Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Testing the wavelength dependence of oscillations and granulation in red giants using Kepler and TESS

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 279 red giants observed by both Kepler and TESS, this paper finds that oscillation and granulation power both drop by about 30% at TESS wavelengths, matching the theoretical prediction that both signals weaken toward redder…

desk verdict First multi-star test of red-giant oscillation/granulation wavelength dependence; the central agreement with Lund (2019) is plausible but the error budget omits a large pipeline systematic and the sample selection could bias the ratios upward. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01899 v1 pith:TXQCZZ3P submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.SR

K. R. Sreenivas , Timothy R. Bedding , Daniel Huber , Courtney L. Crawford , Dennis Stello , May G. Pedersen , Yaguang Li , Daniel Hey This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords redgiantsasteroseismologygranulationoscillationamplitudeswavelengthdependenceTESSKeplerheight-to-backgroundratio
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 tests whether solar-like oscillations and granulation in red giants weaken with observing wavelength in the way convective-driving theory predicts. By comparing Kepler and TESS light curves of 279 red giants, it measures the TESS-to-Kepler ratio of oscillation power and granulation power. Both ratios land near 0.68–0.73, matching the theoretical prediction near 0.69 in power, so both signals decrease as one moves to redder wavelengths. The two signals decrease by the same factor, and the height-to-background ratio at the oscillation frequency is the same in both passbands, meaning redder observations will not drown the oscillation signal in granulation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the power density spectrum, converted to units independent of observing span. For each star, Method 1 measures mean granulation power in a region between $0.3\nu_{\max}$ and $0.5\nu_{\max}$ and mean oscillation power in a Gaussian envelope around $\nu_{\max}$. Method 2 fits the spectrum with $P(\nu)=B_{\nu_{\max}}\left(\nu/\nu_{\max}\right)^{\alpha}+H_{\mathrm{osc}}\exp\left(-(\nu-\nu_{\max})^2/2\sigma^2\right)+W$, separating the oscillation height $H_{\mathrm{osc}}$ from the granulation background $B_{\nu_{\max}}$. The comparison quantity is the TESS/Kepler ratio of each power measure, and the key interpretive object is the height-to-background ratio $H_{\mathrm{osc}}/B_{\nu_{\max}}$, which reveals whether granulation swamps oscillations at redder wavelengths.

What would settle it

Re-measure the same 279 stars from a TESS light-curve product whose amplitude scale has been independently verified and compare the TESS/Kepler oscillation-power ratio: the paper's own check with another TESS pipeline turns the 0.685 ± 0.009 ratio into 0.866 ± 0.056, so if a rigorous red-giant amplitude calibration shows the SPOC ratios are biased by more than a few percent, the wavelength-dependence result is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for red giants, both oscillation power and granulation power measured from TESS are about 30% lower than from Kepler, with mean TESS/Kepler power ratios of 0.68 ± 0.01 for oscillations and 0.71–0.73 ± 0.02 for granulation, in agreement with the theoretical expectation of about 0.69. The paper takes this as confirmation that both phenomena decline toward redder wavelengths and that they decline by the same factor. It also finds that the height-to-background ratio, $H_{\mathrm{osc}}/B_{\nu_{\max}}$, is independent of wavelength over the Kepler-to-TESS baseline, so granulation does not become relatively stronger and swamp oscillations at longer wavelengths.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that TESS-SPOC light curves preserve the true relative brightness amplitudes of red giants; if that pipeline systematically distorts red-giant amplitudes, the measured TESS/Kepler ratios and their agreement with theory could be an artifact of the pipeline rather than a property of the stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Infrared asteroseismology programs can expect granulation to weaken in the same proportion as oscillations, so detection strategies calibrated in visible light remain valid at longer wavelengths.
  • The constancy of the height-to-background ratio means that redder observations will not systematically reduce the signal-to-noise of oscillation detection relative to granulation.
  • The agreement between the measured ratios and the theoretical prediction supports the use of bolometric-correction-based scalings for planning observational campaigns at new wavelengths.
  • The lack of a trend in the ratios with effective temperature or metallicity indicates that redder-wavelength red-giant surveys will not be biased toward particular stellar populations.
  • The pipeline-dependent amplitude differences highlighted in the paper imply that future multi-wavelength amplitude studies must audit light-curve extraction before comparing amplitudes across surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this result extends to Roman's much redder passband, then the near-infrared detection of solar-like oscillations in red giants should face no extra penalty from granulation, but simultaneous two-color observations would be needed to confirm that extrapolation directly.
  • The paper's QLP comparison shows that pipeline choice can alter measured TESS/Kepler amplitude ratios by tens of percent; this suggests that any Roman-era cross-calibration will require the same contact-binary amplitude audit before trusting amplitude ratios across surveys.
  • Because stochastic oscillation and granulation phases are shared in simultaneous two-channel observations, future K2/TESS or BRITE-style overlaps could measure per-star wavelength ratios with much lower scatter than the sector-to-sector comparisons used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper measures oscillation and granulation power in 279 Kepler red giants that also have TESS-SPOC light curves, using two independent methods: mean powers in predefined frequency regions (Method 1) and a fit of a background-plus-envelope model to the power density spectrum (Method 2). The authors report mean TESS/Kepler power ratios of about 0.68 for oscillations and 0.71-0.73 for granulation, which agree with the theoretical predictions of Lund (2019) of about 0.69 in power. They conclude that oscillation and granulation power both decrease toward redder wavelengths, that the two phenomena share the same wavelength dependence, and that the height-to-background ratio at nu_max is independent of wavelength. The paper also compares TESS-SPOC, QLP, and TGLC light curves and validates amplitude fidelity using 51 contact binaries.

Significance. If the result is sound, the paper provides the first direct observational confirmation of the predicted TESS/Kepler power ratio for red giants, which is directly relevant for planning asteroseismology with the Roman Space Telescope. The study has notable strengths: the two measurement methods are largely independent and agree with each other; the comparison to Lund (2019) is external rather than circular; and the use of contact binaries to check pipeline amplitudes is a thoughtful validation step. However, the central quantitative claim is weakened by sample selection on TESS detectability and by unquantified pipeline systematics, so the reported precision (SEM of ~0.01) does not currently reflect the total uncertainty. These issues are fixable, but they affect the paper's main conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec 2.3, Sec 3.2.1] The sample is selected on the basis of TESS detectability: 226 stars come from Stello et al. (2022) with a "clear power excess with TESS" and 53 additional stars are included because they "show clear oscillations in TESS-SPOC." Since the measured TESS power is the numerator of the reported ratios, this truncation on the TESS noise distribution biases the mean TESS/Kepler ratio upward. With TESS relative uncertainties of 9-20% (Sec 3.1) and 260 of 279 stars having only one sector, the bias may be a few percent, which is comparable to the difference between the measured 0.68 and the predicted 0.69. No correction or quantitative assessment of this selection effect is provided, so the stated agreement with Lund (2019) is not yet supported.
  2. [Sec 2.2, Sec 3.2.1, Fig 7] The final quoted uncertainties are standard errors on the mean, which do not include the pipeline-to-pipeline systematic. The contact binary comparison in Sec 2.2 shows 5-21% scatter in amplitude ratios across TESS pipelines, and the QLP comparison in Fig 7e-h gives a mean oscillation ratio of 0.866 versus 0.685 for TESS-SPOC. Even if the QLP excess is attributed to Earthshine artifacts, the choice of TESS-SPOC introduces a systematic uncertainty that is not propagated into the reported errors. The authors should add a systematic error term or demonstrate explicitly that the result is robust to the choice of pipeline.
  3. [Sec 3.2.1, Table 2] The scatter in individual ratios is very large: Table 2 shows ratios ranging from about 0.35 to 1.2, but the paper quotes the mean with an SEM of 0.01. The distribution of the ratios is not shown, and robust statistics (e.g., median and interquartile range) are not given. Given the large intrinsic scatter and the small number of stars in some magnitude bins, the mean may be sensitive to outliers. The authors should present the full distribution and robust location estimates to support the claimed precision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec 2.1] The abbreviation "PDCAP" appears to be a typo; the abstract and common usage are "PDCSAP."
  2. [Eq. (1)] Please define all variables in Eq. (1) explicitly, including W, and state the units of H_osc and B_nu_max.
  3. [Sec 2.4.1] The description of the FWHM power-law fit would benefit from stating the number of stars used and the goodness of fit, since the region 2 boundaries depend on this relation.
  4. [Sec 3.2.1] The sentence "The means from each of the bin were averaged with equal weights" is unclear about whether the unweighted mean of bin means is taken; specify the binning scheme and the number of bins.
  5. [Fig 2] The color-coding of points by temperature ratio is not easily visible in the printed figure; consider using a colorbar or distinct symbols.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TESS/Kepler power ratios are measured from independent light curves and compared against the external Lund (2019) prediction, with internal fitting choices shown to be robust.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained and its central claims are not circular. The headline result—the TESS/Kepler power ratios for oscillations (0.68±0.01) and granulation (0.73±0.02 and 0.71±0.02)—is obtained by measuring power density in independent Kepler PDCSAP and TESS-SPOC light curves, and the comparison value ~0.69 is taken from Lund (2019), an external theoretical calculation based on bolometric corrections and passband response functions, not fitted to these data. The per-star predicted ratios in Fig. 8 are likewise computed from stellar parameters (Yu et al. 2023) using the Lund formalism, so the agreement is not enforced by the measurement procedure. Internal choices that could in principle be circular are explicitly de-risked: the FWHM relation used to set region 2 boundaries is fitted from the independent Yu et al. (2018) catalogue, and the authors test 20% boundary variations and find the ratios unchanged within the SEM; the fixed alpha=-2 background slope is a prior modelling convention applied identically to both instruments. The self-citations (nu_max from Sreenivas et al. 2024, sample from Stello et al. 2022) enter as externally measured catalogues and target selection, not as assumptions that contain the target ratios; selection effects on TESS detectability are a possible systematic bias, but bias is not circular equivalence. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central ratios depend on standard asteroseismic modeling choices (region definitions, background slope, FWHM scaling) and on external theoretical predictions, none of which are invented for this work.

free parameters (3)
  • FWHM power-law coefficients = scale 0.78, exponent 0.80
    Used to set region 2 boundaries in Method 1; fitted to Yu et al. (2018) FWHM measurements with uncertainties as weights.
  • Granulation region scaling = 0.3 to 0.5 nu_max
    Adopted region for mean granulation power; wider than the solar-based 0.26 to 0.32 nu_max to accommodate the shorter TESS baseline.
  • Background slope alpha = -2 (fixed)
    Fixed in Eq. 1 following Mathur et al. (2011) and Mosser et al. (2012); a modeling choice that shapes the fitted Bnu_max and Hosc.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Power density spectra of red giants are described by a power-law granulation background plus a Gaussian oscillation envelope plus white noise (Eq. 1).
    The fitting in Method 2 assumes this functional form; if the true background shape differs, the fitted Hosc and Bnu_max could be biased.
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction ratios computed by Lund (2019) are applicable to these red giants and predict both oscillation and granulation power ratios.
    The observed ratios are compared to these predictions; the granulation comparison assumes the same bolometric scaling applies to granulation, which is part of what is being tested.
  • domain assumption Kepler nu_max values can define oscillation and granulation regions in the shorter TESS spectra.
    Method 1 uses Sreenivas et al. (2024) nu_max to place regions in both Kepler and TESS spectra; if TESS nu_max differs systematically, region placement would be off.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the wavelength dependence of oscillations and granulation in red giants using Kepler and TESS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXQCZZ3P

@misc{pith2026250201899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the wavelength dependence of oscillations and granulation in red giants using Kepler and TESS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXQCZZ3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01899}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar oscillations and granulation in red giants are both powered by convection. Studying the wavelength dependence of their amplitudes can provide useful insights on the driving mechanism. It is also important for plans to carry out asteroseismology with the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which will operate in the near infrared, to check the dependence of oscillations and granulation on the observational wavelength. In this work, we aim to understand how the oscillation and granulation power in red giants depend on the wavelength and study how existing predictions compare with observations. We measure the mean oscillation and granulation power of 279 Kepler red giants, from the power density spectra derived using Kepler PDCSAP and TESS-SPOC light curves. We find that selection of light curves is important for the study of amplitudes, since different light curve products from TESS show different values of amplitudes. We show that the oscillation and granulation power ratios between TESS and Kepler match the theoretical prediction, confirming that both decrease as we move to redder wavelengths. We also see that the mean ratios of oscillations and granulation agree, suggesting that oscillation and granulation have the same wavelength dependence. We also find that the mean height-to-background ratio for Kepler agrees with previous results and shows good agreement with TESS. These results suggest that the granulation signals would not severely affect the detection of oscillations. We checked the dependence of these ratio between Kepler and TESS on stellar parameters, and see no trends.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral response function of Kepler(Van Cleve & Caldwell 2016), TESS (Ricker et al. 2014) and the wide-field instrument onboard the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Penny et al. 2019). on the relationship between stellar parameters and amplitudes of solar-like oscillators. By comparing Kepler data with those from TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite; Ricker et al. 2014), which have different but overlappin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of various parameters for the 279 stars in our sample. (a) The cadence distribution of TESS-SPOC data. (b) The distribution of Kepler magnitudes. (c) The distribution of 𝜈max from Sreenivas et al. (2024). (d) The distribution of evolutionary states from Yu et al. (2018). This test confirms that TESS-SPOC light curves are suitable for this project. Moreover, the measured scatter of 0.11 on the ratios can… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratio of amplitudes of 51 contact binaries in TESS relative to Kepler for various sources of light curves, as a function of Kepler magnitude. Panel a with TESS-SPOC light curves, panel b for QLP, panel c for TGLC PSF and panel d for TGLC APER light curves. The points are colour-coded with the temperature ratio between the secondary and primary components. Error bars show the standard error on the mean (SEM) in each … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power density spectrum of the Kepler light curve for a typical red giant star, KIC 10341704. The grey curve is the power spectrum af￾ter smoothing by 0.05 Δ𝜈 (0.22 𝜇Hz). The three regions are discussed in Sec. 2.4.1. of TESS, with its much smaller aperture, to detect o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fit to the power density spectrum of KIC 10341704 to determine the oscillation and granulation amplitudes, as described in Sec. 2.4.2. The red line shows the smoothed power density spectrum on which eq. 1 is fitted (purple line). The blue and orange dashed lines shows …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Oscillation and granulation power determined using the two methods, for Kepler (purple) and TESS (yellow). a) Mean oscillation power, ⟨𝑃osc ⟩. b) Mean granulation power, ⟨𝑃gran ⟩. c) Oscillation power at 𝜈max, 𝐻osc. d) Granulation power at 𝜈max, 𝐵𝜈max . Error bars are …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of oscillation (panel a and c) and ratios of granulation power in TESS to Kepler (panel b and d), between TESS and Kepler. Plotted as a function of Kepler magnitude for red giants. Error bars are shown in grey. a) ratio of mean oscillation power ⟨𝑃osc ⟩. b) rati…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation in ratios of oscillation and granulation between TESS and Kepler, as a function of stellar parameters. Blue circles represent the ratio of oscillation power in TESS to Kepler, orange represent the same for granulation and error bars are shown in grey. Larger …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simultaneous observations of the red giant EPIC 245926259 (TIC 404244638) from K2 (purple) and TESS (yellow). a) The light curves b) The power density spectra. The vertical dashed line shows the 𝜈max = 21.89 𝜇Hz from Zinn et al. (2022), based on full K2 light curve. l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The height-to-background ratio (HBR) from Kepler (purple) and TESS (yellow) as a function of various parameters. a) as a function of Kepler magnitude. b) as a function of 𝜈max. c) as a function of oscillation power at 𝜈max, 𝐻osc. d) as a function of effective temperatu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [4]

    Auvergne M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506..411A 506, 411

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810860 2009

  5. [5]

    1306, The CoRoT Mission Pre-Launch Status - Stellar Seismology and Planet Finding

    Baglin A., Auvergne M., Barge P., Deleuil M., Catala C., Michel E., Weiss W., COROT Team 2006, in Fridlund M., Baglin A., Lochard J., Conroy L., eds, ESA Special Publication Vol. 1306, The CoRoT Mission Pre-Launch Status - Stellar Seismology and Planet Finding. p. 33

    2006

  6. [6]

    Ballot J., Barban C., van't Veer-Menneret C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...531A.124B 531, A124

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016230 2011

  7. [7]

    Barclay T., Barentsen G., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aae9e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2..192B 2, 192

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aae9e2 2018

  8. [8]

    Basu S., Hekker S., 2020, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.00044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020FrASS...7...44B 7, 44

    work page arXiv 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Gilliland R

    Brown T. M., Gilliland R. L., Noyes R. W., Ramsey L. W., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...368..599B 368, 599

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..201C 4, 201

    Caldwell D. A., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..201C 4, 201

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..353C 51, 353

    Chaplin W. J., Miglio A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..353C 51, 353

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/54 , 732, 54

    Chaplin W. J., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/54 , 732, 54

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Frandsen S., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00145558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983SoPh...82..165C 82, 165

    1983 doi

  7. [15]

    Corsaro E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A...3C 605, A3

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 101--128, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-0191-9_4 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0191-9_4

    Fr \"o hlich C., et al., 1995, Virgo: Experiment for Helioseismology and Solar Irradiance Monitoring. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 101--128, @doi 10.1007/978-94-009-0191-9_4 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0191-9_4

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [Journal of Physics: Conference Series] 10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012040 , 440, 012040

    García R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [Journal of Physics: Conference Series] 10.1088/1742-6596/440/1/012040 , 440, 012040

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Cunha M

    Gehan C., Campante T. L., Cunha M. S., Pereira F., 2023, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.20220090 , 344, e20220090

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    A., 1977a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211..934G 211, 934

    Goldreich P., Keeley D. A., 1977a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...211..934G 211, 934

    doi

  12. [20]

    A., 1977b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...212..243G 212, 243

    Goldreich P., Keeley D. A., 1977b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...212..243G 212, 243

    doi

  13. [21]

    Gould A., Huber D., Penny M., Stello D., 2015, @doi [Journal of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/JKAS.2015.48.2.93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JKAS...48...93G 48, 93

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...71H 165, 71

    Han T., Brandt T. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...71H 165, 71

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Hedges C., Luger R., Dotson J., Foreman-Mackey D., Barentsen G., 2021, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd31c , 161, 95

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Hekker S., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0101-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....1H 25, 1

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219328 , 544, A90

    Hekker, S. et al., 2012, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219328 , 544, A90

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    arXiv:2405.01539

    Hey D., Aerts C., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240501539H p. arXiv:2405.01539

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hon M., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1 , 919, 131

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Houdek G., Dupret M.-A., 2015, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/lrsp-2015-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015LRSP...12....8H 12, 8

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    X., et al., 2020a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    Huang C. X., et al., 2020a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    doi

  23. [31]

    X., et al., 2020b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..206H 4, 206

    Huang C. X., et al., 2020b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..206H 4, 206

    doi

  24. [32]

    Huber D., 2020, in Monteiro M. J. P. F. G., Garc \'i a R. A., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., McIntosh S. W., eds, Dynamics of the Sun and Stars. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 301--312

    2020

  25. [33]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P. O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.48550/arXiv.0910.2764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Huber D., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143 , 743, 143

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    D., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  28. [36]

    JWST Transiting Exoplanet Community Early Release Science Team et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05269-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.614..649J 614, 649

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Jackiewicz J., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2020.595017 , 7

    2021

  30. [38]

    M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J. C., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. p. 99133E, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Kallinger T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..41K 570, A41

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Kallinger T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..35K 624, A35

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Karoff C., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/34 , 767, 34

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...293...87K 293, 87

    1995 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529L...8K 529, L8

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...529L...8K 529, L8

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    Kjeldsen H., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...635.1281K 635, 1281

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    Koch D. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...713L..79K 713, L79

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  39. [47]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  40. [48]

    G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506..167L 506, 167

    Ludwig H. G., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506..167L 506, 167

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1072L 489, 1072

    Lund M. N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1072L 489, 1072

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    N., Kjeldsen H., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Handberg R., Aguirre V

    Lund M. N., Kjeldsen H., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Handberg R., Aguirre V. S., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/2 , 782, 2

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    Mathur S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741..119M 741, 119

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    Michel E., Samadi R., Baudin F., Barban C., Appourchaux T., Auvergne M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...495..979M 495, 979

    2009 doi

  45. [53]

    Mosser B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/20111735210.1086/141952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..30M 537, A30

    2012

  46. [54]

    M., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Murray N., 1993, in Brown T. M., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 42, GONG 1992. Seismic Investigation of the Sun and Stars. p. 3

    1993

  47. [55]

    T., Gaudi B

    Penny M. T., Gaudi B. S., Kerins E., Rattenbury N. J., Mao S., Robin A. C., Calchi Novati S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241....3P 241, 3

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    H., Rybicki G

    Press W. H., Rybicki G. B., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...338..277P 338, 277

    1989 doi

  49. [57]

    Pr s a A., Zwitter T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..426P 628, 426

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...83P 141, 83

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240605447R p. arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    A., Ballot J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A.103R 589, A103

    R \'e gulo C., Garc \' a R. A., Ballot J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A.103R 589, A103

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2014, in Oschmann Jacobus M. J., Clampin M., Fazio G. G., MacEwen H. A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 9143...

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    F., Bigot L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Lund M

    Rodr \' guez D \' az L. F., Bigot L., Aguirre B rsen-Koch V., Lund M. N., R rsted J. L., Kallinger T., Sulis S., Mary D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.1741R 514, 1741

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015946 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..25S 528, A25

    Salabert D., Ballot J., Garc \' a R. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015946 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..25S 528, A25

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Ludwig H

    Samadi R., Belkacem K., Dupret M. A., Ludwig H. G., Baudin F., Caffau E., Goupil M. J., Barban C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.120S 543, A120

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  58. [66]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1086/667697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASP..124.1000S 124, 1000

    Smith J. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1086/667697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASP..124.1000S 124, 1000

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Bedding T

    Sreenivas K. R., Bedding T. R., Li Y., Huber D., Crawford C. L., Stello D., Yu J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.3477S 530, 3477

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

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

    Stello D., Chaplin W. J., Basu S., Elsworth Y., Bedding T. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00767.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400L..80S 400, L80

    2009

  61. [69]

    Stello D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737L..10S 737, L10

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    Stello D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1677S 512, 1677

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1086/667698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASP..124..985S 124, 985

    Stumpe M. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1086/667698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASP..124..985S 124, 985

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    Hofmeister, S

    Sulis S., Lendl, M. Hofmeister, S. Veronig, A. Fossati, L. Cubillos, P. Van Grootel, V. 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937412 , 636, A70

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    Tassoul M., 1980, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 43, Aug. 1980, p. 469-490., 43, 469

    1980

  66. [74]

    F., 1998, in Kjeldsen H., Bedding T

    Trampedach R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Nordlund A., Stein R. F., 1998, in Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., eds, The First MONS Workshop: Science with a Small Space Telescope. p. 59

    1998

  67. [75]

    E., Caldwell D

    Van Cleve J. E., Caldwell D. A., 2016, Kepler Instrument Handbook , Kepler Science Document KSCI-19033-002, id.1. Edited by Michael R. Haas and Steve B. Howell

    2016

  68. [76]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/678764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..948V 126, 948

    Vanderburg A., Johnson J. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/678764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..948V 126, 948

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..94V 616, A94

    Vrard M., Kallinger T., Mosser B., Barban C., Baudin F., Belkacem K., Cunha M. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..94V 616, A94

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/677236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..573W 126, 573

    Weiss W. W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/677236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..573W 126, 573

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    R., Stello D., Hon M., Murphy S

    Yu J., Huber D., Bedding T. R., Stello D., Hon M., Murphy S. J., Khanna S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...42Y 236, 42

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    Yu J., Khanna S., Themessl N., Hekker S., Dréau G., Gizon L., Bi S., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/acabc8 , 264, 41

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Zhou Y., Asplund M., Collet R., Joyce M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4904Z 495, 4904

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..191Z 926, 191

    Zinn J. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..191Z 926, 191

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.