Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Granulation signatures in 3D hydrodynamical simulations: evaluating background model performance using a Bayesian nested sampling framework

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Multi-component granulation models are consistently preferred over a single Harvey component across 27 convection simulations, with a tentative third component appearing beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$.

desk verdict Solid extension of Lundkvist+21 with a real Bayesian framework, but the model-ranking evidence—especially for the third component—rests on an untested subjective likelihood, so trust the broad multi-component result, not the details. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11699 v1 pith:LN72L55L submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Jens R. Larsen , Mia S. Lundkvist , Guy R. Davies , Martin B. Nielsen , Hans-Günter Ludwig , Yixiao Zhou , Luisa F. Rodríguez Díaz , Hans Kjeldsen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords granulationasteroseismologyBayesianmodelcomparisonnestedsamplingpowerdensityspectrasolar-likeoscillations3DconvectionsimulationsHarveyprofiles
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

The paper asks which mathematical description of granulation — the boiling surface pattern of a convective star — best matches the power spectra produced by realistic 3D simulations of stellar convection. Using a Bayesian nested-sampling framework that delivers the model evidence, it ranks four background models (single-component, hybrid, two-component, three-component) on 27 long-duration simulations spread across the HR diagram. The central finding is that multi-component descriptions always beat the single-component Harvey profile, which rules out magnetic faculae as the only source of the second granulation component, and that a tentative third component beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ is preferred for some simulations. Applied to the star KIC 8006161 and the Sun, the framework finds two- and three-component models preferred, though the third component may be absorbing residuals of the oscillation excess. If the paper is right, single-profile fits underdescribe granulation, and the choice of background model shifts the $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ that asteroseismic scaling relations depend on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the mixed-model likelihood (Eq. 11): a granulation likelihood $L_1$, an exponential $\chi^2$ distribution with two degrees of freedom per frequency bin, is mixed with a constant-mean $\chi^2$ likelihood $L_2$ whose mean is fixed at 1% of the power near $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$, with a sigmoid in frequency as the mixture coefficient so that power beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ is progressively handed to $L_2$ and down-weighted. This lets the authors fit Harvey-profile models to the frequency range where granulation is visible in real stars while ignoring simulation-specific high-frequency artefacts. On top of that, nested sampling (Skilling 2004; Speagle 2020) with a convergence criterion of $\Delta \log Z = 0.1$ yields posterior samples and the evidence $Z$ for each model, and model comparisons reduce to evidence ratios with the prior odds set to 1. The four compared models are Harvey-type profiles: D has one amplitude, one characteristic frequency and one free exponent; J is the hybrid with a single amplitude but two characteristic frequencies; H has two independent components; and T adds a third, higher-frequency component.

What would settle it

Recompute all evidence ratios with the sigmoid transition moved to $0.5\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ and to $2\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ while keeping everything else fixed; if the preference for the three-component model beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ reverses or vanishes, that component is a product of the weighting rather than an intrinsic granulation feature. A second check is to refit the solar spectrum with a more realistic oscillation-envelope model, such as a Voigt profile or an explicit mode list, and see whether the strong preference for the three-component model survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that, judged by Bayesian evidence, a single Harvey-type background component never wins: across the full simulation suite the hybrid model J (one amplitude, two characteristic frequencies), the two-component model H, and the three-component model T each outperform the single-component model D, with J preferred for most simulations and T preferred for several, including the near-noise-free Sun. Because the simulations contain no magnetic activity, the consistent preference for a second component cannot be attributed to stellar faculae, which had been proposed as the source of the second component in observations. The paper further claims a tentative third granulation component beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ for numerous simulations, explicitly cautioning that it could be either a genuine high-frequency granulation signature or a product of numerical box-mode harmonics; and that in the Sun the three-component model is very strongly preferred, while for KIC 8006161 the two- and three-component models are statistically comparable. A direct corollary is that the recovered exponents of all components exceed the literature expectations of about 4, and that the inferred $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ shifts with the chosen background model, so background descriptions feed directly into asteroseismic parameter estimation.

Load-bearing premise

Every reported model preference, including the tentative third component, is computed under a deliberately subjective likelihood weighting: above $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ a sigmoid fades the granulation likelihood out and hands the fit to a flat $\chi^2$ distribution whose mean is fixed at 1% of the power near $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$, so changing the transition frequency or that 1% can change the evidence ratios and the conclusions built on them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-component background descriptions should be considered insufficient for granulation in solar-like stars, since a multi-component model is preferred for every simulation in the suite.
  • Stellar faculae are not the sole source of the second granulation component, because the activity-free simulations show the same preference for two or more components.
  • A third granulation component beyond $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ is tentatively present in some simulations and possibly in the Sun, but verifying it in typical observations requires a better model of the oscillation excess than the Gaussian envelope used here.
  • The recovered $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ depends on which background model is fitted, so the choice of background description propagates into asteroseismic parameter estimates such as surface gravity and radius.
  • Total granulation amplitudes recovered from the simulations scale with $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ as power laws with slopes near $-0.52$, offset from the observed relation, showing that derived granulation parameters depend on both the dataset and the chosen model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Re-running the evidence comparison with the sigmoid transition placed at $0.5\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ or $2\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$, or with the constant likelihood mean set to a different fraction of the power, would test whether the third-component preference is a genuine feature or an artefact of where the weighting drops.
  • Fitting the same simulations at different numerical resolutions or Mach numbers would tell whether the tentative third component tracks box-mode harmonics; if it moves with resolution, it is numerical rather than granulation.
  • The sigmoid transition is anchored to the same $\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ whose value the background model influences; treating the transition frequency as an uncertain fitted parameter would be a stronger test of the beyond-$\nu_{\mathrm{max}}$ component.
  • Connecting the two-component preference to the bimodal granule-size distribution documented for this class of simulations suggests a route to a physically motivated background model, which the paper leaves as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares four parametric descriptions of the granulation background—a single Harvey component (D), a hybrid two-timescale model (J), a two-component model (H), and a three-component model (T)—by fitting power density spectra of 27 non-magnetic 3D hydrodynamical convection simulations from Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2022). Model comparison is performed with a Bayesian nested-sampling framework (Dynesty) under the mixed-model likelihood of Eq. (11), and the framework is then applied to KIC 8006161 and VIRGO solar data. The main findings are that multi-component models are consistently preferred over the single-component model, that the hybrid model J performs well for many simulations, and that a tentative third component beyond νmax is seen for some simulations; the paper also reports granulation amplitude and characteristic-frequency scaling relations and finds exponents steeper than expected.

Significance. If the model-preference results are robust, this is a valuable contribution: it extends granulation-background model tests to a broad HR-diagram suite of simulations without observational noise, provides a public nested-sampling framework, and sharpens the debate on whether multi-component granulation backgrounds are needed. The conclusion that faculae cannot be the sole source of the second component is well motivated because the simulations are non-magnetic. However, the significance is currently conditional: the evidence ratios are computed with a subjective fractional likelihood whose tuning parameters are not specified or tested, and the model J amplitude prior is partly derived from the same simulations, so the exact strengths and rankings of the preferences are not yet established. The paper is transparent about the main confounders for the third component, which is a strength, but the wording in Sect. 4.1 is somewhat stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (11)] The mixed-model likelihood is not a proper sampling distribution for the PDS, and the two subjective ingredients are underspecified and untested. L2 is fixed to a χ2 distribution with constant mean equal to 1% of the power near νmax, and p(ν) is described only as a sigmoid whose 'plateau and slope' are set from νmax, with no explicit functional form. Since every log-evidence difference in Fig. 4 and Tables 3 and C.1 is computed from Eq. (11), the entire model ranking is conditional on these choices. The concern is most acute for model T, whose third component lies beyond νmax where p(ν) has decayed and L2 has increasing weight; a moderate change in sigmoid width or in the L2 mean could alter or erase the preference for T. I ask the authors to (i) state the exact sigmoid parameterization, and (ii) repeat the model comparison for a small grid of transition frequencies, sigmoid widths, and L2 mean levels (for example 0.1%, 1%, and 10% of the power near νmax), reporting how the rankings in Fig. 4 change. Without this, the Jeffreys-scale interpretation of |Δlog Z| is not calibrated.
  2. [Appendix B, Table B.2] The prior for the model J amplitude is derived from preliminary fits to the same simulation suite: the text states that 'we derived our own scaling relation for its amplitude' after 'running test-fits with wide priors' on these simulations. This makes the J evidence a within-sample quantity; the J-versus-H and J-versus-T comparisons in Fig. 4 are therefore not fully out-of-sample Bayes factors and may be biased in J's favor. The D-versus-multi-component conclusion is less affected because D's prior is anchored to Kallinger et al. (2014), but the specific ranking of J relative to H and T needs to be re-examined. A practical remedy would be to calibrate the J amplitude prior on one subset of the simulations and evaluate on the complementary subset, or to show that using the Kallinger et al. (2014) prior with a wider σ leaves the J-versus-H/T evidence ratios qualitatively unchanged.
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 7, and §7] The tentative third component is inferred from the evidence for model T and from the apparent scaling of its characteristic frequency f with νmax. The paper itself notes in §4.1 that the simulation box modes and their harmonics also scale with νmax, so the scaling of f is not a discriminating test. The sentence in §4.1 ('This is interesting and suggests the presence of a genuine granulation component beyond νmax') is stronger than the evidence supports, given that the box modes were artificially damped and residual harmonics are a plausible alternative explanation. I recommend either softening this sentence or adding a concrete diagnostic, such as comparing fits to simulations with and without box-mode damping or checking the third-component frequency against known harmonic frequencies, so that the claim is presented as a testable hypothesis rather than a tentative detection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The sigmoid function should be written out explicitly, including how its midpoint and width depend on νmax; referring only to 'plateau and slope' is insufficient for reproducibility.
  2. [Fig. 4] Because the colorbar saturates at |Δlog Z| ≳ 10, the differences among 'overwhelming' preferences are not visible in the figure; a supplementary table with all numerical evidence ratios would make the results more usable.
  3. [Data availability] The text says the fitting framework is accessible on GitHub but gives no URL or version identifier; a permanent repository link or DOI should be supplied.
  4. [Table C.1] The entry '2542 .57' contains an unintended space between the integer and decimal part; this should be corrected.
  5. [§6.1] The statement that the simulations 'rule out' stellar faculae as the sole source of the second component is slightly overstrong, since simulations also lack other real-star complications; 'argue against' would be more precise, although the non-magnetic nature of the simulations is indeed a strong argument.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The J-amplitude prior is fitted to the same simulation suite on which J is then preferred, and the reported agreement with Kallinger scalings is partly prior echo; the central multi-component preference still has independent support from H and T.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B (prior derivation for model J) applied in Sect. 4 (Fig. 4) and Sect. 4.1 (Fig. 6)]
    "As model J takes a different shape than the rest, we derived our own scaling relation for its amplitude. This was done by first running test-fits with wide priors set by the scaling relations of Kallinger et al. (2014), before deriving a scaling relation for the amplitude based on the preliminary outcomes, and subsequently using it when producing the results of this work."

    The lognormal prior for the J amplitude (Table B.2) is derived from preliminary fits to the same simulation suite whose PDS are then used to compute the evidence ratios in Fig. 4. Model J's preference over D, H, and T is therefore not a fully out-of-sample Bayes factor: part of its support is inherited from a prior tuned to the data being compared. Similarly, the posterior amplitude scaling for J in Fig. 6 is anchored to a relation fitted on the same data, so the recovered values and the fitted power law are partly the same input returned as output. This does not by itself force the D-versus-multi conclusion, since models H and T use externally anchored priors and are also preferred over D.

  2. self definitional [Sect. 3.4 (priors) and Sect. 4.1 (scaling results), with Table B.2]
    "Sect. 3.4: 'Kallinger et al. (2014) derived various scaling relations for the granulation amplitudes and characteristic frequencies in their work, which we generally rely on to inform our priors, with certain nuances depending on the model (see Appendix B).' Sect. 4.1: 'generally follow the observationally determined scaling from Kallinger et al. (2014).'"

    The amplitudes and characteristic frequencies in Figs. 6 and 7 are sampled with lognormal priors whose means are set by the Kallinger et al. (2014) power laws (Table B.2). Claiming in Sect. 4.1 that the recovered values 'generally follow' Kallinger et al. is therefore partly a restatement of the prior input rather than an independent confirmation. The comparison retains some independent content because the fitted power-law slopes (e.g., s = -0.516 ± 0.005 for J) differ from Kallinger's -0.564 ± 0.002, but the agreement claim is weaker than presented.

full rationale

Most of the paper is a self-contained model-comparison exercise: the evidence ratios in Fig. 4 and Tables 3 and C.1 are computed from the PDS via Eqs. 9-11, and the central result that multi-component models are preferred over the single-component D model does not reduce to any input by construction. Models H and T beat D under priors anchored to the external Kallinger et al. (2014) scalings, so that conclusion is data-driven. The circularity concerns are limited to two places. First, the amplitude prior for model J was fitted to preliminary runs on the same simulation suite (Appendix B), so the J-specific evidence and the J amplitude scaling in Figs. 4 and 6 are partly inherited from the prior, making J's comparisons not fully out-of-sample. Second, the reported agreement of the recovered amplitudes and characteristic frequencies with Kallinger scaling in Sect. 4.1 is partly prior echo, because the priors in Table B.2 are centered on those same Kallinger power laws; the differing fitted slopes show this is not entirely forced. The mixed-model likelihood (Eq. 11) is an acknowledged subjective weighting whose sigmoid transition and constant high-frequency mean are not tested in a sensitivity analysis; this is a robustness limitation for the tentative beyond-νmax third-component claim, but it is not circularity, since the third component is fitted from the data and the weighting is not derived from the conclusion. Self-citations to Lundkvist et al. (2021) motivate model J, but the model is re-tested here on new data and is not used as an unverified uniqueness argument, so they are not load-bearing. Overall, the central multi-component preference has independent support, while the J-specific evidence and the scaling 'agreement' are partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central model-comparison conclusion rests on the fitted parameters of the four models, the subjective mixed-model likelihood choices, and a prior for model J derived from the same simulations. The third component is a new postulated model element with no independent evidence yet.

free parameters (7)
  • Granulation component amplitudes a, c, e = see Fig. 6
    Free amplitudes in models J, H, T (and a in D); fitted to each power spectrum via nested sampling. They are outputs of the fit, but the central model-comparison result depends on them.
  • Characteristic frequencies b, d, f = see Fig. 7
    Free characteristic frequencies for each component; fitted.
  • Exponents l, k, m = Table 2 medians
    Free exponents controlling the decline of each component; fitted.
  • L2 constant mean for mixed-model likelihood = 1% of power near νmax
    Chosen by hand in Sect. 3.2; sets the floor likelihood for down-weighted high-frequency bins.
  • Sigmoid weighting parameters = set from νmax
    Plateau and slope of the sigmoid chosen relative to νmax; subjective prior.
  • Model J amplitude prior scaling constants = derived from preliminary test fits
    Appendix B: derived from test-fits with wide priors on the target simulations, then used to set the amplitude prior for production fits.
  • Total amplitude power-law constants k, s = k=3040-3140; s=-0.515 to -0.522
    Sect. 4.1: fit of A_tot vs νmax for models J, H, T on 11 solar-metallicity simulations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Power density spectrum bins follow a χ2 distribution with 2 degrees of freedom
    Used in Eqs. 9-10, following Anderson et al. (1990); standard in asteroseismology.
  • domain assumption Granulation background is a sum of Harvey/super-Lorentzian components
    Sect. 2.1; all four models are of this form, so the comparison is restricted to this family.
  • domain assumption Box modes have been removed from simulation timeseries
    Sect. 2; relies on Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2022); residual harmonics could mimic a third component.
  • ad hoc to paper The sigmoid mixture likelihood is a valid likelihood for model evidence
    Sect. 3.2; no formal derivation, mixing probabilities are chosen by hand.
  • domain assumption Oscillation excess is Gaussian (Eq. 3)
    Used for Doris and the Sun; a Voigt profile could remove the preference for model T, as the authors note.
  • standard math Bayes factor evidence from Dynesty with Δlog Z=0.1 is converged
    Sect. 3; assumes the nested sampling evidence estimates are unbiased.
invented entities (1)
  • Third granulation component (model T)
    purpose: to model a tentative bump in power beyond νmax in some simulations, Doris, and the Sun
    Sect. 2.1 and 5.2; no independent detection. The authors caution it may be a box-mode residual or an artifact of the Gaussian oscillation envelope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Granulation signatures in 3D hydrodynamical simulations: evaluating background model performance using a Bayesian nested sampling framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LN72L55L

@misc{pith2026250711699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Granulation signatures in 3D hydrodynamical simulations: evaluating background model performance using a Bayesian nested sampling framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LN72L55L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11699}
}
abstract

Understanding the granulation background signal is of vital importance when interpreting the asteroseismic diagnostics of solar-like oscillators. Various descriptions exist in the literature for modelling the surface manifestation of convection, the choice of which affects our interpretations. We aim to evaluate the performance of and preference for various granulation background models for a suite of 3D hydrodynamical simulations of convection across the HR diagram, thereby expanding the number of simulations and coverage of parameter space for which such studies have been made. We take a statistical approach by considering the granulation in power density spectra of 3D simulations, where no biases or systematics of observational origin are present. To properly contrast the performance of the models, we develop a Bayesian nested sampling framework for model inference and comparison. This framework was extended to real stellar data using KIC 8006161 (Doris) and the Sun. We find that multi-component models are consistently preferred over a single-component model, with each tested multi-component model demonstrating merit in specific cases. This occurs for simulations with no magnetic activity, thus ruling out stellar faculae as the sole source of the second granulation component. Like a previous study, we find that a hybrid model with a single overall amplitude and two characteristic frequencies performs well for numerous simulations. Additionally, a tentative third granulation component beyond the value of $\nu_\mathrm{max}$ is seen for some simulations, but its potential presence in observations requires further efforts. Studying the granulation signatures in these simulations paves the way to studying stars with accurate granulation models. This deeper understanding of the granulation signal may lead to complementary methods to existing algorithms for determining stellar parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiel diagram displaying the simulation suite from Ro￾dríguez Díaz et al. (2022). The available simulations are plotted for their associated metallicity in vertical stacks. The target (Teff, log g) positions for each cluster is indicated by the connected black point. Note that the actual temperature of the relaxed simulations differs slightly from the target value. A sample of solar metallicity stellar evolution trac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timeseries and PDS of three simulations from Rodríguez Díaz et al. (2022), as a reformatted version of their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PDS with sigmoid weighting for the mixed-model likelihood approach for a red-giant simulation. The raw spectrum is shown in grey with a binned version overplotted in black. The opacity of the binned PDS is set by the value of the sigmoid weight, indicated by the red profile gradually decreasing from 1 towards 0 as indicated by the right￾hand axis. The mean of the constant χ 2 likelihood L2 is indicated by the orange… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The sigmoid weight, as described above, is dynamically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evidence ratios for the specified model comparisons in increasing complexity. The format of the vertical stacks follow the metallicity convention introduced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fits of models D, J, H, and T for a subgiant simulation with Teff = 5500 K, log g = 3.5 dex and [Fe/H] = 0.0 dex. The models are fitted to the unbinned PDS shown in grey, but for clarity, a binned version is overplotted indicating also the sigmoid weighting as in [PIT…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Granulation amplitudes, normalised by ξi as explained in Sect. 2.2, obtained as the median of the posterior with uncertainties as the 16th and 84th percentiles (often too small to be seen). The colours indicate metallicity following the convention in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Characteristic frequencies obtained as the median of the posterior with uncertainties as the 16th and 84th percentiles (often too small to be seen). The colours indicate metallicity, following the convention in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fits of models D, J, H, and T to Doris. The models are fitted to the unbinned PDS shown in grey, but for clarity, a binned version is overplotted. The model is plotted in red using the median of the obtained posteriors for each fit parameter. Additionally, 50 randomly …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fit of model T to ≃ 1150 days of VIRGO data of the Sun. The nomenclature of the plot is as explained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    R., Duvall , Thomas L., J., & Jefferies , S

    Anderson , E. R., Duvall , Thomas L., J., & Jefferies , S. M. 1990, , 364, 699

    1990

  4. [4]

    2003, , 412, 903

    Appourchaux , T. 2003, , 412, 903

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2011, , 531, A124

    Ballot , J., Barban , C., & van't Veer-Menneret , C. 2011, , 531, A124

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A., Stassun , K

    Bastien , F. A., Stassun , K. G., Basri , G., & Pepper , J. 2016, , 818, 43

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Bedding , T. R. 2014, in Asteroseismology, ed. P. L. Pall \'e & C. Esteban , 60

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    1958

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2010

  2. [10]

    A., Davies , G

    Bugnet , L., Garc \' a , R. A., Davies , G. R., et al. 2018, , 620, A38

    2018

  3. [11]

    D., & Pereyra , M

    Cai , X., McEwen , J. D., & Pereyra , M. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.03646

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    L., Chaplin , W

    Campante , T. L., Chaplin , W. J., Lund , M. N., et al. 2014, , 783, 123

    2014

  5. [13]

    J., Bedding , T

    Chaplin , W. J., Bedding , T. R., Bonanno , A., et al. 2011 a , , 732, L5

    2011

  6. [14]

    J., Kjeldsen , H., Bedding , T

    Chaplin , W. J., Kjeldsen , H., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2011 b , , 732, 54

    2011

  7. [15]

    Chaplin , W. J. & Miglio , A. 2013, , 51, 353

    2013

  8. [16]

    A., et al

    Corsaro , E., Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., et al. 2017, , 605, A3

    2017

  9. [17]

    G., Pratt , J., Vlaykov , D

    Dethero , M. G., Pratt , J., Vlaykov , D. G., et al. 2024, , 692, A46

    2024

  10. [18]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 79

    Dittmann , A. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 79

    2024

  11. [19]

    G., et al

    Freytag , B., Steffen , M., Ludwig , H. G., et al. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 919

    2012

  12. [20]

    N., Berthomieu , G., et al

    Froehlich , C., Andersen , B. N., Berthomieu , G., et al. 1988, VIRGO: The solar monitor experiment on SOHO , In ESA, The SOHO Mission. Scientific and Technical Aspects of the Instruments p 19-23 (SEE N90-13302 04-92)

    1988

  13. [21]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.01808

    Gelman , A., Vehtari , A., Simpson , D., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.01808

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Campante , T

    Handberg , R. & Campante , T. L. 2011, , 527, A56

    2011

  15. [23]

    & Lund , M

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

    2014

  16. [24]

    1985, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Harvey , J. 1985, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 235, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics, ed. E. Rolfe & B. Battrick , 199

    1985

  17. [25]

    2009, , 506, 465

    Hekker , S., Kallinger , T., Baudin , F., et al. 2009, , 506, 465

    2009

  18. [26]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02489

    Hey , D., Huber , D., Ong , J., Stello , D., & Foreman-Mackey , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02489

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A., Hanslmeier , A., & Sobotka , M

    Hirzberger , J., V \'a zquez , M., Bonet , J. A., Hanslmeier , A., & Sobotka , M. 1997, , 480, 406

    1997

  20. [28]

    R., Stello , D., et al

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

    2011

  21. [29]

    & Roos, M

    James, F. & Roos, M. 1975, Comput. Phys. Commun., 10, 343

    1975

  22. [30]

    1961, Theory of Probability , 3rd edn

    Jeffreys , H. 1961, Theory of Probability , 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press)

    1961

  23. [31]

    2014, , 570, A41

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

    2014

  24. [32]

    L., Ballot , J., et al

    Karoff , C., Campante , T. L., Ballot , J., et al. 2013, , 767, 34

    2013

  25. [33]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn , R., Weigert , A., & Weiss , A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    2013

  26. [34]

    & Bedding , T

    Kjeldsen , H. & Bedding , T. R. 2011, , 529, L8

    2011

  27. [35]

    1991, , 250, 50

    Krishan , V. 1991, , 250, 50

    1991

  28. [36]

    2002, , 334, 230

    Krishan , V., Paniveni , U., Singh , J., & Srikanth , R. 2002, , 334, 230

    2002

  29. [37]

    R., Huber , D., et al

    Li , Y., Bedding , T. R., Huber , D., et al. 2024, , 974, 77

    2024

  30. [38]

    Littenberg , T. B. & Cornish , N. J. 2015, , 91, 084034

    2015

  31. [39]

    Ludwig , H. G. 2006, , 445, 661

    2006

  32. [40]

    N., Silva Aguirre , V., Davies , G

    Lund , M. N., Silva Aguirre , V., Davies , G. R., et al. 2017, , 835, 172

    2017

  33. [41]

    S., Ludwig , H.-G., Collet , R., & Straus , T

    Lundkvist , M. S., Ludwig , H.-G., Collet , R., & Straus , T. 2021, , 501, 2512

    2021

  34. [42]

    & Asplund , M

    Magic , Z. & Asplund , M. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.7628

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2013, , 557, A26

    Magic , Z., Collet , R., Asplund , M., et al. 2013, , 557, A26

    2013

  36. [44]

    2011, , 741, 119

    Mathur , S., Hekker , S., Trampedach , R., et al. 2011, , 741, 119

    2011

  37. [45]

    M., et al

    Mathur , S., Huber , D., Batalha , N. M., et al. 2017, , 229, 30

    2017

  38. [46]

    2009, , 495, 979

    Michel , E., Samadi , R., Baudin , F., et al. 2009, , 495, 979

    2009

  39. [47]

    D., Romeijn, J.-W., & Rouder, J

    Morey, R. D., Romeijn, J.-W., & Rouder, J. N. 2016, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 72, 6, bayes Factors for Testing Hypotheses in Psychological Research: Practical Relevance and New Developments

    2016

  40. [48]

    2021, , 647, A168

    M \"u llner , M., Zwintz , K., Corsaro , E., et al. 2021, , 647, A168

    2021

  41. [49]

    & Stein , R

    Nordlund , A . & Stein , R. F. 2001, , 546, 576

    2001

  42. [50]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann , Jacobus M., M. Clampin , ...

    2014

  44. [52]

    F., Bigot, L., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V., et al

    Rodríguez Díaz, L. F., Bigot, L., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1741

    2022

  45. [53]

    Samadi , R., Belkacem , K., & Ludwig , H. G. 2013 a , , 559, A39

    2013

  46. [54]

    G., et al

    Samadi , R., Belkacem , K., Ludwig , H. G., et al. 2013 b , , 559, A40

    2013

  47. [55]

    2019, , 624, A117

    Samadi , R., Deru , A., Reese , D., et al. 2019, , 624, A117

    2019

  48. [56]

    1949, Proceedings of the IRE , 37, 10

    Shannon, C. 1949, Proceedings of the IRE , 37, 10

    1949

  49. [57]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling , J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer...

    2004

  50. [58]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132

    2020

  51. [59]

    R., Bedding , T

    Sreenivas , K. R., Bedding , T. R., Huber , D., et al. 2025, , 537, 3265

    2025

  52. [60]

    R., Bedding , T

    Sreenivas , K. R., Bedding , T. R., Li , Y., et al. 2024, , 530, 3477

    2024

  53. [61]

    J., Basu , S., Elsworth , Y., & Bedding , T

    Stello , D., Chaplin , W. J., Basu , S., Elsworth , Y., & Bedding , T. R. 2009, , 400, L80

    2009

  54. [62]

    2006, , 369, 2025

    Tepper-Garc \' a , T. 2006, , 369, 2025

    2006

  55. [63]

    Trampedach , R., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Nordlund , A., & Stein , R. F. 1998, in The First MONS Workshop: Science with a Small Space Telescope, ed. H. Kjeldsen & T. R. Bedding , 59

    1998

  56. [64]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Nordlund , A ., & Asplund , M

    Trampedach , R., Stein , R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., Nordlund , A ., & Asplund , M. 2014, , 445, 4366

    2014

  57. [65]

    R., et al

    Yu , J., Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2018, , 236, 42

    2018

  58. [66]

    2021, , 503, 13

    Zhou , Y., Nordlander , T., Casagrande , L., et al. 2021, , 503, 13

    2021

Pith tools

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