pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.05181 · v1 · submitted 2025-11-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Co-existence of Internal Gravity Waves and Tayler-Spruit Magnetic Fields in the Radiative Core of Low-mass Stars

L. Amard , S. Mathis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords internal gravity wavesTayler-Spruit dynamomagneto-gravity waveslow-mass starsradiative coreangular momentum transportstellar evolutionstellar magnetic fields
0
0 comments X

The pith

In low-mass stars the Tayler-Spruit dynamo generates magnetic fields strong enough to convert the lowest-frequency internal gravity waves into magneto-gravity waves in the radiative core.

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

The paper examines how a small-scale magnetic field produced by the Tayler-Spruit dynamo interacts with internal gravity waves inside the stably stratified cores of low-mass stars. Using stellar evolution calculations, the authors identify evolutionary stages where the magnetic field exceeds the threshold needed to change the character of the waves. They find that the lowest frequencies of the excited gravity-wave spectrum are converted along the pre-main sequence and main sequence, while most of the spectrum undergoes conversion in the central region once the star ascends the red-giant branch. This conversion is expected to alter both the spectrum of standing oscillation modes that observers detect and the efficiency of angular-momentum transport carried by progressive waves.

Core claim

The magnetic field generated by the Tayler-Spruit dynamo in the radiative cores of low-mass stars is strong enough, along the pre-main sequence and main sequence, to convert the lowest frequencies of the excited internal-gravity-wave spectrum into magneto-gravity waves; during the red-giant-branch phase most of the excited spectrum is converted in the very central region.

What carries the argument

The local magnetic-field strength from the Tayler-Spruit dynamo compared against the critical value that alters the dispersion relation of internal gravity waves, thereby converting them into magneto-gravity waves.

If this is right

  • The observed spectrum of standing modes is expected to show systematic shifts once the magnetic conversion sets in.
  • Angular-momentum transport by progressive waves is reduced in the regions where magneto-gravity waves replace ordinary gravity waves.
  • The combined action of rotation and magnetism limits the overall redistribution of angular momentum inside the radiative core.
  • The conversion thresholds move outward or inward as the star evolves and the internal rotation profile changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Models that treat gravity waves and the Tayler-Spruit dynamo separately may systematically over-estimate the efficiency of angular-momentum transport during the main-sequence and red-giant phases.
  • The same conversion mechanism could be tested by comparing predicted and observed period spacings in stars whose cores are expected to host a Tayler-Spruit field.
  • If the conversion is efficient, it may help reconcile the slow core rotation rates measured in red giants with the angular-momentum transport predicted by current theory.

Load-bearing premise

The Tayler-Spruit dynamo prescription used in the evolution code supplies a realistic magnetic-field amplitude and that no other damping or competing instability prevents the wave conversion from occurring at the calculated thresholds.

What would settle it

High-precision asteroseismic measurements of g-mode frequencies in main-sequence or sub-giant low-mass stars that match the frequencies predicted by pure gravity-wave theory without any magnetic modification would falsify the claimed conversion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05181 by L. Amard, S. Mathis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Wave spectrum in a magnetised rotating star et al. 2016, 2017, 2018) and progressive waves (Mathis 2009; Augustson et al. 2020) where the influence of rotation through the Coriolis acceleration is not negligible any more. This hap￾pens when a wave frequency is of the order of the characteristic rotation frequency (2Ω) as indicated in figure 1. In this work, we focus on solar-type stars which are magnetical… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top. Rotation profile at the age of the Sun for the 1M⊙ model. The points and their error bars are from Eff-Darwich et al. (2008). Bot. Rotation profile evolution of the 1M⊙ model through the ages as indi￾cated on each plot. all, we first verify that we are always in a highly stratified situ￾ation, which means that we are always dominated by the Brunt￾Väisälä frequency (black line in fig 3). The cut-off fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top left : Location of each selected profile on the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram of the 1M⊙ model. The next diagrams show the variations of the relevant characteristic frequencies along the evolution. From top center to bottom right : Early PMS (5 Myr), Henyey track (25 Myr), ZAMS (52 Myr), Solar age (4.57 Gyr), TAMS (9.61 Gyr), sub-giant branch (10.53 Gyr), base of the RGB (10.97 Gyr), and middle of the RGB… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Colour maps of the transmission function Pm from Mathis & de Brye (2012) with m = −1 as a function of frequency and time for a 1M⊙ star. The left (central) panel shows Pm when only the rotation (toroidal magnetism) is taken into account, the right panel presents the case with the full contribution of Pm. White regions show where the angular momentum flux carried by the wave is unaffected by the rotation an… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as fig. 3 for a 0.6M⊙ (top line), 0.8M⊙ (middle), and 1.2M⊙ (bottom) star. 101 102 103 104 Time (Myr) −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 log Frequency ( µHz) 0.6M Rotation & Magnetic field m=-1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Pm 101 102 103 104 Time (Myr) −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 log Frequency ( µHz) 0.8M Rotation & Magnetic field m=-1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Pm 101 102 103 Time (Myr) −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 log Frequency ( µHz) … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as figure 4: from left to right, transmission function Pm for the 0.6M⊙, 0.8M⊙, and 1.2M⊙ stellar models along their respective evolution, in the case with rotation and magnetism. Amard, L., Palacios, A., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A77 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83 Augustson, K. C., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Tayler-Spruit dynamo (TSD) is able to generate a small-scale magnetic field in the differentially rotating stably stratified layers of stars and was recently observed in numerical simulations. In parallel, the propagation of internal gravity waves in stars can be modified in the presence of a magnetic field. Here we first want to estimate the interaction between a magnetic field generated by the TSD and internal gravity waves in the radiative core of low-mass stars. This allows us to then characterise the effect of this interplay on the observed standing modes spectrum and on the internal transport of angular momentum by progressive waves. To do this, we use the STAREVOL evolution code to compute the structure of low-mass rotating stars along their evolution. In particular, we implement a formalism to describe the TSD and estimate the regions where the generated magnetic field is strong enough to change the identity of internal gravity waves to magneto-gravity waves. In addition, we evaluate the possible limitation of angular momentum transport by the combined action of rotation and magnetism. We show that along the pre-main sequence and main-sequence evolution, the lowest frequencies of the excited gravity wave spectrum could be converted to magneto-gravity waves by the magnetic field generated by the TSD. During the red-giant branch we find that most of the excited spectrum of progressive internal gravity waves could be converted into magneto-gravity waves in the very central region.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the Tayler-Spruit dynamo (TSD) generates small-scale magnetic fields in the differentially rotating radiative cores of low-mass stars that can interact with internal gravity waves (IGWs). Using the STAREVOL evolution code with an implemented TSD formalism, the authors estimate regions where the generated B-field is strong enough to convert progressive IGWs into magneto-gravity waves (MGWs). They report that the lowest frequencies of the excited IGW spectrum could be converted during pre-main-sequence and main-sequence evolution, while most of the spectrum could be converted in the very central region during the red-giant branch. The work also evaluates implications for the observed standing-mode spectrum and for angular-momentum transport by progressive waves.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the study is significant because it identifies a possible co-existence and interaction mechanism between TSD-generated magnetic fields and IGWs that could modify wave propagation, affect asteroseismic observables, and limit angular-momentum transport in the radiative cores of low-mass stars. The use of an established stellar-evolution code (STAREVOL) together with a pre-existing TSD prescription provides a reproducible framework that can be tested against future 3D MHD simulations or observational constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (TSD implementation)] The central claim that TSD-generated fields convert IGWs to MGWs (abstract) rests on the local magnetic-field amplitude exceeding a frequency-dependent threshold. Because the TSD is a mean-field prescription whose saturation depends on choices for turbulent viscosity, magnetic diffusivity, and the treatment of differential rotation, the resulting B(r) profiles carry model-dependent uncertainty that is not quantified or validated against 3D MHD results. This directly affects whether the reported conversion occurs for the lowest frequencies on the PMS/MS and for most of the spectrum on the RGB.
  2. [Results] No quantitative outputs, error estimates, or direct comparisons to observations or independent models are provided. Without these, the robustness of the claimed conversion fractions and their consequences for angular-momentum transport cannot be assessed (abstract and results sections).
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it specified the stellar-mass range considered and the key numerical parameters adopted for the TSD implementation in STAREVOL.
  2. The precise criterion (equation or threshold formula) used to decide when the magnetic field is 'strong enough' to change the identity of an IGW to an MGW should be stated explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will implement to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that TSD-generated fields convert IGWs to MGWs (abstract) rests on the local magnetic-field amplitude exceeding a frequency-dependent threshold. Because the TSD is a mean-field prescription whose saturation depends on choices for turbulent viscosity, magnetic diffusivity, and the treatment of differential rotation, the resulting B(r) profiles carry model-dependent uncertainty that is not quantified or validated against 3D MHD results. This directly affects whether the reported conversion occurs for the lowest frequencies on the PMS/MS and for most of the spectrum on the RGB.

    Authors: We agree that the TSD formalism is a mean-field prescription and that the resulting magnetic-field profiles depend on parameter choices such as turbulent viscosity and magnetic diffusivity. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection in the methods that quantifies the sensitivity of the B(r) profiles and conversion regions to reasonable variations in these parameters. We will also reference and discuss existing 3D MHD simulations of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo to place our results in context. A full end-to-end validation against new 3D simulations for evolving stellar models remains outside the scope of the present study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: No quantitative outputs, error estimates, or direct comparisons to observations or independent models are provided. Without these, the robustness of the claimed conversion fractions and their consequences for angular-momentum transport cannot be assessed (abstract and results sections).

    Authors: We accept that the current version lacks explicit quantitative outputs and comparisons. We will revise the results section to report conversion fractions for representative frequencies at each evolutionary stage, together with uncertainty ranges obtained from the parameter variations mentioned above. We will also add a discussion comparing the implied angular-momentum transport to previous IGW-only calculations and to available asteroseismic constraints on core rotation in low-mass stars. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper implements the pre-existing Tayler-Spruit dynamo formalism inside the STAREVOL stellar evolution code, computes the resulting magnetic field profiles along evolutionary tracks, and then evaluates where those fields exceed the frequency-dependent thresholds needed to convert progressive internal gravity waves into magneto-gravity waves. This constitutes forward numerical modeling rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation that reduces the reported conversion regions to the input assumptions by construction. The central claims about conversion on the PMS/MS and RGB therefore remain independent outputs of the implemented physics and stellar-structure calculation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of stellar structure and wave propagation drawn from prior literature rather than new derivations. The TSD model itself is treated as an established input.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Internal gravity waves propagate in stably stratified radiative zones and can be modified by magnetic fields into magneto-gravity waves.
    Invoked when estimating regions where the TSD field changes wave identity.
  • domain assumption The Tayler-Spruit dynamo generates small-scale magnetic fields in differentially rotating stably stratified stellar layers.
    Core premise for calculating magnetic field strength and its effect on waves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1555 out tokens · 39668 ms · 2026-05-18T00:19:54.693962+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aerts, C., Van Reeth, T., Mombarg, J. S. G., & Hey, D. 2025, A&A, 695, A214

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 651, A3

    Ahuir, J., Mathis, S., & Amard, L. 2021, A&A, 651, A3

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    S., & Mathis, S

    Alvan, L., Brun, A. S., & Mathis, S. 2014, A&A, 565, A42

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    2013, A&A, 553, A86

    Alvan, L., Mathis, S., & Decressin, T. 2013, A&A, 553, A86

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    S., Mathis, S., & Garcia, R

    Alvan, L., Strugarek, A., Brun, A. S., Mathis, S., & Garcia, R. A. 2015, A&A, 581, A112 Article number, page 8 of 11 L. Amard and S. Mathis: IGW in Tayler-Spruit Magnetic Field 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 r(R∗) 10□8 10□6 10□4 10□2 100 102 104 Frequencies (µHz) 0.6M⊙ 150Myr ωA,r,l=1 ωA ωA,ϕ,m=1 2Ω N Nef f ωT O 0.2 0.4 0.6 r(R∗) 10□8 10□6 10□4 10□2 100 102 104 Freq...

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 631, A77

    Amard, L., Palacios, A., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A77

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    C., Mathis, S., & Astoul, A

    Augustson, K. C., Mathis, S., & Astoul, A. 2020, ApJ, 903, 90 Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.01775

    work page arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    G., Montalban, J., Kallinger, T., et al

    Beck, P. G., Montalban, J., Kallinger, T., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 55

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    P., Goupil, M

    Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A31

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    J., & Samadi, R

    Belkacem, K., Mathis, S., Goupil, M. J., & Samadi, R. 2009, A&A, 508, 345

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    & Mathis, S

    Bessila, L. & Mathis, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14650

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    L., et al

    Bhalotia, V ., Huber, D., van Saders, J. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 166

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    2022, A&A, 667, A68

    Bugnet, L. 2022, A&A, 667, A68

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    2021, A&A, 650, A53

    Bugnet, L., Prat, V ., Mathis, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A53

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    L., Kjeldsen, H., Li, Y ., et al

    Campante, T. L., Kjeldsen, H., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L16

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    2016, ApJ, 824, 14

    Cantiello, M., Fuller, J., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 824, 14

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    Cantiello, M., Mankovich, C., Bildsten, L., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Paxton, B. 2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    A., & Mathis, S

    Ceillier, T., Eggenberger, P., García, R. A., & Mathis, S. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 971

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    & MacGregor, K

    Charbonneau, P. & MacGregor, K. B. 1993, ApJ, 417, 762

    work page 1993

  22. [22]

    2013, A&A, 554, A40

    Charbonnel, C., Decressin, T., Amard, L., Palacios, A., & Talon, S. 2013, A&A, 554, A40

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    & Talon, S

    Charbonnel, C. & Talon, S. 2005, Science, 309, 2189

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    M., Antoci, V ., & Salmon, S

    Christophe, S., Ballot, J., Ouazzani, R. M., Antoci, V ., & Salmon, S. J. A. J. 2018, A&A, 618, A47

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    A., Turck-Chièze, S., et al

    Couvidat, S., García, R. A., Turck-Chièze, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, L77

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    S., Lecoanet, D., & Garaud, P

    David, C. S., Lecoanet, D., & Garaud, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14026

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    J., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    David, T. J., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 114

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    2009, A&A, 495, 271

    Decressin, T., Mathis, S., Palacios, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 271

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    G., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., Beck, P. G., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A96

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    2020, A&A, 641, A117

    Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A117

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    J., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Do˘gan, G., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A27

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    2023, A&A, 670, L16

    Deheuvels, S., Li, G., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 670, L16

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A133 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Dhouib, H., Mathis, S., Bugnet, L., Van Reeth, T., & Aerts, C. 2022, A&A, 661, A133 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    & Rieutord, M

    Dintrans, B. & Rieutord, M. 2000, A&A, 354, 86

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    G., Jiménez-Reyes, S

    Eff-Darwich, A., Korzennik, S. G., Jiménez-Reyes, S. J., & García, R. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1636

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    2012, A&A, 539, A70

    Eggenberger, P., Haemmerlé, L., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2012, A&A, 539, A70

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    2005, A&A, 440, L9

    Eggenberger, P., Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2005, A&A, 440, L9

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    D., & den Hartogh, J

    Eggenberger, P., Moyano, F. D., & den Hartogh, J. W. 2022, A&A, 664, L16

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    A., & Bildsten, L

    Fuller, J., Cantiello, M., Stello, D., Garcia, R. A., & Bildsten, L. 2015, Science, 350, 423

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    Fuller, J., Lecoanet, D., Cantiello, M., & Brown, B. 2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Garaud, P., Khan, S., & Brown, J. M. 2024, ApJ, 961, 220 García, R. A., Ceillier, T., Salabert, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A34 García, R. A., Salabert, D., Ballot, J., et al. 2011, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 271, 012046 García, R. A., Turck-Chièze, S., Jiménez-Reyes, S. J., et al. 2007, Science, 316, 1591

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    2018, A&A, 616, A24

    Gehan, C., Mosser, B., Michel, E., Samadi, R., & Kallinger, T. 2018, A&A, 616, A24

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Gough, D. O. & McIntyre, M. E. 1998, Nature, 394, 755

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Gough, D. O. & Thompson, M. J. 1990, MNRAS, 242, 25

    work page 1990

  46. [46]

    J., Ong, J

    Hatt, E. J., Ong, J. M. J., Nielsen, M. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1060

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 350

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 147

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 147

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Korzennik, S. G. & Eff-Darwich, A. 2024, Sol. Phys., 299, 86 Krishna Swamy, K. S. 1966, ApJ, 145, 174

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 859

    Kumar, P., Talon, S., & Zahn, J.-P. 1999, ApJ, 520, 859

    work page 1999

  51. [51]

    M., & Van Reeth, T

    Lecoanet, D., Bowman, D. M., & Van Reeth, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L16

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    & Quataert, E

    Lecoanet, D. & Quataert, E. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2363

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

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

    Lecoanet, D., Vasil, G. M., Fuller, J., Cantiello, M., & Burns, K. J. 2017, MN- RAS, 466, 2181

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    2024, A&A, 688, A184

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J. 2024, A&A, 688, A184

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    2022, Nature, 610, 43

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2022, Nature, 610, 43

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    2023, A&A, 680, A26

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Li, T., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 680, A26

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    R., et al

    Li, G., Van Reeth, T., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3586 Lignières, F., Ballot, J., Deheuvels, S., & Galoy, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A2

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    Loi, S. T. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3711

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Loi, S. T. & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5338

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    Maeder, A. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    work page 2009

  61. [61]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2004, A&A, 422, 225

    work page 2004

  62. [62]

    P., Goupil, M

    Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., Lebreton, Y ., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A74

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    2009, A&A, 506, 811

    Mathis, S. 2009, A&A, 506, 811

    work page 2009

  64. [64]

    2025, A&A, 694, A173

    Mathis, S. 2025, A&A, 694, A173

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    & Bugnet, L

    Mathis, S. & Bugnet, L. 2023, A&A, 676, L9

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    2021, A&A, 647, A122

    Mathis, S., Bugnet, L., Prat, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A122

    work page 2021

  67. [67]

    & de Brye, N

    Mathis, S. & de Brye, N. 2011, A&A, 526, A65

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    & de Brye, N

    Mathis, S. & de Brye, N. 2012, A&A, 540, A37

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Anisotropic turbulent transport in stably stratified rotating stellar radiation zones

    Mathis, S., Prat, V ., Amard, L., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1808.01814]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    & Zahn, J.-P

    Mathis, S. & Zahn, J.-P. 2004, A&A, 425, 229

    work page 2004

  71. [71]

    P., Brun, A

    Matt, S. P., Brun, A. S., Baraffe, I., Bouvier, J., & Chabrier, G. 2015, ApJ, 799, L23

    work page 2015

  72. [72]

    J., & Moss, D

    Mestel, L., Tayler, R. J., & Moss, D. L. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 873

    work page 1988

  73. [73]

    & Weiss, N

    Mestel, L. & Weiss, N. O. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 123

    work page 1987

  74. [74]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, L17

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    2024, A&A, 681, L20

    Mosser, B., Dréau, G., Pinçon, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L20

    work page 2024

  76. [76]

    J., Belkacem, K., et al

    Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A10

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    D., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A180

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    D., Eggenberger, P., Salmon, S

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., Salmon, S. J. A. J., Mombarg, J. S. G., & Ek- ström, S. 2023, A&A, 677, A6

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    M., Lignières, F., Dupret, M

    Ouazzani, R. M., Lignières, F., Dupret, M. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A49

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    M., Marques, J

    Ouazzani, R. M., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A121

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.