Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Forward Modeling of the $\delta$ Sct Star V1790 Ori: $\Delta \nu$, $\Omega$, Resolution and Non-adiabatic Effects

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that for the rotating δ Scuti star V1790 Ori, using the large frequency separation Δν≈82 μHz as a structural constraint is necessary to reduce model degeneracy and obtain physically plausible mode identifications.

desk verdict Honest and useful diagnostic study, but the claim that Δν breaks the degeneracy rests on a comparison that changes resolution, α_MLT sampling, and N simultaneously — and the new Δν = 82 μHz has no direct peak in the Fourier transform. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18889 v1 pith:RECNF4F5 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.SR

Xiaoya Sun , Antonio García Hernández , Zhaoyu Zuo , Juan Carlos Suárez , Yifan Wang , Ruixuan Tang , Giovanni M. Mirouh , Taozhi Yang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologyδScutistarslargefrequencyseparationstellarrotationmodeidentificationforwardmodelingV1790Oriresiduals
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 argues that for the rotating δ Scuti star V1790 Ori the global seismic spacing Δν≈82 μHz must be imposed as a structural constraint before fitting individual pulsation frequencies; without it, the candidate stellar models remain severely degenerate in radius, age, mass, and metallicity. With the constraint, the minimum-misfit model converges to M=1.64 Msun, Z=0.01, α_MLT=1.6, and the échelle diagram develops clean ridges for ℓ=0,1,2, supporting mode identification. The paper then measures how three modelling choices shift theoretical frequencies: second-order rotational corrections change them by about 2.96 μHz (root-mean-square over the 40 stably labelled modes), mesh resolution by 0.44 μHz, and non-adiabaticity by 0.06 μHz. It also finds that the 260.672 μHz peak, previously called the fundamental radial mode, receives different labels under different modelling configurations. Because the inferred parameters shift with configuration, the results are framed as diagnostics of modelling systematics rather than a unique solution.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the large frequency separation Δν, the gap between consecutive overtones of the same spherical degree, used as a global structural prior: it is measured from the observed spectrum and then applied to filter candidate stellar models before frequency-by-frequency matching, effectively forcing the model's mean density to match the star's. The comparison of modelling choices rests on two pulsation calculations—one applying first-order rotational corrections (adiabatic and non-adiabatic), the other adding second-order rotational corrections and near-degeneracy effects—evaluated for 48 matched frequencies. The 40 modes whose (n,ℓ,m) labels are stable across all configurati

What would settle it

Redo the model selection with Δν set to 87 μHz and to 89 μHz (the values found in earlier work) and see whether the parameter distributions still narrow; alternatively, obtain a longer light curve and check whether a peak appears at Δν itself rather than only at its half-value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large frequency separation Δν—the spacing between consecutive overtones of the same angular degree—carries structural information about V1790 Ori that individual frequency fits miss. Using 69 frequencies from TESS photometry, the paper derives Δν≈82 μHz from the Fourier transform, autocorrelation, and histogram of frequency differences; no peak appears at Δν itself, so the value rests on a persistent submultiple near 41 μHz. When Δν is imposed as a prior during model selection, the candidate parameter space shrinks sharply—radius from 1.65–1.90 Rsun to 1.45–1.50 Rsun, age from 0.6–1.25 Gyr to under 0.7 Gyr, mass from 1.50–1.75 Msun to 1.58–1.70 Msun—and the adop

Load-bearing premise

The whole Δν-constrained selection rests on the assumption that the large separation is really about 82 μHz: the Fourier transform shows no peak at that value, the case hangs on a submultiple near 41 μHz, and earlier studies report 87–89 μHz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mode identifications for V1790 Ori should be treated as provisional until a Δν prior is included; the 260.672 μHz peak is not securely the fundamental radial mode.
  • The quoted stellar parameters (M≈1.64 Msun, Z=0.01, α_MLT=1.6) are configuration-dependent estimates, not unique values.
  • Second-order rotational corrections cause the largest theoretical frequency shifts (~2.96 μHz for stable modes), so first-order rotation alone is insufficient for precision work on this star.
  • Resolution (0.44 μHz) and non-adiabaticity (0.06 μHz) are sub-μHz effects for V1790 Ori, so the remaining ~4.4 μHz residual must come from other physics—structure, rotation treatment, or mode matching.
  • A fair test of second-order rotation requires re-optimising the model within that framework (denser grid, self-consistent mode matching) before judging whether it fits better or worse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true Δν is closer to the 87–89 μHz values reported elsewhere rather than 82 μHz, the demonstration that Δν removes degeneracy may weaken; a direct detection of a Δν peak in a longer light curve would settle which spacing is real.
  • The procedure of imposing Δν as a global prior before mode-by-mode matching may transfer to other δ Scuti stars with crowded spectra, particularly moderate rotators where pattern-based diagnostics are fragile.
  • The roughly 3 μHz spread between first- and second-order rotational treatments suggests that for v sin i ≈ 70 km/s the first-order approximation is a poor starting point for precision asteroseismology; benchmarking perturbative codes against non-perturbative ones would test this.
  • A direct extension: recompute the reference model selection with Δν fixed at 87 and 89 μHz and check whether the parameter narrowing still occurs; if it does, the degeneracy-breaking property is robust to the exact Δν value.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes TESS photometry of V1790 Ori, extracts 69 frequencies, determines Δν ≈ 82 μHz, and fits rotating MESA models with GYRE (adiabatic/non-adiabatic, first-order rotation) and FILOU (second-order rotation). The authors compare model selection with and without a Δν prior, identify a reference model (M = 1.64 M_sun, Z = 0.01, α_MLT = 1.6) using the GYRE adiabatic high-resolution configuration with 48 fitted frequencies, and quantify theoretical frequency differences (resolution 0.442 μHz, non-adiabatic 0.062 μHz, GYRE vs FILOU 2.962 μHz for RMS40) and residuals relative to observations. They conclude that Δν is essential to reduce degeneracy and that the 260.672 μHz peak has configuration-dependent identification. The paper includes transparent, tabulated RMS diagnostics and several appropriately hedged caveats, but the main methodological claim rests on a comparison that is not controlled.

Significance. If the conclusions held, the paper would provide a useful systematics study for forward modeling of rotating δ Scuti stars: second-order rotation dominates frequency shifts, non-adiabatic effects are minor for the frequencies tested, and some mode labels, including the purported fundamental radial mode, are configuration dependent. The explicit RMS tables and the stable-label subset (RMS40) are a useful framework for separating genuine frequency shifts from mode-identification changes. However, the central claim that Δν is necessary to reduce degeneracy is not established, because the with/without Δν comparison changes several modeling choices simultaneously. The work remains valuable as a cautionary systematics analysis, but the abstract's statement that 'Using Δν as a structural constraint is necessary to reduce model degeneracy' overstates what the present evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 6.1.1–6.1.2, Figs. 3–6] The central 'without Δν' vs 'with Δν' comparison is not a controlled experiment. The no-Δν selection uses GYRE adiabatic low resolution with α_MLT = 1.0–1.8 in steps of 0.2 and N = 55–62, while the with-Δν selection uses GYRE adiabatic high resolution, for which the text states 'at high spatial resolution we considered only one value of α_MLT', and N = 43–51. The narrowing of R, age, M, and Z in Fig. 9 relative to Fig. 8 can therefore be produced by the reduced α_MLT sampling, by resolution-dependent frequency shifts, or by the different number of fitted frequencies, not uniquely by Δν. Table 3 independently shows that resolution and configuration change the minimum-misfit parameters (e.g., α_MLT from 1.4 to 1.6, M from 1.62 to 1.64 M_sun), so these factors are not neutralized. To support the abstract and Section 8 conclusion, the authors must either repeat the comparison holding grid re
  2. [Section 6.1.2 and Fig. 6] The agreement between the reference model's theoretical Δν ≈ 81.8 μHz and the adopted observed Δν ≈ 82 μHz is guaranteed by the selection procedure rather than being an independent test. The text refers to 'our predefined selection range' for models accepted under the Δν constraint. Consequently, the échelle ridge structure in Fig. 6 and the statement that the model 'gives a theoretical large separation of ~81.8 μHz' are consequences of the constraint, not independent validation of the model or of the inferred parameters. The paper should report the actual selection window, show the distribution of theoretical Δν for models without the constraint, and clarify that the near-agreement of Δν is by construction.
  3. [Section 3 and Section 7.1] The adopted Δν = 82 μHz is not directly detected: the FT 'shows no peak around Δν', so the identification relies on a submultiple at ~41 μHz, while Bedding et al. (2020) and Murphy et al. (2023) report 87 and 89 μHz, respectively. Since the central with-Δν analysis is built on Δν ≈ 82 and the reference model's Δν ≈ 81.8 matches by construction, the entire demonstration that 'Δν removes degeneracy' is conditional on a disputed and weakly detected value. A sensitivity test using Δν = 87 and 89 μHz, or an explicit quantitative argument for why those measurements are invalid, is needed before the abstract's claim can be accepted. The statement in Section 7.1 that 82 μHz is 'the most robust value' is not supported by the evidence presented, because the fundamental periodicity is absent from the FT.
  4. [Section 6.1.1, chi-square paragraphs] The comparison of unweighted χ²/N to p = 0.005 critical values of the χ² distribution is not valid. The residuals ν_obs,i − ν_mod,i in Table A.3 are not divided by measurement uncertainties, and the nearest-frequency one-to-one matching without fixed mode IDs is not a standard χ² statistic. The preceding paragraph correctly concedes that 'the χ² values are not interpreted in a probabilistic sense', but the next paragraph invokes the Gamma(N/2, 2/N) distribution to assert that the fits lie 'well below' critical boundaries. These statements are contradictory. The statistical boundary discussion should be removed unless a properly weighted statistic with explicit frequency uncertainties is constructed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption and Section 6.1.1] The figure caption says 'Solid lines denote low spatial resolution, whereas dashed lines denote high spatial resolution', but the text refers to 'The high-resolution results, shown by dotted lines.' Please unify the terminology.
  2. [Section 5, last paragraph] The sentence 'we use GYRE v8.0 to perform non-adiabatic calculations with the adiabatic method' is confusing. As written it suggests both adiabatic and non-adiabatic treatments are called 'the adiabatic method'. Please rephrase to distinguish the equilibrium model and the oscillation treatment.
  3. [Tables A.1 and A.3] The observed frequencies in Table A.3 do not match the frequencies in Table A.1. For example, the main peak is 260.764 μHz in Table A.1 but 260.672 μHz in Table A.3, and similar offsets appear for 450.526 vs 450.683, 251.451 vs 251.539, and 577.547 vs 577.755. Since Table A.3 drives all residual and RMS calculations, this inconsistency must be resolved, either by harmonizing the tables or by explaining the frequency adjustment.
  4. [Section 4.1] Typo: 'it's characteristic patterns' should be 'its characteristic patterns'. Also, in Section 1, 'δSct' appears as 'δScuti' inconsistently; choose one form for the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The reference model's Δν≈81.8 μHz is a selection artifact of the Δν constraint, not an independent prediction; the main cross-code frequency-difference results are self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 6.1.2 (model selection with Δν constraint; Fig. 6 caption)]
    "The results of the frequency fit, now including Δν as a constraint on the best model, are presented in Fig. 5. ... no candidate model is identified in the GYRE-nonadiabatic-high resolution configuration. This is because, for the adopted value of α_MLT, the large separation predicted by this particular model setup falls outside our predefined selection range. ... Fig. 6 shows the échelle diagram of the minimum-misfit model, which gives a theoretical large separation of∼81.8μHz."

    The 'predefined selection range' is the observed Δν≈82 μHz applied as a filter: models were kept only if their predicted large separation fell in that range. Reporting the selected reference model's Δν≈81.8 μHz as a supporting result is therefore reading the selection cut back out, not an independent confirmation that the Δν constraint works. The paper's own text shows the selection is explicitly on Δν, making the agreement between constrained theoretical and observed Δν guaranteed by construction.

full rationale

The paper's principal quantitative results—RMS40/RMS48 differences among low/high resolution, adiabatic/non-adiabatic, and GYRE/FILOU (Sect. 6.2, Tables A.2/A.3)—are self-contained comparisons computed at fixed stellar parameters and do not reduce to the input data. The Δν-necessity argument, however, contains one by-construction element: the reference model's theoretical Δν≈81.8 μHz is a foregone consequence of the Δν selection filter. Separately, the with-Δν vs without-Δν comparison (Fig. 8 vs Fig. 9) changes spatial resolution, α_MLT sampling, and fitted frequency count simultaneously (Sect. 6.1.2: 'at high spatial resolution we considered only one value of α_MLT'), so the histogram narrowing is not a controlled test of Δν; this is a confound rather than a circular definition. Citations to García Hernández et al. (2009, 2013) and Suárez et al. (2014) supply standard methods and are not used to forbid alternatives. Score reflects one forced selection artifact amid otherwise independent diagnostics.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The numerical experiment fits a grid of MESA models to observed Teff, L, vsini and frequencies. The four stellar grid parameters are free and selected by minimum χ²; the number of fitted frequencies N=48 is chosen post hoc from the χ²/N stability plateau. No new physical entity is introduced. The main assumptions are that the observed vsini equals the equatorial velocity and that the Δν≈82 μHz spacing is the true large separation; both are stated in the text but not independently verified.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial stellar mass M = 1.64 M_sun (reference model)
    Grid range 1.50–2.00 M_sun in 0.01 steps; selected by minimum χ² with Δν constraint (Table 3).
  • Metallicity Z = 0.01 (reference model)
    Grid range 0.005–0.020 in 0.005 steps; selected by χ² (Table 3).
  • Mixing-length parameter α_MLT = 1.6 (reference model)
    Grid range 1.0–1.8 in 0.2 steps; reference high-resolution model uses 1.6; high-res grid only computed for one α_MLT value.
  • Initial surface rotational velocity v_rot,initial = 9.6 km/s (reference model)
    Grid range 8.6–9.6 km/s in 0.5 km/s steps; chosen to yield surface velocity ~70 km/s; selected by χ².
  • Number of fitted frequencies N = 48
    Chosen post hoc from the χ²/N stability plateau (N=43–51) with Δν constraint; affects which model is minimum-misfit.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption p-mode approximation: g modes are neglected
    Sect. 5: 'We focus on p modes and neglect g modes.' If g modes contribute to the 69 observed frequencies, the mode matching is incomplete.
  • domain assumption Δν ≈ 82 μHz is the true large separation
    Sect. 3: determined from FT/AC/HFD with no direct FT peak at Δν; prior literature gives 87 and 89 μHz.
  • domain assumption vsini = 70 km/s equals the equatorial velocity (inclination i = 90°)
    Sect. 6.1: explicit caveat that true equatorial velocity may be higher; all rotational corrections depend on this.
  • domain assumption 1D shellular MESA rotation captures the relevant rotational structure
    Sect. 4.1: rotation via shellular approximation and centrifugal deformation; 3D rotation and differential rotation not modeled.
  • domain assumption First-order (GYRE) and second-order (FILOU) perturbative rotation are valid at the adopted rotation rate
    Sect. 5; validity limits from Reese et al. (2006) and Ballot et al. (2013); violated if v_eq is larger than assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Nearest-frequency one-to-one matching without fixed mode IDs is a meaningful misfit measure
    Sect. 6.1: matching is model-dependent and can artificially lower χ²; the authors acknowledge this limitation.
  • standard math χ²/N follows a Gamma(N/2, 2/N) distribution under the null
    Sect. 6.1.1: invoked to compute critical values, but the paper's χ² is an unweighted mean-squared frequency difference, not a standardized chi-square statistic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forward Modeling of the $\delta$ Sct Star V1790 Ori: $\Delta \nu$, $\Omega$, Resolution and Non-adiabatic Effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RECNF4F5

@misc{pith2026260718889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forward Modeling of the $\delta$ Sct Star V1790 Ori: $\Delta \nu$, $\Omega$, Resolution and Non-adiabatic Effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RECNF4F5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18889}
}
abstract

We investigate the role of large separation, rotational correction order, structural resolution, and non-adiabatic effects in modelling the rotating $\delta$ Scuti star V1790 Ori. From TESS data, we extract 69 frequencies and determine $\Delta\nu \simeq 82$ $\mu$Hz. Rotating MESA models are computed at low and high resolution; their pulsation frequencies are calculated with GYRE (adiabatic/non-adiabatic, first-order rotation) and FILOU (adiabatic, second-order rotation). Using $\Delta\nu$ as a structural constraint is necessary to reduce model degeneracy. For the selected minimum-misfit reference model, considering only the 40 modes with consistent $(n,\ell,m)$ labels, the RMS$_{40}$ theoretical frequency differences are 0.442 $\mu$Hz (resolution), 0.062 $\mu$Hz (non-adiabatic), and 2.962 $\mu$Hz (GYRE vs FILOU); including all 48 frequencies gives RMS$_{48}$ values of 1.033, 2.326, and 3.931 $\mu$Hz. Relative to observations, higher resolution reduces residuals from 4.457 to 4.387 $\mu$Hz (RMS$_{40}$) and from 4.715 to 4.682 $\mu$Hz (RMS$_{48}$); non-adiabatic effects change them marginally to 4.381 and 4.673 $\mu$Hz. FILOU gives the largest residuals: 5.331 $\mu$Hz (RMS$_{40}$) and 5.270 $\mu$Hz (RMS$_{48}$). Second-order rotation produces the largest frequency shifts, but improving agreement with observations requires denser grids and self-consistent FILOU optimisation. The 260.672 $\mu$Hz peak -- previously identified as the fundamental radial mode -- shows uncertain identification. The results should be interpreted as diagnostics of modelling systematics and mode-identification robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Frequency spectrum of V1790 Ori. code is provided in Pamos Ortega et al. (2022) and in its public GitHub repository 2 . In total, 69 frequencies are extracted for V1790 Ori. The am￾plitude spectrum of the single sector (S6) of TESS data is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the left panel, the black, gray and blue lines represent the Fourier transform (FT), the histogram of frequency di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of the normalized merit function, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Échelle diagram of the minimum-misfit model obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Échelle diagram of the minimum-misfit model obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Échelle diagrams of V1790 Ori constructed using three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the candidate model parameter distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    W.\ 2010,

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W.\ 2010, . doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5 2010

  2. [2]

    Aerts, C.\ 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 1, 015001

    2021

  3. [3]

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al.\ 2018, , 616, A8

    2018

  4. [4]

    M., Chernyshova, I

    Andrievsky, S. M., Chernyshova, I. V., Paunzen, E., et al.\ 2002, , 396, 641

    2002

  5. [5]

    Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Boisnard, L., et al.\ 2006, 36th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 36, 3749

    2006

  6. [6]

    R.\ 2013, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, 865, 91

    Ballot, J., Ligni \`e res, F., & Reese, D. R.\ 2013, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, 865, 91

    2013

  7. [7]

    R., Murphy, S

    Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., Hey, D. R., et al.\ 2020, , 581, 7807, 147

    2020

  8. [8]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al.\ 2010, Science, 327, 5968, 977

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al.\ 2010, Science, 327, 5968, 977

    2010

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Breger, M., Stich, J., Garrido, R., et al.\ 1993, , 271, 482

    1993

  2. [10]

    Breger, M.\ 2000, Delta Scuti and Related Stars, 210, 3

    2000

  3. [11]

    & Li, Y.\ 2019, , 872, 2, 156

    Chen, X. & Li, Y.\ 2019, , 872, 2, 156

    2019

  4. [12]

    A., Walczak, P., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 1, 88

    Daszy \'n ska-Daszkiewicz, J., Pamyatnykh, A. A., Walczak, P., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 1, 88

    2021

  5. [13]

    Daszy \'n ska-Daszkiewicz, J., Walczak, P., Pamyatnykh, A., et al.\ 2023, , 942, 2, L38

    2023

  6. [14]

    A., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 3, 3551

    Daszy \'n ska-Daszkiewicz, J., Walczak, P., Pamyatnykh, A. A., et al.\ 2022, , 512, 3, 3551

    2022

  7. [15]

    Daszy \'n ska-Daszkiewicz, J., Walczak, P., Szewczuk, W., et al.\ 2023, , 526, 2, 1951

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dziembowski, W. A. & Goode, P. R.\ 1992, , 394, 670

    1992

  9. [17]

    Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Mart \' n-Ruiz, S., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., et al.\ 2015, , 811, 2, L29

    2015

  10. [18]

    Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Moya, A., Michel, E., et al.\ 2009, , 506, 1, 79

    2009

  11. [19]

    Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Moya, A., Michel, E., et al.\ 2013, , 559, A63

    2013

  12. [20]

    C., Moya, A., et al.\ 2017, , 471, 1, L140

    Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Su \'a rez, J. C., Moya, A., et al.\ 2017, , 471, 1, L140

    2017

  13. [21]

    J., & Bedding, T

    Gautam, A., Murphy, S. J., & Bedding, T. R.\ 2025, , arXiv:2507.03561

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    & Townsend, R

    Goldstein, J. & Townsend, R. H. D.\ 2020, , 899, 2, 116

    2020

  15. [23]

    Gray, R. O. & Corbally, C. J.\ 1993, , 106, 632

    1993

  16. [24]

    C., Dupret, M.-A., et al.\ 2005, Tidal Evolution and Oscillations in Binary Stars, 333, 242

    Grigahc \`e ne, A., Su \'a rez, J. C., Dupret, M.-A., et al.\ 2005, Tidal Evolution and Oscillations in Binary Stars, 333, 242

    2005

  17. [25]

    R., Pamyatnykh, A

    Guo, Z., Bedding, T. R., Pamyatnykh, A. A., et al.\ 2024, , 535, 4, 2927

    2024

  18. [26]

    A.\ 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 55

    Guzik, J. A.\ 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 55

    2021

  19. [27]

    A., Fontes, C

    Guzik, J. A., Fontes, C. J., & Fryer, C.\ 2018, Atoms, 6, 2, 31

    2018

  20. [28]

    & Ball, W.\ 2020, Zenodo, 1.4

    Hey, D. & Ball, W.\ 2020, Zenodo, 1.4

    2020

  21. [29]

    L., Smalley, B., Gillon, M., et al.\ 2014, , 439, 2, 2078

    Holdsworth, D. L., Smalley, B., Gillon, M., et al.\ 2014, , 439, 2, 2078

    2014

  22. [30]

    & Dupret, M.-A.\ 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 1, 8

    Houdek, G. & Dupret, M.-A.\ 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 1, 8

    2015

  23. [31]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2023, , 265, 1, 15

    2023

  24. [32]

    & Tayar, J.\ 2023, Galaxies, 11, 3, 75

    Joyce, M. & Tayar, J.\ 2023, Galaxies, 11, 3, 75

    2023

  25. [33]

    & Thomas, H.-C.\ 1970, IAU Colloq

    Kippenhahn, R. & Thomas, H.-C.\ 1970, IAU Colloq. 4: Stellar Rotation, 20

    1970

  26. [34]

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A.\ 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Ledoux, P.\ 1951, , 114, 373

    1951

  28. [36]

    Ligni \`e res, F., Rieutord, M., & Reese, D.\ 2006, , 455, 2, 607

    2006

  29. [37]

    & Joyce, M.\ 2025, , 994, 1, 127

    Li, Y. & Joyce, M.\ 2025, , 994, 1, 127

    2025

  30. [38]

    & Maeder, A.\ 1997, , 321, 465

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A.\ 1997, , 321, 465

    1997

  31. [39]

    M., Angelou, G

    Mirouh, G. M., Angelou, G. C., Reese, D. R., et al.\ 2019, , 483, 1, L28

    2019

  32. [40]

    M., Reese, D

    Mirouh, G. M., Reese, D. R., Rieutord, M., et al.\ 2017, SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Di

    2017

  33. [41]

    M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 952296

    Mirouh, G. M.\ 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 952296

    2022

  34. [42]

    A., Szewczuk, W., et al.\ 2022, , 514, 1, 622

    Miszuda, A., Ko aczek-Szyma \'n ski, P. A., Szewczuk, W., et al.\ 2022, , 514, 1, 622

    2022

  35. [43]

    & Dupret, M.-A.\ 2007, , 470, 3, 991

    Montalb \'a n, J. & Dupret, M.-A.\ 2007, , 470, 3, 991

    2007

  36. [44]

    D., Townsend, R

    Monnier, J. D., Townsend, R. H. D., Che, X., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 1, 1192

    2010

  37. [45]

    Moya, A., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Charpinet, S., et al.\ 2008, , 316, 1-4, 231

    2008

  38. [46]

    A.\ 2003, Asteroseismology Across the HR Diagram, 284, 1, 549

    Moya, A., Garrido, R., & Dupret, M. A.\ 2003, Asteroseismology Across the HR Diagram, 284, 1, 549

    2003

  39. [47]

    J., Bedding, T

    Murphy, S. J., Bedding, T. R., Gautam, A., et al.\ 2023, , 526, 3, 3779

    2023

  40. [48]

    J., Corbally, C

    Murphy, S. J., Corbally, C. J., Gray, R. O., et al.\ 2015, , 32, e036

    2015

  41. [49]

    J., Saio, H., Takada-Hidai, M., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3, 4272

    Murphy, S. J., Saio, H., Takada-Hidai, M., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 3, 4272

    2020

  42. [50]

    C., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 1, 374

    Pamos Ortega, D., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Su \'a rez, J. C., et al.\ 2022, , 513, 1, 374

    2022

  43. [51]

    M., Hareter, M., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 2, 100

    Papar \'o , M., Benk o , J. M., Hareter, M., et al.\ 2016, , 822, 2, 100

    2016

  44. [52]

    M., Hareter, M., et al.\ 2016, , 224, 2, 41

    Papar \'o , M., Benk o , J. M., Hareter, M., et al.\ 2016, , 224, 2, 41

    2016

  45. [53]

    K., Dhanpal, S., Murphy, S

    Panda, S. K., Dhanpal, S., Murphy, S. J., et al.\ 2024, , 960, 2, 94

    2024

  46. [54]

    W., et al.\ 2002, , 392, 515

    Paunzen, E., Handler, G., Weiss, W. W., et al.\ 2002, , 392, 515

    2002

  47. [55]

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 1, 3

    2011

  48. [56]

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 1, 4

    2013

  49. [57]

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2015, , 220, 1, 15

    2015

  50. [58]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 2, 34

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 2, 34

    2018

  51. [59]

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2019, , 243, 1, 10

    2019

  52. [60]

    Press, W. H. & Rybicki, G. B.\ 1989, , 338, 277

    1989

  53. [61]

    Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., He, J.-J., et al.\ 2018, , 475, 1, 478

    2018

  54. [62]

    C., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 4, 6217

    Ram \'o n-Ballesta, A., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Su \'a rez, J. C., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 4, 6217

    2021

  55. [63]

    Reese, D., Ligni \`e res, F., & Rieutord, M.\ 2006, , 455, 2, 621

    2006

  56. [64]

    Reese, D., Ligni \`e res, F., & Rieutord, M.\ 2008, , 481, 2, 449

    2008

  57. [65]

    R., Mirouh, G

    Reese, D. R., Mirouh, G. M., Espinosa Lara, F., et al.\ 2021, , 645, A46

    2021

  58. [66]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al.\ 2014, , 9143, 914320

    2014

  59. [67]

    E., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Su \'a rez, J

    Rodr \' guez-Mart \' n, J. E., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Su \'a rez, J. C., et al.\ 2020, , 498, 2, 1700

    2020

  60. [68]

    Royer, F.\ 2009, The Rotation of Sun and Stars, 765, 207

    2009

  61. [69]

    Saio, H.\ 1981, , 244, 299

    1981

  62. [70]

    J., & Dziembowski, W

    Soufi, F., Goupil, M. J., & Dziembowski, W. A.\ 1998, , 334, 911

    1998

  63. [71]

    C.\ 2002, Ph.D

    Su \'a rez, J. C.\ 2002, Ph.D. Thesis, Observatoire de Paris, France

    2002

  64. [72]

    C., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Moya, A., et al.\ 2014, , 563, A7

    Su \'a rez, J. C., Garc \' a Hern \'a ndez, A., Moya, A., et al.\ 2014, , 563, A7

    2014

  65. [73]

    C., Garrido, R., & Goupil, M

    Su \'a rez, J. C., Garrido, R., & Goupil, M. J.\ 2006, , 447, 2, 649

    2006

  66. [74]

    C., Goupil, M

    Su \'a rez, J. C., Goupil, M. J., & Morel, P.\ 2006, , 449, 2, 673

    2006

  67. [75]

    Su \'a rez, J. C. & Goupil, M. J.\ 2008, , 316, 1-4, 155

    2008

  68. [76]

    Sun, X.-Y., Zuo, Z.-Y., Yang, T.-Z., et al.\ 2021, , 922, 2, 199

    2021

  69. [77]

    Sun, X.-Y., Zuo, Z.-Y., Yang, T.-Z., et al.\ 2023, , 955, 1, 80

    2023

  70. [78]

    Sun, X.-Y., Zuo, Z.-Y., Yang, T.-Z., et al.\ 2024, , 976, 1, 2

    2024

  71. [79]

    Thompson, C. M. \ 1941, Biometrika, 32

    1941

  72. [80]

    Townsend, R. H. D., Goldstein, J., & Zweibel, E. G.\ 2018, , 475, 1, 879

    2018

  73. [81]

    Townsend, R. H. D. & Teitler, S. A.\ 2013, , 435, 4, 3406

    2013

  74. [82]

    Uytterhoeven, K., Moya, A., Grigahc \`e ne, A., et al.\ 2011, , 534, A125

    2011

  75. [83]

    Vanlaer, V.\ 2025, TASC9/KASC16 9th TESS/16th Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium, 118

    2025

  76. [84]

    R., Bedding, T

    White, T. R., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 2, 161

    2011

  77. [85]

    & Zuo, Z.\ 2025, , 995, 2, 188

    Yang, T. & Zuo, Z.\ 2025, , 995, 2, 188

    2025

  78. [86]

    Yang, T.-Z., Zuo, Z.-Y., Li, G., et al.\ 2021, , 655, A63

    2021

  79. [87]

    Zahn, J.-P.\ 1992, , 265, 115

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.