Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Exploring the small-scale magnetic fields of the solar analog KIC 8006161 using asteroseismology

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using p-mode frequencies alone, this paper infers a small-scale photospheric magnetic field of about 96 G (or 89 G with helium free) for the solar analog KIC 8006161, under the assumption that the asteroseismic surface term is magnetic in…

desk verdict A transparent, workmanlike application of an existing magnetic-atmosphere method to a solar analog, yielding new field estimates (96/89 G) that are conditional on an assumed surface-term attribution; worth refereeing but needs a non-magnetic baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01258 v1 pith:CMD7LR4E submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.SR

Lin Guifang , Li Yan , Su Jie , Wu Tao , Wang Yuetong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologysmall-scalemagneticfieldsp-modefrequenciessurfacetermmagnetic-archsplicinglayersolaranalogKIC8006161stellarphotospheresolar-likestars
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 measure the small-scale magnetic field of a distant Sun-like star, KIC 8006161, using only its acoustic oscillation frequencies. It adopts the premise that the surface term, the frequency-dependent offset between observed p-mode frequencies and standard stellar models, is caused entirely by small-scale magnetic fields in the photosphere. Under that premise, the best-fitting models require a magnetic-arch splicing layer at which gas pressure and magnetic pressure balance, with field strengths of about 96 G (for a fixed helium-enrichment relation) and 89 G (with initial helium free), at heights of about 522 km and 510 km. A sympathetic reader would care because those values are indistinguishable from the Sun's quiet-region small-scale field, suggesting that asteroseismology can probe surface magnetism on stars too distant for direct polarimetric observation.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on two devices. The first is the magnetic-arch splicing layer: the height in the photosphere where the gas pressure and the magnetic pressure balance, so the sound-speed gradient steepens and the p-modes are partially reflected. The layer is encoded in the modified Eddington grey-atmosphere temperature relation $$$T^{4}$ = \frac{3}{4} T_{\rm eff}^4 \left[\tau + q(\tau)\right], \qquad q(\tau) = q_{\rm ori}(\tau) + a \exp(-b\sqrt{\tau}),$$ with $q_{\rm ori}=2/3$; the coefficient $a$ carries the magnetic field strength and $b$ encodes the height of the arching layer. The second is the surface-insensitivity of the frequency-separation ratios $r_{01}$, $r_{02}$, $r_{10}$, which fix the stellar interior before the magnetic surface term is fitted, so the magnetic parameters are not degenerate with the structural ones. The best-fit set, found by iterated $\chi^2$ minimization against the 54 observed frequencies, is $a=570$ and $b=130$; the field strength is then read off at the pressure-equality point.

What would settle it

Compute the solar surface term from a fully non-magnetic model that includes turbulent pressure and non-adiabatic effects; if that model removes the Sun's surface term entirely, the magnetic-only attribution loses its empirical anchor, and the 96/89 G values for KIC 8006161 cannot be read as direct field strengths. Conversely, a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulation of KIC 8006161 with an imposed small-scale field near 90 G should reproduce the observed p-mode frequency offsets if the claim is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the asteroseismic surface term of KIC 8006161 can be explained as the signature of a small-scale magnetic field in the photosphere, rather than as a generic model mismatch. Fitting the 54 observed p-mode frequencies and their separation ratios with the magnetic-pressure atmosphere yields a magnetic-arch splicing layer with a field strength of about 96 G when the initial helium abundance follows $Y_{\rm init}=0.249+1.33\,Z_{\rm init}$, and about 89 G when $Y_{\rm init}$ is free; the corresponding layer heights are 522 km and 510 km. The same method applied to the Sun gives about 90 G, so the paper concludes that this solar analog carries a quiet-photosphere magnetic field similar to the Sun's. The paper is explicit that this conclusion is conditional: it assumes the entire surface term is magnetic, and notes that including turbulent pressure would push the inferred field strengths toward upper limits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the entire frequency-dependent mismatch between the observed oscillation frequencies and the models is caused by small-scale magnetic fields in the photosphere; if turbulent pressure or non-adiabatic effects contribute as well, the fitted magnetic field absorbs them and the quoted 96/89 G values become contaminated or upper limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Asteroseismology can recover the small-scale photospheric magnetic field of a solar-like star without resolved polarimetric observations, since the 54 observed p-mode frequencies plus frequency ratios are enough to locate a magnetic-arch splicing layer.
  • The inferred field strength, about 90 G and nearly independent of the helium treatment (96 G versus 89 G), places KIC 8006161's quiet-photosphere magnetism in the same range as the Sun's.
  • The derived stellar parameters ($M \approx 1.0$-$1.02\,M_\odot$, $R \approx 0.934$-$0.940\,R_\odot$, age $\approx 4.5$-$4.9$ Gyr) remain consistent with earlier independent estimates, so adding the magnetic surface term does not spoil the structural fit.
  • Because non-adiabatic and turbulent-pressure surface physics are not included, the reported field strengths are best read as upper limits, as the paper itself states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the authors do not run is to track the fitted magnetic parameters across KIC 8006161's 7.4-year activity cycle: if the seismic surface term varies with activity, the magnetic identification is supported, while a constant term would point to a stable small-scale dynamo background.
  • The same pipeline, applied to a sample of solar twins with measured rotation periods and metallicities, could turn this single-star measurement into a population relation between small-scale surface field strength and stellar parameters.
  • Because the field strength is read off the gas pressure/magnetic pressure equality in a grey atmosphere, replacing that atmosphere with a 3D magnetohydrodynamic stratification could shift both the 96/89 G values and the 522/510 km heights; that calibration is a natural next step.
  • If future models that include turbulent pressure and non-adiabatic effects still need a residual surface term, the magnetic attribution would be weakened and the quoted values would become upper limits rather than direct detections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the magnetic-surface-term model of Li et al. (2021) to the solar analog KIC 8006161. The authors add an exponential magnetic-pressure term to the Hopf function of an Eddington gray atmosphere, construct MESA models with this modified surface boundary, and fit stellar parameters and the magnetic parameters a and b to 54 Kepler oscillation frequencies and frequency ratios from Lund et al. (2017). Using two prescriptions for the initial helium abundance, they obtain best-fit models with chi-squared_CMM values of 3.44 and 2.68, and infer small-scale photospheric magnetic field strengths of about 96 G and 89 G located at magnetic-arch splicing layer heights of about 522 km and 510 km. The paper states explicitly in Section 1 and the Summary that this inference is conditional on the assumption that the asteroseismic surface term is caused entirely by small-scale magnetic fields, with turbulent pressure and non-adiabatic effects excluded.

Significance. If the magnetic-only attribution of the surface term were correct, the paper would provide an asteroseismic measurement of quiet-Sun-like small-scale magnetic fields in a solar analog, extending the solar work of Li et al. (2021) and offering a method applicable to other Kepler targets. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses published high-quality Kepler frequencies, builds on a previously published model, explores two helium prescriptions, and includes an explicit statement that the inferred field may be an upper limit because turbulent pressure is omitted. However, the central quantitative claim is not an independent measurement: the magnetic parameters are fitted to the same frequencies used to validate the model, and no non-magnetic baseline or standard surface-effect correction is tested. The significance is therefore conditional and would be substantially strengthened by a clear demonstration that non-magnetic surface effects cannot reproduce the same frequency residuals.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 3.1, Eq. (9)] The inference rests entirely on the assumption that the asteroseismic surface term is caused solely by small-scale magnetic fields. The magnetic parameters a and b are fitted by minimizing Eq. (9) against the observed frequencies, and no model without the magnetic term and no standard surface corrections (turbulent pressure, non-adiabaticity, or an empirical correction such as the Ball & Gizon form) are included as a baseline. The paper itself states in Section 3.1 and the Summary that turbulent pressure is not included and that the field strength 'may approach the upper limit.' Consequently, the quoted 96 G and 89 G values are upper limits under a particular attribution, not measured field strengths, and the abstract's wording that the model 'requires' a magnetic-arch splicing layer overstates what the fit establishes.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (9) and Figure 4] The best-fit values chi-squared_CMM = 3.44 and 2.68 are mean squared residuals per point, since Eq. (9) divides by the number of frequencies N. With 54 observed frequencies, these values indicate that the residuals are roughly 1.85 and 1.64 times the quoted errors in an RMS sense, which is a statistically poor fit, not the 'good agreement' claimed in the Summary and abstract. The threshold chi-squared_CMM < 4.0 described as 'within twice the error bar' is also not a standard confidence criterion for a chi-squared statistic. The quality of the frequency fit should be quantified with a proper goodness-of-fit measure or at least a comparison of the magnetic model to a non-magnetic model using the same frequencies.
  3. [Section 3.1, iterative minimization procedure] The iterative procedure for determining a and b is not fully specified and is circular as a validation: a and b are fitted to the observed frequencies, and the agreement of those same frequencies is then presented as support for the model. The paper states that 'after iterative computation, the optimal values of parameters a and b exhibit remarkable proximity' but does not report the convergence criterion, the number of iterations needed for different starting points, or whether a global minimum was found. In addition, no uncertainties are quoted for a, b, the field strength, or the splicing-layer height; the values a = 570 and b = 130 appear to be held fixed at rounded integers, so the quoted 96 G and 89 G are presented without an error budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'astroseismology' in the introduction and 'a amount of magnetic energy' in Sections 1 and 4; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption states that the theoretical frequencies 'do not include other physics associated with near-surface effects'; this important caveat should also appear prominently in the main text near the first presentation of the frequency comparison, not only in a figure caption.
  3. [Section 3.1] The claim that the mixing-length parameter alpha = 2.12 is greater than that of the standard solar model would be more informative if the solar-calibrated value used for comparison were quoted explicitly.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (8)] In Eq. (8), the vector C is defined as (rij, Teff, log g, [Fe/H]), but rij itself denotes multiple frequency-ratio combinations; the summation index i and the definition of the individual components should be made explicit so that the chi-squared calculation is unambiguous.
  5. [Table 2] The column layout of Table 2 is difficult to follow, particularly for the rows Teff and [Fe/H]; the numbers associated with the 'Spectroscopic parameters' column should be clearly separated from the two 'Our results' columns to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported 96/89 G field strengths are fitted parameters of a self-cited surface-term ansatz; the frequency agreement used as support is in-sample, so the abstract's claim that the model 'requires' a magnetic-arch splicing layer is not independently confirmed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 3.1, Eq. (9); Section 3.2]
    "To agree with the existing observations, such as oscillation frequencies, and their frequency separation ratios, the theoretical model requires a small-scale magnetic field to form a magnetic-arch splicing layer in the stellar outer atmosphere. ... The optimal magnetic parameters a and b for KIC 8006161 are 570 and 130, respectively, after two iterations. ... We find that the magnetic field strength for the best-fit model with Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33Zinit is 96 G, and the height of the magnetic-arch splicing layer is 522 km."

    Parameters a and b are free parameters of the magnetic term in Eq. (1); they are adjusted to minimize chi^2_CMM (Eq. 9) against the very same observed frequencies that are later displayed as agreement in Fig. 4. The reported 96/89 G field strength is then read off from the best-fit model in Section 3.2 using the gas-pressure-equals-magnetic-pressure condition. The fit therefore cannot independently confirm the magnetic interpretation; the abstract's 'requires' restates the model's own inserted ingredient as a data-driven necessity, and no non-magnetic baseline or standard surface correction is fitted to show that the magnetic term is uniquely required.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2; Section 3.1]
    "Li et al. (2021) modeled the effect of small-scale magnetic fields on solar oscillation frequencies by adding magnetic pressure in the solar atmosphere model. Based on their work, we construct the stellar interior structure of the solar analog KIC 8006161 with the effects of magnetic fields in the photosphere. ... In the Eddington gray-atmosphere model, we use the unified T − τ relation (Li et al. 2021)."

    The functional form q(τ) = q_ori(τ) + a exp(−b√τ), the identification of a and b with field strength and layer height, and the P' = 0 boundary condition are all imported from Li et al. (2021), a prior paper by overlapping authors (Yan Li, Jie Su, Tao Wu). The present paper introduces no independent derivation or external test of this ansatz; the central numerical result is a function of these self-cited ingredients. The cited work itself describes the term as mimicking the magnetic effect, so the load-bearing premise is an ansatz recycled through self-citation rather than an externally established constraint.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its central premise, stating in the introduction that it assumes the near-surface effect is caused by small-scale photospheric magnetic fields, and the summary concedes that because of turbulent pressure the inferred field strength 'may approach the upper limit of KIC 8006161.' It also cross-checks fundamental stellar parameters against external studies (Creevey et al. 2017; Silva Aguirre et al. 2017), which is genuine external validation for the non-magnetic parameters. These factors prevent a score of 8-10. However, the headline magnetic values are not externally validated: parameters a and b are fitted to all 54 observed frequencies through chi^2_CMM, the reported 96/89 G is a re-expression of the fitted magnetic pressure term, and the frequency residuals used as evidence of success in Fig. 4 are the same data that determined the parameters. The specific magnetic surface-term formalism and boundary condition come from the authors' own Li et al. (2021) paper, cited rather than re-derived or independently calibrated. Thus the central claim partially reduces to its fitting procedure and to a self-citation chain: the model 'requires' a magnetic-arch splicing layer only because such a layer was inserted and then fit. This is partial circularity rather than a fully independent measurement.

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

No new physical entities are introduced: the magnetic-arch splicing layer and the magnetic-pressure parametrization are adopted from Li et al. (2021). The main fitted quantities are the two magnetic parameters a and b, plus the usual stellar grid parameters. The central assumption that the surface term is entirely magnetic is the largest unproven input.

free parameters (6)
  • a (magnetic term amplitude in q(tau)) = 570
    Fitted to minimize chi-squared_CMM against the 54 observed frequencies (Eq. 9, Section 3.1). Controls the strength of the magnetic pressure contribution.
  • b (magnetic term scale in q(tau)) = 130
    Fitted jointly with a; controls the height of the magnetic-arch splicing layer.
  • Stellar mass M = 1.0 M_sun (Y-relation); 1.02 M_sun (Y free)
    Grid parameter fitted via chi-squared minimization against frequencies and spectroscopic constraints.
  • Initial metal abundance Zinit = 0.032 (Y-relation); 0.037 (Y free)
    Grid parameter fitted via chi-squared minimization.
  • Mixing-length parameter alpha_MLT = 2.12 (Y-relation); 1.98 (Y free)
    Grid parameter fitted via chi-squared minimization.
  • Initial helium abundance Yinit = 0.270 (Y-free best fit)
    In one setup treated as a free parameter and fitted; in the other derived from Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33 Zinit.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Small-scale magnetic fields cause the entire asteroseismic surface term in KIC 8006161.
    Stated in Section 1 and assumed throughout. If false, the inferred field strength is contaminated by other near-surface effects.
  • domain assumption The magnetic pressure effect is represented by adding a exp(-b sqrt(tau)) to the Hopf function in the Eddington gray atmosphere, with P' = 0 at the magnetic-arch splicing layer.
    Adopted from Li et al. (2021) and used to convert the fitted parameters a and b into a field strength and height.
  • domain assumption Acoustic waves reflect and transmit where gas pressure equals magnetic pressure.
    Used in Section 3.2 to define the magnetic-arch splicing layer and compute the magnetic field strength from model pressures, based on Rosenthal et al. (2002) and Cally (2007).
  • standard math Frequency ratios r_ij depend only on the stellar interior structure, not the surface.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 via Roxburgh & Vorontsov (2003) to justify the iterative separation of interior and surface fits.
  • domain assumption The MESA stellar models with OPAL opacities, GS98 composition, no overshoot, and element diffusion adequately represent the stellar interior.
    Standard modeling choices described in Section 2; their systematic uncertainties are not propagated into the field strength estimate.
  • domain assumption The observed frequencies and frequency ratios from Lund et al. (2017) are accurate.
    Used as the ground-truth data set without independent verification in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the small-scale magnetic fields of the solar analog KIC 8006161 using asteroseismology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMD7LR4E

@misc{pith2026241201258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the small-scale magnetic fields of the solar analog KIC 8006161 using asteroseismology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMD7LR4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01258}
}
abstract

The magnetic field is a significant and universal physical phenomenon in modern astrophysics. Small-scale magnetic fields are very important in the stellar atmosphere. They are ubiquitous, and strongly couple with the acoustic waves. Therefore, their presence affects the properties of acoustic waves in the stellar outer layer. In the present work, under the assumption that the small-scale magnetic features are the cause of the asteroseismic surface term (the frequency-dependent frequency offset between stars and their models), we explore the strength of such fields in the solar analog KIC 8006161. By considering the effect of small-scale magnetic fields in the stellar photosphere, we use the observed oscillation frequencies to constrain the inner structures and surface small-scale magnetic fields of solar-like star KIC 8006161. To agree with the existing observations, such as oscillation frequencies, and their frequency separation ratios, the theoretical model requires a small-scale magnetic field to form a magnetic-arch splicing layer in the stellar outer atmosphere. The small-scale magnetic field strengths for KIC 8006161 obtained from best-fit model with $Y_{\rm init} = 0.249+1.33Z_{\rm init}$ and $Y_{\rm init}$ as a free parameter, are approximately 96 G and 89 G, respectively. The corresponding locations of the magnetic-arch splicing layer are about $522$ km and 510 km, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of χ 2 C with stellar parameters. The panels from left to right represent the distribution of χ 2 C with stellar mass, initial metal abundance Zinit, and mixing-length parameter αMLT, respectively. The filled circles represent the results of models with χ 2 C < 2.6. do not consider convective overshooting. We use the default parameters to include the element diffusion. In addition, we also take into… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of χ 2 CMM with the parameters a and b of magnetic fields. The grey points represent the results obtained from the model with initial fundamental parameters, while the red lines correspond to the results derived from the χ 2 -minimization model with M = 1.0M⊙, Zinit = 0.032, α = 2.12. The points sharing the same type indicate the results with an identical parameter a. In order to reduce the amount o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of χ 2 CMM with stellar parameters when fixing the magnetic parameters as a = 570 and b = 130 and setting the initial helium abundance as Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33Zinit. The panels (a)-(i) represent the distribution of χ 2 CMM with stellar mass, initial metal abundance Zinit, mixing-length parameter αMLT, stellar radius, effective temperature Teff , surface gravity log g, location of convection zone bott… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Echelle diagram of observation data(filled gray points) of K ´ IC 8006161 and the best-fit model with Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33Zinit(open red points) and Yinit as a free parameter (open blue points) and the corresponding ratio rij of small to large-frequency separations…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distributions of the gas pressure and the magnetic pressure, as well as the fields strength for the best-fit model with Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33Zinit(red lines) and Yinit as a free parameter (blue lines) by adopting the grey atmosphere. the magnetic-arch splicing layer…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of physical quantities in the convection zone between KIC 8006161 (solid lines) and the solar model (dashed lines) from Li et al. (2021). The red lines represent the results of the best-fit model with Yinit = 0.249 + 1.33Zinit, and the blue lines repre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbett, W. P. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1469, doi: 10.1086/519788

    doi:10.1086/519788 2007

  2. [2]

    H., Beeck, B., Cameron, R

    Ball, W. H., Beeck, B., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2016, A&A, 592, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628300

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628300 2016

  3. [3]

    H., Reiners, A., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Beeck, B., Cameron, R. H., Reiners, A., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2013, A&A, 558, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321343

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321343 2013

  4. [4]

    J., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V

    Bogdan, T. J., Carlsson, M., Hansteen, V. H., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 626, doi: 10.1086/378512 B¨ ohm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZA, 46, 108

    doi:10.1086/378512 2003

  5. [5]

    A., & Latham, D

    Buchhave, L. A., & Latham, D. W. 2015, ApJ, 808, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/187

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/2/187 2015

  6. [6]

    Cally, P. S. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 286, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610731

    doi:10.1002/asna.200610731 2007

  7. [7]

    1999, ApJL, 515, L39, doi: 10.1086/311962

    Cattaneo, F. 1999, ApJL, 515, L39, doi: 10.1086/311962

    doi:10.1086/311962 1999

  8. [8]

    2008, Ap&SS, 316, 113, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 113, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z

    doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9689-z 2008

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    1988, Nature, 336, 634, doi: 10.1038/336634a0

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Dappen, W., & Lebreton, Y. 1988, Nature, 336, 634, doi: 10.1038/336634a0

    1988 doi

  2. [10]

    L., Metcalfe, T

    Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629496

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, ApJL, 723, L149, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L149

    Danilovic, S., Beeck, B., Pietarila, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 723, L149, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L149

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, A&A , 670, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245282

    Deheuvels, S., Li, G., Ballot, J., & Ligni` eres, F. 2023, A&A , 670, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245282

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Paterno, L., & Ventura, R

    Dziembowski, W. A., Paterno, L., & Ventura, R. 1988, A&A, 200, 213

    1988

  6. [14]

    2004, A&A, 417, 235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034203 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Eggenberger, P., Charbonnel, C., Talon, S., et al. 2004, A&A, 417, 235, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034203 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    O., & Thompson, M

    Gough, D. O., & Thompson, M. J. 1990, MNRAS, 242, 25, doi: 10.1093/mnras/242.1.25

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, L124, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw193

    Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, L124, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw193

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  11. [19]

    L., & Wang, J

    Jin, C. L., & Wang, J. X. 2015, ApJ, 807, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/70 Jørgensen, A. C. S., Montalb´ an, J., Angelou, G. C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3476 Karoff, C., Metcalfe, T. S., Santos, ˆA. R. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 46, doi: 10.3847...

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015

    1995 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2022, Nature, 610, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05176-0

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., & Ligni` eres, F. 2022, Nature, 610, 43, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05176-0

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Huber, D., et al

    Li, T., Bedding, T. R., Huber, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3079

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/37

    Li, Y. 2012, ApJ, 756, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/37

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0882

    Li, Y., Zhang, Q.-s., Wu, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0882

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Leka, K

    Lites, B. W., Leka, K. D., Skumanich, A., Martinez Pillet, V., & Shimizu, T. 1996, ApJ, 460, 1019, doi: 10.1086/177028 14

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    W., Rempel, M., Borrero, J

    Lites, B. W., Rempel, M., Borrero, J. M., & Danilovic, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/14

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Kubo, M., Socas-Navarro, H., et al

    Lites, B. W., Kubo, M., Socas-Navarro, H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 1237, doi: 10.1086/522922

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    N., Silva Aguirre, V., Davies, G

    Lund, M. N., Silva Aguirre, V., Davies, G. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9658 Mart ´ ınez Gonz´ alez, M. J., Pastor Yabar, A., Lagg, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628449

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2002, A&A, 390, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020768

    Morel, P., & Th´ evenin, F. 2002, A&A, 390, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020768

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    2020, A&A, 642, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038754

    Yadav, R. 2020, A&A, 642, A210, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038754

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    Rempel, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/132

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Nayfonov, A

    Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064, doi: 10.1086/341894

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    F., & Trampedach, R

    Stein, R. F., & Trampedach, R. 1999, A&A, 351, 689, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803206

    1999 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    S., Bogdan, T

    Rosenthal, C. S., Bogdan, T. J., Carlsson, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 508, doi: 10.1086/324214

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    W., & Vorontsov, S

    Roxburgh, I. W., & Vorontsov, S. V. 2003, A&A, 411, 215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031318 Schaffenberger, W., Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S., Steiner, O., &

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Freytag, B. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 596, Chromospheric and Coronal Magnetic Fields, ed. D. E

    2005

  31. [39]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Freytag, B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 354, Solar MHD Theory and Observations: A High Spatial Resolution Perspective, ed. J. Leibacher, R. F. Stein, & H. Uitenbroek, 345

    2006

  32. [40]

    Schou, J., & Birch, A. C. 2020, A&A, 638, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936530

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Title, A

    Schrijver, C. J., & Title, A. M. 2003, ApJL, 597, L165, doi: 10.1086/379870

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Title, A

    Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M., Harvey, K. L., et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 152, doi: 10.1038/28108 Sch¨ ussler, M., & V¨ ogler, A. 2008, A&A, 481, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078998 Silva Aguirre, V., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357...

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    2008, ApJL, 680, L85, doi: 10.1086/589740 Stenflo, J

    Steiner, O., Rezaei, R., Schaffenberger, W., & Wedemeyer-B¨ ohm, S. 2008, ApJL, 680, L85, doi: 10.1086/589740 Stenflo, J. 1994, Solar Magnetic Fields: Polarized Radiatio n

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    189, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8246-9 Trujillo Bueno, J., Shchukina, N., & Asensio Ramos, A

    Diagnostics, Vol. 189, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8246-9 Trujillo Bueno, J., Shchukina, N., & Asensio Ramos, A. 2004, Nature, 430, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature02669

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3374

    Verma, K., Raodeo, K., Basu, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3374

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2016, ApJL, 818, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L13

    Wu, T., & Li, Y. 2016, ApJL, 818, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L13

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.