Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Properties of Turbulent Convection and Large-Scale Flows in a Rotating F-type Star Revealed by 3D Realistic Radiative Hydrodynamic Simulations

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

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

Pith's one-line read Rotation measurably changes a 1.47-solar-mass F-type star: fast spin shrinks its radius by tens of kilometers, shifts its ionization zones, and drives differential rotation, meridional flows, and gravity darkening, according to 3D…

desk verdict A capable f-plane simulation study whose headline claims about global radius and gravitational darkening outrun the model; the local dynamics are the real story. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07006 v1 pith:SRN3RB5U submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Irina N. Kitiashvili , Alexander G. Kosovichev , Alan A. Wray This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords stellarrotationconvectivezonesgravitydarkeninghydrodynamicalsimulationsradiativetransferF-typestarsdifferentialmeridionalcirculation
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 aims to establish that rotation, through the Coriolis force, changes both the dynamics and the thermodynamic structure of a shallow outer convection zone in a 1.47-solar-mass F-type main-sequence star. In a series of 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations run in local Cartesian boxes at the equator, 30 degrees, and 60 degrees latitude, with rotation periods of 1 and 14 days, fast 1-day rotation produces a stellar radius decrease of about 29 km at the equator and 58 km at higher latitudes, shifts the hydrogen and helium ionization zones toward the photosphere, and cools the photosphere at high latitudes relative to the equator in the gravity-darkening sense. The models also self-consistently develop differential rotation, meridional flows, a tachocline, and latitude-dependent roll-like convection, all absent or weaker without rotation. A sympathetic reader cares because these signatures are potentially observable and because they show that even a very shallow convection zone (about 2.8 percent of the stellar radius) can sustain large-scale rotational coupling.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a set of 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations in the f-plane approximation: a constant rotation vector appropriate to each latitude is imposed on a Cartesian box, with periodic horizontal boundaries, no surface curvature, and no centrifugal force. Each domain spans about 5 percent of the stellar radius in depth (50.5 Mm), from the upper radiative zone through the whole 28.5 Mm convection zone into a low atmosphere, with 102.4 Mm horizontal extent and roughly 100 km horizontal resolution. The code uses a realistic equation of state and chemical composition, time-dependent radiative transfer in four spectral bins with long-characteristics ray tracing, and a compressible Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model; initial conditions come from a stellar-evolution model of the same star. The argument depends on comparing horizontally and temporally averaged azimuthal and meridional velocities, temperature, density, energy fluxes, and vorticity against the same models without rotation, so that the mean flows, roll structures, ionization-zone shifts, and radius changes can be attributed to the imposed rotation.

What would settle it

Run a global spherical simulation of the same 1.47 solar-mass star at a 1-day rotation period with centrifugal force and curvature included: if the photosphere is not lower by about 29 km at the equator and about 58 km at high latitudes relative to the non-rotating model, or if high latitudes are not cooler than the equator, the radius-decrease and gravity-darkening interpretations fail. A direct observational check would be interferometric or asteroseismic radius and latitudinal brightness mapping of a similar fast-rotating F star.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the Coriolis force measurably couples to the full depth of a shallow stellar convection zone. In the fast-rotation case ($P_{\rm rot}=1$ day), the mean azimuthal flow is slower than the imposed rotation near the surface, by up to 3.1 km/s at the equator at about 3.3 Mm depth, and faster than the imposed rotation in the lower convection zone and overshoot layer; meridional flows reach about 1.35 km/s northward at 60 degrees latitude, with return flows near the base of the convection zone. These shearing flows organize convection into large roll-like structures at the equator that become smaller and shorter-lived toward the poles. Thermodynamically, rotation lowers the mean temperature throughout the convection zone, with photospheric deviations of 7.5 to 9.8 percent relative to the non-rotating model and a poleward temperature decrease of 90 to 202 K for the 1-day period and 220 to 240 K for the 14-day period relative to the equator; the radius decrease of roughly 29 km at the equator and 58 km at higher latitudes is inferred from the downward shift of the photosphere, and the latitude-dependent temperature pattern is attributed to gravity darkening. The slower 14-day rotation reproduces the same qualitative behaviors with weaker amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that flat, horizontally periodic local boxes that neglect surface curvature and the centrifugal force can stand in for the whole star, so that a local photosphere shift is read as a stellar radius decrease and latitude-dependent photosphere cooling as gravity darkening; if curvature or centrifugal effects are essential to those effects, the central claims overstate the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a star rotating near a 1-day period, stellar radius determinations that ignore rotation would be off by tens of kilometers, a shift that matters for precise asteroseismic and eclipsing-binary radii.
  • The predicted pole-to-equator photosphere temperature contrast of roughly 90 to 200 K for 1-day rotation implies that brightness, color, and spectral-line measurements of inclined fast rotators cannot assume a latitude-independent surface temperature.
  • Differential rotation and meridional flows can develop in a convection zone only 28.5 Mm thick, so shallow-convection F stars should be treated as capable of sustaining large-scale angular-momentum transport and shear layers, not just small-scale turbulence.
  • Roll-like convective patterns imply anisotropic heat and momentum transport, so mean-field models of F-star convection zones should include a latitude-dependent roll contribution rather than isotropic turbulent diffusion.
  • The simulated shift of hydrogen and helium ionization zones under rotation changes the adiabatic gradient profile, which would alter acoustic-mode frequencies and therefore asteroseismic structure inversions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to repeat the runs in a global spherical geometry that includes centrifugal force; the radius-change and gravity-darkening interpretations would be confirmed only if the global run shows the same sign and magnitude of effects.
  • The 14-day runs show a larger photosphere temperature contrast relative to the equator (220 to 240 K) than the 1-day runs (90 to 202 K), a non-monotonic trend the paper does not discuss; probing intermediate rotation periods would show whether gravity darkening really weakens at faster rotation.
  • Synthetic observables, such as intensity maps, limb-darkened profiles, and interferometric visibilities, could be generated from these simulations; comparing them with observations of rapidly rotating F stars would test the gravity-darkening and radius-shift signatures directly.
  • The simulated tachocline and overshoot in a shallow convection zone imply the ingredients for a thin-shell stellar dynamo; adding magnetic fields to the models would test whether the roll-like flows and meridional circulation can sustain one.
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 presents a series of 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations of the outer layers of a 1.47 solar-mass F-type star using the StellarBox code. The simulations are Cartesian f-plane domains placed at latitudes of 0, 30, and 60 degrees, with imposed rotation periods of 1 and 14 days. The authors report that rotation modifies the convection structure and large-scale dynamics, including differential rotation, meridional flows, roll-like convective patterns, shifts of ionization zones, a photosphere/radius decrease of tens of kilometers, and a latitude-dependent surface temperature pattern that they attribute to gravity darkening. The comparison baseline is the authors' earlier non-rotating simulation of the same star.

Significance. If the global interpretations were supported, the simulations would provide novel quantitative predictions for how rotation alters the structure and dynamics of a shallow-envelope F-type star, with implications for stellar evolution, angular momentum transport, and activity. The numerical experiments are self-contained and use a realistic equation of state, chemical composition, radiative transfer, and compressible hydrodynamics, which are strengths relative to anelastic global models. The reported large-scale flow structures are falsifiable predictions for future observations or global simulations. However, the paper's central global claims—the stellar radius decrease and the gravity-darkening attribution—are not supported by the f-plane local-box setup, which explicitly neglects surface curvature and the centrifugal force.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2; Section 7 bullet list] The claim that the stellar radius decreases by about 29 km at the equator and about 58 km at higher latitudes for P_rot = 1 day is not supported by the model. Section 2 states that the simulations use the f-plane approximation and that 'the effects of surface curvature and centrifugal force are neglected.' A local Cartesian box with periodic horizontal boundaries cannot capture a global hydrostatic radius change. For this star at P = 1 day, Omega^2 R^3/(GM) ~ 0.028, so the centrifugal contribution to the equatorial radius is of order several thousand km, several orders of magnitude larger and opposite in sign to the quoted tens of kilometers. The authors should either remove the global radius language, recast it explicitly as a local photosphere-height shift within the box, or supplement the local simulations with a global stellar-structure calculation that includes the centrifugal force.
  2. [Section 7; Abstract] The attribution of the latitude-dependent photosphere temperature decrease to 'gravitational darkening' (von Zeipel 1924) is unsupported. The simulations are independent boxes at different latitudes, with no centrifugal force and no global surface geometry, so they cannot self-consistently produce the effective-gravity variation that defines gravity darkening. Moreover, the simulated pattern has a hotter equator (90 K hotter than 30 degrees and about 200 K hotter than 60 degrees for P_rot = 1 day), whereas the classical von Zeipel law for a radiative envelope would predict a cooler equator under centrifugal deformation. The manuscript should reframe this result as a rotation-induced, latitude-dependent photosphere temperature variation in local models, without invoking the gravity-darkening mechanism.
  3. [Section 4.3; Abstract; Section 7] The reported magnitude of the radial/radius change is internally inconsistent. Section 4.3 states that rotation causes 'a downward shift of the photosphere by about 40 km for the 1-day period of rotation,' while the abstract and the Section 7 bullet list quote 29 km at the equator and 58 km at higher latitudes. These numbers do not agree, and the paper does not describe how the radius change was defined or measured (e.g., optical-depth surface versus a fixed pressure level). The authors should specify the diagnostic used and present a single, consistent set of values, or explain the discrepancy explicitly.
  4. [Figures 4-6; Section 4] The large-scale-flow profiles (differential rotation, meridional flows) are averaged over one hour in time, yet the paper presents them as robust properties of the convection zone and uses them to support the formation of persistent structures such as rolls and a tachocline-like shear layer. For a convection zone 28.5 Mm deep with strong downdrafts and large-scale rolls extending 60-80 Mm, one hour may be too short for converged statistics, especially for the weaker meridional flows (around 0.2-1.35 km/s). The authors should provide convergence tests or longer time averages to demonstrate that the reported profiles are not dominated by transients or by the finite horizontal box size.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 4 caption] In the Figure 4 caption, '60 o (equator, black curves)' should presumably read '0 o (equator, black curves)'; the same typo appears in the Figure 5 caption.
  2. [Section 2] The subgrid-scale model coefficients C_C = C_S = 0.01 are stated to have been 'initially determined for modeling solar convection.' The paper should justify or discuss the transferability of these coefficients to a 1.47 M_sun F star, since this is an implicit modeling assumption.
  3. [Section 5] The inset in Figure 10b is referenced in the text ('see the inset plot in Fig. 10b'), but the inset is not visible in the reproduced figure; the authors should ensure the final figure includes it or adjust the reference.
  4. [Section 6] The roll-like structures are inferred from averages over the meridional plane. Because the horizontal box size is only about 5.8 degrees, the authors should explicitly discuss how the finite azimuthal extent may affect the measured roll lengths (the paper notes this for the longest rolls but could extend the caveat to the reported roll properties at all latitudes).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all central claims are outputs of forward 3D RHD simulations; self-citations are disclosed baselines/calibrations, not inputs that define the results.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—differential rotation, meridional flows, roll-like structures, photosphere shifts, and latitudinal temperature differences—are measured outputs of forward 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations, not quantities fitted to themselves. The initial stellar structure comes from the external CESAM stellar evolution code, and the StellarBox code solves the compressible RHD equations from first principles with a prescribed f-plane Coriolis term; the reported radius and temperature changes are diagnosed from the evolved fields rather than imposed. No equation in the paper defines the predicted radius decrease or gravity-darkening pattern in terms of the same measured quantities. The self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the non-rotating baseline from Kitiashvili et al. (2016) is an independent numerical experiment used for comparison, and the SGS coefficients C_C = C_S = 0.01 are disclosed calibration parameters from earlier solar modeling, not fitted to the F-star rotation results. The 'gravity darkening' label is an interpretive comparison with von Zeipel (1924), not a derivation that imports the conclusion from that citation. The neglect of curvature and centrifugal force is a modeling limitation relevant to correctness risk, but it does not make any result equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore the derivation chain contains no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the numerical model's representation of stellar convection: the compressible hydrodynamic solver with a Smagorinsky subgrid model, the f-plane treatment of rotation, the CESAM initial structure, and reduced radiative transfer. The only hand-tuned constants are the SGS coefficients inherited from solar modeling. No new physical entities are introduced; emergent structures such as rolls are diagnostics, not invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • SGS turbulence coefficients C_C = C_S = 0.01
    Chosen once for solar convection simulations to match observed granulation, then carried over to the F-star models (Section 2). The values affect the dissipation and transport of small-scale turbulence, but they are not fitted to the F-star rotation results.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with a Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model describe stellar convection at resolvable scales.
    The StellarBox code evolves compressible hydrodynamic equations with an SGS model for unresolved turbulence (Section 2). This is a standard modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The f-plane approximation with periodic horizontal boundaries and a constant rotation rate represents the local dynamics of a rotating star.
    Section 2 states that rotation is imposed via the f-plane approximation, surface curvature is neglected, and the centrifugal force is ignored. The central radius and latitude-dependent claims depend on this.
  • domain assumption Initial stellar structure and composition from CESAM stellar evolution models for a 1.47 M_sun star at age 1 Gyr are accurate enough for the simulations.
    Section 2 uses CESAM initial conditions, including a 28.5 Mm convection zone; the modeled depth and structure of the convection zone come from this external stellar model.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer approximated with four spectral bins and 18 ray directions describes near-surface energy transport adequately.
    Section 2 describes the radiative transfer implementation used by StellarBox; it is a reduced description of full wavelength-dependent radiative transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper Smagorinsky coefficients calibrated for solar convection apply to this F star.
    The coefficients C_C=C_S=0.01 are stated to have been initially determined for modeling solar convection; applying them to a different star is an ad hoc transfer of a tuned constant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of Turbulent Convection and Large-Scale Flows in a Rotating F-type Star Revealed by 3D Realistic Radiative Hydrodynamic Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRN3RB5U

@misc{pith2026250207006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of Turbulent Convection and Large-Scale Flows in a Rotating F-type Star Revealed by 3D Realistic Radiative Hydrodynamic Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRN3RB5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07006}
}
read the original abstract

The nonlinear coupling between stellar convection and rotation is of great interest because it relates to understanding both stellar evolution and activity. We investigated the influence of rotation and the Coriolis force on the dynamics and thermodynamic structure of an F-type main-sequence star with a shallow outer convection zone. We performed a series of 3D radiative hydrodynamic simulations of a 1.47Msun star for different rotation rates (periods of rotation 1 and 14 days) and with computational domains placed at latitudes of 0degrees (equator), 30degrees, and 60degrees. Because the star has a relatively shallow convection zone (28.5 Mm thick or about 2.81% R*), we model its dynamics from the upper layers of the radiative zone, the whole convection zone, and the low atmosphere. The simulation results show a weak shift of the ionization zones to the photosphere and a decrease of the stellar radius by about 29 km at the equator and about 58 km at higher latitudes in the presence of rotation with a period of 1 day. The models presented reveal the formation of radial differential rotation, meridional flows, latitude-dependent roll-like structures of convection, a tachocline, the presence of a gravity-darkening effect, and others. In this paper, we primarily discuss the properties of the outer convection zone for different rotation rates. Detailed analysis of the properties of the tachocline, the overshoot layer, and small-scale turbulence will be discussed in follow-on papers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel a: Radial profiles of temperature, T, temperature gradient (dlog(T)/dlog(P)), and adiabatic index, Γ1 corresponding to the initial conditions of a 1.47M⊙ main-sequence star obtained with the CESAM code. Panel b: A schematic illustration of the positions and orientations of the simulation boxes relative to the rotation axis of the star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vertical velocity distribution at the equator in nine layers from simulations of a 1.47 M⊙ star with imposed rotation for the whole domain with a period of 1 day. The horizontal slices correspond to layers throughout the convective zone and into the radiative zone, 0 Mm (R0 = R∗), 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 Mm below the surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of the differential rotation (panel a) and radial profiles of the gradient of rotation, ∂ ln Ω ∂ ln r (panel b) for Prot = 1 day at different latitudes: 60o (equator, black curves), 30o (blue), and 60o (red curves). The green curve corresponds to the no…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial profiles of the differential rotation (panel a) and radial profiles of the gradient of rotation, ∂ ln Ω/∂ ln r (panel b) for Prot = 14 days at different latitudes: 60o (equator, black curves), 30o (blue), and 60o (red curves). The green curve corresponds to the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of the meridional flows for Prot = 1 day (panel a) and Prot = 14 days (panel b) at three lati￾tudes: 0o (equator, black curves), a 30o (blue), and 60o (red curves). The green curve corresponds to the non-rotating case (Kitiashvili et al. 2016). Each pro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The radial gradient of the vertical velocity over the computational domain (panel a) and the near-surface layers (panel b) for Prot = 1 day at different latitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The radial distribution of the convective energy flux, Fconv, and the kinetic energy flux, Fkin, associated with convection at different latitudes: a) 0o (equator), b) 30o , and c) 60o . Darker thick curves show the distribution of fluxes for Prot = 1 day; the lighter …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial profiles of rms temperature (panel a) and density (b) fluctuations at three latitudes: 0o (equator, black curves), a 30o (blue), and 60o (red curves) for the star with Prot = 1 day. The green curves on panels a) and c) correspond to the stellar model without rot…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The mean temperature relative to the non-rotating case for the whole computational domain (panel a) and magnified profiles for the upper layers of the convection zone (panel b). The inset plot in panel a) shows the relative temperature variation as a function of latit…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Roll-like convective patterns for Prot = 1 day at three latitudes: a) 0o , b) 30o , and c) 60o . The flows are indicated by black arrows. The background images show temperature fluctuations. Flows and temperature fluctuations are averaged over the meridional plane (y-…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the roll-like structures in the convection zone at different latitudes. scale rolls (10 – 15 Mm wide), located between the larger ones, are more prominent and can occupy a comparable range of layers in the convection zone. At 60o latitude (Fig. 11c), o…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Meridional (Wx, blue curves) and azimuthal (Wy, red curves) components of vorticity as a function of depth for Prot = 1 day for different latitudes: 0o (panel a), a 30o (panel b), and 60o (panel c), and the case without rotation (panel d). The vertical blue and red ba…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Meridional (Wx, blue curves) and azimuthal components (Wy, red curves) of vorticity as a function of depth for Prot = 14 days for different latitudes: 0o (panels a), a 30o (panel b), and 60o (panel c), and the case without rotation (panel d). The vertical blue and red…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, A&A, 542, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118724

    Ammler-von Eiff, M., & Reiners, A. 2012, A&A, 542, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118724

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118724 2012

  2. [2]

    R., Bautista, M

    Badnell, N. R., Bautista, M. A., Butler, K., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 458, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08991.x

    work page arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 655, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040052

    Ji, H. 2021, A&A, 655, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040052

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040052 2021

  4. [4]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfef

    Beaudoin, P., Strugarek, A., & Charbonneau, P. 2018, ApJ, 859, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfef 2018

  5. [5]

    2012, A&A, 539, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118252 B¨ ohm-Vitense, E

    Beeck, B., Collet, R., Steffen, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118252 B¨ ohm-Vitense, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 486, doi: 10.1086/510482

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118252 2012

  6. [6]

    H., Hurlburt, N

    Brummell, N. H., Hurlburt, N. E., & Toomre, J. 1996, ApJ, 473, 494, doi: 10.1086/178161 —. 1998, ApJ, 493, 955, doi: 10.1086/305137

    work page doi:10.1086/178161 1996

  7. [7]

    S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac469b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac469b 2022

  8. [8]

    S., & Toomre, J

    Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2002, ApJ, 570, 865, doi: 10.1086/339228

    doi:10.1086/339228 2002

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    S., Strugarek, A., Varela, J., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Varela, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c40

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, ApJL, 950, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda2e

    Chen, F., Rempel, M., & Fan, Y. 2023, ApJL, 950, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acda2e

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Sch¨ ussler, M., & Moreno-Insertis, F. 2007, A&A, 461, 1163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066390

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Ulrich, R

    Deubner, F. L., Ulrich, R. K., & Rhodes, E. J., J. 1979, A&A, 72, 177

    1979

  5. [13]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/35 18 Kitiashvili et al

    Fan, Y., & Fang, F. 2014, ApJ, 789, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/35 18 Kitiashvili et al

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    1964, Comptes Rendus Academie des Sciences (serie non specifiee), 258, 3189

    Feautrier, P. 1964, Comptes Rendus Academie des Sciences (serie non specifiee), 258, 3189

    1964

  7. [15]

    A., & Miller, J

    Gilman, P. A., & Miller, J. 1986, ApJS, 61, 585, doi: 10.1086/191125

    1986 doi

  8. [16]

    N., & Wray, A

    Granovsky, S., Kitiashvili, I. N., & Wray, A. A. 2023, in The Predictive Power of Computational Astrophysics as a Discover Tool, ed. D. Bisikalo, D. Wiebe, & C. Boily, Vol. 362, 169–172, doi: 10.1017/S1743921322002861

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    B., & Gilman, P

    Guenther, D. B., & Gilman, P. A. 1985, ApJ, 295, 195, doi: 10.1086/163365

    1985 doi

  10. [18]

    Mansour, N. N. 2013, ApJ, 779, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/176

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Featherstone, N

    Hindman, B. W., Featherstone, N. A., & Julien, K. 2020, ApJ, 898, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ec2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7395 K¨ apyl¨ a, P

    Hotta, H., Kusano, K., & Shimada, R. 2022, ApJ, 933, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7395 K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J. 2023, A&A, 669, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244395 K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., Mantere, M. J., Guerrero, G., Brandenburg, A., & Chatterjee, P. 2011, A&A, 531, A162, doi: 10.1051...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    N., Kosovichev, A

    Kitiashvili, I. N., Kosovichev, A. G., Lele, S. K., Mansour, N. N., & Wray, A. A. 2013, ApJ, 770, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/37

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Wray, A. A. 2016, ApJL, 821, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/1/L17

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    N., Kosovichev, A

    Kitiashvili, I. N., Kosovichev, A. G., Wray, A. A., Sadykov, V. M., & Guerrero, G. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2946

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    N., & Wray, A

    Kitiashvili, I. N., & Wray, A. A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00974. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00974

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 174, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01923-0

    Komm, R. 2021, SoPh, 296, 174, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01923-0

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.7628

    Magic, Z., & Asplund, M. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.7628. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7628

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2013, A&A, 557, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    Magic, Z., Collet, R., Asplund, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 399

    Mangeney, A. 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 399

    1986

  21. [29]

    I., Hindman, B

    Matilsky, L. I., Hindman, B. W., & Toomre, J. 2020, ApJ, 898, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ca0

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Elliott, J

    Miesch, M. S., Elliott, J. R., Toomre, J., et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 593, doi: 10.1086/308555

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    1991, Physics of Fluids A, 3, 2746, doi: 10.1063/1.858164

    Moin, P., Squires, K., Cabot, W., & Lee, S. 1991, Physics of Fluids A, 3, 2746, doi: 10.1063/1.858164

    1991 doi

  24. [32]

    1997, A&AS, 124, 597, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997209

    Morel, P. 1997, A&AS, 124, 597, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997209

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9663-9

    Morel, P., & Lebreton, Y. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 61, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9663-9

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc07

    Toomre, J. 2018, ApJ, 859, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc07

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    N., Brun, A

    Noraz, Q., Breton, S. N., Brun, A. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243890 Nordlund, ˚ A., & Stein, R. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 576, doi: 10.1086/318217

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Noyes, R. W. 1985, SoPh, 100, 385, doi: 10.1007/BF00158437

    1985 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984a, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    doi

  30. [38]

    W., Weiss, N

    Noyes, R. W., Weiss, N. O., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984b, ApJ, 287, 769, doi: 10.1086/162735

    doi

  31. [39]

    Pulkkinen, P., Tuominen, I., Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., & Stein, R. F. 1993, A&A, 267, 265

    1993

  32. [40]

    2006, A&A, 446, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053911

    Reiners, A. 2006, A&A, 446, 267, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053911

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Reiners, A., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2003, A&A, 398, 647, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021642

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    Reiners, A., Sch¨ ussler, M., & Passegger, V. M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/144

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    Reinhold, T., Reiners, A., & Basri, G. 2013, A&A, 560, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321970

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/15 —

    Rempel, M. 2011, ApJ, 740, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/15 —. 2018, ApJ, 859, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabba0

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    W., & Strittmatter, P

    Roxburgh, I. W., & Strittmatter, P. A. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/133.4.345

    1966 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Damiani, C., & Pireaux, S

    Rozelot, J. P., Damiani, C., & Pireaux, S. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1791

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    G., Steiner, O., Berdyugina, S

    Salhab, R. G., Steiner, O., Berdyugina, S. V., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731945

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Seaton, M. J. 1995, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 322, Atomic Processes in Plasmas (Ninth), ed. W. L. Rowan, 117–128, doi: 10.1063/1.47073

    1995 doi

  41. [49]

    1963, Monthly Weather Review, 91, 99, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091⟨0099:GCEWTP⟩2.3.CO;2

    Smagorinsky, J. 1963, Monthly Weather Review, 91, 99, doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091⟨0099:GCEWTP⟩2.3.CO;2

    1963 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Lagerfj¨ ard, A., Nordlund, ˚ A., & Georgobiani, D

    Stein, R. F., Lagerfj¨ ard, A., Nordlund, ˚ A., & Georgobiani, D. 2011, SoPh, 268, 271, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9510-y

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Wu, S

    Sun, M. T., Wu, S. T., & Dryer, M. 1995, Journal of Computational Physics, 116, 330, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1995.1031

    1995

  44. [52]

    Stein, R. F. 2013, ApJ, 769, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/18 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/84.9.665

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    Warnecke, J., & K¨ apyl¨ a, M. J. 2020, A&A, 642, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936922 Properties of Turbulent Convection and Large-Scale Flows i n a Rotating F-type Star 19

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Bensassi, K., Kitiashvili, I

    Wray, A. A., Bensassi, K., Kitiashvili, I. N., Mansour, N. N., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.07999. https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07999

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A., Bensassy, K., Kitiashvili, I

    Wray, A. A., Bensassy, K., Kitiashvili, I. N., Mansour, N. N., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2018, Realistic simulations of Stellar Radiative MHD. In Book: Variability of the Sun and Sun-like Stars: from Asteroseismology to Space Weather (EDP Sciences), 39–62

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.