Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims a previously unrecognized polar-axis branch of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo operates in strongly stratified stellar radiative zones, persists to Ω/N≈0.0077, and yields a minimum-shear threshold far below previous predictions.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A new polar-axis Tayler-Spruit dynamo branch operates at strong stratification and yields scaling laws (toroidal field independent of stratification, weaker shear threshold) that differ from earlier analytical predictions.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Substantial DNS paper: the polar Tayler-Spruit branch looks real, but the new q_min is a persistence threshold for a seeded branch, not a demonstrated trigger criterion — and the authors say so themselves. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02129 v2 pith:U72PR76I submitted 2026-01-05 astro-ph.SR physics.flu-dyn

Coexisting Tayler instability-driven dynamos in radiative zones: New dynamo solution and its impacts on stellar physics

Paul Barr\`ere , Alexis Reboul-Salze , Patrick Eggenberger , S\'ebastien Deheuvels , Carolina Rodr\'iguez , Maxime Marchand This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR physics.flu-dyn
keywords Tayler-Spruit dynamoTayler instabilitymagnetorotational instabilitystellar radiative zonesangular momentum transportasteroseismology3D MHD simulationsstable stratification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 the Tayler-Spruit dynamo, a proposed mechanism for extracting angular momentum from stellar radiative zones, has a second, previously unrecognized solution: a branch concentrated near the polar axis and driven by the ordinary Tayler instability. This polar branch coexists with an equatorial MRI-driven branch and survives stratification as strong as a Brunt-Väisälä frequency 130 times the rotation rate, far beyond the range where previous simulations and analytic estimates expected dynamo action. From the saturated state the authors extract scaling laws, the most consequential being that the large-scale toroidal magnetic field does not depend on the effective stratification, while the radial field falls off steeply; combined with the standard threshold for Tayler instability, this yields a minimum shear that grows only as (N_eff/Ω)^{3/4}. If correct, the dynamo can operate on much weaker differential rotation and in much larger regions of stars, and it should change how stellar evolution models transport angular momentum.

Core claim

The central claim is that a bistable Tayler-Spruit dynamo exists in a stably stratified, differentially rotating spherical shell: an equatorial MRI-like branch appears only above Ω/N ≈ 0.11, while a polar branch driven by the standard Tayler instability persists to Ω/N = 0.0077 (N_eff ≈ 130 Ω). In the saturated polar state, the toroidal field is independent of stratification, B_φ^{m=0}=0.34√(4πρr²)|q|^{2/3}Ω, while B_r^{m=0}∝(Ω/N_eff)^{5/3}. Combining these with the standard critical Alfvén frequency yields a minimum shear q_min≈5.2(N_eff/Ω)^{3/4}(η/(r²Ω))^{3/8}, far below earlier analytic thresholds at strong stratification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Tayler-Spruit dynamo, a self-sustaining loop in which differential rotation winds a poloidal seed into a strong toroidal field, the toroidal field becomes unstable to the Tayler (current-driven) instability, and the resulting non-axisymmetric motions regenerate the poloidal field. The numerical setup is a Boussinesq MHD flow between concentric spheres with a volumetric force relaxing the azimuthal velocity to a shellular rotation profile, which avoids the parasitic instabilities of boundary-driven Taylor–Couette configurations. The polar branch is selected by the symmetry of the initial poloidal seed (l=1,m=0) and is identified as Tayler-driven by the location of un

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a Boussinesq, uniform-density fluid with a volumetrically forced shellular rotation profile represents a real stellar radiative zone; if contraction-driven latitudinal differential rotation or realistic density gradients suppress the polar branch, the new scaling laws would not transfer to stars.

What would settle it

Repeat the same spherical-shell setup with anelastic or compressible dynamics and a realistic stellar density profile while keeping the shellular rotation forcing: if the polar branch does not persist near Ω/N = 0.0077, or if the measured B_φ^{m=0} shows a clear dependence on N_eff, the central scaling and its stellar implications are falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The dynamo persists to Ω/N = 0.0077, so it can operate in strongly stratified layers such as red-giant hydrogen-burning shells where previous prescriptions were thought to shut it off.
  • The measured q_min ∝ (N_eff/Ω)^{3/4} is orders of magnitude below earlier analytic thresholds at strong stratification, so weak shear can trigger the dynamo and extend its active volume.
  • Maxwell stresses dominate angular momentum transport, with a viscosity scaling close to the recent analytic prescription but with a prefactor that can now be calibrated; stellar evolution codes can implement ν_M and q_min directly.
  • The generated radial field is far too weak to explain the fields detected in red giants, but the toroidal field is strong; asteroseismic magnetic shifts would scale as ν^{-1} for such fields rather than the widely used ν^{-3}.
  • In fast-rotating main-sequence stars (γ Doradus), the predicted radial fields are strong enough to affect magneto-gravity-inertial modes, offering a possible indirect detection channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If q_min extrapolates to stellar parameters, the dynamo could also slow the cores of massive-star progenitors before core collapse, potentially bringing neutron-star spin predictions closer to observed ~100 ms periods.
  • The bistability implies that the same star could host either a polar or equatorial magnetic geometry depending on its magnetic history; whether real radiative zones select one branch depends on fossil-field seeds, which the paper does not model.
  • The independence of B_φ from N_eff is a direct challenge to the standard saturation balance; a revised one-zone theory would need to account for the different latitudes where B_r and B_φ peak.
  • A direct numerical test is to repeat the runs with anelastic or compressible stratification and a realistic density profile; if the flat B_φ scaling disappears, the stellar conclusions weaken.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports direct numerical simulations (DNS) of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo in a stably stratified, differentially rotating Boussinesq spherical shell. The authors identify two coexisting self-sustained dynamo branches: an equatorial branch driven by the magnetorotational instability (MRI) and a previously unreported polar branch driven by the Tayler instability. The polar branch is claimed to survive strong stratification down to Ω/N ≈ 0.0077, much deeper than earlier estimates. From the saturated states they extract scaling laws for the axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric magnetic field components and for the Maxwell and Reynolds stress viscosities, and they derive a new minimum shear criterion q_min ∝ (N_eff/Ω)^{3/4} (Eq. 27). They then use these scalings to argue that the dynamo could transport angular momentum efficiently in red giants and γ Dor stars, and to discuss asteroseismic signatures of strong toroidal fields.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, this is an important numerical result: it would establish that a Tayler-instability-driven dynamo can operate at stratification levels relevant to evolved stellar radiative zones, and that the shear threshold may be orders of magnitude below the analytical estimates of Spruit (2002) and Fuller et al. (2019). The paper is honest and transparent in important respects: the control experiments in Appendix C cleanly separate the MRI and Tayler modes; bistability is demonstrated at the same control parameters (e.g. PolNO4 and QuadNO4 in Table F.1); all runs and measured quantities are tabulated in Appendix F; and the limitations of the Boussinesq approximation, the volumetric forcing, and the diffusivity values are explicitly acknowledged in Sections 6.1-6.3. The existence of the new polar branch is numerically credible. The quantitative stellar-physics impact, however, depends on the interpretation of Eq. (27) as a trigger threshold, which is the main weakness discussed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §7, Eq. (27)] The "minimum shear to trigger" is not a measured trigger threshold. Every polar-branch run is initialized with a finite-amplitude ℓ=1,m=0 poloidal field or continued from a saturated weaker-stratification state (Sec. 2.3, Table F.1), and §7 lists the minimal-seed problem as unsolved and calls the criterion "very simplistic". Eq. (27) is derived by equating the saturated-field scaling Eq. (19) with the linear critical-field relation Eq. (18); for a subcritical dynamo this yields at most a persistence estimate, not a statement that infinitesimal or generic seeds will reach the branch. The use of q_min as an operating condition in Sec. 5.2, and the trigger language in the abstract and conclusion, are therefore not supported. The authors should add seed-amplitude/edge-state tests or explicitly re-label Eq. (27) as a persistence threshold and temper the trigger claims.
  2. [Sec. 4, Tables F.2-F.4] The scaling exponents and prefactors in Eqs. (19)-(20), (23)-(24), (28)-(29), and (27) are fitted to 13 runs without reported uncertainties. The exponents are load-bearing: ν_M ∝ (Ω/N_eff)^{9/4} and q_min ∝ (N_eff/Ω)^{3/4} enter the stellar extrapolations of Sec. 5.2. A bootstrap or leave-one-out analysis over the tabulated data is needed to show, e.g., that the flat B_φ scaling (Eq. 19) is robust rather than dominated by the endpoints (PolNO2, PolNO130). Without uncertainties, the apparent agreement with Fuller et al. (2019) or the claimed 10^2-10^3 decrease in q_min relative to earlier models cannot be assessed.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5, Eq. (27)] Eq. (27) inherits the quantitative accuracy of Eq. (18), but the data in Fig. 5 only locate the Tayler-mode length scale within the Eq. (16) bounds after multiplying by a factor 4, which the authors call "reasonable". If the critical Alfvén frequency is uncertain by a factor of 4, the inferred q_min is uncertain by a factor 4^{3/2}=8. The paper states "global agreement" but does not propagate this uncertainty into the stellar conclusions of Sec. 5.2 or into the comparison with Fuller et al. and Spruit in Fig. 7. The q_min lines in Fig. 7 should carry, or at least mention, this systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The momentum equation is Eq. (5), not Eq. (6); the sentence "Hence, in the momentum equation (Eq. 6)" is a typo.
  2. [Notation] The superscript "m,0" (e.g. B^{m,0}_{tot}) is confusing; it should be "m≠0" or explicitly defined as the non-axisymmetric part.
  3. [Abstract / Sec. 7] The abstract states "minimum shear to trigger the dynamo" while Sec. 7 calls the criterion "very simplistic" and unsolved; the wording should be aligned after the major comment is addressed.
  4. [Table F.1] The column heading for the initial field amplitude is unclear; specify the units and that the initial poloidal field is a single harmonic.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

q_min is an in-sample algebraic restatement of a fitted B_phi scaling; the claimed 'trigger' threshold is actually a finite-amplitude persistence criterion.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 4.1, Eqs. (19) and (27), Fig. 7]
    "Since B^{m=0}_φ follows Eq. 19 and the prescription for ω_{A,c} (Eq. 18) is in global agreement with our data, we can infer a minimum shear by equating both equations: q_min≈5.2 (N_eff/Ω_loc)^{3/4}(η/(r^2_loc Ω_loc))^{3/8}. This plot confirms that our new prescription of q_min is a good lower limit for the onset of the Tayler instability in our simulations, especially at Ω_loc/N_eff≲0.4."

    Eq. 19 is a power-law fit to the same simulation dataset, and Eq. 27 is obtained by inserting that fit into Spruit's critical-field condition; the prefactor 5.2 is just 0.34^{-3/2}. Thus the q_min 'prediction' is algebraically forced by the fit rather than independently measured. Fig. 7 then 'confirms' it against the same simulations that produced Eq. 19, making the validation an in-sample consistency check. Moreover, every polar-branch run starts from a finite-amplitude ℓ=1,m=0 poloidal seed or continuation from a weaker-stratification state (Table F.1), so the boundary probed is persistence, not triggering; Sect. 7 admits the minimal-seed problem is unsolved.

full rationale

The existence of the new polar dynamo branch and its scaling laws are not circular: they are nonlinear saturated states of the Boussinesq MHD equations (Eqs. 5-8) computed in 3D, and the scaling laws are openly presented as fits (Fig. 6). The circularity is localized to the q_min 'prediction' (Eq. 27), which is derived by equating the fitted B_φ law (Eq. 19) with Spruit's analytic critical field (Eq. 18) and then validated on the same simulations. The prefactor and functional form therefore carry no new information about the onset; and because all runs are seeded with finite-amplitude ℓ=1,m=0 poloidal fields or continued states, the paper's 'trigger' language (abstract, Eq. 27 discussion, Sect. 7) overstates what the data show. Self-citations to Barrère et al. are used only for comparison/continuity, and the Spruit limits are external theory, so no separate self-citation circularity is present. These caveats do not invalidate the simulated coexistence of the two branches, a genuinely self-contained numerical result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

13 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

All quantitative outputs are calibrated to the 13-run simulation suite; the prefactors and exponents are free parameters fitted to the data. The theoretical framework imports Spruit and Fuller's criteria as axioms. No new physical entities are introduced. The main modeling assumptions (Boussinesq, forced shellular rotation, seed geometry) are flagged as limitations by the authors themselves.

free parameters (13)
  • B_phi scaling prefactor = 0.34
    Fitted constant in Eq. 19 for the axisymmetric toroidal field; no fit uncertainty given.
  • B_phi q-exponent = 2/3
    Fitted power-law index of the shear dependence in Eq. 19.
  • B_r scaling prefactor = 0.08
    Fitted constant in Eq. 20; matches Fuller et al. (2019) prefactor.
  • B_r (N_eff) exponent = 5/3
    Fitted power-law index of the stratification dependence in Eq. 20.
  • Non-axisymmetric B_tot prefactor = 0.003
    Fitted constant in Eq. 23.
  • Non-axisymmetric B_r prefactor = 0.001
    Fitted constant in Eq. 24; exponent of Ω/N_eff is 1.
  • ν_M prefactor = 0.06
    Fitted constant in Eq. 28 for Maxwell-stress viscosity.
  • ν_M (N_eff) exponent = 9/4
    Fitted power-law index in Eq. 28.
  • ν_R prefactor = 2e-5
    Fitted constant in Eq. 29 for Reynolds-stress viscosity.
  • q_min prefactor = 5.2
    Constant in Eq. 27, derived from the fitted B_phi law (Eq. 19) and the Spruit critical amplitude (Eq. 18), not measured directly.
  • Fuller-fit prefactor α = ≈0.36
    Fitted normalization of the Fuller et al. (2019) transport prescription in Section 5.2.
  • General transport exponent n and prefactor C_T = n≈2.4, C_T≈0.1
    Calibrated in Section 5.2 to the Eggenberger et al. (2022b) formulation.
  • Averaging threshold = 0.5 max(E_Br)
    Choice in Appendix D defining [r_min, r_max] over which all scaling-law quantities are averaged; affects all derived scalings.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Boussinesq approximation with uniform density
    Used in Eqs. (5)-(8); neglects density gradients, acknowledged as unrealistic in Section 6.3.
  • domain assumption Shellular differential rotation maintained by volumetric forcing with relaxation time τ^-1=10^-4
    The forced profile (Eq. 10) is assumed to represent the shear flow in the radiative zone; the choice of q_o=1 fixes the shear rate.
  • standard math MRI stability criterion with effective Brunt-Väisälä frequency (Eq. 15)
    From Balbus & Hawley (1991, 1998) and Menou et al. (2004); used to argue the equatorial branch is MRI.
  • standard math Spruit's Tayler-mode length-scale limits (Eq. 16) and critical Alfvén frequency (Eq. 18)
    Spruit (1999); used to interpret mode scales and to infer q_min.
  • domain assumption Identification of polar instability as Tayler-driven via mode location and latitudinal-gradient correlation
    Based on Goossens & Tayler (1980); supported by solid-body rotation runs in Appendix C, but not proven by a linear stability analysis of the saturated profiles.
  • ad hoc to paper Subcritical dynamo is representative: branches reached via ℓ=1,m=0 or ℓ=2,m=0 poloidal seeds
    The two branches are found from two specific initial field geometries (Section 3.1); no parameter study of the minimal seed is performed, as acknowledged in Section 7.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coexisting Tayler instability-driven dynamos in radiative zones: New dynamo solution and its impacts on stellar physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U72PR76I

@misc{pith2026260102129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coexisting Tayler instability-driven dynamos in radiative zones: New dynamo solution and its impacts on stellar physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U72PR76I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02129}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent asteroseismic observations constitute a great challenge for rotating stellar evolution models, which predict overly fast internal rotation rates when only hydrodynamic processes are included. This suggests the absence of one or several unidentified angular momentum (AM) transport processes in these models. Transport by large-scale and strong magnetic fields in the radiative zone is a promising candidate to explain the observations. While these fields might be characterised by a fossil origin, the Tayler-Spruit dynamo constitutes a primary mechanism to form the necessary magnetic fields. Despite recent numerical studies, this mechanism remains poorly known. Motivated by this scenario, we investigated the Tayler-Spruit dynamo through a new set of 3D numerical simulations. We modelled the radiative zone as a Boussinesq stably stratified fluid whose differential rotation is maintained by a volumetric body force. Here, we report, for the first time, the coexistence of two dynamo solutions, which mainly differ by the magnetic field location (near the equator and the polar axis). While the equatorial dynamo is driven by an instability sharing both characteristics of the magnetorotational and Tayler instabilities, we focus mainly on the newly identified polar dynamo, which is driven by the standard Tayler instability. We show that this dynamo can still operate and transport AM efficiently in a strong stratification regime, with a Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a frequency that is 130 times larger than the rotation rate. We extracted new scaling laws for the magnetic field, AM transport, and the minimum shear to trigger the dynamo. Finally, we were able to roughly constrain the signature of the generated magnetic fields on asteroseismic modes propagating in main sequence and evolved stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.02129 by Alexis Reboul-Salze, Carolina Rodr\'iguez, Maxime Marchand, Patrick Eggenberger, Paul Barr\`ere, S\'ebastien Deheuvels.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Bifurcation diagram of the time and volume averaged turbulent magnetic energy as a function of the ratio of the frame rotation rate to the Brunt-Väisälä frequency. The error bars indicate the standard deviation. The red and magenta markers represent two distinct Tayler-Spruit dynamos characterised by Tayler modes near the polar axis (polar branch) and at the equator (equatorial branch), respectively. The e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Meridional slices of the axisymmetric azimuthal and the s = rsin θ–component of the magnetic fields (left and right, respectively) for the equatorial (top) and the polar (bottom) branches at Ω/N = 0.25. the Coriolis force: 2Le def == B q 4πρr 2 locΩ2 loc . (13) All these quantities are measured locally as described in Ap￾pendix D (Figs. 5–8). Finally the stratification is characterised by the ratio of the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: 3D snapshots of the magnetic field lines, coloured depending on the instability they undergo (Tayler in blue, MRI in red). A meridional slice of the s = rsin θ–component of the magnetic field is also plotted on the right. Right: Meridional slices of the axisymmetric azimuthal and radial magnetic fields. These snapshots are extracted from the simulation of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo at Ω/N = 0.5. (i) Fo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Meridional slices of the axisymmetric azimuthal and total lati￾tudinal magnetic fields (left and right, respectively) of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo at Ω/N = 0.0077. is stationary, like in previous studies of the Tayler-Spruit dynamo with q > 0 (Barrère et al. 2023, 2025). While the geometry of B m=0 ϕ remains the same for a wide range of Ω/N ∈ [0.0077, 0.25], the most striking impact of stable stratification… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Different shear rates as a function of Ωloc/N: q that is measured in our simulations (black circles), minimum q predicted by our scaling laws (blue triangles), by Fuller et al. (2019, red triangles), and by Spruit (2002, green triangles). Note that we used a prefactor calibrated on our scaling law of B m=0 ϕ for every plotted qmin. (B m,0 ϕ ) 2 ] 1/2 and the ratio with the radial component follows glob￾all… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Averaged (see Appendix D) axisymmetric radial (green cir￾cles) and azimuthal (blue squares) as a function of Ωloc/N. Best fitted power-laws of Ωloc/N are represented by the dotted lines. Bottom: Same as on top, but for the non-axisymmetric radial (red circles), perpendic￾ular (sky blue squares), and total (purple diamonds) magnetic fields. This implies that the ratio between both components B m=0 r B … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relation between the asymmetry parameter a and the ratio Ω/N for different sets of simulations: the polar (red) and equatorial (magenta) branches of this paper, the stratified simulations for proto￾magnetars of Barrère et al. (2025, brown), and the reproduction of two runs from Petitdemange et al. (2023, purple). The green region indicates the range of asymmetry parameters [−0.2, 0.4], which can be explain… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Spinning down neutron-star merger remnants with the Tayler-Spruit dynamo: Global simulations reveal the formation of massive disks and neutron-rich ejecta

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A subgrid Tayler–Spruit dynamo in axisymmetric GR neutrino-MHD runs flattens merger-core rotation on ~100 ms scales, builds massive neutron-rich disks, and boosts neutron-rich ejecta.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Langer, N., Moriya, T

    Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Langer, N., Moriya, T. J., & Schootemeijer, A. 2018, ApJ, 858, 115

    2018

  2. [2]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2016, ApJ, 829, 92

    2016

  3. [3]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83

    2019

  4. [4]

    2006, in ESA Special Publication, V ol

    Baglin, A., Auvergne, M., Barge, P., et al. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 1306, The CoRoT Mission Pre-Launch Status - Stellar Seismology and Planet Finding, ed. M. Fridlund, A. Baglin, J. Lochard, & L. Conroy, 33

    2006

  5. [5]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

    1991

  6. [6]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

  7. [7]

    Barrault, L., Bugnet, L., Mathis, S., & Mombarg, J. S. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.00308 Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Rayanud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2024, To be submitted in Physical Review of Fluids Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L88 Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2025, A&A, 695, ...

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    P., Goupil, M

    Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2015b, A&A, 579, A30 Bordadágua, B., Ahlborn, F., Coppée, Q., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A310

    2025

  9. [9]

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

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  10. [10]

    2013, SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting, 35, A22

    Boscarino, S., Pareschi, L., & Russo, G. 2013, SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting, 35, A22

    2013

  11. [11]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, 1947

    Braithwaite, J. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1947

    2008

  12. [12]

    & Spruit, H

    Braithwaite, J. & Spruit, H. C. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160271

    2017

  13. [13]

    S., Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., Browning, M. K., & Toomre, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 461

    2005

  14. [14]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    Cantiello, M., Mankovich, C., Bildsten, L., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Paxton, B. 2014, ApJ, 788, 93

    2014

  15. [15]

    A., & Mathis, S

    Ceillier, T., Eggenberger, P., García, R. A., & Mathis, S. 2013, A&A, 555, A54

    2013

  16. [16]

    S., Brummell, N

    Cline, K. S., Brummell, N. H., & Cattaneo, F. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1449

    2003

  17. [17]

    2023, Physical Review Fluids, 8, 123701

    Daniel, F., Petitdemange, L., & Gissinger, C. 2023, Physical Review Fluids, 8, 123701

    2023

  18. [18]

    G., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., Beck, P. G., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A96

    2015

  19. [19]

    J., et al

    Deheuvels, S., Do˘gan, G., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A27

    2014

  20. [20]

    2023, A&A, 670, L16 den Hartogh, J

    Deheuvels, S., Li, G., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 670, L16 den Hartogh, J. W., Eggenberger, P., & Deheuvels, S. 2020, A&A, 634, L16 den Hartogh, J. W., Eggenberger, P., & Hirschi, R. 2019, A&A, 622, A187

    2023

  21. [21]

    Denissenkov, P. A. & Pinsonneault, M. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1157

    2007

  22. [22]

    2022, A&A, 661, A133

    Dhouib, H., Mathis, S., Bugnet, L., Van Reeth, T., & Aerts, C. 2022, A&A, 661, A133

    2022

  23. [23]

    2010, ApJ, 724, L34

    Duez, V ., Braithwaite, J., & Mathis, S. 2010, ApJ, 724, L34

    2010

  24. [24]

    & Mathis, S

    Duez, V . & Mathis, S. 2010, A&A, 517, A58

    2010

  25. [25]

    D., Bushby, P

    Duguid, C. D., Bushby, P. J., & Wood, T. S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 527

    2023

  26. [26]

    2017, A&A, 599, A18

    Eggenberger, P., Lagarde, N., Miglio, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A18

    2017

  27. [27]

    2005, A&A, 440, L9

    Eggenberger, P., Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2005, A&A, 440, L9

    2005

  28. [28]

    2012, A&A, 544, L4

    Eggenberger, P., Montalbán, J., & Miglio, A. 2012, A&A, 544, L4

    2012

  29. [29]

    D., & den Hartogh, J

    Eggenberger, P., Moyano, F. D., & den Hartogh, J. W. 2022b, A&A, 664, L16 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    2012

  30. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    Fuller, J., Lecoanet, D., Cantiello, M., & Brown, B. 2014, ApJ, 796, 17

    2014

  31. [31]

    Fuller, J. & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951

    2022

  32. [32]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3661

    2019

  33. [33]

    M., Mankovich, C., & Moore, K

    Garaud, P., Medrano, M., Brown, J. M., Mankovich, C., & Moore, K. 2015, ApJ, 808, 89

    2015

  34. [34]

    & Wicht, J

    Gastine, T. & Wicht, J. 2012, Icarus, 219, 428

    2012

  35. [35]

    2018, A&A, 616, A24

    Gehan, C., Mosser, B., Michel, E., Samadi, R., & Kallinger, T. 2018, A&A, 616, A24

    2018

  36. [36]

    2012, Phys

    Gissinger, C., Petitdemange, L., Schrinner, M., & Dormy, E. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 234501

    2012

  37. [37]

    Goossens, M., Biront, D., & Tayler, R. J. 1981, Astrophys. Space Sci., 75, 521

    1981

  38. [38]

    & Tayler, R

    Goossens, M. & Tayler, R. J. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 833

    1980

  39. [39]

    2022, A&A, 661, A119

    Gouhier, B., Jouve, L., & Lignières, F. 2022, A&A, 661, A119

    2022

  40. [40]

    2021, A&A, 648, A109

    Gouhier, B., Lignières, F., & Jouve, L. 2021, A&A, 648, A109

    2021

  41. [41]

    2022, A&A, 665, A147

    Griffiths, A., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., Moyano, F., & Aloy, M.-Á. 2022, A&A, 665, A147

    2022

  42. [42]

    2022, MN- RAS, 516, 4346

    Guilet, J., Reboul-Salze, A., Raynaud, R., Bugli, M., & Gallet, B. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, 4346

    2022

  43. [43]

    J., Ong, J

    Hatt, E. J., Ong, J. M. J., Nielsen, M. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1060

    2024

  44. [44]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 690

    1996

  45. [45]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 350

    2005

  46. [46]

    P., Frantsuzova, A., Gourgouliatos, K

    Igoshev, A. P., Frantsuzova, A., Gourgouliatos, K. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4606

    2022

  47. [47]

    2020, A&A, 641, A13

    Jouve, L., Lignières, F., & Gaurat, M. 2020, A&A, 641, A13

    2020

  48. [48]

    2024, A&A, 688, A184

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J. 2024, A&A, 688, A184

    2024

  49. [49]

    2022, Nature, 610, 43

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2022, Nature, 610, 43

    2022

  50. [50]

    2023, A&A, 680, A26

    Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Li, T., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 680, A26

    2023

  51. [51]

    R., et al

    Li, G., Van Reeth, T., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3586 Lignières, F., Ballot, J., Deheuvels, S., & Galoy, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A2

    2020

  52. [52]

    2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    Maeder, A. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars

    2009

  53. [53]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 143

    2000

  54. [54]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2003, A&A, 411, 543

    2003

  55. [55]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2014, ApJ, 793, 123

    2014

  56. [56]

    M., Ponty, Y ., & Marcotte, F

    Mannix, P. M., Ponty, Y ., & Marcotte, F. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 024502

    2022

  57. [57]

    P., Goupil, M

    Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., Lebreton, Y ., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A74

    2013

  58. [58]

    & Bugnet, L

    Mathis, S. & Bugnet, L. 2023, A&A, 676, L9

    2023

  59. [59]

    G., Jouve, L., & Lignières, F

    Meduri, D. G., Jouve, L., & Lignières, F. 2024, A&A, 683, A12

    2024

  60. [60]

    A., & Spruit, H

    Menou, K., Balbus, S. A., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, ApJ, 607, 564

    2004

  61. [61]

    J., Belkacem, K., et al

    Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A10

    2012

  62. [62]

    D., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., Meynet, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A180

    2022

  63. [63]

    D., Eggenberger, P., & Salmon, S

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., & Salmon, S. J. A. J. 2024, A&A, 681, L16

    2024

  64. [64]

    D., Eggenberger, P., Salmon, S

    Moyano, F. D., Eggenberger, P., Salmon, S. J. A. J., Mombarg, J. S. G., & Ek- ström, S. 2023, A&A, 677, A6

    2023

  65. [65]

    M., Marques, J

    Ouazzani, R. M., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A121

    2019

  66. [66]

    Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 121, 491

    1955

  67. [67]

    2023, Science, 379, 300

    Petitdemange, L., Marcotte, F., & Gissinger, C. 2023, Science, 379, 300

    2023

  68. [68]

    2024, A&A, 681, A75 Pinçon, C., Belkacem, K., & Goupil, M

    Petitdemange, L., Marcotte, F., Gissinger, C., & Daniel, F. 2024, A&A, 681, A75 Pinçon, C., Belkacem, K., & Goupil, M. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A122 Pinçon, C., Belkacem, K., Goupil, M. J., & Marques, J. P. 2017, A&A, 605, A31

    2024

  69. [69]

    2021, A&A, 645, A109

    Reboul-Salze, A., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Bugli, M. 2021, A&A, 645, A109

    2021

  70. [70]

    2022, A&A, 667, A94

    Reboul-Salze, A., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Bugli, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A94

    2022

  71. [71]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  72. [72]

    2025, A&A, 696, A143

    Rincon, F., Barrère, P., & Roudier, T. 2025, A&A, 696, A143

    2025

  73. [73]

    2013, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 731, 1

    Riols, A., Rincon, F., Cossu, C., et al. 2013, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 731, 1

    2013

  74. [74]

    M., Lin, D

    Rogers, T. M., Lin, D. N. C., McElwaine, J. N., & Lau, H. H. B. 2013, ApJ, 772, 21 Rüdiger, G., Gellert, M., Spada, F., & Tereshin, I. 2015, A&A, 573, A80

    2013

  75. [75]

    Rui, N. Z. & Fuller, J. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 582

    2023

  76. [76]

    2013, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14, 751

    Schaeffer, N. 2013, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14, 751

    2013

  77. [77]

    S., Marcotte, F., & Tobias, S

    Skene, C. S., Marcotte, F., & Tobias, S. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.05499

    arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Skoutnev, V . A. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, ApJ, 989, L4

    2025

  79. [79]

    2016, A&A, 589, A23

    Spada, F., Gellert, M., Arlt, R., & Deheuvels, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A23

    2016

  80. [80]

    Spruit, H. C. 1999, A&A, 349, 189

    1999

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.