Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Asteroseismic Analysis of a Red Giant KIC 9145955 by Including the Small-scale Magnetic Fields in the Atmosphere

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Adding a magnetic-pressure term to the Eddington T–τ relation reproduces KIC 9145955's oscillation frequencies to 0.1 μHz and points to small-scale photospheric fields up to 65 G.

desk verdict Competent transfer of a known magnetic surface-term method to a red giant, with an excellent frequency fit - but the magnetic-field detection is a reparameterization of two fitted parameters, not an independent result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19720 v1 pith:33JN3XK7 submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR

Yuetong Wang , Guifang Lin , Yan Li , Tao Wu , Yaguang Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologyredgiantssmall-scalemagneticfieldssurfaceeffectEddingtonT–τrelationsolar-likeoscillationsstellarparametersKIC9145955
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

Red giants show the same kind of mismatch between observed and computed oscillation frequencies that the Sun does, and the usual remedy is an empirical surface correction. This paper argues the mismatch can instead be explained physically by small-scale magnetic fields in the photosphere, and tests that idea on the well-studied red giant KIC 9145955. By adding a two-parameter exponential term to the standard Eddington relation between temperature and optical depth, the authors create the extra pressure needed to mimic magnetic fields and to reflect acoustic modes at a magnetic-arch splicing layer. Their best-fit model reproduces the observed l=0, 1, and 2 frequencies to within about 0.1 μHz and yields an upper limit of about 65 G at a height of roughly 13,100 km. If correct, asteroseismology could constrain the strength and location of small-scale magnetic fields in evolved stars, not just their global parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modified Eddington T−τ relation q(τ)=2/3 + a·exp(−bτ), where a sets how much extra temperature (hence radiation pressure) is added at low optical depth and b sets where in the atmosphere that addition acts. That artificial pressure excess is the proxy for magnetic pressure. The second piece is the surface mechanical boundary condition P′=0, which reflects acoustic modes at the layer where gas pressure and magnetic pressure are comparable. Together they change the acoustic travel time through the outer layers, translating a two-parameter atmospheric modification into observable frequency shifts.

What would settle it

A 3D red-giant atmosphere model that includes turbulent pressure and nonadiabatic effects but no magnetic field, and still matches the observed frequencies of KIC 9145955 to 0.1 μHz, would falsify the magnetic interpretation. Direct spectropolarimetric detection of ~65 G fields near 13,100 km, or a clear non-detection, would also test it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the frequency mismatch in the red giant KIC 9145955 is removed by changing the outer boundary structure rather than applying an empirical surface correction. The paper adopts q(τ)=2/3+a·exp(−bτ) in the Eddington T−τ relation, treats the extra term as magnetic pressure, and uses P′=0 as the surface boundary condition. The best-fit model (M=1.23 M☉, Z=0.006, α=2.01) reproduces observed l=0,1,2 frequencies to about 0.1 μHz. Interpreting the fitted pressure excess magnetically yields an upper limit of ~65 G near 13,100 km, plus revised parameters (R=5.57 R☉, L=19.85 L☉, Age=3.83 Gyr, M_He=0.2108 M☉). The authors stress this is an upper limit because turbulent pressure a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted exponential term in the T−τ relation uniquely represents magnetic pressure; if turbulent pressure, nonadiabaticity, or other neglected surface effects can produce the same frequency shifts, then the 65 G and 13,100 km values are fit parameters, not physical field properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-parameter modification of the atmospheric temperature structure can replace an empirical surface correction for this star, improving agreement with observed l=0,1,2 frequencies to about 0.1 μHz.
  • The fitted values provide an upper limit on small-scale photospheric magnetic fields in a red giant: about 65 G concentrated near 13,100 km.
  • The asteroseismic parameters of KIC 9145955 are revised to M=1.23±0.04 M☉, R=5.57±0.06 R☉, L=19.85±0.5 L☉, Age=3.83±0.5 Gyr, with a helium-core mass of M_He=0.2108±0.0005 M☉.
  • Because turbulent pressure and nonadiabaticity are not modeled, the derived field strength should be read as an upper limit, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied across a sample of red giants, the same two-parameter fit could map how photospheric small-scale field strength scales with stellar radius and mass; this paper examines only one star.
  • The fitted height parameter probably absorbs some of the structural effect of turbulence and nonadiabaticity, so 13,100 km may not be purely magnetic; comparing with 3D atmosphere simulations would separate the magnetic contribution.
  • The method's success on l=1 mixed modes suggests the modified boundary condition may change mode inertia or coupling; whether predicted mixed-mode widths or amplitudes shift is a testable next step.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the red giant KIC 9145955 and proposes that the systematic offsets between observed Kepler frequencies and adiabatic pulsation models can be removed by modifying the Eddington T-τ relation through q(τ) = 2/3 + a·exp(−bτ), where a and b are interpreted as parameters describing the strength and height of small-scale magnetic fields in the photosphere. Using MESA/ADIPLS, the authors scan a, b, initial mass M, and mixing-length parameter α, identify a best model (Model E) with χ²_all = 0.0013, and from the pressure-balance condition P_gas ≈ P_mag infer a magnetic field of about 65 G at a height of about 13,100 km. They also report revised stellar parameters (M = 1.23±0.04 M☉, R = 5.57±0.06 R☉, L = 19.85±0.5 L☉, Age = 3.83±0.5 Gyr, etc.). The central claim is that the excellent frequency match 'indicates the existence' of small-scale magnetic fields in the red giant's atmosphere.

Significance. If established, this would be one of the first asteroseismic probes of small-scale photospheric magnetic fields in a red giant, extending the authors' earlier solar and HD 49385 work to a new evolutionary stage. The paper's strengths are the very good frequency fit, the clear description of the grid search, and the explicit statement that turbulent pressure, nonadiabaticity, and other surface effects are omitted, so that the derived field is an upper limit. However, the physical interpretation of a and b as magnetic diagnostics is not uniquely supported: the same two-parameter modification of the T−τ relation could plausibly absorb turbulent pressure, nonadiabatic effects, or any other smooth surface term. The manuscript therefore has a significant gap between the quality of the fit and the magnetic-field conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2); §4, first full paragraph; §5, item 1] The term a·exp(−bτ) is a purely phenomenological two-parameter surface modification. The paper itself states that turbulent pressure, nonadiabaticity, and other physical effects are omitted and that the derived field is only an upper limit. Thus the frequency agreement cannot by itself 'indicate the existence' of magnetic fields: a standard surface correction (e.g., Kjeldsen et al. 2008 or Ball & Gizon 2014/2017) or an alternative T−τ relation could probably achieve a comparably low χ². A control experiment on the same grid is needed: fit the same frequencies with a conventional surface correction or with a different atmosphere relation, and show that the required a,b cannot be absorbed by those mechanisms. Without such a test, B ≈ 65 G and h ≈ 13,100 km are reparameterizations of the fitted a,b rather than independently constrained physical quantities.
  2. [§4, Figure 7] The conversion from the modified T−τ relation to a magnetic-field strength assumes that the extra radiation pressure produced by raising the temperature is a proxy for magnetic pressure. But the model contains no magnetic pressure term in hydrostatic equilibrium and no Lorentz force; it is purely a thermal-structure modification. The condition P_gas ≈ P_mag is imposed after the fit to read off B. The authors should derive the explicit mapping from (a, b, τ) to B, validate it on a case where the magnetic field is known independently (e.g., the solar case), and test sensitivity to the proxy choice. As it stands, the 65 G and 13,100 km values are not independent of the fitting ansatz.
  3. [Appendix] The mechanical boundary condition P′ = 0 (Eq. 4) is motivated by reflection at a 'magnetic-arch splicing layer,' but the Appendix only compares the two boundary conditions in the zero-field limit, finding them 'virtually identical.' This demonstrates only that the Eulerian boundary condition is irrelevant when no field is present; it does not validate the field-dependent reflection argument or provide independent support for the magnetic interpretation. Either a non-zero-field test of Eq. (4) should be presented, or the claim that the boundary condition supports the magnetic scenario should be softened.
  4. [§2.3; Table 1; Fig. 6] The χ² definitions in Eqs. (7) and (8) are unweighted, and the paper explicitly does not include the observed frequency errors because of rotational-splitting uncertainties. With typical quoted errors of 0.1–0.2 μHz, the value χ²_all = 0.0013 corresponds to RMS residuals well below the formal observational errors, so the selection among the 23 candidate models in Table 1 may be driven largely by noise. A weighted χ² and a residual plot with error bars would be needed to support the 'perfect match' wording and the quoted parameter uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] 'Perfectly match' is too strong; the residuals are within about 0.1 μHz and no error weighting is used. Suggest rewording to 'within the quoted observational uncertainties' or similar.
  2. [Table 2 note] The note says 'Z20' but the column header is 'Z22'; also the Z18 log g value (3.3031 ± 0.003) looks inconsistent with the observed value 3.04 ± 0.11 and with the authors' own comparison—please check.
  3. [§2.2] For the explored values (a ≈ 265, b ≈ 26), q(τ) at τ = 0 is very large (≈ 265.7). How this affects the temperature stratification and why this exponential form is a physically motivated magnetic-pressure proxy should be clarified.
  4. [§2.3] N_all and N_0 in Eqs. (7) and (8) are not defined. Please define them explicitly.
  5. [§3, first paragraph] The coarse scan over M, a, b is not fully specified: which α and Z were used in Figure 1(a), and what are the steps in M? Please state these to make the grid search reproducible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 65 G / 13,100 km magnetic-field detection is a reparameterization of the fitted a and b from Eq. (2), not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Eq. (2); Section 4, Figure 7]
    "Based on Y. Li et al. (2021), we introduce an additional term into the Eddington T−τ relation, which phenomenologically simulates the effect of the magnetic fields in the photosphere of KIC 9145955. Then, the Hopf-like function q(τ) that we have adopted is q(τ) = 2/3 + a exp(−bτ), where the two parameters we have introduced, a and b, represent, respectively, the strength of the magnetic fields and their location in the atmosphere."

    a and b are free parameters fitted to minimize chi² against the observed frequencies (Section 3). The paper later reads the magnetic-field strength (65 G) and height (13,100 km) off the same Eq. (2) profile via the P_gas/P_mag ≈ 1 condition (Section 4, Figure 7). Thus the 'detected' field parameters are not independent observables or predictions; they are the fitted parameters a and b converted into physical units. The fit demonstrates only that a two-parameter T−τ modification can absorb frequency residuals, not that those residuals are magnetic in origin.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4, first paragraph]
    "We find that the calculated frequencies of our best-fit model, which simulates the effect of the magnetic fields by artificially modifying the Eddington T−τ relation, perfectly match those of the observed l = 0, 1, and 2 modes, indicating the existence of small-scale magnetic fields with an upper strength limit of 65 G and concentrating at a height 13,100 km in the photosphere."

    The abstract presents the good chi² as evidence for the existence of magnetic fields, but the only role of the magnetic parameters in the model is to produce that chi² by construction. No independent magnetic observable constrains a and b. The paper itself concedes that turbulent pressure and nonadiabaticity are omitted and that the values are upper limits, so the 'indication' is a restatement of the successful two-parameter fit, not an independent confirmation of a magnetic mechanism.

full rationale

The paper's central magnetic-field result is a reparameterization of its fit parameters. Equation (2) introduces q(τ) = 2/3 + a·exp(−bτ), with a and b explicitly defined as the strength and location of the magnetic field. These two parameters are then adjusted to minimize χ² against the observed frequencies (Section 3). In Section 4, the fitted profile is converted into a physical field: the height (13,100 km) is where P_gas/P_mag ≈ 1 in the model, and the strength (65 G) is read off the same pressure balance. Thus the 'detection' is not a prediction from first principles; it is the fitted a and b expressed in different units. The success of the fit only shows that a two-parameter modification of the atmospheric T−τ relation can absorb the frequency residuals; it does not select magnetic pressure over turbulent pressure, nonadiabaticity, or any other surface effect. The paper itself concedes: 'Due to the omission of turbulent pressure, nonadiabaticity, and other physical effects... the values obtained represent the upper limits of small-scale magnetic fields.' The stellar parameters (M, R, L, age, M_He) are standard asteroseismic fits with independent content, so the circularity is partial rather than total. The magnetic interpretation is also adopted from the authors' earlier works (Li et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2024; Lin et al. 2024), but the decisive circular step is the definitional link between the fitted q(τ) and the claimed field strength/height.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on two ad hoc fitted parameters (a, b) that are not independently calibrated, plus several domain assumptions about the applicability of Eddington gray atmosphere, the magnetic boundary condition, and the neglect of competitive surface effects. No genuinely new physical entity is introduced; the 'small-scale magnetic field' is an interpretation of a phenomenological surface modification.

free parameters (4)
  • a (magnetic-field strength parameter in T−τ relation) = 265 (best-fit model E)
    Introduced in Eq. (2) as the amplitude of the exponential modification to the Eddington T−τ relation; fitted by grid search to minimize frequency residuals.
  • b (magnetic-field location parameter in T−τ relation) = 26 (best-fit model E)
    Introduced in Eq. (2) as the decay rate of the exponential modification; fitted alongside a.
  • M (initial stellar mass) = 1.23 M_sun
    Grid search over 1.15–1.31 M_sun with step 0.01; selected to minimize χ²_all.
  • α (mixing-length parameter) = 2.01
    Grid search over 1.95–2.05 with step 0.01; weakly constrained because red-giant frequencies are insensitive to α.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Eddington gray atmosphere with q = 2/3 is an adequate baseline for KIC 9145955.
    §2.2: 'we simply assume the Eddington gray atmosphere with q = 2/3.' The authors note that other T−τ relations (e.g., VAL-C) better match 3D solar models but assert the red-giant atmosphere differs.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic-field effect can be represented by an exponential modification q(τ) = 2/3 + a·exp(−bτ), with radiation-pressure changes proxying magnetic pressure.
    §2.2, Eq. (2): this is a phenomenological form with two free parameters, not derived from MHD. The link to magnetic pressure is asserted, not computed self-consistently.
  • domain assumption The surface mechanical boundary condition P′ = 0 is valid for magnetized atmospheres, so p-modes reflect at the magnetic-arch splicing layer.
    §2.2, Eq. (4), based on Y. Li et al. (2021). The Appendix only demonstrates equivalence of the two boundary conditions in the non-magnetic case, not in the magnetized case where it is applied.
  • domain assumption Rotation, diffusion, and convective overshooting are negligible for KIC 9145955.
    §2.1: 'we do not consider rotation, diffusion, and convective overshooting in the models.' Comparison with Zhang et al. 2018/2022 shows overshooting affects the age, so this choice is not innocuous.
  • domain assumption The observed frequencies of KIC 9145955 from Zhang et al. (2018) are reliable and complete.
    §1 and §2.3 rely on frequencies 'extracted and validated' by Zhang et al. 2018; no independent extraction or re-analysis is performed.
  • domain assumption Initial helium abundance follows Y = 0.245 + 1.54·Z, and the solar (Z/X) is 0.0245.
    §2.3, Eqs. (5)–(6): adopted from Dotter et al. 2008, Thompson et al. 2014, Grevesse & Noels 1993. This determines Z ≈ 0.006, which directly affects the model structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismic Analysis of a Red Giant KIC 9145955 by Including the Small-scale Magnetic Fields in the Atmosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33JN3XK7

@misc{pith2026260719720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismic Analysis of a Red Giant KIC 9145955 by Including the Small-scale Magnetic Fields in the Atmosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33JN3XK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19720}
}
abstract

Recent convincing evidence is found within asteroseismology that suggests the magnetic fields exist in three red giants. Research on small-scale magnetic fields in the Sun and HD 49385 has shown that they have a certain corrective effect on the systematic discrepancies between observed and theoretical frequencies. Here we apply a similar method applied for the Sun to a red giant, KIC 9145955, to explore the impact of small-scale magnetic fields in the photosphere on its frequencies. We find that the calculated frequencies of our best-fit model, which simulates the effect of the magnetic fields by artificially modifying the Eddington $T-\tau$ relation, perfectly match those of the observed l = 0, 1, and 2 modes, indicating the existence of small-scale magnetic fields with an upper strength limit of 65 G and concentrating at a height 13,100 km in the photosphere. Based on the best-fit model, we revise the stellar parameters of KIC 9145955 as: $M = 1.23\pm0.04\,M_\odot$, $R = 5.57\pm0.06\,R_\odot$, $L = 19.85\pm0.5\,L_\odot$, $Age = 3.83\pm0.5$\,Gyr, $M_{\rm He} = 0.2108\pm0.0005M_\odot$, and $R_{\rm He} = 0.0306\pm0.0001R_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b). Ultimately, we obtain the best-fit magnetic field parameters: a = 265 and b = 26. Second, we search for the best-fit model of KIC 9145955 with the parameters of the magnetic fields that have just been determined. In order to restrict the best-fit models with the spectroscopic observations, we adopt the observed [Fe/H] value of KIC 9145955 as −0.34 (Y. Takeda et al. 2016). Using Equation (6), we calculate that t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of the best-fit models under five sets of magnetic field parameters with varying values of M on the coarse grid of stellar parameters. 4 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:8 (9pp), 2025 May 20 Wang et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relationship between call 2 and the variations in M and α, when fixing the magnetic parameters as a = 265 and b = 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) 1/call 2 as a function of log g for the best-fit models of KIC 9145955. (b) 1/call 2 as a function of the mass of the helium core for the best-fit models of KIC 9145955. Each circle represents a model with the minimal value of call 2 on each evolutionary track. Sol…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The evolution of the various χ2 parameters in Models E and Q throughout stellar evolution. Blue denotes Model E, while red represents Model Q. Triangles indicate /c = 1 l 0 2 as defined by Equation (8); circles denote /c = 1 l p 2 as provided by () c nn = = å = () () =…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The variations of gas pressure and magnetic pressure with height in Model E. The zero height of the photosphere corresponds to r = R (where τ = 2/3). 7 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:8 (9pp), 2025 May 20 Wang et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Differences between the observed and theoretical frequencies of Model E. The gray vertical short lines represent the error bar of the observed frequencies. (b) Échelle diagram of the observed and calculated frequencies. The black dots represent the observational da…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: displays the Échelle diagram of the model frequencies corresponding to the minimum call 2 value from the two evolutionary tracks. Both boundary conditions correspond to the same model (number 1985), and their calculated frequen￾cies are virtually identical [PITH_FULL_…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2021, RvMP, 93, 015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, RvMP, 93, 015001

    2021

  2. [2]

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology (Dordrecht: Springer ),

    2010

  3. [3]

    F., Morin, J., & Johnstone, C

    Arzoumanian, D., Jardine, M., Donati, J. F., Morin, J., & Johnstone, C. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2472

    2011

  4. [4]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2004, Physics of the Solar Corona: An Introduction (Berlin: Springer),

    2004

  5. [5]

    H., & Gizon, L

    Ball, W. H., & Gizon, L. 2014, A&A, 568, A123

    2014

  6. [6]

    H., & Gizon, L

    Ball, W. H., & Gizon, L. 2017, A&A, 600, A128

    2017

  7. [7]

    R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al

    Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al. 2011, Natur, 471, 608

    2011

  8. [8]

    H., Reiners, A., & Schüssler, M

    Beeck, B., Cameron, R. H., Reiners, A., & Schüssler, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A48 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZA, 46, 108

    2013

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2008, in IAU Symp

    Borucki, W., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2008, in IAU Symp. 249, Exoplanets:

    2008

  2. [10]

    Detection, Formation and Dynamics, ed. Y.-S. Sun, S. Ferraz-Mello, & J.-L. Zhou (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ), 17 Brandão, I. M., Do ğan, G., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A37

    2011

  3. [11]

    Brown, T. M. 1984, Sci, 226, 687

    1984

  4. [12]

    Cally, P. S. 2007, AN, 328, 286

    2007

  5. [13]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 113

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 113

    2008

  6. [14]

    1988, Natur, 336, 634

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Dappen, W., & Lebreton, Y. 1988, Natur, 336, 634

    1988

  7. [15]

    M., et al

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Kjeldsen, H., Brown, T. M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L164

    2010

  8. [16]

    Corsaro, E., De Ridder, J., & García, R. A. 2015, A&A, 579, A83

    2015

  9. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 1935

    Datta, A., Mazumdar, A., Gupta, U., & Hekker, S. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1935

    2015

  10. [18]

    E., et al

    David-Uraz, A., Petit, V., Shultz, M. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2677

    2021

  11. [19]

    A., Chaplin, W

    Deheuvels, S., García, R. A., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 19

    2012

  12. [20]

    Donati, J.-F., & Brown, S. F. 1997, A&A, 326, 1135

    1997

  13. [21]

    2006, Sci, 311, 633

    Donati, J.-F., Forveille, T., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2006, Sci, 311, 633

    2006

  14. [22]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi ć, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  15. [23]

    A., Paterno, L., & Ventura, R

    Dziembowski, W. A., Paterno, L., & Ventura, R. 1988, A&A, 200, 213

    1988

  16. [24]

    L., Benvenuto, O

    Echeveste, M., Novarino, M. L., Benvenuto, O. G., & De Vito, M. A. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4277

    2024

  17. [25]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

    2005

  18. [26]

    Gough, D. O. 1990, in Proc. Oji Int. Seminar: Progress of Seismology of the Sun and Stars, ed. Y. Osaki & H. Shibahashi (Berlin: Springer ), 283

    1990

  19. [27]

    1993, in Proc

    Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, in Proc. Symp. in Honour of H. Reeves: Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. N. Prantzos, E. Vangioni-Flam, & M. Casse (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 15

    1993

  20. [28]

    2014, in IAU Symp

    Hekker, S., & Mazumdar, A. 2014, in IAU Symp. 301, Precision Asteroseismology, ed. J. A. Guzik et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 325

    2014

  21. [29]

    J., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J

    Houdek, G., Trampedach, R., Aarslev, M. J., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L124

    2017

  22. [30]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1996

  23. [31]

    S., Bauer, E

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

    2023

  24. [32]

    Johnstone, C., Jardine, M., & Mackay, D. H. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 101 Jørgensen, A. C. S., Montalbán, J., Angelou, G. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4277

    2010

  25. [33]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2028

    Keszthelyi, Z., de Koter, A., Götberg, Y., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2028

    2022

  26. [34]

    2023, in IAU Symp

    Keszthelyi, Z., de Koter, A., Götberg, Y., et al. 2023, in IAU Symp. 370, Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, ed. A. A. Vidotto, L. Fossati, & J. S. Vink (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ), 257

    2023

  27. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 2474

    Keszthelyi, Z., Meynet, G., Martins, F., de Koter, A., & David-Uraz, A. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2474

    2021

  28. [36]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 3457

    Keszthelyi, Z., Puls, J., Chiaki, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3457

    2024

  29. [37]

    R., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J

    Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2008, ApJL, 683, L175

    2008

  30. [38]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 2122

    Lang, P., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2122

    2014

  31. [39]

    T., Jardine, M

    Lehmann, L. T., Jardine, M. M., Mackay, D. H., & Vidotto, A. A. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4390

    2018

  32. [40]

    2022, Natur, 610, 43

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

    2022

  33. [41]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 107 Lignières, F., Ballot, J., Deheuvels, S., & Galoy, M

    Li, Y., Zhang, Q.-s., Wu, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 107 Lignières, F., Ballot, J., Deheuvels, S., & Galoy, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A2

    2021

  34. [42]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 133

    Lin, G., Li, Y., Su, J., Wu, T., & Wang, Y. 2024, ApJ, 976, 133

    2024

  35. [43]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, JGR, 105, 2375

    2000

  36. [44]

    A., Shen, C., et al

    Lin, J., Murphy, N. A., Shen, C., et al. 2015, SSRv, 194, 237

    2015

  37. [45]

    W., Kubo, M., Socas-Navarro, H., et al

    Lites, B. W., Kubo, M., Socas-Navarro, H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 1237

    2008

  38. [46]

    G., Caffau, E., Steffen, M., et al

    Ludwig, H. G., Caffau, E., Steffen, M., et al. 2009, MmSAI, 80, 711

    2009

  39. [47]

    S., Woitaszek, M., et al

    Mathur, S., Metcalfe, T. S., Woitaszek, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 152

    2012

  40. [48]

    J., Belkacem, K., et al

    Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A143

    2012

  41. [49]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

    2011

  42. [50]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

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

    2013

  43. [51]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

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

    2015

  44. [52]

    B., et al

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

    2018

  45. [53]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pérez Hernández, F., García, R

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pérez Hernández, F., García, R. A., Corsaro, E., Triana, S. A., & De Ridder, J. 2016, A&A, 591, A99

    2019

  46. [54]

    2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ

    Priest, E. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ),

    2014

  47. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 132

    Rempel, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 132

    2014

  48. [56]

    J., & Nayfonov, A

    Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064

    2002

  49. [57]

    S., Bogdan, T

    Rosenthal, C. S., Bogdan, T. J., Carlsson, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 508

    2002

  50. [58]

    1999, A&A, 351, 689

    Trampedach, R. 1999, A&A, 351, 689

    1999

  51. [59]

    2024, RvMPP, 8, 27

    Schmieder, B., Guo, J., & Poedts, S. 2024, RvMPP, 8, 27

    2024

  52. [60]

    2015, A&A, 583, A112

    Sonoi, T., Samadi, R., Belkacem, K., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A112

    2015

  53. [61]

    K., Goossens, M., & Arregui, I

    Srivastava, A. K., Goossens, M., & Arregui, I. 2024, Magnetohydrodynamic Processes in Solar Plasmas (New York: Elsevier ),

    2024

  54. [62]

    2008, ApJL, 680, L85

    Steiner, O., Rezaei, R., Schaffenberger, W., & Wedemeyer-Böhm, S. 2008, ApJL, 680, L85

    2008

  55. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 4454

    Takeda, Y., Tajitsu, A., Sato, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4454

    2016

  56. [64]

    K., & Gai, N

    Tang, Y. K., & Gai, N. 2011, A&A, 526, A35

    2011

  57. [65]

    2014, AJ, 148, 85

    Thompson, B., Frinchaboy, P., Kinemuchi, K., Sarajedini, A., & Cohen, R. 2014, AJ, 148, 85

    2014

  58. [66]

    Trampedach, R., Asplund, M., Collet, R., Nordlund, Å., & Stein, R. F. 2013, ApJ, 769, 18 Trujillo Bueno, J., Shchukina, N., & Asensio Ramos, A. 2004, Natur, 430, 326

    2013

  59. [67]

    1989, Nonradial Oscillations of Stars (Tokyo: Univ

    Unno, W., Osaki, Y., Ando, H., Saio, H., & Shibahashi, H. 1989, Nonradial Oscillations of Stars (Tokyo: Univ. Tokyo Press ),

    1989

  60. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 44

    Wang, Y., Li, Y., Li, Y., Lin, G., & Wu, T. 2024, ApJ, 973, 44

    2024

  61. [69]

    2016, ApJL, 818, L13

    Wu, T., & Li, Y. 2016, ApJL, 818, L13

    2016

  62. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 64

    Zhang, X., Cai, T., Li, Y., & Wu, T. 2022, ApJ, 931, 64

    2022

  63. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 16 9 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:8 (9pp), 2025 May 20 Wang et al

    Zhang, X., Wu, T., & Li, Y. 2018, ApJ, 855, 16 9 The Astrophysical Journal, 985:8 (9pp), 2025 May 20 Wang et al

    2018

Pith tools

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