Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A New Generation of Standard Solar Models

Open access
Vinyoles, Núria, Serenelli, Aldo M., Villante, Francesco L., Basu, Sarbani, Bergström, Johannes, Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, Michele, Peña-Garay, Carlos, Song, Ningqiang·2017·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We compute a new generation of standard solar models (SSMs) that includes recent updates on some important nuclear reaction rates and a more consistent treatment of the equation of state. Models also include a novel and flexible treatment of opacity uncertainties based on opacity kernels, required in light of recent theoretical and experimental works on radiative opacity. Two large sets of SSMs, each based on a different canonical set of solar abundances with high and low metallicity (Z), are computed to determine model uncertainties and correlations among different observables. We present detailed comparisons of high- and low-Z models against different ensembles of solar observables, including solar neutrinos, surface helium abundance, depth of the convective envelope, and sound speed profile. A global comparison, including all observables, yields a p-value of 2.7 σ for the high-Z model and 4.7 σ for the low-Z one. When the sound speed differences in the narrow region of are excluded from the analysis, results are 0.9 σ and 3.0 σ for high- and low-Z models respectively. These results show that high-Z models agree well with solar data but have a systematic problem right below the bottom of the convective envelope linked to steepness of molecular weight and temperature gradients, and that low-Z models lead to a much more general disagreement with solar data. We also show that, while simple parametrizations of opacity uncertainties can strongly alleviate the solar abundance problem, they are insufficient to substantially improve the agreement of SSMs with helioseismic data beyond that obtained for high-Z models due to the intrinsic correlations of theoretical predictions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • Low‐Temperature Opacities

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., Barman, T., Bodnarik, J. G., Hauschildt, P. H., Heffner‐Wong, A., & Tamanai, A. (2005) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/428642 · Cited by 1,327

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Vinyoles, N., Serenelli, A. M., Villante, F. L., Basu, S., Bergström, J., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, M., Peña-Garay, C., & Song, N.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2017-01-31
Volume
835
Issue
2
Pages
202
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2557362528
Cited by
370
References
1
FWCI
19.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A New Generation of Standard Solar Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202
The paper
Vinyoles, N., Serenelli, A. M., Villante, F. L., Basu, S., Bergström, J., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Maltoni, M., Peña-Garay, C., & Song, N. (2017). A New Generation of Standard Solar Models. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.