Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Inferring the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting in Red Giant Branch stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By locating the red giant branch bump across 17 globular clusters, one open cluster, and roughly 2,700 field giants, this paper calibrates the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting and finds that it declines linearly with stellar…

desk verdict Useful and careful calibration of RGB-bump overshooting across a wide metallicity range, but the headline linear slope is only ~1.7 sigma and the reported t-test significance is misattributed to a Spearman correlation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20794 v1 pith:RI6A2VX2 submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Lorenzo Briganti , Marco Tailo , Edoardo Ceccarelli , Andrea Miglio , Massimiliano Matteuzzi , Alessio Mucciarelli , Alessandro Mazzi , Angela Bragaglia
show 1 more author
Saniya Khan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords redgiantbranchRGBbumpconvectiveenvelopeovershootingstellarstructureandevolutionasteroseismologyglobularclustersmetallicitycalibrationturbulententrainment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to pin down one of the least constrained inputs of stellar evolution models: how far the convective envelope of a red giant mixes beyond its formal boundary. It uses the red giant branch bump, the temporary luminosity dip caused when the hydrogen-burning shell meets the chemical discontinuity left by the first dredge-up, as a natural ruler for that depth, since deeper mixing makes the bump fainter. By comparing the bump's observed luminosity in seventeen globular clusters, one open cluster, and about 2,700 field giants with asteroseismic photometry, across metallicities from $-2.02$ to $+0.35$ dex, with a grid of stellar models, the authors infer an overshooting efficiency $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ that ranges from 0.009 to 0.062 and decreases linearly with $[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]$ at a slope of $(-0.010 \pm 0.006)\,\mathrm{dex}^{-1}$. If true, the result means that metal-poor red giants mix substantially beyond their Schwarzschild boundary while metal-rich giants barely do, with direct consequences for predicted surface abundances, mass and age determinations, and the treatment of convective boundaries in models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the exponential diffusive overshooting prescription, $D_{\mathrm{ov}} = D_0 \exp(-2(r_0-r)/(f_{\mathrm{ov}}\, H_{P,\mathrm{CE}}))$, in which $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ controls how quickly the mixing diffusion coefficient decays, in units of the pressure scale height at the convective boundary, beyond the Schwarzschild edge. The red giant branch bump is the observable counterpart: it occurs where the outward-moving hydrogen-burning shell crosses the hydrogen-abundance discontinuity left when the envelope retreated after the first dredge-up, so its luminosity directly encodes the deepest point convection reached. To turn this into a calibration, the paper uses a grid of evolutionary tracks with varying mass, $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$, $[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $\alpha_{\mathrm{MLT}}$, and $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$, a kernel-density fit of an exponential-plus-Gaussian function to the luminosity and $\nu_{\max}$ distributions of synthetic and observed populations, and an interpolation in the space of mass, luminosity, metallicity, and overshooting efficiency. The physical interpretation runs through the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $N^2$, whose steeper profile at high metallicity increases the buoyancy jump and the bulk Richardson number $\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{B}$, making the boundary stiffer; the entrainment law $E = A\,\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{B}^{-n}$ then converts that stiffness into a smaller overshooting efficiency.

What would settle it

Measure the RGB bump in a sample of low-metallicity ($[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}] < -1$) field red giants using asteroseismic $\nu_{\max}$ alone, as this paper does for more metal-rich stars, and infer $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$; if those stars do not show larger overshooting efficiencies than solar-metallicity giants, the claimed linear decrease is an artifact of the globular-cluster points.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a calibration: the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting in low-mass red giant branch stars is not a constant but a linear function of global metallicity, $f_{\mathrm{ov}} = (-0.010 \pm 0.006)\,[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}] + (0.030 \pm 0.006)$ for the luminosity calibration at $\alpha_{\mathrm{MLT}} = 2.090$, with efficiencies measured from $0.009^{+0.015}_{-0.016}$ to $0.062^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$. The argument is that the RGB bump luminosity is set by the maximum depth reached by the convective envelope after the first dredge-up: an exponential diffusive overshoot with scale parameter $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ carries the hydrogen discontinuity deeper and therefore makes the bump fainter. Matching the observed bump luminosities of clusters and field stars to a grid of evolutionary tracks with $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ from 0.000 to 0.125, the authors find an anti-correlation that is significant by Spearman rank and t-test, and they further argue that the metallicity trend is plausible because the squared Brunt-Väisälä frequency steepens below the convective boundary at higher $[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]$, raising the bulk Richardson number and suppressing turbulent entrainment.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that exponential diffusive overshooting with a single parameter $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ is the true description of convective-boundary mixing in red giants and that the RGB bump luminosity is set only by the maximum depth of the convective envelope after the first dredge-up, so any alternative mixing process or boundary physics would be mistaken for a different $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stellar evolution codes that use a constant overshooting efficiency will misplace the red giant branch bump on both metallicity extremes, so the calibrated $f_{\mathrm{ov}}([\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}])$ relation is needed to reproduce observed bump luminosities.
  • Surface C/N ratios after the first dredge-up, routinely used to estimate masses and ages of low-mass giants, will shift systematically with metallicity because deeper mixing at low $[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]$ dilutes carbon more.
  • The linear relation gives multi-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations a concrete prediction to match: overshooting efficiency should drop as the convective boundary stiffens at high metallicity.
  • Because the bump luminosity responds to the maximum convective depth, the calibration effectively turns the RGB bump into a metallicity-dependent probe of convective-boundary mixing that can be applied to unresolved stellar populations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The global linear trend is anchored by the globular-cluster points at low metallicity: the field-star sample only spans $[-0.5, +0.35]$ dex, where the inferred slope is steeper ($-0.02\,\mathrm{dex}^{-1}$) than the full-range value, so a larger low-metallicity field-star sample could still reveal saturation rather than a continued straight line.
  • Any missing physics that also moves the bump, such as rotationally induced mixing, magnetic fields, or a different boundary condition at the Schwarzschild radius, would be absorbed into $f_{\mathrm{ov}}$ and could masquerade as a metallicity dependence.
  • The entrainment interpretation predicts that stars with the same $[\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}]$ but different near-boundary thermal structures should overshoot by different amounts, which could be tested by comparing the bump across different masses or evolutionary states within one cluster.
  • If the trend is real, metal-poor globular-cluster stars should show more diluted C and N surface abundances after the first dredge-up than standard constant-overshoot models predict, a pattern measurable with large spectroscopic surveys.
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 calibrates the efficiency f_ov of exponentially decaying diffusive overshooting at the base of the convective envelope in red giants by comparing the observed luminosity and frequency of the red giant branch bump (RGBb) in 17 globular clusters, one open cluster, and about 2700 Kepler field stars with a grid of MESA models. The authors infer f_ov for each cluster and field-star bin via interpolation in mass, metallicity, and RGBb location, and report that f_ov decreases linearly with [M/H] over the range [-2.02, +0.35] dex, with slope -0.010 +/- 0.006 dex^-1. They also propose a physical explanation based on the metallicity dependence of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency profile and turbulent entrainment.

Significance. The paper brings together a wider metallicity range and a larger sample than previous RGBb overshooting calibrations, and it handles several systematics (alpha_MLT, Delta Y/Delta Z, reddening, distance errors) in a transparent way. The comparisons with Nataf et al. (2013) and Khan et al. (2018) are useful consistency checks. If the metallicity trend is real, this is an important constraint for stellar modeling and galactic archaeology. However, the statistical support for the headline linear trend is currently overstated, and the trend's robustness to data selection and to the mass-metallicity correlation in the sample is not demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Table 5, Abstract] The reported t-test result (p < 1%, 'slope is significant') is numerically inconsistent with the quoted slope and uncertainty. With m = -0.010 +/- 0.006 dex^-1, a two-sided Student's t-test gives t approximately -1.67 and p approximately 0.10 for the 22 fitted points, and even a one-sided test gives p approximately 0.05, not p < 1%. The p < 1% value reported in §4.4 is compatible with the Spearman rank correlation (rho_S = -0.718) but not with the linear regression itself. The claim that the hypothesis of a flat relation can be rejected is therefore not supported by the stated numbers, and the abstract's wording that f_ov 'decreases linearly' overstates the evidence. The authors should recompute and report the exact p-value of the slope, and if the significance remains marginal, temper the headline claim.
  2. [§4.2, Table 4, Table 5] The exclusion of the field-star bin with M/M_sun in [1.3, 1.5[ and [M/H] in [-0.4, -0.2[ is a post-hoc selection that is not governed by an a priori criterion. The bin is absent from Table 4 and from all fits in Table 5, and its removal acts to steepen the negative slope, since its anomalously low RGBb luminosity (relative to the scaling relation, Eq. 4) would translate into a higher inferred f_ov. The physical justification (possible core overshooting or rotation) is plausible, but the same reasoning could apply to other bins. To make the headline trend robust, the authors should show the fit with this bin included (e.g., as an appendix or robustness test) and quantify the change in slope and significance, or define an objective exclusion criterion before the analysis.
  3. [§4.4, Fig. 11, Table 5] The linear regression of f_ov against [M/H] is performed without stellar mass as a covariate, although the sample deliberately spans a wide mass range (the clusters at M approximately 0.75-0.9 M_sun, with NGC 6791 at 1.17 M_sun, and the field stars at M approximately 0.97-1.39 M_sun) and mass affects the RGBb luminosity and the inferred overshooting. Because the metal-poor clusters are also the low-mass objects in the sample, a mass-metallicity correlation could produce or steepen the apparent trend. The authors should add a bivariate fit (e.g., f_ov = a[M/H] + bM + c) or a residual analysis against mass to demonstrate that the metallicity dependence is not an artifact of the sample's mass-metallicity correlation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 4] The abstract quotes the upper end of the f_ov range as 0.062, while Table 4 reports 0.064 for NGC 6144 at alpha_MLT = 2.290; please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [§4.4] 't-Student test' should read 'Student's t-test', and the exact p-values should be reported instead of only 'lower than 1%'.
  3. [§4.4] The sentence 'the hypothesis of no breakpoints cannot be rejected' is confusing; it should say that the piecewise-regression test does not provide evidence for a breakpoint.
  4. [§4.5] The proposed interpretation in terms of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency and the bulk Richardson number is qualitative; a quantitative relation between the N^2 steepness and the inferred f_ov values would make the connection more compelling.
  5. [§2.1] The two alpha_MLT values (2.090 and 2.290) are presented without an immediate justification; the explanation in §4.3 is clear, but a forward reference would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the f_ov calibration is a standard model inversion, and the reported metallicity trend is not imposed by construction.

full rationale

No circular step is present in the derivation chain. The paper measures RGBb locations from independent photometric and asteroseismic data (Section 3.2-3.3, Tables 1-2) and recovers f_ov by interpolating in a MESA grid in which f_ov is varied independently at every mass, age, and metallicity (Section 2.1, Eq. 1; Section 3.2-3.3). The final linear relation f_ov = m[M/H]+q reported in Table 5 is a fit to the recovered values, not a prediction derived from that fit, so the anti-correlation is not enforced by definition. The mass-age-metallicity scaling relation (Eq. 3) is also computed from the same grid, but its coefficients are nearly independent of f_ov (Appendix C), so it does not secretly impose the target trend. The Brunt-Vaisala and entrainment discussion (Section 4.5) is presented as a possible interpretation, not as a load-bearing derivation of f_ov. Citations to Khan et al. (2018) and Khan (2021), which share authors with this paper, are used only for motivation and consistency checks; they do not supply the inferred f_ov values or the trend. The apparent statistical tension between the reported slope uncertainty (-0.010 +/- 0.006) and the claimed t-test p<1% is a correctness/statistics concern rather than a circularity of the derivation, and it does not change this verdict.

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

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its central claim rests on the standard exponential overshooting parameterization, on MESA stellar models, and on the assumption that the RGB bump is a clean tracer of envelope depth.

free parameters (5)
  • slope m of f_ov vs [M/H] = -0.010 +/- 0.006 dex^-1
    Fitted to the inferred f_ov points (Table 5). This is the central result.
  • intercept q of f_ov vs [M/H] = +0.030 +/- 0.006
    Fitted same line.
  • Mass-age-metallicity scaling relation coefficients (A, alpha, B, beta) = A=1.906, alpha=-0.2671, B=0.1551, beta=0.5665
    Used to infer RGBb masses for clusters; fitted to their own grid (Eq. 3).
  • alpha_MLT = 2.090 and 2.290
    Two values tested; 2.090 preferred because it fits APOGEE Teff better. Results quoted for both.
  • f0 in overshooting diffusion coefficient = 0.001
    Sets the diffusion coefficient value at the base of the convection zone; chosen ad hoc.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MESA r11701 correctly solves the stellar structure and nuclear evolution equations.
    The entire grid depends on this.
  • domain assumption Exponential diffusive overshooting (Eq. 1) is an adequate representation of convective boundary mixing.
    Central to interpreting f_ov as a physical efficiency.
  • domain assumption The RGB bump luminosity is set by the H-discontinuity depth left by first dredge-up.
    Standard theory (Thomas 1967; Iben 1968) invoked in Introduction.
  • domain assumption Asteroseismic scaling relations for nu_max are valid for the sample stars.
    Used for field star nu_max and masses.
  • domain assumption Adopted reddening, distances, and metallicities from literature are accurate.
    Errors in these propagate to f_ov.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting in Red Giant Branch stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RI6A2VX2

@misc{pith2026250620794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting in Red Giant Branch stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RI6A2VX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20794}
}
abstract

The understanding of mixing processes in stars is crucial for improving our knowledge of the chemical abundances in stellar photospheres and of their variation with evolutionary phase. This is fundamental for many astrophysical issues on all scales, ranging from stellar evolution to the chemical composition, formation and evolution of stellar clusters and galaxies. Among these processes, convective-envelope overshooting is in dire need of a systematic calibration and comparison with predictions from multi-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations. The Red Giant Branch bump (RGBb) is an ideal calibrator of overshooting processes, since its luminosity depends on the maximum depth reached by the convective envelope after the first dredge-up. Indeed, a more efficient overshooting produces a discontinuity in the Hydrogen mass fraction profile deeper in the stellar interior and consequently a less luminous RGBb. In this work, we calibrated the overshooting efficiency by comparing the RGBb location predicted by stellar models with observations of stellar clusters with HST and Gaia photometry, as well as solar-like oscillating giants in the Kepler field. We explored the metallicity range between -2.02 dex and +0.35 dex and found overshooting efficiencies ranging from $0.009^{+0.015}_{-0.016}$ to $0.062^{+0.017}_{-0.015}$. In particular, we found that the overshooting efficiency decreases linearly with [M/H], with a slope of $(-0.010\pm0.006)$ dex$^{-1}$. We suggest a possible explanation for this trend, linking it to the efficiency of turbulent entrainment at different metallicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20794 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: HRD of the RGB of NGC 1261, with RGBb stars highlighted in orange and a blue dashed line that refers to the RGBb luminosity obtained from the fit. The errors on log LRGBb already include the systematics due to the num￾ber of RGB stars (see Appendix B) and the distance modu￾lus (Baumgardt & Hilker 2018). Right panel: KDE (light blue coloured zone) of the luminosity distribution (lower labels) and relative… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Differential reddening map for the globular cluster NGC 6144 obtained using HST data sampling a radial range up to ∼ 1.0 half-light radius2 . The black cross marks the centre of the cluster (Vasiliev & Baumgardt 2021). After the selection of the RGB, we generated for each track a synthetic population extracting 5000 stars uni￾formly distributed in age and we computed through in￾terpolation the luminosity (log L), th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Representation, in the fov − log L plane, of the inter￾polation procedure to derive the overshooting efficiency for the GC NGC 6362. The expectation values of [M/H] and log LRGBb are represented by the red solid line and the black dashed one, respectively, and are plotted on the grid of models computed at the cluster mass (coloured by metallicity). The light blue shaded zone represents the confidence interval at 68%… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RGBb luminosity as a function of [M/H] for the stellar clusters in our sample (coloured by MRGBb). The RGBb lumi￾nosity decreases with increasing [M/H] and decreasing stellar mass (see e.g., NGC 1261 and NGC 6218). The lines corre￾spond to the RGBb luminosities, at dif…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Location of the RGBb in log νmax (left) and log L (right), as a function of stellar mass, for Kepler stars divided in metallicity bins (orange points). The points coloured smoothly from green to blue represent the location of the RGBb in the same metallicity bins for d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Location of the RGBb in log νmax (left) and log L (right), as a function of metallicity, for Kepler stars divided in mass bins (orange points). The points coloured smoothly from green to blue represent the location of the RGBb in the same mass bins for different oversh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HRD of NGC 6791, with stars observed by Kepler coloured by νmax. The inset zooms on the RGBb stars, includ￾ing the four stars for which we have νmax values from Kepler. The orange and the blue lines correspond to the evolutionary tracks with αMLT = 2.090 and αMLT = 2.2…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between our RGBb luminosities and the ones presented in Nataf et al. (2013). on f L ov and f νmax ov . In this work we found the best agreement between f L ov and f νmax ov for αMLT = 2.090 (see section 4.4). Crucially, we found that this value of αMLT also …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Overshooting efficiency derived from LRGBb as a function of [M/H], both for αMLT = 2.090 (left panel) and αMLT = 2.290 (right panel). Clusters are represented as circles, while field stars as triangles. The blue lines correspond to the linear fits. Points are coloured…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Relative variations of RGBb luminosity and overshoot￾ing efficiency for the GC NGC 6362 produced by variations of effective temperature (Teff ), metallicity ([M/H]), age (tAge) and distance modulus (dm). grid with αMLT = 2.090, the shift in fov between the two relatio…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Profiles of the squared Brunt-Väisälä fre￾quency N 2 for models with M = 1M⊙ and [M/H] = −0.5, −0.3, −0.1, +0.1, +0.3 dex. The x-axis is normalised by the position rCE of the convective border, indicated by the vertical black dashed line distance modulus (each contrib…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

    2022

  2. [2]

    1991, A&A, 244, 95

    Alongi, M., Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., & Chiosi, C. 1991, A&A, 244, 95

    1991

  3. [3]

    2018, A&A, 616, A8

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A8

    2018

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 659, A53

    Baraffe, I., Constantino, T., Clarke, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A53

    2022

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJ, 845, L6

    Baraffe, I., Pratt, J., Goffrey, T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, L6

    2017

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Baraffe, I., Pratt, J., Vlaykov, D. G., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A126

    2021

  7. [7]

    & Hilker, M

    Baumgardt, H. & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    2018

  8. [8]

    J., Dupret, M

    Belkacem, K., Goupil, M. J., Dupret, M. A., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A142

    2011

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Beyer, A. C. & White, R. J. 2024, ApJ, 973, 28

    2024

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1706 Böhm-Vitense, E

    Blouin, S., Mao, H., Herwig, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1706 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZAp, 46, 108

    2023

  3. [11]

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

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

    2010

  4. [12]

    2017, A&A, 607, A44

    Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., D’Orazi, V., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A44

    2017

  5. [13]

    1986, Mem

    Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1986, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital- iana, 57, 411

    1986

  6. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  7. [15]

    G., Chiosi, C., & Bertelli, G

    Bressan, A. G., Chiosi, C., & Bertelli, G. 1981, A&A, 102, 25

    1981

  8. [16]

    2011, A&A, 525, A2

    Brogaard, K., Bruntt, H., Grundahl, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A2

    2011

  9. [17]

    A., Bruntt, H., et al

    Brogaard, K., VandenBerg, D. A., Bruntt, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A106

    2012

  10. [18]

    M., Gilliland, R

    Brown, T. M., Gilliland, R. L., Noyes, R. W., & Ramsey, L. W. 1991, ApJ, 368, 599

    1991

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    Buldgen, G., Noels, A., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A285

    2025

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  13. [21]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A55

    2010

  14. [22]

    & VandenBerg, D

    Casagrande, L. & VandenBerg, D. A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 392

    2014

  15. [23]

    & Salaris, M

    Cassisi, S. & Salaris, M. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 593

    1997

  16. [24]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chaplin, W. J. & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353

    2013

  18. [26]

    & Lagarde, N

    Charbonnel, C. & Lagarde, N. 2010, A&A, 522, A10

    2010

  19. [27]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    2015

  20. [28]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525

    2014

  21. [29]

    Thompson, M. J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1158

    2011

  22. [30]

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

    1968

  23. [31]

    2016, Phys

    Cristini, A., Meakin, C., Hirschi, R., et al. 2016, Phys. Scr, 91, 034006 da Silva, L., Girardi, L., Pasquini, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 609 Di Cecco, A., Bono, G., Stetson, P. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 527

    2016

  24. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 698

    Dotter, A., Sarajedini, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 698

    2010

  25. [33]

    1994, A&AS, 104, 365

    Fagotto, F., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1994, A&AS, 104, 365

    1994

  26. [34]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  27. [35]

    2008, The Uncertainty in Physical Measurements (Springer New York, NY)

    Fornasini, P. 2008, The Uncertainty in Physical Measurements (Springer New York, NY)

    2008

  28. [36]

    2007, A&A, 475, 991

    Frandsen, S., Bruntt, H., Grundahl, F., et al. 2007, A&A, 475, 991

    2007

  29. [37]

    G., & Steffen, M

    Freytag, B., Ludwig, H. G., & Steffen, M. 1996, A&A, 313, 497

    1996

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 496 Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F

    Fu, X., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 496 Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F. R., Crocker, D. A., Rood, R. T., & Buo- nanno, R. 1990, A&A, 238, 95 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Bro...

    2018

  31. [39]

    L., Brown, T

    Gilliland, R. L., Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 131

    2010

  32. [40]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  33. [41]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    2019

  34. [42]

    A., Shetrone, M., et al

    Hasselquist, S., Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 181

    2019

  35. [43]

    2000, A&A, 360, 952

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952

    2000

  36. [44]

    Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114

    2023

  37. [45]

    1968, Nature, 220, 143 Jofré, P

    Iben, I. 1968, Nature, 220, 143 Jofré, P. 2021, ApJ, 920, 23

    1968

  38. [46]

    & Chaboyer, B

    Joyce, M. & Chaboyer, B. 2015, ApJ, 814, 142

    2015

  39. [47]

    H., Phillips, O

    Kantha, L. H., Phillips, O. M., & Azad, R. S. 1977, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 79, 753

    1977

  40. [48]

    2021, PhD thesis, School of Physics and Astronomy, Univer- sity of Birmingham, United Kingdom

    Khan, S. 2021, PhD thesis, School of Physics and Astronomy, Univer- sity of Birmingham, United Kingdom

    2021

  41. [49]

    J., Miglio, A., et al

    Khan, S., Hall, O. J., Miglio, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 156

    2018

  42. [50]

    R., Da Costa, G

    King, C. R., Da Costa, G. S., & Demarque, P. 1985, ApJ, 299, 674

    1985

  43. [51]

    & Bedding, T

    Kjeldsen, H. & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87

    1995

  44. [52]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18 Krishna Swamy, K. S. 1966, ApJ, 145, 174

    2011

  45. [53]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pfeffer, J. L., Reina-Campos, M., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3180

    2019

  46. [54]

    2012, A&A, 543, A108

    Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A108

    2012

  47. [55]

    & Davidson, B

    Lettau, H. & Davidson, B. 1957, Exploring the Atmosphere’s First Mile: Proceedings of the Great Plains Turbulence Field Program, 1 August to 8 September 1953, O’Neill, Nebraska, Exploring the At- mosphere’s First Mile: Proceedings of the Great Plains Turbulence Field Program, ...

    1957

  48. [56]

    2018, GAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124-01

    Lindegren, L. 2018, GAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124-01

    2018

  49. [57]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

    2021

  50. [58]

    T., Pryal, M., Hayes, C

    Linden, S. T., Pryal, M., Hayes, C. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 49

    2017

  51. [59]

    J., Ong, J

    Lindsay, C. J., Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 116

    2022

  52. [60]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2017

  53. [61]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 22

    2021

  54. [62]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1249

    Massari, D., Mucciarelli, A., Dalessandro, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1249

    2017

  55. [63]

    Meakin, C. A. & Arnett, D. 2007, ApJ, 667, 448

    2007

  56. [64]

    J., Brogaard, K., et al

    Miglio, A., Chaplin, W. J., Brogaard, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 760

    2016

  57. [65]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098

    2018

  58. [66]

    P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A16

    2012

  59. [67]

    2021, A&A, 653, A90

    Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., & Massari, D. 2021, A&A, 653, A90

    2021

  60. [68]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382

    Nardiello, D., Libralato, M., Piotto, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382

    2018

  61. [69]

    M., Gould, A

    Nataf, D. M., Gould, A. P., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Udalski, A. 2013, ApJ, 766, 77 O’Malley, E. M. & Chaboyer, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 130

    2013

  62. [70]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

    2011

  63. [71]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

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

    2013

  64. [72]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

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

    2015

  65. [73]

    2016, ApJS, 223, 18

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 18

    2016

  66. [74]

    B., et al

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

    2018

  67. [75]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

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

    2019

  68. [76]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3859

    Pilgrim, C. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3859

    2021

  69. [77]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 91 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Ashdown, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A109

    2015

  70. [78]

    2003, A&A, 410, 553

    Riello, M., Cassisi, S., Piotto, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 410, 553

    2003

  71. [79]

    S., Bossini, D., Miglio, A., et al

    Rodrigues, T. S., Bossini, D., Miglio, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1433

    2017

  72. [80]

    S., Girardi, L., Miglio, A., et al

    Rodrigues, T. S., Girardi, L., Miglio, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2758

    2014

  73. [81]

    Roxburgh, I. W. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 223

    1965

  74. [82]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    1993

  75. [83]

    M., & Cassisi, S

    Salaris, M., Pietrinferni, A., Piersimoni, A. M., & Cassisi, S. 2015, A&A, 583, A87

    2015

  76. [84]

    W., & Fusilier, D

    Salaris, M., Weiss, A., Ferguson, J. W., & Fusilier, D. J. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1131

    2006

  77. [85]

    Saslaw, W. C. & Schwarzschild, M. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1468

    1965

  78. [86]

    2015, A&A, 579, A104

    Sbordone, L., Monaco, L., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A104

    2015

  79. [87]

    Sharina, M. E. & Shimansky, V. V. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 128

    2020

  80. [88]

    & Salpeter, E

    Shaviv, G. & Salpeter, E. E. 1973, ApJ, 184, 191 Skipper Seabold & Josef Perktold. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 92 – 96

    1973

  81. [89]

    1904, The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72

    Spearman, C. 1904, The American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72

    1904

  82. [90]

    Strang, E. J. & Fernando, H. J. S. 2001, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 428, 349 Student. 1908, Biometrika, 6, 1

    2001

  83. [91]

    P., Lagioia, E

    Tailo, M., Milone, A. P., Lagioia, E. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5745

    2020

  84. [92]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2005

  85. [93]

    Thomas, H. C. 1967, ZAp, 67, 420

    1967

  86. [94]

    & Baumgardt, H

    Vasiliev, E. & Baumgardt, H. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5978

    2021

  87. [95]

    1998, A&A, 334, 953

    Ventura, P., Zeppieri, A., Mazzitelli, I., & D’Antona, F. 1998, A&A, 334, 953

    1998

  88. [96]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Meth- ods, 17, 261

    2020

  89. [97]

    2025, MNRAS, submitted

    Willett, E., Miglio, A., Khan, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, submitted

    2025

  90. [98]

    R., et al

    Yu, J., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 42

    2018

  91. [99]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 4852 Article number, page 14 of 15 L

    Zhang, Q.-S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Li, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4852 Article number, page 14 of 15 L. Briganti et al.: Inferring the efficiency of convective-envelope overshooting in Red Giant Branch stars Appendix A: Variation of the RGBb luminosity with Y and ∆Y /∆Z As m...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.