Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Precise Asteroseismology of the High-amplitude Delta Scuti Star EH Librae, an AE UMa Analogue in the Hertzsprung Gap

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the 70-year drift in the pulsation period of the star EH Lib is caused by the star's own evolution, and that matching this drift to stellar models places EH Lib in the Hertzsprung gap with a mass of 1.715 solar masses.

desk verdict Solid O-C and first models for EH Lib, but the evolutionary claim needs a binarity test and a justification of the model tolerance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15044 v1 pith:UWNDSRXE submitted 2025-07-20 astro-ph.SR

Xiran Xie , Jianning Fu , Gang Meng , Lester Fox Machado , Raúl Michel , Huifang Xue , Nian Liu , Zhongyang Liu
show 2 more authors
Jie Su Mingfeng Qin
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologyDeltaScutistarsHigh-amplitude(HADS)periodchangerateO-CdiagramHertzsprunggapstellarevolutionEHLibrae
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 tries to establish that the gradual lengthening of EH Lib's pulsation period, measured over seven decades, is the direct signature of the star's own evolution rather than an external effect. If that holds, the period change rate becomes a clock reading of stellar structure at a rare evolutionary moment, the Hertzsprung gap between the main sequence and the red giant branch. Using TESS and ground-based light curves, the authors extract the fundamental frequency $f_0 = 11.3105$ c d$^{-1}$ and a period change rate of $(1/P_0)(dP_0/dt) = (5.4 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-9}$ yr$^{-1}$, then build MESA and GYRE models that match both quantities. The accepted models give a mass of $1.715 \pm 0.065\,M_\odot$, a luminosity $\log(L/L_\odot) = 1.38 \pm 0.06$, and an age of $(1.14 \pm 0.13) \times 10^9$ years, with a helium core and a hydrogen-burning shell.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the O-C diagram: 342 times of maximum light, combining new ground-based, TESS, and archival measurements, are fitted with a parabola, and the parabolic coefficient yields the period change rate $(1/P_0)(dP_0/dt)$ directly. That rate acts as the second observable, alongside the fundamental frequency $f_0$, which the paper matches against stellar models built with MESA and GYRE. Model selection uses a calculated frequency uncertainty of roughly $0.003$ c d$^{-1}$ for the theoretical fundamental mode and the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the period change rate; the region where both criteria hold simultaneously is the red region in the evolutionary-track diagram.

What would settle it

Measure the star's radial velocity over several years: a periodic signal matching the O-C parabola's amplitude and period would reveal a companion and falsify the purely-evolutionary interpretation of the period change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed period change rate of EH Lib is produced by stellar evolutionary effects, and that this rate, combined with the fundamental frequency $f_0$, is enough to single out a small family of models. The paper reports the period change rate as $(1/P_0)(dP_0/dt) = (5.4 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-9}$ yr$^{-1}$, derived from a parabolic O-C diagram built from 342 times of maximum light spanning more than 70 years. Matching this rate and $f_0 = 11.310514 \pm 0.000003$ c d$^{-1}$ to MESA/GYRE models yields stellar parameters of $M = 1.715 \pm 0.065\,M_\odot$, $\log(L/L_\odot) = 1.38 \pm 0.06$, and age $(1.14 \pm 0.13) \times 10^9$ years, identifying EH Lib as a single-mode HADS star in the Hertzsprung gap with a helium core and a hydrogen-burning shell. The paper also identifies $f_0$ as the fundamental radial mode and argues that the frequency $f_1$ is a mixed mode with $n_p = 3$, confirming the star's evolved state.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assertion, made without derivation or citation, that theoretical fundamental-mode frequencies are accurate to about 0.003 cycles per day, and on the assumption that the parabolic O-C term is purely evolutionary; if either fails, the derived mass and age change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evolutionary period drift becomes a measurable constraint: any star with a long-enough O-C baseline can be placed on the HR diagram even if only a single radial mode is detected.
  • EH Lib joins the small sample of HADS stars with asteroseismic model solutions, adding a low-metallicity ($[Fe/H] \approx -0.39$) member to the comparison set.
  • The similarity between EH Lib and AE UMa, comparable period change rate, fundamental frequency, and metallicity, sets up a controlled comparison of two stars at nearly the same evolutionary state but different pulsation-mode content.
  • The method validates the joint use of frequency and period change rate for single-mode HADS stars, which are otherwise hard to constrain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 0.003 c d$^{-1}$ model-frequency tolerance were replaced by a measured or independently derived uncertainty, the accepted mass–age region could shift; the quoted error bars are therefore only as solid as that hand-set tolerance.
  • The same O-C approach could be applied to other single-mode HADS stars with archival maxima, converting their period drifts into evolutionary-clock readings and mapping how fast stars cross the Hertzsprung gap as a function of mass and metallicity.
  • Radial-velocity monitoring designed to detect a companion with periods from days to decades would separate the light-travel-time contribution from the evolutionary term in the O-C parabola; until then, the purely-evolutionary reading remains an assumption.
  • The discrepancy between the model luminosity ($\log(L/L_\odot) = 1.38$) and the Gaia-derived value ($1.11$) suggests that the bolometric correction or adopted extinction could be re-examined; if the discrepancy persists, it may point to physics missing from the models.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a precise frequency solution for the high-amplitude Delta Scuti star EH Lib from TESS Sector 51, identifying the fundamental radial mode f0 = 11.310514 c/d together with harmonics and two additional frequencies. It constructs a parabolic O-C diagram from 342 times of maximum light spanning 70 years, deriving (1/P0)(dP0/dt) = (5.4 +/- 0.5) x 10^-9 yr^-1. MESA/GYRE models are then selected by matching both f0 and this period-change rate, leading to the conclusion that EH Lib is a single-mode post-main-sequence HADS star in the Hertzsprung gap, with M = 1.715 +/- 0.065 Msun, log(L/Lsun) = 1.38 +/- 0.06, Teff = 8321 +/- 232 K, and age = (1.14 +/- 0.13) x 10^9 yr.

Significance. If the evolutionary interpretation holds, this paper adds a valuable object to the small sample of asteroseismologically modeled HADS stars and provides a direct measurement of evolutionary period drift, which is rare for single-mode pulsators. The observational data products, especially the 342 measured maxima spanning 70 years and the 11.34-sigma parabolic O-C coefficient, are useful and will likely be reused by the community. The modeling uses standard public codes (MESA and GYRE), and the paper is generally clear in its presentation. However, the central conclusion rests on several assumptions that are not yet quantitatively justified: the period change is assumed to be purely evolutionary, the theoretical frequency tolerance is asserted without derivation, and the selected models are in strong tension with the spectroscopically and astrometrically determined Teff and luminosity. These issues must be resolved before the derived masses, ages, and evolutionary stage can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Fig. 7] The 'calculated uncertainty' of 0.003 c/d in the theoretical fundamental frequency is asserted without derivation or citation. This number defines the width of the black frequency-matching bands in Fig. 7, and because those bands are broad, the quoted mass and age uncertainties in Table 6 (M = 1.715 +/- 0.065 Msun, age = 1.14 +/- 0.13 Gyr) are essentially set by this hand-chosen tolerance. Please either derive the tolerance from the MESA/GYRE grid resolution and input-physics variations, or perform a robustness test in which the tolerance is varied over a plausible range, and report how the accepted mass-age region changes. Without such a test, the Table 6 uncertainties are not externally meaningful.
  2. [Sections 3.3, 5, and 6, Eq. (9)] The central claim that the parabolic O-C term is produced by stellar evolution is not established against the alternative of a light-travel-time effect. Section 5 concedes that binarity 'cannot be entirely ruled out due to the limited timespan and observing gaps,' but an orbital period longer than the 70-year baseline produces an LTT curve that is initially quadratic with the same sign and curvature as an evolutionary period change. The observed O-C range of about 0.004 d corresponds to a light-time semi-amplitude of about 170 s; for a roughly 100-yr orbit around a 1.7 Msun primary, this requires only about a 0.02 Msun companion, which would be far too faint to appear in the photometric data. Because (1/P0)(dP0/dt) is one of only two constraints used to select models in Section 4.3, the derived mass, age, luminosity, and Hertzsprung-gap assignment are invalid if a companion is present. The original binary hypothesis of Jiang & Yang (1981) and the low-S/N proper-motion variation noted by Kervella et al. (2019) make this a concrete concern. Please add a quantitative companion search (e.g., radial velocities, Gaia RUWE or astrometric analysis, or a joint LTT plus evolutionary O-C fit), and if the issue remains unresolved, present the evolutionary interpretation as conditional on the absence of a companion.
  3. [Section 5, Table 6, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The selected models are in strong tension with the independent stellar parameters quoted in the same paper: the models give log(L/Lsun) = 1.38 +/- 0.06 and Teff = 8321 +/- 232 K, while the Gaia-based luminosity is log(L/Lsun) = 1.11 +/- 0.03 and the spectroscopic effective temperature is 7300 +/- 100 K. These are roughly 4-sigma discrepancies in both quantities. The luminosity offset of 0.27 dex corresponds to about 0.68 mag in M_bol, which is far too large to dismiss as an error in the bolometric correction given the small BC_G = 0.019 used in Eq. (4). Since these parameters determine whether the star lies in the Hertzsprung gap and on which side of the main sequence it is, the paper needs to quantify the systematic uncertainties in the Gaia luminosity and in the spectroscopic Teff, or to discuss whether the model-selection procedure may simply be missing the correct evolutionary state. As written, the claimed location in the Hertzsprung gap is contradicted by the externally measured luminosity and effective temperature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] The text 'derived from its parallax parallax' contains a duplicated word; please correct it.
  2. [Table 5] The column heading for the period-change rate is typeset as a stacked fraction and is difficult to read; it should be formatted as (1/P0)(dP0/dt) x 10^-9 yr^-1.
  3. [Section 3.3] The O-C weights assigned to different detector types (0.5, 0.9, 1.0, 2.0, and 0.1 for R-band) are introduced without a sensitivity analysis; a short test showing that the parabolic coefficient remains a high-significance detection under reasonable alternative weights would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Section 5] The sentence beginning 'All of these results may suggest a more complex process...' is vague; please specify which processes or model ingredients are being considered.
  5. [Data Availability] The statement that data are available upon reasonable request is weak for a quantitative asteroseismology paper; archiving the MESA inlists, GYRE configurations, and the full O-C table would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Period-change input is used as both model-selection criterion and the 'evolutionary attribution' it is said to confirm; derivation is otherwise data-driven.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (Parameter Fitting) and Section 5/6]
    "Additionally, the period change rate (1/P0)(dP0/dt) determined in this study falls within the range predicted for Delta Scuti stars by Breger & Pamyatnykh (1998). Therefore, this rate can be attributed to stellar evolutionary effects, making it another valuable criterion for constraining models. ... Incorporating the period change rate as an additional constraint has proven effective ... These results also confirm that the observed period change rate of EH Lib can be attributed to the stellar evolutionary effects."

    The observed O-C rate, Eq. (10), is one of the two selection criteria in Section 4.3: models are kept only if their computed evolutionary Pdot matches it within 1 sigma (blue/red regions in Fig. 7). The conclusion that the rate 'can be attributed to stellar evolutionary effects' is therefore a restatement of the acceptance rule rather than an independent confirmation. The mass-age solution in Table 6 is constructed so its evolutionary Pdot equals the input; it is not a prediction of the input. The f0 constraint is external, so the full parameter derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but the headline evolutionary attribution is the fitting criterion itself.

full rationale

The paper's main mass/age/luminosity derivation is not circular by construction: f0 from TESS and the 342 maxima are external data, MESA/GYRE are independent physics, and the parameter values are a genuine grid fit. The only substantial selection-loop is the period-change attribution: the same (1/P0)(dP0/dt) from Eq. (10) is used in Section 4.3 to accept models and is then reported in Sections 5 and 6 as 'confirmed' to be evolutionary. That is a mild fitted-input-as-confirmation loop, not an identity. The hand-set 0.003 c/d calculated frequency tolerance, the assumed single-mode interpretation, and the Section 5 admission that binarity 'cannot be entirely ruled out' are limitations and correctness risks, not circular steps. No load-bearing self-citation was found; the cited choices (fov following Niu et al. 2017, alpha_MLT following Yang et al. 2012) are parameter choices rather than derived premises.

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

The central result rests on the adopted stellar physics (MESA/GYRE with alpha_MLT = 1.89, f_ov = 0.015, Z = 0.006), the identification of f0 as the fundamental radial mode, and the interpretation of the O-C parabola as pure evolution. Mass and age are free parameters selected by fitting f0 and the period change rate; the 0.003 c/d theoretical tolerance and the detector-dependent O-C weights are hand-set inputs that control the claimed uncertainties. No new particles, forces, or physical mechanisms are proposed; the helium core and hydrogen-burning shell are standard evolutionary structures, not invented entities.

free parameters (6)
  • initial mass M_i = 1.715 +/- 0.065 Msun (best fit)
    Grid from 1.50 to 2.50 Msun in 0.01 Msun steps; models are selected by matching f0 and the period change rate. This is the primary fitted parameter of the inverse problem.
  • age (evolutionary stage) = 1.14 +/- 0.13 Gyr
    Age along each track where both f0 and the period change rate match within the adopted tolerance; the quoted range reflects the spread of accepted models in Table 5.
  • theoretical frequency tolerance = 0.003 c/d
    Asserted 'calculated uncertainty' used to accept or reject models in Section 4.3; it is not derived and it controls which models appear in Table 5, hence the quoted parameter uncertainties.
  • convective overshoot parameter f_ov = 0.015
    Fixed following Niu et al. (2017); not varied in this work, but it changes track positions and frequencies and therefore the accepted mass-age region.
  • mixing length alpha_MLT = 1.89
    Fixed following Yang et al. (2012); the paper claims an insignificant effect on the models, but it is a hand-set input to the stellar structure calculation.
  • O-C data weights by detector = 0.5 / 0.9 / 1.0 / 2.0 / 0.1
    Hand-assigned weights for photographic, photoelectric, CCD-V, TESS, and CCD-R data because historical uncertainties are unavailable; the R-band is downweighted by 0.1 due to a 0.00011 day offset. These weights affect the derived period change rate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption f0 = 11.3105 c/d is the fundamental radial pulsation mode of EH Lib
    Inferred in Section 3.2 from the pulsation constant Q = 0.032 +/- 0.001 and from P-L relations using adopted Teff, log g, and Gaia luminosity. If f0 were an overtone or non-radial mode, the entire model grid fit would be invalid.
  • domain assumption The parabolic O-C signal is caused entirely by stellar evolution
    Section 3.3 converts the parabolic coefficient into a period change rate and Section 4.3 uses it as an evolutionary constraint. Section 5 admits binarity cannot be ruled out; a light-time effect or other mechanism would contaminate the interpretation.
  • domain assumption Metallicity Z = 0.006 from [Fe/H] = -0.39 is correct
    Adopted in Section 4.1 from Kahraman Alicavus et al. (2017), whose iron abundance carries a 0.45 dex uncertainty; the resulting Z uncertainty propagates into every evolutionary track in the grid.
  • domain assumption MESA/GYRE with alpha_MLT = 1.89, f_ov = 0.015, and rotation neglected reproduces f0 within 0.003 c/d
    Sections 4.2-4.3. The codes and the fixed physics parameters are treated as reliable; the 0.003 c/d acceptance tolerance is asserted without derivation and controls which models are reported in Table 5.
  • domain assumption Historical maxima from 14 references spanning 1950-2017 are mutually consistent after BJD-TDB conversion and weight assignment
    Section 3.3 and Table A3. Detector-dependent weights (0.5 to 2.0) are hand-assigned because literature uncertainties are unavailable; systematic zero-point differences beyond the R-band offset are not modeled.
  • domain assumption f1 and f2 do not affect the model constraint on f0
    Section 5. f1 is matched to a mixed mode only after the fit (Table 7, deviations up to 0.39 c/d) and f2 is attributed to combination and instrumental effects; neither frequency is used to select models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise Asteroseismology of the High-amplitude Delta Scuti Star EH Librae, an AE UMa Analogue in the Hertzsprung Gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWNDSRXE

@misc{pith2026250715044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise Asteroseismology of the High-amplitude Delta Scuti Star EH Librae, an AE UMa Analogue in the Hertzsprung Gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWNDSRXE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15044}
}
abstract

A subclass of intermediate mass variables Delta Scuti stars, known as High-amplitude Delta Scuti (HADS) stars, exhibits pronounced radial pulsations with high amplitudes. The ground-based and space-based observations of the HADS star EH Lib are used to help making asteroseismological analysis of this pulsating star. Following the reduction of the light curves, the frequency analysis reveals the fundamental frequency as $f_0=11.3105$ c day$^{-1}$ and two more significant frequencies $f_1$ and $f_2$, in addition to the harmonics of $f_0$ and a linear combination. The period change rate is determined as $(1/P_0)(dP_0/dt)=(5.4\pm0.5)\times10^{-9}$ yr$^{-1}$ derived from an O-C diagram, which is constructed from 342 times of maximum light spanning over 70 years. Using these observational constraints, along with the metallicity reported in the literature, we construct theoretical models using the stellar evolution code MESA and calculate the theoretical frequencies of the eigen modes using the oscillation code GYRE. The appropriate models are selected by matching both $f_0$ and $(1/P_0)(dP_0/dt)$ within their respective uncertainties. The results indicate that the observed period change of EH Lib can be attributed to stellar evolutionary effects. The stellar parameters of EH Lib are derived as: the mass of $1.715\pm0.065$ M$_{\odot}$, the luminosity of log $(L/L_{\odot})=1.38\pm0.06$, and the age of $(1.14\pm0.13)\times10^{9}$ years. EH Lib is classified as a single-mode HADS star, locating currently in the Hertzsprung gap, with a helium core and a hydrogen-burning shell. This work expands the asteroseismological sample of HADS stars and establishes a foundation for future investigations into their commonalities and specific properties, thereby advancing our understanding of these variables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A CCD image of EH Lib taken with the Xinglong 2.16-m Telescope. The field of view is 9 ′ .36 × 9 ′ .36. EH Lib, the comparison star (TYC 4987- 657-1) and the check star (TYC 4987-415-1) are marked. South is up and East is to the left. Section 3 focuses on the frequency analysis, mode identification and determination of the period change rate of EH Lib. Section 4 describes the construction of stellar evolutionary tra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An observed light curve of EH Lib in R-band, taken with the Xinglong 2.16-m Telescope on 21 March 2018. The top panel shows the magnitude differences between EH Lib and the comparison star, and the bottom panel shows the magnitude differences between the check star and the comparison star. amplitude spectra below Nyquist frequency. In this process, a Ham￾ming window is applied to reduce sidelobes, particularly the f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Blue points present all the reduced data points observed by TESS, while the light blue line presents the fitted curve obtained from the extracted frequency solution listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Fourier amplitude spectrum of the TESS light curves. The corresponding spectral window is shown in the inset. et al. (2022) derived the following P–L relation for Delta Scuti stars pulsating in the fundamental radial mode, 𝑀𝑣 = (−3.01 ± 0.07) log(𝑃0/𝑑) − (1.40 ± 0.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Fourier amplitude spectra of the TESS light curves with the frequency pre-whitening process shown. MNRAS 000, 1–13 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: O-C diagram for EH Lib calculated using the ephemeris from Equation (8), with the parabolic polynomial fit represented by a dashed curve. Different markers indicate data obtained from various detector types: red stars for photoelectric, orange pentagons for photographi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolutionary tracks from the zero-age main sequence to the end of post main sequence stages, computed with an age step size of 105 yr for masses ranging from 1.50 𝑀⊙ to 2.50 𝑀⊙, with a mass step size of 0.01 𝑀⊙. The black regions on the tracks present the models for wh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolutionary tracks from the zero-age main sequence to the end of post main sequence stages in the mass range of 1.64-1.79 𝑀⊙. The black crosses mark the fitted models of EH Lib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Internal distributions of energy generation rates plotted against fractional stellar radius for the 1.715 𝑀⊙ model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Internal distributions of hydrogen, helium, and metals plotted against fractional stellar radius for the 1.715 𝑀⊙ model. effects are neglected. The fact that 𝑓1 corresponds to a mixed mode with the acoustic-wave winding number 𝑛p = 3, indicates that EH Lib is an evolve…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: HR diagram for Delta Scuti stars. The best-fit models of six HADS stars studied through asteroseismology are shown with distinct stroke colours and symbols, along with their corresponding evolutionary tracks. Fill colours indicate the period change rates, with redder …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerts C., 2021, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RvMP...93a5001A 93, 015001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015001 2021

  2. [2]

    W., 2010, Asteroseismology

    Aerts C., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kurtz D. W., 2010, Asteroseismology . Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5

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

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    Ashbrook J., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/106781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952AJ.....57Q..64A 57, 64

    work page doi:10.1086/106781 1952

  5. [5]

    A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.1.119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..119B 268, 119

    Balona L. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.1.119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..119B 268, 119

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/268.1.119 1994

  6. [6]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19939.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3028B 419, 3028

    Balona L. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19939.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3028B 419, 3028

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    R., Murphy S

    Barac N., Bedding T. R., Murphy S. J., Hey D. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.2080B 516, 2080

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2132 2022

  8. [8]

    S., Koen C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.32023/0001-5237/71.2.3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AcA....71..113B 71, 113

    Baran A. S., Koen C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.32023/0001-5237/71.2.3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AcA....71..113B 71, 113

    doi:10.32023/0001-5237/71.2.3 2021

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Barentsen G., et al., 2021, lightkurve/lightkurve: Lightkurve v2.0.9 , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1181928

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2226-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.581..147B 581, 147

    Bedding T. R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2226-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.581..147B 581, 147

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Breger M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/130433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979PASP...91....5B 91, 5

    1979 doi

  4. [12]

    Breger M., 1990, Delta Scuti Star Newsletter, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990DSSN....2...13B 2, 13

    1990

  5. [13]

    210, Delta Scuti and Related Stars

    Breger M., 2000, in Breger M., Montgomery M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 210, Delta Scuti and Related Stars. p. 3

    2000

  6. [14]

    N., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...200..343B 200, 343

    Breger M., Bregman J. N., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...200..343B 200, 343

    1975 doi

  7. [15]

    A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...332..958B 332, 958

    Breger M., Pamyatnykh A. A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802076 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...332..958B 332, 958

    1998 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bressan A., Marigo P., Girardi L., Salasnich B., Dal Cero C., Rubele S., Nanni A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..127B 427, 127

    2012

  9. [17]

    Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    D., 1950, @doi [ ] 10.1086/126267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950PASP...62..166C 62, 166

    Code A. D., 1950, @doi [ ] 10.1086/126267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1950PASP...62..166C 62, 166

    1950 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Kielkopf J

    Collins K. A., Kielkopf J. F., Stassun K. G., Hessman F. V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...77C 153, 77

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Szewczuk W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3551D 512, 3551

    Daszy \'n ska-Daszkiewicz J., Walczak P., Pamyatnykh A. A., Szewczuk W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3551D 512, 3551

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    De Silva G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Grigahc \`e ne A., Garrido R., Gabriel M., Scuflaire R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...435..927D 435, 927

    Dupret M. A., Grigahc \`e ne A., Garrido R., Gabriel M., Scuflaire R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...435..927D 435, 927

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    S., 1957, @doi [ ] 10.1086/107478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62..108F 62, 108

    Fitch W. S., 1957, @doi [ ] 10.1086/107478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62..108F 62, 108

    1957 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Wisniewski W

    Fitch W. S., Wisniewski W. Z., Johnson H. L., 1966, Communications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966CoLPL...5....3F 5, 3

    1966

  17. [25]

    N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1958F 135, 1958

    Fu J. N., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135.1958F 135, 1958

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/597829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121..251F 121, 251

    Fu J. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/597829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121..251F 121, 251

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1585F 429, 1585

    Fu J. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.1585F 429, 1585

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Quintana J

    Garrido R., Alfaro E. J., Quintana J. M., Saez M., 1979, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979A&AS...36...51G 36, 51

    1979

  22. [30]

    Goldstein J., Townsend R. H. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899..116G 899, 116

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Dupret M

    Goupil M. J., Dupret M. A., Samadi R., Boehm T., Alecian E., Suarez J. C., Lebreton Y., Catala C., 2005, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02702333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JApA...26..249G 26, 249

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    A., 1985, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985IBVS.2810....1H 2810, 1

    Hamdy M. A., 1985, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985IBVS.2810....1H 2810, 1

    1985

  26. [34]

    A., Bradley P

    Handler G., 2009, in Guzik J. A., Bradley P. A., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1170, Stellar Pulsation: Challenges for Theory and Observation. AIP, pp 403--409 ( @eprint arXiv 2110.09806 ), @doi 10.1063/1.3246528

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J., 1978, IEEE Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978IEEEP..66...51H 66, 51

    Harris F. J., 1978, IEEE Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978IEEEP..66...51H 66, 51

    1978

  28. [36]

    L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2078H 439, 2078

    Holdsworth D. L., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.2078H 439, 2078

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Jayasinghe T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4186J 493, 4186

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Y., Yang Z

    Jiang S. Y., Yang Z. Z., 1981, Acta Astronomica Sinica, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981AcASn..22..279J 22, 279

    1981

  32. [40]

    D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..651J 98, 651

    Joner M. D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..651J 98, 651

    1986 doi

  33. [41]

    Jordi C., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A..48J 523, A48

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Lampens P., Molenda- \.Z akowicz J., Ukita N., Kambe E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4408K 470, 4408

    Kahraman Ali c avu s F., Niemczura E., Poli \'n ska M., He miniak K. G., Lampens P., Molenda- \.Z akowicz J., Ukita N., Kambe E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4408K 470, 4408

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    G., Medvedev Y

    Karetnikov V. G., Medvedev Y. A., 1977, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977IBVS.1310....1K 1310, 1

    1977

  36. [44]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Mignard F., Th \'e venin F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..72K 623, A72

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution . Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ARA&A..60...31K 60, 31

    Kurtz D. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-094232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ARA&A..60...31K 60, 31

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Shin J., Lee J., Jin H., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/60.3.551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASJ...60..551L 60, 551

    Lee Y.-H., Kim S. S., Shin J., Lee J., Jin H., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/60.3.551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASJ...60..551L 60, 551

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    Lenz P., Breger M., 2005, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.1553/cia146s53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005CoAst.146...53L 146, 53

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Li G., Fu J., Su J., Fox-Machado L., Michel R., Guo Z., Liu J., Feng G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..398L 473, 398

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  43. [51]

    A., Szeidl B., 1980, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980CoKon..74....1M 74, 1

    Mahdy H. A., Szeidl B., 1980, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980CoKon..74....1M 74, 1

    1980

  44. [52]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1510.06262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv151006262M p

    Mamajek E. E., et al., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1510.06262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv151006262M p. arXiv:1510.06262

    2015 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    H., 2000, in Breger M., Montgomery M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    McNamara D. H., 2000, in Breger M., Montgomery M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 210, Delta Scuti and Related Stars. p. 373

    2000

  46. [54]

    J., Hey D., Van Reeth T., Bedding T

    Murphy S. J., Hey D., Van Reeth T., Bedding T. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2380M 485, 2380

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Netzel H., Pietrukowicz P., Soszy \'n ski I., Wrona M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.1748N 510, 1748

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Niu J.-S., Xue H.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938L..20N 938, L20

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Niu J.-S., Xue H.-F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682L...8N 682, L8

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Niu J.-S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.3122N 467, 3122

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    T., Walraven T., 1966, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966BAN....18..387O 18, 387

    Oosterhoff P. T., Walraven T., 1966, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966BAN....18..387O 18, 387

    1966

  52. [60]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  54. [62]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    H., Villarreal C., Pina D

    Pena J. H., Villarreal C., Pina D. S., Renteria A., Soni A., Guillen J., Calderon J., 2017, @doi [Information Bulletin on Variable Stars] 10.22444/IBVS.6231 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017IBVS.6231....1P 6231, 1

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    O., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..463P 312, 463

    Petersen J. O., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..463P 312, 463

    1996

  59. [67]

    Poro A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac12dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133h4201P 133, 084201

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M. J., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 9143...

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    Rodr \' guez E., Breger M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...366..178R 366, 178

    2001 doi

  63. [71]

    B., Pande M

    Sanwal N. B., Pande M. C., 1961, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961Obs....81..199S 81, 199

    1961

  64. [72]

    Solano E., Fernley J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1997329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&AS..122..131S 122, 131

    1997 doi

  65. [73]

    335, The Light-Time Effect in Astrophysics: Causes and cures of the O-C diagram

    Sterken C., 2005, in Sterken C., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 335, The Light-Time Effect in Astrophysics: Causes and cures of the O-C diagram. p. 3

    2005

  66. [74]

    Templeton M., Basu S., Demarque P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...576..963T 576, 963

    2002 doi

  67. [75]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733, @doi 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  68. [76]

    J., Brissenden R

    Tody D., 1993, in Hanisch R. J., Brissenden R. J. V., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II. p. 173

    1993

  69. [77]

    Townsend R. H. D., Teitler S. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.3406T 435, 3406

    2013 doi

  70. [78]

    Townsend R. H. D., Goldstein J., Zweibel E. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..879T 475, 879

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Uytterhoeven K., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A.125U 534, A125

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    Wang J., Fu J.-N., Zong W., Wang J., Zhang B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.6117W 506, 6117

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    Wenger M., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&AS..143....9W 143, 9

    2000 doi

  74. [82]

    S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..822X 448, 822

    Xiang M. S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..822X 448, 822

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    Xue H.-F., Niu J.-S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904....5X 904, 5

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    Xue H.-F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...96X 861, 96

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    Yang D., Tang Q., Jiang S., 1992, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992IBVS.3769....1Y 3769, 1

    1992

  78. [86]

    H., Fu J

    Yang X. H., Fu J. N., Zha Q., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144...92Y 144, 92

    2012 doi

  79. [87]

    Yang T.-Z., Esamdin A., Fu J.-N., Niu H.-B., Feng G.-J., Song F.-F., Liu J.-Z., Ma L., 2018, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/18/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RAA....18....2Y 18, 002

    2018 doi

  80. [88]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    2012 doi

  81. [89]

    R., Murphy S

    Ziaali E., Bedding T. R., Murphy S. J., Van Reeth T., Hey D. R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.4348Z 486, 4348

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    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 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.