Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

High Lithium Abundance Connection with the Chromospheric Helium in Red Giants: Spectroscopic and Asteroseismic analyses

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High lithium and strong helium appear only in red clump giants.

desk verdict New He I 10830, Li, and asteroseismic-phase data for 84 Kepler giants — a genuinely useful, refereable paper whose 'exclusively RC' claim is real in-sample but stronger than its literature-selected sample can prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08863 v1 pith:IHUADYJL submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.SR

Anohita Mallick , Christopher Sneden , Bacham E. Reddy , Melike Afşar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords lithium-richgiantsHeI10830redclumpgiantbranchasteroseismologychromosphericactivityheliumflashKeplerfield
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 argues that high lithium abundance and strong chromospheric helium absorption are two faces of the same event: the helium flash that ends the red giant branch. Combining asteroseismic phase identification with new near-infrared spectroscopy of 84 Kepler-field giants, the authors find that both features occur only among red clump stars that have already undergone the helium flash, never among red giant branch stars that have not. Among red clump stars, helium line strength declines as lithium abundance declines, and younger clump giants are preferentially helium-strong and super-lithium-rich while older ones are helium-weak and lithium-normal. If correct, the result turns the long-puzzling lithium-rich giants into a transient, post-flash phenomenon and gives a new observational handle on the helium flash itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing clock is the asteroseismic mixed-mode period spacing $\Delta P$ (and the asymptotic g-mode period spacing $\Delta\Pi_1$ for the best-quality light curves), which separates pre-flash red giant branch stars ($\Delta P < 150$ s) from post-flash red clump stars and orders the clump stars by age since the flash. The other central object is the reduced width of the chromospheric He I 10830 Å line, $RW_{\rm He} = \log_{10}(EW_{\rm He}/\lambda)$, with the threshold $RW_{\rm He} = -4.85$ separating weak from strong profiles; after subtracting contaminating photospheric lines, this measures chromospheric activity rather than photospheric helium abundance. The paper's correlation plot of $A(\rm Li)$ against $RW_{\rm He}$, split by evolutionary phase, is the evidence that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Perform a blind, volume-complete survey of Kepler-field giants in which every star (not only known lithium-rich ones) is observed in He I 10830 and asteroseismically classified; a single red giant branch star with $A(\rm Li) > 3.2$ dex and $RW_{\rm He} > -4.85$ would falsify the claimed exclusivity. Alternatively, a re-analysis showing that the RGB stars in this sample have systematically lower signal-to-noise in the 10830 Å region than the RC stars would invalidate the absence as a detection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the helium flash is the common origin of both the rare high lithium abundances and the strong chromospheric He I 10830 Å absorption seen in a subset of red giants. In a sample of 84 giants with asteroseismically determined evolutionary states, every star with strong He I and high lithium is a red clump star in core helium burning; none of the red giant branch stars show the combination. The strength of the He I line falls steadily with decreasing lithium abundance among clump stars, and the distribution tracks clump age: younger clump stars (smaller period spacings) are mostly super-lithium-rich and helium-strong, while older clump stars are lithium-normal and helium-weak. The authors interpret this as temporal evolution after the helium flash: the flash and its sub-flashes enrich lithium in the photosphere and trigger a burst of chromospheric activity that fades over the clump lifetime.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the 84 stars—drawn from published lithium surveys and a brightness cut $3 < J_{\rm mag} < 13$—fairly represent the true joint distribution of lithium and helium line strengths across both evolutionary phases, so the absence of strong helium among red giant branch stars is real stellar physics rather than a selection effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The long-standing puzzle of lithium-rich giants narrows: high photospheric lithium in low-mass giants is largely a post-helium-flash phenomenon, not a generic red giant branch event.
  • Strong He I 10830 absorption can serve as a cheap, single-epoch indicator of a recent helium flash, identifying young red clump stars without asteroseismology.
  • The lithium-rich phase among red clump stars is transient; as the clump ages, both lithium abundance and chromospheric helium strength decay, which explains why lithium-rich giants are so rare.
  • RGB stars that are lithium-rich must have a different production mechanism than the flash (e.g., binary interaction), since they do not show the accompanying chromospheric helium enhancement.
  • The correlation between He I and Ca II H&K activity among helium-strong clump stars supports a flash-triggered chromospheric activity episode rather than a change in helium abundance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exclusivity holds, a targeted search for He I 10830 in the small set of reportedly lithium-rich RGB stars (e.g., in open clusters) would directly test whether those stars are misclassified or truly a separate phenomenon; the paper's sample cannot fully exclude such cases.
  • The age decay implied by the $\Delta\Pi_1$ trend could be quantified into a timescale by combining the observed lithium and helium decay with asteroseismic clump ages, giving a measurable 'flash clock' for individual stars.
  • Because the paper relies on literature-compiled lithium abundances, a complete spectroscopic survey of the same Kepler giants without pre-selection on lithium would verify that the RGB/RC difference is not an artifact of which stars happened to have measured lithium.
  • Chromospheric modeling that converts the helium equivalent widths into actual helium column densities, as the authors suggest, would distinguish flash-triggered activity from flash-triggered helium dredge-up, resolving the physical mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a study of 84 Kepler-field red giants with asteroseismic classification into RGB, RC (core He-burning), and one subgiant, combining Li abundances from the literature or new LAMOST measurements with high-resolution HPF spectra of the chromospheric He I 10830 Å line. The central claim is that high Li abundance and strong He I 10830 absorption appear only among RC giants, that He I strength declines with decreasing Li abundance within the RC, and that younger, super-Li-rich RC giants tend to be He-strong while older, Li-normal RC giants are He-weak. On this basis the authors propose that the He-flash and subsequent sub-flashes jointly produce Li enhancement and transient chromospheric activity, with both phenomena fading over post-flash timescales.

Significance. If the exclusivity and temporal-decline claims hold, the paper would provide a novel observational connection between the He-flash, Li enrichment, and chromospheric activity in low-mass giants, with direct implications for models of flash-induced mixing and mass-loss. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses established reduction and analysis pipelines (pySYD, ACTIN, MOOG, SPECTRE, VOSA), reports per-star uncertainties for the key quantities, provides a machine-readable table, and combines literature and new measurements in a transparent way. The asteroseismic classification with period spacings is a meaningful advance over earlier Li-rich giant samples without phase information. The main limitation is that the sample is assembled from published Li surveys rather than a blind, complete asteroseismic sample, so the central 'exclusive to RC' statement requires careful scrutiny against selection effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 and Fig. 9] The central claim that high Li and strong He I 10830 are 'clearly absent' on the RGB while 'prominent among RC giants' rests on a sample that is not a complete or blind asteroseismic survey: Section 2 states the targets were gathered by searching for Kepler giants with published Li abundances (Singh et al. 2019, 2021; Yan et al. 2021; Takeda & Tajitsu 2017) plus 39 LAMOST stars. If the underlying Li surveys preferentially targeted RC candidates or Li-rich objects, or if RGB stars with high Li and strong He exist outside the selected literature (as the paper's own Section 1 notes for cluster RGB Li-rich stars), then the exclusivity result in Figure 9 could be a selection artifact rather than an evolutionary signature. The authors should either demonstrate that the RGB subsample of 24 stars is representative of the RGB population in the same Kepler field at similar SNR and selection completeness, or soften the 'clear absence' claim accordingly.
  2. [§5.4, §6, and §8] The counts underpinning the temporal-decline and group-proportion statements are internally inconsistent. Section 5.4 states the sample has 59 CHeB stars, but Section 6 begins 'Of all 58 CHeB stars' and later reports 31 SLR and 19 RC-LR, while Section 8 reports '18 RC LR' and 'Majority (20 out of 29) of SLR RC Giants'. These differences (59 vs 58 CHeB; 31 vs 29 SLR; 19 vs 18 RC-LR) are not explained and directly affect the claimed 'steady decline' and the majority-statements. The manuscript should reconcile these numbers and, ideally, present the counts in a single summary table so that the reader can verify the proportions.
  3. [§6, §8, and Fig. 9 caption] The He-strong/weak threshold is applied inconsistently. Section 6 defines RWHe = -4.85 as the boundary, but Section 8 refers to 'R_WHe > 4.80 dex as defined in Sneden et al. (2022)', which has the wrong sign and value. Figure 9 shows a vertical shaded band but does not specify its edges on the plot, making it difficult to know which stars are counted as 'on the uncertainty band' versus clearly strong or weak. Please state the threshold and its uncertainty explicitly (e.g., RWHe > -4.85 for strong, with a transition band), and ensure all text, captions, and table entries use the same convention.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6] The definition of RWHe = log10(EW_He/λ) does not state the reference wavelength λ; please specify λ = 10830 Å so the numerical values are reproducible.
  2. [§8] The text refers to 'R_WHe > 4.80 dex' where the sign appears to be a typo; it should be '> -4.85' or '> -4.80' to match the threshold defined in Section 6.
  3. [§5.3] The sentence 'Lightkurve cannot accurately fit Gaussians in narrow ranges' is vague; consider replacing it with a concrete statement about the adopted frequency-window width and why pySYD was used for the final parameters.
  4. [Fig. 9 and §6] The group labels in Figure 9 (LN, LR, SLR) are defined for RC stars in the text but the same abbreviations are used in the right panel for RGB stars; please clarify in the caption that the RGB groups use the different thresholds given in Section 6.
  5. [§2] The brightness cut 3 < Jmag < 13 is introduced without a discussion of how it interacts with the completeness of the underlying Li surveys; a sentence explaining the SNR rationale and any resulting Malmquist-type bias would help the reader assess the sample's representativeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: measured correlations, external thresholds; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical correlations between independently measured quantities: photospheric Li abundances (from literature or new LAMOST spectrum synthesis) and chromospheric He I 10830 equivalent widths (from new HPF spectra), with evolutionary phases assigned from asteroseismic ΔP using standard criteria (Vrard et al. 2016; Ting et al. 2018). No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then used to 'predict' the same quantity; Figure 9 is a contingency summary of measured values, not a derivation. The He-strong/weak threshold (RWHe = -4.85) and the Li-rich/SLR grouping are adopted from the authors' prior papers (Sneden et al. 2022; Singh et al. 2021), and the age ordering of RC stars leans on Singh et al. (2021), but these are applied to new independent observations and the correlation itself is not forced by the thresholds. The 'young vs old' interpretation is also supported by the paper's own Figure 11 (ΔP and ΔΠ1 vs A(Li)). The literature-based sample selection (Section 2) could bias the RGB/RC comparison, and some count inconsistencies appear (e.g., 58 vs 59 CHeB stars, 31 vs 29 SLR), but these are selection-bias and internal-consistency concerns, not circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data; at most there is minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational claims rest on adopted thresholds and phase proxies from prior literature; no new physical entities are introduced. The main unrecognized input is the representativeness of a literature-selected sample, which affects the claimed RGB/RC dichotomy.

free parameters (2)
  • RWHe strong/weak threshold = -4.85 dex
    Adopted from Sneden et al. 2022 in Section 6. This boundary defines the He-strong group; shifting it by about 0.1 dex moves several RGB stars across the line and changes the exclusivity statement.
  • A(Li) group thresholds = 1.0, 3.2 dex for RC; 1.7 dex for RGB
    Adopted from Singh et al. 2021 and Liu et al. 2014 in Section 6. The boundaries determine the LN/LR/SLR counts and therefore shape the claimed Li-He trend.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DeltaP threshold of 150 s cleanly separates RGB from RC stars
    Adopted from Vrard et al. 2016 and Ting et al. 2018 in Section 5.4. If the threshold misassigns some stars, the RC-only claim changes.
  • domain assumption He I 10830 is chromospheric and its measured EW after subtracting photospheric blends traces chromospheric He absorption
    Section 4 follows Sneden et al. 2022. The interpretation of EW as a chromospheric activity indicator depends on this.
  • domain assumption DeltaP and DeltaPi1 values monotonically trace time since the He-flash for RC giants
    Used in Section 8.1 and Figure 11 to label younger vs older RC stars. If the mapping is non-monotonic, the temporal evolution conclusion is unsupported.
  • domain assumption LTE analysis with ATLAS9/MOOG and LASP parameters yields A(Li) on a scale consistent with literature A(Li) values
    Section 3 mixes 39 new LAMOST abundances with literature values from four sources and assumes they are directly comparable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High Lithium Abundance Connection with the Chromospheric Helium in Red Giants: Spectroscopic and Asteroseismic analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHUADYJL

@misc{pith2026250108863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High Lithium Abundance Connection with the Chromospheric Helium in Red Giants: Spectroscopic and Asteroseismic analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHUADYJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08863}
}
read the original abstract

We present a study of correlations between high Li abundances and strong chromospheric He I 10830 \AA\ absorption line strengths in Kepler field giant stars. Our sample includes 84 giants with detectable solar-like oscillations in their lightcurves, and their Li abundances come from the literature or were measured here using LAMOST medium-resolution spectra. Evolutionary phases are determined through asteroseismic analysis, with mixed-mode period spacing (\Delta P) used to infer the time evolution of RC giants. Near-infrared observations of the He I \lambda 10830 line were obtained with the high-resolution Habitable-zone Planet Finder (HPF) spectrograph on the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET). We find high Li abundances and strong He I lines exclusively among red clump (RC) giants, with their absence in red giant branch stars suggesting a shared origin linked to the He-flash. Additionally, a steady decline in He I strength with decreasing Li abundance among RC giants indicates a correlation between these properties. Older, Li-normal RC giants are He-weak, while most younger super-Li-rich giants are He-strong, suggesting temporal evolution of both phenomena. We hypothesize that the core He-flash and subsequent sub-flashes may enhance Li abundances in RC giant photospheres and trigger heightened chromospheric activity, leading to stronger He I \lambda 10830 \AA\ lines in younger RCs. Over time, post-He-flash, chromospheric activity diminishes, resulting in weaker He I lines in older, Li-normal RCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HR diagram displaying the sample of 84 red gi￾ants (red crosses). Entire sample from Kepler Input Catalog (KIC) is shown in the background. The colorbar represents the normalized star density in each region of the plot, with the maximum value scaled to 100. Teff was taken from KIC (Brown et al. 2011), and luminosities were calculated using Gaia G-band magnitudes (see Andrae et al. (2018)) §3 describes lithium abunda… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In panel (a), spectra of a few giants from LAMOST whose Li abundances were measured in this work. Panel (b) illustrates spectrum synthesis for two sample Kepler giants, representing the highest and lowest Li abundances measured. Observed spectra (red circles) are compared with the best-fit models (solid black lines) and additional models to illustrate the significance of Li detection: blue for A(Li) = 1.5 dex (class… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. He i 10830.3 ˚A spectra of 3 program stars that appear in other figures of this paper. The HPF spectral order containing the λ10830 line extends from about 10820 ˚A to 10960 ˚A, leading to the appearance of λ10830 near the blue end of the order. Some prominent atomic features, all due to neutral species transitions, are labeled by element name, while the He 1 feature is indicated by a dotted vertical line. package G… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The raw (green) and corrected (black) stitched lightcurves from Kepler Q0-Q17 quarters for KIC 5000307. The corrected light curve has been vertically offset by 4.5 × 10−2 for comparison 5.2. Data preparation Kepler space telescope observations consist of a range of pul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of Lightkurve analysis for KIC 5000307. In panel (a) estimation of νmax using a smoothed 2D ACF over background corrected PSD. In panel (b) Peaks in ACF in the region near empirical ∆ν for calculating ∆ν 500 1000 1500 Time-2454833 [BKJD Days] 0.999 1.000 1.001 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Period spacing for KIC 5000307 Carlo sampling introduces stochastic noise to the PSD. The background is iteratively fitted to the perturbed PSD and global seismic parameters are recomputed for ∼ 200 times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlation between RWHe and Li abundances. Panel on the left showcases RC stars, while the panel on the right showcases RGB stars. Both plots feature a vertical blue-shaded region that distinguishes between weak and strong λ10830 absorption strengths. Additionally, bl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relationship between RWHe and log R ′ HK for RC (left panel) and RGB (right panel) stars. Points are color-coded based on their A(Li) values, with a square marking the position of a single subgiant. The red vertical line differentiates stars with strong and weak He I …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of A(Li) against ∆P (left panel) and A(Li) against ∆Π1 (right panel). ∆P is measured for all stars in this study, while ∆Π1 which solely reflects core information, is more sensitive to the time evolution of events following the He flash and is available for…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Biazzo, K., Covino, E., Frasca, A., & Bedin, L

    Alcal´ a, J. M., Biazzo, K., Covino, E., Frasca, A., & Bedin, L. R. 2011, A&A, 531, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117174

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117174 2011

  2. [2]

    2018, A&A, 616, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732516

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732516

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732516 2018

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al

    Bedding, T. R., Mosser, B., Huber, D., et al. 2011, Nature, 471, 608, doi: 10.1038/nature09935

    doi:10.1038/nature09935 2011

  5. [5]

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

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  6. [6]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Latham, D

    Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112 2011

  8. [8]

    Cameron, A. G. W., & Fowler, W. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111, doi: 10.1086/150821

    doi:10.1086/150821 1971

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    R., Ho, A

    Casey, A. R., Ho, A. Y. Q., Ness, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27bf

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F

    2003

  3. [11]

    210, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    Gray, Vol. 210, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2001, Journal of Astronomical Data, 7, 8

    Catala, C., & COROT Team. 2001, Journal of Astronomical Data, 7, 8

    2001

  5. [13]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Sayeed, M., & Yamsiri, P. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    E., & Kepler Team

    Coughlin, J., Thompson, S. E., & Kepler Team. 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 230, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #230, 102.04

    2017

  7. [15]

    H., Fields, B

    Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., & Olive, K. A. 2008, JCAP, 2008, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/11/012 Deepak, & Reddy, B. E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz128

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Strader, J., & Smith, G

    Dupree, A. K., Strader, J., & Smith, G. H. 2011, ApJ, 728, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/155

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Sneden, C

    Fitzpatrick, M. J., & Sneden, C. 1987, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 19, 1129 Garc ´ ıa P´ erez, A. E., Allende Prieto, C., Holtzman, J. A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/144

    1987 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, A&A, 668, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245083 Gomes da Silva, J., Figueira, P., Santos, N., & Faria, J

    Gehan, C., Gaulme, P., & Yu, J. 2022, A&A, 668, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245083 Gomes da Silva, J., Figueira, P., Santos, N., & Faria, J. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 667, doi: 10.21105/joss.00667 Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., et al....

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    C., Lockwood, G

    Hall, J. C., Lockwood, G. W., & Skiff, B. A. 2007, AJ, 133, 862, doi: 10.1086/510356

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Handberg, R., & Lund, M. N. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1823

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    P., & Pandey, G

    Hema, B. P., & Pandey, G. 2014, ApJL, 792, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/2/L28

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Pereira, C

    Holanda, N., Drake, N. A., & Pereira, C. B. 2020, AJ, 159, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5528

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al

    Holtzman, J. A., Hasselquist, S., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad4f9

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    A., et al

    Hon, M., Stello, D., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz622

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    R., et al

    Huber, D., Stello, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2009, Communications in Asteroseismology, 160, 74, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0910.2764

    2009 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    1968, ApJ, 154, 581, doi: 10.1086/149782

    Iben, Icko, J. 1968, ApJ, 154, 581, doi: 10.1086/149782

    1968 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 687, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449476

    Jian, M., Fu, X., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449476

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    N., Guhathakurta, P., Zhang, A

    Kirby, E. N., Guhathakurta, P., Zhang, A. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 135, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/135

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2016, AJ, 151, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    Kirk, B., Conroy, K., Prˇ sa, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 68, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Reddy, B

    Kumar, Y. B., Reddy, B. E., Campbell, S. W., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1059, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1139-7

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Reddy, B

    Kumar, Y. B., Reddy, B. E., & Lambert, D. L. 2011, ApJL, 730, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L12 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record asc...

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Tan, K

    Liu, Y. J., Tan, K. F., Wang, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/94

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, A&A, 655, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141275 16

    Magrini, L., Smiljanic, R., Franciosini, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141275 16

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L., Bender, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, 84461S, doi: 10.1117/12.926102

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Terrien, R., et al

    Mahadevan, S., Ramsey, L. W., Terrien, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 91471G, doi: 10.1117/12.2056417

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Mallick, A., Singh, R., & Reddy, B. E. 2023, ApJL, 944, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f6

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    L., Simpson, J

    Martell, S. L., Simpson, J. D., Balasubramaniam, A. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1356

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Mitler, H. E. 1972, Ap&SS, 17, 186, doi: 10.1007/BF00642551

    1972 doi

  34. [42]

    2014, A&A, 572, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425039

    Mosser, B., Benomar, O., Belkacem, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425039

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    1984 doi

  36. [44]

    Obrien, George T., J., & Lambert, D. L. 1986, ApJS, 62, 899, doi: 10.1086/191160

    1986 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Charbonnel, C., & Deliyannis, C

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Charbonnel, C., & Deliyannis, C. P. 2000, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 198, The Light Elements and their Evolution, ed. L. da Silva, R. de Medeiros, & M. Spite, 74

    2000

  38. [46]

    M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 92, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abf651

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    W., Sneden, C., & Chadid, M

    Preston, G. W., Sneden, C., & Chadid, M. 2022, AJ, 163, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac46ca

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2001, A&A, 374, 646, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010751

    Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Ventura, P., & D’Antona, F. 2001, A&A, 374, 646, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010751

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    R., Fulbright, J

    Ruchti, G. R., Fulbright, J. P., Wyse, R. F. G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/107

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Rutten, R. G. M. 1984, A&A, 130, 353

    1984

  43. [51]

    J., & Boothroyd, A

    Sackmann, I. J., & Boothroyd, A. I. 1992, ApJL, 392, L71, doi: 10.1086/186428

    1992 doi

  44. [52]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  45. [53]

    Bedding, T. R. 2016, ApJ, 822, 15, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/15

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Pandey, J

    Singh, R., Mallick, A., Reddy, B. E., Pandey, J. C., & Zhao, G. 2024, ApJL, 971, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad62f6

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Bharat Kumar, Y., & Antia, H

    Singh, R., Reddy, B. E., Bharat Kumar, Y., & Antia, H. M. 2019, ApJL, 878, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2599

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, ApJL, 913, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfa24

    Vrard, M. 2021, ApJL, 913, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfa24

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    H., Dupree, A

    Smith, G. H., Dupree, A. K., & Strader, J. 2004, PASP, 116, 819, doi: 10.1086/423988

    2004 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Stumpe, M

    Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1000, doi: 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    V., Plez, B., Lambert, D

    Smith, V. V., Plez, B., Lambert, D. L., & Lubowich, D. A. 1995, ApJ, 441, 735, doi: 10.1086/175395

    1995 doi

  52. [60]

    2012, SPECTRE: Manipulation of single-order spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.010

    Sneden, C., Uomoto, A., Cottrell, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. 2012, SPECTRE: Manipulation of single-order spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.010

    2012

  53. [61]

    2021, AJ, 161, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd7ee —

    Sneden, C., Af¸ sar, M., Bozkurt, Z., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd7ee —. 2022, ApJ, 940, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac922e

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

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

    1973

  55. [63]

    Bedding, T. R. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L80, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00767.x

    2009

  56. [64]

    Susmitha, A., Mallick, A., & Reddy, B. E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad35b9

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 74, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx057

    Takeda, Y., & Tajitsu, A. 2017, PASJ, 69, 74, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx057

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2018, ApJL, 858, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e

    Ting, Y.-S., Hawkins, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, ApJL, 858, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf8e

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    1986b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

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

    doi

  60. [69]

    2023, A&A, 674, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244374 Van Cleve, J

    Tsantaki, M., Delgado-Mena, E., Bossini, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244374 Van Cleve, J. E., & Caldwell, D. A. 2009, Kepler Instrument Handbook, Kepler Science Document KSCI− 19033 (Moffett

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    H., Preston, G

    Vaughan, A. H., Preston, G. W., & Wilson, O. C. 1978, PASP, 90, 267, doi: 10.1086/130324 17

    1978 doi

  62. [71]

    P., Antia, H

    Verma, K., Faria, J. P., Antia, H. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/138

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    2016, A&A, 588, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527259

    Vrard, M., Mosser, B., & Samadi, R. 2016, A&A, 588, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527259

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    2003, PASP, 115, 1023, doi: 10.1086/377358

    Walker, G., Matthews, J., Kuschnig, R., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 1023, doi: 10.1086/377358

    2003 doi

  65. [74]

    1982, ApJ, 255, 577, doi: 10.1086/159859

    Wallerstein, G., & Sneden, C. 1982, ApJ, 255, 577, doi: 10.1086/159859

    1982 doi

  66. [75]

    1996, ApOpt, 35, 5155, doi: 10.1364/AO.35.005155

    Wang, S.-G., Su, D.-Q., Chu, Y.-Q., Cui, X., & Wang, Y.-N. 1996, ApOpt, 35, 5155, doi: 10.1364/AO.35.005155

    1996 doi

  67. [76]

    S., Liu, X

    Xiang, M. S., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2692

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01217-8

    Yan, H.-L., Zhou, Y.-T., Zhang, X., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01217-8

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    S., Li, Y., & Bi, S

    Zhang, X., Jeffery, C. S., Li, Y., & Bi, S. 2020, ApJ, 889, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e89

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.