Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Asteroseismology with PBjam 2.0: measuring dipole mode frequencies in coupling regimes from main sequence to low-luminosity red giant 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 PBjam 2.0 automatically identifies dipole-mode frequencies in solar-like oscillators across three coupling regimes, from main-sequence p-modes to red-giant mixed modes.

desk verdict PBjam 2.0 is a useful, clearly explained software extension for automated l=1 identification, but the central claim runs ahead of the quantitative evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20382 v1 pith:A6GYJ4ZE submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.SR

M. B. Nielsen , J. M. J. Ong , E. J. Hatt , G. R. Davies , W. J. Chaplin , G. T. Hookway , A. Stokholm , O. J. Scutt
show 2 more authors
M. N. Lund R. A. Garc{i}a
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords asteroseismologydipolemodesmixedmodeidentificationsubgiantstarsredgiantBayesianinferencePBjam
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 extends the PBjam software to identify $\ell=1$ (dipole) oscillation modes automatically. Previously PBjam only handled $\ell=0$ and $\ell=2$ modes, which stay regularly spaced through stellar evolution; dipole modes become mixed pressure-gravity modes whose frequencies do not follow a simple pattern once stars leave the main sequence. The update provides three frequency models — an asymptotic p-mode relation for main-sequence stars, a frequency-dependent coupling-matrix model for subgiants, and a uniform coupling model for red giants — and feeds the resulting mode locations into a detailed peakbagging stage. If the models work as claimed, non-experts and large surveys can extract dipole-mode frequencies, and with them core-rotation and age information, from thousands of stars with minimal interaction.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is a two-stage spectral model with a Bayesian prior built from a nonparametric sample. Stage one fits a background plus $\ell=0,2$ Lorentzian pairs using the asymptotic p-mode relation $\nu_{n_p,0} = \Delta\nu\left(n_p + \varepsilon_p + \frac{\alpha_p}{2}(n_p - n_{\max})^2\right)$; stage two divides the spectrum by that fit and fits the residual with $\ell=1$ Lorentzians whose frequency centers come from one of three prescriptions. The subgiant prescription is the generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problem of Equation (9) with coupling matrices recovered from the scalars via $L_{ij} \approx \omega_{g,j}^2 p_L$ and $D_{ij} \approx (\omega_{g,j}/\omega_{p,i}) p_D$; the red-giant prescription is the characteristic equation $\tan\theta_p(\nu)\tan\theta_g(\nu) - q(\nu) = 0$ with $q$ sampled from a uniform prior. Priors are kernel-density estimates over a sample of 13,413 Kepler targets, 288 TESS targets, and 30,812 model-grid subgiants, projected into a lower-dimensional latent space for efficient sampling.

What would settle it

Compute the full coupling-matrix elements from Equation (11) for a grid of subgiant stellar models spanning a range of masses and evolutionary states, solve the full eigenvalue problem, and compare those exact mixed-mode frequencies with the scalar-compressed solution using $p_L$ and $p_D$. If the residuals exceed the 3% of $\Delta\nu$ jitter for a substantial fraction of modes, the subgiant model's frequency predictions would be shown to be inaccurate; a test on synthetic spectra with known injected mixed modes would show whether the posterior mode frequencies recover the inputs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that one automated Bayesian pipeline, PBjam 2.0, can identify $\ell=1$ mode frequencies across all three coupling regimes by choosing among three model prescriptions. For main-sequence stars the dipole modes are treated as pure p-modes offset from the $\ell=0$ ridges by a constant $d_{01}$. For subgiants, the pipeline builds the mixed-mode frequencies by solving a generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problem whose p-g coupling matrices are compressed into two scalars, $p_L$ and $p_D$, using frequency-based scalings, with a per-mode Gaussian jitter of 3% of $\Delta\nu$ to absorb residual model error. For red giants, the dipole modes are the roots of a characteristic equation with a constant coupling strength $q$, found by damped Halley's method. The paper demonstrates the identification on one main-sequence star, one subgiant, and one red giant, and shows the subgiant case through detailed peakbagging, arguing that the same prior methodology used for $\ell=0,2$ naturally extends to the $\ell=1$ parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that in subgiants, the complicated frequency-by-frequency interaction between the outer pressure modes and the inner gravity modes can be captured by just two constants, $p_L$ and $p_D$, after rescaling by the mode frequencies — a simplification demonstrated on one stellar model. If real subgiants violate this simplification, the predicted frequencies of the mixed modes will be wrong, and the added 3% of $\Delta\nu$ scatter could hide the error instead of exposing it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PBjam 2.0 can automatically deliver $\ell=1$ mode frequencies for main-sequence, subgiant, and low-luminosity red-giant stars, removing the need for manual dipole-mode identification.
  • Mixed-mode frequencies from the subgiant and red-giant models provide access to core rotation and the g-mode period spacing, quantities tied to internal structure and stellar age.
  • The detailed peakbagging stage inherits the mode identification as priors, so rotation, acoustic glitches, and correlations between neighboring modes can be measured without re-labeling modes.
  • The nonparametric prior construction can be updated as more subgiant observations accumulate, directly improving the model in the region where the current observational sample is sparse.
  • The red-giant rotation option that couples rotating p- and g-modes separately by azimuthal order can produce asymmetric multiplet splittings, which are needed to interpret core rotation in advanced red giants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would apply the same scalar-compression treatment to $\ell=2$ mixed modes, which the paper notes is out of scope, since the eigenvalue formalism already supports it.
  • The 3% of $\Delta\nu$ per-mode jitter could double as a diagnostic: on stars with independently measured mode frequencies, the width of that jitter posterior would reveal whether model error or intrinsic scatter dominates.
  • Combining the staged identification with joint multi-dataset likelihoods, for example TESS plus K2 or PLATO plus Kepler data, might rescue faint or short-cadence subgiants that do not constrain the modes alone.
  • The choice among the main-sequence, subgiant, and red-giant models is left to the user; an automatic evolutionary-stage classifier based on $\nu_{\max}$ and $\Delta\Pi_1$ would make the pipeline fully hands-off.
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. This paper describes the PBjam 2.0 software extension for automatically identifying dipole (l=1) mode frequencies in solar-like oscillators. Three new models are introduced: an asymptotic p-mode relation for main-sequence (MS) stars (Eq. 7), a frequency-dependent coupling-matrix formalism for subgiants (SG, Eq. 9) in which the full coupling matrices are compressed into two scalars p_L and p_D, and a uniform coupling model for red giants (RG, Eq. 12). The mode identification is embedded in the Bayesian framework of the original PBjam, using a nonparametric prior constructed from 13,413 Kepler targets, 288 TESS targets, and 30,812 model-grid samples (Section 2.4.1), followed by a detailed peakbagging stage (Section 3). The paper demonstrates the method on three stars, one per model: KIC 5184732 (MS), KIC 5723165 (SG), and KIC 4448777 (RG), showing visually plausible fits in Figures 3, 4, and 6.

Significance. If the claimed capability is genuine, this is a valuable contribution to the asteroseismology software ecosystem: it extends an open-source, widely used package toward automated l=1 identification across evolutionary stages, which would enable large-scale analyses of mixed-mode frequencies and downstream stellar characterization. The mathematical ingredients (asymptotic relations, Hermitian eigenvalue coupling, JWKB characteristic equations) are standard, and the code is released openly. However, the paper's central claim is currently supported only by three hand-picked demonstrations with no quantitative validation, and one prior-construction detail raises a possible circularity. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they must be addressed before the claim 'automatically identify l=1 modes' is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Figs. 3, 4, 6, and Abstract] The central claim that PBjam 2.0 'automatically identify[ies] l=1 modes' is not quantitatively validated. The evidence consists of three demonstration stars with visually plausible fits; there is no comparison between the recovered dipole frequencies and independent measurements, no injection-recovery test on simulated spectra with known mode frequencies, no reported failure rate or radial-order misassignment rate, and no sensitivity analysis to the manually chosen N_p or to the user-selected model (MS/SG/RG). As written, the demonstrations establish consistency with favorable examples but not automatic performance across the intended population. I recommend adding a validation section that (a) analyzes simulated spectra with injected l=1 modes across MS, SG, and RG regimes and reports recovery accuracy and misassignment rates, and (b) compares PBjam 2.0 results for a modest sample of stars against independent peakbagging catalogs.
  2. [Section 2.4.1 (priors)] The nonparametric prior is built from 13,413 Kepler targets and 30,812 model-grid samples, and the paper does not state whether the three demonstration stars (KIC 5184732, KIC 5723165, KIC 4448777) are excluded from this sample. If any of these stars contributed their previously measured l=1 parameters to the prior, the demonstrations would be partially retrospective rather than predictive. The paper should explicitly state the exclusion protocol for validation targets, or alternatively re-run the demonstrations with a prior constructed after removing the demonstration stars from the sample, and report whether the results change materially.
  3. [Section 2.2.2, Eq. (9), Fig. 5] The compression of the frequency-dependent coupling matrices L and D into two scalars p_L and p_D, with the index-dependence scalings L_ij ≈ ω_g,j^2 p_L and D_ij ≈ ω_g,j/ω_p,i p_D, is validated only on one red-giant structural model (Fig. 5). The SG model is intended for subgiants, where the coupling regime differs (few g-modes coupling to many p-modes), and the residual frequency dependence, acknowledged in the text as '~1 µHz' discrepancies, is then absorbed by a per-mode Gaussian jitter σ_nl ~ N(0, 3% Δν). The paper should demonstrate on subgiant stellar models that (a) the same scalings suppress index dependence, and (b) the 3%-Δν jitter does not systematically bias the recovered mixed-mode frequencies. Without this, the eigenvalue problem in Eq. 9 may place mixed modes incorrectly in real subgiants, and the jitter would mask rather than reveal the error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2 (introductory paragraph)] The paper says 'the user to decide when using each method is appropriate' but the abstract claims PBjam 'automatically identify[ies] l=1 modes'. The automaticity is therefore conditional on a user-provided model choice; this nuance should be stated in the abstract or conclusions to avoid overclaiming.
  2. [Table 3] In the Appendix table, the row for the coupling matrix D lists 'pL' twice; the second entry should be 'pD'.
  3. [Section 2.2.2, last paragraph] The statement 'We therefore only apply this method to SG stars' is slightly confusing given the preceding sentence says the construction is also usable for MS and RG stars. Clarify that the limitation is purely computational, not physical.
  4. [Section 2.4.2] The stopping criterion for Dynesty is described as 'a change in log-evidence falls below the percent level'; this is vague. Specify the exact threshold or the Dynesty default used.
  5. [Throughout] The paper would benefit from a short description of the Kepler/TESS data reduction used for the demonstration stars (e.g., which light curves, preprocessing, and whether the spectra are taken from a public catalog).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the l=1 mode frequencies are fitted to the observed spectrum via the likelihood, not derived from the priors or from the demonstration stars' own l=1 measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. The l=1 mode frequencies are obtained by sampling the posterior of Eq. 16, whose likelihood (Eq. 18) compares the model to the observed power spectrum; the three l=1 models (Eqs. 7, 9, and 12) are physical parameterizations whose parameters are then fit to the data. There is no equation in the paper that defines the predicted l=1 frequencies in terms of previously measured l=1 frequencies of the same target. The nonparametric prior in Section 2.4.1 is built from l=2,0 model parameters of Kepler/TESS targets plus stellar-model grid samples for g-mode parameters; the text does not state that measured l=1 frequencies of the three demonstration stars are included, and the quoted description of the prior sample does not claim such inclusion. The self-citations (Nielsen et al. 2021; Ong & Basu 2020; Nielsen et al. 2023; Lindsay et al. 2024) are used as methodological references, derivation sources, or supplementary grid data, not as an appeal to a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The main weakness of the paper is validation: only three hand-picked stars are shown with no independent frequency comparison or simulated recovery test. That is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circular-reasoning concern, and under the hard rules it should not raise the circularity score. The central result is therefore self-contained in the sense that the mode frequencies are constrained by the observed spectrum through the likelihood rather than being equal to the model inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central l=1 identification rests on several fitted parameters (d01, DeltaPi1, eps_g, p_L, p_D, q), a per-mode noise term, rotation splittings, and the inherited l=2,0 envelope parameters. The key axioms are the asymptotic relations for p- and g-modes, the scalar compression of the coupling matrices, the uniform-q red giant approximation, and the representativeness of the empirical prior sample. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • d01
    Mean frequency separation between adjacent l=0 and l=1 modes, free parameter in Eq. 7 used by all three l=1 models.
  • DeltaPi1
    Asymptotic g-mode period spacing that sets the pure g-mode frequencies via Eq. 8 in the SG and RG models.
  • eps_g
    Phase offset of the asymptotic g-modes in Eq. 8, sampled together with DeltaPi1 in the SG and RG models.
  • p_L
    Scalar coefficient replacing the full p-g coupling matrix L in the SG model, Section 2.2.2.
  • p_D
    Scalar coefficient replacing the full p-g coupling matrix D in the SG model, Section 2.2.2.
  • q
    Uniform p-g coupling strength in the red giant characteristic equation Eq. 12, sampled from U(0.01, 0.6).
  • sigma_nl = N(0, 3% Delta nu)
    Per-mode Gaussian frequency jitter added to each mixed-mode frequency to absorb approximation error; one random variable per l=1 mode.
  • delta_nu_env and delta_nu_core
    Envelope and core rotation splittings that set the rotationally split multiplet frequencies via Eq. 15 and Eq. 20.
  • Envelope parameters from l=2,0 model (Delta nu, nu_max, eps_p, delta_nu02, alpha_p, W_E, H_E, Gamma)
    Fitted in the first stage and inherited as fixed inputs by the l=1 model, so l=1 identification depends on their values.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Pure p-modes follow the Tassoul asymptotic relation, Eq. 4: nu_np,0 = Delta nu [np + eps_p + (alpha_p/2)(np - n_max)^2].
    Used to locate l=0 and l=2 modes and, through Eq. 7, the l=1 frequencies in all three models.
  • standard math Pure dipole g-modes are uniformly spaced in period, Eq. 8: nu_ng,l=1 = [DeltaPi1 (ng + eps_g)]^-1.
    Defines the notional g-mode frequencies in the SG and RG models.
  • domain assumption The coupling matrices L and D can be compressed to scalars p_L and p_D with L_ij ~ omega_g,j^2 p_L and D_ij ~ omega_g,j/omega_p,i p_D, Eq. 11 and Fig. 5.
    The reduced dynamic range is shown for one red-giant structure model; this approximation underpins the SG model.
  • domain assumption Subgiant mixed-mode spectra are described by the generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problem Eq. 9 with approximate coupling matrices plus per-mode Gaussian jitter sigma_nl ~ N(0, 3% Delta nu).
    Assumes residual index-dependent coupling error is absorbed by the jitter; no independent check for subgiants is provided.
  • domain assumption In red giants the coupling strength q is constant in frequency, Eq. 12, sampled from U(0.01, 0.6).
    Standard uniform-coupling approximation; validated only implicitly by the RG example.
  • domain assumption The prior sample (13,413 Kepler + 288 TESS targets plus 30,812 model grid points) is representative, and the closest-100 PCA-localized KDE prior correctly encodes parameter correlations.
    If the prior sample is unrepresentative or includes the target star, the identified mode locations are biased.
  • domain assumption The PDS is Gamma-distributed with mean equal to the model, and dividing by the l=2,0 model leaves a residual spectrum in which l=1 modes can be modeled independently.
    Standard likelihood and two-stage procedure; assumes no strong bias from the division step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismology with PBjam 2.0: measuring dipole mode frequencies in coupling regimes from main sequence to low-luminosity red giant stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6GYJ4ZE

@misc{pith2026250620382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismology with PBjam 2.0: measuring dipole mode frequencies in coupling regimes from main sequence to low-luminosity red giant stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6GYJ4ZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20382}
}
abstract

PBjam is an open-source software package for measuring mode frequencies of solar-like oscillators. These frequencies help constrain stellar evolution models to precisely estimate masses, radii, and ages of stars. The overall aim of PBjam is to simplify this process to the point where it may be done by non-experts or performed on thousands of stars with minimal interaction. The initial release of PBjam was restricted to only identifying modes of $\ell=0$ and $\ell=2$, since these are the simplest to treat consistently across different stellar evolutionary stages. Here we introduce a new set of three separate models which lets PBjam automatically identify $\ell=1$ modes in stars that experience varying degrees of coupling between p- and g-modes. These include a simple asymptotic relation for p-modes which can be applied to main-sequence stars, a matrix formalism aimed at treating frequency dependent coupling in sub-giants, and a uniform coupling model which is suitable for red giants. These models follow the Bayesian methodology established in the first release of PBjam, where a large set of previous observations is used to construct a nonparametric prior probability density for the new set of model parameters. This extension allows PBjam to build a more complete description of the power due to oscillations across a wider range of evolutionary stages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example oscillation spectra of stars at three different evolutionary stages. The frequency axis is centered on νmax, and is shown in units of ∆ν. The power density is shown in dark gray, and the modes are labeled according to their angular degree, where modes of ℓ = 0, ℓ = 1, and ℓ = 2 are shown as orange, green, and purple squares respectively. The ℓ = 0 modes, highlighted by the shaded regions, have been aligned b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Models used in PBjam for the MS star KIC 5184732. The top frame shows the smoothed PDS (gray) and a set of models (red) constructed from samples of the posterior distribution resulting from sampling Eq. 2 and Eq. 4 which constitutes the first stage of the mode identification in PBjam. The first, second, and third Harvey-like profiles are shown in dashed blue, orange, and green respectively, and the shot noise level … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Echelle diagram of an MS star KIC 5184732 shown in ` gray, and the result of applying the MS model for mode identifica￾tion. The colored points are samples drawn from the marginalized mode frequency posterior distributions, and so a wider collection of points denotes a larger uncertainty on the location of the mode. For clarity, only modes of azimuthal order m = 0 are shown. These fre￾quency samples correspond to th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Echelle diagram of the subgiant star KIC 5723165 (gray) ` along with the application of the SG model for mode identification shown in colored points as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scaled matrix elements Li j and Di j for a red giant stellar structure model (Model I of Ong et al. 2022). (a): Matrix elements Li j, scaled to produce dimensionless quantities. The upper panel shows this quantity scaled by 1/ω2 max = 1/(2πνmax) 2 , and exhibits strong…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Echelle diagram of the red giant KIC 4448777 (gray) ` along with the mode identification derived from the RG model shown in colored points as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The result of the detailed peakbagging performed for the subgiant KIC 5723165. The smoothed spectrum is shown in black, with models generated from 30 samples of the posterior distribution shown in red. Right: Echelle diagram like that shown in Fig. ` 4, but with …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015001

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015001 2021

  2. [2]

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology (Springer Netherlands)

    2010

  3. [3]

    1977, A&A, 58, 41

    Aizenman, M., Smeyers, P., & Weigert, A. 1977, A&A, 58, 41

    1977

  4. [4]

    R., Duvall, Jr., T

    Anderson, E. R., Duvall, Jr., T. L., & Jefferies, S. M. 1990, ApJ, 364, 699, doi: 10.1086/169452

    doi:10.1086/169452 1990

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 642, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038834 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Appourchaux, T. 2020, A&A, 642, A226, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038834 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., SipH ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038834 2020

  6. [6]

    G., Montalban, J., Kallinger, T., et al

    Beck, P. G., Montalban, J., Kallinger, T., et al. 2012, Nature, 481, 55, doi: 10.1038/nature10612

    doi:10.1038/nature10612 2012

  7. [7]

    R., Kjeldsen, H., Reetz, J., & Barbuy, B

    Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., Reetz, J., & Barbuy, B. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/280.4.1155

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/280.4.1155 1996

  8. [8]

    Benomar, O., Takata, M., Shibahashi, H., Ceillier, T., & Garc´ıa, R. A. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1493

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1493 2015

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al

    Benomar, O., Belkacem, K., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 781, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L29

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., Helmi, A., et al

    Borre, C. C., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., Helmi, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1498

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

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

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  5. [13]

    P., Hekker, S., et al

    Buchele, L., Bellinger, E. P., Hekker, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 198, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1680

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Kjeldsen, H., Li, Y ., et al

    Campante, T. L., Kjeldsen, H., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449197

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    J., & Miglio, A

    Chaplin, W. J., & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al

    Chaplin, W. J., Basu, S., Huber, D., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/1

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Roxburgh, I

    Cunha, M. S., Roxburgh, I. W., Aguirre Børsen-Koch, V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5864, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2886

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Chaplin, W

    Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., Farr, W. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2331

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, Ap&SS, 328, 259, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0216-2

    Deheuvels, S., & Michel, E. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 259, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0216-2

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Basu, S

    Deheuvels, S., Ouazzani, R. M., & Basu, S. 2017, A&A, 605, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730786

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Chaplin, W

    Deheuvels, S., Garc´ıa, R. A., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/19

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    J., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Do˘gan, G., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322779

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    Feroz, F., & Skilling, J. 2013, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    2013

  16. [24]

    Series, V ol. 1553, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 32nd International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. U. von Toussaint (AIP), 106–113, doi: 10.1063/1.4819989

    doi

  17. [25]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Garc´ıa, R. A., & Ballot, J. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0020-1

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, A&A, 616, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832822

    Gehan, C., Mosser, B., Michel, E., Samadi, R., & Kallinger, T. 2018, A&A, 616, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832822

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Gizon, L., & Solanki, S. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009, doi: 10.1086/374715

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Mosser, B., Marques, J

    Goupil, M. J., Mosser, B., Marques, J. P., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220266

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/142

    Grundahl, F., Fredslund Andersen, M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/142

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Handberg, R., & Campante, T. L. 2011, A&A, 527, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015451

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    1985, in ESA Special Publication, V ol

    Harvey, J. 1985, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 235, Future Missions in

    1985

  26. [34]

    B., Chaplin, W

    Hatt, E., Nielsen, M. B., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244579

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    S., et al

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

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Chontos, A., et al

    Huber, D., Chaplin, W. J., Chontos, A., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1488

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

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

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    2014, A&A, 570, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313

    Kallinger, T., De Ridder, J., Hekker, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

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

    1995

  33. [41]

    R., Butler, R

    Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Butler, R. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1281, doi: 10.1086/497530

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    N., Fredslund Andersen, M., et al

    Knudstrup, E., Lund, M. N., Fredslund Andersen, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346707

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Lebreton, Y ., & Goupil, M. J. 2014, A&A, 569, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423797

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, A&A, 688, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449882

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J. 2024, A&A, 688, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449882

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al

    Li, T., Bedding, T. R., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 495, 3431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1350

    doi

  38. [46]

    R., Li, T., et al

    Li, Y ., Bedding, T. R., Li, T., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 495, 2363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1335

    doi

  39. [47]

    J., Ong, J

    Lindsay, C. J., Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2024, ApJ, 965, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae5

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    N., Miesch, M

    Lund, M. N., Miesch, M. S., & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2014, ApJ, 790, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/121

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

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

    Lund, M. N., Silva Aguirre, V ., Davies, G. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    N., Basu, S., Bieryla, A., et al

    Lund, M. N., Basu, S., Bieryla, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450055 15

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Huber, D., Aguirre, V

    Lundkvist, M. S., Huber, D., Aguirre, V . S., & Chaplin, W. J. 2018, Characterizing Host Stars Using Asteroseismology, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1655–1678, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 177

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    Lyttle, A. J. 2023, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/13896/

    2023

  45. [53]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts345

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Morel, T., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts345

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038307

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Mosser, B., Vrard, M., Belkacem, K., Deheuvels, S., & Goupil, M. J. 2015, A&A, 584, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527075

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    J., et al

    Mosser, B., Belkacem, K., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015440

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, A&A, 658, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256

    Nascimbeni, V ., Piotto, G., B¨orner, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142256

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    B., & Payne, M

    Nelson, B., Ford, E. B., & Payne, M. J. 2014, ApJS, 210, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/11

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Davies, G

    Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346086

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    B., Davies, G

    Nielsen, M. B., Davies, G. R., Ball, W. H., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcd39

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Ong, J. M. J., & Basu, S. 2020, ApJ, 898, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ffb

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Ong, J. M. J., Bugnet, L., & Basu, S. 2022, ApJ, 940, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac97e7

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    1970, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Classics in Applied Mathematics (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    Ortega, J., & Rheinboldt, W. 1970, Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in Several Variables, Classics in Applied Mathematics (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UEFRfUZBpUEC

    1970

  56. [64]

    1975, PASJ, 27, 237

    Osaki, Y . 1975, PASJ, 27, 237

    1975

  57. [65]

    H., Zinn, J

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Zinn, J. C., Tayar, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 276, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9fef

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3630805

    Reback, J., McKinney, W., jbrockmendel, et al. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3630805

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    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

  61. [69]

    Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & Garc´ıa, R. A. 2021, ApJS, 255, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac033f

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    1979, PASJ, 31, 87 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M

    Shibahashi, H. 1979, PASJ, 31, 87 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173

    1979 doi

  63. [71]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer...

    2004 doi

  64. [72]

    1997, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechanics: Foundations and New Algorithms, ed

    Sokal, A. 1997, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Mechanics: Foundations and New Algorithms, ed. C. DeWitt-Morette, P. Cartier, & A. Folacci (Boston, MA: Springer US), 131–192, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-0319-8 6

    1997 doi

  65. [73]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

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

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

    2009

  67. [75]

    E., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al

    Stokholm, A., Nissen, P. E., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2222

    2019 doi

  68. [76]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw104

    Takata, M. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 68, 109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw104

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    1980, ApJS, 43, 469, doi: 10.1086/190678

    Tassoul, M. 1980, ApJS, 43, 469, doi: 10.1086/190678

    1980 doi

  70. [78]

    1989, Nonradial oscillations of stars (University of Tokyo Press) van Rossum, G., & de Boer, J

    Unno, W., Osaki, Y ., Ando, H., Saio, H., & Shibahashi, H. 1989, Nonradial oscillations of stars (University of Tokyo Press) van Rossum, G., & de Boer, J. 1991, CWI Quarterly, 4, 283

    1989

  71. [79]

    A., Elsworth, Y ., Chaplin, W

    Verner, G. A., Elsworth, Y ., Chaplin, W. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3539, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18968.x

    2011

  72. [80]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    R., et al

    Yu, J., Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf74 16 APPENDIX Table 3 shows the complete list of model parameters used in the various stages ofPBjam. The model parameters are separated in part by pertaining to either theℓ=2,0 stage or...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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