Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Asteroseismology of WD J004917.14-252556.81, the Most Massive Pulsating White Dwarf

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulsation modes in the most massive known white dwarf point to a 1.29-solar-mass star with a core more than 99 percent crystallized, the first interior constraint on such an object.

desk verdict Genuine step forward in mode inventory for the most massive pulsating WD, but the 1.29 Msun core-crystallization headline rests on a tentative ell=1 sequence and a grid-edge fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17177 v1 pith:D3X54WFL submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.SR

O. Caliskan , M. Uzundag , M. Kilic , F. C. Geronimo , A. Moss , A. H. Corsico , S. G. Parsons , I. Pelisoli
show 5 more authors
G. Jewett A. Rebassa-Mansergas A. J. Brown V. K. Dhillon P. Bergeron
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfstarsZZCetiasteroseismologypulsationmodesultra-massivedwarfscrystallizationoxygen-neoncoresg-modeperiodspacings
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 reports 13 pulsation modes, with periods between 170 and 258 seconds, in WD J004917.14-252556.81, the most massive pulsating white dwarf known. Fitting these modes with oxygen-neon core white dwarf models, the authors find a stellar mass of about 1.29 solar masses, a hydrogen surface layer thinner than about $10^{-7.5}$ of the stellar mass, and a core more than 99 percent crystallized. The high mass is argued to be forced by the measured 17.56-second period spacing alone, in the sense that the only alternative reading of the spacings would imply an impossible mass above the Chandrasekhar limit. If this interpretation holds, the pulsations open the first window into the interior of a roughly 1.3-solar-mass white dwarf, where crystallization and core composition govern how the object cools.

What carries the argument

The machine at the center of the argument is the identification of a uniform 17.56 ± 1.02 s period spacing as six consecutive dipole ($\ell=1$) g-modes at 170.6, 188.3, 205.7, 220.6, 240.0, and 258.5 s, with radial orders $k=10$–$15$ flagged as tentative. The asymptotic Tassoul relation $\Delta\Pi_{\ell=2} = \Delta\Pi_{\ell=1}/\sqrt{3}$ connects that spacing to the second detected spacing of 9.79 s and fixes the harmonic degrees used in the fits. The period-to-period minimization $\chi^2 = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \min_k(\Pi_i^O - \Pi_k^{\rm th})^2$ then selects among ONe-core evolutionary models between 1.10 and 1.29 $M_\odot$, and the Gaia distance of 99.7 pc acts as the discriminator that rejects the lower-mass solutions in favor of the thin-envelope, >99%-crystallized fits.

What would settle it

A multi-week, uninterrupted photometric campaign would resolve the candidate rotational doublets around 211-221 s and show whether the 17.56 s spacing is a genuine consecutive dipole sequence or an alias of the sampling. Alternatively, re-running the same period-to-period fits on a CO-core ultra-massive white dwarf grid, which the paper states is under construction and not yet available, would directly test the assumed ONe composition: fits of the same 13 periods at a markedly different mass would falsify the 1.29 $M_\odot$ and >99% crystallization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Thirteen significant pulsation modes between 170 and 258 s, drawn from 11 nights of time-series photometry at three telescopes, are used to perform asteroseismology of WD J0049-2525. The best-fitting ONe-core models have $M_\star \approx 1.29\,M_\odot$, a surface hydrogen layer mass of $\log(M_{\rm H}/M_\star) \lesssim -7.5$, and a crystallized core fraction above 99%. Three statistical tests recover uniform period spacings of 17.56 s and 9.79 s whose ratio is close to $\sqrt{3}$, the asymptotic expectation for $\ell=1$ and $\ell=2$ g-modes; a sequence of six consecutive $\ell=1$ modes yields a spacing of 17.41 s, and comparing the spacings with the model grid rules out masses below about 1.29 $M_\odot$, since treating the 10-second spacing as $\ell=1$ would imply a mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit. Period-to-period fits in which five of the six candidate dipole modes are pre-assigned as $\ell=1$ converge to thin-hydrogen-envelope solutions with >99% crystallized cores, and the asteroseismic distance of 93.3-98.1 pc agrees with the Gaia distance of 99.7 pc; the fits also give tentative evidence of a rotation period of 0.3 or 0.67 d.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 17.56-second spacing is a run of six modes of the same type in which the number of internal nodal shells increases by exactly one from mode to mode; the paper itself flags the assigned radial orders as tentative, and if the spacing is instead a non-consecutive sequence, or the modes are of a different type, the 1.29-solar-mass and 99-percent-crystallized conclusions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the best-fitting models are correct, the star becomes the first $\sim 1.3\,M_\odot$ white dwarf with a measured interior structure, placing a more-than-99-percent crystallized oxygen-neon core at about 13,000 K.
  • The mass floor stands apart from the mode-identification subtleties: the period-spacing comparison alone rules out masses below about 1.29 $M_\odot$, because the only alternative assignment of the 10-second spacing would demand a mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit.
  • The match between the asteroseismic distance (93.3-98.1 pc) and the Gaia distance (99.7 pc) selects the thin-hydrogen-envelope, high-mass solutions over the lower-mass fits that otherwise reproduce the periods.
  • A confirmed rotation period of 0.3 or 0.67 d would place this nearly fully crystallized massive white dwarf in the slow-rotation regime expected for its mass and cooling age.
  • Because the derived mass sits at the edge of the available model grid, the true mass may be even higher; the paper states that an extended grid and a CO-core grid are under construction and are the next direct test of the core-composition assumption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the 220.6 s mode that the paper flags as 'likely trapped' is precisely the kind of period irregularity a crystallized core should imprint on the mode spectrum; a longer campaign that confirms the trapping would turn the >99% crystallization result into a direct probe of the solid core rather than a by-product of model selection.
  • The near-$\sqrt{3}$ ratio of the two spacings is a mostly model-independent handle that the paper uses only partially: because the ratio of dipole to quadrupole spacings is set largely by the star's mean density, a longer mode list confirming both spacings simultaneously would pin down the mass with less reliance on the ONe grid.
  • A consequence left implicit: the thin hydrogen envelope ($\lesssim 10^{-7.5}\,M_\star$) preferred by the fits, combined with the very high mass, is the signature expected of specific formation channels such as mergers or non-standard late evolution, so the result may eventually help distinguish how ultra-massive white dwarfs are born.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents follow-up time-series photometry of WD J004917.14-252556.81 from NTT/ULTRACAM, APO, and Gemini, reporting 13 significant pulsation modes with periods between roughly 170 and 258 s. Applying IV, KS, and FT period-spacing tests, the authors identify spacings of 17.56 s and 9.79 s, which they associate with ℓ=1 and ℓ=2 modes. Using an ONe-core white-dwarf model grid, they then perform period-to-period fits and conclude that the best-fitting models have M* ≈ 1.29 M_sun, log(M_H/M*) ≲ -7.5, and a crystallized core fraction >99%. They also derive an asteroseismic distance of 93.3-98.1 pc, which they state agrees with the Gaia distance of 99.7 pc, and find tentative evidence for a rotation period of 0.3 or 0.67 d.

Significance. If correct, this would be the first asteroseismic constraint on the interior of a ~1.3 M_sun white dwarf, extending the previous record held by BPM 37093 (≈1.13 M_sun) and providing a unique test of core crystallization and ONe-core evolution. The observational campaign itself is a substantial contribution: 13 modes detected across 11 nights at three facilities, with a standard 4σ prewhitening analysis and multiple independent period-spacing tests. The authors are transparent about the grid-edge limitation and the need for CO-core models. However, the load-bearing mode-identification and model-selection steps need strengthening before the claimed mass and crystallization fraction can be accepted as more than conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 4 vs. Table 3] The six-mode ℓ=1 sequence in Table 4 includes periods of 188.3111 s and 239.9992 s, but neither appears in the robust 13-mode list of Table 3. In Table 6, 188.3111 s comes from the 2022-12-27 Gemini run with S/N=4.95 and 239.9992 s from ULTRACAM g-band with S/N=4.74, both below the robustness standard used for Table 3. Since the abstract claims the asteroseismology uses the 13 modes of Table 3, while the actual sequence used for the 17.41 s spacing and mass inference draws on different, marginal detections, the paper needs to justify this inconsistency or redefine the mode list. This issue is load-bearing because the derived mass and crystallization fraction depend directly on this sequence.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 5] The ℓ-free period-to-period fits yield M*=1.22-1.25 M_sun with χ²=5.61-6.07 and BIC=1.00-1.04, which are lower than the ℓ=1-assigned solutions (χ²=10.72-12.59, BIC=1.28-1.35). These ℓ-free solutions are rejected because their asteroseismic distances (113.6-121.5 pc) are inconsistent with the Gaia distance (99.7 pc), and the adopted ℓ=1 solutions are then reported as being in 'good agreement' with that same Gaia distance. The distance check is therefore used as a selection filter before being quoted as confirmation, so the agreement is partly by construction. The paper should present this as a joint constraint and quantify the significance of the rejection, rather than presenting the distance agreement as an independent validation.
  3. [Section 4.1, Figure 7] The mass conclusion is expressed as M* ≈ 1.29 M_sun in the abstract and Section 5, but Figure 7 shows that 1.29 M_sun is the maximum mass of the ONe-core model grid and the period-spacing comparison only allows the statement M* ≥ 1.29 M_sun (as the text itself notes at the end of Section 4.1). The H-envelope mass constraint log(M_H/M*) ≲ -7.5 and the crystallized core fraction >99% are likewise obtained from models at the grid edge. These results should be reported as lower limits or as conditional on the grid boundary, not as a best-fit value with the precision implied by the abstract.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 4] The identification of the six modes in Table 4 as a sequence of consecutive ℓ=1 radial orders is labeled tentative in the table caption, but this identification is the foundation for the 17.41 s spacing and hence for the mass and crystallization claims. The IV/KS/FT tests establish a global spacing near 17.56 s in the full period set, but they do not demonstrate that this particular six-period subset is consecutive in radial order, especially since it excludes several stronger modes (e.g., 221.6 s, 215.3 s, 211.3 s, 259.4 s) and includes marginal detections. A Monte Carlo false-alarm test of the period-spacing peak in the subset, or a global fit that treats mode identification as part of the model selection, is needed to support the sequence. Without this, the central mass claim remains plausible but not statistically established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (1)] The quality function in Eq. (1) does not include observational period uncertainties, so χ² is not a standard weighted chi-square; weighting by the period errors or justifying the unweighted choice would improve the fit statistics.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (2)] The BIC calculation uses N=13 in the text, but the fits in scenarios (b) and the additional nine-period fit use fewer modes; the paper should specify which N was used for each BIC value in Table 5.
  3. [Table 6] Several periods in Table 6 have two or more near-identical entries from different nights or bands (e.g., 5310.4 and 5311.0 µHz, 4728.4 and 4730.5 µHz); the paper should clarify whether these are treated as the same mode and how the adopted Table 3 values were averaged.
  4. [Section 2] There is a typo in the telescope name: 'Apache Point Obervatory' should be 'Apache Point Observatory'.
  5. [Section 5] The word 'asteroseimic' in the first paragraph of Section 5 should be 'asteroseismic'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline mass and Gaia-distance agreement are partly built from the model-grid edge and the Gaia-based selection; the period-spacing lower limit is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Table 5; abstract]
    "However, the asteroseismic distance estimated for these solutions is significantly different from the Gaia distance of 99.7+2.9−2.7 pc (Bailer-Jones et al. 2021). Hence, they are ruled out based on Gaia astrometry. ... Finally, the distance estimated for our best-fit models is in the range [93.3−98.1] pc, showing a much better agreement with the Gaia distance than when ℓ is left as a free parameter."

    The Gaia distance is used as the criterion that discards the ℓ-free best fits (M=1.22–1.25, distances 113.6–121.5 pc). The surviving ℓ=1-preassigned models are then reported as being in 'much better agreement' with Gaia, and the abstract elevates this to 'The asteroseismic distance derived is in good agreement with the distance provided by Gaia.' In other words, the quoted agreement is a property of the selection rule, not an independent falsification: any model family rejected for failing the Gaia test cannot later be used to validate the family that passed. The mass lower limit from the period-spacing comparison (Section 4.1) is independent of this particular circular step.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Table 5, and grid definition; abstract]
    "We use the same grid of ultramassive ONe-core WD models as in Kilic et al. (2023a), that include evolutionary sequences of stellar masses MWD/M⊙ = 1.10, 1.13, 1.16, 1.19, 1.22, 1.25, 1.29 ... We note that our asteroseismic analysis is limited by the fact that the stellar mass derived is at the edge of our model grid."

    The model grid has no mass above 1.29 M⊙, and Table 5 shows every ℓ=1-preassigned best fit at exactly 1.29 M⊙. The abstract's headline 'best-fitting models ... have M⋆ ≈ 1.29 M⊙' is therefore the grid boundary, not an independently determined value. The data can support the lower limit 'M⋆ ≥ 1.29' (Section 4.1), but the 'best-fitting mass ≈1.29' is forced by the finite input grid; any star with M>1.29 would also be represented by the 1.29 model. The paper's own limitation sentence concedes this, but the abstract presents the boundary value without that caveat.

full rationale

The detection of 13 modes, the period-spacing tests (IV/KS/FT), and the lower mass bound M≥1.29 from comparing the 17.56 s spacing with ONe model sequences are self-contained and non-circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: the ONe grid from Corsico et al. (2019b) and De Geronimo et al. (2019) is a tool, not a conclusion, and the spectroscopic mass from Kilic et al. (2023b) is external. The two flagged steps are partial circularities in the presentation: (i) the abstract's 'asteroseismic distance ... good agreement with Gaia' is not an independent confirmation because the Gaia distance was used to rule out the competing ℓ-free solutions; (ii) the abstract's 'best-fitting M⋆ ≈ 1.29' is the maximum point of the ONe grid, not a freely fitted value, a fact the body concedes. These do not dissolve the period-spacing lower-limit argument, but they do mean the headline mass and distance agreement are partly by construction. A Monte Carlo false-alarm test of the six-mode ℓ=1 sequence would address a separate robustness concern that is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The headline mass, envelope, and crystallization values come from fitting observed periods to an ONe-core WD model grid built by the same research groups (LPCODE/LP-PUL), under a tentative identification of the 17.56 s spacing as a consecutive ℓ=1 sequence. No independent code, data, or formal proof is provided, so the inferred structural parameters inherit the grid's assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Stellar mass M* = 1.29 Msun (best fit)
    Period-to-period χ2 fit over the model grid; grid maximum is 1.29 Msun, so the value is at the edge.
  • Hydrogen envelope mass log(MH/M*) = -7.5 to -9.0
    Fitted in the χ2 search; abstract adopts ≲ -7.5.
  • Effective temperature Teff = 12,539-13,186 K for adopted models
    Fitted parameter in the χ2; also constrained by spectroscopy.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The white dwarf has an ONe core composition, not a CO core.
    The adopted model grid is ONe-core; the paper notes CO-core models are not yet available to test this.
  • standard math The asymptotic g-mode period spacing ratio ΔΠ_{ℓ=2} = ΔΠ_{ℓ=1}/√3 holds.
    Used to associate the 17.56 s and 9.79 s spacings with ℓ=1 and ℓ=2 modes.
  • domain assumption The six periods in Table 4 form a consecutive sequence of ℓ=1 modes with radial orders k=10-15.
    The paper itself labels the radial orders as tentative; the sequence is the basis for the 17.41 s spacing.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic pulsation periods from LP-PUL on LPCODE evolutionary sequences are adequate.
    The model grid comes from prior work by the same groups; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption Crystallization physics in the evolutionary models (e.g., O/Ne separation) is correct.
    The >99% crystallized core fraction is a model output, not a direct observable.
  • domain assumption The Gaia distance and the photometric/spectroscopic Teff and log g from Kilic et al. (2023b) are correct.
    Used to select between model scenarios and to compare the asteroseismic distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismology of WD J004917.14-252556.81, the Most Massive Pulsating White Dwarf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3X54WFL

@misc{pith2026250517177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismology of WD J004917.14-252556.81, the Most Massive Pulsating White Dwarf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3X54WFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17177}
}
abstract

We present extensive follow-up time-series photometry of WD J0049$-$2525, the most massive pulsating white dwarf currently known with $T_{\rm eff} = 13\, 020\,{\rm K}$ and $\log{\it g} = 9.34$ cm s$^{-2}$. The discovery observations detected only two significant pulsation modes. Here, we report the detection of 13 significant pulsation modes ranging from 170 to 258 s based on 11 nights of observations with the New Technology Telescope, Gemini, and Apache Point Observatory telescopes. We use these 13 modes to perform asteroseismology and find that the best-fitting models (under the assumption of an ONe core composition) have $M_{\star} \approx 1.29~M_\odot$, surface hydrogen layer mass of $\log(M_{\rm H}/M_{\star}) \lesssim -7.5$, and a crystallized core fraction of $>99\%$. An analysis of the period spacing also strongly suggests a very high mass. The asteroseismic distance derived is in good agreement with the distance provided by Gaia. We also find tentative evidence of a rotation period of 0.3 or 0.67 d. This analysis provides the first look at the interior of a $\sim 1.3~M_{\odot}$ white dwarf.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model fits (red lines) to the normalized Balmer line profiles (black lines) of WD J0049−2525. 3D hydro￾dynamical corrections are included in the best-fitting model parameters. log g = 9.34 ± 0.04 cm s−2 based on the photomet￾ric method (Bergeron et al. 2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ULTRACAM light curves of WD J0049−2525 from UT 2023 October 5, 6, and 7 (left to right). The top, middle, and bottom panels show the relative flux variations in the u (blue), g (green), and r (red) bands, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fourier transforms of the combined ULTRACAM dataset (shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency distribution of WD J0049-2525, color-coded by instrument (ULTRACAM in green, Gemini in red, and APO in blue), showing frequency as a function of signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). The vertical lines represent the frequencies included in the seismic fit [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: IV (upper panel), KS (middle panel), and FT (bottom panel) significance tests to search for constant pe￾riod spacings in the set of periods of WD J0049−2525. The vertical thick black dashed lines indicate the possible period spacings present in the star as indicated by…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average period spacings for ℓ = 1 (left panel) and ℓ = 2 (right panel) modes for ONe-core ultramassive WDs with thick H envelopes and masses ranging from 1.10 to 1.29 M⊙ (colored lines). The location of WD J0049−2525 is based on the effective temperature derived by Kil…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves (left) and corresponding Fourier transforms (right) for APO (blue) and Gemini (red) observations of WD J0049−2525. Dashed horizontal lines indicate the 4×S/N detection threshold for each band. The observations are sorted chronologically and detailed in [P…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Observing bright pulsating white dwarfs with PLATO: A new window into the late stages of stellar evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PLATO should detect white-dwarf pulsation modes down to about 0.1 milli-magnitudes for bright targets, and the LOPS2 field contains 159 high-priority white-dwarf candidates for such measurements.

  2. Seismology and diffusion of ultramassive white dwarf magnetic fields

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seismic non-detection of magnetic g-mode suppression in WD J0135+5722 limits its internal magnetic field to below 0.6 MG (CO core) or below 7 kG (ONe core), disfavoring an ONe composition or an intense crystallization dynamo.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., C \'o rsico , A

    Althaus , L. G., C \'o rsico , A. H., & De Ger \'o nimo , F. 2020, , 644, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039557

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039557 2020

  2. [2]

    G., C \'o rsico , A

    Althaus , L. G., C \'o rsico , A. H., Isern , J., & Garc \' a-Berro , E. 2010, , 18, 471, 10.1007/s00159-010-0033-1

    doi:10.1007/s00159-010-0033-1 2010

  3. [3]

    G., Serenelli , A

    Althaus , L. G., Serenelli , A. M., Panei , J. A., et al. 2005, , 435, 631, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041965

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041965 2005

  4. [4]

    G., Gil-Pons , P., C \'o rsico , A

    Althaus , L. G., Gil-Pons , P., C \'o rsico , A. H., et al. 2021, , 646, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038930

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 2021

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    2017, , 848, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8bb6

    B \'e dard , A., Bergeron , P., & Fontaine , G. 2017, , 848, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8bb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8bb6 2017

  7. [7]

    2024, , 627, 286, 10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y

    B \'e dard , A., Blouin , S., & Cheng , S. 2024, , 627, 286, 10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y 2024

  8. [8]

    2019, , 876, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    Bergeron , P., Dufour , P., Fontaine , G., et al. 2019, , 876, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a 2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    L., Bradley , P

    Bischoff-Kim , A., Provencal , J. L., Bradley , P. A., et al. 2019, , 871, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2b1

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, , 911, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b

    Blouin , S., Daligault , J., & Saumon , D. 2021, , 911, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Bradley , P. A. 1998, , 116, 307, 10.1086/313102

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    2005, , 622, 572, 10.1086/428116

    Brassard , P., & Fontaine , G. 2005, , 622, 572, 10.1086/428116

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Althaus , L

    Camisassa , M. E., Althaus , L. G., C \'o rsico , A. H., et al. 2019, , 625, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & M \'e nard , B

    Cheng , S., Cummings , J. D., & M \'e nard , B. 2019, , 886, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Clemens , J. C. 1994, PhD thesis, University of Texas System

    1994

  8. [16]

    H., & Althaus , L

    C \'o rsico , A. H., & Althaus , L. G. 2006, , 454, 863, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054199

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Althaus , L

    C \'o rsico , A. H., Althaus , L. G., Miller Bertolami , M. M., & Kepler , S. O. 2019 a , , 27, 7, 10.1007/s00159-019-0118-4

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Boston , S

    C \'o rsico , A. H., Boston , S. R., Althaus , L. G., et al. 2023, , 524, 5929, 10.1093/mnras/stad2248

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    H., De Ger \'o nimo , F

    C \'o rsico , A. H., De Ger \'o nimo , F. C., Camisassa , M. E., & Althaus , L. G. 2019 b , , 632, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936698

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    H., De Ger \'o nimo , F

    C \'o rsico , A. H., De Ger \'o nimo , F. C., Camisassa , M. E., & Althaus , L. G. 2020, in Stars and their Variability Observed from Space, ed. C. Neiner , W. W. Weiss , D. Baade , R. E. Griffin , C. C. Lovekin , & A. F. J. Moffat , 297--300

    2020

  13. [21]

    H., Uzundag , M., Kepler , S

    C \'o rsico , A. H., Uzundag , M., Kepler , S. O., et al. 2021, , 645, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039202

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, , 659, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142153

    ---. 2022, , 659, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142153

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Curd , B., Gianninas , A., Bell , K. J., et al. 2017, , 468, 239, 10.1093/mnras/stx320

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    C., C \'o rsico , A

    De Ger \'o nimo , F. C., C \'o rsico , A. H., Althaus , L. G., Wachlin , F. C., & Camisassa , M. E. 2019, , 621, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833789

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Uzundag , M., Rebassa-Mansergas , A., et al

    De Ger \'o nimo , F. C., Uzundag , M., Rebassa-Mansergas , A., et al. 2025, , 980, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/adad73

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Stevenson , M. J., et al. 2007, , 378, 825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x

    2007

  19. [27]

    S., Bezawada , N., Black , M., et al

    Dhillon , V. S., Bezawada , N., Black , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 350, 10.1093/mnras/stab2130

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2008, , 120, 1043, 10.1086/592788

    Fontaine , G., & Brassard , P. 2008, , 120, 1043, 10.1086/592788

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    1997, , 286, 303, 10.1093/mnras/286.2.303

    Handler , G., Pikall , H., O'Donoghue , D., et al. 1997, , 286, 303, 10.1093/mnras/286.2.303

    1997 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Kepler , S

    Hermes , J. J., Kepler , S. O., Castanheira , B. G., et al. 2013, , 771, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L2

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    J., G \"a nsicke , B

    Hermes , J. J., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Kawaler , S. D., et al. 2017, , 232, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Tremblay , P

    Hollands , M. A., Tremblay , P. E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 663, 10.1038/s41550-020-1028-0

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, , 974, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    Jewett , G., Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., et al. 2024, , 974, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    O., Giovannini , O., & Diaz , M

    Kanaan , A., Kepler , S. O., Giovannini , O., & Diaz , M. 1992, , 390, L89, 10.1086/186379

    1992 doi

  27. [35]

    Kawaler , S. D. 1988, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 123, Advances in Helio- and Asteroseismology, ed. J. Christensen-Dalsgaard & S. Frandsen , 329

    1988

  28. [36]

    2024, , 965, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3440

    Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., Blouin , S., et al. 2024, , 965, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3440

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, , 979, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    ---. 2025, , 979, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    H., Moss , A

    Kilic , M., C \'o rsico , A. H., Moss , A. G., et al. 2023 a , , 522, 2181, 10.1093/mnras/stad1113

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Kosakowski , A., et al

    Kilic , M., Moss , A. G., Kosakowski , A., et al. 2023 b , , 518, 2341, 10.1093/mnras/stac3182

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2000, , 311, 636, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03127.x

    Koen , C., & Laney , D. 2000, , 311, 636, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03127.x

    2000

  33. [41]

    2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, 10.1553/cia146s53

    Lenz , P., & Breger , M. 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, 10.1553/cia146s53

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz , D., Mannucci , F., & Nelemans , G. 2014, , 52, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Montgomery , M

    Metcalfe , T. S., Montgomery , M. H., & Kanaan , A. 2004, , 605, L133, 10.1086/420884

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    H., & Winget , D

    Montgomery , M. H., & Winget , D. E. 1999, , 526, 976, 10.1086/308044

    1999 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Montgomery , M

    Mukadam , A. S., Montgomery , M. H., Winget , D. E., Kepler , S. O., & Clemens , J. C. 2006, , 640, 956, 10.1086/500289

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Sullivan , M., Cenko , S

    Nugent , P. E., Sullivan , M., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2011, , 480, 344, 10.1038/nature10644

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    1994, , 270, 222, 10.1093/mnras/270.2.222

    O'Donoghue , D. 1994, , 270, 222, 10.1093/mnras/270.2.222

    1994 doi

  40. [48]

    D., Kepler , S

    Romero , A. D., Kepler , S. O., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2022, , 511, 1574, 10.1093/mnras/stac093

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Tucker , M

    Rowan , D. M., Tucker , M. A., Shappee , B. J., & Hermes , J. J. 2019, , 486, 4574, 10.1093/mnras/stz1116

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, , 988, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    Saumon , D., Blouin , S., & Tremblay , P.-E. 2022, , 988, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2021, , 906, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

    Schwab , J. 2021, , 906, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Blouin , S., & Breivik , K

    Shen , K. J., Blouin , S., & Breivik , K. 2023, , 955, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57b

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, , 269, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfbe4

    Sowicka , P., Handler , G., Jones , D., et al. 2023, , 269, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfbe4

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    1980, , 43, 469, 10.1086/190678

    Tassoul , M. 1980, , 43, 469, 10.1086/190678

    1980 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Ludwig , H

    Tremblay , P. E., Ludwig , H. G., Steffen , M., & Freytag , B. 2013, , 559, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322318

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, , 160, 252, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe20

    Vincent , O., Bergeron , P., & Lafreni \`e re , D. 2020, , 160, 252, 10.3847/1538-3881/abbe20

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    E., & Kepler , S

    Winget , D. E., & Kepler , S. O. 2008, , 46, 157, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145250

    2008

  50. [58]

    E., Kepler , S

    Winget , D. E., Kepler , S. O., Kanaan , A., Montgomery , M. H., & Giovannini , O. 1997, , 487, L191, 10.1086/310887

    1997 doi

  51. [59]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  52. [60]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  53. [61]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' en...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.