Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 118 references

The subgiant HR 7322 as an asteroseismic benchmark star

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A benchmark subgiant star's measured radius is 2.00 ± 0.03 R☉, about 2–2.5σ larger than standard stellar models produce unless the mixing length is reduced by about 0.2.

desk verdict A careful and useful subgiant benchmark, but the model-radius offset is a plausible hint rather than a proven systematic; the unpublished limb-darkening calibration is the main thing to check. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03232 v1 pith:IFNXHY4U submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.SR

Amalie Stokholm , Poul Erik Nissen , Victor Silva Aguirre , Timothy R. White , Mikkel N. Lund , Jakob R{o}rsted Mosumgaard , Daniel Huber , Jens Jessen-Hansen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords subgiantasteroseismologyinterferometrymixinglengthstellarradiusavoidedcrossingHR7322benchmarkstar
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

This paper uses four independent techniques—Kepler asteroseismology, CHARA optical interferometry, SONG high-resolution spectroscopy, and GARSTEC grid-based modelling with the BASTA fitting algorithm—to establish HR 7322 as a benchmark subgiant star. The central claim is that the star's interferometric radius and effective temperature, combined with its individual oscillation frequencies and metallicity, cannot be reproduced by standard one-dimensional stellar models with a solar-calibrated mixing length. A sub-solar mixing length parameter (about 0.2 lower than solar) is required to fit all observations simultaneously, and the paper argues this is not an artefact of the modelling choices they explored.

What carries the argument

The avoided crossing in the dipole (l = 1) oscillation mode pattern near 780 µHz is the key feature that makes the modelling precise. Because the coupling between p-modes in the envelope and g-modes in the core shifts the dipole mode frequencies, only a narrow range of model ages (about 100 Myr) reproduces the observed pattern, pinning down the stellar parameters much better than the global asteroseismic parameters alone. The paper also uses the linear limb-darkening coefficient uλ = 0.22 ± 0.05 (estimated from an unpublished Teff–uλ relation from White et al., in prep.) to convert the interferometric visibility measurements into a limb-darkened angular diameter via Eq. (7).

What would settle it

Measure the limb-darkening coefficient of HR 7322 directly (e.g., via interferometric imaging at multiple baselines and wavelengths, or via a spectroscopic limb-darkening measurement) and compare it to the assumed uλ = 0.22. If the true uλ is larger than about 0.27, the angular diameter would shrink below 0.436 mas and the radius would drop below about 1.97 R☉, eliminating the tension with the standard solar-αmlt models. Alternatively, detect the helium glitch signature in the oscillation frequencies to independently constrain the helium abundance and the mixing length, which would test the sub-solar αmlt hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the bright F6 subgiant HR 7322, combining a limb-darkened angular diameter of 0.443 ± 0.007 mas with a Gaia DR2 distance and bolometric flux yields a linear radius of 2.00 ± 0.03 R☉ and an effective temperature of 6350 ± 90 K. The star shows solar-like oscillations with a clear avoided crossing in the dipole mode pattern, which tightly constrains the age and other parameters. Grid-based modelling that fits the individual frequencies, the interferometric temperature, and the spectroscopic metallicity systematically produces radii around 1.95–1.98 R☉, smaller than the interferometric radius, and masses around 1.20–1.27 M☉, smaller than the scaling-relation masses (about 1.25–1.36 M☉). Only the grid with a sub-solar mixing length (αmlt ≈ 1.6) fits the effective temperature within ~0.5σ, while the solar-αmlt grids are off by ~2–3σ in temperature and the high-αmlt grid is off by ~2.8σ. The paper concludes that no single model parameter they varied (mixing length, helium enrichment, overshooting, or adding the interferometric radius as a constraint) resolves the offset, and that a sub-solar mixing length is needed to reconcile the models with the observations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison of the interferometric radius to models depends on the accuracy of the limb-darkening coefficient uλ = 0.22 ± 0.05, which comes from an unpublished relation that depends only on effective temperature and has a large uncertainty; if this coefficient is biased, the measured radius could shift toward the model predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sub-solar mixing length is real for HR 7322, then standard solar-calibrated 1D models overestimate the efficiency of convection in subgiant atmospheres of this temperature and metallicity.
  • The agreement between the interferometric radius and the radii from various revised asteroseismic scaling relations (White et al. 2011; Sharma et al. 2016; Sahlholdt et al. 2018; Kallinger et al. 2018; Bellinger 2019) validates the use of these corrections for subgiants, contradicting earlier hints from GAIA DR1 that subgiant scaling-relation radii were systematically too small.
  • The avoided crossing provides a powerful age diagnostic: with it, the stellar age is constrained to about 4.27 ± 0.05 Gyr, with a few-percent relative uncertainty, demonstrating the value of subgiant asteroseismology for Galactic archaeology.
  • The systematic offset between model radii and interferometric radii means that radii and masses from grid-based modelling of subgiants with solar-αmlt should be treated with caution until the mixing-length treatment is improved, with implications for the analysis of the large numbers of subgiants expected from TESS.
  • The paper's conclusion that only a sub-solar αmlt fits all observables is supported by 3D hydrodynamical simulations from the STAGGER grid, which predict αmlt ≈ 0.2 lower than solar for HR 7322's parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's central claim would be to measure the limb-darkening coefficient uλ of HR 7322 directly via interferometric imaging or via a spectroscopically calibrated relation that includes metallicity and surface gravity; if uλ is overestimated, the angular diameter would shrink and the model discrepancy could shrink or disappear.
  • The paper's finding that only sub-solar helium (below the primordial abundance) can bring the model radius up to 2.00 R☉ suggests a possible degeneracy between helium abundance and mixing length that could be broken by adding a helium-sensitive observable such as the helium glitch signature or the acoustic depth of the convective zone.
  • If the sub-solar mixing length is a general property of subgiants with thin convective envelopes, then grid-based estimates of subgiant radii and masses from solar-αmlt models in the literature may be systematically biased low by a few percent, which would affect age estimates for subgiant populations.
  • The avoided-crossing-based age of ~4.3 Gyr, combined with the thin-disk abundance pattern ([α/Fe] ≈ 0.06), places HR 7322 as a potentially useful calibrator for Galactic chemical evolution models, but this interpretation is the reader's inference, not the paper's.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multi-technique benchmark analysis of the bright subgiant HR 7322 using CHARA/PAVO optical interferometry, Kepler short-cadence photometry, SONG high-resolution spectroscopy, and GARSTEC stellar models fitted with BASTA. The authors measure a limb-darkened angular diameter of 0.443 ± 0.007 mas, a linear radius of 2.00 ± 0.03 R_sun, and an interferometric effective temperature of 6350 ± 90 K. They derive asteroseismic radii from scaling relations and revisions thereof, finding good agreement with the interferometric radius. In contrast, grid-based modelling of the individual oscillation frequencies, together with [Fe/H] and Teff, yields stellar radii that are systematically below the interferometric value for all four grids considered, and a sub-solar mixing length parameter is required to match the effective temperature. The paper concludes that standard 1D models underpredict the radius of HR 7322 and that a reduced mixing length is needed.

Significance. The paper provides a valuable benchmark: HR 7322 is only the second subgiant with both high-quality Kepler asteroseismology and optical interferometry, and the avoided crossing in the dipole modes gives strong constraints on stellar age and structure. The central comparison is not circular: the interferometric radius is model-free except for the limb-darkening coefficient, and the scaling-relation radii agree with the interferometric radius. If the radius and temperature offsets are confirmed, this target would be an important test of 1D stellar-model radii and of mixing-length prescriptions. The reported precision is high, and the careful accounting of inputs such as the Gaia DR2 parallax, bolometric flux, and surface correction is a strength. The main limitation is that the central claim rests on an unpublished limb-darkening calibration and on deviations that are individually at the 1–2 sigma level.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 4] The linear limb-darkening coefficient u_lambda = 0.22 ± 0.05 used in Eq. (7) is taken from an unpublished Teff–u_lambda relation (White et al., in prep.) calibrated on 16 PAVO stars plus the Sun, with no quantified dependence on metallicity or log g. It is not stated whether the quoted ±0.05 uncertainty on u_lambda is propagated into the reported theta_LD = 0.443 ± 0.007 mas and R_int = 2.00 ± 0.03 R_sun. As the paper itself notes in Section 4, an overestimated u_lambda would shrink the angular diameter and reduce the model discrepancy. Because the model radii are only 0.03–0.06 R_sun below R_int, a systematic bias in the calibration of order 0.2 in u_lambda, which cannot be excluded for an unpublished relation, could shift theta_LD toward the uniform-disc value and erase the claimed deficit. The authors should provide a sensitivity table of theta_LD and R_int versus u_lambda, include the u_lambda systematic in the final error budget, and give a full reference or appendix for the calibration.
  2. [Section 4 and Tables 3–4] The central claim of a systematic radius deficit is based on differences that are individually modest: the nor grid (standard alpha_mlt) gives R = 1.967 ± 0.005 R_sun, about 1.1 sigma below the interferometric radius; highmlt is within 0.7 sigma; ove is about 1.1 sigma; and lowmlt, the grid that matches Teff, is about 1.9 sigma off. The conclusion therefore rests on the pattern that no single grid simultaneously satisfies the interferometric Teff and R_int, rather than on a single high-significance discrepancy. I recommend a joint statistical treatment, for example a two-dimensional likelihood in (R, Teff) or a delta-chi-square including both observables, to quantify the significance of the simultaneous tension and to determine whether the preferred lowmlt grid is actually inconsistent with the observed radius at the claimed level when all data are combined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] In the sentence discussing revised scaling relations, "Kallinger et al. (2010)" should read "Kallinger et al. (2018)" to match Table 3 and the reference list.
  2. [Table 5] The "Modelling" column would benefit from a footnote clarifying that it refers to the refined lowmlt grid, consistent with the discussion in Section 3.3.
  3. [Section 2.2] The uniform-disc angular diameter theta_UD = 0.435 ± 0.005 mas is reported but not used further; a brief statement of why the limb-darkened value is preferred, or a cross-check using theta_UD, would increase clarity.
  4. [Section 2.2] Please clarify whether the quoted uncertainty on theta_LD includes the uncertainty in u_lambda; if u_lambda is held fixed in the fit, the reported statistical uncertainty on theta_LD is incomplete as a total error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interferometric radius is an independent measurement and the model radii are outputs, not fitted inputs; the unpublished limb-darkening relation is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The claimed tension is between the interferometric radius R_int = 2.00 ± 0.03 R_sun, obtained from the PAVO visibility fit (Eq. 7), the Gaia DR2 parallax and Eq. 5, and F_bol via Eq. 6, and the radii from GARSTEC/BASTA grids that are outputs of fits to individual frequencies, Teff_int, and [Fe/H]. No fitted parameter is relabelled as a prediction: the model radius is a derived quantity, not an input constraint, and adding R_int as a constraint changes the model radius by at most 0.01 R_sun, which shows the radius is not forced by the observable (Sec. 4). The spectroscopic/interferometric iteration (Teff_spec to u_lambda to theta_LD to Teff_int to log g to Teff_spec) is a fixed-point calibration loop, but u_lambda is anchored to an external PAVO-based Teff-u_lambda relation (White et al., in prep.) rather than to the target radius, so it does not make R_int equal to a model input by construction. The paper itself flags the real systematic risk in Sec. 4: 'If the linear limb-darkening coefficient is overestimated, then the angular diameter would be slightly smaller, making the interferometric radius smaller and the agreement between the two methods better.' That is an acknowledged uncertainty in an empirical calibration, not a definitional circularity. Self-citations to BASTA, the KASOC filter, and earlier scaling-relation papers are methodological or provide independent empirical/numerical calibrations; none is a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. Consequently the score is 0.

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

The central comparison rests on independent interferometric measurements plus model grids. The main hand-selected quantities are the mixing length values, overshoot efficiency, helium enrichment law, and the adopted limb-darkening coefficient; these choices drive the model radius and the benchmark angular diameter.

free parameters (6)
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_mlt in lowmlt grid = 1.6
    Defines the grid that best matches Teff, [Fe/H], and frequencies; not optimized within the grid, effectively hand-picked to test the sub-solar convection scenario.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha_mlt in highmlt grid = 2.0
    Bracketing super-solar value; shows that increasing alpha_mlt raises the model radius but makes the effective temperature inconsistent with observations.
  • Exponential overshoot efficiency f in ove grid = 0.016
    Alternative physics grid with convective overshoot; produces a radius similar to the standard grid, so overshoot does not resolve the offset.
  • Helium enrichment Delta Y / Delta Z = 1.4 (1.0 explored)
    Fixed enrichment law used in all grids; changing it shifts Teff by about 40 K but does not change the radius.
  • Initial helium abundance Y0 = pseudorandom variation; only values below primordial produce R close to 2.00 R_sun
    Explored to test the radius offset; the result shows a degeneracy but is not adopted as the solution.
  • Linear limb-darkening coefficient u_lambda = 0.22 +/- 0.05
    Adopted from an unpublished Teff-u_lambda relation; central to converting visibilities to angular diameter. If it is wrong, the interferometric benchmark shifts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mixing-length theory with a fixed alpha_mlt describes convection in 1D stellar models.
    Used in all GARSTEC grids; the conclusion that alpha_mlt must be sub-solar is meaningful only within this formalism.
  • domain assumption The asteroseismic scaling relations (Eqs. 1 and 2) with solar reference values are applicable to HR 7322.
    Used to derive log g and seismic mass and radius; the paper also tests these relations, so they are a premise for part of the analysis.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR2 parallax and the Bailer-Jones distance, including the global zero-point correction, are accurate.
    The interferometric radius R = 2.00 +/- 0.03 R_sun is computed from this distance; any remaining zero-point error shifts the benchmark.
  • domain assumption The linear limb-darkening coefficient u_lambda from the Teff-u_lambda relation (White et al., in prep.) is accurate.
    Used in Eq. 7 to convert squared visibilities to theta_LD; an overestimate shrinks the angular diameter and changes the model comparison.
  • domain assumption The Ball and Gizon surface correction removes the near-surface frequency offset without biasing fitted radii.
    Applied to all model frequencies before comparison; residual surface effects could compress or enlarge the model radius offset.
  • domain assumption The GARSTEC grid parameter space and missing physics (diffusion, overshoot in the standard grid) do not hide a valid standard model.
    The conclusion about systematic underprediction is inferred from the four grids; a larger parameter space or different physics could alter it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The subgiant HR 7322 as an asteroseismic benchmark star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFNXHY4U

@misc{pith2026190803232,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The subgiant HR 7322 as an asteroseismic benchmark star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFNXHY4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03232}
}
abstract

We present an in-depth analysis of the bright subgiant HR 7322 (KIC 10005473) using Kepler short-cadence photometry, optical interferometry from CHARA, high-resolution spectra from SONG, and stellar modelling using GARSTEC grids and the Bayesian grid-fitting algorithm BASTA. HR 7322 is only the second subgiant with high-quality Kepler asteroseismology for which we also have interferometric data. We find a limb-darkened angular diameter of $0.443 \pm 0.007$ mas, which, combined with a distance derived using the parallax from Gaia DR2 and a bolometric flux, yields a linear radius of $2.00 \pm 0.03$ R$_{\odot}$ and an effective temperature of $6350 \pm 90$ K. HR 7322 exhibits solar-like oscillations, and using the asteroseismic scaling relations and revisions thereof, we find good agreement between asteroseismic and interferometric stellar radius. The level of precision reached by the careful modelling is to a great extent due to the presence of an avoided crossing in the dipole oscillation mode pattern of HR 7322. We find that the standard models predict radius systematically smaller than the observed interferometric one and that a sub-solar mixing length parameter is needed to achieve a good fit to individual oscillation frequencies, interferometric temperature, and spectroscopic metallicity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03232 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the relationships between the methods used and the derived stellar parameters. Code et al. 1976; Boyajian et al. 2009; White et al. 2013) Teff = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interferometric measurements of HR 7322 from PAVO. The black dots with grey error bars show the squared fringe visibility measurements, while the blue curve shows the best-fitting limb-darkened disc model. The residuals weighted by the visibility uncertainties are shown in the bottom plot. (2011) to be Fbol = (1.06 ± 0.05) × 10−7 erg s−1 cm−2 , resulting in a effective temperature of Teff, int = (6350 ± 90) K. 2.3 A… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Power density spectrum of HR 7322. The full spectrum is shown in grey with a 3 µHz Epanechnikov smoothed version overlain in black. The fitted spectrum from the peak-bagging procedure is overlain in red. The markers indicate the frequency and angular degree of the fitted modes. Nissen et al. (2017) to obtain abundances of elements. As seen in Eq. 1, the frequency of maximum power is related to the surface gravity an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Échelle diagram of HR 7322. The coloured circles show the observed oscillation modes (red: l = 0, green l = 1, blue: l = 2), while the coloured symbols with a black outline show the modes predicted from the best-fitting model from lowmlt (same colour coding), corrected…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Frequency pattern changes as a function of stellar ages. Models are from a track in the refined lowmlt grid with a given stellar mass and metallicity. Only every tenth model is plotted for clarity. Upper panel: The evolution of the frequencies of radial modes (l = 0, s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The median, 16th, and 84th quantile of the probability density functions obtained when fitting different sets of observables to the refined lowmlt grid. The grey lines and areas mark the observed values. When we added the Gaia parallax $ as a constraint, we used the 2M…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A visual comparison of the different stellar radius and mass estimates. The vertical blue line and band represent the interferometric radii and the 1σ uncertainties. The points with error bars show the different other estimates discussed in the text and in Tables 3 and…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The probability density functions for the refined lowmlt grid. The blue solid lines in effective temperature and metallicity show the observed values, and the dashed blue lines indicate the 1σ uncertainties of the observations. MNRAS 000, 1–12 (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., 2010, Asteroseismology

    Aerts C., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kurtz D. W., 2010, Asteroseismology

    2010

  2. [2]

    Aizenman M., Smeyers P., Weigert A., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1977A&A....58...41A 58, 41

    1977

  3. [3]

    F., et al., 2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series

    Andersen M. F., et al., 2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. p. 83

    2014

  4. [4]

    Andrae R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A...8A 616, A8

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732516 2018

  5. [5]

    Angulo C., et al., 1999, @doi [Nuclear Physics A] 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999NuPhA.656....3A 656, 3

    doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  6. [6]

    arXiv:1312.6993

    Appourchaux T., Grundahl F., 2013, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013arXiv1312.6993A p. arXiv:1312.6993

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Arenou F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A..17A 616, A17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833234 2018

  8. [8]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018AJ....156...58B 156, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A26A...568A.123B 568, A123

    Ball W. H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A26A...568A.123B 568, A123

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508515 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2326B 132, 2326

    Balser D. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508515 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.2326B 132, 2326

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    J., 2017, Asteroseismic Data Analysis: Foundations and Techniques

    Basu S., Chaplin W. J., 2017, Asteroseismic Data Analysis: Foundations and Techniques. Princeton University Press

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bazot M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015679 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A26A...526L...4B 526, L4

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663.1315B 663, 1315

    Bedding T. R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663.1315B 663, 1315

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Dupret M

    Belkacem K., Goupil M. J., Dupret M. A., Samadi R., Baudin F., Noels A., Mosser B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2011A&A...530A.142B 530, A142

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    P., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190303110B

    Bellinger E. P., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190303110B

    2019

  8. [16]

    Benomar O., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014ApJ...781L..29B 781, L29

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316598 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112..961B 112, 961

    Bessell M. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316598 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112..961B 112, 961

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1243B 691, 1243

    Boyajian T. S., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1243B 691, 1243

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    S., van Belle G., von Braun K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/47 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147...47B 147, 47

    Boyajian T. S., van Belle G., von Braun K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/3/47 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147...47B 147, 47

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015370 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A26A...527A..37B 527, A37

    Brand \ a o I. M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015370 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A26A...527A..37B 527, A37

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Gilliland R

    Brown T. M., Gilliland R. L., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.000345 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ARA26A..32...37B 32, 37

    1994

  14. [22]

    M., Gilliland R

    Brown T. M., Gilliland R. L., Noyes R. W., Ramsey L. W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1991ApJ...368..599B 368, 599

    1991 doi

  15. [23]

    Campante T. L., 2018, @doi [Asteroseismology and Exoplanets: Listening to the Stars and Searching for New Worlds] 10.1007/978-3-319-59315-9_3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ASSP...49...55C 49, 55

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Carrier F., Eggenberger P., Bouchy F., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A26A...434.1085C 434, 1085

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    Casagrande L., Sch \"o nrich R., Asplund M., Cassisi S., Ram \' rez I., Mel \'e ndez J., Bensby T., Feltzing S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A26A...530A.138C 530, A138

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , 51, 353

    Chaplin W. J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , 51, 353

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..210....1C 210, 1

    Chaplin W. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..210....1C 210, 1

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2008Ap&SS.316..113C 316, 113

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Houdek G., Kjeldsen H., Rosenthal C., Trampedach H., Monteiro M

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Bedding T. R., Houdek G., Kjeldsen H., Rosenthal C., Trampedach H., Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Nordlund A., 1995, in Stobie R. S., Whitelock P. A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 83, IAU Colloq. 155: Astrophysical Applic...

    1995 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D., Bless R

    Code A. D., Bless R. C., Davis J., Brown R. H., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1976ApJ...203..417C 203, 417

    1976 doi

  23. [31]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2183D 456, 2183

    Davies G. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2593 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.2183D 456, 2183

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Deheuvels S., Michel E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011A&A...535A..91D 535, A91

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Lebreton Y., Appourchaux T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527967 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A26A...589A..93D 589, A93

    Deheuvels S., Brand \ a o I., Silva Aguirre V., Ballot J., Michel E., Cunha M. S., Lebreton Y., Appourchaux T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527967 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A26A...589A..93D 589, A93

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Derekas A., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1201762 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...332..216D 332, 216

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., Allard F., Barman T., Bodnarik J. G., Hauschildt P. H., Heffner-Wong A., Tamanai A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428642 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..585F 623, 585

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Formicola A., et al., 2004, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.03.092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2004PhLB..591...61F 591, 61

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Steffen M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1996A&A...313..497F 313, 497

    Freytag B., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1996A&A...313..497F 313, 497

    1996

  30. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration ., 2018, Gaia Data Release 2 (DR2) gaia\_source light, VO resource provided by the GAVO Data Center, http://dc.zah.uni-heidelberg.de/tableinfo/gaia.dr2light

    2018

  31. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    doi

  32. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2016A&A...595A...2G 595, A2

    doi

  33. [41]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    A., 2015, in EAS Publications Series

    Garc \' a R. A., 2015, in EAS Publications Series. pp 193--259 ( @eprint arXiv 1510.02651 ), @doi 10.1051/eas/1573004

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/650399 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..131G 122, 131

    Gilliland R. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1086/650399 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PASP..122..131G 122, 131

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    A., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155043 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...212..243G 212, 243

    Goldreich P., Keeley D. A., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155043 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...212..243G 212, 243

    1977 doi

  37. [45]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/25 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...25G 810, 25

    Green G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/25 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...25G 810, 25

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    Green G. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005161325181 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SSRv...85..161G 85, 161

    1998 doi

  40. [48]

    Grundahl F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/142 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..142G 836, 142

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    G., Nordlund ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A26A...486..951G 486, 951

    Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Eriksson K., J rgensen U. G., Nordlund ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A26A...486..951G 486, 951

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

    W., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005NuPhA.758..363H 758, 363

    Hammer J. W., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2005NuPhA.758..363H 758, 363

    2005 doi

  43. [51]

    Hanbury Brown R., Davis J., Lake R. J. W., Thompson R. J., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/167.3.475 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.167..475H 167, 475

    1974 doi

  44. [52]

    N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2698H 445, 2698

    Handberg R., Lund M. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1823 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2698H 445, 2698

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    Hekker S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0101-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A26ARv..25....1H 25, 1

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    H g E., et al., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2000A&A...355L..27H 355, L27

    2000

  47. [55]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P. O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, Communications in Asteroseismology, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009

  48. [56]

    Huber D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..143H 743, 143

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    Huber D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/32 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...32H 760, 32

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    Huber D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa75ca , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...844..102H 844, 102

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    arXiv:1901.01643

    Huber D., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019arXiv190101643H p. arXiv:1901.01643

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1996ApJ...464..943I 464, 943

    1996 doi

  53. [61]

    J., et al., 2008, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry

    Ireland M. J., et al., 2008, in Optical and Infrared Interferometry. p. 701324, @doi 10.1117/12.788386

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794...15J 794, 15

    Johnson J. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794...15J 794, 15

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    J rgensen A. C. S., Weiss A., Mosumgaard J. R., Silva Aguirre V., Sahlholdt C. L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2226 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3264J 472, 3264

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Kallinger T., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015263 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A26A...522A...1K 522, A1

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Stello D., Garcia R

    Kallinger T., Beck P. G., Stello D., Garcia R. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832831 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A.104K 616, A104

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution , @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    R., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    1995

  60. [68]

    Kjeldsen H., Frandsen S., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133014 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992PASP..104..413K 104, 413

    1992 doi

  61. [69]

    R., Viskum M., Frandsen S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1995AJ....109.1313K 109, 1313

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., Viskum M., Frandsen S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1995AJ....109.1313K 109, 1313

    1995 doi

  62. [70]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    Koch D. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    2010 doi

  63. [71]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423797 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Lebreton Y., Goupil M. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423797 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Kjeldsen H., Stello D., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Deng L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.483..780L 483, 780

    Li T., Bedding T. R., Kjeldsen H., Stello D., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Deng L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.483..780L 483, 780

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    Lind K., Bergemann M., Asplund M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21686.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427...50L 427, 50

    2012

  66. [74]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628714 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A26A...595A...4L 595, A4

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A...2L 616, A2

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    N., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424326 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    Lund M. N., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424326 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..172L 835, 172

    Lund M. N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..172L 835, 172

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    Maestro V., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1092 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1321M 434, 1321

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    Magic Z., Weiss A., Asplund M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423760 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A26A...573A..89M 573, A89

    2015 doi

  72. [80]

    Mathur S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749..152M 749, 152

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1583 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1583M 723, 1583

    Metcalfe T. S., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1583 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1583M 723, 1583

    2010 doi

  74. [82]

    Miglio A., 2012, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings] 10.1007/978-3-642-18418-5_2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ASSP...26...11M 26, 11

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    D., 2003, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/66/5/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003RPPh...66..789M 66, 789

    Monnier J. D., 2003, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/66/5/203 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003RPPh...66..789M 66, 789

    2003 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Ball W

    Mosumgaard J. R., Ball W. H., Silva Aguirre V., Weiss A., Christensen- Dalsgaard J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1442 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018MNRAS.478.5650M 478, 5650

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    Neckel H., Labs D., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00712494 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994SoPh..153...91N 153, 91

    1994 doi

  78. [86]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A26A...579A..52N 579, A52

    Nissen P. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A26A...579A..52N 579, A52

    2015 doi

  79. [87]

    Nissen P. E., Silva Aguirre V., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Collet R., Grundahl F., Slumstrup D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731845 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A26A...608A.112N 608, A112

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1994ApJ...422..158O 422, 158

    O'Donnell J. E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1994ApJ...422..158O 422, 158

    1994 doi

  81. [89]

    Osaki J., 1975, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1975PASJ...27..237O 27, 237

    1975

  82. [90]

    R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 914320 ( @eprint arXiv 1406.0151 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2063489

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    Rogers F. J., Nayfonov A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341894 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576.1064R 576, 1064

    2002 doi

  84. [92]

    L., Silva Aguirre V., Casagrande L., Mosumgaard J

    Sahlholdt C. L., Silva Aguirre V., Casagrande L., Mosumgaard J. R., Bojsen-Hansen M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty319 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1931S 476, 1931

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    Salaris M., Cassisi S., Weiss A., 2002, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/342498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114..375S 114, 375

    2002 doi

  86. [94]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  87. [95]

    H., Wilcox J

    Scherrer P. H., Wilcox J. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Gough D. O., 1983. pp 75--87, @doi 10.1007/BF00145547

    1983 doi

  88. [96]

    R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...15S 822, 15

    Sharma S., Stello D., Bland-Hawthorn J., Huber D., Bedding T. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...15S 822, 15

    2016 doi

  89. [97]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2012ApJ...757...99S 757, 99

    2012 doi

  90. [98]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1388 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2127S 452, 2127

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    Silva Aguirre V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..173S 835, 173

    2017 doi

  92. [100]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  93. [101]

    J., Basu S., Elsworth Y., Bedding T

    Stello D., Chaplin W. J., Basu S., Elsworth Y., Bedding T. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00767.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400L..80S 400, L80

    2009

  94. [102]

    Takeda Y., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/57.1.13 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PASJ...57...13T 57, 13

    2005 doi

  95. [103]

    Tassoul M., 1980, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/190678 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1980ApJS...43..469T 43, 469

    1980 doi

  96. [104]

    R., Yang W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015A&A...580A..44T 580, A44

    Tian Z., Bi S., Bedding T. R., Yang W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015A&A...580A..44T 580, A44

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund ., Asplund M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4366T 445, 4366

    Trampedach R., Stein R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund ., Asplund M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2084 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.4366T 445, 4366

    2014 doi

  98. [106]

    K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1986ApJ...306L..37U 306, L37

    Ulrich R. K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/1986ApJ...306L..37U 306, L37

    1986 doi

  99. [107]

    M., Basu S., Mazumdar A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..114V 794, 114

    Verma K., Antia H. M., Basu S., Mazumdar A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..114V 794, 114

    2014 doi

  100. [108]

    M., Mazumdar A., Basu S., Lund M

    Verma K., Raodeo K., Antia H. M., Mazumdar A., Basu S., Lund M. N., Silva Aguirre V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5da7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837...47V 837, 47

    2017 doi

  101. [109]

    S., Basu S., Chaplin W

    Viani L. S., Basu S., Chaplin W. J., Davies G. R., Elsworth Y., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa729c , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843...11V 843, 11

    2017 doi

  102. [110]

    Weiss A., Schlattl H., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-007-9606-5 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Ap26SS.316...99W 316, 99

    2008 doi

  103. [111]

    R., Bedding T

    White T. R., Bedding T. R., Stello D., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Huber D., Kjeldsen H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2011ApJ...743..161W 743, 161

    2011 doi

  104. [112]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt802 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1262W 433, 1262

    White T. R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt802 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.1262W 433, 1262

    2013 doi

  105. [113]

    Zernike F., 1938, @doi [Physica] 10.1016/S0031-8914(38)80203-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1938Phy.....5..785Z 5, 785

    1938 doi

  106. [114]

    C., Pinsonneault M

    Zinn J. C., Pinsonneault M. H., Huber D., Stello D., 2018, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018arXiv180502650Z p. arXiv:1805.02650

    2018 arXiv

  107. [115]

    A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430729 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..453T 628, 453

    ten Brummelaar T. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430729 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..453T 628, 453

    2005 doi

  108. [116]

    H., 1934, @doi [Physica] 10.1016/S0031-8914(34)90026-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934Phy.....1..201V 1, 201

    van Cittert P. H., 1934, @doi [Physica] 10.1016/S0031-8914(34)90026-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934Phy.....1..201V 1, 201

    1934 doi

  109. [117]

    van Leeuwen F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078357 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A26A...474..653V 474, 653

    2007 doi

  110. [118]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.