Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

TESS asteroseismology of six low-mass white dwarfs shows their hydrogen envelopes range from thick to very thin.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 07:30 UTC pith:TRGVZ2U5

load-bearing objection Solid first homogeneous TESS asteroseismology of six ELMVs; the envelope-thickness range is real but rests on sparse periods and mostly unconfirmed m=0 assignments. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02720 v1 pith:TRGVZ2U5 submitted 2026-07-02 astro-ph.SR

Unveiling the properties of pulsating low-mass helium-core white dwarfs through TESS asteroseismology I. First results

Leila M. Calcaferro , Nikoo Hosseininezhad , Murat Uzundag , Alejandro H. C\'orsico , Keaton J. Bell , Leandro G. Althaus , J.J. Hermes This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologywhite dwarfslow-mass helium-core white dwarfsELMVsTESS photometryhydrogen envelope thicknessstellar evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper gives the first homogeneous TESS-based asteroseismological study of six pulsating low-mass helium-core white dwarfs. The authors reprocess short- and ultra-short-cadence TESS light curves, extract updated pulsation periods (first TESS frequencies for one star), and match those periods to fully evolutionary models that freely vary hydrogen-envelope mass. The fits return stellar masses and envelope thicknesses that span from canonical thick envelopes to very thin ones, and for most stars these asteroseismological masses agree with independent spectroscopic or photometric estimates. The result matters because envelope thickness controls residual hydrogen burning, cooling rates, and mass estimates from atmospheric parameters; it also shows that low-mass white dwarfs can share the same envelope diversity already known for ordinary-mass pulsators.

Core claim

A homogeneous period-to-period fit of six ELMV stars with fully evolutionary LM He-core models that allow variable H-envelope thickness yields relatively well-constrained or representative solutions whose hydrogen envelopes range from canonical (thick) to very thin, and whose asteroseismological masses are broadly compatible with spectroscopic or photometric masses for most targets.

What carries the argument

The quality function σ^{2}(M☉, Teff, MH) that selects the evolutionary model whose theoretical g-mode periods (dipole and quadrupole, m=0) best match the observed TESS periods; the grid covers a wide range of envelope masses log(MH/M☉) ≈ −5.8 to −1.7.

Load-bearing premise

Most observed periods are treated as the central (m=0) components of rotational multiplets even though complete multiplets are seen for only one mode of one star, so mis-assigned frequencies can shift the best-fit envelope mass.

What would settle it

Detection of several additional independent periods, or of complete rotational triplets, for any of the six stars that force the period fit into a single narrow envelope-thickness regime incompatible with the ranges reported in Table 7.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Low-mass He-core white dwarfs can form or evolve with hydrogen envelopes as diverse as those of average-mass DA white dwarfs.
  • Masses inferred from (Teff, log g) alone will be systematically biased unless the relevant envelope-thickness range is included in the evolutionary tracks.
  • The same TESS-plus-evolutionary-model pipeline can be applied to the larger remaining sample of ELMVs once richer mode sets become available.
  • Asteroseismology remains the only practical route to measuring hydrogen-envelope mass in these stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If thin envelopes prove common, residual hydrogen burning is weaker than usually assumed, so cooling ages of the lowest-mass white dwarfs may be shorter than canonical tracks predict.
  • The same envelope diversity, if confirmed for pre-ELMV progenitors, would constrain how much envelope is stripped during the common-envelope or Roche-lobe phase.
  • Future multi-sector TESS or PLATO data that resolve rotational multiplets would turn the present tentative solutions into unique mass and envelope determinations.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first homogeneous TESS-based asteroseismological analysis of six pulsating low-mass helium-core white dwarfs (ELMVs). The authors reprocess short- and ultra-short-cadence TESS photometry for TIC 290904838 (J1112), TIC 156064657, TIC 33717565, TIC 344130696, TIC 72637474, and TIC 188087204, report first TESS frequencies for J1112, and provide revised or expanded frequency solutions for the rest (Tables 1–6; Fig. 1). They then perform period-to-period fits with fully evolutionary LPCODE models that allow a range of H-envelope thicknesses, minimizing the merit function σ² (Eq. 1) under the assumption of ℓ=1,2 g-modes and m=0 components. The resulting solutions (Table 7; Figs. 2–8) are relatively well constrained for three stars, representative but tentative for one, and ranges for two; they span H-envelope thicknesses from canonical to very thin. Spectroscopic/photometric masses derived from atmospheric parameters on envelope-consistent tracks are broadly compatible for most objects. The authors conclude that LM WDs can harbor a range of H-envelope thicknesses and that the study provides a reference for future larger samples.

Significance. If the envelope-thickness diversity holds, the paper is a useful first homogeneous TESS-based asteroseismological study of ELMVs and a concrete demonstration that fully evolutionary He-core models with variable MH can be applied systematically to space photometry. Strengths include transparent FAP handling (Baran & Koen 2021; Appendix B), inspectable merit-function maps (Figs. 2–8), explicit labeling of tentative solutions and ranges (Table 7), and a clear comparison with prior CO-core modeling (Romero et al. 2022). The work is appropriately framed as a first step rather than a definitive census, and the caveats in Sect. 5 (limited periods, m=0 assumption, GD 278 rotational-splitting precedent) are stated honestly. The result is of interest to the WD asteroseismology and binary-evolution communities even if some individual MH values remain provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. Sect. 3 (opening paragraphs) and Sect. 5: the central claim that the sample spans a broad range of H-envelope thicknesses (Abstract; Table 7; Conclusions) rests on treating nearly all fitted periods as central m=0 components, even though a complete multiplet is identified for only one mode of one star (f3 of TIC 188087204). The paper itself notes that rotational splittings can exceed radial-overtone spacing (citing Lopez et al. 2021 on GD 278). With only 2–5 independent periods and a discrete (M⋆, MH) grid, a systematic m-offset of a few µHz can move a star between thin- and canonical-envelope minima. The authors already label several solutions “tentative,” but the headline diversity of MH should be more carefully qualified as conditional on the m=0 assignment, and a short sensitivity test (e.g., shifting candidate periods by the observed ~9 µHz splitting of TIC 188087204) would strength
  2. Table 7 and Sects. 3.1, 3.4: for J1112 (two periods only) and TIC 344130696 the preferred solutions are already flagged as tentative, yet they are still used to support the sample-wide statement that envelopes range from canonical to very thin. The abstract and conclusions should more clearly separate the three better-constrained objects from the tentative/range cases so that the diversity claim is not over-read from the weakest fits.
  3. Sect. 4 and Table 7: spectroscopic/photometric masses are obtained by interpolating the same atmospheric parameters on the same evolutionary sequences used for the asteroseismological fits, guided by the asteroseismologically preferred MH regime. This is methodologically reasonable but introduces mild dependence between the two mass estimates. A brief quantification of how much Mphot changes when the envelope regime is switched (the text already notes ~0.026 M⊙ for very thin vs canonical) should be stated next to the “broadly compatible” claim so readers can judge the independence of the comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1 caption and panels: yellow squares mark frequencies “weak or not visible in this specific plot”; a short note in the caption clarifying that those frequencies were confirmed in other sectors would help readers who only inspect the figure.
  2. Eq. (1) and surrounding text: σ is defined as the RMS residual, but the maps show log σ; stating the units of σ (seconds) once in the figure captions would avoid ambiguity.
  3. Sect. 2.6: the rank-based FAP argument for f*1 and f*6 is clear in the text but could be cross-referenced more explicitly to Appendix B so the methodology is easy to find.
  4. Table A.1: the stellar-mass column mixes spectroscopic (J1112) and Gaia-based photometric values; a footnote or column header clarifying the distinction would match the careful language used in the main text.
  5. Throughout: a few minor typos and inconsistent hyphenation (e.g., “H–envelope” vs “H-envelope”; “Teff” formatting) should be cleaned in production.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No circularity in the period-to-period fits that produce the claimed range of H-envelope thicknesses; only mild dependence appears in the secondary spectroscopic/photometric mass comparison, which uses tracks pre-selected by the asteroseismological MH.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (and Table 7 summary)]
    "Guided by the envelope-thickness regimes suggested by the asteroseismological fits, we computed for each star its spectroscopic/photometric mass by interpolating on the corresponding evolutionary tracks. ... For most objects, the derived spectroscopic/photometric stellar masses are broadly compatible with the asteroseismological values."

    The asteroseismological MH (itself obtained by minimizing period residuals) is used to select which evolutionary-track family (canonical vs. thin) is employed for the (Teff, log g) o M interpolation. Because thinner envelopes produce higher surface gravity at fixed mass, the choice of track systematically shifts Mphot toward better numerical agreement with the asteroseismological M⋆. The reported “broad compatibility” is therefore partially forced by the prior selection of the track family rather than being an independent cross-check.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation is the minimization of the period residual σ^{2} (Eq. 1) over a precomputed grid of fully evolutionary LM He-core models that already span a range of MH. Observed periods are independent data; theoretical periods come from adiabatic calculations on those models. Atmospheric (Teff, log g) values are used only as post-hoc guidance to choose among multiple σ minima when they exist, not as inputs that force the periods. The resulting MH diversity (canonical to very thin) is therefore not by construction. The sole mild circularity is secondary: once an MH regime is preferred from the period fits, the same model family is used to convert the atmospheric parameters into Mspec/Mphot, and the paper then reports that these masses are “broadly compatible” with the asteroseismological M⋆. Because thinner envelopes raise log g at fixed mass, the track choice partially improves agreement by design. This is standard practice, does not generate the MH range itself, and does not rise above score 2. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier evolutionary sequences and to Calcaferro et al. (2018b) supply the model grid but are not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing unverified premises. The m=0 multiplet assumption is a modeling limitation (correctness risk), not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard adiabatic g-mode theory, a pre-existing grid of fully evolutionary LM He-core models that already allow variable MH, and the usual period-to-period merit function. Free parameters are the discrete (M⋆, MH, Teff) grid points chosen as best fits and the FAP thresholds used to accept or reject candidate periods. No new physical entities are postulated; the diversity of envelope thicknesses is an inference from existing model families, not a new force or particle.

free parameters (3)
  • best-fit (M⋆, log(MH/M⋆), Teff) per star = e.g. J1112: 0.1706 M⊙, −5.30, 8922 K; others as ranges or single points in Table 7
    Selected by minimizing σ^{2} over a discrete evolutionary grid; values reported in Table 7 are the free parameters that encode the asteroseismic solutions.
  • FAP acceptance thresholds (0.1 % nominal; relaxed to ~0.857 % or rank-based for sub-threshold peaks) = 0.1 % (Baran & Koen 2021); relaxed values given in Appendix B
    Controls which periods enter the fit sets S1–S4; choice of which candidates to include changes the preferred model for several stars.
  • ℓ and m mode identifications = ℓ=1+2, m=0 (default)
    Assumed mixture of ℓ=1,2 and m=0 for almost all modes; only one secure m=0 identification (f3 of TIC 188087204).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Observed brightness variations are g-modes whose periods can be matched to adiabatic periods of fully evolutionary LM He-core WD models.
    Standard asteroseismology premise stated in Sect. 1 and used throughout Sect. 3.
  • domain assumption The LPCODE evolutionary sequences with variable MH (Althaus et al. 2013; Calcaferro et al. 2018a,b) correctly span the relevant internal structures.
    Model grid is taken as given; no re-derivation of input physics.
  • standard math Merit function σ^{2} (Eq. 1) is an adequate figure of merit for selecting best-fit models.
    Conventional period residual used in prior La Plata Group papers.
  • domain assumption Atmospheric (Teff, log g) values can be used to guide selection among multiple σ minima.
    Explicitly stated in Sect. 3 when multiple solutions exist.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27881 in / 3221 out tokens · 24849 ms · 2026-07-12T07:30:01.617126+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent space-based photometry, particularly from TESS, has opened new possibilities for probing the internal structure of low-mass (LM) helium (He)-core white dwarfs (WDs). We present a homogeneous asteroseismological analysis of six pulsating LM WD stars, based on new and updated TESS photometry. We processed short- and ultra-short-cadence TESS observations of TIC 290904838 (J1112), TIC 156064657, TIC 33717565, TIC 344130696, TIC 72637474, and TIC 188087204, and analyzed the resulting pulsation spectra. We then carried out a detailed asteroseismological analysis using fully evolutionary models of LM He-core WDs that allow for varying hydrogen (H)-envelope thicknesses. We also estimated spectroscopic/photometric stellar masses when atmospheric parameters are available. We report the first TESS-based frequencies for J1112 and provide revised or expanded frequency solutions for the remaining targets. The asteroseismological analysis yields relatively well-constrained solutions for three stars, a representative but more tentative solution for one target, and constrained ranges for the remaining two. The inferred solutions span a broad range of H-envelope thicknesses, although some of the asteroseismological inferences remain tentative because of the limited number of observed periods available for the analysis. For most objects, the derived spectroscopic/photometric stellar masses are broadly compatible with the asteroseismological values. This is the first homogeneous TESS-based asteroseismological study of a small sample of pulsating LM WDs. Our results suggest that LM WDs can harbor H envelopes with a range of thicknesses, from canonical (thick) to very thin, as in average-mass H-rich pulsating WDs. They also provide a useful reference point for future studies of larger samples, which will hopefully benefit from richer mode sets and improved mode identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02720 by Alejandro H. C\'orsico, J.J. Hermes, Keaton J. Bell, Leandro G. Althaus, Leila M. Calcaferro, Murat Uzundag, Nikoo Hosseininezhad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative amplitude spectra for each target, selected from the TESS sector (or stitched sectors) that most clearly show the pulsation signals. Significant frequencies detected in the displayed spectrum are marked with red diamonds. The dashed red line represents the significance threshold. Yellow squares highlight frequencies that were detected in the comprehensive analysis but are weak or not visible… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projection on the Teff versus M⋆ plane of the logarithm of the av￾erage period residual (σ) for J1112, assuming that the observed periods are associated with ℓ = 1, 2. For each M⋆, the value shown corresponds to the H–envelope mass that yields the lowest value of the quality func￾tion among the explored sequences. The error bars indicate the 1σ at￾mospheric estimates in the M⋆-Teff plane. The circle marks … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Kiel diagram for the six ELMVs (red crosses) analyzed in this work. Evolutionary tracks for canonical (solid; Althaus et al. 2013) and very thin (dashed; Calcaferro et al. 2018b) H-envelope masses are in￾cluded, as well as two artificial evolutionary sequences (with 0.130 and 0.140 M⊙) with very thin H-envelopes. Also displayed are other ELMV targets (black dots). All masses are given in units of M⊙. ∼ 0.0… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    G., Calcaferro, L

    Althaus, L. G., Calcaferro, L. M., Córsico, A. H., & Brown, W. R. 2025, A&A, 699, A280

    2025

  2. [2]

    G., Camisassa, M

    Althaus, L. G., Camisassa, M. E., Miller Bertolami, M. M., Córsico, A. H., & García-Berro, E. 2015, A&A, 576, A9

    2015

  3. [3]

    G., Córsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Córsico, A. H., Isern, J., & García-Berro, E. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 471

    2010

  4. [4]

    G., Gil-Pons, P., Córsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Gil-Pons, P., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A30

    2021

  5. [5]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Córsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19

    2013

  6. [6]

    G., Panei, J

    Althaus, L. G., Panei, J. A., Romero, A. D., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 207

    2009

  7. [7]

    G., Serenelli, A

    Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., Panei, J. A., et al. 2005, A&A, 435, 631

    2005

  8. [8]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786 Antunes Amaral, L., Munday, J., Vuˇckovi´c, M., et al

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786 Antunes Amaral, L., Munday, J., Vuˇckovi´c, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Baran, A. S. & Koen, C. 2021, Acta Astron., 71, 113

    2021

  10. [10]

    R., Salaris, M., Anderson, J., et al

    Bedin, L. R., Salaris, M., Anderson, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1779

    2015

  11. [11]

    2022, Pyriod: Period detection and fitting routines, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.007

    Bell, K. 2022, Pyriod: Period detection and fitting routines, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2207.007

    2022

  12. [12]

    Bell, K. J. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V olume 3, V ol. 3, 75–90

    2026

  13. [13]

    J., Gianninas, A., Hermes, J

    Bell, K. J., Gianninas, A., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 180

    2017

  14. [14]

    J., Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S

    Bell, K. J., Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A6

    2018

  15. [15]

    J., Weinberg, N

    Bildsten, L., Shen, K. J., Weinberg, N. N., & Nelemans, G. 2007, ApJ, 662, L95

    2007

  16. [16]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 101

    Bischoff-Kim, A. 2023, ApJ, 958, 101

    2023

  17. [17]

    L., Bradley, P

    Bischoff-Kim, A., Provencal, J. L., Bradley, P. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 13 Bognár, Z. & Sódor, Á. 2024, A&A, 684, A76

    2019

  18. [18]

    Brickhill, A. J. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 673

    1991

  19. [19]

    R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Allende Prieto, C. 2016, ApJ, 818, 155

    2016

  20. [20]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 769, 66

    2013

  21. [21]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072

    2010

  22. [22]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012, ApJ, 744, 142

    2012

  23. [23]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 49

    2020

  24. [24]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 94

    2022

  25. [25]

    M., Córsico, A

    Calcaferro, L. M., Córsico, A. H., & Althaus, L. G. 2017, A&A, 607, A33

    2017

  26. [26]

    M., Córsico, A

    Calcaferro, L. M., Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., & Bell, K. J. 2021, A&A, 647, A140

    2021

  27. [27]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Torres, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, L7

    2021

  28. [28]

    E., Raddi, R., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Raddi, R., Althaus, L. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, L1 Córsico, A. H. & Althaus, L. G. 2006, A&A, 454, 863 Córsico, A. H. & Althaus, L. G. 2014a, A&A, 569, A106 Córsico, A. H. & Althaus, L. G. 2014b, ApJ, 793, L17 Córsico, A. H. & Althaus, L. G. 2016, A&A, 585, A1 Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., Kepler, S. O., Costa, J. E. S., & Miller B...

    2022

  29. [29]

    D., Kalirai, J

    Cummings, J. D., Kalirai, J. S., Choi, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, L18

    2019

  30. [30]

    L., Gil-Pons, P., Lau, H

    Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., Lau, H. H. B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 582

    2014

  31. [31]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Weisz, D. R. 2018, ApJ, 860, L17

    2018

  32. [32]

    & Brassard, P

    Fontaine, G. & Brassard, P. 2008, PASP, 120, 1043 García-Berro, E. & Oswalt, T. D. 2016, New A Rev., 72, 1 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877

    2008

  33. [33]

    2018, Nature, 554, 73

    Giammichele, N., Charpinet, S., Fontaine, G., et al. 2018, Nature, 554, 73

    2018

  34. [34]

    R., & Kilic, M

    Gianninas, A., Curd, B., Fontaine, G., Brown, W. R., & Kilic, M. 2016, ApJ, 822, L27

    2016

  35. [35]

    R., Canton, P., & Kenyon, S

    Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Canton, P., & Kenyon, S. J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 167

    2015

  36. [36]

    A., Vanderbosch, Z

    Guidry, J. A., Vanderbosch, Z. P., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 125

    2021

  37. [37]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Han, Z., Tout, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 215

    2000

  38. [38]

    J., Montgomery, M

    Hermes, J. J., Montgomery, M. H., Winget, D. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, L28

    2012

  39. [39]

    & Tutukov, A

    Iben, I., J. & Tutukov, A. V . 1984, ApJS, 54, 335

    1984

  40. [40]

    2021, A&A, 650, A102

    Irrgang, A., Geier, S., Heber, U., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A102

    2021

  41. [41]

    G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A35

    2016

  42. [42]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 255

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Moss, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 255

    2025

  43. [43]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3413

    2016

  44. [44]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 3

    2011

  45. [45]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 141

    2012

  46. [46]

    J., Córsico, A

    Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 1267

    2018

  47. [47]

    J., Gianninas, A., & Brown, W

    Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., Gianninas, A., & Brown, W. R. 2015, MNRAS, 446, L26

    2015

  48. [48]

    A., Harris, H

    Kilic, M., Munn, J. A., Harris, H. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 162

    2017

  49. [49]

    R., Kilic, M., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 141

    2023

  50. [50]

    R., & Gianninas, A

    Kosakowski, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Gianninas, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 53

    2020

  51. [51]

    W., Hong, K., Kim, H.-Y ., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., Kim, H.-Y ., & Park, J.-H. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4702

    2022

  52. [52]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148

    2019

  53. [53]

    D., Hermes, J

    Lopez, I. D., Hermes, J. J., Calcaferro, L. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 220

    2021

  54. [54]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Serenelli, A. M., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 208

    2014

  55. [55]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Serenelli, A. M., Miglio, A., et al. 2013, Nature, 498, 463

    2013

  56. [56]

    G., Brown, A

    Parsons, S. G., Brown, A. J., Littlefair, S. P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 690

    2020

  57. [57]

    O., Koester, D., et al

    Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 867 Prada Moroni, P. G. & Straniero, O. 2009, A&A, 507, 1575

    2018

  58. [58]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  59. [59]

    D., Córsico, A

    Romero, A. D., Córsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1462

    2012

  60. [60]

    D., Kepler, S

    Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1574

    2022

  61. [61]

    D., Kepler, S

    Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., Oliveira da Rosa, G., & Hermes, J. J. 2025, ApJ, 984, 112

    2025

  62. [62]

    2022, Phys

    Saumon, D., Blouin, S., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, Phys. Rep., 988, 1

    2022

  63. [63]

    M., Althaus, L

    Serenelli, A. M., Althaus, L. G., Rohrmann, R. D., & Benvenuto, O. G. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 607

    2001

  64. [64]

    M., Althaus, L

    Serenelli, A. M., Althaus, L. G., Rohrmann, R. D., & Benvenuto, O. G. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1091

    2002

  65. [65]

    Steinfadt, J. D. R., Bildsten, L., & Arras, P. 2010, ApJ, 718, 441

    2010

  66. [66]

    R., Cool, A

    Strickler, R. R., Cool, A. M., Anderson, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 40

    2009

  67. [67]

    Su, J. & Li, Y . 2023, ApJ, 943, 113

    2023

  68. [68]

    & Arras, P

    Sun, M. & Arras, P. 2018, ApJ, 858, 14

    2018

  69. [69]

    E., Cummings, J., Kalirai, J

    Tremblay, P. E., Cummings, J., Kalirai, J. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2100

    2016

  70. [70]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 148

    Tremblay, P.-E., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 148

    2015

  71. [71]

    1989, Nonradial os- cillations of stars, ed

    Unno, W., Osaki, Y ., Ando, H., Saio, H., & Shibahashi, H. 1989, Nonradial os- cillations of stars, ed. T. University of Tokyo Press

    1989

  72. [72]

    H., Jannsen, N., et al

    Uzundag, M., Corsico, A. H., Jannsen, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    H., Kepler, S

    Uzundag, M., Córsico, A. H., Kepler, S. O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2285

    2022

  74. [74]

    C., Córsico, A

    Uzundag, M., De Gerónimo, F. C., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2846 Van Grootel, V ., Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Dupret, M.-A. 2013, ApJ, 762, 57

    2023

  75. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 5

    Wang, K., Németh, P., Luo, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 5

    2022

  76. [76]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 49

    Wang, K., Zhang, X., & Dai, M. 2020, ApJ, 888, 49

    2020

  77. [77]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355

    1984

  78. [78]

    Winget, D. E. & Kepler, S. O. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 157 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. Unveiling_ELMVs_i Appendix A: Lists of selected objects Here we provide basic information about the objects analyzed in this paper. Table A.1.Main properties of the sample of ELMVs analyzed in this work. Column (a) is the star’s name, column (b) indi...

    2008