pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12148 · v1 · pith:WV47X3IEnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Near-core magnetic field strengths inferred from gravity modes in intermediate-mass stars

Oliver Durfeldt-Pedros , Victoria Antoci , Daniel Lecoanet , Zhao Guo , Jonathan Labadie-Bartz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords gamma Doradus starsmagnetic fieldsgravity modesasteroseismologynear-core fieldsdelta Scuti starsmixed modesmode suppression
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravity modes yield upper limits of 13-1771 kG on near-core radial magnetic fields in three intermediate-mass stars.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that high-order gravity modes and mixed modes can be entirely suppressed once a magnetic field exceeds a critical strength near the core. By constructing best-fit MESA models that reproduce the observed frequencies of two gamma Doradus stars and one evolved delta Scuti star, then feeding those models into Dedalus to compute the suppression threshold for each mode, the authors obtain concrete upper bounds on the radial field component. The resulting limits depend on the assumed field geometry and on the degree and order of the modes. These bounds sit in the same range as independent estimates for red-giant cores generated by dynamos, although the stronger values may require an additional fossil-field contribution. The toroidal component has little effect unless it exceeds the radial component by more than two orders of magnitude.

Core claim

The central claim is that the critical magnetic field strength at which high-order g-modes become fully suppressed can be calculated for observed frequencies in best-fit stellar models, thereby converting non-detection of certain modes into quantitative upper limits on the near-core radial field. For KIC 3127996 and KIC 5876187 the dipole-configuration limits are Br ~ 130 kG and Br ~ 13 kG; for 44 Tau the mixed-mode analysis gives Br ~ 1771 kG. Both poloidal and toroidal field components are included, and the toroidal field must be more than 200 times stronger than the radial component before it affects the modes.

What carries the argument

The critical magnetic field strength for complete g-mode suppression, obtained by solving the magnetohydrodynamic oscillation equations in Dedalus for dipole and other field configurations inside MESA models whose frequencies have been matched to observations with GYRE.

If this is right

  • The radial field component alone sets the suppression threshold for the observed g-modes.
  • Toroidal fields must exceed the radial component by a factor greater than 200 to influence g-mode visibility.
  • The derived limits for the two main-sequence gamma Doradus stars overlap with core-dynamo estimates previously obtained for red giants.
  • The stronger limit inferred for 44 Tau may indicate an additional contribution from a fossil field.
  • Mode degree and azimuthal order change the numerical value of the upper limit for any given field configuration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the same suppression calculation to a larger sample of gamma Doradus stars could test whether near-core field strength scales with mass or rotation rate.
  • If future observations reveal g-modes at frequencies the models predict should be suppressed, the discrepancy would point either to a weaker field or to a non-dipolar geometry.
  • The method supplies an independent check on whether magnetic fields generated in the core during the main sequence survive into the red-giant phase.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen magnetic field geometry and the best-fit MESA interior structure correctly locate the region where the observed modes are most sensitive to the field.

What would settle it

Detection of a high-order g-mode whose frequency lies above the computed critical field for the inferred Br value in any of the three stars would directly contradict the upper limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12148 by Daniel Lecoanet, Jonathan Labadie-Bartz, Oliver Durfeldt-Pedros, Victoria Antoci, Zhao Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The period spacing patterns are provided in the lower pan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper: Amplitude spectra for the γ Doradus stars KIC 3127996 (left) and KIC 5876187 (right). The frequencies extracted according to the method described in Section 3.1 are highlighted with dashed lines and color-coded according to the mode identification. Lower: Period spacing patterns for both stars. Full circles represent the period spacings that were used to compute the asymptotic period spacing. Fainte… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the three stages in our MESA models. 3.2.2. Resolution and convergence Our evolutionary tracks are configured in three stages because the time scales of evolution of the stellar interior are significantly different. We first evolve our stars through the pre-main sequence stage with a maximum time step of 10000 years, terminating the model right before the ignition of hydrogen fusion in the cor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example Brunt-Väisälä frequency from one of our models as a function of fractional radius, scaled with R 3 /(3GM) to be dimension￾less. The subplot focuses on the region near the spike of N that is de￾limited by the gray dashed lines. The inner and outer limits of the spike in the inset plot correspond to the blue dashed lines. The green line highlights the radius of the maximum of the spike, where we solv… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Critical magnetic field strengths, Bcrit, for KIC 3127996 as a function of oscillation frequency, assuming a purely dipolar magnetic field. Dipole modes m = −1, 0, 1 are shown in blue, while quadrupole modes m = −2, −1, 1 are shown in red. Both axes are in logarithmic scale, revealing a linear trend. The order of the g-modes increases from the top right corner to the bottom left corner. Bold crosses repres… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Critical magnetic field strengths, Bcrit, for 44 Tau as a function of oscillation frequency, assuming a purely dipolar magnetic field. The quadrupole mode (l, m) = (2, 0) is shown in red. The data points and dashed lines contain the same information as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Critical magnetic field strength as a function of frequency for KIC 5876187, for the three different field structures presented in Section 3.5; dipole (D), quadrupole (Q), and mixed (M). Results using (ℓ, m) = (1, 1) are shown in blue, (ℓ, m) = (2, 2) in red, and (ℓ, m) = (3, 3) in green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Critical magnetic field strength as a function of frequency for KIC 3127996, for the three different field structures presented in Sec￾tion 3.5. Results using (ℓ, m) = (1, −1) are shown in blue, whilst those using (ℓ, m) = (2, −1) are in red. The field structures are color-coded in different shades of the same color for each mode degree. 4.2. Magnetic field configurations We present in Figs. 7-9 the estima… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Critical magnetic field strength as a function of frequency for the ℓ = 2 modes in 44 Tau, for the three different poloidal field structures presented in Section 3.5. If we assume that the magnetic field can be of dipole nature and that it scales with distance such that Br ∝ r −3 , we can ex￾trapolate the strength of the field at the surface of the star. All relevant quantities can be found in [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial component Br of the near-core magnetic field for KIC 5876187, computed from Eq. 6 as a function of latitude θ and longitude ϕ. Upper row: from left to right, the panels show a dipole, quadrupole, and mixed field configuration. The symmetry of the field in the latter case is broken due to the constructive and destructive interference of the dipole and quadrupole components. The strength of the magne… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Phase-folded light curves of KIC 3127996 using Kepler data and using the supposed rotation frequency f = 0.0534 d−1 . We subdi￾vided the time series into four separate sections and plot them in sepa￾rate panels. The MBJD limits for each time series is shown for above the corresponding panel. The features are consistent with rotational modu￾lation. which is used for our calculations of Br . Our modeling ai… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we derive upper limits for the strength of the near-core magnetic field in intermediate-mass stars, since high-order g-modes can be fully suppressed by a critical magnetic field. Both poloidal and toroidal components of the magnetic field are included. We examine how the upper limits on magnetic field strengths are affected by the degree and azimuthal order of the oscillations, as well as the magnetic field configuration. We consider two gamma-Doradus stars hosting high-order g-modes and an evolved delta-Scuti star with mixed modes, all with prior mode identification from observations. We determine the best structural model from their stellar parameters through grid-based modeling with MESA. Frequencies for the best models are extracted using GYRE and matched to the observed modes. The critical magnetic fields for all calculated frequencies in our models are obtained from the Dedalus code, from which we can infer an upper limit on the near-core field strength. We find an upper limit on the near-core radial field strength of Br ~ 130 kG and Br ~ 13 kG, assuming a dipole field configuration, for the two gamma-Doradus stars KIC 3127996 and KIC 5876187, respectively. For 44 Tau, analysis of mixed modes yields a field strength of Br ~ 1771 kG. Different magnetic field configurations and mode degrees lead to different estimates. The results for the radial component of the magnetic field in the main sequence gamma-Doradus stars are consistent with estimates of magnetic field strengths in red giant stars that assume an internal field generated by a core dynamo, although the stronger of the two inferred magnetic fields may require some enhancement by a fossil field. The toroidal component does not affect g-modes significantly and is required to be more than 200 times stronger than the radial component to suppress g-modes. (abridged for arXiv)

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives upper limits on near-core radial magnetic field strengths (Br ~130 kG for KIC 3127996, Br ~13 kG for KIC 5876187, and Br ~1771 kG for 44 Tau) by identifying the critical field at which observed high-order g-modes or mixed modes are fully suppressed. It fits best structural models via grid-based MESA modeling to match observed frequencies with GYRE, then computes critical fields with Dedalus MHD simulations including both poloidal and toroidal components under dipole and other configurations.

Significance. If robust, the results supply direct observational upper bounds on internal magnetic fields in main-sequence intermediate-mass stars via g-mode suppression, extending prior red-giant estimates and testing core-dynamo versus fossil-field scenarios. The work employs standard public codes (MESA, GYRE, Dedalus) on observationally constrained models and explicitly varies field geometry and mode degree.

major comments (3)
  1. [Stellar modeling and frequency matching] Stellar modeling section: Upper limits are computed from the near-core N(r), density, and eigenfunctions of a single best-fit MESA model whose GYRE frequencies match the observations. No exploration is reported of other models consistent with the same frequencies (via changes in overshooting, mixing length, or metallicity) that would alter mode trapping and therefore the Dedalus critical Br values; this directly affects the quoted numerical limits.
  2. [Abstract and § on magnetic field calculations] Abstract and results section: The reported Br limits (130 kG, 13 kG, 1771 kG) are given for the dipole case only, with the statement that other configurations yield different estimates but without tabulated ranges or propagated uncertainties from the structural modeling choices; the central claim therefore rests on unquantified sensitivity to both model structure and field geometry.
  3. [Magnetic field calculations] Dedalus critical-field computation: The suppression criterion is applied to the specific eigenfunctions of the chosen best model; because the near-core buoyancy profile remains under-constrained even after frequency matching, the resulting Br thresholds are not shown to be stable under plausible structural variations that preserve the observed frequencies.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states results for the radial component but does not specify the exact definition of Br (e.g., at what radius or averaged) used for the quoted limits.
  2. [Results on field components] Notation for toroidal versus poloidal components should be clarified when stating that the toroidal field must be >200 times stronger to affect g-modes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which highlight important aspects of the robustness of our inferred magnetic field upper limits. We address each major comment below, agreeing that additional exploration of model sensitivities would improve the manuscript. We will incorporate revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Stellar modeling section: Upper limits are computed from the near-core N(r), density, and eigenfunctions of a single best-fit MESA model whose GYRE frequencies match the observations. No exploration is reported of other models consistent with the same frequencies (via changes in overshooting, mixing length, or metallicity) that would alter mode trapping and therefore the Dedalus critical Br values; this directly affects the quoted numerical limits.

    Authors: We agree that the choice of stellar model parameters can influence the mode trapping and thus the critical magnetic field values. Our grid-based modeling identifies the best-fit model, but to quantify the impact, we will add an analysis of a small set of alternative models that also match the observed frequencies within uncertainties, by varying overshooting and metallicity. This will provide a range for the Br limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and § on magnetic field calculations: The reported Br limits (130 kG, 13 kG, 1771 kG) are given for the dipole case only, with the statement that other configurations yield different estimates but without tabulated ranges or propagated uncertainties from the structural modeling choices; the central claim therefore rests on unquantified sensitivity to both model structure and field geometry.

    Authors: The manuscript does note that different configurations lead to different estimates, but we acknowledge the lack of tabulated values and uncertainties. In the revision, we will include a table with critical Br values for dipole, quadrupole, and other configurations, as well as for different mode degrees. We will also discuss the sensitivity to structural parameters and provide estimated uncertainties based on the model grid. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Dedalus critical-field computation: The suppression criterion is applied to the specific eigenfunctions of the chosen best model; because the near-core buoyancy profile remains under-constrained even after frequency matching, the resulting Br thresholds are not shown to be stable under plausible structural variations that preserve the observed frequencies.

    Authors: This point overlaps with the first comment. The frequency matching does constrain the overall structure, but the near-core buoyancy frequency has some freedom. We will revise the manuscript to include tests showing the stability of the Br thresholds under small variations in the near-core N(r) that keep the frequencies matched, using the Dedalus simulations on perturbed profiles where feasible. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: upper limits computed via independent MHD numerics on fitted models

full rationale

The paper's chain proceeds by (1) grid-based MESA modeling to select a best-fit structure from stellar parameters, (2) GYRE frequency matching to observations, and (3) Dedalus computation of critical Br at which g-modes or mixed modes are suppressed, using the model's N(r), density, and eigenfunctions. These steps produce numerical upper limits (130 kG, 13 kG, 1771 kG) that are outputs of the MHD solver rather than algebraic identities or direct renamings of the fitted frequencies or parameters. No self-citations, self-definitional equations, or fitted-input-as-prediction reductions appear in the described method. The structural uncertainty noted by the skeptic is a modeling limitation, not a circularity that collapses the result to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the critical magnetic field threshold from prior MHD theory, the accuracy of MESA stellar models in the near-core region, and the assumption that observed modes are not suppressed by other mechanisms.

free parameters (2)
  • Best-fit stellar model parameters (mass, age, composition) = various values fitted per star
    Determined via grid-based modeling to match observed frequencies and stellar parameters.
  • Magnetic field geometry parameters = dipole assumed for quoted limits
    Dipole and other configurations chosen and tested; choice directly affects critical field values.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption High-order g-modes are fully suppressed above a critical magnetic field strength computed from MHD equations
    Invoked when using Dedalus to obtain critical fields for each mode.
  • domain assumption The best-fit MESA models accurately represent the internal structure probed by the observed g-modes or mixed modes
    Required for the critical field to apply to the real star.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5891 in / 1610 out tokens · 31321 ms · 2026-06-27T08:21:33.509896+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Wildly Oscillating Stars -- Unexplained dense ridge-like frequency agglomerations in A and F type pulsators

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A subset of A and F pulsating stars exhibit dense unexplained frequency agglomerations forming ridges below the fundamental mode, indicating a pulsational regime not captured by existing models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    2021

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 15

    Aerts, C., Molenberghs, G., Michielsen, M., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 15

    2018

  3. [3]

    2007, A&A, 463, 225

    Antoci, V ., Breger, M., Rodler, F., Bischof, K., & Garrido, R. 2007, A&A, 463, 225

    2007

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 696, A111 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Antoci, V ., Cantiello, M., Khalack, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A111 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2025

  5. [5]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2016, ApJ, 829, 92 Aurière, M., Wade, G. A., Silvester, J., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, 1053

    2016

  6. [6]

    D., Mason, E., et al

    Bagnulo, S., Landstreet, J. D., Mason, E., et al. 2006, A&A, 450, 777

    2006

  7. [7]

    Barrault, L., Bugnet, L., Mathis, S., & Mombarg, J. S. G. 2025, A&A, 701, A253

    2025

  8. [8]

    1978, A&A, 70, 597 Blazère, A., Petit, P., Lignières, F., et al

    Berthomieu, G., Gonczi, G., Graff, P., Provost, J., & Rocca, A. 1978, A&A, 70, 597 Blazère, A., Petit, P., Lignières, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A97 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZAp, 46, 108

    1978

  9. [9]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  10. [10]

    P., Dupret, M

    Bouabid, M. P., Dupret, M. A., Salmon, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2500

    2013

  11. [11]

    & Spruit, H

    Braithwaite, J. & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819

    2004

  12. [12]

    & Spruit, H

    Braithwaite, J. & Spruit, H. C. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160271

    2017

  13. [13]

    I., & MiMeS Collaboration

    Briquet, M., Neiner, C., Leroy, B., Pápics, P. I., & MiMeS Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 557, L16

    2013

  14. [14]

    S., Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., Browning, M. K., & Toomre, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 461

    2005

  15. [15]

    2021, A&A, 650, A53

    Bugnet, L., Prat, V ., Mathis, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A53

    2021

  16. [16]

    J., Vasil, G

    Burns, K. J., Vasil, G. M., Oishi, J. S., Lecoanet, D., & Brown, B. P. 2020, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 023068

    2020

  17. [17]

    M., et al

    Buysschaert, B., Aerts, C., Bowman, D. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A148

    2018

  18. [18]

    2017, A&A, 605, A104

    Buysschaert, B., Neiner, C., Briquet, M., & Aerts, C. 2017, A&A, 605, A104

    2017

  19. [19]

    & Braithwaite, J

    Cantiello, M. & Braithwaite, J. 2019, ApJ, 883, 106

    2019

  20. [20]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 93

    Cantiello, M., Mankovich, C., Bildsten, L., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Paxton, B. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 93

    2014

  21. [21]

    A., & Mathis, S

    Ceillier, T., Eggenberger, P., García, R. A., & Mathis, S. 2013, A&A, 555, A54

    2013

  22. [22]

    M., Antoci, V ., & Salmon, S

    Christophe, S., Ballot, J., Ouazzani, R. M., Antoci, V ., & Salmon, S. J. A. J. 2018, A&A, 618, A47

    2018

  23. [23]

    & Torres, G

    Claret, A. & Torres, G. 2019, ApJ, 876, 134

    2019

  24. [24]

    Cox, J. P. & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure

    1968

  25. [25]

    2024, in 8th TESS/15th Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium Workshop, 116

    Deheuvels, S. 2024, in 8th TESS/15th Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium Workshop, 116

    2024

  26. [26]

    2023, A&A, 670, L16

    Deheuvels, S., Li, G., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 670, L16

    2023

  27. [27]

    2022, A&A, 661, A133

    Dhouib, H., Mathis, S., Bugnet, L., Van Reeth, T., & Aerts, C. 2022, A&A, 661, A133

    2022

  28. [28]

    A., Grigahcène, A., Garrido, R., Gabriel, M., & Scuflaire, R

    Dupret, M. A., Grigahcène, A., Garrido, R., Gabriel, M., & Scuflaire, R. 2005, A&A, 435, 927

    2005

  29. [29]

    A., Daszy ´nska-Daszkiewicz, J., & Pamyatnykh, A

    Dziembowski, W. A., Daszy ´nska-Daszkiewicz, J., & Pamyatnykh, A. A. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 248

    2007

  30. [30]

    & Gillis, J

    Eckart, C. & Gillis, J. 1960, in Hydrodynamics of oceans and atmospheres

    1960

  31. [31]

    2012, A&A, 544, L4

    Eggenberger, P., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2012, A&A, 544, L4

    2012

  32. [32]

    & Mazeh, T

    Faigler, S. & Mazeh, T. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3921 Article number, page 14 of 18 O. Dürfeldt-Pedros et al.: Near-core magnetic field strengths inferred from gravity modes in intermediate-mass stars

    2011

  33. [33]

    A., Browning, M

    Featherstone, N. A., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1000

    2009

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 674, A28

    Fouesneau, M., Frémat, Y ., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A28

    2023

  35. [35]

    2016, A&A, 594, A39

    Frasca, A., Molenda- ˙Zakowicz, J., De Cat, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A39

    2016

  36. [36]

    A., & Bildsten, L

    Fuller, J., Cantiello, M., Stello, D., Garcia, R. A., & Bildsten, L. 2015, Science, 350, 423

    2015

  37. [37]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661

    2019

  38. [38]

    2014, A&A, 569, A63 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Gabriel, M., Noels, A., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2014, A&A, 569, A63 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, Gaia Data Re- lease 3: Summary of the content and survey properties

    2014

  39. [39]

    2022, A&A, 662, A82

    Garcia, S., Van Reeth, T., De Ridder, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A82

    2022

  40. [40]

    J., & Bedding, T

    Gatuam, A., Murphy, S. J., & Bedding, T. R. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2001

    2026

  41. [41]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161

    1998

  42. [42]

    2021, A&A, 648, A97

    Henneco, J., Van Reeth, T., Prat, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A97

    2021

  43. [43]

    I., Antoci, V ., Saio, H., et al

    Henriksen, A. I., Antoci, V ., Saio, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 216

    2023

  44. [44]

    Navarrete, F. H. 2024, A&A, 691, A326

    2024

  45. [45]

    Navarrete, F. H. 2025, A&A, 699, A250

    2025

  46. [46]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

    1993

  47. [47]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  48. [48]

    2016, AJ, 151, 68

    Kirk, B., Conroy, K., Prša, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 68

    2016

  49. [49]

    G., Borucki, W

    Koch, D. G., Borucki, W. J., Basri, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L79

    2010

  50. [50]

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Hümmerich, S., Bernhard, K., Paunzen, E., & Shultz, M. E. 2023, A&A, 676, A55

    2023

  51. [51]

    2013, A&A, 549, A104

    Lampens, P., Tkachenko, A., Lehmann, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A104

    2013

  52. [52]

    M., & Van Reeth, T

    Lecoanet, D., Bowman, D. M., & Van Reeth, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L16

    2022

  53. [53]

    M., Burns, K

    Lecoanet, D., Vasil, G. M., Burns, K. J., Brown, B. P., & Oishi, J. S. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics: X, 3, 100012

    2019

  54. [54]

    M., Fuller, J., Cantiello, M., & Burns, K

    Lecoanet, D., Vasil, G. M., Fuller, J., Cantiello, M., & Burns, K. J. 2017, MN- RAS, 466, 2181

    2017

  55. [55]

    A., Zdravkov, T., & Breger, M

    Lenz, P., Pamyatnykh, A. A., Zdravkov, T., & Breger, M. 2010, A&A, 509, A90

    2010

  56. [56]

    2022, Nature, 610, 43

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2022, Nature, 610, 43

    2022

  57. [57]

    2023, A&A, 680, A26

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Li, T., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 680, A26

    2023

  58. [58]

    R., et al

    Li, G., Van Reeth, T., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3586 Lignières, F., Ballot, J., Deheuvels, S., & Galoy, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A2 Lignières, F., Petit, P., Aurière, M., Wade, G. A., & Böhm, T. 2014, in IAU Sym- posium, V ol. 302, Magnetic Fields throughout Stellar Evolution, ed. P. Petit, M. Jardine, & H. C. Spruit, 338–347

    2020

  59. [59]

    Loi, S. T. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3829

    2020

  60. [60]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2005, A&A, 440, 1041

    2005

  61. [61]

    P., Goupil, M

    Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., Lebreton, Y ., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A74

    2013

  62. [62]

    Michielsen, M., Aerts, C., & Bowman, D. M. 2021, A&A, 650, A175

    2021

  63. [63]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1487

    Miglio, A., Montalbán, J., Noels, A., & Eggenberger, P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1487

    2008

  64. [64]

    Mombarg, J. S. G., Van Reeth, T., & Aerts, C. 2021, A&A, 650, A58

    2021

  65. [65]

    Mombarg, J. S. G., Van Reeth, T., Pedersen, M. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3248

    2019

  66. [66]

    I., Triana, S

    Moravveji, E., Aerts, C., Pápics, P. I., Triana, S. A., & Vandoren, B. 2015, A&A, 580, A27

    2015

  67. [67]

    Moravveji, E., Townsend, R. H. D., Aerts, C., & Mathis, S. 2016, ApJ, 823, 130

    2016

  68. [68]

    1989, MNRAS, 236, 629

    Moss, D. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 629

    1989

  69. [69]

    2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Moss, D. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 248, Magnetic Fields Across the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, ed. G. Mathys, S. K. Solanki, & D. T. Wickramasinghe, 305

    2001

  70. [70]

    J., Belkacem, K., et al

    Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A10

    2012

  71. [71]

    & Lampens, P

    Neiner, C. & Lampens, P. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L86

    2015

  72. [72]

    A., & Sikora, J

    Neiner, C., Wade, G. A., & Sikora, J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, L46

    2017

  73. [73]

    M., Lignières, F., Dupret, M

    Ouazzani, R. M., Lignières, F., Dupret, M. A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A49

    2020

  74. [74]

    Ouazzani, R.-M., Salmon, S. J. A. J., Antoci, V ., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2294

    2017

  75. [75]

    Pamyatnykh, A. A. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2000

  76. [76]

    2024, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA)

    Paxton, B. 2024, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA)

    2024

  77. [77]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  78. [78]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  79. [79]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  80. [80]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

Showing first 80 references.