Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Seismology and diffusion of ultramassive white dwarf magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WD J0135+5722's longest g-mode pulsation caps its surface magnetic field at ~2 kG, and the field's inward diffusion turns that limit into a verdict on whether its core is carbon–oxygen or oxygen–neon.

desk verdict A solid transfer of seismic magnetometry to an ultramassive WD that yields a new CO/ONe discriminator, with the ONe exclusion resting on one MESA r0_out that the authors flag but don't stress-test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05343 v1 pith:B5Y6H4PT submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.SR

Daniel Blatman , Nicholas Z. Rui , Sivan Ginzburg , Jim Fuller This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords ultramassivewhitedwarfsasteroseismologymagneticfieldscrystallizationdynamog-modesuppressiondiffusionWDJ0135+5722dwarfcorecomposition
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

Ultramassive white dwarfs crystallize while they are still passing through the ZZ Ceti pulsational instability strip, so their measured oscillation modes can reveal what is happening in their interiors. The paper shows that even the weak exponential tail of a magnetic field diffusing outward from a crystallizing core, if it reaches the near-surface layers, can suppress the gravity waves that produce the observed pulsations. Applying this idea to WD J0135+5722, the richest pulsating ultramassive white dwarf known, the authors use the survival of its longest-period mode to bound the surface magnetic field at $B_{\mathrm{surf}} \lesssim 2\,\mathrm{kG}$. Solving the induction equation then translates this into an internal field limit that depends sharply on core composition: below about $0.6\,\mathrm{MG}$ for a carbon–oxygen core, but below only about $7\,\mathrm{kG}$ for an oxygen–neon core. That tiny limit for an ONe core leaves no room for the intense crystallization dynamo or merger magnetization that such a core would require, so the seismology effectively discriminates between compositions and formation channels of these stars.

What carries the argument

The mechanism has two coupled pieces. First, magnetic g-mode suppression: a radial field exceeding $B_{r,\mathrm{crit}} = \frac{8\pi^{5/2} a_{\mathrm{crit}} \sqrt{\rho r}}{N P^2}$ locally halts the propagation of a gravity wave, and this threshold is smallest in the strongly stratified, low-density layers just below the surface, so the longest observed period is an exquisitely sensitive upper bound on the near-surface field. Second, Ohmic diffusion of the interior field: the authors solve the induction equation (dipole geometry, Crank–Nicolson) starting from a uniform field $B_0$ confined to radii $r \le r^0_{\mathrm{out}}$, where $r^0_{\mathrm{out}}$ is the outer radius of the convection zone at the onset of crystallization, set by the drop in mean molecular weight in the initial composition profile. The CO and ONe models differ precisely there—$r^0_{\mathrm{out}}/r_{\mathrm{wd}} \approx 0.53$ versus $0.77$—and that single number decides whether only the exponential tail reaches the surface (CO) or the bulk field breaks out (ONe), turning the same observed 2 kG surface limit into a 0.6 MG versus 7 kG internal bound.

What would settle it

Rebuild the oxygen–neon model with a ternary phase diagram (adding sodium and magnesium) or with a merger-produced composition profile and recompute the convection-zone outer radius at the onset of crystallization; a value of $r^0_{\mathrm{out}}/r_{\mathrm{wd}}$ much below 0.77 would mean the field has not broken out by the observed cooling age, lifting the internal-field limit for ONe far above 7 kG and vitiating the 'not ONe' conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the pulsations of a partially crystallized ultramassive white dwarf can act as a magnetometer for magnetic fields that are still buried in the interior. Because the g-mode cavity is bounded on the inside by the crystal front and the suppression threshold $B_{r,\mathrm{crit}}$ is lowest in the low-density outer layers, the mere detection of a sharply peaked long-period mode implies $B_{\mathrm{surf}} \lesssim 2\,\mathrm{kG}$ for WD J0135+5722. Diffusing that limit inward with the induction equation gives wildly different allowed internal fields depending on composition: $B_0 \lesssim 0.6\,\mathrm{MG}$ for a CO core (only the exponential tail of the field has reached the surface) versus $B_0 \lesssim 7\,\mathrm{kG}$ for an ONe core, where the field has already broken out because the convection-zone outer radius is larger ($r^0_{\mathrm{out}}/r_{\mathrm{wd}} \approx 0.77$ vs $0.53$). The authors conclude that WD J0135 is unlikely to harbor an ONe core; if it does, the crystallization dynamo or merger field must be far weaker than proposed. Either way, seismic magnetic constraints become a new probe of the composition and formation history of ultramassive white dwarfs.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion hinges on the value of $r^0_{\mathrm{out}}$, the outer radius of the convection zone at the onset of crystallization, and specifically on the ONe model's $r^0_{\mathrm{out}}/r_{\mathrm{wd}} = 0.77$; if the true ONe value were smaller, the field would not have broken out to the surface and the derived 7 kG internal-field limit would be replaced by a far larger limit, destroying the case against an ONe core.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For WD J0135+5722, the detection of a sharply peaked ~1350 s pulsation bounds the near-surface magnetic field to $B_{\mathrm{surf}} \lesssim 2\,\mathrm{kG}$, an order of magnitude or more below typical white-dwarf spectropolarimetric detection limits.
  • If the core is carbon–oxygen, the internal field satisfies $B_0 \lesssim 0.6\,\mathrm{MG}$, comfortably consistent with the crystallization dynamo theory and with the pattern of late-emerging fields seen in lower-mass white dwarfs.
  • If the core is oxygen–neon, the internal field must satisfy $B_0 \lesssim 7\,\mathrm{kG}$, which rules out the intense early dynamo or merger-generated field that an ONe core would require; the paper therefore takes the data to disfavor an ONe core for WD J0135.
  • A future non-detection of magnetic frequency shifts at the level of $1\,\mu\mathrm{Hz}$ would tighten the surface-field bound to roughly a few $\times 10^2\,\mathrm{G}$ for both compositions, sharpening the composition test.
  • More generally, seismology can now probe internal magnetic fields of partially crystallized white dwarfs before those fields diffuse to the surface, turning each pulsating UMWD into a joint constraint on core composition and internal field strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same diffusion-plus-seismology pipeline can be applied to other crystallizing pulsating white dwarfs, effectively mapping out the (composition, internal-field) plane across the UMWD population; a survey would test whether the apparent CO preference of WD J0135 reflects a broader trend.
  • The extreme sensitivity of the CO bound to the exponential tail means that small improvements in the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reaction rate or in overshoot prescriptions will translate directly into sharper internal-field limits—so the result is a practical target for nuclear astrophysics as well.
  • If surface convection zones generate their own kilogauss fields, as the paper notes is possible, those fields would have to be prevented from entering the radiative g-mode cavity for the seismic bound to hold; observations that correlate magnetic signatures with near-surface properties would distinguish surface-generated from internally diffused fields.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a seismic method to probe magnetic fields buried inside ultramassive white dwarfs before they diffuse to the surface. For the pulsating UMWD WD J0135+5722, a non-detection of g-mode suppression yields a surface field limit B_surf <~ 2 kG. Combining this with a numerical solution of the induction equation, the authors derive an internal field limit B0 <~ 0.6 MG for a CO core and B0 <~ 7 kG for an ONe core. The small ONe limit is interpreted as ruling out an ONe composition or, alternatively, an intense dynamo during crystallization or merger.

Significance. If the ONe conclusion survives scrutiny, the paper offers a new and potentially powerful diagnostic of UMWD core composition and magnetic field origin, using seismology as a probe of fields that have not yet reached the surface. The CO-core limit is robust at the factor-of-a-few level and is consistent with crystallization dynamo predictions. The paper is careful in several respects: it uses a physically motivated initial field profile, accounts for the exponential diffusion tail, tests CO models against variations in the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate and convective overshoot, and conservatively assumes all detected modes are ell=1. These strengths make the method credible for the CO case. The ONe exclusion, however, rests on a single model parameter whose uncertainty is acknowledged but not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5) and Fig. 1] The ONe-core exclusion is load-bearing and rests entirely on the value r0_out/rwd = 0.77 obtained from a single MESA model. Because the diffusing field at the surface is exponentially sensitive to the distance between r0_out and the stellar surface, a modest reduction in the ONe r0_out would move the field from the bulk-breakout regime into the exponential-tail regime. In that case the limit would rise from B0 <~ 7 kG to roughly 0.1-1 MG, and the claimed exclusion of an ONe core would disappear. The paper itself flags sensitivity to the ternary ONe phase diagram (Castro-Tapia & Cumming 2025) and to formation history (Sec. 5), but it computes no ONe variants. I request either additional ONe models spanning plausible phase diagrams and formation channels, or a substantially weakened statement of the ONe exclusion.
  2. [Sec. 2, footnote 1] The footnote states that the make_o_ne_wd test suite 'simplifies some stages of stellar evolution for numerical convenience.' Since the initial composition profile sets r0_out, and r0_out sets the breakout behavior, the authors should specify which evolutionary stages are simplified and argue that these simplifications do not bias r0_out at the level needed for the ONe conclusion. Without this, the value r0_out/rwd = 0.77 is not established with the precision required to distinguish bulk breakout from exponential-tail diffusion.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Eq. (7)] The seismic upper limit B_surf <~ 2 kG is derived from the non-suppression of the longest-period mode. This is a reasonable and conservative application of the Fuller et al. (2015) criterion, but the interpretation assumes that the detected mode is a genuine g mode in the cavity and that its sharp peak implies no magnetic suppression. The paper cites literature questioning the totality of suppression (Mosser et al. 2017; Loi 2020; Mueller et al. 2025) but does not quantify how a partial-suppression scenario would affect the derived B0 limits. A brief quantitative discussion of this uncertainty would strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'on the the other hand' should be 'on the other hand.'
  2. [Sec. 5] 'Never the less' should be 'Nevertheless.'
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption text '10.2 0.5' appears garbled; it likely should read something like '0.2 0.5' or '0.2 0.5 mode period (ks)'. Please correct the axis label/caption.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The symbol ell in Eq. (9) and surrounding text is used both as the angular degree and in the subscript of the sensitivity factor; this is understandable but could be clarified by using explicit 'l' in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the seismic surface-field limit and the diffusion-based internal-field bound are independent forward-model steps, with acknowledged model uncertainties in r0_out rather than constructional circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) observed g-mode non-suppression in WD J0135 implies B_r,surf <= B_r,crit (Eq. 7); (ii) the induction equation (Eq. 3) is solved linearly with the initial uniform-field condition (Eq. 5), so B(r,t) = B0 f(r,t); (iii) the surface limit is divided by the diffusion factor f at the surface to obtain an upper limit on B0 (CO: 0.6 MG, ONe: 7 kG); (iv) this bound is compared with dynamo/merger expectations. At no point is the target quantity (B0 or core composition) used to define the observable or the fitted parameter; B0 is a free amplitude scaled by a linear diffusion solution, and the ONe exclusion is a forward-model consequence of the larger r0_out obtained from MESA structure models. The paper explicitly flags the dominant uncertainty in Sec. 5: 'The major uncertainty of our analysis is the size of the initial convection zone r0_out,' including sensitivity to the ternary ONe phase diagram (Castro-Tapia & Cumming 2025) and formation history (single vs. merger). This is a parameter-sensitivity caveat, not an equation that reduces to its own input. Self-citations (Rui et al. 2025 for the seismic method; Blatman & Ginzburg 2024a,b for dynamo expectations) are independently published, applied to other stars, or externally falsifiable, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-justification. No circular step can be exhibited as Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or as a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the assumed initial field configuration, the g-mode suppression criterion, and the model-dependent convection radius r0_out. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free inputs are r0_out, the uncertain prefactor a_crit, and the initial field strength B0, which is the quantity being bounded rather than fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • r0_out/rwd for CO model = 0.53
    Outer radius of the convection zone at the onset of crystallization, from the MESA CO model. It is a model output but acts as a free input for the diffusion calculation; variations in the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate change it and lead to B0 uncertainty +0.7/-0.4 MG.
  • r0_out/rwd for ONe model = 0.77
    Outer radius for the ONe model; the ONe exclusion hinges on this large value, which is sensitive to the phase diagram and formation history.
  • a_crit = 0.5 sqrt(l(l+1)), about 0.7 for l=1
    Order-unity prefactor in the g-mode suppression criterion (eq. 8). Its uncertainty means the seismic limits are order-of-magnitude only. Chosen from Fuller et al. (2015).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is an axisymmetric poloidal dipole with a uniform initial strength B0 confined to r < r0_out at time t0 (eq. 5).
    Initial condition for the diffusion equation. The actual field geometry and distribution at the onset of crystallization are unknown.
  • domain assumption Detection of a sharply peaked g mode implies the magnetic field is below the suppression threshold B_r,crit everywhere in the cavity.
    Assumed in Section 4; if suppression is not total, modes could be detected even above threshold, weakening the upper limit.
  • domain assumption Ohmic diffusion is the only magnetic transport mechanism for r > r0_out; turbulent diffusivity is neglected.
    Stated in Section 3. A higher diffusivity would lower the inferred B0 upper limits, so this is conservative for the upper bound.
  • domain assumption The crystal phase's higher electrical conductivity does not significantly affect diffusion of the field's outer tail.
    The paper argues the crystallization front does not reach much beyond r0_out; this is plausible but not quantitatively demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The MESA phase-separation scheme (Bauer 2023) correctly determines r0_out for both compositions.
    r0_out is the key model-dependent quantity; the paper tests sensitivity to reaction rates and overshoot for CO but not for ONe.
  • domain assumption The suppression criterion of Fuller et al. (2015) with a_crit approximately 0.5 sqrt(l(l+1)) applies to white dwarf g modes.
    This criterion is taken from red-giant asteroseismology; its order-unity prefactor is geometry- and mode-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Seismology and diffusion of ultramassive white dwarf magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5Y6H4PT

@misc{pith2026250705343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Seismology and diffusion of ultramassive white dwarf magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5Y6H4PT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05343}
}
abstract

Ultramassive white dwarfs (UMWDs; defined by masses $\gtrsim 1.1\,{\rm M}_\odot$) are prime targets for seismology, because they pass through the ZZ Ceti instability strip at the same time that their cores crystallize. Recent studies suggest that crystallization may magnetize white dwarf interiors with a strong magnetic field $B_0$ up to a radius $r_{\rm out}^0$, either through a magnetic dynamo or by transporting a pre-existing fossil field. We demonstrate that seismology can probe these buried fields before they break out at the surface, because even the weak exponential tail of the outwardly diffusing field can disrupt the propagation of gravity waves near the surface. Based on the observed oscillation modes of WD J0135+5722 - the richest pulsating UMWD to date - we constrain its surface field $B_{\rm surf}\lesssim 2\,\textrm{kG}$. We solve the induction equation and translate this to an upper limit on the internal field $B_0$. For a carbon-oxygen (CO) core we find $B_{\rm surf}\ll B_0\lesssim 0.6\,\textrm{MG}$, consistent with the crystallization dynamo theory. For an oxygen-neon (ONe) core, on the the other hand, $r_{\rm out}^0$ is larger, such that the magnetic field breaks out and $B_{\rm surf}\lesssim B_0\lesssim 7\,\textrm{kG}$. This low magnetic field rules out an ONe composition or, alternatively, an intense dynamo during crystallization or merger. Either way, the imprint of magnetic fields on UMWD seismology may reveal the uncertain composition and formation paths of these stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panels: the composition, crystallization radius 𝑟cryst, and outer radius of the convection zone 𝑟 0 out for a 1.14 M⊙ white dwarf at the early phase of crystallization – when a magnetic dynamo is efficient. 𝑟 0 out corresponds to the drop in the mean molecular weight in the initial white dwarf profile, which stabilizes convection (see Section 2). We compute the diffusion of the magnetic field from this 𝑟 0 out t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: asteroseismic propagation diagrams for the CO and ONe white dwarf models when 𝑇eff = 12.4 kK. The green region denotes the g-mode cavity. Observed mode periods of WD J0135 are also indicated. Bottom: magnetic fields required to suppress the propagation of g modes (𝐵𝑟,crit; solid thin blue-to-yellow lines corresponding to the observed modes) or their convective excitation (√︁ 8π𝑝; brown dashed lines). The magnet… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The magnetic field implied by observed magnetic frequency shifts of 𝛿𝜈ℓ mag = 1 𝜇Hz to the dipole (blue) and quadrupole (red) modes for the CO model. Points show estimates calculated using mode eigenfunctions computed using gyre. Translucent curves show estimates calculated using equation (13), in the asymptotic limit (including the ad hoc non-asymptotic correction factor of Rui et al. 2025). The same curves for the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..30A 646, A30

    Althaus L. G., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..30A 646, A30

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 2021

  2. [2]

    Angel J. R. P., Landstreet J. D., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...164L..15A 164, L15

    doi:10.1086/180682 1971

  3. [3]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..12B 935, L12

    Bagnulo S., Landstreet J. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..12B 935, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 2022

  4. [4]

    B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..115B 950, 115

    Bauer E. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..115B 950, 115

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 2023

  5. [5]

    B., Schwab J., Bildsten L., Cheng S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902...93B 902, 93

    Bauer E. B., Schwab J., Bildsten L., Cheng S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902...93B 902, 93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5a5 2020

  6. [6]

    B \'e dard A., Blouin S., Cheng S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.627..286B 627, 286

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y 2024

  7. [7]

    Blatman D., Ginzburg S., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3153B 528, 3153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae222

  8. [8]

    Blatman D., Ginzburg S., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533L..13B 533, L13

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae054

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Blouin S., Daligault J., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.103.043204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvE.103d3204B 103, 043204

    doi

  2. [10]

    Blouin S., Daligault J., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919...87B 919, 87

    doi

  3. [11]

    Blouin S., Daligault J., Saumon D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911L...5B 911, L5

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJS...80..369B 80, 369

    Brassard P., Fontaine G., Wesemael F., Hansen C. J., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191668 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJS...80..369B 80, 369

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    arXiv:2505.17177

    Caliskan O., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.17177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250517177C p. arXiv:2505.17177

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    E., Althaus L

    Camisassa M. E., Althaus L. G., Torres S., C \'o rsico A. H., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Tremblay P.-E., Cheng S., Raddi R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649L...7C 649, L7

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Raddi R., Althaus L

    Camisassa M. E., Raddi R., Althaus L. G., Isern J., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Torres S., C \'o rsico A. H., Korre L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516L...1C 516, L1

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Schreiber M

    Camisassa M., Fuentes J. R., Schreiber M. R., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Torres S., Raddi R., Dominguez I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691L..21C 691, L21

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Cantiello M., Fuller J., Bildsten L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824...14C 824, 14

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    arXiv:2506.16529

    Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.16529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250616529C p. arXiv:2506.16529

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969...10C 969, 10

    Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., Fuentes J. R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969...10C 969, 10

    doi

  12. [20]

    Castro-Tapia M., Zhang S., Cumming A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...63C 975, 63

    doi

  13. [21]

    D., M \'e nard B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..100C 886, 100

    Cheng S., Cummings J. D., M \'e nard B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..100C 886, 100

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    T., Farag E., Timmes F

    Chidester M. T., Farag E., Timmes F. X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ec3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...21C 935, 21

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    T., Timmes F

    Chidester M. T., Timmes F. X., Farag E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...51C 954, 51

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Garc \' a-Berro E., Althaus L

    C \'o rsico A. H., Garc \' a-Berro E., Althaus L. G., Isern J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040416 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...427..923C 427, 923

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Althaus L

    C \'o rsico A. H., Althaus L. G., Montgomery M. H., Garc \' a-Berro E., Isern J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...429..277C 429, 277

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    H., Althaus L

    C \'o rsico A. H., Althaus L. G., Miller Bertolami M. M., Kepler S. O., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-019-0118-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&ARv..27....7C 27, 7

    doi

  19. [27]

    H., De Ger \'o nimo F

    C \'o rsico A. H., De Ger \'o nimo F. C., Camisassa M. E., Althaus L. G., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A.119C 632, A119

    doi

  20. [28]

    Cumming A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05434.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..589C 333, 589

    2002

  21. [29]

    J., Kilic M., Romero A

    Curd B., Gianninas A., Bell K. J., Kilic M., Romero A. D., Allende Prieto C., Winget D. E., Winget K. I., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468..239C 468, 239

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    C., C \'o rsico A

    De Ger \'o nimo F. C., C \'o rsico A. H., Althaus L. G., Wachlin F. C., Camisassa M. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.100D 621, A100

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Miller Bertolami M

    De Ger \'o nimo F. C., Miller Bertolami M. M., Plaza F., Catelan M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A.150D 659, A150

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Uzundag M., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Brown A., Kilic M., C \'o rsico A

    De Ger \'o nimo F. C., Uzundag M., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Brown A., Kilic M., C \'o rsico A. H., Jewett G. C., Moss A. G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adad73 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980L...9D 980, L9

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Dominguez I., Straniero O., Tornambe A., Isern J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/178106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..783D 472, 783

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    Ferrario L., de Martino D., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Ferrario L., Wickramasinghe D., Kawka A., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1025F 66, 1025

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASP..120.1043F 120, 1043

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    H., van Horn H

    Fontaine G., Thomas J. H., van Horn H. M., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...184..911F 184, 911

    1973 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Cumming A., Castro-Tapia M., Anders E

    Fuentes J. R., Cumming A., Castro-Tapia M., Anders E. H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accb56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...73F 950, 73

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..15F 964, L15

    Fuentes J. R., Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..15F 964, L15

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Bildsten L., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aac6933 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...350..423F 350, 423

    Fuller J., Cantiello M., Stello D., Garcia R. A., Bildsten L., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aac6933 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...350..423F 350, 423

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    Garc \' a-Berro E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...25G 749, 25

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4570G 482, 4570

    Gentile Fusillo N. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4570G 482, 4570

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Ginzburg S., Fuller J., Kawka A., Caiazzo I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.4111G 514, 4111

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Kepler S

    Hermes J. J., Kepler S. O., Castanheira B. G., Gianninas A., Winget D. E., Montgomery M. H., Brown W. R., Harrold S. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L...2H 771, L2

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Herwig F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...360..952H 360, 952

    2000 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Isern J., Mochkovitch R., Garc \' a-Berro E., Hernanz M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485..308I 485, 308

    1997 doi

  39. [47]

    Isern J., Garc \' a-Berro E., K \"u lebi B., Lor \'e n-Aguilar P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836L..28I 836, L28

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    S., Schwab J., Bauer E., Timmes F

    Jermyn A. S., Schwab J., Bauer E., Timmes F. X., Potekhin A. Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf48e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...72J 913, 72

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Jewett G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...12J 974, 12

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Ji S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..136J 773, 136

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Pesnell W

    Jones P. W., Pesnell W. D., Hansen C. J., Kawaler S. D., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...336..403J 336, 403

    1989 doi

  45. [53]

    Kanaan A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...432..219K 432, 219

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Swedlund J

    Kemp J. C., Swedlund J. B., Landstreet J. D., Angel J. R. P., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...161L..77K 161, L77

    1970 doi

  47. [55]

    H., Moss A

    Kilic M., C \'o rsico A. H., Moss A. G., Jewett G., De Ger \'o nimo F. C., Althaus L. G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2181K 522, 2181

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Angel J

    Landstreet J. D., Angel J. R. P., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...165L..67L 165, L67

    1971 doi

  49. [57]

    D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G

    Landstreet J. D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G. G., Gadelshin D., Martin A. J., Galazutdinov G., Semenko E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...580A.120L 580, A120

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Fuller J., Cantiello M., Burns K

    Lecoanet D., Vasil G. M., Fuller J., Cantiello M., Burns K. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2181L 466, 2181

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    W., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..797L 425, 797

    Livio M., Truran J. W., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425..797L 425, 797

    1994 doi

  52. [60]

    T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5726L 493, 5726

    Loi S. T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.5726L 493, 5726

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    A., Thomas J

    Markiel J. A., Thomas J. H., van Horn H. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..834M 430, 834

    1994 doi

  54. [62]

    K., Buonanno A., Gair J., Miller M

    Mehta A. K., Buonanno A., Gair J., Miller M. C., Farag E., deBoer R. J., Wiescher M., Timmes F. X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924...39M 924, 39

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Montgomery M

    Metcalfe T. S., Montgomery M. H., Kanaan A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L.133M 605, L133

    2004 doi

  56. [64]

    Mochkovitch R., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...122..212M 122, 212

    1983

  57. [65]

    H., Dunlap B

    Montgomery M. H., Dunlap B. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..197M 961, 197

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    H., Winget D

    Montgomery M. H., Winget D. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..976M 526, 976

    1999 doi

  59. [67]

    H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...84M 716, 84

    Montgomery M. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...84M 716, 84

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    Mosser B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..62M 598, A62

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    M \"u ller J., Copp \'e e Q., Hekker S., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...696A.134M 696, A134

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/209.3.511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.209..511N 209, 511

    Nandkumar R., Pethick C. J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/209.3.511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MNRAS.209..511N 209, 511

    1984 doi

  63. [71]

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

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

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

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

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

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Tucker M

    Rowan D. M., Tucker M. A., Shappee B. J., Hermes J. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4574R 486, 4574

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    Z., Fuller J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..582R 523, 582

    Rui N. Z., Fuller J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523..582R 523, 582

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    Z., Fuller J., Hermes J

    Rui N. Z., Fuller J., Hermes J. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf9e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981...72R 981, 72

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B

    Schreiber M. R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B. T., Parsons S. G., Zorotovic M., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..648S 5, 648

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    Schwab J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...906...53S 906, 53

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Blouin S., Breivik K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..33S 955, L33

    Shen K. J., Blouin S., Breivik K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955L..33S 955, L33

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Interscience, New York

    Spitzer L., 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases . Interscience, New York

    1962

  75. [83]

    A., Bedding T

    Stello D., Cantiello M., Fuller J., Huber D., Garc \' a R. A., Bedding T. R., Bildsten L., Silva Aguirre V., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature16171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529..364S 529, 364

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    J., 1980, Journal de Physique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JPhys..41C..61S 41, C2, 61

    Stevenson D. J., 1980, Journal de Physique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JPhys..41C..61S 41, C2, 61

    1980

  77. [85]

    H., Markiel J

    Thomas J. H., Markiel J. A., van Horn H. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...453..403T 453, 403

    1995 doi

  78. [86]

    Townsend R. H. D., Teitler S. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3406T 435, 3406

    2013 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Fontaine G., Freytag B., Steiner O., Ludwig H

    Tremblay P. E., Fontaine G., Freytag B., Steiner O., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., Wedemeyer S., Brassard P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...19T 812, 19

    2015 doi

  80. [88]

    Tremblay P.-E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0791-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.565..202T 565, 202

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    W., Livio M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..721T 308, 721

    Truran J. W., Livio M., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..721T 308, 721

    1986 doi

  82. [90]

    Vincent O., Bergeron P., Lafreni \`e re D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..252V 160, 252

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    E., van Horn H

    Wendell C. E., van Horn H. M., Sargent D., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313..284W 313, 284

    1987 doi

  84. [92]

    E., Kepler S

    Winget D. E., Kepler S. O., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..157W 46, 157

    2008

  85. [93]

    E., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..839W 430, 839

    Winget D. E., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..839W 430, 839

    1994 doi

  86. [94]

    Wu C., Xiong H., Wang X., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2972W 512, 2972

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    Z., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250518257Y p

    Yaakovyan R., Ginzburg S., Fuller J., Rui N. Z., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250518257Y p. arXiv:2505.18257

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    H., Chang P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L...1Z 806, L1

    Zhu C., Pakmor R., van Kerkwijk M. H., Chang P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L...1Z 806, L1

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.