Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Optical spectroscopic signatures of the red giant evolutionary state

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Matched spectra reveal sub-percent fingerprints of red giant evolution

desk verdict A careful empirical detection undermined by the paper's own synthesis and a mass-ordering contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02889 v1 pith:XBDWGJEA submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Ella Xi Wang , Melissa Ness , Thomas Nordlander , Andrew R. Casey , Sarah Martell , Marc Pinsonneault , Xiaoting Fu , Dennis Stello
show 12 more authors
Claudia Reyes Marc Hon Madeleine McKenzie Mingjie Jian Jie Yu Sven Buder Karin Lind Joss Bland-Hawthorn Daniel B. Zucker Pradosh Barun Das Richard de Grijs Michael Hayden
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords redclumpstarsgiantbranchevolutionarystatematched-pairdifferentialspectroscopymolecularbandsmicroturbulenceasteroseismologyGALAHsurvey
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 tries to establish that the evolutionary state of a red giant — whether it is a helium-core-fusing red clump (RC) star or a shell-hydrogen-fusing red giant branch (RGB) star — leaves a measurable imprint in optical spectra, even when the stars look nearly identical in temperature, gravity, and metallicity. By constructing 786 matched pairs of RC and RGB stars from the GALAH survey with asteroseismic classifications, the authors find sub-percent systematic differences that are significant against control pairs and flux uncertainties. The signal sits in two places: carbon molecular bands (C2 and CN), which are stronger in RGB stars and attributed to differences in mass and evolutionary mixing, and the wings of H-alpha and H-beta, which are broader in RC stars and attributed to higher microturbulence. Showing that these subtle features can be detected with model-free differential analysis makes the case that large spectroscopic surveys can study stellar evolution without relying on incomplete theoretical models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is matched-pair differential spectroscopy. Each RC star is paired with a randomly chosen RGB star whose effective temperature, surface gravity, iron abundance, magnesium abundance, and signal-to-noise agree within set tolerances, and the median difference spectrum of the 786 pairs is compared with control pairs of RC-RC and RGB-RGB stars constructed with the same criteria. The key identity is that a matched RC-RGB pair is forced to differ in mass, because the same $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$ imply the same radius while the RC star has gone through helium ignition. Additional matched sets restricted in mass, $v_{\rm mic}$, or $v\sin i$ isolate which physical parameter carries the spectroscopic signal.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis with tighter matching (e.g., $\delta T_{\rm eff} < 10$ K, $\delta \log g < 0.02$ dex, $\delta [{\rm Fe/H}] < 0.01$ dex) and finding that the C2/CN and H-$\alpha$ differences vanish would falsify the claim; alternatively, applying the same matched-pair approach to a different spectroscopic survey with independent asteroseismic classifications and seeing no residual in the same bands would serve as a decisive check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that RC and RGB stars with nearly identical spectroscopic parameters nonetheless show a nonzero median difference spectrum that is small but significant. The Swan C2 band and the CN bands appear stronger in RGB stars than in RC stars, while H-$\alpha$ and H-$\beta$ lines appear broader in RC stars. The authors interpret the molecular-band difference as a consequence of stellar evolution (first dredge-up and deep mixing) combined with a systematic mass difference, with matched RGB stars being more massive on average ($1.39\,M_\odot$) than matched RC stars ($1.14\,M_\odot$). The line-width difference is linked to microturbulence: GALAH measures higher $v_{\rm mic}$ in RC stars, and a matched set constrained to agree in $v_{\rm mic}$ removes the line-width signal, whereas constraints on $v\sin i$ and radius do not.

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of the spectral differences to evolutionary state assumes that the small residual differences in Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and [Mg/Fe] between matched pairs — which are nonzero in Table 1 — do not themselves produce the observed median difference spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spectroscopic surveys can classify red giant evolutionary state without asteroseismology by targeting C2/CN strengths and H-alpha/H-beta widths.
  • Machine-learning classifiers trained on spectra carry evolutionary-state information at essentially every wavelength, consistent with the line-width signal.
  • Future survey designs can choose wavelength regions with strong molecular band heads and Balmer lines to optimise evolutionary-state information.
  • Constraining mass differences between RC and RGB samples from matched-pair spectroscopy is possible from optical spectra alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The finding that RC stars have higher microturbulence than RGB stars at fixed stellar parameters challenges 1D model atmospheres and could motivate 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the velocity fields in these two populations.
  • The same differential technique could be extended to infrared spectra (e.g., APOGEE), where carbon-related molecular lines are more numerous and the sub-percent residuals could be larger.
  • Because matched RGB stars are more massive than RC stars, the C2/CN residual could be used to infer mass differences in samples lacking asteroseismology, with broader applications in Galactic archaeology.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a matched-pair differential analysis of optical spectra from the GALAH survey for 786 red clump (RC) and red giant branch (RGB) stars with asteroseismic classifications from TESS and K2. The authors construct RC−RGB, RGB−RGB, and RC−RC matched pairs with similar Teff, log g, [Fe/H], [Mg/Fe], and S/N, compute median difference spectra, and report sub-percent residuals in the Swan C2 and CN bands and in the H-alpha and H-beta line wings. They interpret the former as evidence of mass-dependent deep mixing and the latter as a difference in microturbulence measured by GALAH. The empirical detection is supported by control pairs, uncertainty estimates, and several robustness tests in the appendices.

Significance. The data-driven matched-pair approach is a valuable complement to spectral synthesis: it exploits the large GALAH sample and avoids the limitations of incomplete model atmospheres at the sub-percent level. The careful construction of control sets, the duplicate removal test, the parameter-restriction tests, and the misclassification injection test are commendable and strengthen the reality of the empirical residuals. However, the paper's physical interpretation is undermined by internal contradictions and a sign error in the reading of the difference spectra. If the empirical residuals are real, they may still serve as useful constraints for future modeling, but the causal claims made in the abstract and conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (2), Fig. 4] The sign of the median difference spectrum is misread. Equation (2) defines delta_f_i = f_RC,i - f_RGB,i, so a negative median difference spectrum in the C2 and CN bands means f_RC < f_RGB at those wavelengths, i.e., the RC stars have stronger (deeper) molecular absorption. The text instead states 'the median difference spectrum is negative, implying that the C2 and CN features are stronger in RGB stars than RC stars.' This is exactly backwards. The abstract and Section 6 repeat the incorrect reading ('stronger C2 and CN features in RGB stars'), so the paper's headline empirical result is described with the wrong sign.
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 7] The MOOG synthesis is inconsistent with the observed sign. The paper states 'In both the Swan and CN bands, the synthetic difference spectrum is positive, despite the observed negative median difference spectrum.' Once the sign of the observed residual is correctly read (see above), the data show RC stars with stronger C2/CN absorption, while the synthetic spectrum computed with Lagarde et al. (2012) abundances predicts RGB stars with stronger C2/CN. The claimed causal attribution—that the residual is due to mass-dependent deep mixing—is therefore contradicted by the paper's own model. The caveat that synthetic spectra are not accurate to sub-percent level also undercuts the attribution: if the models cannot be trusted at that precision, they cannot establish the physical cause.
  3. [§3, §5.1, Abstract] The mass argument in §3 is directly contradicted by the measurements and the abstract. §3 states that at equal Teff and log(g), 'the RGB star must be less massive than the RC star.' §5.1 reports mean masses of 1.39 Msun for RGB and 1.14 Msun for RC matched stars, and the abstract says 'RGB stars at similar stellar parameters have higher masses than RC stars.' Both cannot be true. The contradiction is load-bearing because the sense of the mass difference determines the expected dredge-up signature and hence the expected sign of the C2/CN residual. The paper does not acknowledge or resolve this inconsistency.
  4. [§5.2, Fig. 5] The inference that the line-width differences are caused by microturbulence is circular. The v_mic-constrained matched set (delta_v_mic < 0.07 km/s) shows a median difference spectrum closer to zero, but GALAH's v_mic is itself measured from the same spectral lines whose widths define the residual. Matching on v_mic therefore removes the signal by construction and does not demonstrate that microturbulence is the physical driver. The added remark that 'vsin(i) conserves the line strength whilst v_mic does not' is asserted without a derivation, and the proposed temperature mechanism (Fig. 8) is speculative. The line-width residual is empirically interesting, but the causal claim is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1] The sentence 'This non-zero mean difference further implies that the distribution in stellar parameter difference is non-uniform' is logically imprecise; a non-zero mean does not imply a non-uniform distribution, and the actual evidence for non-uniformity is in Fig. 3.
  2. [Throughout] The notation for microturbulence alternates between 'v_mic' and 'v mic' (e.g., Eq. 5 and Section 5.2), which is distracting; please standardize to one form.
  3. [§4.3] The phrase 'formation depth is higher' is ambiguous; the intended meaning is 'deeper' (larger log tau_5000), and the text should use that terminology.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption should specify how the MOOG synthetic spectra were continuum-normalized for comparison with GALAH spectra, since the stated up-to-20% differences in the top panel depend on that choice.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The paper repeatedly calls the analysis 'model-free' despite using MOOG synthesis and stellar evolution models in Section 5; the term should be reserved for the detection stage (Section 4) or qualified accordingly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the H-alpha/H-beta line-width signal is attributed to GALAH's v_mic, a parameter fitted from the same spectra, so the v_mic-matched control partially removes the signal by construction; the central C2/CN difference-spectrum result remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 5.2, Fig. 5]
    "GALAH measures vmic and vsin(i), where vsin(i) represents the line broadening from both vmac and stellar rotation. ... We find that the vmic constrained matched set has a median difference spectrum closer to zero whilst the vsin(i) constrained matched set does not ... implying that the difference in line-width we observe is due to vmic and not vsin(i)."

    The line-width residual is presented as caused by microturbulence, but v_mic is not an independent observable: it is a spectral-synthesis parameter that GALAH derives by fitting line broadening in the same spectra that contain the residual. Matching RC and RGB pairs on v_mic therefore removes much of the line-width information being explained, so the subsequent statement that the broader H-alpha/H-beta lines in RC stars are 'caused by a difference in microturbulence, as measured by GALAH' partly restates the matching constraint rather than confirming an external physical cause. This is a mild, interpretation-level circularity; the core difference-spectrum measurement itself is not fitted to the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct, model-free differential measurement: 786 RC-RGB matched pairs produce a median difference spectrum, with RGB-RGB and RC-RC controls showing smaller signals. That empirical result is not circular and is self-contained against external asteroseismic classifications. The C2/CN interpretation uses external Lagarde et al. (2012) CNO abundances and MOOG synthesis; although the synthetic sign is opposite to the observed sign and the Section 3 mass-ordering argument conflicts with the measured mean masses, these are internal-consistency/correctness problems, not circular reductions. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The only identifiable circularity is mild: the H-alpha/H-beta line-width signal is attributed to GALAH v_mic, a parameter fitted from the same spectral line widths, so matching on v_mic suppresses the signal by construction rather than providing fully independent causal evidence. Because the central difference spectrum and control comparison do not reduce to the conclusions, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the reliability of asteroseismic labels, GALAH parameter measurements, and the assumption that matched-pair residual differences are negligible. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are hand-chosen sample-selection thresholds rather than fitted model parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • matched pair tolerances (δTeff, δlog g, δ[Fe/H], δ[Mg/Fe], S/N ratio) = 50 K, 0.15 dex, 0.05 dex, 0.05 dex, <0.2
    Chosen by hand to define the pairs; the amplitude of the median difference spectrum may depend on these thresholds. The authors test restricted sets but not the full space.
  • log g discrepancy cut = 0.2 dex
    Stars with |GALAH log g - astero log g| > 0.2 dex are removed to avoid misidentified secondary RC stars; this choice affects the sample.
  • CNN classification rejection interval = 0.3 to 0.7
    Stars with ambiguous evolutionary-state classifications are removed; the choice of cut affects sample purity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Asteroseismic evolutionary state classifications from TESS/K2 are accurate enough to define RC and RGB labels.
    Section 2.2: classifications come from a CNN on folded spectra; the paper removes ambiguous cases but still assumes the remaining labels are correct. Misclassification injection at 10% suggests this matters.
  • domain assumption GALAH-measured stellar parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], [Mg/Fe], v_mic, v sin i) are accurate enough for matching and for the physical interpretation.
    Section 2.1 and 3 use these as ground truth for matching; the interpretation of the line-width signal as a v_mic difference relies on GALAH's v_mic measurements.
  • domain assumption The matched-pair technique isolates evolutionary-state differences because residual parameter differences between the pairs are small and similar across control sets.
    Section 3.2 claims the residual differences cannot fully account for the signal; this is the core identifying assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic spectra computed with MOOG, ATLAS9, and Lagarde et al. (2012) abundances are reliable enough to interpret the sign of the observed differences.
    Section 5.1 uses these models to predict the C2/CN difference, but the predicted sign is opposite to the observed one. The paper assumes the models, not the data, are wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical spectroscopic signatures of the red giant evolutionary state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBDWGJEA

@misc{pith2026250602889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical spectroscopic signatures of the red giant evolutionary state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBDWGJEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02889}
}
abstract

Modern spectroscopic surveys output large data volumes. Theoretical models provide a means to transform the information encoded in these data to measurements of physical stellar properties. However, in detail the models are incomplete and simplified, and prohibit interpretation of the fine details in spectra. Instead, the available data provide an opportunity to use data-driven, differential analysis techniques, as a means towards understanding spectral signatures. We deploy such an analysis to examine core helium-fusing red clump (RC) and shell hydrogen-fusing red giant branch (RGB) stars, to uncover signatures of evolutionary state imprinted in optical stellar spectra. We exploit 786 pairs of RC and RGB stars from the GALAH survey, chosen to minimise spectral differences, with evolutionary state classifications from TESS and K2 asteroseismology. We report sub-percent residual, systematic spectral differences between the two classes of stars, and show that these residuals are significant compared to a reference sample of RC$-$RC and RGB$-$RGB pairs selected using the same criteria. First, we report systematic differences in the Swan ($\rm{C}_2$) band and CN bands caused by stellar evolution and a difference in mass, where RGB stars at similar stellar parameters have higher masses than RC stars. Secondly, we observe systematic differences in the line-width of the H$_{\alpha}$ and H$_{\beta}$ lines caused by a difference in microturbulence, as measured by GALAH, where we measure higher microturbulence in RC stars than RGB stars. This work demonstrates the ability of large surveys to uncover the subtle spectroscopic signatures of stellar evolution using model-free, data-driven methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left panel shows GALAH log(𝑔) with a representative errorbar compared to asteroseismic log(𝑔). RGB stars are shown in blue whilst RC stars are shown in red. The solid black line indicates a one-to-one relationship between the two different log(𝑔). The dashed black lines are offset by 0.2 dex from the one-to-one relationship line, and stars with log(𝑔) difference larger than 0.2 are removed from the crossmatched … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The top panel is the median spectrum for RGB stars with labelled atomic spectral features, to show the spectral features in this wavelength region. The middle panel shows the median difference spectra: RC−RGB stars (solid black), RGB−RGB stars (dashed blue), and RC−RC stars (dashed red). The standard error on the difference spectra (Eq. 5) is shown for all 3 difference spectra in the corresponding colours. In order … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The correlation between RC stellar parameters and the stellar parameter difference, shown in the left panel of each subfigure; and the distribution of stellar parameter difference modelled using a kernel density estimator, shown in the right panel of each subfigure. Each subfigure shows a different stellar parameter: Teff and log(𝑔) in the top row, [Fe/H] and [Mg/Fe] in the bottom row. All three matched sets are sho… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The median difference spectrum is correlated with the Swan bands (left) and the CN bands (right). For each subfigure, the top panel shows the median RGB spectrum with labelled atomic spectral features, as a reference for the spectral features of this wavelength region.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The line-width of the H𝛼 (right) and H𝛽 (left) line is different between RC and RGB stars of similar stellar parameters. Labels follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The top panel shows the median RGB spectrum with labelled atomic spectral features coloured by formation depth. Where normalised flux is closer to 1, the formation depth is geometrically higher, and vice versa. The bottom panel shows the median difference spectrum colo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top panel shows the normalised flux for GALAH observed median RGB spectrum (black) with labelled atomic spectral features, MOOG synthetic spectrum calculated with RGB abundances and isotopic ratio (blue), and RC abundances and isotopic ratio (red) based on stellar …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temperature difference at different Rosseland optical depth for spherically symmetric stellar atmosphere models with 𝑀 = 1𝑀⊙ compared to 𝑀 = 2𝑀⊙. Model atmospheres from the MARCS grid (Gustafsson et al. 2008), located at Teff = 5000 K, log(𝑔) = 2, [Fe/H] = 0, 𝑣mic = 1 …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    M., 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#230

    Adamow M. M., 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#230. p. 216.07

    2017

  3. [3]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523L..80B 523, L80

    Banks K. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523L..80B 523, L80

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad062 2023

  4. [4]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.3912B 529, 3912

    Banks K. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.3912B 529, 3912

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae652 2024

  5. [5]

    Baratella M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A..34B 634, A34

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937055 2020

  6. [6]

    Barban C., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468.1033B 468, 1033

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066716 2007

  7. [7]

    C., et al., 2010, in McLean I

    Barden S. C., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773509, @doi 10.1117/12.856103

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856103 2010

  8. [8]

    G., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1201939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...332..205B 332, 205

    Beck P. G., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1201939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...332..205B 332, 205

    doi:10.1126/science.1201939 2011

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.471..608B 471, 608

    Bedding T. R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09935 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.471..608B 471, 608

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Bergemann M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201528010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.120B 594, A120

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Brzeski J., Case S., Gers L., 2011, in Hatheway A. E., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8125, Optomechanics 2011: Innovations and Solutions. p. 812504, @doi 10.1117/12.896389

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2409.19858

    Buder S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919858B p. arXiv:2409.19858

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880..125C 880, 125

    Casey A. R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880..125C 880, 125

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..353C 51, 353

    Chaplin W. J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..353C 51, 353

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Charbonnel C., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...282..811C 282, 811

    1994

  8. [16]

    G., Bash F

    Charbonnel C., 2005, in Barnes III T. G., Bash F. N., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 336, Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. p. 119

    2005

  9. [17]

    Charbonnel C., Lagarde N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...522A..10C 522, A10

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467L..15C 467, L15

    Charbonnel C., Zahn J. P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467L..15C 467, L15

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Wallerstein G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...332..204C 332, 204

    Charbonnel C., Brown J. A., Wallerstein G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...332..204C 332, 204

    1998 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    De Ridder J., Barban C., Carrier F., Mazumdar A., Eggenberger P., Aerts C., Deruyter S., Vanautgaerden J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448..689D 448, 689

    2006 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]

    R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3344E 466, 3344

    Elsworth Y., Hekker S., Basu S., Davies G. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3344E 466, 3344

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Birchall M

    Farrell T. J., Birchall M. N., Heald R. W., Shortridge K., Vuong M. V., Sheinis A. I., 2014, in Chiozzi G., Radziwill N. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9152, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy III. p. 91522...

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Frandsen S., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...394L...5F 394, L5

    2002 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Caffau E., Bonifacio P., Ludwig H

    Gallagher A. J., Caffau E., Bonifacio P., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., Homeier D., Plez B., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598L..10G 598, L10

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    K., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...347..835G 347, 835

    Gilroy K. K., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...347..835G 347, 835

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    Girardi L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02746.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.308..818G 308, 818

    1999

  20. [28]

    G., Sneden C., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..169G 354, 169

    Gratton R. G., Sneden C., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...354..169G 354, 169

    2000

  21. [29]

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

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

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Haddouchi M., Berrado A., 2019, in 2019 1st International Conference on Smart Systems and Data Science (ICSSD). pp 1--6

    2019

  23. [31]

    M., Eid M

    Halabi G. M., Eid M. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2957H 451, 2957

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    W., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1655 , 471, 722

    Hawkins K., Leistedt B., Bovy J., Hogg D. W., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1655 , 471, 722

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Hawkins K., Ting Y.-S., Walter-Rix H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa08a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...853...20H 853, 20

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Ramsay S

    Heijmans J., et al., 2012, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 84460W, @doi 10.1117/12.925806

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    Hon M., Stello D., Yu J., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1174 , 469, 4578

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Hon M., Stello D., Yu J., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3233H 476, 3233

    doi

  29. [37]

    C., 2018b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfdb , 859, 64

    Hon M., Stello D., Zinn J. C., 2018b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfdb , 859, 64

    doi

  30. [38]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Stello D., De Silva G

    Howell M., Campbell S. W., Stello D., De Silva G. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7974H 527, 7974

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P. O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.48550/arXiv.0910.2764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

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

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    I., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140.1631I 140, 1631

    Iben Jr. I., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1086/148077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ApJ...140.1631I 140, 1631

    1964 doi

  35. [43]

    I., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.05.090167.003035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ARA&A...5..571I 5, 571

    Iben Jr. I., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.05.090167.003035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ARA&A...5..571I 5, 571

    1967

  36. [44]

    Lagarde N., Decressin T., Charbonnel C., Eggenberger P., Ekstr \"o m S., Palacios A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.108L 543, A108

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Lagarde N., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A..24L 621, A24

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    L., 1981, in Iben Jr

    Lambert D. L., 1981, in Iben Jr. I., Renzini A., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 88, Physical Processes in Red Giants. pp 115--134, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-8492-9_10

    1981 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Ries L

    Lambert D. L., Ries L. M., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...217..508L 217, 508

    1977 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Ries L

    Lambert D. L., Ries L. M., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...248..228L 248, 228

    1981 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Wickliffe M

    Lawler J. E., Wickliffe M. E., den Hartog E. A., Sneden C., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/323407 , 563, 1075

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..279L 333, 279

    Lewis I. J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05333.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.333..279L 333, 279

    2002

  43. [51]

    L., Ness M

    Lu Y. L., Ness M. K., Buck T., Zinn J. C., Johnston K. V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.2890L 512, 2890

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Smith G

    Martell S. L., Smith G. H., Briley M. M., 2008a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/525060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASP..120....7M 120, 7

    doi

  45. [53]

    L., Smith G

    Martell S. L., Smith G. H., Briley M. M., 2008b, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2522 , 136, 2522

    doi

  46. [54]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5340M 505, 5340

    Martell S. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5340M 505, 5340

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Martig M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3655M 456, 3655

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Masseron T., Gilmore G., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1731 , 453, 1855

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    Masseron T., Hawkins K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...597L...3M 597, L3

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    Masseron T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...571A..47M 571, A47

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Montalbán J., Miglio A., Noels A., Scuflaire R., Ventura P., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L182 , 721, L182

    2010 doi

  52. [60]

    Mosser B., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...532A..86M 532, A86

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    Mosser B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A.143M 540, A143

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    W., Rix H

    Ness M., Hogg D. W., Rix H. W., Martig M., Pinsonneault M. H., Ho A. Y. Q., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..114N 823, 114

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    U., Kock M., 1982, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/0022-3700/15/4/006 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1982JPhB...15..527O 15, 527

    Obbarius H. U., Kock M., 1982, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/0022-3700/15/4/006 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1982JPhB...15..527O 15, 527

    1982 doi

  56. [64]

    Pedregosa F., et al., 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  57. [65]

    C., Thorne A

    Pickering J. C., Thorne A. P., Perez R., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.] 10.1086/318958 , 132, 403

    2001 doi

  58. [66]

    H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215...19P 215, 19

    Pinsonneault M. H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215...19P 215, 19

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..276...69P 276, 69

    Pinsonneault M. H., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..276...69P 276, 69

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Sneden C., Roederer I

    Placco V. M., Sneden C., Roederer I. U., Lawler J. E., Den Hartog E. A., Hejazi N., Maas Z., Bernath P., 2021, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abf651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5...92P 5, 92

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Prša A., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41 , 152, 41

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    S., Brooke J

    Ram R. S., Brooke J. S. A., Bernath P. F., Sneden C., Lucatello S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211....5R 211, 5

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    Recio-Blanco A., de Laverny P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066552 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...461L..13R 461, L13

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.5578R 511, 5578

    Reyes C., Stello D., Hon M., Zinn J. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.5578R 511, 5578

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530..149R 530, 149

    Roberts J. D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530..149R 530, 149

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    L., Stempels H

    Ryabchikova T., Piskunov N., Kurucz R. L., Stempels H. C., Heiter U., Pakhomov Y., Barklem P. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhyS...90e4005R 90, 054005

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    Sayeed M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964...42S 964, 42

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

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

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    Sheinis A., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.3.035002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1c5002S 1, 035002

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Shetrone M., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaff66 , 872, 137

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    E., Kumar Y

    Singh R., Reddy B. E., Kumar Y. B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.3822S 482, 3822

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    V., Lambert D

    Smith V. V., Lambert D. L., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...294..326S 294, 326

    1985 doi

  74. [82]

    A., 1973, PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin

    Sneden C. A., 1973, PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin

    1973

  75. [83]

    S., Brooke J

    Sneden C., Lucatello S., Ram R. S., Brooke J. S. A., Bernath P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214...26S 214, 26

    2014 doi

  76. [84]

    Z., Zaritsky D., Harris J., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/311420 , 500, L141

    Stanek K. Z., Zaritsky D., Harris J., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/311420 , 500, L141

    1998 doi

  77. [85]

    Stello D., Sharma S., 2022, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ac8b12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022RNAAS...6..168S 6, 168

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    Stello D., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L41 , 765, L41

    2013 doi

  79. [87]

    V., Mengel J

    Sweigart A. V., Mengel J. G., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156996 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229..624S 229, 624

    1979 doi

  80. [88]

    K., Aguilera-G \'o mez C., Sayeed M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ace25d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...60T 166, 60

    Tayar J., Carlberg J. K., Aguilera-G \'o mez C., Sayeed M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ace25d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...60T 166, 60

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Ting Y.-S., Hawkins K., Rix H.-W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858L...7T 858, L7

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    Wehrhahn A., Piskunov N., Ryabchikova T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.171W 671, A171

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Abruzzo M

    Wheeler A. J., Abruzzo M. W., Casey A. R., Ness M. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...68W 165, 68

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    Yan H.-L., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-01217-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5...86Y 5, 86

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    R., Stello D., Hon M., Murphy S

    Yu J., Huber D., Bedding T. R., Stello D., Hon M., Murphy S. J., Khanna S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...42Y 236, 42

    2018 doi

  86. [94]

    Zhou Y., Wang C., Yan H., Huang Y., Zhang B., Ting Y.-S., Zhang H., Shi J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6b3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..136Z 931, 136

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    M., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Karlsmose K

    Zhou Y., Amarsi A. M., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Karlsmose K. G., Collet R., Nordlander T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..98Z 677, A98

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.