Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

First Calculations of Starspot Spectra based on 3D Radiative Magnetohydrodynamics Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Starspot spectra from 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations show standard 1D cooler-star models fail for K- and M-type dwarfs, with roughly 50% errors longward of 500 nm for M0V, while remaining adequate for Sun-like G2V stars.

desk verdict Strong new resource: first 3D MHD spot spectra for G2V/K0V/M0V and a mostly convincing case that standard 1D spot models fail for cool dwarfs, though 'mixing-length failure' is a bit too sweeping without testing alpha. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14056 v2 pith:UUF75OTP submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

H. N. Smitha , Alexander I. Shapiro , Veronika Witzke , Nadiia M. Kostogryz , Yvonne C. Unruh , Tanayveer S. Bhatia , Robert Cameron , Sara Seager
show 1 more author
Sami K. Solanki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords starspotsstellarmagneticfieldsradiativemagnetohydrodynamicsMdwarfatmospheresmixinglengththeorycontaminationexoplanettransmissionspectroscopyspectralsynthesis
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

Stars' dark spots change the spectrum of the light we measure, and exoplanet observations are routinely corrected by treating a spot as a cooler, non-magnetic star represented by a one-dimensional (1D) radiative-equilibrium atmosphere with mixing-length convection. This paper replaces that approximation with self-consistent 3D radiative magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of spots on G2V, K0V, and M0V stars and compares the resulting spectra to those from the 1D models. The paper's central finding is that the 1D models fail for K0V and M0V stars: for M0V the umbral and penumbral flux contrast longward of 500 nm is off by about 50%, while for G2V the errors are below 2% (umbra) and 10% (penumbra). The authors attribute the failure to mixing-length theory being inaccurate when convection and radiation transport energy together over a broad range of heights, which is the case in cooler stars but not in solar-type stars. If correct, current spot-contamination corrections for K- and M-dwarf transmission spectra are systematically biased, and 3D MHD spot spectra are needed for those stars.

What carries the argument

The central comparison is the wavelength-dependent flux contrast of a magnetic feature (umbra, penumbra, or combined spot) against quiet-star flux, computed two ways: from 3D MHD simulation cubes produced by MURaM via ray-by-ray radiative transfer in LTE with MPS-ATLAS, and from 1D radiative-equilibrium model atmospheres that treat convection with the Böhm-Vitense mixing-length approximation. The MURaM setup uses cylindrical flux tubes and an ad hoc top boundary condition that makes the magnetic field three times more horizontal than a potential field in order to sustain a penumbra. The decisive diagnostic is the vertical temperature stratification as a function of pressure: horizontally averaging the 3D MHD columns preserves the 3D contrasts, whereas the 1D RE atmospheres develop steeper temperature gradients because mixing-length theory mishandles convection when convection and radiation both carry significant energy over a wide height range.

What would settle it

Observe a spot-crossing event on an M0 dwarf with wavelength-resolved spectroscopy (the paper itself points to TOI-3884 as a candidate and to HST/JWST as capable instruments): if the measured wavelength dependence of the umbral and penumbral contrast follows the 1D radiative-equilibrium prediction rather than the 3D MHD prediction, the central claim would be refuted. A cheaper calculation-based test would be to rerun the M0 spot with a potential-field top boundary condition and see whether the ~50% discrepancy survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper presents the first starspot spectra computed self-consistently from 3D radiative MHD simulations of spots on G2V, K0V, and M0V stars, using the MURaM code for the atmospheric structure and the MPS-ATLAS code for ray-by-ray LTE radiative transfer at a resolving power of about 500 from 250 nm to 6000 nm. Comparing the wavelength-dependent flux contrast of umbra, penumbra, and combined spot relative to the quiet star with contrasts from 1D radiative-equilibrium (RE) models at the same effective temperature, the authors find that the 1D approximation cannot reproduce the 3D contrasts for K0V and M0V stars: for M0V the relative error longward of 500 nm is about 50% for both umbral and penumbral contrast, and for K0V the RE models miss the water-band structure between 2 and 3 microns in the penumbral contrast and the slope of the umbral contrast beyond 4 microns. For G2V the 1D models work well, with errors below 2% for umbrae and below 10% for penumbrae longward of 500 nm. The paper attributes the discrepancy to the failure of mixing-length convection rather than to horizontal substructures, because horizontally averaged 3D MHD atmospheres reproduce the 3D contrasts while 1D RE atmospheres have steeper vertical temperature gradients.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the MURaM spot simulations faithfully represent real starspots, since the penumbra is sustained by an ad hoc top boundary condition and the spectra are synthesized assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium; if the simulated temperature stratification is unrealistic, the 1D models' failure for K and M dwarfs could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For M0V stars, the umbral and penumbral flux contrast longward of 500 nm is in error by roughly 50% when 1D radiative-equilibrium models are used, so exoplanet transmission-spectrum corrections built on cooler-star spot spectra are systematically biased at exactly the wavelengths used for molecular-band analysis.
  • For K0V stars, 1D RE models fail to reproduce the water-band structure in the penumbral contrast between 2 and 3 microns and the slope of the umbral contrast beyond 4 microns, and adjusting the spot effective temperature by ±100 K cannot fix the mismatch.
  • For G2V stars, 1D RE models remain adequate for umbral and penumbral contrasts, with errors below 2% and 10% respectively longward of 500 nm, so existing solar-type variability models built on 1D spots are not invalidated by this result.
  • Even for G2V, a single 1D model cannot represent the spectrum of an entire spot (umbra plus penumbra), so two-component spot models with distinct umbral and penumbral temperatures remain necessary.
  • The discrepancy is driven by the vertical temperature stratification rather than by horizontal inhomogeneities, which means the horizontally averaged 1D MHD atmospheres published for K0V and M0V can serve as a practical substitute for full 3D MHD in low-resolution spectral work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, a likely consequence the authors leave implicit is that water detections or upper limits in transmission spectra of planets around M dwarfs could be spuriously created or erased by unocculted spots, because the ~50% contrast error sits in the 2-3 micron region where the paper's own opacity test shows H2O dominates the spot contrast.
  • The paper only simulates M0V and notes that later M dwarfs need updated molecular opacities; extending the same MURaM/MPS-ATLAS pipeline to cooler M subtypes is a natural next step, and the mixing-length failure could plausibly grow larger there since convection penetrates the photosphere even more deeply.
  • The horizontally averaged '1D MHD' atmospheres could be embedded in fast retrieval and stellar-variability codes to capture most of the 3D spectral signal at 1D cost; a natural test would be to compare line profiles from the averaged models against full 3D synthesis for stronger lines, since the paper only validates them at low resolution.
  • Combining spot MHD models with the already-studied facular MHD models from the same code family would yield a full active-region spectral model, allowing contamination corrections that treat spots and faculae on equal footing rather than spot-only corrections.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first computations of starspot spectra based on 3D radiative MHD simulations (MURaM) for G2V, K0V, and M0V stars, with spectra synthesized by ray-by-ray transfer using MPS-ATLAS under LTE. The central comparison is between umbral and penumbral flux contrasts from these MHD cubes and contrasts from 1D radiative-equilibrium (RE) models with mixing-length convection, matched in effective temperature and also with Delta_Teff = +/-50, +/-100 K. The authors report that the 1D RE models reproduce the G2V contrasts well but fail for K0V and M0V, with errors growing toward later spectral types, and they use horizontal averaging to argue that horizontal inhomogeneities are not the cause. They attribute the discrepancy to a steeper vertical temperature stratification in the RE models caused by a failure of mixing-length theory, and they provide machine-readable 1D MHD atmospheres and spot spectra as data products.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper has substantial practical importance: standard 1D cool-star spot models are widely used to correct exoplanet transmission spectra and to model stellar variability, and the paper implies that such corrections are systematically inaccurate for K and M dwarfs. The work is significant as a first application of 3D radiative MHD to starspot spectra, and it contains a valuable internal consistency check, namely that horizontally averaged MHD atmospheres reproduce the full 3D MHD contrasts, isolating the vertical stratification as the source of the discrepancy. The G2V result is reassuringly consistent with the known success of 1D solar variability models, and the comparison with PHOENIX models in Appendix A provides a useful cross-check. The main caveats are that the MHD simulations are treated as the reference truth despite relying on an ad hoc boundary condition and on a simulation description deferred to another paper, and that the 1D comparison has so far been made with a single, not fully specified mixing-length calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 8] The attribution of the M0V/K0V discrepancy to a structural failure of mixing-length theory is not yet established, because the MPS-ATLAS RE models are computed with one mixing-length formulation and the calibration parameter alpha is neither quoted nor varied. A larger alpha increases convective efficiency and flattens the superadiabatic gradient, so at least part of the steeper RE stratification seen in Fig. 8 could be a calibration artifact rather than a fundamental limitation of 1D mixing-length models. Please state the value of alpha used in Section 2.3, perform a scan over a plausible range of alpha (or test an alternative 1D convection prescription) for the M0V and K0V umbra and penumbra, and report whether any reasonable calibration reproduces the horizontally averaged MHD stratification and contrasts. This is load-bearing because the abstract's 'about 50%' error statement and the conclusion that '3D MHD modelling is necessary' are stronger than what a single-calibration comparison can support. The PHOENIX comparison in Appendix A partly mitigates the concern by showing that a second 1D code also fails, but it does not replace a direct sensitivity test.
  2. [§2.1, Table 1] The 3D MHD simulations are the reference against which the 1D models are judged, but their realism is not sufficiently documented in this manuscript. The spot setup is referred to a paper in preparation (Bhatia et al. 2024), and the penumbra is maintained through an ad hoc top boundary condition in which the magnetic field is made three times more horizontal than a potential field. These choices can directly affect the vertical temperature stratification and the penumbral structure, which are precisely the quantities that control the comparison in Section 5. Please include the essential setup details and a sensitivity check of the umbral and penumbral contrasts to the boundary-condition parameter, or provide a citable description of the simulations. Without this, the conclusion that 1D models fail for K0V and M0V stars is conditional on the realism of these particular MURaM simulations.
  3. [§5.1, Appendix D] The paper's quantitative claim for G2V, namely errors of less than 2% for the umbra and less than 10% for the penumbra, is not accompanied by uncertainty estimates for the MHD contrasts. Appendix D and Fig. 12 show that individual simulation cubes differ from the mean by up to roughly +/-10%, which is comparable to the claimed penumbral accuracy. Please provide cube-to-cube uncertainty estimates for the MHD contrasts and state whether the G2V penumbral agreement remains significant once this variability is taken into account. This is needed to support the asymmetry between the G2V and the K0V/M0V conclusions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract, §2.2, §5.1] The wavelength range is quoted inconsistently: the abstract says 250-6000 nm, Section 2.2 says 200-6000 nm, and the normalization integrals in Equations (1) and (2) are said to cover 300-6000 nm. Please make these numbers consistent.
  2. [Abstract, §5.1] The abstract's headline number, 'errors longward of 500 nm of about 50%' for M0V, is not explicitly derived or located in the text or a figure. Please point the reader to the relevant computation or add the value to the discussion of Figures 4-5.
  3. [§5.1, Eqs. (1)-(3)] Equations (1) and (2) define contrasts that are normalized by construction, so the term 'absolute contrast' is potentially misleading. The unnormalized quantity used in Equation (3) should be given a distinct name, such as 'unnormalized absolute contrast', to avoid confusion.
  4. [§3] The umbral and penumbral mask thresholds at 400 nm are chosen separately for each spectral type and directly set the effective temperatures of the features used to construct the RE models. A sensitivity test of the derived contrasts and effective temperatures to these thresholds would strengthen the quantitative comparison.
  5. [§2.3] The paper does not state the mixing-length parameters (for example alpha and the ratio of mixing length to pressure scale height) used in the MPS-ATLAS RE models. These should be listed so that the claimed failure of the mixing-length approximation can be reproduced and tested.
  6. [§2.2] The LTE assumption is stated but not discussed. Given the cool temperatures and strong molecular features in M0V spots, a brief justification of LTE for the broad-band fluxes and contrasts considered here would be useful.
  7. [References] The reference to Bhatia et al. (2024, in prep.) should be updated with a preprint number or DOI, or the relevant details should be summarized in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3D MHD and 1D RE calculations are independent, and the Teff anchoring fixes only bolometric normalization, not the wavelength-dependent contrasts that carry the paper's claims.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between spectra synthesized from 3D MURaM cubes and spectra from 1D radiative-equilibrium models built with the same MPS-ATLAS opacity package. The atmospheric structures are produced independently: MURaM solves the coupled radiation-MHD equations, while the RE models iterate hydrostatic and thermal balance with mixing-length convection. The 1D models are anchored to the MHD results only through effective temperatures defined from the disk-integrated MHD fluxes ('we define effective temperatures of quiet stellar regions, umbra, penumbra, and combined spot model using their disk-integrated spectra... Then we compute RE models with the corresponding temperatures'). That anchoring forces agreement of the wavelength-integrated flux by construction, but the paper's quantitative claims are about the spectral shape of the contrasts (e.g., 50% errors longward of 500 nm for M0V), which is not fixed by Teff. The attribution of the discrepancy to mixing-length failure is supported by internal comparisons ('1D MHD' horizontal averages vs. 1D RE vertical stratifications, Figures 7 and 8), not by the target result. The simulation setup relies on a same-group in-prep paper (Bhatia et al. 2024) and on prior group simulations (Panja et al. 2020), but these are methodological or contextual references rather than a premise that reduces to the conclusion. No equation in the paper is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison is therefore a genuine, self-contained test of the 1D approximation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the realism of MURaM simulations, LTE spectral synthesis, the representativeness of the 1D RE models, and several hand-chosen numerical settings (masks, boundary condition, quiet-region selection). There are no fitted free parameters in the physical model; the listed free parameters are modeling choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Penumbral mask thresholds at 400 nm = 0.60 (G2V), 0.85 (K0V), 0.88 (M0V) times quiet-region intensity
    Hand-chosen thresholds define the penumbral pixels used for all contrast spectra; changing them changes the averaged penumbral contrast.
  • Umbral mask thresholds at 400 nm = 0.15 (G2V), 0.35 (K0V), 0.39 (M0V) times quiet-region intensity
    Hand-chosen thresholds define the umbral pixels used for all contrast spectra.
  • Top boundary magnetic field horizontalness factor = 3
    The magnetic field at the top boundary is made three times more horizontal than a potential field to preserve a sizable penumbra; this ad hoc choice affects the simulated spot structure.
  • Quiet-region selection = 100 pixel rows at top and bottom of the intensity image
    Quiet-region reference spectra are taken from these rows (Section 3), setting the normalization for all contrasts.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption MURaM 3D MHD simulations faithfully represent real starspot atmospheres and their emergent spectra.
    The paper uses the MHD result as the benchmark against which 1D models are judged; no direct observed spot spectra are used for validation; simulation details are in Bhatia et al. (2024, in prep.).
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium holds for the ray-by-ray spectral synthesis.
    MPS-ATLAS solves LTE radiative transfer along rays (Section 2.2); non-LTE or horizontal cross-talk is neglected.
  • domain assumption Mixing length theory as implemented in MPS-ATLAS is representative of the 1D RE models used by the community.
    The paper's negative result for K and M dwarfs is about this class of models; Appendix A shows PHOENIX behaves similarly, which strengthens the assumption.
  • domain assumption The four-group opacity binning in MURaM (after Nordlund 1982 and Beeck et al. 2013) is accurate enough for the simulated spot thermal structure.
    Non-gray MURaM runs use four opacity groups (Section 2.1); coarse binning could affect the temperature stratification.
  • domain assumption The molecular and continuous opacity lists in MPS-ATLAS are complete across 250-6000 nm.
    Section 2.2 lists included molecules; missing opacity sources would change contrasts, particularly for M0V where H2O and TiO are important.
  • domain assumption Ray-by-ray (1.5D) formal solution of transfer is sufficient because the atmosphere is precomputed.
    The authors argue cross-talk matters only in non-LTE or when solving structure and radiation simultaneously (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Calculations of Starspot Spectra based on 3D Radiative Magnetohydrodynamics Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUF75OTP

@misc{pith2026241114056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Calculations of Starspot Spectra based on 3D Radiative Magnetohydrodynamics Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUF75OTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14056}
}
abstract

Accurate calculations of starspot spectra are essential for multiple applications in astronomy. The current standard is to represent starspot spectra by spectra of stars that are cooler than the quiet star regions. This implies approximating a starspot as a non-magnetic 1D structure in radiative-convective equilibrium, parametrizing convective energy transport by mixing length theory. It is the inhibition of convection by the starspot magnetic field that is emulated by using a lower spot temperature relative to the quiet stellar regions. Here, we take a different approach avoiding the approximate treatment of convection and instead self-consistently accounting for the interaction between matter, radiation, and the magnetic field. We simulate spots on G2V, K0V, M0V stars with the 3D radiative magnetohydrodynamics code MURaM and calculate spectra ($R \approx 500$ from 250~nm to 6000~nm) using ray-by-ray radiative transfer with the MPS-ATLAS code. We find that the 1D models fail to return accurate umbral and penumbral spectra on K0V and M0V stars where convective and radiative transfer of energy is simultaneously important over a broad range of atmospheric heights rendering mixing length theory inaccurate. However, 1D models work well for G2V stars, where both radiation and convection significantly contribute to energy transfer only in a narrow region near the stellar surface. Quantitatively, the 1D approximation leads to errors longward of 500 nm of about 50\% for both umbral and penumbral flux contrast relative to quiet star regions on M0V stars, and less than 2\% (for umbrae) and 10\% (for penumbrae) for G2V stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Disk center intensity images of the spots for G2, K0 and M0 dwarfs at four representative wavelengths computed with the MPS-ATLAS code. The yellow and cyan contours indicate the masks that were used to select the penumbral and umbral regions in each case. All images have been normalized to their respective spatially averaged quiet region intensities. The gray scale indicates relative intensities between 0 (black) an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Center-to-limb variation of the spatially averaged intensities from the quiet region, spot, penumbra and umbra for the G2, K0 and M0 dwarfs. The penumbral and umbral regions were selected using the contours shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spot, penumbral and umbral contrasts for the G2 dwarfs. The curves in the top row are the absolute contrasts computed, using Equation 1, from the 3D MHD simulations, and using radiative equilibrium (RE) models with the same Teff as the MHD case (T MHD eff −T RE eff = ∆Teff = 0, red lines). The relative contrasts, computed using Equation 2, for the respective cases are plotted on a logarithmic scale in the middle row… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative difference between RE and MHD contrasts (see Equation 3) for the spot, penumbra and umbra for the three spectral types (given on the right of the figure) and three values of the cosine of the heliocentric angle (i.e. angle between the line-of-sight and the loc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effects of horizontal inhomogeneities on the contrasts. Comparison between the spatially averaged penumbral and umbral contrasts(Equation 2) from the 3D MHD cube for an M0V-dwarf, and the contrasts computed from the ’1D MHD’ atmospheres obtained by spatially averaging …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differences in vertical structure between the spatially averaged one-dimensional MHD atmosphere and the RE models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between relative contrasts computed from the MHD cube, RE models and the Phoenix spectra for the M dwarfs. APPENDIX A. COMPARISON WITH PHOENIX SPECTRA In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative contrasts for the M0 star from the spatially averaged 1D MHD atmosphere computed without the opacities from H2O molecules (panels a1 and a2); without the opacities from the TiO molecules (panels b1 and b2); and without the opacities from the diatomic molecule…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ratio of spot spectra from every cube used in our analysis to the spectra from the average of all the cubes, shown here for G, K, and M spectral types [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. 3D Radiative MHD Simulations of Starspots II: Large-scale Structure

    astro-ph.SR 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    3D MURaM simulations of starspots on G2V, K2V, and M0V stars reveal distinct umbral, penumbral, and quiet-region structures with spectral-type-dependent contrasts and Evershed-like flows.

  2. Something new under the Sun: A magnetically driven CH/CN anti-correlation

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The solar magnetic cycle produces a CH/CN anti-correlation in the integrated solar spectrum, which the authors scale up to argue that surface magnetism could mimic globular cluster multi-population signatures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    j a |:лM ֧EO[ ,p0`X ÷ gł ؐ500,T 6 `1C B` Lj(` #@l `i[9 ֫# bh`89N Xk gE6

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Bonfils , X., Forveille , T., et al

    Almenara , J. M., Bonfils , X., Forveille , T., et al. 2022, , 667, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244791

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244791 2022

  5. [6]

    2021 b , , 162, 300, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2824

    ---. 2021 b , , 162, 300, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2824

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2824 2021

  6. [7]

    2021, An Introduction to Stellar Magnetic Activity , 10.1088/2514-3433/ac2956

    Basri , G. 2021, An Introduction to Stellar Magnetic Activity , 10.1088/2514-3433/ac2956

    doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ac2956 2021

  7. [8]

    2020, , 901, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

    Basri , G., & Shah , R. 2020, , 901, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d 2020

  8. [9]

    H., Reiners, A., & Schüssler, M

    Beeck, B., Cameron, R. H., Reiners, A., & Schüssler, M. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A48, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321343

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321343 2013

Show all 52 references
  1. [10]

    Bhatia et al. , T. 2024, To be submitted

    2024

  2. [11]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    1958

  3. [12]

    G., & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F., Gratton , R. G., & Kurucz , R. L. 1997, , 318, 841

    1997

  4. [13]

    2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4, 10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6

    Charbonneau , P. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4, 10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    2024, , 968, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    Damiano , M., Bello-Arufe , A., Yang , J., & Hu , R. 2024, , 968, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5204

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    2013, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 13, 3945, 10.5194/acp-13-3945-201310.5194/acpd-12-24557-2012

    Ermolli , I., Matthes , K., Dudok de Wit , T., et al. 2013, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 13, 3945, 10.5194/acp-13-3945-201310.5194/acpd-12-24557-2012

    2013 arXiv

  7. [16]

    G., et al

    Freytag , B., Steffen , M., Ludwig , H. G., et al. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 919, 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.026

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    Holzreuter , R., & Solanki , S. K. 2015, , 582, A101, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526373

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Norris , C

    Johnson , L. J., Norris , C. M., Unruh , Y. C., et al. 2021, , 504, 4751, 10.1093/mnras/stab1190

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    B., Fu , G., et al

    Kirk , J., Stevenson , K. B., Fu , G., et al. 2024, , 167, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad19df

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    I., Witzke , V., et al

    Kostogryz , N., Shapiro , A. I., Witzke , V., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 39, 10.3847/2515-5172/acc180

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    M., Witzke , V., Shapiro , A

    Kostogryz , N. M., Witzke , V., Shapiro , A. I., et al. 2022, , 666, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243722

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    A., & Solanki , S

    Krivova , N. A., & Solanki , S. K. 2008, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 29, 151, 10.1007/s12036-008-0018-x

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    A., Solanki , S

    Krivova , N. A., Solanki , S. K., Fligge , M., & Unruh , Y. C. 2003, , 399, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030029

    2003 doi

  16. [25]

    Kurucz , R. L. 1970, Atlas: A computer program for calculating model stellar atmospheres

    1970

  17. [26]

    Lanza , A. F. 2016, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. J.-P. Rozelot & C. Neiner , Vol. 914, 43, 10.1007/978-3-319-24151-7_3

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    E., Schutte , M., Hebb , L., et al

    Libby-Roberts , J. E., Schutte , M., Hebb , L., et al. 2023, , 165, 249, 10.3847/1538-3881/accc2f

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    2013, , 557, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    Magic , Z., Collet , R., Asplund , M., et al. 2013, , 557, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321274

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    2014, , 211, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan , A., Mazeh , T., & Aigrain , S. 2014, , 211, 24, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    E., Stevenson , K

    Moran , S. E., Stevenson , K. B., Sing , D. K., et al. 2023, , 948, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    E., Shapiro , A

    N \`e mec , N. E., Shapiro , A. I., I s k , E., Solanki , S. K., & Reinhold , T. 2023, , 672, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244412

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    E., Shapiro , A

    N \`e mec , N. E., Shapiro , A. I., I s k , E., et al. 2022, , 934, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8155

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    1982, , 107, 1

    Nordlund , A. 1982, , 107, 1

    1982

  25. [34]

    M., Unruh , Y

    Norris , C. M., Unruh , Y. C., Witzke , V., et al. 2023, , 524, 1139, 10.1093/mnras/stad1738

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Panja , M., Cameron , R., & Solanki , S. K. 2020, , 893, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8230

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    V., Madhusudhan , N., & Apai , D

    Pinhas , A., Rackham , B. V., Madhusudhan , N., & Apai , D. 2018, , 480, 5314, 10.1093/mnras/sty2209

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    V., Espinoza , N., Berdyugina , S

    Rackham , B. V., Espinoza , N., Berdyugina , S. V., et al. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 148, 10.1093/rasti/rzad009

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    I., Solanki , S

    Reinhold , T., Shapiro , A. I., Solanki , S. K., & Basri , G. 2023, , 678, A24, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346789

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    2012, , 750, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/62

    Rempel , M. 2012, , 750, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/62

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    Santos , A. R. G., Garc \' a , R. A., Mathur , S., et al. 2019, , 244, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    Schrijver , C. J. 2020, , 890, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67c1

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    Seager , S., & Sasselov , D. D. 2000, , 537, 916, 10.1086/309088

    2000 doi

  34. [43]

    K., Rustamkulov , Z., Thorngren , D

    Sing , D. K., Rustamkulov , Z., Thorngren , D. P., et al. 2024, , 630, 831, 10.1038/s41586-024-07395-z

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    N., Castellanos Dur \'a n , J

    Smitha , H. N., Castellanos Dur \'a n , J. S., Solanki , S. K., & Tiwari , S. K. 2021, , 653, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141447

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    N., & Solanki , S

    Smitha , H. N., & Solanki , S. K. 2017, , 608, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731261

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    K., Inhester , B., & Sch \"u ssler , M

    Solanki , S. K., Inhester , B., & Sch \"u ssler , M. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 563, 10.1088/0034-4885/69/3/R02

    2006 doi

  38. [47]

    K., Krivova , N

    Solanki , S. K., Krivova , N. A., & Haigh , J. D. 2013, , 51, 311, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141007

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15895, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15895

    TRAPPIST-1 JWST Community Initiative , de Wit , J., Doyon , R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15895, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15895

    2023 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    o gler , A., Shelyag , S., Sch \

    V \"o gler , A., Shelyag , S., Sch \"u ssler , M., et al. 2005, , 429, 335, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041507

    2005 doi

  41. [50]

    K., Krivova , N

    Wenzler , T., Solanki , S. K., Krivova , N. A., & Fr \"o hlich , C. 2006, , 460, 583, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065752

    2006 doi

  42. [51]

    I., Kostogryz , N

    Witzke , V., Shapiro , A. I., Kostogryz , N. M., et al. 2022, , 941, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca671

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    I., Cernetic , M., et al

    Witzke , V., Shapiro , A. I., Cernetic , M., et al. 2021, , 653, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140275

    2021 doi

  44. [53]

    L., Krivova , N

    Yeo , K. L., Krivova , N. A., & Solanki , S. K. 2014, , 186, 137, 10.1007/s11214-014-0061-7

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.