Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

The $\delta$ Scuti pulsator occurrence as a function of age, $T_{\rm eff}$, rotation, and metallicity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read δ Scuti pulsators become rarer as open clusters age, with occurrence dropping from 88% in clusters younger than 200 Myr to 62% in older clusters.

desk verdict A solid new age trend for δ Scuti occurrence, but the completeness correction's amplitude-shape assumption is the load-bearing soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07792 v1 pith:F33OP2QM submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.SR

Ian Berry , Daniel Huber , Yaguang Li , Daniel Hey , Timothy R. Bedding , Simon J. Murphy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords deltaScutistarspulsatoroccurrenceopenclustersstellarpulsationrotationheliumdiffusioninstabilitystripTESSphotometry
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 uses TESS photometry to identify 487 δ Scuti pulsators in 20 nearby open clusters spanning ages from about 20 to 900 Myr, then measures pulsator occurrence — the fraction of instability-strip stars that actually pulsate, corrected for detection incompleteness. The central claim is that pulsator occurrence declines with cluster age: clusters younger than 200 Myr average 88±3% occurrence, while older clusters average 62±3%, a statistically significant difference. The paper also finds that pulsators in older clusters rotate faster on average than those in younger clusters, and it interprets this as evidence that rapid rotation helps maintain δ Scuti pulsations by counteracting helium settling out of the ionization zone. If correct, the age trend explains why field-star samples show intermediate pulsator fractions and identifies rotation, not just position in the instability strip, as a key factor controlling whether A/F stars pulsate. The paper is careful to separate the raw observed fraction from the completeness-corrected occurrence, arguing that the age dependence is only clearly visible after this correction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the pulsator occurrence calculation: injection-and-recovery tests on non-detection light curves, combined with the field-star δ Scuti amplitude distribution from Kepler, shifted in log-amplitude to match each cluster's observed median amplitude, yield a map from observed pulsator fraction and median amplitude to a completeness-corrected occurrence. Pulsator fraction and median amplitude are computed as continuous functions of $T_{\rm eff}$ using a Gaussian kernel whose width is optimized per cluster by maximizing a leave-one-out Bernoulli log-likelihood. This machinery converts the raw fraction into an occurrence that can be compared fairly across clusters of different distances and TESS coverage.

What would settle it

Redo the occurrence correction for each cluster using the amplitude distribution measured from that cluster's own detected pulsators instead of the Kepler field distribution; if the average occurrence gap between young and old clusters shrinks below statistical significance, then the stated age trend depends on the assumed amplitude distribution rather than on stellar physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that δ Scuti pulsator occurrence decreases with age across coeval stellar populations. From 20 open clusters within 500 pc, the average occurrence in clusters younger than 200 Myr is 88±3%, while clusters older than 200 Myr average 62±3%; the paper states that this difference is statistically significant and shows that the pulsator occurrence decreases with age. It further reports that pulsators in older clusters rotate more rapidly than their younger counterparts and that hotter pulsators (≳8500 K) may stop pulsating earlier than cooler ones. The physical interpretation is that gravitational settling depletes helium from the near-surface ionization zone that drives the κ-mechanism, while rapid rotation mixes helium back into that zone, so the surviving pulsators in old populations are preferentially fast rotators.

Load-bearing premise

The whole age comparison rests on the assumption that the shape of the δ Scuti amplitude distribution is the same in every cluster as in the Kepler field-star sample, shifted only in median amplitude; if young and old clusters intrinsically differ in amplitude shape, the completeness corrections are biased differently by age and the 88% versus 62% gap could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the raw pulsator fraction underestimates how many A/F stars pulsate in young clusters, and completeness corrections are necessary before comparing populations.
  • The age trend implies that many δ Scuti stars stop pulsating on main-sequence timescales, so the instability strip is not a static boundary for pulsation presence.
  • Rapid rotation becomes a longevity factor: stars that remain pulsating in older clusters are preferentially fast rotators, linking pulsation to angular momentum evolution.
  • Hotter δ Scuti stars turning off earlier means effective temperature, age, and rotation must be considered together when modeling pulsator populations.
  • The observed decline around 200 Myr is consistent with models predicting roughly 50% helium depletion from the ionization zone by 100 Myr, supporting helium diffusion as the driving mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested implication is that angular momentum history, not age alone, sets the observable pulsator fraction; stellar models coupling rotation and helium diffusion should predict a two-dimensional occurrence surface in age and rotation that this sample could directly test.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the occurrence calculation using amplitude distributions measured from each cluster's own detected pulsators rather than the Kepler field distribution; if the young-versus-old gap narrows or vanishes, the age trend is sensitive to that assumption.
  • The slow-rotating, metal-rich Am stars in the instability strip may account for a large share of non-pulsators; estimating the Am fraction per cluster could separate chemical-composition effects from age effects in the occurrence decline.
  • The same occurrence machinery could be applied to more distant clusters observed with PLATO, extending the age baseline beyond 1 Gyr and testing whether the occurrence continues to fall or plateaus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses TESS photometry to search for δ Scuti pulsators in 20 open clusters within 500 pc and with ages between roughly 20 and 900 Myr, identifying 487 pulsators in total. The authors define a pulsator occurrence that corrects the observed pulsator fraction for incompleteness using injection-recovery tests and an assumed Kepler amplitude distribution, and they report average occurrences of 88±3% for clusters younger than 200 Myr and 62±3% for older clusters. They also report that pulsators in older clusters rotate faster on average and interpret both trends as evidence that helium settling suppresses pulsations over time unless counteracted by rapid rotation.

Significance. If the age trend survives scrutiny, this is an important result: it turns previously anecdotal cluster-to-cluster differences (Pleiades, NGC 2516, Cep-Her, NGC 3532) into a systematic age sequence and directly constrains models of helium diffusion and rotational mixing in A/F stars. The paper's strengths include a homogeneous TESS analysis of 20 clusters, explicit injection-recovery simulations for each cluster, a membership-catalog robustness check, a treatment of equal-mass binaries, and a machine-readable star table. The central weakness is that the headline occurrence numbers inherit an untested assumption about the universal shape of the pulsation amplitude distribution, together with an inconsistency between the detection threshold used for real stars and the threshold used in the recovery simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4] The occurrence correction assumes that the intrinsic δ Scuti amplitude distribution of every cluster has the same shape as the Kepler field-star distribution of Murphy et al. (2019), with only its median shifted in log-amplitude. This is an external, untested input. Because the correction is applied per cluster, and the young and old subsamples in Table 1 have very different occurrence values (e.g., BH 99 and NGC 6405 at 100+0−14/−15 versus Stock 2 at 41±8 and Mamajek 4 at 49±15), a modest age dependence in the width or high-amplitude tail of the amplitude distribution would translate into a bias of several percentage points, which is the same order as the reported 88% vs 62% difference. The authors should test this assumption with cluster-internal data, for example by comparing the observed amplitude distributions of detected pulsators in young and old clusters, or by recomputing occurrence under alternative plausible distribution shapes and showing that the age contrast is robust.
  2. [Secs. 3.1 and 3.3] Pulsators are identified in §3.1 using a variable frequency boundary, log skewness ≥0.4, and visual inspection, but the recovery criterion in §3.3 is log skewness ≥0.75. The injection-recovery completeness is therefore measured for a stricter detection rule than the one used to build the real sample. This makes the inferred completeness too low and the occurrence too high. Because the correction depends on apparent magnitude (Figure 7), and the young and old subsamples have different distance and magnitude distributions, the bias need not cancel in the 88% vs 62% comparison. The authors should rerun the recovery tests with the actual classification protocol, including the visual-confirmation step, or quantify how the occurrence-versus-age result changes when the recovery threshold is varied.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The 200 Myr threshold is introduced as the basis for the central 88±3% vs 62±3% averages, but it appears to be selected after inspecting the data, and NGC 6475, with an age of 200±50 Myr, is placed on the older side. The reported significance therefore depends on a data-informed boundary and on the averaging scheme. The authors should report how the averages and their difference change when the threshold is varied over the cluster-age uncertainties (for example 150-300 Myr), when NGC 6475 is moved to the young group, and when the average is computed with inverse-variance weights rather than as a simple unweighted mean.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5] In the first bullet of the conclusions, 'which an average occurrence of 88±3%' should read 'with an average occurrence of 88±3%'.
  2. [Table 1] The asymmetric errors in Table 1 (e.g., 100+0−14) should be accompanied by a sentence explaining how they are propagated into the quoted ±3% averages.
  3. [Sec. 4.4] The text should quantify the documented non-linearity of Gaia vbroad as a vsini estimator (underestimating slow rotators and overestimating the fastest rotators) and state how this calibration uncertainty affects the mean rotation comparison in Figure 9.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The paper never explicitly defines that the 'pulsator occurrence' quoted for each cluster is the maximum of the occurrence-versus-T_eff curve rather than an occurrence integrated over the instability strip; this should be stated when the statistic is first used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: occurrence-age comparison is an empirical measurement with an external completeness correction, not a reduction to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claim (occurrence drops from 88±3% to 62±3% across the 200 Myr split) is an empirical comparison of measured quantities. Occurrence is obtained by inverting a forward model: injection–recovery tests (Section 3.3) and an assumed Kepler amplitude distribution (Murphy et al. 2019) generate a mapping from true occurrence to observable fraction, which is then combined with each cluster's observed median amplitude and fraction (Section 3.4). No parameter is fitted to the age trend, and the age split is not an input to the correction. The Kepler amplitude distribution shape is an external empirical input; if it varies with age the correction could be biased, but that is a modeling assumption and not a definitional circularity. The paper's self-citation to Berry et al. (2025) introduces the occurrence method, but the method is re-described here and anchored to independent injection–recovery simulations; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely by citation. The rotation result is an observed correlation between cluster age and Gaia vbroad among pulsators, not a fitted consequence. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its main conclusion, so circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a chain of calibration and catalog assumptions. Most importantly, the occurrence values are not direct measurements; they are produced by a simulation that assumes a Kepler field-star amplitude distribution, a recovery threshold, and per-cluster smoothing widths, all of which can shift the inferred occurrence. The age and metallicity comparisons inherit heterogeneous literature values. The rotation comparison inherits the known biases of Gaia vbroad. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian kernel width σ = average ≈360 K per cluster
    Optimized per cluster by maximizing leave-one-out Bernoulli likelihood (Eq. 3) in a Monte Carlo simulation. The resulting smoothing width directly shapes the pulsator fraction and occurrence as functions of Teff.
  • Age threshold of 200 Myr = 200 Myr
    Chosen to separate 'young' from 'old' clusters after inspecting the occurrence-age distribution; not justified by an independent model. The two averaged occurrence values (88% vs 62%) depend on this split.
  • Amplitude-distribution log-shift = per-cluster/per-Teff median amplitude
    The Kepler field δ Scuti amplitude distribution is shifted in log-space to match the observed median amplitude before computing occurrence (Section 3.4). This shift is measured from the same data and is not predicted.
  • Recovery threshold = log skewness ≥ 0.75
    A chosen cutoff for counting injected signals as recovered in injection/recovery tests (Section 3.3); occurrence values are sensitive to this threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cluster δ Scuti amplitude distribution shape equals Kepler field-star distribution up to a log-amplitude shift
    Used in Section 3.4 to convert pulsator fraction into occurrence via simulated recovery; never tested against cluster data.
  • domain assumption Injection/recovery on non-detection light curves measures the true detectability of real pulsators
    Assumes that adding a synthetic sinusoid to a non-pulsating light curve replicates the detection of a real pulsation in the same star; used across Sections 3.3-3.4.
  • domain assumption Gaia vbroad is a usable rotation proxy for the sample
    The paper acknowledges vbroad under/overestimates vsini at low/high rotation (Section 4.4), yet uses it without propagating uncertainties for the age-rotation trend.
  • domain assumption Literature cluster ages, metallicities, and memberships are accurate
    Ages and [Fe/H] come from heterogeneous literature sources (Table 1); membership from Hunt & Reffert 2023/2024 and Liu et al. 2025. Errors are large for several young clusters.
  • domain assumption The empirical instability strip boundaries define the parent sample
    Used to select stars and to compare with field fractions; e.g., red edge from Gootkin et al. 2024, bounds from Murphy et al. 2019.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $\delta$ Scuti pulsator occurrence as a function of age, $T_{\rm eff}$, rotation, and metallicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F33OP2QM

@misc{pith2026260807792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $\delta$ Scuti pulsator occurrence as a function of age, $T_\rm eff$, rotation, and metallicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F33OP2QM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07792}
}
abstract

Many A- and F- type stars do not display $\delta$ Scuti pulsations, despite being located within the instability strip. We use photometry from the TESS Mission to discover and study $\delta$ Scuti pulsators in open clusters within 500 pc and with ages between ~20 and 900 Myr, which provide a unique opportunity to study $\delta$ Scuti pulsators in coeval populations with uniform chemical composition. We measure pulsator occurrence, which corrects the pulsator fraction for incompleteness, across all clusters. We find that clusters younger than 200 Myr tend to exhibit higher occurrence rates, with an average occurrence of 88$\pm$3\%. The occurrence rates in clusters older than 200 Myr tend to resemble the pulsator fraction of field-star samples, with an average occurrence of 62$\pm$3\%. In addition, we find that pulsators tend to rotate more rapidly in older clusters than their younger counterparts and that hotter pulsators may stop pulsating earlier than their cooler counterparts. These results show that pulsator occurrence decreases with age and that rapid rotation is critical in maintaining $\delta$ Scuti pulsations over time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stacked amplitude spectrum of all δ Scuti pulsators in this study. Clusters are ordered by age (youngest on top). The red dotted lines separate each cluster. Within each cluster, stars are sorted by Teff , with the coolest on top. Note the appearance of δ Scuti stars with regular pulsation patterns in the younger (≲ 200 Myr) open clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaia CMD (left panel) and HR diagram (right panel) for all clusters studied in this work. Color-mapped points are δ Scuti pulsators, and colors show age. Gray crosses are non-detections. The black dotted curves show 40% critical rotation MIST isochrones (Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016) at various ages. In the left panel, the red dashed line shows the empirical red instability strip edge from Gootkin et al. (2024). In… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scatter plot of log skewness vs. maximum SNR. Stars identified as δ Scuti pulsators are in shown as the red points, and non-detections are shown as the black points. The distributions of log skewness and SNR for δ Scuti pul￾sators and non-detections are shown along each axis, with the same color scheme as the scatter plot. The gray dotted line marks log skewness = 0.75, which is the lower limit used when conducting … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart illustrating the procedures described in §3 for the open cluster NGC 6475. Panel (a) shows the maximum amplitude vs. Teff . Red stars indicate δ Scuti pulsators, black points show non-detections. Panel (b) shows the log-likelihood of the Bernoulli distributio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The pulsator occurrence rate calculated from UCC membership (Perren et al. 2023) vs. that found from the Hunt & Reffert (2023, 2024) catalog. Each red point shows one open cluster. The black dashed line shows the 1:1 ratio, and the shaded regions show the ±10% uncertai…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pulsator fraction (top panel) and pulsator occurrence (bottom panel) as a function of cluster age. Colors show the [Fe/H] of each cluster from previous literature (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The occurrence correction (defined as the differ￾ence between the maximum occurrence and maximum frac￾tion) as a function of the mean Gaia G magnitude in each cluster. Colors show the average number of TESS sectors available for each open cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pulsator occurrence vs. Teff for all open clusters, separated and sorted by age, with the age range listed in each panel. The red dashed curve shows the average pulsator occurrence over Teff , and the red shaded region shows the 1σ deviation. Although the maximum overa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gaia vbroad histograms of the δ Scuti pulsators (red) and non-detections (gray) binned by age, with the youngest stars on top. The red and gray dashed lines show the mean the distributions for the δ Scuti pulsators and non￾detections, respectively. These histograms onl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, A&A, 656, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141747

    Alonso-Santiago, J., Frasca, A., Catanzaro, G., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141747

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141747 2021

  2. [2]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/118 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Antoci, V., Cunha, M., Houdek, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/118 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, ...

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/118 2014

  3. [3]

    1973, A&A, 23, 221

    Baglin, A., Breger, M., Chevalier, C., et al. 1973, A&A, 23, 221

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    Crane, J. D. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3266

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3266 2018

  5. [5]

    Balona, L. A. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 43, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2018.00043

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    R., Murphy, S

    Barac, N., Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., & Hey, D. R. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2080, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2132

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2132 2022

  7. [7]

    R., Murphy, S

    Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., Hey, D. R., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 147, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2226-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2226-8 2020

  8. [8]

    R., Murphy, S

    Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., Crawford, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc17a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc17a 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae18c6

    Berry, I., Huber, D., Li, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae18c6

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    1970, ApJ, 162, 597, doi: 10.1086/150691

    Breger, M. 1970, ApJ, 162, 597, doi: 10.1086/150691

    1970 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, A&A, 702, A265, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449144

    Brogaard, K., Miglio, A., Arentoft, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A265, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449144

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    W., & Ostlie, D

    Carroll, B. W., & Ostlie, D. A. 1996, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics

    1996

  6. [14]

    2024, AJ, 167, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad07e5

    Cavallo, L., Spina, L., Carraro, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad07e5

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Landolt, A

    Clem, J. L., Landolt, A. U., Hoard, D. W., & Wachter, S. 2011, AJ, 141, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/115

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    2018, A&A, 616, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832763

    Cropper, M., Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832763

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, A&A, 633, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936666

    Lebreton, Y. 2020, A&A, 633, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936666

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, A&A, 589, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628180

    Deal, M., Richard, O., & Vauclair, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628180

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Straka, C. W. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 31, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9698-y

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab770 D’Orazi, V., Oliva, E., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936651

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, A&A, 414, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031740 —

    Scuflaire, R. 2004, A&A, 414, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031740 —. 2005, A&A, 435, 927, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041817 D¨ urfeldt-Pedros, O., Antoci, V., Smalley, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349076

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    1980, in Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, ed

    Dziembowski, W. 1980, in Nonradial and Nonlinear Stellar Pulsation, ed. H. A. Hill & W. A. Dziembowski, Vol. 125, 22–33, doi: 10.1007/3-540-09994-8 2 Fr´ emat, Y., Royer, F., Marchal, O., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243809

    1980 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Barnes, S

    Fritzewski, D. J., Barnes, S. A., James, D. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833587 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843 Gaia Collaboration, De Ridder, J., Ripepi, V., et al. ...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Bedding, T

    Gatuam, A., Murphy, S. J., & Bedding, T. R. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2001

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5282

    Gootkin, K., Hon, M., Huber, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5282

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0a0 Grigahc` ene, A., Uytterhoeven, K., Antoci, V., et al

    Gossage, S., Conroy, C., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0a0 Grigahc` ene, A., Uytterhoeven, K., Antoci, V., et al. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 989, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011443

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Jackiewicz, J., Catanzaro, G., & Soukup, M

    Guzik, J. A., Jackiewicz, J., Catanzaro, G., & Soukup, M. S. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2107.09479, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.09479

    2021 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1007.3176, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1007.3176

    Hareter, M., Reegen, P., Miglio, A., et al. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1007.3176, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1007.3176

    2010 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Huang, R. Q. 2004, A&A, 425, 591, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034245

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    Huang, W., & Gies, D. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 580, doi: 10.1086/505782 16

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 —. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Barclay, T

    Jaffe, T. J., & Barclay, T. 2017, ticgen: A tool for calculating a TESS magnitude, and an expected noise level for stars to be observed by TESS, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.888217

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 840–844, doi: 10.1086/316399 Kılı¸ co˘ glu, T., Monier, R., Richer, J., Fossati, L., &

    Kaye, A., Handler, G., Krisciunas, K., Poretti, E., & Zerbi, F. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 840–844, doi: 10.1086/316399 Kılı¸ co˘ glu, T., Monier, R., Richer, J., Fossati, L., &

    1999 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, AJ, 151, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/49

    Albayrak, B. 2016, AJ, 151, 49, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/49

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    1962 doi

  32. [40]

    2018, A&A, 612, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731355

    Kovacs, G. 2018, A&A, 612, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731355

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Saio, H., Takata, M., et al

    Kurtz, D. W., Saio, H., Takata, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1329

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    B., & Demarque, P

    Larson, R. B., & Demarque, P. R. 1964, ApJ, 140, 524, doi: 10.1086/147946

    1964 doi

  35. [43]

    R., et al

    Li, G., Aerts, C., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348901

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, AJ, 170, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0cb6 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Li, L., Shao, Z., Li, Z., & Fu, X. 2025, AJ, 170, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0cb6 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1812.013

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 3934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw247

    Liu, F., Yong, D., Asplund, M., Ram ´ ırez, I., & Mel´ endez, J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw247

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    S., et al

    Liu, P., Fang, M., Tsai, Y.-L. S., et al. 2025, Revisiting open clusters within 200 pc in the solar neighbourhood with Gaia DR3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08179

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 2866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1400

    Hey, D. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1400

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205

    2017

  41. [49]

    J., Bedding, T

    Murphy, S. J., Bedding, T. R., Gautam, A., & Joyce, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2849

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 3022, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2226

    Mani, P. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3022, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2226

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., & Bedding, T

    Murphy, S. J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., & Bedding, T. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz590

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Moe, M., Kurtz, D

    Murphy, S. J., Moe, M., Kurtz, D. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3049

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 3767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1497

    Nardiello, D., Deleuil, M., Mantovan, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1497

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, A&A, 694, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452325

    Nascimbeni, V., Piotto, G., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A313, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452325

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Roxburgh, I

    Ouazzani, R. M., Roxburgh, I. W., & Dupret, M. A. 2015, A&A, 579, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525734

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Pamjatnykh, A. A. 1974, Nauchnye Informatsii, 32, 104 Pamos Ortega, D. 2025, A&A, 703, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556586 Pamos Ortega, D., Garc ´ ıa Hern´ andez, A., Su´ arez, J. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac864 Pamos Ortega, D., Mirouh, G. M., ...

    1974 doi

  49. [57]

    G., & Ropke, U

    Pastoriza, M. G., & Ropke, U. O. 1983, AJ, 88, 1769, doi: 10.1086/113469

    1983 doi

  50. [58]

    I., Pera, M

    Perren, G. I., Pera, M. S., Navone, H. D., & V´ azquez, R. A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2826

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, A&A, 649, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040139

    Piecka, M., & Paunzen, E. 2021, A&A, 649, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040139

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    1989 doi

  53. [61]

    H., van Saders, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., van Saders, J. L., Cao, L., et al. 2026, The YREC Stellar Evolution Code: Public Data Release. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25792

    2026

  54. [62]

    2024, The PLATO Mission

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, The PLATO Mission. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K., Bedding, T

    Read, A. K., Bedding, T. R., Mani, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2464, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae165

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Laskar, T., Valenti, J

    Soderblom, D. R., Laskar, T., Valenti, J. A., Stauffer, J. R., & Rebull, L. M. 2009, AJ, 138, 1292, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1292

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    G., Weingrill, J., Granzer, T., et al

    Strassmeier, K. G., Weingrill, J., Granzer, T., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525756 TESS Team. 2018, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List, STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/FWDT-2X66 —. 2021a, TESS light curves - all sectors, STScI/MAST —. 2021b, TESS ...

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb136

    Torres, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb136

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    W., & Quinn, S

    Torres, G., Latham, D. W., & Quinn, S. N. 2021, ApJ, 921, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2011, A&A, 534, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117368

    Uytterhoeven, K., Moya, A., Grigahc` ene, A., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117368

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., Prusti, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 van Saders, J. L., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2013, ApJ, 776, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/67

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    2009, A&A, 504, 845–852, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811507

    Villanova, S., Carraro, G., & Saviane, I. 2009, A&A, 504, 845–852, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811507

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b3

    Wang, J., Chen, X., Deng, L., Zhang, J., & Sun, W. 2025, ApJ, 978, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b3

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, A&A, 692, A212, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450726

    Zhang, R., Wang, G.-J., Lu, Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A212, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450726

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2012, A&A, 537, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117691

    Zorec, J., & Royer, F. 2012, A&A, 537, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117691

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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