Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 71 references

Blue Loops, Cepheids, and Forays into Axions

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that axion energy loss can erase the blue loop of intermediate-mass stars, turning the observed existence of Cepheids like S Mus into a constraint on the axion-photon coupling.

desk verdict Qualitatively credible and unusually candid, but the quantitative axion bounds are not yet reliable enough to quote; worth a serious referee with required fixes to the energy-loss table and reproducibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03652 v2 pith:BW7Y3F3M submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Kaleb Anderson , Thomas C. Gehrman , Pearl Sandick , Kuver Sinha , Edward Walsh , Tao Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords axionsaxion-photoncouplingblueloopsCepheidscorepotentialPrimakoffprocessinstabilitystripconvectiveovershoot
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 show that axions, hypothetical light particles that couple to photons, act as an extra energy-loss channel in intermediate-mass stars, and that this loss can on its own suppress the blue loop, the hot excursion in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram whose crossing defines classical Cepheids. If true, the very existence of a Cepheid with a dynamically measured mass becomes a limit on how strongly axions can couple to photons. The authors simulate models from 4 to 9 solar masses with and without axion emission and identify the smallest coupling at which the loop fails to reach the instability strip. Using the 6-solar-mass Cepheid S Mus as a benchmark, they report a constraint on the dimensionless coupling $g_{10}$ between about 1.6 and 1.7 depending on the overshoot prescription; heavier stars would give stronger constraints.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the core potential, $\phi_c = h(\Delta X,\Delta m)\,M_c/R_c$, where $M_c$ and $R_c$ are the core mass and radius and $h$ encodes how the hydrogen-abundance jump and shell width change across the hydrogen-burning front. The paper's criterion, inherited from earlier stellar-structure theory, is that a blue loop occurs only if $\phi_c$ falls below a simulation-determined critical value $\phi_{\rm crit}$. Axion energy loss shrinks the core radius, keeping $\phi_c$ high enough to prevent the loop. This single scalar metric converts a complex evolutionary track into an on/off switch, which is what allows the coupling threshold to be read off from whether the loop reaches the red edge of the instability strip; the underlying physical mechanism is the mirror principle, in which contraction of the core drives expansion of the envelope across the burning shell, and axions blunt it by limiting core growth.

What would settle it

Run the same stellar-structure simulations with substantially finer spatial and temporal resolution, or with an independent stellar evolution code, and check whether the blue-loop suppression at $g_{10}=1.2253$ versus $1.2254$ for the $8\,M_\odot$ model and between $g_{10}=0.83$ and $0.835$ for the $9\,M_\odot$ model persists. If the threshold moves by more than the reported $\Delta g_{10}\sim 10^{-4}$ or disappears entirely, the fine-grained constraints are numerical artifacts even if the qualitative trend survives. Alternatively, determine a dynamical mass for a galactic Cepheid near $9\,M_\odot$: if such a star is found to pulsate with a coupling above the predicted threshold, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that axion emission through the Primakoff process suppresses the growth of the helium core during the post-main-sequence phase, keeping the core potential $\phi_c$ above the critical value $\phi_{\rm crit}$ needed for the core to expand and the envelope to contract along a blue loop. For each stellar mass there is a sharp threshold coupling: the loop of a $6\,M_\odot$ model disappears at $g_{10}=2$, the $9\,M_\odot$ loop disappears between $g_{10}=0.83$ and $0.835$, and for the $8\,M_\odot$ model the loop is present at $g_{10}=1.2253$ but gone at $1.2254$. Because heavier stars have hotter cores, they lose their loops at smaller couplings even though their no-axion loops are more robust. Requiring that a real observed Cepheid still cross the instability strip therefore bounds $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$; the benchmark constraint from S Mus is $g_{10}\simeq 1.6$–$1.7$ for the mass and overshoot combinations that reproduce its observed luminosity. A linear fit, $g_{10}=(-0.28\pm 0.02)\,M/M_\odot+(3.5\pm 0.1)$, is used to project a much stronger constraint for a $12\,M_\odot$ Cepheid, although the paper itself marks that projection as tentative because no blue loop can currently be simulated at that mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sharp coupling thresholds at which the blue loop disappears are real stellar physics rather than numerical artifacts of the simulation's interpolation across the hydrogen-burning shell.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Cepheid with a dynamically measured mass becomes a one-sided limit on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ once its blue loop is required to cross the instability strip.
  • Heavier Cepheids give stronger limits: the simulated $9\,M_\odot$ threshold is $g_{10}\simeq 0.83$–$0.835$, roughly twice as strong as the S Mus bound.
  • Axion emission shortens the helium-burning phase and moves the star onto the asymptotic giant branch earlier, so the phase duration itself carries a separate, population-level signature.
  • Axions do not move the Cepheid loop vertically in the HR diagram; they either allow or suppress the loop, leaving the Cepheid mass-discrepancy problem essentially unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the authors' own caveat in Section 5.1 implies a direct numerical experiment—recompute the 8 and 9 solar-mass thresholds with finer timesteps or an independent stellar evolution code—and if the $g_{10}$ threshold shifts by more than the reported $10^{-4}$ level, the quantitative bounds should be quoted with one or two significant digits, not four.
  • Editorial extension: extrapolating the linear fit to a $12\,M_\odot$ Cepheid gives $g_{10}\simeq 0.14$, which would approach or surpass the globular-cluster $R$ and $R_2$ constraints shown in the paper's Figure 13; a dynamically confirmed Cepheid near that mass would therefore be a high-value target for an independent axion limit.
  • Editorial extension: the non-monotonic overshoot dependence (for $8\,M_\odot$, $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.2$ yields a stronger bound than $\alpha_{\rm ov}=0.1$) suggests that high overshoot acts in the same qualitative direction as axion emission, pushing the core potential toward its critical value; empirical overshoot determinations from binary eclipsing systems could therefore be fed directly into the
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether axion-photon energy loss can eliminate the blue-loop phase in intermediate-mass stars, using MESA r23.05.1 models with the Primakoff production rates of Raffelt and Dearborn. Using the core-potential criterion of Lauterborn, Refsdal, and Weigert, the authors find mass-dependent threshold couplings: a 6 Msun model loses its blue loop near g10 = 2 (with g10 about 1.757 for alpha_ov = 0.1), an 8 Msun model near g10 = 1.2253 versus 1.2254, and a 9 Msun model between g10 = 0.83 and 0.835. They translate these thresholds into constraints using the galactic Cepheid S Mus, whose dynamical mass is 6 Msun, reporting g10 about 1.6-1.7 for the mass and overshoot combinations in Table 4. A linear fit in Fig. 11 and Eq. (5.1) is used to project a tentative 12 Msun constraint in Fig. 18. The paper also analyzes the mirror principle, the hydrogen profile, and the sensitivity of the thresholds to convective overshoot, and argues that massive Cepheids are an important frontier for axion searches.

Significance. If the quantitative thresholds are correct, the paper would introduce a genuinely new stellar-evolution probe of the axion-photon coupling, complementary to globular-cluster R and R2 constraints and potentially much stronger for massive Cepheids. The authors deserve credit for implementing the full non-degenerate plus degenerate Primakoff formalism, for verifying loop suppression directly on HR tracks (Fig. 10), and for being unusually candid about the limitations of their simulations, including the possible MESA interpolation artifact in Sec. 5.1 and the lack of theoretical support for the linear fit. However, the claimed constraints currently lack uncertainty quantification, the G-table calibration is unresolved, and the S Mus bound is not a single well-defined number. In its present form the paper is a compelling proof of principle rather than a calibrated constraint.

major comments (5)
  1. [3.2 (Table 1)] Section 3.2 and Table 1: the paper states that its computed values of G(y0,y1) differ from Table II of Raffelt and Dearborn [41] even though the same expressions are used, but it does not reconcile the discrepancy or assign an uncertainty. Since the energy-loss rates in Eqs. (3.5), (3.16), (3.20), and (3.22) are all proportional to g10^2 times this G function, an unquantified multiplicative error in G translates directly into a shift of every threshold coupling by the square root of that factor. The 9 Msun bracket, the S Mus values in Table 4, and the fit in Eq. (5.1) all inherit this calibration risk. Please provide a comparison with the original table, explain the source of the differences, or quantify the resulting uncertainty in g10.
  2. [5.1] Section 5.1, Fig. 9, and the surrounding text: the reported thresholds resolve differences as small as Delta g10 = 10^-4 (for example, g10 = 1.2253 versus 1.2254 for the 8 Msun model), while the authors themselves write that the elimination 'may be an artifact of the stellar evolution interpolation in MESA, rather than an accurate representation of the effect of axions.' The quantitative constraints are anchored on this sharpness. Please supply convergence tests in mesh resolution, timestep control, the interpolation scheme for the G table, and the treatment of y0 values outside the tabulated range, and state a conservative coarse threshold with an error bar. Without such support, the fine-grained values in Fig. 11, Eq. (5.1), and Table 4 cannot be taken as reliable.
  3. [5.2 (Tables 3 and 4)] Section 5.2, Tables 3 and 4: the S Mus constraint is obtained from three mass plus overshoot combinations (6.0/0.2, 6.4/0.1, and 6.6/0.0) that all reproduce the nominal luminosity log L/Lsun = 3.54, but only the first is compatible with the dynamical mass of S Mus quoted in Table 2. The resulting g10 values span a factor of about five, from 0.35 to 1.7, so the paper does not actually deliver a single conservative bound. The authors acknowledge that a proper scan over {M, alpha_ov, g10} is required; please perform that scan or explicitly present the 6.4 and 6.6 Msun rows as illustrative model-dependence studies rather than as constraints from S Mus.
  4. [5.1 and Appendix A] Eq. (5.1) and Fig. 18: the linear fit is based only on masses up to 9 Msun and is extrapolated to 12 Msun. The authors are unable to simulate a blue loop at 12 Msun even without axions, and they admit they 'cannot justify the linear fit in Eq. 5.1 at a theoretical level.' The orange contour in Fig. 18 is therefore a speculative projection, not a constraint. Please move this material to a clearly labeled prospects section and remove any impression in the abstract or conclusions that a 12 Msun bound has been derived.
  5. [4.4-5.3] Throughout Sections 4.4-5.3, threshold couplings are quoted to three or four significant digits without any uncertainty from input physics (metallicity, alpha_MLT, the nuclear network, semiconvection) or from numerical resolution. Given the paper's own characterisation of the blue loop as a 'magnifying glass', a quantitative statement of which systematic variations move the thresholds by more than the quoted digits is necessary before any of the numbers in Tables 4 or Eq. (5.1) can be used as bounds. At minimum, the authors should state the grid resolution and timestep controls used for the fiducial runs and show that the thresholds are stable under reasonable variations.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] In the row labelled log y1 = 0.0 and the column log y0 = 1.0, the entry reads '0.0.039'; this appears to be a typo for 0.039.
  2. [3.2] The table is referred to as 'Table 3.2' in the text but is captioned 'Table 1'; the numbering should be made consistent.
  3. [4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The formula h = e^{const.·Delta X} Delta m is unclear as written and appears inconsistent with the statement that Delta m -> 0 implies h -> 1; please clarify the intended functional form.
  4. [3.2] The 0.07% consistency check quoted for the extended G table concerns final stellar ages only; it does not verify that the interpolated table reproduces the blue-loop thresholds, which is the quantity actually used in the paper.
  5. [2] The phrase 'The determination of masses by dynamical orbital methods that are unaffected by axion physics fixes the trajectory of these candidates on the HR diagram' is grammatically incomplete; it should say that the mass determination, combined with the HR-diagram position, fixes the trajectory.
  6. [6] In the conclusions, 'strong constrains' should read 'strong constraints'.
  7. [Figures 6 and 14-15] The vertical axis label 'log Phi_c' should use the same symbol phi_c as in Eq. (1.1) for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the axion energy-loss implementation and the blue-loop criterion come from independent external work, and the 12 M_sun projection is explicitly labeled a fit-based extrapolation rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs rather than being defined in terms of its own conclusions. The axion energy-loss rate is implemented from the independent Raffelt–Dearborn formalism (Eqs. 3.2–3.22, following [41]), the blue-loop criterion φ_c < φ_crit is taken from Lauterborn, Refsdal and Weigert [9], and φ_crit is taken from the Kippenhahn, Weigert and Weiss textbook [8], not from the present authors' axion runs. The benchmark S Mus mass comes from dynamical orbital analysis [18], which is independent of axion physics. The g10 thresholds at which the blue loop disappears are direct MESA simulation outputs, and the paper explicitly disclaims predictive power for the core-potential diagnostic: 'it should be understood that φ_crit has no predictive power and can be used only as a diagnostic or even proxy for the onset of a loop.' The only fit to the authors' own simulation outputs is Eq. 5.1, used for the 12 M_sun projection; however, the paper is transparent that this is not an independent prediction, stating in Appendix A that the 12 M_sun constraints 'correspond neither to an actual observed candidate with dynamically determined mass, nor to a simulation' and that 'we cannot justify the linear fit in Eq. 5.1 at a theoretical level.' This is therefore an openly labeled extrapolation rather than a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The unresolved discrepancy between the authors' G(y0,y1) table and Raffelt–Dearborn Table II, and the MESA-interpolation caveat in Section 5.1, are accuracy and calibration risks, not reductions of a prediction to its inputs by construction. The self-citation [51] is to future work and is not load-bearing, and no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard stellar modeling assumptions, the diagnostic core potential criterion calibrated to the same class of simulations, and the assumption that Primakoff axion losses are correctly implemented. Three fitted quantities matter: the S Mus model mass, the overshoot, and the linear fit used for the 12 M_sun projection. The last is explicitly an ad hoc extrapolation.

free parameters (3)
  • S Mus model mass = 6.0, 6.4, 6.6 M_sun
    Mass is adjusted beyond the dynamically determined 6.0 M_sun value to match the observed luminosity log L/L_sun = 3.54 and Teff = 5850 K (Table 3, Fig. 12). The 6.6 M_sun case lies outside the allowed dynamical mass range.
  • Convective overshoot alpha_ov = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2
    Overshoot is varied systematically and, for S Mus, chosen together with mass to reproduce the HR position. The resulting g10 thresholds range from about 0.35 to 1.7 (Tables 3-4, Figs. 14-15).
  • Linear fit parameters in Eq. 5.1 = slope -0.28 +/- 0.02 per M_sun; intercept 3.5 +/- 0.1
    Fit to the authors' own simulated blue loop elimination thresholds (Fig. 11); used for the 12 M_sun projection in Appendix A, although the authors state the fit has no theoretical justification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The blue loop occurs iff the core potential falls below a critical value phi_crit (Eq. 1.2), with phi_crit taken from the simulations in Kippenhahn et al. [8].
    Invoked throughout Sections 4 and 5; the authors note the criterion is a diagnostic, calibrated to the same class of models, and has no predictive power.
  • domain assumption MESA r23.05.1 with the specified microphysics (Ledoux criterion, alpha_semiconv=0.1, alpha_MLT=1.6, Dutch wind scaling 0.8, Z=0.014, zero rotation) adequately represents galactic Cepheids in the blue loop phase.
    All constraints rely on this modeling; only overshoot is varied, while rotation, metallicity, and nuclear rates are fixed.
  • domain assumption Axions produced by the Primakoff process escape the star and contribute the full energy loss of Eq. 3.2, with the screening and degeneracy treatment of Raffelt and Dearborn [41].
    Section 3; standard assumption for stellar axion bounds, not independently verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption The instability strip location from Tammann et al. [39] is the correct boundary for deciding whether a blue loop enters the Cepheid region.
    Used to define the red edge at which g10 thresholds are read off (Section 2, Figs. 9-10).
  • ad hoc to paper The linear relation Eq. 5.1 between the g10 threshold and stellar mass remains valid at 12 M_sun.
    Appendix A: the authors state explicitly that Eq. 5.1 cannot be justified at a theoretical level, and that the 12 M_sun constraint corresponds neither to a simulation nor to an observed dynamically massed Cepheid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blue Loops, Cepheids, and Forays into Axions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BW7Y3F3M

@misc{pith2026241203652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blue Loops, Cepheids, and Forays into Axions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BW7Y3F3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03652}
}
abstract

The blue loop stage of intermediate mass stars has been called a "magnifying glass", where even seemingly small effects in prior stages of evolution, as well as assumptions about stellar composition, rotation, and convection, produce discernible changes. As such, blue loops, and especially the existence and properties of Cepheids, can serve as a laboratory where feebly connected Beyond Standard Model particles such as axions can be gainfully studied. We undertake a careful study of the effects of these putative particles on the blue loop, paying close attention to the evolution of the core potential and the hydrogen profile. Our simulations, performed with MESA, place bounds on the axion-photon coupling using the galactic Cepheid S Mus, with dynamically-determined mass of $6 M_\odot$, as a benchmark. The effects of varying convective overshoot on the core potential and hydrogen profile, and the ensuing changes in the axion constraints, are carefully studied. Along the way, we explore the "mirror principle" induced by the hydrogen burning shell and contrast our results with those existing in the literature. Less conservative (but more stringent) bounds on the axion-photon coupling are given for a $9 M_\odot$ model, which is the heaviest that can be simulated if overshoot is incorporated, and tentative projections are given for a $12 M_\odot$ model, which is approximately the heaviest tail of the mass distribution of galactic Cepheids determined by pulsation models using Gaia DR2. Our main message is that the reliable simulation and observation (ideally, through dynamical mass determination) of massive Cepheids constitutes an important frontier in axion searches, challenges in modeling uncertainties in the microphysics of the blue loop stage notwithstanding.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Raffelt and D.S.P

    G.G. Raffelt and D.S.P. Dearborn,Bounds on Hadronic Axions From Stellar Evolution, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2211

    work page 1987

  2. [1]

    Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996)

    G.G. Raffelt,Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles(5, 1996)

    1996

  3. [2]

    Raffelt,Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena, Phys

    G.G. Raffelt,Astrophysical methods to constrain axions and other novel particle phenomena, Phys. Rept. 198 (1990) 1

    work page 1990

  4. [3]

    Adams et al.,Axion Dark Matter, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.14923]

    C.B. Adams et al.,Axion Dark Matter, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.14923]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Essig et al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013 [1311.0029]

    R. Essig et al.,Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles, inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10, 2013 [1311.0029]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    Baryakhtar et al.,Dark Matter In Extreme Astrophysical Environments, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07984]

    M. Baryakhtar et al.,Dark Matter In Extreme Astrophysical Environments, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07984]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Domínguez, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi and O. Straniero,Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from Globular Clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 191302 [1406.6053]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Dolan, F.J

    M.J. Dolan, F.J. Hiskens and R.R. Volkas,Advancing globular cluster constraints on the axion-photon coupling, JCAP 10 (2022) 096 [2207.03102]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Kippenhahn, A

    R. Kippenhahn, A. Weigert and A. Weiss,Stellar structure and evolution, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer (8, 2012), 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  2. [9]

    Lauterborn, S

    D. Lauterborn, S. Refsdal and A. Weigert,Stars with Central Helium Burning and the Occurrence of Loops in the H-R Diagram, A&A 10 (1971) 97

    1971

  3. [10]

    Robertson, Envelope Opacities and the Cepheid Loops at 5M⊙, ApJ 173 (1972) 631

    J.W. Robertson, Envelope Opacities and the Cepheid Loops at 5M⊙, ApJ 173 (1972) 631

    1972

  4. [12]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaffre and F. Timmes,Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa), The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192 (2010) 3

    2010

  5. [13]

    Paxton, M

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E.F. Brown, A. Dotter et al.,Modules for – 33 – experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa): Planets, oscillations, rotation, and massive stars, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series208 (2013) 4

    2013

  6. [14]

    Paxton, P

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E.B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, M. Cantiello et al.,Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa): Binaries, pulsations, and explosions, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series220 (2015) 15

    2015

  7. [15]

    Paxton, J

    B. Paxton, J. Schwab, E.B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, S. Blinnikov, P. Duffell et al.,Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa): Convective boundaries, element diffusion, and massive star explosions, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series234 (2018) 34

    2018

  8. [16]

    Paxton, R

    B. Paxton, R. Smolec, J. Schwab, A. Gautschy, L. Bildsten, M. Cantiello et al.,Modules for experiments in stellar astrophysics (mesa): Pulsating variable stars, rotation, convective boundaries, and energy conservation, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series243 (2019) 10

    2019

  9. [17]

    Jermyn, E.B

    A.S. Jermyn, E.B. Bauer, J. Schwab, R. Farmer, W.H. Ball, E.P. Bellinger et al.,Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Time-dependent Convection, Energy Conservation, Automatic Differentiation, and Infrastructure, ApJS 265 (2023) 15 [2208.03651]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Remage Evans, D

    N. Remage Evans, D. Massa, A. Fullerton, G. Sonneborn and R. Iping,Cepheid Masses: FUSE Observations of S Mus, Astrophys. J. 647 (2006) 1387 [astro-ph/0607489]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Marconi, G

    M. Marconi, G. De Somma, V. Ripepi, R. Molinaro, I. Musella, S. Leccia et al.,Predicted Masses of Galactic Cepheids in the Gaia Data Release 2, ApJ 898 (2020) L7 [2006.16610]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kervella, A

    P. Kervella, A. Gallenne, N.R. Evans, L. Szabados, F. Arenou, A. Mérand et al.,Multiplicity of Galactic Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars from Gaia DR2. II. Resolved common proper motion pairs, A&A 623 (2019) A117 [1908.00545]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Soszyński, D.M

    I. Soszyński, D.M. Skowron, A. Udalski, P. Pietrukowicz, M. Gromadzki, M.K. Szymański et al.,Discovery of the Longest-period Classical Cepheid in the Milky Way, ApJ 965 (2024) L17 [2404.00151]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ripepi, G

    V. Ripepi, G. Clementini, R. Molinaro, S. Leccia, E. Plachy, L. Molnár et al.,Gaia Data Release 3. Specific processing and validation of all sky RR Lyrae and Cepheid stars: The Cepheid sample, A&A 674 (2023) A17 [2206.06212]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Guzik, J

    J.A. Guzik, J. Jackiewicz and N.R. Evans,Challenges in Cepheid Evolution and Pulsation Modeling, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2307.12386 [2307.12386]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Neilson, M

    H.R. Neilson, M. Cantiello and N. Langer,The Cepheid mass discrepancy and pulsation-driven mass loss, A&A 529 (2011) L9 [1104.1638]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Choplin, A

    A. Choplin, A. Coc, G. Meynet, K.A. Olive, J.-P. Uzan and E. Vangioni,Effects of axions on Population III stars, A&A 605 (2017) A106 [1707.01244]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Friedland, M

    A. Friedland, M. Giannotti and M. Wise,Constraining the Axion-Photon Coupling with Massive Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013) 061101 [1210.1271]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Grevesse and A.J

    N. Grevesse and A.J. Sauval,Standard Solar Composition, Space Sci. Rev.85 (1998) 161

    1998

  20. [28]

    Glebbeek, E

    E. Glebbeek, E. Gaburov, S.E. de Mink, O.R. Pols and S.F. Portegies Zwart,The evolution of runaway stellar collision products, A&A 497 (2009) 255 [0902.1753]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J.S. Vink, A. de Koter and H.J.G.L.M. Lamers,Mass-loss predictions for o and b stars as a function of metallicity, A&A 369 (2001) 574–588

    2001

  22. [30]

    Nugis and H.J.G.L.M

    T. Nugis and H.J.G.L.M. Lamers,Mass-loss rates of Wolf-Rayet stars as a function of stellar parameters, A&A 360 (2000) 227

    2000

  23. [31]

    Kuhfuss,A model for time-dependent turbulent convection, A&A 160 (1986) 116

    R. Kuhfuss,A model for time-dependent turbulent convection, A&A 160 (1986) 116. – 34 –

    1986

  24. [32]

    De Somma, M

    G. De Somma, M. Marconi, R. Molinaro, M. Cignoni, I. Musella and V. Ripepi,An Extended Theoretical Scenario for Classical Cepheids. I. Modeling Galactic Cepheids in the Gaia Photometric System, ApJS 247 (2020) 30 [2001.11065]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bono, W.P

    G. Bono, W.P. Gieren, M. Marconi, P. Fouqué and F. Caputo,Improving the Mass Determination of Galactic Cepheids, ApJ 563 (2001) 319 [astro-ph/0108271]

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Langer, K.J

    N. Langer, K.J. Fricke and D. Sugimoto,Semiconvective diffusion and energy transport, A&A 126 (1983) 207

    1983

  27. [35]

    Asplund, N

    M. Asplund, N. Grevesse and A.J. Sauval,The Solar Chemical Composition, inCosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, I. Barnes, Thomas G. and F.N. Bash, eds., vol. 336 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 25, Sept., 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Lodders,Solar System Abundances and Condensation Temperatures of the Elements, ApJ 591 (2003) 1220

    K. Lodders,Solar System Abundances and Condensation Temperatures of the Elements, ApJ 591 (2003) 1220

    2003

  29. [37]

    Anderson, S

    R.I. Anderson, S. Ekström, C. Georgy, G. Meynet, N. Mowlavi and L. Eyer,On the effect of rotation on populations of classical cepheids: I. predictions at solar metallicity, A&A 564 (2014) A100

    2014

  30. [38]

    Anderson, H

    R.I. Anderson, H. Saio, S. Ekström, C. Georgy and G. Meynet,On the effect of rotation on populations of classical cepheids: Ii. pulsation analysis for metallicities 0.014, 0.006, and 0.002, A&A 591 (2016) A8

    2016

  31. [39]

    Tammann, A

    G.A. Tammann, A. Sandage and B. Reindl,New period-luminosity and period-color relations of classical cepheids: I. cepheids in the galaxy, A&A 404 (2003) 423–448

    2003

  32. [40]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.” https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July, 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3932430

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Iben,Age and Initial Helium Abundance of Stars in the Globular Cluster M15, Nature 220 (1968) 143

    I. Iben,Age and Initial Helium Abundance of Stars in the Globular Cluster M15, Nature 220 (1968) 143

    1968

  34. [43]

    Red Giant Clock

    F. Caputo, V. Castellani, A. Chieffi, L. Pulone and J. Tornambe, A.,The “Red Giant Clock” as an Indicator for the Efficiency of Central Mixing in Horizontal-Branch Stars, ApJ 340 (1989) 241

    1989

  35. [44]

    Walmswell, C.A

    J.J. Walmswell, C.A. Tout and J.J. Eldridge,On the blue loops of intermediate-mass stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society447 (2015) 2951 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/447/3/2951/9388791/stu2666.pdf]

    2015

  36. [45]

    Pietrzyński, I.B

    G. Pietrzyński, I.B. Thompson, W. Gieren, D. Graczyk, G. Bono, A. Udalski et al.,The dynamical mass of a classical Cepheid variable star in an eclipsing binary system, Nature 468 (2010) 542 [1012.0231]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Remage Evans and C.T

    N. Remage Evans and C.T. Bolton,The Mass of the Classical Cepheid Su-Cygni, inNew Insights in Astrophysics. Eight Years of UV Astronomy with IUE, E.J. Rolfe and R. Wilson, eds., vol. 263 ofESA Special Publication, p. 405, Sept., 1986

    1986

  38. [47]

    Wenger et al.,The simbad astronomical database, Astron

    M. Wenger et al.,The simbad astronomical database, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.143 (2000) 9 [astro-ph/0002110]

    2000 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Evans, C

    N.R. Evans, C. Proffitt, K.G. Carpenter, E.M. Winston, G.V. Kober, H.M. Günther et al.,The mass of the cepheid v350 sgr*, The Astrophysical Journal866 (2018) 30

    2018

  40. [49]

    Evans, G.H

    N.R. Evans, G.H. Schaefer, H.E. Bond, G. Bono, M. Karovska, E. Nelan et al.,Direct Detection of the Close Companion of Polaris with the Hubble Space Telescope, Astron. J. 136 (2008) 1137 [0806.4904]. – 35 –

    2008 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Gallenne, P

    A. Gallenne, P. Kervella, N.R. Evans, C.R. Proffitt, J.D. Monnier, A. Mérand et al.,A Geometrical 1% Distance to the Short-period Binary Cepheid V1334 Cygni, ApJ 867 (2018) 121 [1809.07486]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Anderson, T.C

    K. Anderson, T.C. Gehrman, P. Sandick, K. Sinha, E. Walsh and T. Xu,The effect of axions on period-luminosity relations of cepheid variables, in preparation

  43. [52]

    Evans, H.E

    N.E. Evans, H.E. Bond, G.H. Schaefer, B.D. Mason, M. Karovska and E. Tingle,Binary Cepheids: Separations and Mass Ratios in 5 M⊙ Binaries, AJ 146 (2013) 93 [1307.7123]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Böhm-Vitense, N

    E. Böhm-Vitense, N. Remage Evans, K. Carpenter, B. Beck-Winchatz and R. Robinson,The Mass of the Classical Cepheid S Muscae, ApJ 477 (1997) 916

    1997

  45. [54]

    Janish and E

    R. Janish and E. Pinetti,Hunting Dark Matter Lines in the Infrared Background with the James Webb Space Telescope, 2310.15395

    arXiv

  46. [55]

    Yin et al.,First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED, 2402.07976

    W. Yin et al.,First Result for Dark Matter Search by WINERED, 2402.07976

    arXiv

  47. [56]

    Todarello, M

    E. Todarello, M. Regis, J. Reynoso-Cordova, M. Taoso, D. Vaz, J. Brinchmann et al.,Robust bounds on ALP dark matter from dwarf spheroidal galaxies in the optical MUSE-Faint survey, JCAP 05 (2024) 043 [2307.07403]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    D. Grin, G. Covone, J.-P. Kneib, M. Kamionkowski, A. Blain and E. Jullo,A Telescope Search for Decaying Relic Axions, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 105018 [astro-ph/0611502]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Nakayama and W

    K. Nakayama and W. Yin,Anisotropic cosmic optical background bound for decaying dark matter in light of the LORRI anomaly, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 103505 [2205.01079]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Carenza, G

    P. Carenza, G. Lucente and E. Vitagliano,Probing the blue axion with cosmic optical background anisotropies, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 083032 [2301.06560]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Porras-Bedmar, M

    S. Porras-Bedmar, M. Meyer and D. Horns,Novel bounds on decaying axionlike particle dark matter from the cosmic background, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 103501 [2407.10618]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Fricke and P.A

    K.J. Fricke and P.A. Strittmatter,Evolutionary Aspects of the Cepheid Stage, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society156 (1972) 129 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/156/2/129/9360863/mnras156-0129.pdf]

    1972

  53. [62]

    Wagle, A

    G.A. Wagle, A. Ray, A. Dev and A. Raghu,Type IIP Supernova Progenitors and Their Explodability. I. Convective Overshoot, Blue Loops, and Surface Composition, ApJ 886 (2019) 27 [1910.01679]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Wagle, A

    G.A. Wagle, A. Ray and A. Raghu,Type IIP Supernova Progenitors. III. Blue to Red Supergiant Ratio in Low-metallicity Models with Convective Overshoot, ApJ 894 (2020) 118 [2004.14419]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Alongi, G

    M. Alongi, G. Bertelli, A. Bressan and C. Chiosi,Effects of envelope overshoot on stellar models., A&A 244 (1991) 95

    1991

  56. [65]

    Godart, A

    M. Godart, A. Noels, M.A. Dupret and Y. Lebreton,Can mass loss and overshooting prevent the excitation of g-modes in blue supergiants?, MNRAS 396 (2009) 1833 [0904.4641]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Maeder and G

    A. Maeder and G. Meynet,Tables of isochrones computed from stellar models with mass loss and overshooting., A&AS 89 (1991) 451

    1991

  58. [67]

    Schroder, O.R

    K.-P. Schroder, O.R. Pols and P.P. Eggleton,A critical test of stellar evolution and convective core ‘overshooting’ by means of zeta Aurigae systems, MNRAS 285 (1997) 696

    1997

  59. [68]

    Briquet, T

    M. Briquet, T. Morel, A. Thoul, R. Scuflaire, A. Miglio, J. Montalbán et al.,An asteroseismic study of theβ Cephei star θ Ophiuchi: constraints on global stellar parameters and core overshooting, MNRAS 381 (2007) 1482 [0706.3274]

    2007 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Mermilliod and A

    J.C. Mermilliod and A. Maeder,Evolution of massive stars : comparison of cluster sequences and models with mass loss., A&A 158 (1986) 45. – 36 –

    1986

  61. [70]

    Brott, S.E

    I. Brott, S.E. de Mink, M. Cantiello, N. Langer, A. de Koter, C.J. Evans et al.,Rotating massive main-sequence stars-i. grids of evolutionary models and isochrones, Astronomy & Astrophysics 530 (2011) A115

    2011

  62. [71]

    Ekström, C

    S. Ekström, C. Georgy, P. Eggenberger, G. Meynet, N. Mowlavi, A. Wyttenbach et al.,Grids of stellar models with rotation. I. Models from 0.8 to 120 M⊙ at solar metallicity (Z = 0.014), A&A 537 (2012) A146 [1110.5049]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Fedele, M. Giannotti, F. Mescia and E. Nardi,Stellar evolution confronts axion models, JCAP 02 (2022) 035 [2109.10368]. – 37 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.