Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Asteroseismology of Carbon-Deficient Red Giants: Merger Products of Hierarchical Triple Systems?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Asteroseismic masses show that most carbon-deficient giants are low-mass core-helium-burning stars with two formation channels.

desk verdict The seismic measurements are solid and the low-mass red-clump conclusion likely right; the Group 2α reduction and hierarchical-triple merger story are more fragile than the abstract implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19509 v1 pith:6GFTSWDR submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Sunayana Maben , Simon W. Campbell , Timothy R. Bedding , Gang Zhao , Madeline Howell , Yerra Bharat Kumar , Bacham E. Reddy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords carbon-deficientgiantsasteroseismologysolar-likeoscillationsseismicscalingrelationsheliumwhitedwarfmergershierarchicaltriplesystemsredclumpstarslithium-rich
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 overturn the long-standing view that carbon-deficient giants (CDGs) are intermediate-mass stars. Using the frequency of maximum oscillation power measured in 43 CDGs from Kepler, K2, and TESS, it finds that 79% of them have masses below about two solar masses and are core helium-burning red clump stars. The CDGs separate chemically into three groups, which the paper reduces to two: Group 1 formed by mixing at the core helium flash, and the more massive Groups 2 and 2alpha formed by mergers involving helium white dwarfs, possibly inside hierarchical triple systems. If right, this reframes CDGs as a low-mass, merger-related population and connects them to lithium-rich giants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the scaling relation for the frequency of maximum oscillation power, $\nu_{\rm max}$, which follows $\nu_{\rm max} \propto g\,T_{\rm eff}^{-1/2}$ and, combined with luminosity and temperature, gives mass through $M \propto \nu_{\rm max}\,L\,T_{\rm eff}^{-7/2}$ using solar reference values. Because $\nu_{\rm max}$ can be measured even when the large frequency separation $\Delta\nu$ is too uncertain, especially in short TESS light curves, it is the one seismic quantity available for most of the 43 detected CDGs. The second carrying device is the [Na/Fe] versus [C+N+O/Fe] abundance plane, which cleanly separates the groups; for Group 2$\alpha$ the argument is carried by a CNO bookkeeping exercise: assume no ON cycling, scaled-solar initial [N/Fe], and conserved [C+N+O/Fe], and the observed extreme [N/Fe] is reproduced by CN burning of an initially carbon-enhanced, $\alpha$-enhanced composition.

What would settle it

Take a larger sample of Group 2alpha CDGs and measure oxygen and nitrogen isotope ratios plus [C+N+O/Fe] at high spectral resolution; then test star by star whether assuming no ON cycling, scaled-solar initial [N/Fe], and conserved [C+N+O/Fe] reproduces the observed high [N/Fe] after full CN burning. If the nitrogen excess persists despite an initially enhanced carbon abundance, or if oxygen isotopes betray ON-cycle products, the helium-white-dwarf merger interpretation for that group would lose its chemical foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that carbon-deficient giants are predominantly low-mass ($M \lesssim 2\,M_\odot$) core helium-burning red clump stars, not the intermediate-mass stars they were long assumed to be, and that their chemical and asteroseismic properties point to two distinct formation routes. In the 43 stars with clear solar-like oscillations, seismic masses from $\nu_{\rm max}$ place 79% below two solar masses. In the [Na/Fe] versus [C+N+O/Fe] abundance plane the sample separates into three groups, but two of them, Group 2 and Group 2$\alpha$, share temperature, gravity, mass, sodium, and carbon-isotope properties, differing only in initial $\alpha$-element abundances; the paper therefore reduces three groups to two. Group 1's normal sodium and scaled-solar CNO abundances fit partial CN processing during a core helium-flash mixing episode, while the more massive, sodium-enhanced, more CNO-processed Groups 2 and 2$\alpha$ are interpreted as products of helium white dwarf mergers, with the wide binaries among Group 2$\alpha$ suggesting hierarchical triple systems whose inner pair merged. The unchanged total [C+N+O] across all groups rules out AGB-pollution scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The merger story for the most chemically processed group rests on the assumptions that no oxygen-to-nitrogen cycling occurred, that these stars started with solar-relative nitrogen, and that their total carbon-nitrogen-oxygen content has not changed; if any of those assumptions fails, that group could be a genuinely separate formation channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CDG population is mostly low-mass red clump stars, with only one clear red-giant-branch candidate in the seismic sample.
  • Three chemical groups reduce to two, meaning one formation scenario can be dropped from the census.
  • Group 1 CDGs are likely products of flash-induced mixing at the core helium flash, not mergers, based on their normal mass distribution and solar sodium.
  • Groups 2 and 2alpha are likely merger products, with helium white dwarf mergers in hierarchical triples being the most consistent explanation for their high masses, wide binary companions, and processed chemistry.
  • Spectroscopic surface gravities are systematically offset from seismic values, so asteroseismic constraints are needed for reliable masses and gravities of chemically peculiar giants.
  • Lithium enrichment across all groups links CDGs to the broader population of lithium-rich giants, suggesting a shared mixing or merger origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flash-induced mixing regime proposed for Group 1 is real, it predicts a population of lithium-rich red clump stars with normal masses and solar sodium; that prediction could be checked in larger samples of lithium-rich giants.
  • The hierarchical triple merger scenario implies that surviving wide companions of Group 2alpha CDGs should show dynamical signatures of the merger, such as eccentric orbits or misaligned spins, which could be tested with Gaia astrometry and radial-velocity monitoring.
  • Because the $\nu_{\rm max}$-only mass scale avoids the corrections needed for $\Delta\nu$-based masses, it could be applied to other chemically peculiar giants where spectroscopic gravity is unreliable, such as lithium-rich or barium-enhanced stars.
  • The identification of Group 2alpha as initially $\alpha$-enhanced suggests that abundance surveys of thick-disk stars could predict where additional CDGs of this type will be found.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an asteroseismic analysis of the known population of carbon-deficient giants (CDGs), using Kepler, K2, and TESS light curves for 129 stars and detecting solar-like oscillations in 43 of them. The authors measure νmax with the pyMON pipeline, validate their measurements against literature values (mean fractional difference 0.7% relative to Yu et al. and Zhou et al.), and derive seismic masses from the νmax scaling relation, finding that roughly 79% of the detected CDGs have M ≲ 2 M⊙. They split the sample into three chemical groups—Group 1, Group 2, and Group 2α—on the basis of [Na/Fe] and [C+N+O/Fe], and then argue that Group 2α is an α-enhanced counterpart of Group 2, effectively reducing the three groups to two. They propose that Group 1 formed through core He-flash mixing and that Groups 2 and 2α formed through helium white dwarf mergers, possibly in hierarchical triple systems. The paper also reports a systematic offset between spectroscopic and seismic log g and argues against AGB pollution based on unchanged [C+N+O/Fe].

Significance. If the mass and grouping results hold, this is a substantial advance: it would overturn the long-standing view that CDGs are predominantly intermediate-mass stars, establish a predominantly low-mass core-He-burning population, and provide a two-channel formation framework that can be tested with future binarity surveys and merger modeling. The strength of the paper is its observational core: the νmax measurements are externally validated, the masses come from a standard scaling relation without fitted parameters, and the detection biases are analyzed transparently. The main weakness is that the reduction of Groups 2 and 2α to a single channel rests on an untested chemical assumption, and the abstract and conclusion overstate both the log g offset and the confidence in the hierarchical-triple merger scenario.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.5.2 and Figure 13] The reduction of Groups 2 and 2α to a single formation channel rests on three assumptions—(i) no ON cycling, (ii) initially scaled-solar [N/Fe], and (iii) conserved [C+N+O/Fe]—and these assumptions are asserted rather than tested. The observed [O/Fe] ≈ +0.2 for Group 2α (Table 3) is below the +0.3 to +0.5 expected for α-enhanced thick-disk stars at [Fe/H] ≈ −0.2, which is the signature expected if partial ON cycling has converted O to N. Under that alternative, the high [N/Fe] of Group 2α can be produced from a Group 2-like initial composition processed at higher temperature, and the inferred enhanced initial [C/Fe] becomes an artifact of the CN-only assumption rather than evidence for an α-rich initial composition. Since the effective reduction to two groups and the hierarchical-triple merger scenario for Groups 2 and 2α in Section 4.6.2 depend on this step, and since the binary evidence is concentrated in Group 2α (10/17 = 59% vs. 2/16 = 12.5% for Group 2), the paper's central formation claim is currently supported by an untested chemical prior. I request a quantitative test: a grid of ON-cycling models, or an independent diagnostic such as O isotopes or Al abundances, to determine whether [N/Fe] and [O/Fe] can be jointly reproduced without an enhanced initial C abundance.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5, item 5] The abstract and Conclusion item 5 state that spectroscopic log g is systematically offset from seismic values, but Section 4.4.3 reports log g_spec − log g_seis = 0.06 ± 0.22 dex and explicitly states that this is consistent with zero; the APOGEE-only offset is 0.02 ± 0.12 dex. As written, the headline claim is not supported by the reported statistic. Either provide a significance test showing a nonzero offset for the full sample, or revise the abstract and conclusion to describe the offset as marginal and sample-dependent.
  3. [Section 4.6.2 and Table 4] The hierarchical-triple interpretation is based on five Group 2α systems with projected separations of roughly 5,000–41,000 au, and the paper itself notes that the binary sample is biased toward wide systems and that 5/17 is only a lower limit. Given that Group 2 has a 12.5% binary fraction and that the chemical similarity with Group 2α is the premise under dispute, the current evidence does not warrant the phrase 'likely formed through mergers involving helium white dwarfs, possibly in hierarchical triples' as stated in the abstract and conclusion. The scenario should be presented as a hypothesis pending dedicated binarity and radial-velocity monitoring.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.5.1 and Table 3] Section 4.5.1 says Group 2α has an average [C+N+O/Fe] enhancement of +0.4 dex, while Table 3 lists a mode of +0.3 dex; specify whether the text refers to the mean and reconcile the values.
  2. [Section 4.5.2 / 4.6.2 / 3.1] There are several typos: 'Overbundances' in Section 4.5.2, 'heirarchical' in Section 4.6.2, and 'one our main aims' in Section 3.1.
  3. [Figure 13] The vertical shaded region is described in the text both as the upper limit of the CDG sample's N enhancement and as the highest N possible for scaled-solar composition if the ON cycle is activated after all C is burned to N; these two definitions should be separated in the caption.
  4. [Equation (4)] Equation (4) is introduced as the non-seismic mass determination without a reference for the scaling relation; add a citation for reader convenience.
  5. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract says '129 stars observed by Kepler, K2, and TESS' while the introduction states the full known sample is 158 CDGs; clarify that 129 is the subset with mission coverage, or justify the phrase 'entire known CDG population'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Group 2α nitrogen 'reproduction' is fixed by construction, and the two-group reduction rests on it.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.5.2 (Deciphering Group 2α), paragraph beginning 'We checked this quantitatively...']
    "We checked this quantitatively by assuming that (i) no ON cycling had occurred (so the current [O/Fe] is the same as the initial), (ii) the initial [N/Fe] was scaled-solar (as seen in observations of α-rich stars), and (iii) that the current [C+N+O/Fe] has not changed from the initial value. This gives an enhanced initial [C/Fe], which, when burned through the CN cycle, results in high N abundances, since C is much more abundant than N. Using this method on a star-by-star basis, we matched almost all of the [N/Fe] values currently observed in the Group 2α CDGs."

    Under assumptions (i)–(iii), conservation of C+N+O with unchanged O forces C_init + N_init = C_obs + N_obs. With N_init fixed at scaled-solar, C_init is algebraically C_obs + N_obs − N_sun. Burning C to N then gives N_final = C_init + N_init − C_obs = N_obs exactly. The 'match' to the observed [N/Fe] is therefore guaranteed by construction rather than being an independent test of the enhanced-initial-C hypothesis. The paper uses this match as the quantitative basis for concluding that Group 2α CDGs are 'just α-rich counterparts of the Group 2 CDGs,' so the effective reduction of three groups to two rests on a self-consistent fit, not on a prediction.

full rationale

The asteroseismic mass determination is self-contained and not circular: νmax is measured from Kepler/K2/TESS light curves with the pyMON pipeline, luminosities come from Gaia distances and photometry, and masses follow from the standard scaling relation without fitting any parameter to force the low-mass result. The νmax measurements are checked against external literature values (Yu et al. 2018, 2020; Zhou et al. 2024), with mean fractional difference 0.7%, so that chain is independently supported. The circularity is localized to the chemical group-reduction claim in Section 4.5.2. There, the initial [C/Fe] needed to 'reproduce' the extreme [N/Fe] of Group 2α is derived by algebra from the observed N and O under the no-ON-cycling and solar-initial-N assumptions, making the subsequent match tautological. This is a partial circularity because the conclusion that Group 2 and Group 2α belong to one formation channel depends on that constructed match, while other ingredients (mass bias, high Na, low C, binary fraction, wide orbits) are independent but do not by themselves distinguish the α-rich vs. distinct-channel interpretations. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found; citations to Maben et al. (2023a) are for sample lineage and are backed by external references such as Zhang & Jeffery (2013) and Shariat et al. (2025). Score 6 reflects one central 'prediction' that reduces by construction, with the rest of the analysis retaining independent content.

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

The central claims rest on standard asteroseismic scaling relations and on a set of chemical-evolution assumptions that are stated but not independently modeled. No new free parameters are fitted; the Group 2alpha initial C abundances are derived from observed CNO abundances under stated assumptions, not fitted to the N data across the whole sample.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard asteroseismic scaling relations (Eqs. 1, 2, 5) are valid for carbon-deficient giants.
    Used throughout to estimate nu_max, masses, and seismic log g; these relations are calibrated on normal stars, and merger products may deviate.
  • domain assumption nu_max-only mass scaling is reliable for luminous RC/EAGB stars without f_Delta_nu corrections.
    Section 4.4.2 relies on Howell et al. 2024 and Ash et al. 2025; those works do not include chemically peculiar merger candidates.
  • ad hoc to paper Group 2alpha stars experienced no ON cycling, had initially scaled-solar [N/Fe], and kept [C+N+O/Fe] unchanged.
    Section 4.5.2 uses these assumptions to derive enhanced initial C abundances that reproduce the high observed [N/Fe] after CN cycling.
  • ad hoc to paper Core He-flash can induce an intermediate CN(O) mixing regime that matches Group 1 chemical patterns.
    Section 4.6.1 admits this regime has not been fully explored in stellar models, making the Group 1 formation channel unmodeled.
  • domain assumption AGB third dredge-up increases [C+N+O], so unchanged CNO rules out AGB pollution.
    Section 4.5.3 and Section 4.6.2 cite Karakas & Lattanzio 2014; this is standard but not universally quantified for all AGB masses.
  • domain assumption Hierarchical triple inner-binary mergers leave wide tertiaries, as shown by Shariat et al. 2025 simulations.
    Section 4.6.2 uses this to connect the observed wide binaries in Group 2alpha to a merger origin.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismology of Carbon-Deficient Red Giants: Merger Products of Hierarchical Triple Systems?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6GFTSWDR

@misc{pith2026250819509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismology of Carbon-Deficient Red Giants: Merger Products of Hierarchical Triple Systems?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6GFTSWDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19509}
}
abstract

Carbon-deficient giants (CDGs) are a rare and chemically peculiar class of stars whose origins remain under active investigation. We present an asteroseismic analysis of the entire known CDG population, selecting 129 stars observed by $Kepler$, K2, and TESS to obtain seismic constraints. We detect solar-like oscillations in 43 CDGs. By measuring $\nu_{\rm max}$ and applying seismic scaling relations, we determine precise masses for these stars, finding that 79\% are low-mass ($M \lesssim 2~M_\odot$). The luminosity distribution is bimodal, and the CDGs separate into three chemically and evolutionarily distinct groups, characterized by clear trends in sodium and CNO abundances, $\alpha$-element enhancement, and kinematics. We find that two of these groups are only distinguished by their initial $\alpha$-element abundances, thus effectively reducing the number of groups to two. Lithium enrichment is common across all groups, linking CDGs to lithium-rich giants and suggesting a shared evolutionary origin. We find that spectroscopic $\log g$ is systematically offset from seismic values. Group~1 CDG patterns are most consistent with formation through core He-flash mixing, while the more massive and more chemically processed Groups~2 and 2$\alpha$ likely formed through mergers involving helium white dwarfs, possibly in hierarchical triples. Pollution from AGB stars appears very unlikely, given the unchanged [C+N+O] abundance across all groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Power spectrum of HD 124721, a CDG with an anomalous peak at 50 µHz, calculated from a single sector of TESS data. The solar-like oscillations are centered at 35 µHz. effectively reduce low-frequency noise while preserving higher frequency oscillations. Next, we concatenated the light curves from all avail￾able sectors and calculated power spectra up to the Nyquist frequency. The power (in ppm2 ) was converted to po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power spectrum of 2M19125144+3850261 (grey), including the smoothed power spectrum (red) and the linear background fit (blue). The power excess (black) is positioned between two vertical green lines, which mark the window. The vertical red dashed line represents the measured νmax at 49 µHz. The pyMON pipeline estimates νmax as the frequency of maximum power in the background-corrected smoothed power spectrum (shown … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the νmax values obtained us￾ing pyMON (this work) with literature values (νmax, lit) from Kepler (Yu et al. 2018, 2020) and TESS (Hon et al. 2021; Zhou et al. 2024) (see Table A1). The diagonal black line indicates the one-to-one relation. The bottom panel shows the fractional difference, defined as (νmax, lit − νmax)/νmax. Apart from the Hon et al. (2021) sample, the agreement be￾tween our values and … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of various stellar parameters for CDGs, color-coded by νmax detection level: green (clear), blue (marginal), and red (no detection). Panels (a) and (b) show the distributions of apparent and absolute mag￾nitudes, respectively. In Panel (a), vertical lines in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the expected νmax values (us￾ing Equation (1)) against the observed νmax for the CDGs exhibiting clear detections of solar-type oscillations. Gi￾ants classified based on asteroseismic analysis form the back￾ground from Yu et al. (2018) (see key). Their ex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: Asteroseismic Hertzsprung–Russell diagram (νmax versus Teff ). Right panel: Hertzsprung–Russell dia￾gram. The νmax estimates were adopted from Serenelli et al. (2017) for the dwarfs and subgiants (yellow symbols), Pinsonneault et al. (2018) and Yu et al. (2…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Carbon abundance as a function of log(L/L⊙) for the CDGs for which νmax has been estimated, exclud￾ing KIC 8352953, which is a lower-luminosity RGB star, and HD 91622, which lacks carbon abundance data from high￾resolution spectra. Contours represent the density distri…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: compares these values, showing spectro￾scopic log g from APOGEE DR17 and optical spectra against seismic log g, with RGB and RC stars from Yu et al. (2018) as background. The systematic off￾sets are quantitatively smaller for APOGEE-derived measurements (0.02 ± 0.12 d…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Trends of sodium abundance vs. the [C+N+O/Fe] abundance ratio. Giants classified based on asteroseismic analysis form the background from Mosser et al. (2014) and Yu et al. (2018) (small filled circles; see key). The underluminous stars from Li et al. (2022) are shown…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Seismic mass versus log(L/L⊙) for CDGs, with Group 1, Group 2, and Group 2α shown as blue circles, red triangles, and black squares, respectively. Kernel density his￾tograms illustrate the distributions for each group, using the corresponding group colors. Contours re…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Seismic mass versus [C/Fe] (left panel) and versus [N/Fe] (right panel) for the CDGs, underluminous stars, Li-rich giants, α-rich stars and a large sample of RC stars with symbols having the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: [Mg/Fe] ratio as a function of [Fe/H]. Giants classified based on asteroseismic analysis form the back￾ground from Mosser et al. (2014) and Yu et al. (2018) (small filled circles; see key). The α-rich young (orange crosses) and old stars (green crosses) are compiled b…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left panel: The three groups of CDGs, including α-rich young and old stars compiled by Hekker & Johnson (2019) and local giants from Luck & Heiter (2007), are shown in the Toomre diagram. Dashed lines show constant values of the total space velocity, vtot = (U 2 LSR+V…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: log(L/L⊙) is shown as a function of νmax for CDGs. Group 1, Group 2, and Group 2α stars are indicated by blue circles, red triangles, and black squares, respectively. RGB stars (yellow circles) and He-core burning giants (green circles) from Pinsonneault et al. (2018)…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Log-normal fits to binary separation distribu￾tions in the Galactic field, following Parker & Meyer (2014). The fit to A-star binaries (red dashed) is from De Rosa et al. (2014), G-dwarfs (black dash-dotted) from Raghavan et al. (2010), and M-dwarfs (black dotted) fro…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    2022, , 259, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    Abdurro'uf , Accetta , K., Aerts , C., et al. 2022, , 259, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [3]

    Adamczak , J., & Lambert , D. L. 2013, , 765, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/155 2013

  3. [4]

    Z., Santos , N

    Adibekyan , V. Z., Santos , N. C., Sousa , S. G., & Israelian , G. 2011, , 535, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118240

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118240 2011

  4. [5]

    1999, , 140, 261, 10.1051/aas:1999521

    Alonso , A., Arribas , S., & Mart \' nez-Roger , C. 1999, , 140, 261, 10.1051/aas:1999521

    doi:10.1051/aas:1999521 1999

  5. [6]

    L., Pinsonneault , M

    Ash , A. L., Pinsonneault , M. H., Vrard , M., & Zinn , J. C. 2025, , 979, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b18

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b18 2025

  6. [7]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [8]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [9]

    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

Show all 110 references
  1. [10]

    Bidelman , W. P. 1951, , 113, 304, 10.1086/145399

    1951 doi

  2. [11]

    P., & MacConnell , D

    Bidelman , W. P., & MacConnell , D. J. 1973, , 78, 687, 10.1086/111475

    1973 doi

  3. [12]

    Bond , H. E. 2019, , 887, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e13

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Sneden , C., Lambert , D

    Brown , J. A., Sneden , C., Lambert , D. L., & Dutchover , Jr., E. 1989, , 71, 293, 10.1086/191375

    1989 doi

  5. [14]

    M., Gilliland , R

    Brown , T. M., Gilliland , R. L., Noyes , R. W., & Ramsey , L. W. 1991, , 368, 599, 10.1086/169725

    1991 doi

  6. [15]

    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, 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    Cannon , A. J. 1912, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 56, 65

    1912

  8. [17]

    R., Ho , A

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

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    Caughlan , G. R. 1965, , 141, 688, 10.1086/148155

    1965 doi

  10. [19]

    J., & Miglio , A

    Chaplin , W. J., & Miglio , A. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 353, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

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

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

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    L., Huber , D., Bedding , T

    Colman , I. L., Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2017, , 469, 3802, 10.1093/mnras/stx1056

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    J., Patience , J., Wilson , P

    De Rosa , R. J., Patience , J., Wilson , P. A., et al. 2014, , 437, 1216, 10.1093/mnras/stt1932

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    G., & Wallace , R

    Deupree , R. G., & Wallace , R. K. 1987, , 317, 724, 10.1086/165319

    1987 doi

  15. [24]

    2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog: CCDM (Catalog of Components of Double & Multiple stars) (Dommanget+ 2002) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/274

    Dommanget , J., & Nys , O. 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog: CCDM (Catalog of Components of Double & Multiple stars) (Dommanget+ 2002) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/274. Originally published in: Observations et Travaux 54, 5 (2002)

    2002

  16. [25]

    J., & Liu , M

    Dupuy , T. J., & Liu , M. C. 2011, , 733, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/122

    2011 doi

  17. [26]

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., & Heintz , T. M. 2021, , 506, 2269, 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 4

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 4. Variability (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/358. Originally published in: 2023A&A...674A...1G

    2022

  19. [28]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    2016, , 54, 95, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023354

    Girardi , L. 2016, , 54, 95, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023354

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

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

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Grevesse , N., Asplund , M., & Sauval , A. J. 2007, , 130, 105, 10.1007/s11214-007-9173-7

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    Hekker , S., & Johnson , J. A. 2019, , 487, 4343, 10.1093/mnras/stz1554

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    A., & Pereira , C

    Holanda , N., Drake , N. A., & Pereira , C. B. 2023, , 518, 4038, 10.1093/mnras/stac3343

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Holanda , N., Flaulhabe , T., Quispe-Huaynasi , F., Sonally , A., & Pereira , C. B. 2024, , 971, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad58bf

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    B., Oswalt , T

    Holberg , J. B., Oswalt , T. D., Sion , E. M., Barstow , M. A., & Burleigh , M. R. 2013, , 435, 2077, 10.1093/mnras/stt1433

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

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

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

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    S., et al

    Hon , M., Huber , D., Kuszlewicz , J. S., et al. 2021, , 919, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Kalup , C., Stello , D., & De Silva , G

    Howell , M., Campbell , S. W., Kalup , C., Stello , D., & De Silva , G. M. 2025, , 536, 1389, 10.1093/mnras/stae2686

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    W., Stello , D., & De Silva , G

    Howell , M., Campbell , S. W., Stello , D., & De Silva , G. M. 2022, , 515, 3184, 10.1093/mnras/stac1918

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, , 527, 7974, 10.1093/mnras/stad3565

    ---. 2024, , 527, 7974, 10.1093/mnras/stad3565

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    X., Vanderburg , A., P \'a l , A., et al

    Huang , C. X., Vanderburg , A., P \'a l , A., et al. 2020 a , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    2020 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    ---. 2020 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    R., et al

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

    2009 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    R., Stello , D., et al

    Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., Stello , D., et al. 2011, , 743, 143, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143

    2011 doi

  39. [48]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  40. [49]

    1984, , 105, 329, 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90142-X

    Iben , I., & Renzini , A. 1984, , 105, 329, 10.1016/0370-1573(84)90142-X

    1984 doi

  41. [50]

    1967, , 147, 624, 10.1086/149040

    Iben , Jr., I. 1967, , 147, 624, 10.1086/149040

    1967 doi

  42. [51]

    G., Jeffery , C

    Izzard , R. G., Jeffery , C. S., & Lattanzio , J. 2007, , 470, 661, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077457

    2007 doi

  43. [52]

    2012, , 754, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/44

    Janson , M., Hormuth , F., Bergfors , C., et al. 2012, , 754, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/44

    2012 doi

  44. [53]

    M., Caldwell , D

    Jenkins , J. M., Caldwell , D. A., Chandrasekaran , H., et al. 2010, , 713, L87, 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L87

    2010 doi

  45. [54]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E, 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    2016, , 595, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629356

    Jofr \'e , P., Jorissen , A., Van Eck , S., et al. 2016, , 595, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629356

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    I., & Lattanzio , J

    Karakas , A. I., & Lattanzio , J. C. 2014, , 31, e030, 10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    2019, , 623, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., Mignard , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2019, , 623, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    2022, , 657, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2022, , 657, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    Kjeldsen , H., & Bedding , T. R. 1995, , 293, 87, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015

    1995 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    2015, Astronomy and Computing, 11, 119, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.007

    Kovaleva , D., Kaygorodov , P., Malkov , O., Debray , B., & Oblak , E. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 11, 119, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.007

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    B., Reddy , B

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

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    B., Reddy , B

    Kumar , Y. B., Reddy , B. E., & Lambert , D. L. 2011, , 730, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L12

    2011 doi

  54. [63]

    R., Murphy , S

    Li , Y., Bedding , T. R., Murphy , S. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 673, 10.1038/s41550-022-01648-5

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  56. [65]

    E., & Heiter , U

    Luck , R. E., & Heiter , U. 2007, , 133, 2464, 10.1086/513194

    2007 doi

  57. [66]

    2016, , 152, 100, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/100

    Luger , R., Agol , E., Kruse , E., et al. 2016, , 152, 100, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/100

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    W., Kumar , Y

    Maben , S., Campbell , S. W., Kumar , Y. B., Reddy , B. E., & Zhao , G. 2023 a , , 957, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf611

    2023 doi

  59. [68]

    B., Reddy , B

    Maben , S., Kumar , Y. B., Reddy , B. E., Campbell , S. W., & Zhao , G. 2023 b , , 525, 4554, 10.1093/mnras/stad2490

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    P., Stello , D., Montet , B

    Malla , S. P., Stello , D., Montet , B. T., et al. 2024, , 534, 1775, 10.1093/mnras/stae2179

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    L., & Shetrone , M

    Martell , S. L., & Shetrone , M. D. 2013, , 430, 611, 10.1093/mnras/sts661

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    D., Wycoff , G

    Mason , B. D., Wycoff , G. L., Hartkopf , W. I., Douglass , G. G., & Worley , C. E. 2001, , 122, 3466, 10.1086/323920

    2001 doi

  63. [72]

    2017, , 597, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629938

    Masseron , T., & Hawkins , K. 2017, , 597, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629938

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    2024, , 685, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245762

    Matsuno , T., Starkenburg , E., Balbinot , E., & Helmi , A. 2024, , 685, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245762

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    2009, , 501, 659, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811414

    Moc \'a k , M., M \"u ller , E., Weiss , A., & Kifonidis , K. 2009, , 501, 659, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811414

    2009 doi

  66. [75]

    2014, , 564, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322810

    Morel , T., Miglio , A., Lagarde , N., et al. 2014, , 564, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322810

    2014 doi

  67. [76]

    B., Kajino , T., & Famiano , M

    Mori , K., Kusakabe , M., Balantekin , A. B., Kajino , T., & Famiano , M. A. 2021, , 503, 2746, 10.1093/mnras/stab595

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    2014, , 572, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425039

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

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    B., et al

    Nepal , S., Chiappini , C., Queiroz , A. B., et al. 2024, , 688, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449445

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    McWilliam, M

    Nissen, A. McWilliam, M. Rauch , ed. 2004, Origin and Evolution of the Elements , ed. Nissen, A. McWilliam, M. Rauch

    2004

  71. [80]

    2016, , 587, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526566

    Palacios , A., Jasniewicz , G., Masseron , T., et al. 2016, , 587, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526566

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    2012, , 538, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117988

    Palacios , A., Parthasarathy , M., Bharat Kumar , Y., & Jasniewicz , G. 2012, , 538, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117988

    2012 doi

  73. [82]

    J., & Meyer , M

    Parker , R. J., & Meyer , M. R. 2014, , 442, 3722, 10.1093/mnras/stu1101

    2014 doi

  74. [83]

    H., Elsworth , Y., Epstein , C., et al

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Elsworth , Y., Epstein , C., et al. 2014, , 215, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/19

    2014 doi

  75. [84]

    H., Elsworth , Y

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Elsworth , Y. P., Tayar , J., et al. 2018, , 239, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaebfd

    2018 doi

  76. [85]

    2016, , 152, 41, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    Pr s a , A., Harmanec , P., Torres , G., et al. 2016, , 152, 41, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    2016 doi

  77. [86]

    A., Henry , T

    Raghavan , D., McAlister , H. A., Henry , T. J., et al. 2010, , 190, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  78. [87]

    W., et al

    Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2021, , 649, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  80. [89]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  81. [90]

    2020, , 901, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb45f

    Schwab , J. 2020, , 901, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb45f

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    2017, , 233, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97df

    Serenelli , A., Johnson , J., Huber , D., et al. 2017, , 233, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa97df

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    2025, , 978, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    Shariat , C., Naoz , S., El-Badry , K., et al. 2025, , 978, 47, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    2025 doi

  84. [93]

    C., Stumpe , M

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

    2012 doi

  85. [94]

    S., & Gallagher , John S., I

    Sparke , L. S., & Gallagher , John S., I. 2007, Galaxies in the Universe

    2007

  86. [95]

    2008, , 674, L53, 10.1086/528936

    Stello , D., Bruntt , H., Preston , H., & Buzasi , D. 2008, , 674, L53, 10.1086/528936

    2008 doi

  87. [96]

    J., Basu , S., Elsworth , Y., & Bedding , T

    Stello , D., Chaplin , W. J., Basu , S., Elsworth , Y., & Bedding , T. R. 2009, , 400, L80, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00767.x

    2009

  88. [97]

    2022, , 512, 1677, 10.1093/mnras/stac414

    Stello , D., Saunders , N., Grunblatt , S., et al. 2022, , 512, 1677, 10.1093/mnras/stac414

    2022 doi

  89. [98]

    Stetson , P. B. 2000, , 112, 925, 10.1086/316595

    2000 doi

  90. [99]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  91. [100]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  92. [101]

    Vanderburg , A., & Johnson , J. A. 2014, , 126, 948, 10.1086/678764

    2014 doi

  93. [102]

    A., Irwin , M., Shetrone , M

    Venn , K. A., Irwin , M., Shetrone , M. D., et al. 2004, , 128, 1177, 10.1086/422734

    2004 doi

  94. [103]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  95. [104]

    2016, , 588, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527259

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

    2016 doi

  96. [105]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  97. [106]

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

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

    2021 doi

  98. [107]

    R., Stello , D., et al

    Yu , J., Bedding , T. R., Stello , D., et al. 2020, , 493, 1388, 10.1093/mnras/staa300

    2020 doi

  99. [108]

    R., et al

    Yu , J., Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2018, , 236, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf74

    2018 doi

  100. [109]

    Zhang , X., & Jeffery , C. S. 2013, , 430, 2113, 10.1093/mnras/stt035

    2013 doi

  101. [110]

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

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

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    2024, , 271, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad18db

    Zhou , J., Bi , S., Yu , J., et al. 2024, , 271, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad18db

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.