Searching for star-planet interactions in GJ 486 at radio wavelengths with the uGMRT

A. Alberdi; A. Mohan; C. Trigilio; D. Kansabanik; D. Revilla; G. Anglada; G. Bl\'azquez-Calero; J. A. Caballero; J. F. G\'omez; J. Mold\'on

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Searching for star-planet interactions in GJ 486 at radio wavelengths with the uGMRT

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A nine-epoch radio campaign with the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope finds no emission from the star–planet interaction in GJ 486, constraining the stellar wind and magnetic geometry.

desk verdict Solid non-detection, but the headline mass-loss and efficiency limits rest on the upper-end filling factor and should be read as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17689 v2 pith:WOJTE6XL submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

L. Peña-Moñino , M. Pérez-Torres , D. Kansabanik , G. Blázquez-Calero , R. D. Kavanagh , J. F. Gómez , J. Moldón , A. Alberdi

show 9 more authors

P. J. Amado G. Anglada J. A. Caballero A. Mohan P. Leto M. Narang M. Osorio D. Revilla C. Trigilio

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR

keywords star–planetinteractionselectroncyclotronmaserMdwarfstarsradioastronomyexoplanetsstellarwindscircularpolarizationGJ486

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 reports the longest radio monitoring campaign of the M-dwarf system GJ 486, which hosts a close-in Earth-like planet, and finds no radio emission from the star–planet interaction in any of nine observing epochs. The observations cover nearly all orbital phases of the planet with the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope at 550–750 MHz, in both total intensity and circular polarization, down to $3\sigma$ noise floors of tens of microjansky. If the absence of a signal reflects a genuinely faint emission, the paper argues, then the stellar wind of GJ 486 must be losing mass at less than about $0.3\,\dot{M}_\odot$, and the efficiency of converting magnetic energy into radio emission must be below about $10^{-3}$. If instead the emission is beamed away from the observer, the geometry of the system must be special, with both the magnetic obliquity and the stellar inclination very low. The paper matters because radio emission from star–planet interactions would offer a unique way to detect exoplanets and to probe the magnetic fields and winds of their host stars, and because it shows how a non-detection, combined with modeling, can still constrain the physics of the system.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the electron-cyclotron maser (ECM), the coherent radio mechanism that converts the magnetic energy of a sub-Alfvénic star–planet interaction—one in which the planet moves through the stellar wind slower than the Alfvén speed—into highly circularly polarized emission. The central identity is the cyclotron-frequency relation $\nu_c = 2.8\,B$ (MHz with $B$ in gauss), which ties the emission frequency to the stellar magnetic field; for GJ 486 the paper adopts $B_\star = 240\,\mathrm{G}$ (from a measured $B_\star f = 1.6\,\mathrm{kG}$ times a filling factor of 0.15), placing the fundamental at about 670 MHz inside the observed band. To predict the expected flux, the paper uses the standard Poynting-flux scaling in which the radio power is a fraction $\beta$ of the electromagnetic energy flux generated by the planet plowing through the stellar wind, with the effective obstacle size set by the planet's magnetopause standoff radius, and it adds a free-free absorption correction. To interpret the null result geometrically, it uses a visibility-mapping code that, for random draws of the rotation period, spin-axis orientation, magnetic obliquity, and emission-cone parameters, retains only those draws that predict zero visibility during the observing windows; the surviving configurations concentrate at very low magnetic obliquity and stellar inclination.

What would settle it

A direct spectropolarimetric map of GJ 486's surface magnetic field (Zeeman Doppler imaging) that gives an average large-scale field clearly below about 240 gauss would place the fundamental electron-cyclotron frequency below the 550–750 MHz band, so the non-detection would no longer constrain the stellar mass-loss rate or the Poynting-to-radio efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is a null result: no quiescent or bursty radio emission above $3\sigma$ was detected from GJ 486 in total intensity or circular polarization in any of nine epochs spread over October 2021 to February 2022, covering nearly all orbital phases of GJ 486b. The paper argues that time variability is an unlikely explanation, given the nearly complete phase coverage, and that a frequency mismatch is also unlikely under the nominal surface field of $B_\star = 240\,\mathrm{G}$, though it cannot be fully excluded. The non-detection is then interpreted in two ways: if the signal is intrinsically faint, the stellar mass-loss rate must be $\dot{M}_\star \lesssim 0.3\,\dot{M}_\odot$ and the Poynting-to-radio conversion efficiency must be $\beta \lesssim 10^{-3}$, regardless of whether the planet is magnetized; if instead the electron-cyclotron maser beam is pointed away from the Earth, the magnetic obliquity and stellar inclination must both be very low. Free-free absorption by the stellar wind is shown to be negligible at the nominal coronal temperature, so it does not rescue a bright intrinsically emitted signal.

Load-bearing premise

The main assumption the argument leans on is that GJ 486's average large-scale surface magnetic field is 240 gauss, obtained by taking a measured total field of about 1.6 kilogauss and multiplying by a fraction (0.15) borrowed from a sample of other similar stars; if that fraction, or the field strength at the place where the radio emission is actually generated, is smaller, the predicted radio frequency falls below the observed band and the paper's limits on the wind and conversion efficiency no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the non-detection is intrinsic, GJ 486's stellar wind mass-loss rate is at most about $0.3\,\dot{M}_\odot$ and the efficiency of converting Poynting flux into radio emission is at most about $10^{-3}$, independently of the planet's magnetic field strength.
If the beam misses the Earth instead, the system must be close to a configuration with very low magnetic obliquity and stellar inclination, which future Zeeman Doppler imaging can test.
The absence of bursty, circularly polarized flares over nearly complete orbital-phase coverage makes time variability an unlikely explanation for the null result.
Free-free absorption cannot hide a bright signal, because at the star's nominal coronal temperature of $4.7\,\mathrm{MK}$ the transmitted fraction is near unity for all plausible mass-loss rates.
Radio non-detections of this kind, combined with energetics and geometry modeling, can meaningfully constrain stellar winds and magnetic geometries even without a detection.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct Zeeman Doppler imaging measurement of GJ 486's large-scale field would either confirm the $240\,\mathrm{G}$ assumption or shift the predicted emission band, and would also supply the inclination and obliquity needed to test the beaming scenario.
Applying the same modeling to other M dwarfs with close-in planets could turn a catalog of radio non-detections into statistical constraints on M-dwarf wind mass-loss rates and Poynting-to-radio conversion efficiencies, provided each star's surface field is known from spectropolarimetry.
If the filling factor used here overestimates the large-scale field, the relevant cyclotron frequency would fall below the observed band and the mass-loss and efficiency limits would not hold; simultaneous lower-frequency observations (for example at 150–400 MHz) would probe that possibility.
The conclusion that $\beta \lesssim 10^{-3}$ follows only within the adopted flux model; independent constraints on $\beta$ from other systems, or from planetary analogues, would help decide whether the null result reflects low efficiency or unfavorable geometry.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the paper. The observational core is a solid null result: nine uGMRT epochs covering nearly all orbital phases, careful calibration, dynamic spectra in Stokes I and V, and a stacked image, with no emission above 3 sigma. That part is well supported and is the paper's real contribution. The addition of free-free absorption to the SPI flux model is a useful refinement, and the MASER application to a new system is a legitimate exercise.

The soft spot is the headline quantitative inference. The limits Mdot <= 0.3 Msun and beta <= 1e-3 in Sect. 5.2 rest on B_star = 240 G, which is obtained by multiplying the measured fB = 1.6 kG by f = 0.15, the upper edge of the Morin et al. filling-factor range. If f = 0.10, the fundamental cyclotron frequency falls below the 550–750 MHz band, so the non-detection would not constrain the intrinsic-signal scenario. The paper acknowledges this possibility in Sect. 5 and Sect. 6(2), but it does not propagate the fV uncertainty into the derived limits. The abstract's phrasing — "this implies" — oversells what are conditional constraints. The MASER geometry conclusions are more carefully hedged, and the paper explicitly states they assume SPI is active and the sensitivity is adequate.

The stress-test concern lands. The non-detection stands on its own; the quantitative limits should be treated as indicative, not firm. I would send this to a serious referee: the observations are carefully reduced, the model comparison is transparent, and the null result is worth publishing even if the interpretative limits need softer wording.

Who this is for: the star-planet interaction radio community, and anyone compiling null results for M dwarf SPI searches. It deserves a serious referee; the paper is already in A&A proofs, and I'd regard it as an acceptable publication once the limits are framed conditionally.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents nine epochs of uGMRT band-4 (550–750 MHz) observations of the M-dwarf system GJ 486, covering almost all orbital phases of its Earth-like planet GJ 486b. No steady emission is detected above 3σ in either Stokes I or Stokes V, and no bursty emission is seen in the dynamic spectra; a stacked image also yields non-detections. The authors discuss two interpretations of the null result: an intrinsically faint star-planet interaction (SPI) signal, which leads them to constrain the stellar mass-loss rate to Mdot ≲ 0.3 M_sun and the Poynting-to-radio conversion efficiency to β ≲ 1e-3, and a strong but beamed signal pointing away from the observer, which they use with the MASER code to constrain the stellar magnetic obliquity and inclination. The non-detection itself is robustly established, but the quantitative constraints depend on the assumed average stellar magnetic field of 240 G, which is derived using the upper edge of the filling-factor range from a sample of other M dwarfs.

Significance. If the non-detection is confirmed, this is a valuable null result: the campaign provides dense orbital-phase coverage with careful calibration, self-calibration, dynamic spectra, and a stacked image, setting meaningful upper limits on SPI radio emission from an Earth-like planet system. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and demonstrates how non-detections can be combined with energetic and geometric modeling to yield physical constraints. The main caveat is that the headline mass-loss/efficiency and beaming conclusions are conditional on the assumed stellar magnetic field strength and on the ECM mechanism operating in band; these caveats are acknowledged but not fully quantified. The observational contribution is solid and the modeling framework is useful, even if the derived limits need to be presented with their explicit dependence on the filling factor.

major comments (2)

[§2.1, §5.2, Fig. 6, Eq. (1)] The quantitative constraints on the intrinsically-faint scenario, specifically Mdot ≲ 0.3 M_sun and β ≲ 1e-3, rest on the assumed average surface field B_star = 240 G, which is obtained by multiplying the measured B_l f = 1.6 kG by the filling factor f = 0.15, the upper edge of the range (0.10–0.15) reported for other mid-M dwarfs by Morin et al. (2008). Since Eq. (1) maps field to frequency as ν_c = 2.8 B_star, using fV = 0.10 gives B_star = 160 G and ν_c ≈ 448 MHz, which falls below the observed 550–750 MHz band; fV = 0.07 gives ν_c ≈ 314 MHz. The paper acknowledges in §5 and §6, point (2) that the fundamental ECM frequency may lie below the band, but it does not quantify this possibility or propagate the filling-factor uncertainty into the limits shown in Fig. 6 and quoted in the abstract. Consequently, the non-detection is compatible with an intrinsically strong signal at low frequencies, and the derived mass-loss/efficiency exclusions do not follow unless the high end of the filling-factor range is assumed. Please either measure or constrain the large-scale field of GJ 486 directly (e.g., ZDI), or present the constraints as an explicit function of fV (and argue for a preferred value), and soften the abstract/summary accordingly.
[§6 and abstract vs. Fig. C.2] The paper's conclusion that the beaming scenario "would imply that GJ 486 has very low values of its magnetic obliquity and inclination" (abstract and §6) is inconsistent with the paper's own MASER results. Configuration #3, shown in Fig. C.2 and described as one of the three most probable non-detection geometries, has a magnetic obliquity close to 90° with a pole-on viewing geometry. The inference should therefore be stated as a set of allowed geometric families — for example, low obliquity with near edge-on viewing, or high obliquity with near pole-on viewing — rather than a single low-obliquity/low-inclination conclusion. As written, the abstract overstates the geometric constraint.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The word "wavelenghts" should be "wavelengths".
[§3 and Table 2] The dates for the last epoch are inconsistent: the text and abstract say 22 February 2022, while Table 2 lists 2022-02-23 with a start time of 00:52 UTC, which suggests the table date is correct.
[Eq. (1)] The equation renders as "νcrMHzs" in the text and should be typeset as ν_c [MHz] = s × 2.8 B[G] to avoid confusion.
[§5.2] The phrase "Our modeling strongly suggests" is stronger than warranted given the acknowledged dependence on the assumed filling factor and on the poorly known efficiency β; consider rephrasing to indicate that these conclusions hold under the nominal assumptions.
[§5.1] The choice of beaming solid angle Ω = 0.5 sr is stated after noting that the full-oval case would be 1.6 sr; a sentence justifying this intermediate value and discussing its effect on the predicted flux would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the non-detection is interpreted with an externally calibrated forward model, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observationally driven: uGMRT non-detections are compared against predictions of a forward model whose inputs are external or explicitly assumed, not derived from the target result. The adopted stellar field uses the measured B_l f = 1.6 kG with a filling factor f = 0.15 taken from Morin et al. (2008), the coronal temperature comes from Sanz-Forcada et al. (2024), the planetary field from a Sano scaling law, and the efficiency range from Zarka's Solar System calibrations; none of these is fitted to the GJ 486 radio data. The use of Pérez-Torres et al. (2021) is a methodological self-citation, but that work itself implements the external Zarka/Saur/Turnpenney model, and the present paper extends it by adding free-free absorption, so the citation is not a closed loop. The MASER geometry analysis conditions on the observed non-detection and computes visibility from geometric priors; the resulting low-obliquity/low-inclination inference is a Bayesian model inversion rather than a restatement of the input. The principal caveat, acknowledged in Sects. 5 and 6(2), is that a lower filling factor would place the fundamental cyclotron frequency below the observed 550-750 MHz band; this is an input-parameter sensitivity, not a circular dependence. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fit, so no significant circularity is present.

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

The modeling rests on standard ECM and stellar wind physics. The main free parameters are the adopted filling factor, beaming solid angle, magnetopause factor, planetary field, and conversion efficiency, none of which are fitted to the non-detection.

free parameters (6)

Stellar surface filling factor f_V = 0.15
Chosen from the range 0.10-0.15 for mid M-dwarfs (Morin et al. 2008) to convert the measured fB = 1.6 kG into B_star = 240 G, which sets the cyclotron frequency and the observed band.
Beaming solid angle Omega = 0.5 sr
Adopted between a single flux tube (0.16 sr) and a full auroral oval (1.6 sr), linearly scaling the predicted flux density.
Magnetopause enhancement factor k_mp = 2
Chosen from the range 2-3 in the pressure balance estimate of R_mp (Eq. 4).
Planetary magnetic field B_pl = 0.85 G
Estimated via the Sano scaling law with adopted core field constant B_c = 0.5 G, tidally locked rotation, and core radius 0.55 R_pl.
ECM conversion efficiency beta = constrained to below about 10^-3 in the dim-signal scenario
Not measured; treated as a free grid parameter with an expected range of 10^-4 to 10^-2 from Solar System values (Zarka 2018/2024).
MASER cone opening angle alpha and cone thickness Delta_alpha = 75 deg and 1 deg
Fixed values in the visibility simulations; the code assumes cone properties are independent of frequency.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Sub-Alfvénic star-planet interaction produces ECM radio emission near the stellar cyclotron frequency
Used throughout to predict and interpret the radio signal; invoked in Sect. 1 and 5.1.
domain assumption The stellar magnetic field relevant for ECM can be described as a dipole with average strength B_star
Adopted in the flux modeling (closed dipole) and in MASER (dipole field), Sect. 5.1 and Table 3.
domain assumption The stellar wind is an isothermal, fully ionized, pure hydrogen Parker wind
Used to compute wind density and free-free absorption (Sect. 5.1 and Appendix B).
domain assumption Radio emission bandwidth equals the cyclotron frequency (Delta_nu = nu_g)
Standard ECM assumption adopted in Sect. 5.1 to convert power to flux density.
domain assumption Poynting flux scaling S_Poynt proportional to R_eff^2 v_rel B_K^2 (Zarka et al. 2001; Zarka 2007)
Used to estimate the available energy for ECM emission in Sect. 5.1.
domain assumption MASER visibility modeling assumes emission cone properties are frequency-independent
Noted in the paper's footnote comparing MASER to ExPRES near Sect. 5.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for star-planet interactions in GJ 486 at radio wavelengths with the uGMRT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOJTE6XL

@misc{pith2026241117689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for star-planet interactions in GJ 486 at radio wavelengths with the uGMRT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOJTE6XL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17689}
}

abstract

We search for radio emission from star-planet interactions in the M-dwarf system GJ~486, which hosts an Earth-like planet. We observed the GJ~486 system with the upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (uGMRT) from 550 to 750 MHz in nine different epochs, between October 2021 and February 2022, covering almost all orbital phases of GJ~486 b from different orbital cycles. We obtained radio images and dynamic spectra of the total and circularly polarized intensity for each individual epoch We do not detect any quiescent radio emission in any epoch above 3$\sigma$. Similarly, we do not detect any bursty emission in our dynamic spectra. While we cannot completely rule out that the absence of a radio detection is due to time variability of the radio emission, or to the maximum electron-cyclotron maser emission being below our observing range, this seems unlikely. We discuss two possible scenarios: an intrinsic dim radio signal, or alternatively, that the anisotropic beamed emission pointed away from the observer. If the non-detection of radio emission from star-planet interaction in GJ~486 is due to an intrinsically dim signal, this implies that, independently of whether the planet is magnetized or not, the mass-loss rate is small (\dot{M}_\star $\lesssim$ 0.3 \dot{M}_\sun) and that, concomitantly, the efficiency of the conversion of Poynting flux into radio emission must be low ($\beta \lesssim 10^{-3}$). Free-free absorption effects are negligible, given the high value of the coronal temperature. Finally, if the anisotropic beaming pointed away from us, this would imply that GJ~486 has very low values of its magnetic obliquity and inclination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17689 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Coverage of our uGMRT observations of the GJ 486 system, folded to the orbital period of GJ 486b of 1.47 d. Each epoch is shown with a different color. Each point corresponds to the central time of each observing epoch, with the horizontal side of the surrounding rectangle being the time span of the epoch. The vertical axis has no real meaning and the epochs are simply offset so they do not overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Stokes I wide-field image centered on GJ 486 from band 4 (central frequency of 648 MHz) uGMRT observations on 30 October 2021. The image covers a region of „ 8 1 ˆ 8 1 , centered at the position of GJ 486 (green cross). The synthesised beam is shown as a green solid ellipse on the bottom left. The green square corresponds to a region of 60 ˆ60 arcsec squared, which we have used to estimate the local rms. 5.1. We a… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Dynamic spectrum of the Stokes I and V (upper and lower panels, respectively) emission from the GJ 486 – GJ 486b system for our 30 October 2021 uGMRT observations in band 4, averaged in frequency (∆ ν = 0.4 MHz). The time interval used is 10.7 s (which is the integration time). There is no apparent detection of radio emission above the noise. Blank regions correspond to times when we observed the phase calibrator.… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fraction of transmitted SPI flux due to the effect of free-free absorption for Tc values of 1 (dot-dashed black line), 1.5 (blue dashed line), 2.5 (orange dotted line) and 4.7 (green solid line) MK. and does not take into account effects such as the topology or the rec…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Magnetopause standoff distance, Rmp, and effective radius, Reff, as a function of the magnetic field of the planet, Bpl. If Bpl Á 0.35 G, Reff “ Rmp, otherwise Reff “ Rpl. The vertical dashed line corresponds to the nominal value of the magnetic field of 0.85 G. Our pr…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: To-scale sketch of the geometry for case # 1, inferred for the GJ 486 planetary system based on our non-detection of star-planet interactions at radio wavelengths. The system is viewed equator-on, and has a low magnetic obliquity, meaning the magnetic dipole is aligne…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

J., Barnes , J., et al

Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Amado , P. J., Barnes , J., et al. 2016, , 536, 437

2016
[4]

A., González-Álvarez , E., Brady , M., et al

Caballero , J. A., González-Álvarez , E., Brady , M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A120

work page 2022
[5]

R., Pope, B

Callingham, J. R., Pope, B. J. S., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1359

2024
[6]

Cox , A. N. 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities (Springer New York, NY)

work page 2000
[7]

S., et al

Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707

2017
[8]

Güdel , M., Schmitt , J. H. M. M., Bookbinder , J. A., & Fleming , T. A. 1993, , 415, 236

work page 1993

Show all 55 references

[9]

2021, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

Hallinan , G., Burns , J., Lux , J., et al. 2021, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 53, 379

2021
[10]

Hess , S. L. G. & Zarka , P. 2011, , 531, A29

2011
[11]

u del , M., L \

Johnstone , C. P., G \"u del , M., L \"u ftinger , T., Toth , G., & Brott , I. 2015, , 577, A27

2015
[12]

L., Zarka , P., Kurth , W

Kaiser , M. L., Zarka , P., Kurth , W. S., Hospodarsky , G. B., & Gurnett , D. A. 2000, , 105, 16053

2000
[13]

& Ishwara-Chandra , C

Kale , R. & Ishwara-Chandra , C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95

2021
[14]

Kavanagh , R. D. & Vedantham , H. K. 2023, , 524, 6267

2023
[15]

2021, , 29, 1

Kochukhov , O. 2021, , 29, 1

2021
[16]

2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030160, e2021JA030160 2021JA030160

Lamy, L., Colomban, L., Zarka, P., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127, e2021JA030160, e2021JA030160 2021JA030160

2022
[17]

T., Donati , J

Lehmann , L. T., Donati , J. F., Fouqu \'e , P., et al. 2024, , 527, 4330

2024
[18]

K., Hess , S

Louis , C. K., Hess , S. L. G., Cecconi , B., et al. 2019, , 627, A30

2019
[19]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L9

Mahadevan, S., Stefánsson, G., Robertson, P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L9

2021
[20]

P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K

McMullin , J. P., Waters , B., Schiebel , D., Young , W., & Golap , K. 2007, in ASP Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw , F. Hill , & D. J. Bell , 127

2007
[21]

Melrose , D. B. & Dulk , G. A. 1982, , 259, 844

1982
[22]

F., Petit , P., et al

Morin , J., Donati , J. F., Petit , P., et al. 2008, , 390, 567

2008
[23]

F., Petit , P., et al

Morin , J., Donati , J. F., Petit , P., et al. 2010, , 407, 2269

2010
[24]

M., Morin , J., et al

Moutou , C., H \'e brard , E. M., Morin , J., et al. 2017, , 472, 4563

2017
[25]

K., et al

Narang, M., Puravankara, M., Vedantham, H. K., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 265

2024
[26]

Parker , E. N. 1958, , 128, 664

1958
[27]

F., Ortiz , J

P \'e rez-Torres , M., G \'o mez , J. F., Ortiz , J. L., et al. 2021, , 645, A77

2021
[28]

2024, , 688, A138

Peña-Moñino , L., Pérez-Torres , M., Varela , J., & Zarka , P. 2024, , 688, A138

2024
[29]

Pineda , J. S. & Villadsen , J. 2023, Nat Astron, 7, 569

2023
[30]

& Zarka , P

Queinnec , J. & Zarka , P. 2001, , 49, 365

2001
[31]

J., Caballero, J

Quirrenbach, A., Amado, P. J., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, Vol. 9908, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 990812

2016
[32]

J., et al

Reiners , A., Shulyak , D., K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., et al. 2022, , 662, A41

2022
[33]

, Fouqué, P

Reylé , C., Jardine, K. , Fouqué, P. , et al. 2021, , 650, A201

2021
[34]

2023, , 670, A139

Ribas , I., Reiners , A., Zechmeister , M., et al. 2023, , 670, A139

2023
[35]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

2014
[36]

2021, , 653, A114

Sabotta , S., Schlecker , M., Chaturvedi , P., et al. 2021, , 653, A114

2021
[37]

Sano , Y. 1993, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 45, 65

1993
[38]

Sanz-Forcada , J., López-Puertas , M., & Lampón , M. 2024,

2024
[39]

M., & Simon , S

Saur , J., Grambusch , T., Duling , S., Neubauer , F. M., & Simon , S. 2013, , 552, A119

2013
[40]

2019, , 626, A86

Shulyak , D., Reiners , A., Nagel , E., et al. 2019, , 626, A86

2019
[41]

2013, MNRAS, 431, 2063

Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., López-Santiago, J., & Liefke, C. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2063

2013
[42]

2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

The CASA Team . 2022, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114501

2022
[43]

A., Morales, J

Trifonov, T., Caballero, J. A., Morales, J. C., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1038

2021
[44]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.00809

Trigilio , C., Biswas , A., Leto , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.00809

2023 arXiv
[45]

D., Zarka , P., Grie meier , J.-M., et al

Turner , J. D., Zarka , P., Grie meier , J.-M., et al. 2021, , 645, A59

2021
[46]

D., Wynn , G

Turnpenney , S., Nichols , J. D., Wynn , G. A., & Burleigh , M. R. 2018, , 854, 72

2018
[47]

K., Callingham , J

Vedantham , H. K., Callingham , J. R., Shimwell , T. W., et al. 2020, Nat Astron, 4, 577

2020
[48]

Williams , P. K. G., Clavel , M., Newton , E., & Ryzhkov , D. 2017, pwkit: Astronomical utilities in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1704.001

2017
[49]

E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

Wood, B. E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 37

2021
[50]

Wu , C. S. & Lee , L. C. 1979, , 230, 621

1979
[51]

2007, , 55, 598

Zarka , P. 2007, , 55, 598

2007
[52]

2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed

Zarka , P. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 22

2018
[53]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16038

Zarka , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16038

2024 arXiv
[54]

Zarka , P., Cecconi , B., & Kurth , W. S. 2004, JGR (Sp. Physics), 109, A09S15

2004
[55]

A., Ryabov , B

Zarka , P., Treumann , R. A., Ryabov , B. P., & Ryabov , V. B. 2001, , 277, 293

2001

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

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

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

J., Barnes , J., et al

Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Amado , P. J., Barnes , J., et al. 2016, , 536, 437

2016

[4] [4]

A., González-Álvarez , E., Brady , M., et al

Caballero , J. A., González-Álvarez , E., Brady , M., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A120

work page 2022

[5] [5]

R., Pope, B

Callingham, J. R., Pope, B. J. S., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1359

2024

[6] [6]

Cox , A. N. 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities (Springer New York, NY)

work page 2000

[7] [7]

S., et al

Gupta , Y., Ajithkumar , B., Kale , H. S., et al. 2017, Current Science, 113, 707

2017

[8] [8]

Güdel , M., Schmitt , J. H. M. M., Bookbinder , J. A., & Fleming , T. A. 1993, , 415, 236

work page 1993