explain overshooting directly from the solution of the TCM equations. The primary objective of this study is to test the predictions of the Kuhfuss TCM when applied to intermediate-mass core He-burning stars and validate the model predictions against observations of Cepheids. We used the state-of-the-art 1D stellar evolution code GARSTEC with the implementation of the Kuhfuss TCM and computed evolutionary tracks for intermediate-mass core He-burning stars. We compare these tracks with those computed with MLT including and excluding ad-hoc overshooting and with observations of five Cepheids in detached binary systems obtained from the literature. The stellar evolution tracks generated using the Kuhfuss TCM and MLT with ad-hoc overshooting exhibit similar appearances. Overshoot mixing from the convective boundaries and the occurrence of the Cepheid blue-loop have been achieved naturally as solutions to the Kuhfuss TCM equations. Furthermore, these models successfully reproduce observed stellar parameters including mass, luminosity, radius, and effective temperature. In conclusion, our TCM approach reproduces Cepheid blue loops and agrees with observations similarly well as MLT models with overshooting, however, without fine-tuning the model parameters or ad-hoc assumptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04759 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the evolutionary tracks for a 5 M⊙ star from the Zero-Age Main Sequence to the core He-burning phase. The tracks are computed using GARSTEC with three different convection treatments: MLT only (grey), MLT with ad-hoc overshooting (orange), and Kuhfuss 1-equation TCM (cyan). The blue and red lines represent the theoretical blue and red edges of the instability strip, respectively, as estimated by Deka e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The upper panel shows the turbulent kinetic energy profile as a function of fractional mass for an evolutionary model of a 5 M⊙ star computed using the TCM1 with a central helium abundance of Yc = 0.6. The lower panel shows the temperature gradient of the model (∇model, blue dashed line). The purple and orange lines indicate the radiative ∇rad and adiabatic ∇ad temperature gradients, respectively. The vertical grey … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Influence of convective boundary mixing at different boundaries during the core He-burning phase on the blue loops of a 5 M⊙ star. During the previous central hydrogen-burning phase the non-local TCM1 was applied. The four cases I-IV are indicated above the corresponding panel. The blue and red lines represent the blue and red edges of the instability strip, respectively, as estimated by Deka et al. (2024). The core… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The evolutionary tracks for OGLE-LMC-CEP-0227 computed using both MLT plus ad-hoc overshooting (dashed lines) and TCM1 (solid lines). The left panel shows the tracks in the radius–effective temperature (RTeff) plane, while the right panel shows them in the luminosity–e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolutionary tracks of a 5 M⊙ Cepheïd for varying metallicity, dissipation length parameter αΛ and non-local parameter αω. The variations of the metallicity and αΛ are shown in the top left and right panel, respectively. In the lower left panel αω is varied in the whol…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, Dissertation, Ludwig Maximilians Universität München, München

    Ahlborn, F. 2022, Dissertation, Ludwig Maximilians Universität München, München

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    2022, A&A, 667, A97

    Ahlborn, F., Kupka, F., Weiss, A., & Flaskamp, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A97

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    H., Jermyn, A

    Anders, E. H., Jermyn, A. S., Lecoanet, D., & Brown, B. P. 2022, ApJ, 926, 169

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

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

    1991

  5. [5]

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

    Anderson, R. I., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A100 Andrássy, R. 2015, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    G., Catanzaro, G., et al

    Bhardwaj, A., Riess, A. G., Catanzaro, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.03263

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    1932, ZAp, 5, 117 Böhm-Vitense, E

    Biermann, L. 1932, ZAp, 5, 117 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZAp, 46, 108

    work page 1932

  8. [8]

    F., & Pietrinferni, A

    Bono, G., Braga, V . F., & Pietrinferni, A. 2024, A&A Rev., 32, 4

    2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    2000, ApJ, 543, 955 Article number, page 14 of 19 M

    Bono, G., Caputo, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 955 Article number, page 14 of 19 M. Deka et al.: Turbulent convection model for stellar evolution

    2000

  2. [10]

    Braun, T. A. M., Ahlborn, F., & Weiss, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03740

    2024

  3. [11]

    Canuto, V . M. 1992, ApJ, 392, 218

    1992

  4. [12]

    Canuto, V . M. 1993, ApJ, 416, 331

    1993

  5. [13]

    Canuto, V . M. 1997, ApJ, 482, 827

    1997

  6. [14]

    Canuto, V . M. 2011, A&A, 528, A76

    2011

  7. [15]

    Canuto, V . M. & Dubovikov, M. 1998, ApJ, 493, 834

    1998

  8. [16]

    2000, A&A, 359, 1059

    Caputo, F., Marconi, M., Musella, I., & Santolamazza, P. 2000, A&A, 359, 1059

    2000

  9. [17]

    & Salaris, M

    Cassisi, S. & Salaris, M. 2011, ApJ, 728, L43

    2011

  10. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4752

    Choudhury, S., de Grijs, R., Bekki, K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4752

    2021

  11. [19]

    Cox, A. N. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 15

    1980

  12. [20]

    P., Kanbur, S

    Deka, M., Bellinger, E. P., Kanbur, S. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5099

    2024

  13. [21]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

    2005

  14. [22]

    2003, PhD thesis, Technical University of Munich, Germany

    Flaskamp, M. 2003, PhD thesis, Technical University of Munich, Germany

    2003

  15. [23]

    G., & Steffen, M

    Freytag, B., Ludwig, H. G., & Steffen, M. 1996, A&A, 313, 497

    1996

  16. [24]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 496

    Fu, X., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 496

    2018

  17. [25]

    R., et al

    Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Evans, N. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 121

    2018

  18. [26]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.11502

    Gautschy, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.11502

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 786, 80

    Gieren, W., Pilecki, B., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 80

    2014

  20. [28]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 28

    Gieren, W., Pilecki, B., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 28

    2015

  21. [29]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161

    1998

  22. [30]

    M., El Eid, M

    Halabi, G. M., El Eid, M. F., & Champagne, A. 2012, ApJ, 761, 10

    2012

  23. [31]

    Higgins, E. R. & Vink, J. S. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1158

    2023

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    2013

  25. [33]

    Huang, R. Q. & Weigert, A. 1983, A&A, 127, 309

    1983

  26. [34]

    1972, ApJ, 178, 433

    Iben, Jr., I. 1972, ApJ, 178, 433

    1972

  27. [35]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

    1993

  28. [36]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1996

  29. [37]

    & Chaboyer, B

    Joyce, M. & Chaboyer, B. 2015, ApJ, 814, 142

    2015

  30. [38]

    Keller, S. C. 2008, ApJ, 677, 483

    2008

  31. [39]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution Kuhfuß, R

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution Kuhfuß, R. 1986, A&A, 160, 116 Kuhfuß, R. 1987, PhD thesis, Technical University of Munich, Germany

    2013

  32. [40]

    2022, A&A, 667, A96

    Kupka, F., Ahlborn, F., & Weiss, A. 2022, A&A, 667, A96

    2022

  33. [41]

    1971, A&A, 10, 97

    Lauterborn, D., Refsdal, S., & Weigert, A. 1971, A&A, 10, 97

    1971

  34. [42]

    Leavitt, H. S. 1908, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 60, 87

    1908

  35. [43]

    Leavitt, H. S. & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

    1912

  36. [44]

    & Yang, J

    Li, Y . & Yang, J. Y . 2007, MNRAS, 375, 388

    2007

  37. [45]

    2010, ApJ, 718, 1378

    Magic, Z., Serenelli, A., Weiss, A., & Chaboyer, B. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1378

    2010

  38. [46]

    2013, ApJ, 768, L6

    Marconi, M., Molinaro, R., Bono, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, L6

    2013

  39. [47]

    L., Neilson, H

    Miller, C. L., Neilson, H. R., Evans, N. R., Engle, S. G., & Guinan, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 128

    2020

  40. [48]

    R., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N

    Neilson, H. R., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N. 2011, A&A, 529, L9

    2011

  41. [49]

    R., Izzard, R

    Neilson, H. R., Izzard, R. G., Langer, N., & Ignace, R. 2015, A&A, 581, L1

    2015

  42. [50]

    R., Langer, N., Engle, S

    Neilson, H. R., Langer, N., Engle, S. G., Guinan, E., & Izzard, R. 2012, ApJ, 760, L18

    2012

  43. [51]

    M., & Mazzitelli, I

    Paterno, L., Ventura, R., Canuto, V . M., & Mazzitelli, I. 1993, ApJ, 402, 733

    1993

  44. [52]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 243, 10

    2019

  45. [53]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168 Pietrzy´nski, G., Thompson, I

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168 Pietrzy´nski, G., Thompson, I. B., Gieren, W., et al. 2010, Nature, 468, 542 Pietrzy´nski, G., Thompson, I. B., Graczyk, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, L20

    2004

  46. [54]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 43

    Pilecki, B., Gieren, W., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 43

    2018

  47. [55]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 29

    Pilecki, B., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 29

    2015

  48. [56]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 953 Prada Moroni, P

    Pilecki, B., Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 953 Prada Moroni, P. G., Gennaro, M., Bono, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 108

    2013

  49. [57]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  50. [58]

    1977, A&A, 61, 217

    Reimers, D. 1977, A&A, 61, 217

    1977

  51. [59]

    Robertson, J. W. 1971, ApJ, 170, 353

    1971

  52. [60]

    Robertson, J. W. 1972, ApJ, 177, 473

    1972

  53. [61]

    2022, A&A, 658, A29

    Romaniello, M., Riess, A., Mancino, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A29

    2022

  54. [62]

    & Cassisi, S

    Salaris, M. & Cassisi, S. 2005, Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations Soszy´nski, I., Poleski, R., Udalski, A., et al. 2008, Acta Astron., 58, 163

    2005

  55. [63]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 262, 330

    1982

  56. [64]

    Stobie, R. S. 1969, MNRAS, 144, 485

    1969

  57. [65]

    W., Demarque, P., & Guenther, D

    Straka, C. W., Demarque, P., & Guenther, D. B. 2005, ApJ, 629, 1075

    2005

  58. [66]

    B., et al

    Troisi, F., Bono, G., Stetson, P. B., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 879

    2011

  59. [67]

    & Schlattl, H

    Weiss, A. & Schlattl, H. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 99

    2008

  60. [68]

    1995, Computer Physics Communications, 89, 119

    Wuchterl, G. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 89, 119

    1995

  61. [69]

    & Feuchtinger, M

    Wuchterl, G. & Feuchtinger, M. U. 1998, A&A, 340, 419

    1998

  62. [70]

    1978, Chinese Astronomy, 2, 118

    Xiong, D.-r. 1978, Chinese Astronomy, 2, 118

    1978

  63. [71]

    1986, A&A, 167, 239

    Xiong, D.-R. 1986, A&A, 167, 239

    1986

  64. [72]

    Xu, H. Y . & Li, Y . 2004, A&A, 418, 213

    2004

  65. [73]

    F” and “FO

    Zhao, L., Song, H., Meynet, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A92 Article number, page 15 of 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main Appendix A: Chemical composition All the [Fe/H] values and the correspondingX,YandZadopted in this work are given in Table A.1. Table A.1.Chemical compositio...

    2013

Pith tools

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