Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Impact of radiative accelerations on the stellar characterization of FGK-type stars using spectroscopic and seismic constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Including radiative accelerations in stellar models shifts inferred masses, radii, and ages by only 2%, 0.7%, and 5%, but is necessary to predict surface abundances such as calcium in F-type stars.

desk verdict Useful, reusable SVP-in-MESA implementation and a clean grid comparison; but the abstract overstates the abundance case, and the paper's own Brewer et al. test cuts against the calcium prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05025 v2 pith:XWPFSJ2Y submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.SR

Nuno Moedas , Morgan Deal , Diego Bossini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords radiativeaccelerationsatomicdiffusionturbulentmixingstellarcharacterizationasteroseismologysurfaceabundancessingle-valuedparametersFGKstars
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

Radiative accelerations—the force that radiation pressure exerts on heavy elements inside a star—are usually left out of stellar models because they are expensive to compute. The paper implements the fast single-valued parameters (SVP) approximation for these accelerations in a stellar evolution code, making it feasible to compute whole grids of FGK-star models with element-by-element radiative levitation. Using those grids to fit 91 Kepler stars, it finds that including radiative accelerations changes inferred masses, radii, and ages by only about 2%, 0.7%, and 5% compared with a calibrated turbulent-mixing treatment. The larger effect is on surface chemistry: in F-type stars radiative acceleration pushes calcium to the surface, so the authors argue that radiative acceleration treatment is necessary to predict the chemical composition of such stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-valued parameters (SVP) method, a parametric approximation of radiative accelerations that separates atomic data from elemental abundances and compresses the atomic data into six precomputed parameters, so radiative acceleration can be evaluated from local thermodynamic quantities and mass fractions without monochromatic opacity tables. The paper adds a hook to the stellar evolution code so SVP runs alongside the default radiation-acceleration routine, and pairs it with two turbulent mixing prescriptions—Proffitt & Michaud (1991) for GK-type stars (calibrated to solar lithium) and Richer/Verma & Silva Aguirre for F-type stars (calibrated to helium)—to keep surface abundances from drifting unrealistically. This combination is what lets the authors build grid C and still compute models about twenty times faster than the standard approach.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure [Ca/Fe] as a function of effective temperature for a few dozen F-type dwarfs in the 1.2–1.5 solar-mass range with well-determined seismic masses. Grid C predicts that [Ca/Fe] should rise with effective temperature above roughly 6000 K, so a flat or decreasing trend in such a mass-controlled sample would falsify the paper's chemical-composition claim for F stars and point to the turbulent mixing prescription as the source of the discrepancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that radiative accelerations must be modeled explicitly, not just absorbed into a calibrated turbulent mixing coefficient, if stellar models are to predict surface abundances for F-type stars. The evidence comes from comparing three grids: a diffusion-only grid, a grid with a turbulent mixing calibration tuned to iron (grid B), and a grid with the SVP radiative-acceleration treatment (grid C). Grids B and C agree on fundamental properties—biases below 1% and dispersions of 2%, 0.7%, and 5% for mass, radius, and age—because iron is the only abundance constraint used in the fits. They differ for elements other than iron, most strikingly calcium: grid C predicts calcium accumulation in F-type stars, consistent with the small Morel et al. (2021) sample and with the known physics that radiative acceleration exceeds gravity just below the convective envelope, while grid B predicts depletion. The authors conclude that radiative acceleration treatment is necessary for chemical characterization, while noting that the turbulent mixing prescription in grid C may be unsuitable given the absence of a calcium-temperature trend in the much larger Brewer et al. (2016) sample.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that radiative accelerations are necessary to predict chemical composition rests on the assumption that the two turbulent mixing prescriptions used in grid C—one calibrated to the Sun's lithium for GK stars and one calibrated to helium for F stars—correctly represent the real churning that competes with atomic diffusion; if that assumption fails, the predicted calcium buildup at F-star surfaces could be an artifact of the mixing model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grid-based stellar characterization can now include radiative accelerations for individual elements at modest cost, so surface abundance predictions can move from iron-only calibrations to element-by-element transport.
  • For stars like the Sun and cooler GK stars, the choice between calibrated turbulent mixing and explicit radiative acceleration leaves inferred masses, radii, and ages unchanged at the few-percent level, making previous diffusion-only results more secure.
  • For F-type stars, models without radiative acceleration can misestimate individual ages by up to roughly 29% compared with SVP models, so the treatment matters most for hotter, thinner-envelope stars.
  • Calcium becomes a diagnostic: the predicted rise of [Ca/Fe] with effective temperature in F stars can be checked against large spectroscopic surveys, and the flat observed trend implies the turbulent mixing prescription must be revised.
  • Future space missions that will observe hotter stars, such as PLATO and Ariel, will need radiative acceleration modeling, and the SVP implementation is fast enough to support it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The absence of the predicted calcium-temperature trend in the 1600-star Brewer et al. sample suggests two testable alternatives: either the SVP method overestimates calcium's radiative acceleration in F-star envelopes, or the real turbulent mixing is more efficient or reaches deeper than the VSA19 calibration; a mass-controlled sample of F stars with seismic masses would separate these.
  • Because the SVP computation is element-specific, abundance ratios such as Ca/Fe and Mg/Fe could be added as constraints in grid-based inference, potentially breaking degeneracies between mixing efficiency and initial composition that a single iron constraint cannot resolve.
  • The same speed gain could make radiative acceleration modeling practical for other populations—chemically peculiar stars, exoplanet-host stars, or metal-poor turnoff stars—where diffusion and abundance anomalies are known to matter but grids have been too expensive.
  • If the SVP predictions are correct, F-star surface abundances should correlate with mass and age in seismic samples, so the absence of such correlations would point to missing physics such as rotation, magnetic fields, or internal waves rather than to the mixing prescription alone.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper implements the single-valued parameters (SVP) method for computing radiative accelerations in MESA r12778, reporting a factor-of-20 speedup over the standard Hu et al. (2011) routine. It constructs three grids for stellar characterization: grid A includes atomic diffusion without radiative accelerations (switched off for F-type stars), grid B includes atomic diffusion with the Paper I calibrated turbulent mixing (DT,Fe), and grid C includes SVP radiative accelerations with two turbulent mixing prescriptions (Proffitt & Michaud 1991 for GK stars, VSA19/Richer et al. 2000 for F stars). Using AIMS on 91 Kepler targets, the authors compare inferred masses, radii, ages, and surface abundances across grids. They report small differences in fundamental properties between grids B and C (scatter of 2%, 0.7%, and 5% for mass, radius, and age) and argue that radiative accelerations are necessary for predicting surface abundances, particularly calcium in F-type stars.

Significance. The SVP implementation is a valuable technical contribution: it is publicly available, allows large grids to be computed, and the comparison of inferred fundamental properties across transport models is useful for the community. The paper is also honest about the null result for [Ca/Fe] in the Brewer et al. (2016) sample (Sect. 5.3). However, the abstract and conclusions overstate the support for the compositional claim, and the reported fundamental-property numbers are misattributed to the wrong grid comparison. If these issues are corrected, the paper would be a solid contribution to the modeling of atomic diffusion in FGK stars.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sect. 4.4.1, Sect. 4.4.2] The abstract states that the impact of radiative accelerations is '2%, 0.7%, and 5% for mass, radius, and age' compared to models with 'atomic diffusion (with only gravitational settling)'. These numbers are from the grid B versus grid C comparison (Sect. 4.4.2), where grid B includes the calibrated DT,Fe turbulent mixing, not only gravitational settling. The actual grid A versus grid C comparison, which is the one against models with only gravitational settling, gives 2.6%, 0.9%, and 7.2% (Sect. 4.4.1). Moreover, neither comparison isolates radiative accelerations because grid C differs from both grid A and grid B in the turbulent mixing prescription as well. Please correct the abstract and specify in the text which grid pairs are being compared and what each set of numbers represents.
  2. [Sect. 5.3, Abstract, Sect. 6] The central claim that radiative accelerations are 'necessary to predict the chemical composition' is not supported by the evidence in the paper. In Sect. 5.3, the predicted increase of [Ca/Fe] with effective temperature in grid C (ODR slope 7.5e-5, correlation 0.35) is absent in the 1600-star Brewer et al. (2016) sample (slope 7.5e-6, correlation 0.02), and the authors themselves conclude that 'the turbulent mixing used in grid C may not be suitable'. Because the calcium accumulation is produced by the combination of SVP radiative accelerations and the VSA19 turbulent mixing prescription, and that prescription is not validated against element abundances, the predicted signal may be an artifact of the assumed mixing rather than a robust prediction. The only directly supporting evidence is a 12-star Morel et al. (2021) subsample with a single F-type star (KIC 12317678) for which the SVP prediction is closer to observation but still below it. Please temper the abstract and conclusion and explicitly discuss the dependence of the compositional predictions on the turbulent mixing model.
  3. [Sect. 2.2, Table 1] The criterion for switching between the Proffitt & Michaud (1991) and VSA19/Richer et al. (2000) turbulent mixing prescriptions is inconsistent: the text in Sect. 2.2 states 'If MCZ ≥ 10−4 M⊙' while the Table 1 note reports 'DT,PM91 if MCZ ≥ 10−5 M⊙'. This criterion controls which turbulent mixing prescription is applied in grid C, and the discrepancy could change the model physics for stars near the boundary. Please correct the inconsistency and state which value was actually used in the computations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the treatment of radiative accelerations is necessary to predict the chemical composition of and accurately characterize stars' is grammatically incomplete; 'of stars' is missing after 'composition of'.
  2. [Sect. 2.2] The sentence 'In this work we set ω and n to 104 and 4' should read '10^4' (the superscript appears to be lost in the text).
  3. [Sect. 3.2] In the caption of Fig. 2, 'the dot-dashed red lines the the model' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  4. [Sect. 4.4.1] The statement that 'the biases (µ) are two times smaller than the relative errors (values of the error in ∆X/Xr are larger than 0.015, 0.009, and 0.06...)' is unclear; please specify how these error values are computed and why the quoted thresholds are not shown in the figures.
  5. [Sect. 5.3] The two statements that the Brewer et al. sample shows 'a tendency for calcium to be 0.02 dex higher than iron' but 'no tendency for the abundance of calcium to increase with effective temperature' could be clarified by describing the offset as a constant rather than a slope.
  6. [Table 1] The notation 'DT,PM91' in the table note is not introduced in the text; the text refers to the 'Proffitt & Michaud (1991)' prescription, so please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: radiative-acceleration predictions are independent of fitted calibrations, though empirically contested.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The SVP radiative-acceleration implementation is taken from the public routines of LeBlanc & Alecian (2004) and Alecian & LeBlanc (2020) — external, parameterized radiative-acceleration tables — and is validated against MESA's default Hu et al. (2011) routine in Sect. 3.2, with track comparisons shown in Fig. 1. The turbulent mixing in grid C is either the external VSA19 calibration (Richer et al. 2000 prescription, calibrated on helium glitch signatures) or Proffitt & Michaud (1991) calibrated to solar lithium; both are presented as calibrations, not as predictions. The predicted calcium accumulation in F-type stars is not fitted to the observed calcium abundances: it is first compared to the small Morel et al. (2021) sample and then tested against the larger Brewer et al. (2016) sample, where it fails. That failure weakens the abstract's compositional claim but is a falsification, not a circular reduction. Grids A and B reuse the authors' Papers I and II, and the optimization setup is identical to Paper II, but those self-citations supply calibrated input physics and a methodology, not the paper's conclusions; the central grid C versus grid B comparison is an independent model comparison. No equation in the paper defines its predicted quantities in terms of the fitted inputs, and no parameter fitted to the target observable is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several fitted parameters (alpha_MLT, turbulent mixing constants, overshoot, reference envelope masses) and on the validity of the SVP approximation and the MESA physics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_MLT (mixing length parameter) = 1.711
    Calibrated to reproduce the solar model; used in grids A and B (Sect. 2.1).
  • Proffitt & Michaud turbulent mixing constants C and n = C = 1615.4763, n = 1.3
    Calibrated to reproduce the solar lithium abundance for the GK-star regime of grid C (Sect. 2.2).
  • Richer et al. turbulent mixing constants omega and n = omega = 10^4, n = 4
    Chosen following Michaud et al. (2011a,b) and VSA19 for F-type stars (Sect. 2.2).
  • Core overshoot parameters f and f0 = f = 0.0101, f0 = 0.0001
    Set to give an overshoot of 0.01 pressure scale heights (Sect. 2.1).
  • Paper I turbulent mixing reference envelope mass Delta M0 = 3.1e-4 (M/Msun) + 2.7e-4
    Calibrated in Moedas et al. (2022, Paper I) to reproduce iron surface abundances; used in grid B's DT,Fe prescription (Eq. 5).
  • VSA19 reference envelope mass Delta M = 1e-4 Msun
    Calibrated by Verma & Silva Aguirre (2019) to avoid unrealistic abundance variations in F-type stars; used in grid C (Sect. 2.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SVP method tables are valid for main-sequence stars with masses between 1.0 and 10 Msun.
    The paper states the SVP tables are only prepared for this stage and mass range (Sect. 3.1), so models below 1.0 Msun in grid C do not include radiative accelerations.
  • domain assumption The metal mixture is not strongly modified, so OPAL opacity tables computed for a fixed mixture remain appropriate.
    Stated in Sect. 2 as justification for using simpler opacity tables; justified by the turbulent diffusion reducing mixture changes.
  • domain assumption MESA r12778 and its default physics (EOS, atmosphere, nuclear reactions) provide a correct stellar evolution baseline.
    The paper relies on the MESA code's standard implementation of stellar physics (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption AIMS Bayesian inference with the Ball & Gizon (2014) surface correction yields unbiased stellar parameter estimates.
    The optimization process uses AIMS with two-term surface corrections (Sect. 4.2); systematic errors in the method would affect all grids equally.
  • domain assumption The turbulent mixing prescriptions (Proffitt & Michaud 1991; Richer et al. 2000) capture the macroscopic transport competing with atomic diffusion.
    These prescriptions are adopted with constants from prior calibrations (Sect. 2.2); the paper's own calcium results suggest this assumption may be questionable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of radiative accelerations on the stellar characterization of FGK-type stars using spectroscopic and seismic constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWPFSJ2Y

@misc{pith2026250205025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of radiative accelerations on the stellar characterization of FGK-type stars using spectroscopic and seismic constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWPFSJ2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05025}
}
read the original abstract

Chemical transport mechanisms are fundamental processes in stellar evolution models. They are responsible for the chemical distribution, and their impact determines how accurately we can characterize stars. Radiative accelerations are one of these processes. They allow the accumulation of elements at different depths in the star. We aim to assess the impact of radiative accelerations on the modeling of FGK-type stars and their impact on the prediction of surface abundances. To reduce the cost of the computation of radiative accelerations, we implemented the single-valued parameters (SVP) method in the stellar evolution code MESA. The SVP method is more efficient in calculating radiative accelerations, which enables computations of large enough grids of models for stellar characterization. Compared to models that include atomic diffusion (with only gravitational settling), the inclusion of radiative accelerations has a small effect on the inference of fundamental properties, with an impact of 2\%, 0.7\%, and 5\% for mass, radius, and age. However, the treatment of radiative accelerations is necessary to predict the chemical composition of and accurately characterize stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05025 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: HR diagram of different evolutionary tracks for the different radiative acceleration methods – the default method (gray line), models with DT,Fe (blue line), and the SVP method (red line). Lower panels: Difference for the 1.4 M⊙ models for the different methods, for effective temperature (middle panel) and luminosity (bottom panel) as a function of the central hydrogen mass fraction. The black circles a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the surface abundance of some chemical elements for a 1.4 M⊙ model. The solid gray lines represent a default model, the dashed blue lines the model with DT,Fe (Paper I), and the dot-dashed red lines the the model that considers the SVP method. 3.2. Impact of radiative accelerations on stellar models We computed seven evolutionary tracks for each method. The first includes radiative accelerations compute… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Profile for gravity (solid black line) and radiative accelerations for Ca (solid red line) and Fe (solid green line) for a 1.4 M⊙ model. The gray region is the convective envelope. The dotted black line indicates the reference envelope mass used for the turbulent mixing calibration from VSA19, and the dashed blue line is the reference envelope mass (∆M0 = 2.4 · 10−3 M⊙) for the maximum accumulation of Ca at the surf… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative difference for mass (left panel), radius (middle panel), and age (right panel) between grids A and C. The solid blue line indicates the bias, and the blue region is the 1σ of the standard deviation. Each point is color-coded with the corresponding reference ag…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated lithium abundances versus observed abundances from M21 using grid B (left) and grid C (right). The diamonds and downward triangles refer to the 16 Cyg A and B stars (KIC 12069424 and KIC 12069449), respectively, and the star represents the Sun. The arrows poi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the estimated and observed abundances of four stars from the M21 sample. 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 Teff 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 [Ca/Fe] Lund et al. (2017) Davies et al. (2016) Morel et al. (2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface abundance of calcium. The blue symbols are the abun￾dances predicted using grid C and the black symbols the observed abun￾dances provided by Morel et al. (2021). efficient than what we included in grid C (turbulent mixing co￾efficient calibrated by VSA19 on hel…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Almeida , A., et al

    Ahumada , R., Prieto , C. A., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    & LeBlanc , F

    Alecian , G. & LeBlanc , F. 2020, , 498, 3420

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  4. [4]

    Ball , W. H. & Gizon , L. 2014, , 568, A123

    2014

  5. [5]

    J., Koch , D., & et al

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

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    M., Fischer , D

    Brewer , J. M., Fischer , D. A., Valenti , J. A., & Piskunov , N. 2016, , 225, 32

    2016

  7. [7]

    2022, , 659, A162

    Campilho , B., Deal , M., & Bossini , D. 2022, , 659, A162

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    H., Nelan , J

    Chaboyer , B., Fenton , W. H., Nelan , J. E., Patnaude , D. J., & Simon , F. E. 2001, , 562, 521

    work page 2001

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Cox , J. P. & Giuli , R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure (Gordon & Breach)

    1968

  2. [10]

    S., Roxburgh , I

    Cunha , M. S., Roxburgh , I. W., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., et al. 2021, , 508, 5864

    2021

  3. [11]

    2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Cupani , G., D'Odorico , V., Cristiani , S., et al. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 512, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV, ed. N. P. F. Lorente , K. Shortridge , & R. Wayth , 209

    2017

  4. [12]

    R., Silva Aguirre , V., Bedding , T

    Davies , G. R., Silva Aguirre , V., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2016, , 456, 2183

    2016

  5. [13]

    2015, , 584, A105

    Deal , M., Richard , O., & Vauclair , S. 2015, , 584, A105

    2015

  6. [14]

    W., Alexander , D

    Ferguson , J. W., Alexander , D. R., Allard , F., et al. 2005, , 623, 585

    2005

  7. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  8. [16]

    2000, , 360, 952

    Herwig , F. 2000, , 360, 952

    2000

  9. [17]

    A., Glebbeek , E., & Dupret , M

    Hu , H., Tout , C. A., Glebbeek , E., & Dupret , M. A. 2011, , 418, 195

    2011

  10. [18]

    2024, , 691, A266

    Hui-Bon-Hoa , A. 2024, , 691, A266

    2024

  11. [19]

    Iglesias , C. A. & Rogers , F. J. 1996, , 464, 943

    1996

  12. [20]

    S., Bauer , E

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

    2023

  13. [21]

    Krishna Swamy , K. S. 1966, , 145, 174

    1966

  14. [22]

    & Alecian , G

    LeBlanc , F. & Alecian , G. 2004, , 352, 1329

    2004

  15. [23]

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

    Lund , M. N., Silva Aguirre , V., Davies , G. R., et al. 2017, , 835, 172

    2017

  16. [24]

    2015, Atomic Diffusion in Stars (Springer)

    Michaud , G., Alecian , G., & Richer , J. 2015, Atomic Diffusion in Stars (Springer)

    2015

  17. [25]

    2011 a , , 529, A60

    Michaud , G., Richer , J., & Richard , O. 2011 a , , 529, A60

    2011

  18. [26]

    2011 b , , 534, A18

    Michaud , G., Richer , J., & Vick , M. 2011 b , , 534, A18

    2011

  19. [27]

    Moedas , N., Bossini , D., Deal , M., & Cunha , M. S. 2024, , 684, A113

    2024

  20. [28]

    2022, , 666, A43

    Moedas , N., Deal , M., Bossini , D., & Campilho , B. 2022, , 666, A43

    2022

  21. [29]

    Mombarg , J. S. G., Dotter , A., Rieutord , M., et al. 2022, , 925, 154

    2022

  22. [30]

    L., Montalb \'a n , J., Miglio , A., & Willett , E

    Morel , T., Creevey , O. L., Montalb \'a n , J., Miglio , A., & Willett , E. 2021, , 646, A78

    2021

  23. [31]

    L., Monteiro , M

    Nsamba , B., Campante , T. L., Monteiro , M. J. P. F. G., et al. 2018, , 477, 5052

    2018

  24. [32]

    2011, , 192, 3

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

    2011

  25. [33]

    2013, , 208, 4

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

    2013

  26. [34]

    2015, , 220, 15

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

    2015

  27. [35]

    B., et al

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

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019, , 243, 10

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10

    2019

  29. [37]

    Proffitt , C. R. & Michaud , G. 1991, , 371, 584

    1991

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rehm , R., Mombarg , J. S. G., Aerts , C., et al. 2024, , 687, A175

    2024

  32. [40]

    M., Buldgen , G., Miglio , A., et al

    Rendle , B. M., Buldgen , G., Miglio , A., et al. 2019, , 484, 771

    2019

  33. [41]

    2000, , 529, 338

    Richer , J., Michaud , G., & Turcotte , S. 2000, , 529, 338

    2000

  34. [42]

    Ricker , G. R. 2016, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, P13C--01

    2016

  35. [43]

    Rogers , F. J. & Nayfonov , A. 2002, , 576, 1064

    2002

  36. [44]

    & Weiss , A

    Salaris , M. & Weiss , A. 2001, , 376, 955

    2001

  37. [45]

    Seaton , M. J. 1997, , 289, 700

    1997

  38. [46]

    Seaton , M. J. 2005, , 362, L1

    2005

  39. [47]

    2009, , 704, 1262

    Th \'e ado , S., Vauclair , S., Alecian , G., & LeBlanc , F. 2009, , 704, 1262

    2009

  40. [48]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    Tinetti , G., Drossart , P., Eccleston , P., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    2018

  41. [49]

    2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022--1114

    Tinetti , G., Eccleston , P., Lueftinger , T., et al. 2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022--1114

    2022

  42. [50]

    G., & Degl'Innocenti , S

    Valle , G., Dell'Omodarme , M., Prada Moroni , P. G., & Degl'Innocenti , S. 2014, , 561, A125

    2014

  43. [51]

    G., & Degl'Innocenti , S

    Valle , G., Dell'Omodarme , M., Prada Moroni , P. G., & Degl'Innocenti , S. 2015, , 575, A12

    2015

  44. [52]

    & Silva Aguirre , V

    Verma , K. & Silva Aguirre , V. 2019, , 489, 1850

    2019

  45. [53]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  46. [54]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.