Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 135 references

Coupling 1D stellar evolution with 3D-hydrodynamical simulations on-the-fly III: stellar evolution at different metallicities

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Coupling 1D stellar models to 3D atmospheres makes evolutionary tracks nearly independent of the mixing-length parameter.

desk verdict A real extension of the 1D-3D coupling method with a clean alpha_MLT insensitivity result, but the validation at intermediate metallicity is undercut by an unaddressed alpha-enhancement inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05094 v1 pith:NNIP3SZ4 submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.SR

Yixiao Zhou , Jakob L. R{o}rsted , Achim Weiss , Andreas C. S. J{o}rgensen , Cis Lagae , Luisa F. Rodríguez Díaz , Yaguang Li , Mark L. Winther
show 5 more authors
Jens R. Larsen J{o}rgen Christensen-Dalsgaard Oleg Kochukhov Karen R. Pollard Tanda Li
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords 1D-3Dcouplingmixing-lengthparameterstellarevolution3DhydrodynamicalsimulationsStagger-gridasteroseismologyeclipsingbinariesatmospheres
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 extends the 1D-3D coupling method, which replaces the near-surface layers of a one-dimensional stellar evolution model with a horizontal- and time-averaged three-dimensional hydrodynamical atmosphere at every time step, from solar metallicity to the full range $-3<[{\rm Fe/H}]<0.5$. Its central result is that when the outer boundary of the interior model sits well below the photosphere in the near-adiabatic layer, the mixing-length parameter $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ becomes almost irrelevant: changing it by 20% shifts the effective temperature by under 30 K, versus more than 200 K in standard evolution calculations. The paper argues that $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ can therefore be fixed to its solar-calibrated value, and validates this against both components of the eclipsing binary AI Phe and two oscillating red giants in Kepler binaries, reproducing radii, temperatures, and oscillation frequencies without empirical surface corrections. If correct, the method removes the most uncertain tunable parameter from low-mass stellar modeling and sharpens ages for metal-poor stars of interest to galactic archaeology.

What carries the argument

The mean 3D model, the horizontal- and time-averaged Stagger-grid simulation, supplies the outer boundary conditions. The load-bearing identity is the density inflection region: each model is trimmed to its minimum superadiabatic temperature gradient and scaled by quantities at the density inflection (the local minimum of $\partial\ln\rho/\partial\ln P$), making the scaled structure nearly universal and enabling robust linear or cubic interpolation in $(T_{\rm eff},\log g)$ and monotonic cubic interpolation in $[{\rm M/H}]$. The matching point is placed at $P=10^{1.2}P_{\rm di}$, about 15.8 times the density-inflection pressure, deep enough that $\nabla_T-\nabla_{\rm ad}$ is an order of magnitude below its surface peak; the pressure and luminosity boundary conditions therefore come from the 3D model, and the mixing-length parameter has almost no lever arm on the track.

What would settle it

Take a detached eclipsing binary at $[{\rm Fe/H}]\approx-1.5$ with masses, radii, and effective temperatures known to about 1%; if the 1D-3D coupled track with solar-calibrated $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ cannot match both radii and temperatures within roughly 30 K while a standard model with tuned $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ can, the claimed insensitivity to the mixing-length parameter is falsified in that metallicity regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the 1D-3D coupling method, extended across metallicity by interpolating mean 3D Stagger-grid models on the fly, makes stellar evolution tracks insensitive to the mixing-length parameter. By placing the matching point between the 1D interior and the 3D atmosphere in the near-adiabatic convective region, the temperature structure there is set by the 3D simulation rather than by mixing-length theory, so $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ only governs heat transport in layers where convection is nearly adiabatic and the superadiabatic gradient is small. With $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ fixed to the solar-calibrated value, the method reproduces the observed properties of stars in detached eclipsing binaries and of asteroseismic giants across $-3<[{\rm Fe/H}]<0.5$. The authors' stated conclusion is that $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ can be regarded as a constant determined by solar calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The interpolated mean 3D Stagger-grid models faithfully represent the near-surface stratification of real FGK stars across $-3<[{\rm Fe/H}]<0.5$, including the fixed +0.4 dex $\alpha$-enhancement for metal-poor models; if the grid or the interpolation is biased in any region, every evolutionary track and validation conclusion inherits that bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The mixing-length parameter can be fixed at its solar-calibrated value for all covered metallicities, removing a major free parameter from stellar evolution calculations.
  • Model oscillation frequencies for red giants agree with observed radial and mixed modes closely enough that empirical surface-effect corrections are largely unnecessary.
  • Stellar ages, which are strongly degenerate with $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ and $Y_{\rm init}$ for red giants, can be constrained more tightly, with direct consequences for globular-cluster ages.
  • The $\nu_{\rm max}$ scaling relation becomes a testable prediction rather than a calibration output, since $T_{\rm eff}$ and radius are insensitive to $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$.
  • The method turns pre-computed 3D simulation grids into on-the-fly boundary conditions for evolutionary modeling of field and cluster stars across a wide metallicity range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If constant $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ holds, the observationally inferred growth of $\alpha_{\rm MLT}$ with [Fe/H] in standard models may be an artifact of the near-surface boundary treatment rather than a real metallicity dependence of convection efficiency.
  • The grid's fixed +0.4 dex $\alpha$-element enhancement for $[{\rm Fe/H}]\le-1$ implies specific surface abundance patterns; spectroscopic measurement of $\alpha$-elements in metal-poor eclipsing binaries would test this boundary assumption directly.
  • The systematic overestimate of mean density for the two Kepler giants suggests a residual, possibly interpolation-driven surface term; a dedicated study of surface effects in coupled red-giant models could separate numerical from physical causes.
  • Applying the same coupling to stars with $T_{\rm eff}\gtrsim6300$ K requires handling diffusion-induced surface composition changes, since the metallicity interpolation is based on $Z/X$ and could otherwise drift outside the grid.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the on-the-fly 1D-3D coupling method (GARSTEC + Stagger-grid mean atmospheres) from solar metallicity to a broad metallicity range, implementing interpolation over [M/H] for the 3D outer boundary condition. The central claims are that placing the matching point in the near-adiabatic layer makes stellar evolution tracks far less sensitive to alpha_MLT (a 20% change shifts Teff by less than 30 K, versus more than 200 K in standard models), and that with a fixed solar-calibrated alpha_MLT the method reproduces most observational constraints for stars spanning roughly -3 < [Fe/H] < 0.5. The method is validated against the eclipsing binary AI Phe and the asteroseismic binaries KIC 9970396 and KIC 10001167. The paper also discusses unphysical kinks in the tracks, interpolation errors, and remaining systematic offsets, but concludes that alpha_MLT can be regarded as a constant fixed by solar calibration.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a significant step toward reducing a major systematic uncertainty in 1D stellar modeling: the mixing-length parameter and the choice of atmospheric boundary conditions. The alpha_MLT-insensitivity result is cleanly demonstrated in Fig. 4 and is conceptually solid because the matching point sits where the temperature gradient is nearly adiabatic. The method is anchored to external 3D hydrodynamics (the Stagger-grid) and tested against independent binary observations, so it is not circular in its validation strategy. The paper is also unusually honest: it explicitly reports interpolation errors up to about 9% in warm dwarfs (Appendix A), unphysical track kinks (Sect. 3.2), and systematic mass and mean-density offsets that it cannot explain (Sect. 4.3). These strengths make the paper a valuable contribution even though the validation is not as complete as the abstract's broad claim suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2.2, 2.3, 4.3] The Stagger-grid applies a +0.4 dex alpha-element enhancement only to models with [Fe/H] <= -1, while the metallicity interpolation is performed in [M/H] as a smooth scalar field. KIC 10001167, used as a validation target in Section 4.3, has [Fe/H] = -0.73 and [alpha/Fe] = 0.37, placing it in the interval -1 < [Fe/H] < -0.5 where no alpha-enhanced Stagger-grid model exists. The interpolated 3D outer boundary for this star is therefore a blend of non-enhanced models near [Fe/H] = -0.5 and alpha-enhanced models near [Fe/H] = -1, a mixture that corresponds to no real stellar abundance pattern. The paper does not test or discuss this composition discontinuity, and it is a concrete candidate for the unexplained systematic overestimate of mass and mean density reported in Section 4.3. This issue is load-bearing because the central claim of a fixed alpha_MLT across -3 < [Fe/H] < 0.5 requires the interpolated mean 3D models to be a faithful, continuous function of chemical composition.
  2. [Sections 4.1-4.3, Tables 2-4] The validation shows offsets well outside the quoted uncertainties: the modeled [Fe/H] difference between the AI Phe components is 0.12 dex versus 0.04 dex observed; the best-fit masses are 1.229 Msun versus 1.178 +/- 0.015 Msun for KIC 9970396 and 0.998 Msun versus 0.934 +/- 0.008 Msun for KIC 10001167. The paper acknowledges that the mass and mean-density offset is not understood (Section 4.3). These systematic discrepancies do not by themselves invalidate the method, but they weaken the abstract and conclusion statements that the method 'successfully reproduces most observational constraints for all target stars.' The authors should either resolve these offsets, propagate them into the quoted model uncertainties, or explicitly moderate the claim to reflect the observed level of agreement.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 7] The evolutionary tracks contain unphysical zigzags and kinks that the authors trace to discontinuities in partial derivatives from the interpolation scheme. Such kinks appear in parameter regions relevant for the validation grids, and the paper does not quantify how these numerical artifacts affect the fitted stellar parameters or the quoted posterior distributions. Since the conclusions present the method as a tool for asteroseismic characterization and cluster-age determination, the authors should quantify the impact of these track irregularities on derived parameters, or at least restrict the claim to regions where tracks are smooth.
  4. [Appendix A, Fig. A2] The interpolation test for the warm dwarf t62g43m00 shows relative temperature errors up to about 9% in the deep layers below the density inflection, and the paper cautions that systematic errors are likely larger in the high-Teff, high-log g region. The validation targets do not cover this region (Tables 2-4), so the abstract's range '-3 < [Fe/H] < 0.5' and 'FGK-type stars' is broader than the evidence presented. The authors should either add a test in that region or restrict the stated range of applicability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text contains a duplicated word in 'Fig.7 show shows surface boundary conditions affect the evolution'; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 2.2] The statement 'A0.4dex enhancement of alpha-element abundances was applied to metal-poor models with [Fe/H]<=-1' should specify whether the +0.4 dex applies to [alpha/Fe] relative to the Asplund et al. (2009) mixture or to the total metal mass fraction; this matters for converting grid entries to [M/H].
  3. [Sections 4.2-4.3, Tables 3-4] The observed [Fe/H] values are listed in the tables but the inferred posterior [Fe/H] values are not directly compared to them in the text; adding an explicit comparison would help the reader assess the accuracy of the metallicity interpolation.
  4. [Eq. (1)] Please specify whether rho_CZ and M_CZ in the turbulent diffusion coefficient are evaluated at the current model time step or at an initial reference structure; this affects reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the fixed solar-calibrated alpha_MLT is not tuned to validation targets, the 1D-3D boundary conditions come from an independently published 3D grid, and the alpha-insensitivity result is demonstrated by perturbation rather than enforced by definition.

full rationale

I find no step in which the paper's derivation reduces to its own inputs. The central claim, that tracks are insensitive to alpha_MLT when the outer boundary is placed in the near-adiabatic layer, is an emergent property of the matching-point placement and is demonstrated by the 20% alpha_MLT variation experiment (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 4): the same perturbation shifts Teff by less than 30 K for the coupled models versus over 200 K for gray-atmosphere models. alpha_MLT is fixed to the solar-calibrated value and never adjusted to fit the binary targets (Sect. 4), so the validation is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The metallicity interpolation (Sect. 2.2) is anchored to the external Stagger-grid (Magic et al. 2013a; Rodriguez Diaz et al. 2024) and its accuracy is assessed by leave-one-out cross-checks in Appendix A; self-citations to papers I/II and to the Stagger-grid are to independently published, testable prior work rather than to an unverified premise. The paper honestly reports unresolved issues, including the systematic mass/mean-density overestimate for the Kepler giants (Sect. 4.3: 'the underlying reason for this offset is not understood'), interpolation kinks in the tracks (Sect. 3.2), and the 9% interpolation temperature error for warm dwarfs (Fig. A2). The alpha-enhancement threshold at [Fe/H] = -1 also raises a potential composition inconsistency for KIC 10001167, but these are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. Finally, the agreement of the patched near-surface T profile with the mean 3D model in Fig. 6 is a consistency check of the patching scheme, not a physical prediction, so it is not circular either.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on a small set of calibrated parameters (alpha_MLT, D0, f_ov, initial composition, matching-point factor) and on the realism of the external Stagger-grid 3D simulations. No new physical entities are introduced. The alpha_MLT insensitivity reduces the impact of one free parameter but does not remove the others. The turbulent diffusion coefficient D0 is explicitly acknowledged as lacking a solid physical basis.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_MLT (solar-calibrated mixing-length parameter) = 2.77
    Calibrated to the Sun in Table 1 for the 1D-3D method and then fixed for all target stars. The paper's central demonstration is that tracks are insensitive to this value, but it is still a fitted parameter from solar calibration.
  • D0 (turbulent diffusion coefficient) = 1 cm^2/s
    Introduced in Eq. 1 to counter gravitational settling in warm stars, adopted from Dotter et al. (2017). The authors state that turbulent diffusion 'does not have a solid physical basis' (Sect. 3.2).
  • f_ov (convective overshoot parameter) = 0 to 0.03 (varied per target)
    Controls the exponential overshoot diffusion coefficient; varied in the binary grids of Sect. 4 to match observations.
  • Initial helium and metal fractions (Y_init, [Fe/H]_init) = varied over grids, e.g. [Fe/H] from -0.24 to -0.04 for AI Phe
    Initial composition is the main tunable input in the validation grids, constrained by requiring identical composition and age for binary components.
  • Helium enrichment ratio ΔY/ΔZ = 0.97
    Fixed by solar calibration (Sect. 3.2) and used to set initial helium for all non-solar metallicities; an assumption about the helium enrichment law.
  • Matching point pressure factor = 10^1.2 P_di
    Choice locating the outer boundary of the 1D model at about 15.8 times the pressure at the density inflection; adopted from prior work (paper II) and essential to the alpha_MLT insensitivity result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Stagger-grid 3D surface convection simulations provide realistic near-surface stratifications for FGK stars across -3 < [Fe/H] < 0.5.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.2-2.3 where mean 3D models supply the outer boundary conditions; their accuracy is assumed rather than demonstrated for the full metallicity range.
  • domain assumption Simple horizontal-and-time-averaged (mean 3D) models satisfy hydrostatic equilibrium and can be matched to 1D interior models at the density inflection region.
    Stated in Sect. 2.2 citing Magic et al. (2013b) and Zhou et al. (2023); the entire coupling scheme rests on this averaging being adequate.
  • domain assumption MLT with a fixed solar-calibrated alpha_MLT provides an adequate description of convective heat transport below the matching point.
    Assumed in Sect. 2.1 and Sect. 3.1; the method removes MLT from the near-surface layers but still relies on it in the deep convective envelope.
  • domain assumption Scaled-solar metal mixture (Asplund et al. 2009) with +0.4 dex alpha-enhancement for [Fe/H] <= -1 applies to all modeled stars.
    The Stagger-grid and GARSTEC calculations adopt this mixture (Sect. 2.2), which may not hold for real stars with varied abundance patterns.
  • domain assumption Linear/cubic interpolation of mean 3D structures across (T_eff, log g) and [M/H] introduces errors small enough for stellar evolution.
    Appendix A measures leave-one-out errors up to about 9% in temperature for warm dwarfs (Fig. A2); the paper still relies on these interpolations for all tracks.
  • domain assumption The solar calibration (matching L, R, Z/X at solar age) uniquely fixes alpha_MLT and initial composition that remain valid at other metallicities.
    Standard stellar modeling practice, used in Sect. 3.1-3.2; it transfers the Sun-calibrated mixing-length parameter to all other metallicities without recalibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling 1D stellar evolution with 3D-hydrodynamical simulations on-the-fly III: stellar evolution at different metallicities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNIP3SZ4

@misc{pith2026250605094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling 1D stellar evolution with 3D-hydrodynamical simulations on-the-fly III: stellar evolution at different metallicities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNIP3SZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05094}
}
abstract

A major weakness in one-dimensional (1D) stellar structure and evolution modeling is the simplified treatment of convection, which leads to erroneous near-surface stratification and considerable uncertainties in predicted effective temperatures and luminosities of low-mass stars. In a series of preceding works, a novel method for coupling 1D stellar structural models with a grid of 3D surface convection simulations during stellar evolution was developed, at solar metallicity. This 1D-3D coupling method slightly shifts evolutionary tracks relative to standard calculations, meanwhile providing oscillation frequencies that agree more closely with asteroseismic observations. Here we extend this method to model metal-poor and metal-rich FGK-type stars, by implementing interpolations on-the-fly across metallicity ($\rm -3 < [Fe/H] < 0.5$) for mean 3D models during stellar evolution. We demonstrate quantitatively that the fundamental stellar parameters modeled within our framework are insensitive to the mixing-length parameter. A 20% change in the mixing-length parameter results in evolutionary tracks with a temperature shift of less than 30 K, compared to a difference of over 200 K in standard evolution calculations. Our extension is validated against eclipsing binary systems with extremely precise observational constraints as well as stars in binaries with asteroseismic data. Using a fixed mixing-length parameter that merely governs convective heat transport in the near-adiabatic layers, the 1D-3D coupling method successfully reproduces most observational constraints for all target stars. Coupling 1D stellar evolution models with 3D simulations greatly reduces uncertainties associated with the choice of atmosphere boundary conditions and mixing-length parameters, hence offering a powerful tool for characterizing stars with seismic measurements and determining ages for globular clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiel diagram showing the global parameters of the Stagger-grid models, with green-shaded portions indicating the 3D model atmospheres used in this work (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic overview of the 1D-3D coupling approach. The mean 3D model is employed as the outer boundary condition for the stellar evolution calculation. The matching point is located well below the photosphere. The subscript “m” denotes quantity at the matching point. See also Jørgensen & Weiss (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of 1𝑀⊙ stars computed with different treatments of the outer boundary and otherwise identical input physics (see Sect. 3.1 for the abbreviations used for the outer boundary conditions). The dash-dotted magenta line in the right panel is an exception, representing a model computed with the entropy calibration method adopted from Spada et al. (2018, model ESM1 in their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effect of changing 𝛼MLT on surface properties of stars for the 1D-3D coupling approach and standard stellar evolution with gray atmosphere. Black and gray solid lines in the left panel are evolutionary tracks of solar mass star calculated with solar-calibrated 𝛼MLT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of superadiabatic temperature gradient in the near￾surface region, as predicted by GARSTEC solar models constructed with dif￾ferent outer boundary conditions (blue and gray solid line). Corresponding results from models at solar log 𝑔 (hence solar radi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: Temperature profile relative to pressure near the pho￾tosphere from the mean Stagger-grid solar model (cyan solid line), as well as from GARSTEC solar models calculated with 1D-3D coupling method (red dashed line) and the gray atmosphere (gray dotted line)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows how surface boundary conditions affect the evolution [t] 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 Teff [K] 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 lo g g [c m / s 2 ] 0.8M 1M [Fe/H]init = 0.5 1D-3D Gray KS VAL-C 6600 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 5000 480…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolutionary tracks computed using the 1D-3D coupling method, which are good representations of the primary and secondary component of AI Phe, are compared with the corresponding observational data (blue and red dots with error bars). Stellar parameters of the best-mat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Échelle diagram of the best-fitting model of KIC 9970396 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Échelle diagram of the best-fitting model of KIC 10001167 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., 2010, Asteroseismology

    Aerts C., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kurtz D. W., 2010, Asteroseismology . Springer Dordrecht

    2010

  2. [2]

    Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4344A 509, 4344

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2911 2022

  3. [3]

    Ahlborn F., Kupka F., Weiss A., Flaskamp M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243126 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..97A 667, A97

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243126 2022

  4. [4]

    M., Nissen P

    Amarsi A. M., Nissen P. E., Sk \'u lad \'o ttir \'A ., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A.104A 630, A104

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936265 2019

  5. [5]

    V., Nordstrom B., Gustafsson B., Vandenberg D

    Andersen J., Clausen J. V., Nordstrom B., Gustafsson B., Vandenberg D. A., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...196..128A 196, 128

    1988

  6. [6]

    F., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..729A 359, 729

    Asplund M., Nordlund ., Trampedach R., Allende Prieto C., Stein R. F., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...359..729A 359, 729

    2000

  7. [7]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..481A 47, 481

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    N., Ulrich R

    Bahcall J. N., Ulrich R. K., 1988, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.60.297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988RvMP...60..297B 60, 297

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.60.297 1988

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606L..85B 606, L85

    Basu S., Antia H. M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...606L..85B 606, L85

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Huber D., van Saders J

    Berger T. A., Huber D., van Saders J. L., Gaidos E., Tayar J., Kraus A. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159..280B 159, 280

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    o hm-Vitense E., 1958, Zeitschrift f\

    B \"o hm-Vitense E., 1958, Zeitschrift f\"ur Astrophysik, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ZA.....46..108B 46, 108

    1958

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Braun T. A. M., Ahlborn F., Weiss A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.292B 689, A292

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Brogaard K., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201612374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AN....337..793B 337, 793

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Brogaard K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3729B 476, 3729

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Gilliland R

    Brown T. M., Gilliland R. L., Noyes R. W., Ramsey L. W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169725 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...368..599B 368, 599

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    Cassisi S., Schlattl H., Salaris M., Weiss A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582L..43C 582, L43

    2003 doi

  11. [19]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0975-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..382C 4, 382

    Chaplin W. J., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0975-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..382C 4, 382

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

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

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

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Ting Y.-S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860..131C 860, 131

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap&SS.316..113C 316, 113

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Thompson M

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Proffitt C. R., Thompson M. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...403L..75C 403, L75

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., et al., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.272.5266.1286 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...272.1286C 272, 1286

    1996

  17. [25]

    Collet R., Asplund M., Trampedach R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..687C 469, 687

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    Collet R., Nordlund ., Asplund M., Hayek W., Trampedach R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.3369C 475, 3369

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    Creevey O. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Cassisi S., Th \'e venin F., Salaris M., Pietrinferni A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.243C 689, A243

    Creevey O. L., Cassisi S., Th \'e venin F., Salaris M., Pietrinferni A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.243C 689, A243

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    M., et al., 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  22. [30]

    J., Marques J

    Deal M., Goupil M. J., Marques J. P., Reese D. R., Lebreton Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A..23D 633, A23

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Dotter A., Conroy C., Cargile P., Asplund M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...99D 840, 99

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Heintz T. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., Allard F., Barman T., Bodnarik J. G., Hauschildt P. H., Heffner-Wong A., Tamanai A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..585F 623, 585

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Steffen M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..497F 313, 497

    Freytag B., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..497F 313, 497

    1996

  27. [35]

    L., Jackiewicz J., Mosser B., Guzik J

    Gaulme P., McKeever J., Rawls M. L., Jackiewicz J., Mosser B., Guzik J. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...82G 767, 82

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Gaulme P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..121G 832, 121

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    O., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...214..196G 214, 196

    Gough D. O., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...214..196G 214, 196

    1977 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Groenewegen M. A. T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..20G 654, A20

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Nordlund A ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..951G 486, 951

    Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Eriksson K., J rgensen U. G., Nordlund A ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..951G 486, 951

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    V., Hansteen V

    Hayek W., Asplund M., Carlsson M., Trampedach R., Collet R., Gudiksen B. V., Hansteen V. H., Leenaarts J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014210 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...517A..49H 517, A49

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Hekker S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0101-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....1H 25, 1

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Bodenheimer P., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..841H 142, 841

    Henyey L., Vardya M. S., Bodenheimer P., 1965, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..841H 142, 841

    1965 doi

  36. [44]

    Herwig F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ARA&A..43..435H 43, 435

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Higl J., Weiss A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..62H 608, A62

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Huber D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..102H 844, 102

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Huber D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...19H 975, 19

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..943I 464, 943

    1996 doi

  41. [49]

    W., 2004, unpublished, available at http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/eff_fit.pdf

    Irwin A. W., 2004, unpublished, available at http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/eff_fit.pdf

    2004

  42. [50]

    W., 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations ( @eprint ascl 1211.002 )

    Irwin A. W., 2012, FreeEOS: Equation of State for stellar interiors calculations ( @eprint ascl 1211.002 )

    2012

  43. [51]

    M., Pedersen M

    Johnston C., Tkachenko A., Aerts C., Molenberghs G., Bowman D. M., Pedersen M. G., Buysschaert B., P \'a pics P. I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2671 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1231J 482, 1231

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    J rgensen A. C. S., Weiss A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1980 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3463J 488, 3463

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    J rgensen A. C. S., Weiss A., Mosumgaard J. R., Silva Aguirre V., Sahlholdt C. L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3264J 472, 3264

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    J rgensen A. C. S., Mosumgaard J. R., Weiss A., Silva Aguirre V., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481L..35J 481, L35

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    J rgensen A. C. S., Weiss A., Angelou G., Silva Aguirre V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5551J 484, 5551

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    J rgensen A. C. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.4277J 500, 4277

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Joyce M., Chaboyer B., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...10J 856, 10

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Joyce M., Tayar J., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11030075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...75J 11, 75

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    a pyl \"a P. J., Rheinhardt M., Brandenburg A., Arlt R., K \

    K \"a pyl \"a P. J., Rheinhardt M., Brandenburg A., Arlt R., K \"a pyl \"a M. J., Lagg A., Olspert N., Warnecke J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa83ab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845L..23K 845, L23

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2012

  53. [61]

    R., 1995, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 1995, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    1995

  54. [62]

    S., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..174K 145, 174

    Krishna Swamy K. S., 1966, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...145..174K 145, 174

    1966 doi

  55. [63]

    J., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-017-0001-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRCA....3....1K 3, 1

    Kupka F., Muthsam H. J., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-017-0001-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRCA....3....1K 3, 1

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Kupka F., Ahlborn F., Weiss A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..96K 667, A96

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Lundkvist M

    Larsen J. R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Lundkvist M. S., R rsted J. L., Winther M. L., Kjeldsen H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.394L 690, A394

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    Li Y., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756...37L 756, 37

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Huber D., Ball W

    Li T., Bedding T. R., Huber D., Ball W. H., Stello D., Murphy S. J., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3079 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..981L 475, 981

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    R., Bedding T

    Li T., Bi S., Davies G. R., Bedding T. R., Li Y., Stello D., Reyes C., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2810L 530, 2810

    doi

  61. [69]

    Li Y., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6c3e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...77L 974, 77

    doi

  62. [70]

    Ludwig H.-G., Freytag B., Steffen M., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...346..111L 346, 111

    1999

  63. [71]

    G., Caffau E., Steffen M., Freytag B., Bonifacio P., Ku c inskas A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.0908.4496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MmSAI..80..711L 80, 711

    Ludwig H. G., Caffau E., Steffen M., Freytag B., Bonifacio P., Ku c inskas A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.0908.4496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MmSAI..80..711L 80, 711

    2009 doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    F., Nordlund A ., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..26M 557, A26

    Magic Z., Collet R., Asplund M., Trampedach R., Hayek W., Chiavassa A., Stein R. F., Nordlund A ., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..26M 557, A26

    doi

  65. [73]

    Magic Z., Collet R., Hayek W., Asplund M., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A...8M 560, A8

    doi

  66. [74]

    Magic Z., Weiss A., Asplund M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423760 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..89M 573, A89

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    Manchon L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.146M 687, A146

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    Martocchia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2688M 473, 2688

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Maxted P. F. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498..332M 498, 332

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    Mel \'e ndez J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...14M 791, 14

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...331..815M 331, 815

    Mihalas D., Dappen W., Hummer D. G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166601 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...331..815M 331, 815

    1988 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Maxted P

    Miller N. J., Maxted P. F. L., Smalley B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.2899M 497, 2899

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    R., Ball W

    Mosumgaard J. R., Ball W. H., Silva Aguirre V., Weiss A., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5650M 478, 5650

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    R., J rgensen A

    Mosumgaard J. R., J rgensen A. C. S., Weiss A., Silva Aguirre V., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1160M 491, 1160

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Richard O., Lind K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...48N 753, 48

    Nordlander T., Korn A. J., Richard O., Lind K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...48N 753, 48

    2012 doi

  76. [84]

    rep., Astronomical Observatory, Copenhagen University

    Nordlund ., Galsgaard K., 1995, Tech. rep., Astronomical Observatory, Copenhagen University

    1995

  77. [85]

    F., Asplund M., 2009, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2009-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009LRSP....6....2N 6, 2

    Nordlund ., Stein R. F., Asplund M., 2009, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2009-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009LRSP....6....2N 6, 2

    2009 doi

  78. [86]

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

    2011 doi

  79. [87]

    Pereira T. M. D., Asplund M., Collet R., Thaler I., Trampedach R., Leenaarts J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A.118P 554, A118

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    Pinsonneault M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..557P 35, 557

    1997 doi

  81. [89]

    H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...32P 239, 32

    Pinsonneault M. H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...32P 239, 32

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    Plez B., 2008, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T133/014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhST..133a4003P 133, 014003

    2008 doi

  83. [91]

    R., Michaud G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...371..584P 371, 584

    Proffitt C. R., Michaud G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...371..584P 371, 584

    1991 doi

  84. [92]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...41P 152, 41

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...83P 141, 83

    2011 doi

  86. [94]

    Reipurth B., 1978, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978IBVS.1419....1R 1419, 1

    1978

  87. [95]

    A., Battich T., Weiss A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.260R 687, A260

    Remple B. A., Battich T., Weiss A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.260R 687, A260

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    J., Cline A

    Renka R. J., Cline A. K., 1984, The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics, 14, 223

    1984

  89. [97]

    Richard O., Michaud G., Richer J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..538R 619, 538

    2005 doi

  90. [98]

    Richer J., Michaud G., Rogers F., Iglesias C., Turcotte S., LeBlanc F., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...492..833R 492, 833

    1998 doi

  91. [99]

    F., Bigot L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Lund M

    Rodr \' guez D \' az L. F., Bigot L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Lund M. N., R rsted J. L., Kallinger T., Sulis S., Mary D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1741R 514, 1741

    2022 doi

  92. [100]

    F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.212R 688, A212

    Rodr \' guez D \' az L. F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.212R 688, A212

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    Rogers F. J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    2002 doi

  94. [102]

    Saffe C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682L..23S 682, L23

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    P., Pietrinferni A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..68S 612, A68

    Salaris M., Cassisi S., Schiavon R. P., Pietrinferni A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..68S 612, A68

    2018 doi

  96. [104]

    S., Aerts C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.116S 592, A116

    Schmid V. S., Aerts C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A.116S 592, A116

    2016 doi

  97. [105]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2127S 452, 2127

    2015 doi

  98. [106]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.5487S 475, 5487

    2018 doi

  99. [107]

    C., Sills A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...87S 776, 87

    Spada F., Demarque P., Kim Y. C., Sills A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...87S 776, 87

    2013 doi

  100. [108]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..135S 869, 135

    Spada F., Demarque P., Basu S., Tanner J. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..135S 869, 135

    2018 doi

  101. [109]

    Spada F., Demarque P., Kupka F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3128S 504, 3128

    2021 doi

  102. [110]

    Steffen M., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...239..443S 239, 443

    1990

  103. [111]

    F., Nordlund A ., Collet R., Trampedach R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...24S 970, 24

    Stein R. F., Nordlund A ., Collet R., Trampedach R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...24S 970, 24

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    E., Silva Aguirre V., White T

    Stokholm A., Nissen P. E., Silva Aguirre V., White T. R., Lund M. N., Mosumgaard J. R., Huber D., Jessen-Hansen J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..928S 489, 928

    2019 doi

  105. [113]

    D., Basu S., Demarque P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..17T 822, L17

    Tanner J. D., Basu S., Demarque P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L..17T 822, L17

    2016 doi

  106. [114]

    Tayar J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...17T 840, 17

    2017 doi

  107. [115]

    S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250417853T p

    Thomsen J. S., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250417853T p. arXiv:2504.17853

    2025 doi arXiv

  108. [116]

    A., Bahcall J

    Thoul A. A., Bahcall J. N., Loeb A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..828T 421, 828

    1994 doi

  109. [117]

    F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...78T 731, 78

    Trampedach R., Stein R. F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...78T 731, 78

    2011 doi

  110. [118]

    F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769...18T 769, 18

    Trampedach R., Asplund M., Collet R., Nordlund ., Stein R. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/18 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769...18T 769, 18

    2013 doi

  111. [119]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund A ., Asplund M., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..805T 442, 805

    Trampedach R., Stein R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund A ., Asplund M., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442..805T 442, 805

    doi

  112. [120]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund ., Asplund M., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4366T 445, 4366

    Trampedach R., Stein R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund ., Asplund M., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4366T 445, 4366

    doi

  113. [121]

    G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.203V 678, A203

    Valle G., Dell'Omodarme M., Prada Moroni P. G., Degl'Innocenti S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.203V 678, A203

    2023 doi

  114. [122]

    Varenne O., Monier R., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...351..247V 351, 247

    1999

  115. [123]

    Verma K., Silva Aguirre V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1850V 489, 1850

    2019 doi

  116. [124]

    R., Lund M

    Verma K., Raodeo K., Basu S., Silva Aguirre V., Mazumdar A., Mosumgaard J. R., Lund M. N., Ranadive P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4678V 483, 4678

    2019 doi

  117. [125]

    E., Avrett E

    Vernazza J. E., Avrett E. H., Loeser R., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJS...45..635V 45, 635

    1981 doi

  118. [126]

    S., Basu S., Ong J

    Viani L. S., Basu S., Ong J. M. J., Bonaca A., Chaplin W. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858...28V 858, 28

    2018 doi

  119. [127]

    Vinyoles N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..202V 835, 202

    2017 doi

  120. [128]

    X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5394W 528, 5394

    Wang E. X., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.5394W 528, 5394

    2024 doi

  121. [129]

    Weiss A., Schlattl H., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-007-9606-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap&SS.316...99W 316, 99

    2008 doi

  122. [130]

    Xiong D.-r., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.438864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...7...95X 7, 95

    2021

  123. [131]

    Zhang X., Cai T., Li Y., Wu T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac695b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931...64Z 931, 64

    2022 doi

  124. [132]

    Zhou Y., Asplund M., Collet R., Joyce M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4904Z 495, 4904

    2020 doi

  125. [133]

    M., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Karlsmose K

    Zhou Y., Amarsi A. M., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Karlsmose K. G., Collet R., Nordlander T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..98Z 677, A98

    2023 doi

  126. [134]

    L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..118Z 962, 118

    Zhou Y., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Asplund M., Li Y., Trampedach R., Ting Y.-S., R rsted J. L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..118Z 962, 118

    2024 doi

  127. [135]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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