Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Luminaries in the Sky: The TESS LEGACY Sample of Bright Stars. II. In-depth seismic characterisation of 32 naked-eye stars in the PLATO LOP fields

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read The 32 naked-eye stars in the PLATO long-duration fields form a ready calibration set for the mission's asteroseismology.

desk verdict The paper gives first seismic parameters for 26 of 32 bright PLATO-field stars but the sub-giant mixed-mode discrepancies flagged in the abstract limit how far the calibration claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.14713 v1 pith:ATGM7CVR submitted 2026-05-14 astro-ph.SR

E. Panetier , G. T. Hookway , E. Corsaro , S. N. Breton , R. A. García , B. Liagre , M. N. Lund , M. B. Nielsen
show 8 more authors
D. B. Palakkatharappil L. Debacker J. Gosmain M. Chaumard A. Chontos F. Grundahl S. Mathur A. R. G. Santos
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologysolar-likeoscillationsTESSmissionPLATObrightstarsseismicparametersmodeidentification
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 provides detailed asteroseismic analysis of 32 bright stars that lie in the fields PLATO will observe for long periods. Using TESS photometry and three different analysis pipelines, the authors extract oscillation mode parameters for most of these stars and select the best data processing approach for each. If correct, this positions the sample as an immediate resource for testing and refining PLATO's seismic measurements from the mission's start. Readers would care because these nearby stars offer a direct way to check how well the new observatory captures solar-like oscillations.

What carries the argument

The set of 32 Luminaries stars in the PLATO LOP fields, processed through three independent seismic pipelines to determine optimal analysis settings and extract mode parameters.

What would settle it

Future PLATO observations of these same stars yielding mode parameters or frequency separations that differ substantially from the TESS-derived values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Individual mode parameters were extracted for the first time for 26 of the 32 stars. Statistical criteria were used to choose the optimal combination of data calibration, cadence, and fitting method for each star. Derived quantities include large and small separations, asymptotic phase term, radial mode amplitudes, and mean linewidths. The analysis confirms consistent trends across pipelines while noting inconsistencies in mixed-mode identification for sub-giants.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical criteria applied to results from the three pipelines can reliably identify the optimal data calibration, cadence, and fitting method for each star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • These stars can serve as early calibrators during PLATO commissioning and initial operations.
  • Longer datasets will be needed to resolve mixed-mode identification issues in sub-giants.
  • Derived seismic parameters such as separations and amplitudes show robustness across different pipelines.
  • The sample enables direct comparison of TESS-based results with upcoming PLATO data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Future work could test whether the selected pipeline combinations remain optimal when applied to actual PLATO observations.
  • Similar multi-pipeline approaches might improve characterization of other bright oscillating stars outside these fields.
  • The inconsistencies noted suggest that mode identification accuracy depends strongly on observation length for evolved stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents an asteroseismic characterisation of 32 bright (V<6) main-sequence and sub-giant stars from the TESS Luminaries sample that lie in the PLATO LOP fields. Using three independent pipelines (one similar to the official PLATO pipeline), the authors extract individual mode parameters for 26 stars for the first time, apply statistical criteria to select the optimal combination of data calibration, cadence and fitting method per star, and report large/small separations, asymptotic phase term, radial-mode amplitudes and mean linewidths per order. They note consistent trends across pipelines but flag that mixed-mode identification differs among pipelines for sub-giants, requiring longer datasets; they conclude that the sample will be crucial for validating, calibrating and optimising PLATO's seismic performance.

Significance. If the extracted parameters are shown to be robust, the sample would constitute a valuable set of bright, naked-eye targets observable by PLATO from commissioning onward, enabling direct tests of the PLATO pipeline and early science operations. The use of a pipeline analogous to PLATO's is a positive feature for direct comparability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'comparisons reveal consistent trends in the seismic parameters, confirming the robustness of our analysis' is directly contradicted by the immediately following statement that 'in sub-giants, mixed-mode identification differs in the three pipelines, revealing extraction inconsistencies requiring longer datasets to improve our mode identifications.' Because sub-giants form part of the 32-star sample intended for PLATO calibration, this internal tension undermines the central claim that the derived parameters are sufficiently reliable for validating PLATO's seismic performance.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., inter-pipeline differences in derived frequencies, amplitudes or linewidths, or the outcome of the statistical selection criteria) to support the claim of robustness, nor does it report error bars or exclusion rules for the final parameters. This absence is load-bearing for the PLATO-calibration conclusion.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'Statistical criterion were applied' should read 'Statistical criteria were applied'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review, which identifies key areas for improving the clarity of our abstract. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the abstract accordingly to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'comparisons reveal consistent trends in the seismic parameters, confirming the robustness of our analysis' is directly contradicted by the immediately following statement that 'in sub-giants, mixed-mode identification differs in the three pipelines, revealing extraction inconsistencies requiring longer datasets to improve our mode identifications.' Because sub-giants form part of the 32-star sample intended for PLATO calibration, this internal tension undermines the central claim that the derived parameters are sufficiently reliable for validating PLATO's seismic performance.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract wording creates an apparent tension that could be misinterpreted. The phrase on consistent trends applies specifically to the global seismic parameters (large and small separations, asymptotic phase term, radial-mode amplitudes, and mean linewidths), which exhibit agreement across the three pipelines. The mixed-mode identification differences are isolated to sub-giants and are presented as a known limitation of current datasets rather than a refutation of overall robustness. The sample remains suitable for PLATO calibration on the basis of the robust global parameters. We will revise the abstract to explicitly separate these elements, qualify the robustness claim, and note the sub-giant caveat without implying contradiction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., inter-pipeline differences in derived frequencies, amplitudes or linewidths, or the outcome of the statistical selection criteria) to support the claim of robustness, nor does it report error bars or exclusion rules for the final parameters. This absence is load-bearing for the PLATO-calibration conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support. The full manuscript applies statistical selection criteria per star and presents pipeline comparisons (including parameter tables) in the results sections, with error bars on individual frequencies. To address the referee's concern directly, we will add concise quantitative metrics to the abstract—such as typical inter-pipeline frequency differences and the fraction of stars with consistent selections—while referencing the error bars and exclusion rules already detailed in the text. This will better substantiate the PLATO-calibration utility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; derivation is self-contained observational analysis

full rationale

The paper extracts individual mode parameters from TESS photometry of 32 stars using three independent pipelines, applies statistical criteria to select optimal combinations, and derives standard seismic quantities (large/small separations, asymptotic phase term, amplitudes, linewidths). These steps rely on external data and cross-pipeline consistency checks rather than any self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The claim that the sample will calibrate PLATO follows directly from the observed parameters without reducing to tautology or imported uniqueness theorems. No steps match the enumerated circularity patterns.

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

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The work relies on standard asteroseismology techniques and three unspecified fitting pipelines applied to TESS photometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Luminaries in the Sky: The TESS LEGACY Sample of Bright Stars. II. In-depth seismic characterisation of 32 naked-eye stars in the PLATO LOP fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATGM7CVR

@misc{pith2026260514713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Luminaries in the Sky: The TESS LEGACY Sample of Bright Stars. II. In-depth seismic characterisation of 32 naked-eye stars in the PLATO LOP fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATGM7CVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14713}
}
read the original abstract

The NASA TESS mission is conducting a nearly full-sky survey, enabling the photometric characterisation of millions of stars. The forthcoming ESA PLATO mission will provide long-duration, high-precision photometry of tens of thousands of bright stars to be characterised through asteroseismology. The TESS Luminaries Sample is a catalogue of 196 bright naked-eye (V < 6) main-sequence (MS) and sub-giant (SG) stars exhibiting solar-like oscillations. Among them, the subset located within the PLATO Long-duration Observation Phase (LOP) fields constitutes an exceptional set of targets that will be observable by PLATO from the earliest phases of the mission, making them ideal calibrators during commissioning and the first months of science operations. This paper aims to provide an in-depth asteroseismic characterisation of 32 Luminaries stars that fall within the PLATO LOP fields of view. Individual mode parameters were extracted for the first time for 26 of them. We used three independent seismic pipelines, one of which is similar to the algorithms used in the official PLATO pipeline. Statistical criterion were applied to identify the optimal combination of data calibration, observing cadence, and fitting pipeline for each star. For all stars, we derived large and small separations, the asymptotic phase term, radial mode amplitudes, and mean linewidths per order. Comparisons reveal consistent trends in the seismic parameters, confirming the robustness of our analysis. In sub-giants, mixed-mode identification differs in the three pipelines, revealing extraction inconsistencies requiring longer datasets to improve our mode identifications. The Luminaries stars located in the PLATO LOP fields constitute a unique sample that will play a crucial role in validating, calibrating, and optimising PLATO's seismic performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HR diagram illustrating the relation between ∆ν and Teff for the sample of 34 TLS stars. The evolutionary tracks are taken from the MESA Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST) catalogue and assume so￾lar metallicity. The tracks are computed with a mass spacing of 0.1,M⊙. The data points are colour-coded according to seismic stellar mass. Squares denote stars with F-like, broad oscillation modes, circles cor￾respond to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Signal-to-noise ratio of the radial mode (ℓ = 0) closest to νmax, plotted as a function of νmax for each star. Markers are coloured ac￾cording to the effective temperature of the stars listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. ε as a function of effective temperature. SG stars are shown as orange triangles, and MS stars as red circles. The two stars for which the fitters did not reach agreement on the mode identification are indicated by diamonds, with FAMED identification in yellow, and PBjam’s one in blue, both symbols belonging to the same star being linked with a dashed blue line. Stars from the four comparison catalogues described in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Amplitude (top) and linewidth (bottom) of the radial mode clos￾est to νmax, plotted as a function of νmax for each star. Markers follow the same legend as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The small frequency separations, δν0,1 (panel a) and δν0,2 (panel c), along with their variation with radial order n (panels b and d), and their ratio δν0,1/δν0,2 (panel e), are plotted as a function of ∆ν (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Stellar Observations Network Group (SONG) -- A Legacy Archive of Stellar Time-Domain Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    The SONG network archive holds >580,000 spectra of 3091 stars (2014–2025) and is presented as an open community resource for asteroseismology, binaries, variability, and exoplanets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, A&A, 614, A55

    Aguilera-Gómez, C., Ramírez, I., & Chanamé, J. 2018, A&A, 614, A55

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    R., Duvall, T

    Anderson, E. R., Duvall, T. L., & Jefferies, S. M. 1990, ApJ, 364, 699

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    2020, A&A, 642, A226

    Appourchaux, T. 2020, A&A, 642, A226

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    R., Standing, M

    Barnes, J. R., Standing, M. R., Haswell, C. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5196

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    G., Bedding, T

    Beck, P. G., Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 205

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    R., Kjeldsen, H., Bouchy, F., et al

    Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., Bouchy, F., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, L43

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    A., Baudin, F., et al

    Belkacem, K., Dupret, M. A., Baudin, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, L7

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    J., & Dupret, M

    Belkacem, K., Samadi, R., Goupil, M. J., & Dupret, M. A. 2008, A&A, 478, 163

    work page 2008

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    P., Basu, S., Hekker, S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Ball, W

    Bellinger, E. P., Basu, S., Hekker, S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Ball, W. H. 2021, ApJ, 915, 100

    2021

  2. [10]

    R., Mosser, B., et al

    Benomar, O., Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 158

    2013

  3. [11]

    N., Dhouib, H., García, R

    Breton, S. N., Dhouib, H., García, R. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A104

    2023

  4. [12]

    P., Hekker, S., & Basu, S

    Buchele, L., Bellinger, E. P., Hekker, S., & Basu, S. 2025, ApJ, 989, 158

    2025

  5. [13]

    2024, A&A, 689, A307

    Buldgen, G., Fellay, L., Bétrisey, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A307

    2024

  6. [14]

    L., Handberg, R., Mathur, S., et al

    Campante, T. L., Handberg, R., Mathur, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A6

    2011

  7. [15]

    2011, A&A, 530, A138

    Casagrande, L., Schönrich, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A138

    2011

  8. [16]

    2022, JOSS, 7, 3331

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Sayeed, M., & Yamsiri, P. 2022, JOSS, 7, 3331

    2022

  9. [17]

    L., Bedding, T

    Compton, D. L., Bedding, T. R., & Stello, D. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 560

    2019

  10. [18]

    2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 21

    Corsaro, E. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 21

    2019

  11. [19]

    & De Ridder, J

    Corsaro, E. & De Ridder, J. 2014, A&A, 571, A71

    2014

  12. [20]

    M., & Kuszlewicz, J

    Corsaro, E., McKeever, J. M., & Kuszlewicz, J. S. 2020, A&A, 640, A130

    2020

  13. [21]

    R., Chaplin, W

    Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., Farr, W. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2959

    2015

  14. [22]

    2020, A&A, 641, A117

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

    2020

  15. [23]

    J., et al

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

    2014

  16. [24]

    & Michel, E

    Deheuvels, S. & Michel, E. 2010, Astrophys. Space Sci., 328, 259

    2010

  17. [25]

    & Michel, E

    Deheuvels, S. & Michel, E. 2011, A&A, 535, A91

    2011

  18. [26]

    2009, A&A, 506, 1469

    Desort, M., Lagrange, A.-M., Galland, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 1469

    2009

  19. [27]

    2021, A&A, 654, A133

    Fellay, L., Buldgen, G., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A133

    2021

  20. [28]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 García, R. A. & Ballot, J. 2019, Living Rev. Sol. Phys., 16, 4 García, R. A., Mathur, S., Salabert, D., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 1032 García Saravia Ortiz de Montellano, A., Hekker, S., & Themeßl, ...

    2013

  21. [29]

    & Keeley, D

    Goldreich, P. & Keeley, D. A. 1977, ApJ, 211, 934

    1977

  22. [30]

    J., Catala, C., Samadi, R., et al

    Goupil, M. J., Catala, C., Samadi, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A78

    2024

  23. [31]

    A., Houdek, G., Chaplin, W

    Guzik, J. A., Houdek, G., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 17

    2016

  24. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 979

    Handberg, R., Brogaard, K., Miglio, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 979

    2017

  25. [33]

    & Lund, M

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

    2014

  26. [34]

    1985, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics, 235, 199

    Harvey, J. 1985, Future Missions in Solar, Heliospheric & Space Plasma Physics, 235, 199

    1985

  27. [35]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 147

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 147

    2024

  28. [36]

    T., Nielsen, M

    Hookway, G. T., Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3247

    2025

  29. [37]

    N., Trampedach, R., et al

    Houdek, G., Lund, M. N., Trampedach, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 595

    2019

  30. [38]

    R., Stello, D., et al

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

    2011

  31. [39]

    R., Metcalfe, T

    Huber, D., White, T. R., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 163, 79

    2022

  32. [40]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, CiSE, 9, 90

    2007

  33. [41]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. 2001

    2001

  34. [42]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.09428

    Kallinger, T. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.09428

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    & Bedding, T

    Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

    1995

  36. [44]

    & Vazdekis, A

    Koleva, M. & Vazdekis, A. 2012, A&A, 538, A143

    2012

  37. [45]

    R., Li, T., et al

    Li, Y ., Bedding, T. R., Li, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2363

    2020

  38. [46]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophys. Space Sci., 39, 447

    1976

  39. [47]

    N., Basu, S., Bieryla, A., et al

    Lund, M. N., Basu, S., Bieryla, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A13

    2024

  40. [48]

    N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al

    Lund, M. N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A285

    2025

  41. [49]

    N., Handberg, R., Davies, G

    Lund, M. N., Handberg, R., Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., & Jones, C. D. 2015, ApJ, 806, 30

    2015

  42. [50]

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

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

    2017

  43. [51]

    A., Régulo, C., et al

    Mathur, S., García, R. A., Régulo, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A46

    2010

  44. [52]

    L., et al

    Mathur, S., Handberg, R., Campante, T. L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 95

    2011

  45. [53]

    Mazumdar, A., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., Ballot, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 18

    2014

  46. [54]

    S., Chaplin, W

    Metcalfe, T. S., Chaplin, W. J., Appourchaux, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, L10

    2012

  47. [55]

    S., Monteiro, M

    Metcalfe, T. S., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., Thompson, M. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1583

    2010

  48. [56]

    M., et al

    Montalto, M., Piotto, G., Marrese, P. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A98

    2021

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Montalto, M., Piotto, G., Marrese, P. M., et al. 2026, The PLATO Input Catalogue of Targets (tPIC) for the First Long Pointing Field

    2026

  50. [58]

    J., et al

    Mosser, B., Belkacem, K., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, L9

    2011

  51. [59]

    W., Lane, B

    Muterspaugh, M. W., Lane, B. F., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 140, 1657

    2010

  52. [60]

    2022, A&A, 658, A31

    Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., Börner, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A31

    2022

  53. [61]

    2025, A&A, 694, A313

    Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A313

    2025

  54. [62]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03365

    Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., Granata, V ., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.03365

    2026 arXiv

  55. [63]

    2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least- Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Zenodo Article number, page 14 E

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2025, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least- Squares Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, Zenodo Article number, page 14 E. Panetier et al.: Luminaries in the Sky: The TESS LEGACY Sample of Bright Stars

    2025

  56. [64]

    B., Davies, G

    Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., Ball, W. H., et al. 2021, ApJ, 161, 62

    2021

  57. [65]

    B., Ong, J

    Nielsen, M. B., Ong, J. M. J., Hatt, E. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 169, 322

    2025

  58. [66]

    Ong, J. M. J. & Basu, S. 2020, ApJ, 898, 127

    2020

  59. [67]

    Ong, J. M. J. & Gehan, C. 2023, ApJ, 946, 92

    2023

  60. [68]

    Ong, J. M. J., Lindsay, C. J., Reyes, C., Stello, D., & Roxburgh, I. W. 2025, ApJ, 980, 199

    2025

  61. [69]

    T., Sreenivas, K

    Perdelwitz, V ., Trifonov, T., Teklu, J. T., Sreenivas, K. R., & Tal-Or, L. 2024, A&A, 683, A125

    2024

  62. [70]

    2025, Exp

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, Exp. Astron., 59, 26 Régulo, C., García, R. A., & Ballot, J. 2016, A&A, 589, A103

    2025

  63. [71]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Proceedings of the SPIE, 9143, 914320

    2014

  64. [72]

    & Goupil, M

    Samadi, R. & Goupil, M. J. 2001, A&A, 370, 136

    2001

  65. [73]

    Santos, A. R. G., Campante, T. L., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 65

    2019

  66. [74]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  67. [75]

    1979, PASJ, 31, 87 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M

    Shibahashi, H. 1979, PASJ, 31, 87 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173

    1979

  68. [76]

    2004, AIP Conference Proceedings, 735, 395 (SK04)

    Skilling, J. 2004, AIP Conference Proceedings, 735, 395 (SK04)

    2004

  69. [77]

    2022, A&A, 663, A4

    Soubiran, C., Brouillet, N., & Casamiquela, L. 2022, A&A, 663, A4

    2022

  70. [78]

    L., Lagarde, N., et al

    Soubiran, C., Creevey, O. L., Lagarde, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A145

    2024

  71. [79]

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

    2020

  72. [80]

    1980, ApJS, 43, 469 The pandas development team

    Tassoul, M. 1980, ApJS, 43, 469 The pandas development team. 2024, Pandas-Dev/Pandas: Pandas, Zenodo Themeßl, N., Hekker, S., Southworth, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4669 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, CiSE, 13, 22

    1980

  73. [81]

    R., Bedding, T

    White, T. R., Bedding, T. R., Gruberbauer, M., et al. 2012, ApJL, 751, L36

    2012

  74. [82]

    R., Bedding, T

    White, T. R., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 161 Article number, page 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. article Appendix A: Mode identification The identification of oscillation modes is a crucial step in as- teroseismic analyses, as it establishes the link betw...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.