The mixing of internal gravity waves and lithium production in intermediate-mass AGB stars

Chunhua Zhu; Guoliang L\"u; Helei Liu; Sufen Guo; Xizhen Lu; Zhijun Wang

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 84 references

The mixing of internal gravity waves and lithium production in intermediate-mass AGB stars

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Internal gravity waves excited by helium-shell flashes mix 7Be into AGB convective envelopes, doubling the predicted lithium yield from intermediate-mass AGB stars to roughly 15 solar masses.

desk verdict The paper's new numbers deserve refereeing, but Eq. (6) misstates the wave-luminosity scaling from its own citations, and if that holds up the central mixing mechanism loses its power budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20360 v1 pith:CVGGWYSL submitted 2025-06-25 astro-ph.SR

Zhijun Wang , Guoliang Lü , Chunhua Zhu , Sufen Guo , Helei Liu , Xizhen Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords internalgravitywavesasymptoticgiantbranchstarslithiumproductionhotbottomburningextramixingstellarevolutiongalacticabundanceMESAmodels

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

The paper argues that internal gravity waves (IGW) excited during each helium-shell flash of intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars mix the radiative zone between the thermal pulse and the convective envelope, carrying 7Be into the envelope where it decays to 7Li. With this extra mixing included, the surface lithium abundance can exceed A(Li)=5, and most stars of 3.5 to 7.5 solar masses end up as net lithium producers. Population synthesis gives a total Galactic lithium yield from these stars of about 15 solar masses, twice the yield without IGW mixing and roughly 10% of the lithium in the Galaxy's interstellar medium. The paper therefore claims that AGB stars are a non-negligible lithium source under normal mass-loss rates, removing the need for artificially high mass loss that earlier models required.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IGW-driven diffusion coefficient together with its activation threshold. The paper uses $D_{\rm IGW}\approx \eta\,(\nabla\times u)^2 K/N^2$ with $\eta=0.1$ taken from three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, and activates the mixing only when the helium-shell luminosity exceeds $10^4\,L_\odot$. The wave luminosity $L_{\rm IGW}=M\,L_{\rm conv}$ is compared against the mixing-maintenance power $L_{\rm mix}=\int N^2 K\,dm$; this comparison is what allows the radiative gap between the thermal pulse and the convective envelope to be treated as mixed, creating the 7Be transport channel that roughly doubles the predicted lithium yield.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation of a helium-shell flash in a roughly 4 solar mass AGB star could directly measure the wave luminosity and the turbulent diffusivity in the radiative gap; if the computed $L_{\rm IGW}$ stays below the approximately $10^4\,L_\odot$ needed to sustain mixing, or the effective $D_{\rm IGW}$ falls below $10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ during the flash, the claimed 15 solar mass Galactic lithium yield would not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that internal gravity waves are the missing extra-mixing agent in thermally pulsing AGB stars. During helium-shell ignition, the wave luminosity from convective motions exceeds the luminosity needed to sustain mixing across the radiative gap ($L_{\rm IGW}=M\,L_{\rm conv} > L_{\rm mix}\sim10^4\,L_\odot$), so the diffusion coefficient $D_{\rm IGW}\approx \eta\,(\nabla\times u)^2 K/N^2$ stays above $10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ in that gap. This transports 7Be produced near $4\!-\!8\times10^7\,\mathrm{K}$ into the cooler convective envelope before it is destroyed, realizing the Cameron\,-\,Fowler mechanism. The simulations yield peak A(Li)>5, with the largest relative lithium gain in stars just massive enough for hot bottom burning, and total yields of about 15 solar masses versus about 8 solar masses without IGW mixing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that helium-shell flash convection generates enough internal gravity wave power, and the adopted wave-mixing coefficient is strong enough, to mix the entire radiative gap between the thermal pulse and the convective envelope; if the waves are weaker or the coefficient is smaller, the extra lithium production mostly disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

IGW mixing makes intermediate-mass AGB stars net lithium producers across most of the 3.5 to 7.5 solar mass range, with per-star yields up to about $10^{-7}\,M_\odot$.
The total Galactic lithium contribution from these stars rises to about 15 solar masses, roughly 10% of the interstellar lithium inventory, an order of magnitude above earlier AGB estimates.
Li-rich, O-rich AGB stars with A(Li) up to roughly 4.3 and mass-loss rates below $10^{-6}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ can be reproduced without invoking anomalous mass loss.
The relative benefit of IGW mixing is largest near the minimum mass for hot bottom burning and declines toward higher masses, so lithium-rich AGB stars should preferentially be found at the low-mass end of the hot-bottom-burning range.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same IGW prescription operates during the first helium flash in low-mass red giants, then lithium-rich giants and lithium-rich AGB stars may share one underlying transport mechanism; the paper notes the RGB analogue but does not quantify its interstellar-medium contribution.
A direct testable extension would be a three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation of a helium-shell flash that computes the wave luminosity from first principles; if it falls below the $\sim10^4\,L_\odot$ threshold, the claimed yield enhancement would not occur.
The yield grid treats only single stars; binarity or rotation could modify the mixing and change the 15 solar mass figure, an effect this paper does not address.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this paper. It applies the IGW extra-mixing picture from Schwab's RGB He-flash work to intermediate-mass TP-AGB stars, computes Li yields in MESA across a mass/metallicity grid, and ends with a population-synthesis number: about 15 Msun of Li, roughly 10% of the Galactic inventory, double the no-IGW case. That quantitative target is new, and the observational comparison with the Milky Way and Magellanic Cloud Li-rich AGB stars is a genuine plus: they match the A(Li)-T_eff samples without invoking the artificially high mass-loss rates that earlier yield calculations needed. The paper deserved a careful read.

The soft spots are real, and one is load-bearing. Eq. (6) states L_IGW = M L_conv, citing Lecoanet & Quataert (2013) and Schwab (2020). The cited works use L_IGW proportional to M^3 L_conv. That is not a calibration nicety: it is two powers of M. For He-shell flash convection M is typically at or below 0.1, so the wave luminosity plotted in Fig. 2 (10^4 to 10^5 Lsun) drops by about 10^2 to 10^4, below the L_mix near 10^4 Lsun threshold from Eq. (4). If that is a mis-transcription, the 7Be transport channel never opens and the doubling of the Li yield disappears. The L_He > 10^4 Lsun activation condition does not save it, because the relevant comparison is L_IGW versus L_mix, not the helium luminosity.

There are also smaller but annoying issues. A few rows in Table A.1 do not subtract correctly: for Z=0.014, M=4.5, the last column says 1.2e-9 while 1.9e-8 minus 6.6e-9 is 1.2e-8; M=6.5 is off too. No inlists or data are released, and there are no error bars on any of the yield numbers, which frustrates a grid that is the basis of the Galactic claim. The non-IGW models already give 8 Msun, ten times the older estimates, so part of the 10% contribution comes from the updated Simonucci 7Be e-capture rate, not from IGW; the IGW-specific increment is the 8 to 15 Msun gap.

I do not think this is a circular or unserious paper. The reaction network, mixing coefficient framework, and population synthesis are honest, and the authors cite the relevant work. But the central quantitative claim currently rests on an equation that appears inconsistent with its own citations. That is exactly what a referee should be able to settle. Send it to review; ask the authors to rederive Eq. (6), rerun the models if needed, and fix the table. If the corrected power budget is sub-threshold, the paper becomes a null result. If the M^3 scaling still clears L_mix for part of the grid, the conclusion survives and this is a useful contribution to Galactic Li evolution.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses MESA stellar models to study internal gravity wave (IGW) mixing in intermediate-mass TP-AGB stars and its effect on lithium yields. The authors propose that IGWs excited by He-shell flash convection mix the radiative zone between the convective thermal pulse and the convective envelope, transporting 7Be into the envelope where it decays to 7Li. They construct grids with initial masses 3.5-7.5 Msun and four metallicities, compute Li yields with and without IGW mixing, and use population synthesis with a Kroupa IMF to estimate a total Galactic Li yield of about 15 Msun, twice the no-IGW value and roughly 10% of the present-day Li content of the Milky Way.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper offers a concrete physical explanation for extra-mixing in intermediate-mass AGB stars and identifies IGW mixing as a potentially non-negligible source of Li in the Galaxy. The work uses a standard stellar evolution code, provides a yield grid for multiple masses and metallicities in Table A.1, and compares the models with Li-rich AGB stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds. The main limitation is that the IGW luminosity, activation threshold, and mixing coefficient are imported without AGB-specific calibration or sensitivity analysis, and the Galactic yield estimate is based on a solar-metallicity-only population synthesis. The quantitative conclusions therefore rest on prescriptions that are not yet established for this evolutionary phase.

major comments (5)

[§2.2.1, Eq. (6)] The wave luminosity is written as L_IGW = M L_conv, where M is the convective Mach number, and this is attributed to Lecoanet & Quataert (2013) and Schwab (2020). In those references the scaling is instead L_IGW ~ M^3 L_conv, which differs by a factor M^2 relative to the expression used here. For the He-shell convection in these models, M is likely at most ~0.1, so the IGW luminosity used in Fig. 2 may be overestimated by one to four orders of magnitude, placing it at or below the L_mix ~ 10^4 L_sun threshold derived from Eq. (4). Because the entire extra-mixing mechanism and the factor-of-two Li yield enhancement depend on this power budget, the authors must verify the formula against the cited papers, report the correct scaling, and recompute the models if needed.
[§2.2.2] The IGW mixing is activated by the condition L_He > 10^4 L_sun, but the physical criterion established in Section 2.2.1 is L_IGW > L_mix, where L_IGW depends on the convective luminosity and Mach number rather than directly on the helium-burning luminosity. The relationship between L_He and L_conv during a He-shell flash is not established in the text, so the adopted threshold is an ad hoc proxy. The model should either switch mixing based on L_IGW versus L_mix or justify why L_He is an equivalent proxy; otherwise the activation of extra mixing may be overestimated.
[§2.2.2, Eq. (7)] The mixing coefficient D_IGW ~ eta (curl u)^2 K/N^2 is adopted from Herwig (2023) with eta=0.1 determined by Garaud & Kulenthirarajah (2016). This coefficient is not calibrated for the He-shell flash regime in AGB stars, where the radiative gap is transient, N^2 is large, and the geometry may differ from the simulations used to calibrate eta. No sensitivity study is presented: varying eta by even a factor of a few could change whether 7Be is transported to the envelope before decaying. A robustness test of the Li yields against eta and against the activation threshold should be included, given that the factor-of-two yield enhancement is the central claim.
[§3.3, population synthesis] The total Galactic Li yield of about 15 Msun is obtained by linear interpolation in mass only over the Z=0.014 grid in Table A.1, with no metallicity distribution integrated over the star formation history. This is not a Galactic yield estimate because Table A.1 shows strong metallicity dependence, including cases where IGW mixing reduces the yield (for example Z=0.00014, 6.0-7.5 Msun). The authors should either integrate over a metallicity distribution appropriate for the Milky Way or explicitly argue that solar-metallicity stars dominate the Li production. As written, the 10% Galactic contribution claim is not supported by the calculation shown.
[§3.1, Fig. 3] The mechanism requires 7Be to be transported across the radiative gap and into the convective envelope in less than the 53-day decay half-life. The paper does not compare the IGW diffusion timescale with the 7Be lifetime. For the lowest D_IGW values quoted as ~10^10 cm^2/s and a gap thickness that can be inferred from Fig. 3, the transport time may be months or longer, which would mean much of the 7Be decays before reaching the envelope. The authors should report the relevant diffusion timescales across the mixing zone to show that the 7Be actually survives the transport.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and naming errors, including 'Pranztos' for Prantzos, 'Unclear network' for 'Nuclear network', 'Venture' or 'Venture 2001' for Ventura, 'tempature' for temperature, 'enhacement' for enhancement, 'Ruckya' for Rukeya, and 'the the' in the text. These should be corrected.
[Eq. (8)] The quantity L in the scaling |curl u| proportional to L^{1/3} is not defined; the text should state whether this is the local luminosity, convective luminosity, or another quantity, and in which region the scaling is applied.
[Fig. 7] The statement that both the IGW and no-IGW models cover the observational samples equally well weakens the case for IGW mixing; the discussion should either identify a regime where observations can discriminate between the two sets of models or state explicitly that the comparison is not a discriminating test.
[Table A.1] Several entries in Table A.1 show that models without IGW mixing have higher yields than those with IGW mixing at low metallicity and high mass. This caveat appears in the text but is absent from the abstract and conclusions, where the effect of IGW is described only as positive; the abstract should be qualified accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: central IGW/Li result rests on external mixing prescriptions and is not fitted to the Li observations it explains.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is MESA TP-AGB models plus an IGW mixing prescription (Eqs. 6-8) plus a 7Be-transport argument; Li yields are then integrated from the resulting surface abundances (Eqs. 9-10). No parameter is fitted to the Li-rich AGB observations used for comparison in Fig. 7, and the 15 Msun total yield is obtained by population synthesis with an externally specified IMF and star-formation rate, not by matching Galactic Li. The IGW prescriptions are taken from external works (Press 1981; Lecoanet & Quataert 2013; Schwab 2020; Herwig 2023; Garaud & Kulenthirarajah 2016), and the activation condition follows Schwab (2020). The authors do cite their own prior work for the population-synthesis method (Lu et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2023; Li et al. 2024; He et al. 2024) and for context on Li-rich giants and nova yields (Gao et al. 2022, 2024; Lu et al. 2025), but these are methodological or contextual and do not supply the load-bearing physics. The skeptical concern that Eq. (6) underquotes the IGW luminosity relative to Lecoanet & Quataert/Schwab is a physical-accuracy or citation-fidelity issue; even if true, it would make the mechanism overoptimistic through an input assumption, not circular. No equation reduces to the paper's own output, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, conserved quantities, or dimensions are introduced. The only new element is a modeled mixing mechanism imported from prior IGW literature. The central claim rests on the adopted IGW prescriptions, the mass-loss law, and the population-synthesis assumptions listed above.

free parameters (5)

MLT mixing length parameter alpha_MLT = 1.9
Sets convective efficiency, which controls envelope temperature and HBB/7Be production; chosen from standard models, not fit here.
Overshooting parameter f = 0.016
Sets exponential overshoot scale H_v = f H_p, following Herwig 1999; affects the extent of envelope and pulse mixing.
Mass-loss efficiency eta_B95 = 0.01
Multiplier in the Bloecker 1995 wind law, adopted from prior models; controls how much Li-rich surface material is ejected, a key determinant of yields.
IGW mixing coefficient eta_IGW = 0.1
Dimensionless coefficient in D_IGW, Eq. 7, taken from 3D hydrodynamic simulations by Garaud and Kulenthirarajah 2016; sets the amplitude of the central mixing mechanism.
IGW activation threshold L_He = 10^4 L_sun
Mixing is applied only where L_He > 10^4 L_sun, Section 2.2.2, copied from Schwab 2020's low-mass RGB first He-flash model; this choice determines when the extra mixing operates.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption IGW wave luminosity equals convective luminosity times convective Mach number: L_IGW = M L_conv (Eq. 6).
From Lecoanet and Quataert 2013 and Schwab 2020. Powers the claim that IGW can sustain mixing in the radiative gap.
domain assumption Mixing is sustained when IGW power exceeds L_mix = integral of N^2 K dm (Eq. 4).
Press 1981 criterion; used in Section 2.2.1 to compare L_IGW with L_mix.
domain assumption D_IGW is approximately eta times (curl u)^2 K / N^2 with eta = 0.1 (Eq. 7).
Adopted from Herwig 2023 and 3D simulations by Garaud and Kulenthirarajah 2016; not calibrated specifically for AGB conditions.
ad hoc to paper IGW mixing activates only when L_He exceeds 10^4 L_sun, matching Schwab 2020's RGB threshold.
Applied to every TP-AGB He-shell flash without AGB-specific validation, and Section 2.2.1 reports L_mix around 10^4 L_sun, making the margin small.
domain assumption MESA input physics, including EOS, opacities, AGB.net, JINA REACLIB rates, and Simonucci et al. 2013 7Be electron capture, is reliable.
Standard input physics inherited from cited codes and reaction-rate compilations.
domain assumption Initial Li abundances are A(Li) = 3.26 for Z=0.014, 2.5 for Z=0.004, and 2.24 for Z=0.0014 and Z=0.00014.
Adopted from observations; subtracted in the yield definition Eq. 9, so it affects whether yields are positive.
domain assumption Population synthesis uses the Kroupa IMF, SFR 1.9 M_sun/yr, Milky Way age 13.7 Gyr, and linear interpolation of the Z=0.014 yield grid.
Turns the grid into the 15 M_sun total; ignores metallicity distribution of star formation and assumes a constant star formation rate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The mixing of internal gravity waves and lithium production in intermediate-mass AGB stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVGGWYSL

@misc{pith2026250620360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The mixing of internal gravity waves and lithium production in intermediate-mass AGB stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVGGWYSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20360}
}

read the original abstract

Context: Intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars influence Galactic lithium evolution by ejecting surface material (including Li) via stellar winds. Internal gravity waves (IGW), excited by convective motions, drive turbulent mixing in non-convective regions, altering stellar surface and wind chemistry. Aims: Investigate IGW-induced extra-mixing in the radiative zone between thermal pulses and convective envelopes of AGB stars and its impact on Li production. Derive the total Li contribution from intermediate-mass AGB stars using stellar models and initial mass functions. Methods: Construct stellar models (from zero-age main sequence to AGB end) with MESA, incorporating IGW-induced mixing and element diffusion. Calculate Li yields for stars of varying masses and metallicities using grids and population synthesis. Results: IGW triggers extra-mixing during He-shell flashes, transporting Be-7 from the radiative zone to the convective envelope, where it decays into Li-7. The positive effect of IGW on Li yield decreases with initial stellar mass but increases with metallicity. Most AGB stars (3.5-7.5 solar masses) produce positive Li yields. The total Li yield with IGW mixing (approximately 15 solar masses) is twice that without, contributing about 10 percent to Galactic Li. Conclusions: Through this extra-mixing mechanism induced by IGW, AGB stars can achieve a maximum A(Li) exceeding 5 and intermediate-mass AGB stars significantly contribute to Li in the Galactic ISM. These findings underscore the crucial role of IGW in stellar evolution, particularly in enhancing Li production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20360 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Helium-luminosity over time during TP-AGB for the Z=0.014, 4M⊙ and 7M⊙ models. For the x-axis, τAGB represents evolutionary time after the begining of AGB phase at which the core He-burning is just exhausted. Article number, page 2 of 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Internal structure of a 4M⊙ star with Z=0.014 at the moment of He-shell ignition during TP-AGB stage. Here, r is the radial distance from the core, and R is the stellar radius. In upper panel, the values corresponding to the left vertical axis are represented by solid lines, while the dashed lines correspond to the values on the right vertical axis. The lower panel shows Dmix in these zones. The gray shaded area rep… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Internal structure and elemental abundances from the convective thermal pulse to the convective envelope during AGB for 4M⊙ with Z=0.014. The gray shaded area represents the convective zone and the middle region is the convection interruption zone between the convective thermal pulse and the convective envelope. The left panel shows the case with IGW mixing considered but the right panel is the case without IGW mixi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Similar as Fig.3 but for 7M⊙ models. by the element abundances, mixing coefficients, temperatures, and convective zones near the He-shell during the TP-AGB phase. Without IGW mixing, the mixing in the non-convective regions hardly occurs because of too low Dmix . Even …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Variation of 7Li abundance and total Li yields YLi (subtracting the initial Li mass) over time during AGB stage for stars of different masses under solar metallicity. We use dashed lines to represent the case without IGW mixing, and the meaning of the x-axis is the sam…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Variation of surface 7Li abundance (y-axis) and mass-loss rates (x-axis) during TP-AGB phase for solar metallicity stars with different initial mass in our model. We have indicated the position with a mass-loss rate of 10−6 M⊙yr−1 using a red dashed line. mass-loss rat…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of observed and modeled Li-rich AGB samples in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds. The upper panel shows the Milky Way sample with effective temperature versus 7Li abundance, with Teff errors of ±100K, 7Li abundance errors of ±0.3dex. The lower panel sh…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Li yields YLi for AGB stars with different initial masses and metallicities. In the left panel, the results with IGW mixing are given by colorful solid lines, while those without IGW mixing are showed by colorful dashed lines. In the right panel, the results in this wo…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Li yield YLi differences (y-axis) with and without IGW mixing under different metallicities and initial mass (x-axis) conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

& Jancovici, B

Alastuey, A. & Jancovici, B. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1034

1978
[2]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

2009
[3]

1995, A&A, 297, 727

Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 297, 727

1995
[4]

Burgers, J. M. 1969, Flow Equations for Composite Gases

1969
[5]

Cameron, A. G. W. 1955, ApJ, 121, 144

work page 1955
[6]

Cameron, A. G. W. & Fowler, W. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111

work page 1971
[7]

M., Goldman, I., & Mazzitelli, I

Canuto, V . M., Goldman, I., & Mazzitelli, I. 1996, ApJ, 473, 550

work page 1996
[8]

Canuto, V . M. & Mazzitelli, I. 1991, ApJ, 370, 295

work page 1991

Show all 84 references

[9]

& Talon, S

Charbonnel, C. & Talon, S. 2005, Science, 309, 2189

2005
[10]

& Povich, M

Chomiuk, L. & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197

2011
[11]

2024, Galaxies, 12, 66

Choplin, A., Siess, L., Goriely, S., & Martinet, S. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 66

2024
[12]

Coc, A., Uzan, J.-P., & Vangioni, E. 2014, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2014, 050

2014
[13]

H., Amthor, A

Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240 Deepak & Reddy, B. E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2000

2010
[14]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

2005
[15]

A., Burbidge, G

Fowler, W. A., Burbidge, G. R., & Burbidge, E. M. 1955, ApJ, 122, 271

1955
[16]

G., & Steffen, M

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

1996
[17]

Fulbright, J. P. 2000, AJ, 120, 1841

2000
[18]

2024, ApJ, 971, 4

Gao, J., Zhu, C., Lü, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 4

2024
[19]

2022, A&A, 668, A126

Gao, J., Zhu, C., Yu, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A126

2022
[20]

& Kulenthirarajah, L

Garaud, P. & Kulenthirarajah, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 49 García-Hernández, D. A., García-Lario, P., Plez, B., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, 711 Article number, page 9 of 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa García-Hernández, D. A., Zamora, O., Yagüe, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, L3 Garcia Lopez,...

2016
[21]

2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 105007

He, G., Zhu, C., Lü, G., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 105007

2024
[22]

1996, ApJ, 465, L27

Hernanz, M., Jose, J., Coc, A., & Isern, J. 1996, ApJ, 465, L27

1996
[23]

2000, A&A, 360, 952

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

2000
[24]

1999, A&A, 349, L5

Herwig, F., Blöcker, T., Langer, N., & Driebe, T. 1999, A&A, 349, L5

1999
[25]

R., Mao, H., et al

Herwig, F., Woodward, P. R., Mao, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1601

2023
[26]

1967, ApJ, 147, 624

Iben, Icko, J. 1967, ApJ, 147, 624

1967
[27]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

1993
[28]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

1996
[29]

Itoh, N., Totsuji, H., Ichimaru, S., & Dewitt, H. E. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1079

1979
[30]

J., Fujimoto, M

Iwamoto, N., Kajino, T., Mathews, G. J., Fujimoto, M. Y ., & Aoki, W. 2004, ApJ, 602, 377

2004
[31]

Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

2014
[32]

Karakas, A. I. & Lugaro, M. 2016, ApJ, 825, 26

2016
[33]

2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

2001
[34]

Kumar, Y . B. & Reddy, B. E. 2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 49

2020
[35]

& Charbonnel, C

Lagarde, N. & Charbonnel, C. 2010, in SF2A-2010: Proceedings of the An- nual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. S. Boissier, M. Heydari-Malayeri, R. Samadi, & D. Valls-Gabaud, 253

2010
[36]

Lau, H. H. B., Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2012, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 22, 247

2012
[37]

& Quataert, E

Lecoanet, D. & Quataert, E. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2363

2013
[38]

2024, ApJ, 969, 160

Li, Z., Zhu, C., Lü, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 160

2024
[39]

Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt Börnstein, 4B, 712 Lü, G., Zhu, C., Wang, Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 69

2009
[40]

2025, Phys

Lu, X., Zhu, C., Lü, G., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 103004

2025
[41]

L., Simpson, J

Martell, S. L., Simpson, J. D., Balasubramaniam, A. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5340

2021
[42]

1999, A&A, 348, 846

Mazzitelli, I., D’Antona, F., & Ventura, P. 1999, A&A, 348, 846

1999
[43]

1997, MNRAS, 292, L1

Molaro, P., Bonifacio, P., & Pasquini, L. 1997, MNRAS, 292, L1

1997
[44]

2016, MNRAS, 463, L117

Molaro, P., Izzo, L., Mason, E., Bonifacio, P., & Della Valle, M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L117

2016
[45]

1994, A&A, 281, 421

Montalban, J. 1994, A&A, 281, 421

1994
[46]

1986, ApJS, 61, 177

Paquette, C., Pelletier, C., Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1986, ApJS, 61, 177

1986
[47]

2021, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA)

Paxton, B. 2021, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA)

2021
[48]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

2011
[49]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

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

2013
[50]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

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

2015
[51]

B., et al

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

2018
[52]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pérez-Mesa, V ., Zamora, O., García-Hernández, D

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pérez-Mesa, V ., Zamora, O., García-Hernández, D. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A151 Pérez-Mesa, V ., Zamora, O., García-Hernández, D. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A20

2019
[53]

V ., & Lambert, D

Plez, B., Smith, V . V ., & Lambert, D. L. 1993, ApJ, 418, 812

1993
[54]

2012, A&A, 542, A67

Prantzos, N. 2012, A&A, 542, A67

2012
[55]

Press, W. H. 1981, ApJ, 245, 286

1981
[56]

1975, in Problems in stellar atmospheres and envelopes., ed

Reimers, D. 1975, in Problems in stellar atmospheres and envelopes., ed. B. Baschek, W. H. Kegel, & G. Traving, 229–256

1975
[57]

Rogers, F. J. & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064

2002
[58]

2001, A&A, 374, 646

Romano, D., Matteucci, F., Ventura, P., & D’Antona, F. 2001, A&A, 374, 646

2001
[59]

2017, PASP, 129, 074201

Rukeya, R., Lü, G., Wang, Z., & Zhu, C. 2017, PASP, 129, 074201

2017
[60]

Sackmann, I. J. & Boothroyd, A. I. 1992, ApJ, 392, L71

1992
[61]

2020, ApJ, 901, L18

Schwab, J. 2020, ApJ, 901, L18

2020
[62]

2013, ApJ, 764, 118

Simonucci, S., Taioli, S., Palmerini, S., & Busso, M. 2013, ApJ, 764, 118

2013
[63]

E., Bharat Kumar, Y ., & Antia, H

Singh, R., Reddy, B. E., Bharat Kumar, Y ., & Antia, H. M. 2019, ApJ, 878, L21

2019
[64]

E., Campbell, S

Singh, R., Reddy, B. E., Campbell, S. W., Kumar, Y . B., & Vrard, M. 2021, ApJ, 913, L4

2021
[65]

Smith, V . V . & Lambert, D. L. 1989, ApJ, 345, L75

1989
[66]

Smith, V . V . & Lambert, D. L. 1990, ApJ, 361, L69

1990
[67]

E., & Spite, F

Spite, M., Francois, P., Nissen, P. E., & Spite, F. 1996, A&A, 307, 172

1996
[68]

J., Angelou, G

Stancliffe, R. J., Angelou, G. C., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2010, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 268, Light Elements in the Universe, ed. C. Charbonnel, M. Tosi, F. Pri- mas, & C. Chiappini, 405–410

2010
[69]

Stanton, L. G. & Murillo, M. S. 2016, Phys. Rev. E, 93, 043203

2016
[70]

2024, ApJ, 962, 191

Starrfield, S., Bose, M., Iliadis, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 191

2024
[71]

& Charbonnel, C

Talon, S. & Charbonnel, C. 1998, A&A, 335, 959

1998
[72]

A., Bahcall, J

Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828

1994
[73]

Timmes, F. X. & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501

2000
[74]

2001, ApJ, 559, 909

Travaglio, C., Randich, S., Galli, D., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 909

2001
[75]

2011, A&A, 531, A88

Uttenthaler, S., van Stiphout, K., V oet, K., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A88

2011
[76]

& D’Antona, F

Ventura, P. & D’Antona, F. 2005, A&A, 431, 279

2005
[77]

& D’Antona, F

Ventura, P. & D’Antona, F. 2009, A&A, 499, 835

2009
[78]

& D’Antona, F

Ventura, P. & D’Antona, F. 2010, MNRAS, 402, L72

2010
[79]

2000, A&A, 363, 605

Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., & Mazzitelli, I. 2000, A&A, 363, 605

2000
[80]

2019, A&A, 623, A126

Vescovi, D., Piersanti, L., Cristallo, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A126

2019
[81]

R., Bessell, M

Wood, P. R., Bessell, M. S., & Fox, M. W. 1983, ApJ, 272, 99

1983
[82]

2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 790

Yan, H.-L., Shi, J.-R., Zhou, Y .-T., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 790

2018
[83]

A., Plez, B., & Manchado, A

Zamora, O., García-Hernández, D. A., Plez, B., & Manchado, A. 2014, A&A, 564, L4

2014
[84]

2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 025021˙Zyczkowski, K., Horodecki, P., Sanpera, A., & Lewenstein, M

Zhu, C.-H., Lü, G.-L., Lu, X.-Z., & He, J. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 025021˙Zyczkowski, K., Horodecki, P., Sanpera, A., & Lewenstein, M. 1998, Phys. Rev. A, 58, 883 Article number, page 10 of 11 Zhijun Wang et al.: The mixing of internal gravity waves a...

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

& Jancovici, B

Alastuey, A. & Jancovici, B. 1978, ApJ, 226, 1034

1978

[2] [2]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

2009

[3] [3]

1995, A&A, 297, 727

Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 297, 727

1995

[4] [4]

Burgers, J. M. 1969, Flow Equations for Composite Gases

1969

[5] [5]

Cameron, A. G. W. 1955, ApJ, 121, 144

work page 1955

[6] [6]

Cameron, A. G. W. & Fowler, W. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111

work page 1971

[7] [7]

M., Goldman, I., & Mazzitelli, I

Canuto, V . M., Goldman, I., & Mazzitelli, I. 1996, ApJ, 473, 550

work page 1996

[8] [8]

Canuto, V . M. & Mazzitelli, I. 1991, ApJ, 370, 295

work page 1991