Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Current problems in stellar evolution

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1902.10399 v1 pith:5MT5EXBG submitted 2019-02-27 astro-ph.SR

Current problems in stellar evolution

classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarevolutionmodelscurrentfaceprocessestheorywill
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The theory of stellar evolution plays a central role in astrophysics as stellar models are used to infer properties for Galactic and Extragalactic stellar populations as well as exoplanetary systems. However, despite decades of experience, stellar models still face major issues linked to transport processes of chemicals and angular momentum. This review will focus on some of the processes responsible for the most sizable uncertainties in stellar models such as for example convection, rotation and mass loss. The presentation will discuss their implementation, their impact on theoretical predictions and how various observational constraints can help us gain insight on the physics inside stars and face the current challenges of the theory of stellar evolution.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The IACOB project XIX. Revisiting massive-star evolution with empirical TAMS constraints: updated models, overshoot calibration, and the population of blue supergiants

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Massive-star models require mass-dependent core overshoot (α_ov ≈ 0.18–0.45) to match the empirical TAMS, but still fail to explain the velocity dependence of the TAMS and the observed blue supergiant population.