Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Stellar flare morphology with TESS across the main sequence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After scaling to a common width, average stellar flare shape varies systematically with effective temperature: flares of hotter stars are fatter near the peak and decay faster at late times, a trend visible only when averaging thousands…

desk verdict Teff-dependent flare shapes are a plausible new result, but the template-based time normalization could imprint the trend; the catalog and tools are solid regardless. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12989 v1 pith:JE3TKONG submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Bálint Seli , Krisztián Vida , Katalin Oláh , Anna Görgei , Szabolcs Soós , András Pál , Levente Kriskovics , Zsolt Kővári This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords stellarflaresTESSflaremorphologyprincipalcomponentanalysismainsequenceeffectivetemperaturetemplatessolar
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

This paper tries to establish that the temporal morphology of stellar flares, once stripped of amplitude and duration, still carries a systematic astrophysical signal: the average scaled flare shape changes along the main sequence. Using about 120,000 manually vetted flares from TESS two-minute cadence light curves, the authors scale every flare to a standard peak and half-width, compress the shapes with weighted principal component analysis, and find that the median shape of hotter stars is wider for the first few half-widths and decays more quickly afterward. These differences are a few percent in amplitude and are invisible for individual flares, emerging only when averaging thousands of events. The result matters because it suggests that flare light-curve shapes encode physical conditions such as coronal density and cooling regime, and it offers empirical templates that replace a single universal flare profile with spectral-type-dependent ones.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a scaling-and-decomposition pipeline: each flare is fitted with the Davenport et al. (2014) template to measure its half-width t1/2, rescaled in time to a grid from -3 to +10 t1/2, rescaled in flux to unit amplitude, and then represented in a 200-dimensional vector. Weighted principal component analysis (WPCA) compresses these vectors into a few components, with weights favoring longer and higher-signal-to-noise flares, so the shape information is carried by the first five to twenty principal components. The load-bearing assumption is that the t1/2 normalization is unbiased across spectral types: if the single-peaked template over- or under-estimates t1/2 for particular stars, the scaled shapes would show a spurious temperature trend of exactly the kind reported.

What would settle it

Measure t1/2 for the same flare sample without using the Davenport template, for example by computing the full width at half maximum of the detrended, smoothed flare directly, then rescale all flares with this independent width and re-run the WPCA residual analysis; if the Teff gradient of Fig. 16 disappears or reverses, the reported shape trend is an artifact of the template normalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the normalized shape of stellar flares depends on the effective temperature of the host star. When all flares are rescaled to unit amplitude and unit full-width-at-half-maximum (t1/2), the median flare of hotter stars is 'fatter' and wider for roughly the first two half-widths, but decays more quickly at later times, so the late decay phase is steeper for hotter stars than for M dwarfs. The effect is encoded most strongly in the fifth principal component of the shape decomposition, whose Pearson correlation with Teff is 0.15 with p < $10^{-200}$, and it appears as a smooth gradient in the residual maps only after many flares are averaged per spectral-type bin. The paper also reports that the shape distribution is continuous with no distinct clusters, that individual flare shapes carry too little information to predict host-star parameters reliably, and that analytic flare templates fitted on a per-TeFF basis reproduce the trend seen in the residuals. On the solar side, flares observed in the 304 Å channel show no clear light-curve shape difference between events with and without coronal mass ejections.

Load-bearing premise

The central result depends on the assumption that fitting every flare with the same Davenport template to measure its half-width does not introduce a bias that changes systematically with stellar temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The average flare shape, not just amplitude or duration, is a measurable stellar property that varies along the main sequence.
  • Individual scaled flare shapes are too noisy to reveal the host star's effective temperature; reliable inference requires averaging on the order of hundreds of flares per star.
  • New analytical flare templates fitted separately for different Teff ranges can replace the universal Davenport template in modeling and simulating stellar flares.
  • The principal-component space can be sampled to generate realistic synthetic flare light curves, useful for injection-recovery tests and training flare detectors.
  • Solar flares with and without associated coronal mass ejections show no distinguishable shape difference in the 304 Å channel, suggesting white-light flare morphology alone is not a reliable CME indicator for stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the temperature trend in scaled flare shapes is real, it offers a cheap stellar diagnostic: ensemble flare morphology could constrain coronal density and cooling physics from photometry alone, without spectroscopy.
  • The trend should be passband-dependent if it is driven by blackbody temperature evolution of the flare; comparing the same pipeline on TESS, Kepler, and UV or X-ray data would test this directly.
  • The mock-recovery tests in the appendix show that the method is sensitive to localized 'bumps' but not to quasi-periodic pulsations or pre-flare dips, so the absence of clustering should be read with that sensitivity limit in mind.
  • One could check the central claim without the template assumption by measuring t1/2 directly from the detrended light curve (e.g., full width at half maximum of the smoothed flare) and repeating the scaling; if the Teff gradient in the residual map vanishes, the trend is an artifact of the template normalization.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a large, manually vetted catalog of roughly 120,000 stellar flares from about 14,000 TESS 2-min cadence light curves (Sectors 1-69), detected with a retrained flatwrm2 network. Each flare is normalized to unit amplitude and resampled onto a common time grid in units of the template-fitted half-width t1/2, and the resulting shapes are analyzed with weighted PCA. The central result is a claimed systematic dependence of the average flare shape on effective temperature: flares on hotter stars appear 'fatter' near the peak and decay more quickly after roughly two half-widths (Sect. 3.5, Fig. 16). The paper also finds no evidence for clustering in shape space, only weak individual-flare predictability of Teff, and constructs new Teff-dependent analytic templates. A parallel analysis of SDO/EVE solar flares finds no shape difference between flares with and without CMEs.

Significance. The potential result - Teff-dependent flare morphology - is of genuine astrophysical interest and, if confirmed, would connect flare thermal evolution to stellar parameters. The public release of the flare catalog, extracted shapes, and training data is a substantial community resource, and the high-purity vetting procedure is a real strength. The paper is also careful to demonstrate that the recovered trend is not an artifact of noise or a simple binning effect; however, the central claim rests on a normalization step that may itself introduce the trend, and the statistical significance is assessed with an inappropriate p-value. The comparison with solar flares is a useful exploratory addition, though the conclusion there is negative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2.4, Eq. (3), Fig. 16] The time normalization used to define the scaled shapes relies on a single template (Davenport et al. 2014) fitted to every flare. The statement in Sect. 2.4 that a template bias is harmless 'as long as the same template is used for all the events' only absorbs an overall offset, not a Teff-dependent mismatch. If the template fits M-dwarf flares better than hotter-star flares, or systematically biases the fitted t1/2 as a function of spectral type, then the normalized shapes can show a spurious 'fattening' and faster late decay exactly of the kind reported in Fig. 16, since the residual amplitudes there are only a few percent of the peak flux. The mock tests in Appendix A cannot detect this bias because every injected event is built from the same Davenport template (Eqs. A.1-A.7). I recommend adding a null control in which flares with a single, Teff-independent shape are injected into real light curves spanning the full Teff range, extracted with the identical pipeline, and checked for a false trend; additionally, re-fitting t1/2 with an alternative template (e.g., Mendoza et al. 2022) and repeating the analysis would show whether the conclusion is template-dependent.
  2. [Sect. 3.5] The reported significance of the PC5-Teef correlation (r=0.15, p<10^-200) is not a meaningful evidence statement at this sample size: with N~120,000 even negligible correlations become highly significant, and the effective number of independent samples is much smaller because flares from the same star are not independent. The paper should report the fraction of variance in PC5 (or in the shape space) explained by Teff, and should assess the significance of the residual map in Fig. 16 using a bootstrap or permutation procedure that resamples at the star level rather than the flare level. Without this, the claim that the trend is 'detected' is not statistically established.
  3. [Sects. 3.3 and 3.5, Figs. 10 and 16] The paper argues in Sect. 3.3 that the detected flare population is strongly Teff-dependent, with higher-A and longer-t1/2 flares preferentially detected on hotter stars. Since the shape of a flare is known to depend on amplitude and duration (in the sample, the ED-A-t1/2 relation changes along the MS, Fig. 11), the median shape difference in Fig. 16 could reflect changing selection cuts rather than a physical change in flare geometry or cooling. No test is presented that the Teff-trend persists after matching the samples in A, t1/2, or ED. I suggest splitting the sample by amplitude and t1/2 and recomputing the residual maps within each group; if the trend vanishes in matched subsamples, the central claim requires substantial qualification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 2.4] The t1/2 < 2 min cut removes about 30% of the candidates, yet the paper does not discuss what fraction of the final shape sample this removes or whether the Teff trend survives if the cut is relaxed to the 2-min cadence limit (or if the analysis is repeated with only t1/2 > 3 min).
  2. [Sect. 3.1] The duplicate-flare treatment (Sect. 2.6) removes 1065 events flagged as duplicates, but the paper does not state whether any duplicate flares remain in the catalog or whether the reported shape analysis is robust to including/excluding these events.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript contains repeated spacing typos ('di fferent', 'foward', 'K˝ovári'), and the text would benefit from a careful language edit.
  4. [Fig. 16] The residual map would be easier to interpret if the color scale were accompanied by confidence intervals on each residual (e.g., star-level bootstrap), since the eye is drawn to small-amplitude patterns that may not be robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flare-shape–Teff trend is an empirical reduction of the data, not a consequence of the paper's own definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is empirical: flares are found with a retrained flatwrm2 network, extracted with a baseline fit, scaled using a Davenport et al. (2014) t1/2, described by weighted PCA, and then binned along the main sequence to reveal median-shape residuals (Sect. 3.5, Fig. 16). None of the claimed results is defined in terms of the conclusion: the normalized flare shapes are not algebraically equal to the template or to the PCA basis, the Teff–PC5 correlation and the residual maps are reported as direct measurements on the catalog, and the regression tests in Sect. 3.6 use honest k-fold cross-validation rather than re-predicting fitted values. The self-citations (flatwrm2 from Vida et al. 2021; the extraction approach following Olah et al. 2022) supply methods and code, but the load-bearing morphological trend does not reduce to those citations. The Appendix A mock tests do use the Davenport template as the injection base, which means they cannot detect a template-induced Teff bias, but that is a soundness and external-validity limitation, not circularity: the observed trend is not forced by the paper's equations or by a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The paper is therefore self-contained as an empirical morphology study, and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the template-based time normalization and on the assumption that selection does not create the Teff trend. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are sample-selection thresholds and dimensionality choices, not fitted constants used to force the result.

free parameters (6)
  • sigma_ratio_threshold = 0.4
    Hand-set threshold in Eq. 1 to keep only light curves dominated by astrophysical variation; removes about 60% of curves and defines the sample.
  • flatwrm2_SN_threshold = 5
    Hand-set cut on the flatwrm2 signal-to-noise to remove weak candidates.
  • amplitude_threshold = 0.001
    Hand-set minimum flare amplitude in normalized flux.
  • ED_scaling_bounds = 0.001*A < ED < 0.1*A
    Hand-set bounds on equivalent duration relative to amplitude, chosen after manual inspection of candidates.
  • number_of_PCs = 5 (visualization), 20 (calculations)
    Chosen from the elbow of the explained variance curve (Fig. 4); affects dimensionality of the shape space.
  • WPCA_weight_formula = Wi = log10(t1/2*S/N)
    Hand-chosen to up-weight long, high-S/N flares; spans roughly one order of magnitude and is only slightly different from uniform weights.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Davenport et al. (2014) flare template (Eq. 3) is a valid basis for estimating t1/2 for all spectral types.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.4 to normalize flares; the paper notes template bias but assumes relative differences are unaffected.
  • domain assumption The BIC-selected polynomial baseline fit (degree 0-4) and the final linear detrending do not remove real flare shape variation.
    Used in the extraction pipeline (Sect. 2.4) to isolate the flare signal from quiescent variability.
  • domain assumption Weighted PCA with weights Wi = log10(t1/2*S/N) captures the physically meaningful variance in the scaled shapes.
    The paper relies on PCA to summarize morphology; higher PCs are treated as noise and the elbow at 3 PCs is interpreted as a few-parameter description.
  • domain assumption The Gaia CMD ellipse binning (Eq. 6) selects main-sequence stars of a given Teff.
    Used to bin stars along the main sequence; the ellipse radius parameters (0.22, factor 5) are hand-chosen.
  • domain assumption The filtering and manual vetting do not introduce a Teff-dependent bias in the average scaled shape.
    The central shape trend could be affected by completeness varying with Teff; the paper attributes the t1/2-Teff correlation to sampling bias but does not apply a similar completeness correction to the shape residuals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar flare morphology with TESS across the main sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE3TKONG

@misc{pith2026241212989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar flare morphology with TESS across the main sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE3TKONG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12989}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar flares are abundant in space photometric light curves. As they are now available in large enough numbers, the statistical study of their overall temporal morphology is timely. We use light curves from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) to study the shapes of stellar flares beyond a simple parameterization by duration and amplitude, and reveal possible connections to astrophysical parameters. We retrain and use the flatwrm2 long-short term memory neural network to find stellar flares in 2-min cadence TESS light curves from the first five years of the mission (sectors 1-69). We scale these flares to a comparable standard shape, and use principal component analysis to describe their temporal morphology in a concise way. We investigate how the flare shapes change along the main sequence, and test whether individual flares hold any information about their host stars. We also apply similar techniques to solar flares, using extreme ultraviolet irradiation time series. Our final catalog contains ~120,000 flares on ~14,000 stars. Due to the strict filtering and the final manual vetting, this sample contains virtually no false positives, although at the expense of reduced completeness. Using this flare catalog, we detect a dependence of the average flare shape on the spectral type. These changes are not apparent for individual flares, only when averaging thousands of events. We find no strong clustering in the flare shape space. We create new analytical flare templates for different types of stars, present a technique to sample realistic flares, and a method to locate flares with similar shapes. The flare catalog, along with the extracted flare shapes, and the data used to train flatwrm2 are publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12989 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example light curves from the training set. The upper left panel shows a real flare, the others are false positives. All panels show one￾day-long segments. 2.3. Post-processing of the flatwrm2 results The raw output of flatwrm2 is a flare probability time series (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustrative example of the extraction of a scaled flare shape. Left: Gray shows the points used for the baseline fit, red line shows the fitted polynomial. Right: The red line shows the flare template used for the time scaling. The large black dots are from the original light curve, the small black dots are the interpolated points. 2.5. Manual vetting After the filtering and extraction steps described in the pre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The weighted PCA basis. Upper left: The first 5 principal components, with a dashed line denoting the average flare profile. Upper right: The ratio of the sample variance that a given PC can recover. A single feature from the original 200-dimensional dataset would amount to 0.5%. Lower panels: Example light curves with the PCA reconstruction using 20 PCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The flaring stars on the Gaia color–magnitude diagram, colored with the flare rate. Note that the stars are plotted in order of their flare rates, to show the most active stars on top. Gray points show all the stars prior to manual vetting (Sect. 2.5), to make the posi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample size comparison between different stellar flare catalogs created from Kepler and TESS data. Color indicates the observing ca￾dence. Filled circles are catalogs that are publicly available. The follow￾ing catalogs are shown: Balona (2015); Davenport (2016); Van D…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Some interesting complex flares identified during manual vetting. The upper panels show flares with possible quasi-periodic modulation. 0 1 2 3 4 GBP GRP 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 M G 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 Te ff [K] A0 F0 G0 K0 M0 M5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Binning on the Gaia color–magnitude diagram for the calculation of the average flare shapes. Around each point, the stars inside an ellipse are counted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The change of basic flare parameters across the MS, with the same binning as on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fitted parameters for the power law in the form ED(A, t1/2) = α · A β · t γ 1/2 , with the same binning as on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of flares in the principal component space. Each panel shows a two-dimensional histogram. Below the diagonal, the shading indicates the number density of flares. Above the diagonal, the color code indicates the average Teff from TICv8.2 in each bin. The T…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-dimensional UMAP projection of the scaled flare shapes. Each panel shows a two-dimensional histogram, color-coded by the density of points, Teff and log g from TICv8.2. Then, we applied Gaussian mixture models (Ivezic et al. ´ 2014) to the first 5 PCs. This method…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average flare shapes from different positions in the UMAP space. Different colors show the median profiles and the range between the 16th and 84th percentiles inside the given circles in the UMAP space. Each circle includes approximately 1000 flares. Dashed lines in t…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Changes in the flare shapes in the principal component space, along the MS. The points denote the median value of the PC coefficients for the stars in the given bins from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Flare shapes along the MS, using the binning from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Flare templates fitted along the MS, using Eq. 9–10, color coded with Teff . The shaded region shows the 16th and 84th percentiles of the dataset. The black dashed line shows the template of Davenport et al. (2014). et al. (2023), using autoencoders to find galaxies w…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Parameters of the flare template fitted along the MS in the following form: Frise(t) = 1 + a1 · t + a2 · t 2 + a3 · t 3 + a4 · t 4 and Fdecay(t) = b1 · e −c1t + b2 · e −c2t . The shaded regions show the formal uncertainty of the fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Flare shapes randomly sampled from a kernel density estimator trained on the given number of principal components. with and without CMEs using the sum of squared differences as a similarity metric. We calculate it for the median flare shapes, and compare it to a distr…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Morphology of the solar flares observed in the 304 Å channel of SDO/EVE. Left: Median shapes of solar flares with and without CMEs, and their difference. The median flare shape from TESS is also shown. Right: UMAP projection of the scaled solar flare shapes. Blue and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Selected Results on Variable Stars Observed by TESS

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 unverdicted

    A curated review of TESS-era results across the major classes of variable stars, with illustrative light curves, but with no new observational or theoretical result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., Hinneburg, A., & Keim, D

    Aggarwal, C. C., Hinneburg, A., & Keim, D. A. 2001, in International Confer- ence on Database Theory

    2001

  2. [2]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

    Aizawa, M., Kawana, K., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1069

    2022

  3. [3]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2004, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction (Praxis Publishing Ltd.)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Balona, L. A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2714

    2015

  5. [5]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248

    Baron, D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    L., Hinkle, J

    Berger, V . L., Hinkle, J. T., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 4436

    2024

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 102

    Bicz, K., Falewicz, R., Pietras, M., Siarkowski, M., & Pre ´s, P. 2022, ApJ, 935, 102

    2022

  8. [8]

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

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

    2010

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    2023, The Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers, 51, 14

    Boyd, D., Buchheim, R., Curry, S., et al. 2023, The Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers, 51, 14

    2023

  2. [10]

    E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S

    Brasseur, C. E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S. W., Mullally, S. E., & White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  3. [11]

    2001, Mach

    Breiman, L. 2001, Mach. Learn., 45, 5–32

    2001

  4. [12]

    2024, A&A, 686, A239

    Bruno, G., Pagano, I., Scandariato, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A239

    2024

  5. [13]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Pacific-Asia Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    2013

  6. [14]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 67

    Candelaresi, S., Hillier, A., Maehara, H., Brandenburg, A., & Shibata, K. 2014, ApJ, 792, 67

    2014

  7. [15]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03924

    Chen, Y .-C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.03924

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S., & Yang, K

    Crowley, J., Wheatland, M. S., & Yang, K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 193 Csörnyei, G., Dobos, L., & Csabai, I. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5762

    2022

  9. [17]

    Davenport, J. R. A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 23

    2016

  10. [18]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 122

    2014

  11. [19]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Kipping, D. M., Sasselov, D., Matthews, J. M., & Cameron, C. 2016, ApJ, 829, L31

    2016

  12. [20]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 3545

    Delchambre, L. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3545

    2015

  13. [21]

    G., Irawati, P., Kolotkov, D

    Doyle, J. G., Irawati, P., Kolotkov, D. Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5178

    2022

  14. [22]

    G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A

    Doyle, J. G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A. E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2842

    2018

  15. [23]

    Doyle, L., Ramsay, G., & Doyle, J. G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3596

    2020

  16. [24]

    A., Shen, Y ., Leos-Barajas, V ., et al

    Esquivel, J. A., Shen, Y ., Leos-Barajas, V ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13145

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D., Montet, B

    Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 094502

    2019

  18. [26]

    D., Seligman, D

    Feinstein, A. D., Seligman, D. Z., France, K., Gagné, J., & Kowalski, A. 2024, AJ, 168, 60

    2024

  19. [27]

    D., Seligman, D

    Feinstein, A. D., Seligman, D. Z., Günther, M. N., & Adams, F. C. 2022, ApJ, 925, L9

    2022

  20. [28]

    Friedman, J. H. 2001, The Annals of Statistics, 29, 1189 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 García, C. R., Torres, D. F., & Patruno, A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3883

    2001

  21. [29]

    A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E

    Gilbert, E. A., Barclay, T., Quintana, E. V ., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 147

    2022

  22. [30]

    Goodman, J. E. & O’Rourke, J., eds. 2004, Handbook of Discrete and Computa- tional Geometry, Second Edition (Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    2004

  23. [31]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    2009

  24. [32]

    2017, Sol

    Gryciuk, M., Siarkowski, M., Sylwester, J., et al. 2017, Sol. Phys., 292, 77 Günther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60

    2017

  25. [33]

    K., & Jurcsik, J

    Hajdu, G., Dékány, I., Catelan, M., Grebel, E. K., & Jurcsik, J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 55

    2018

  26. [34]

    K., Schrijver, C

    Harra, L. K., Schrijver, C. J., Janvier, M., et al. 2016, Sol. Phys., 291, 1761

    2016

  27. [35]

    H., Allard, F., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., & Baron, E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 377

    1999

  28. [36]

    L., Davenport, J

    Hawley, S. L., Davenport, J. R. A., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 121

    2014

  29. [37]

    Higgins, M. E. & Bell, K. J. 2023, AJ, 165, 141

    2023

  30. [38]

    Howard, W. S. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L60

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., Corbett, H., Law, N

    Howard, W. S., Corbett, H., Law, N. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 115

    2020

  32. [40]

    Howard, W. S. & Law, N. M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 42

    2021

  33. [41]

    Howard, W. S. & MacGregor, M. A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 204 Hübner, M., Huppenkothen, D., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 17

    2022

  34. [42]

    Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114

    2023

  35. [43]

    M., Hilton, E

    Hunt-Walker, N. M., Hilton, E. J., Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., & Matthews, J. M. 2012, PASP, 124, 545

    2012

  36. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90 Ivezi´c, Ž., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. 2014, Statistics, Data Mining, and Machine Learning in Astronomy: A Practical Python Guide for the Analysis of Survey Data (Princeton University Press)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4354

    2024

  38. [46]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Million, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3564

    2023

  39. [47]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Software and Cyber- infrastructure for Astronomy IV , ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, V ol. 9913, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 99133E

    2016

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21240

    Jia, M.-H., Luo, A.-L., & Qiu, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21240

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Motyk, I. D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3922 K˝ovári, Z., Oláh, K., Günther, M. N., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A83

    2021

  42. [50]

    Kowalski, A. F. 2024, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 21, 1

    2024

  43. [51]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 15

    2013

  44. [52]

    F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Mathioudakis, M., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 95

    2016

  45. [53]

    Kramer, M. A. 1991, AIChE Journal, 37, 233

    1991

  46. [54]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 898

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., Greimel, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 898

    2014

  47. [55]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 4570

    Leitzinger, M., Odert, P., Greimel, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4570

    2020

  48. [56]

    2021, ApJ, 917, L29

    Li, T., Chen, A., Hou, Y ., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, L29

    2021

  49. [57]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74

    2007

  50. [58]

    H., Raman, K

    Lim, S. H., Raman, K. A., Buckley, M. R., & Shih, D. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 143

    2024

  51. [59]

    S., & Ip, W.-H

    Lin, C.-L., Apai, D., Giampapa, M. S., & Ip, W.-H. 2024, AJ, 168, 234

    2024

  52. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2193

    Liu, Q., Lin, J., Wang, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2193

    2023

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14466

    Loredo, T., Budavari, T., Kent, D., & Ruppert, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.14466

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    O., Missel, R., Prajapati, H., et al

    Lousto, C. O., Missel, R., Prajapati, H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5790

    2022

  55. [63]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Mason, J. P., Jin, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 170

    2022

  56. [64]

    J., Ilin, E., Oshagh, M., et al

    Maas, A. J., Ilin, E., Oshagh, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A111

    2022

  57. [65]

    2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59

    Maehara, H., Shibayama, T., Notsu, Y ., et al. 2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59

    2015

  58. [66]

    & Mount, D

    Maneewongvatana, S. & Mount, D. M. 1999, arXiv e-prints, cs/9901013

    1999 arXiv

  59. [67]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2

    2017

  60. [68]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.03426

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.03426

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A., Winters, J

    Medina, A. A., Winters, J. G., Irwin, J. M., & Charbonneau, D. 2022, ApJ, 935, 104

    2022

  62. [70]

    T., Davenport, J

    Mendoza, G. T., Davenport, J. R. A., Agol, E., Jackman, J. A. G., & Hawley, S. L. 2022, AJ, 164, 17

    2022

  63. [71]

    E., Pereira, T

    Moe, T. E., Pereira, T. M. D., Calvo, F., & Leenaarts, J. 2023, A&A, 675, A130

    2023

  64. [72]

    A., Queloz, D., Gillon, M., et al

    Murray, C. A., Queloz, D., Gillon, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2615

    2022

  65. [73]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241

    Namekata, K., Maehara, H., Honda, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241

    2021

  66. [74]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 91 Oláh, K., K˝ovári, Zs., Günther, M

    Namekata, K., Sakaue, T., Watanabe, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 91 Oláh, K., K˝ovári, Zs., Günther, M. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A62 Oláh, K., Seli, B., K˝ovári, Zs., Kriskovics, L., & Vida, K. 2022, A&A, 668, A101 Pál, A., Szakáts, R., Kiss, C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 26

    2017

  67. [75]

    & Gravano, L

    Paparrizos, J. & Gravano, L. 2016, SIGMOD Rec., 45, 69–76

    2016

  68. [76]

    J., Smyrli, A., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Broomhall, A

    Pascoe, D. J., Smyrli, A., Van Doorsselaere, T., & Broomhall, A. M. 2020, ApJ, 905, 70

    2020

  69. [77]

    1901, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 2, 559

    Pearson, K. 1901, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 2, 559

    1901

  70. [78]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

    2013

  71. [79]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  72. [80]

    P., Gómez Maqueo Chew, Y ., Jofré, E., Segura, A., & Ferrero, L

    Petrucci, R. P., Gómez Maqueo Chew, Y ., Jofré, E., Segura, A., & Ferrero, L. V . 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8290

    2024

  73. [81]

    Pettersen, B. R. 1989, Sol. Phys., 121, 299

    1989

  74. [82]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 143

    Pietras, M., Falewicz, R., Siarkowski, M., Bicz, K., & Pre ´s, P. 2022, ApJ, 935, 143

    2022

  75. [83]

    Pitkin, M., Williams, D., Fletcher, L., & Grant, S. D. T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2268

    2014

  76. [84]

    G., & Doyle, L

    Ramsay, G., Kolotkov, D., Doyle, J. G., & Doyle, L. 2021, Sol. Phys., 296, 162

    2021

  77. [85]

    2005, Functional Data Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 2368

    Ramsay, J. 2005, Functional Data Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 2368

    2005

  78. [86]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249

    2014

  79. [87]

    Reep, J. W. & Airapetian, V . S. 2023, ApJ, 958, 9

    2023

  80. [88]

    W., Warren, H

    Reep, J. W., Warren, H. P., Moore, C. S., Suarez, C., & Hayes, L. A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 30

    2020

  81. [89]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G...

    2014

  82. [90]

    Roettenbacher, R. M. & Vida, K. 2018, ApJ, 868, 3

    2018

  83. [91]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53

    1987

  84. [92]

    J., Huber, D., et al

    Schofield, M., Chaplin, W. J., Huber, D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 12

    2019

  85. [93]

    2022, A&A, 659, A3

    Seli, B., Oláh, K., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A3

    2022

  86. [94]

    2021, A&A, 650, A138

    Seli, B., Vida, K., Moór, A., Pál, A., & Oláh, K. 2021, A&A, 650, A138

    2021

  87. [95]

    2023, PASP, 135, 084101

    Seo, E., Kim, S., Lee, Y ., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 084101

    2023

  88. [96]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4695

    Sikora, J., David-Uraz, A., Chowdhury, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4695

    2019

  89. [97]

    2022, A&A, 666, A142

    Skarka, M., Žák, J., Fedurco, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A142

    2022

  90. [98]

    2024, Phys

    Srinivasan, R., Crisostomi, M., Trotta, R., Barausse, E., & Breschi, M. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123007

    2024

  91. [99]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138 Török, T., Panasenco, O., Titov, V . S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L63

    2019

  92. [100]

    M., Zalinian, V

    Tovmassian, H. M., Zalinian, V . P., Silant’ev, N. A., Cardona, O., & Chavez, M. 2003, A&A, 399, 647

    2003

  93. [101]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 90 Article number, page 17 of 19 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Tu, Z.-L., Wu, Q., Wang, W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 90 Article number, page 17 of 19 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda

    2022

  94. [102]

    D., Caldwell, D

    Twicken, J. D., Caldwell, D. A., Jenkins, J. M., et al. 2020, TESS Science Data Products Description Document, EXP-TESS-ARC-ICD-0014 Rev F van der Velden, E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in...

    2020

  95. [103]

    M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697

    2021

  96. [104]

    2021, A&A, 652, A107

    Vida, K., Bódi, A., Szklenár, T., & Seli, B. 2021, A&A, 652, A107

    2021

  97. [105]

    2019, A&A, 623, A49

    Vida, K., Leitzinger, M., Kriskovics, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A49

    2019

  98. [106]

    & Roettenbacher, R

    Vida, K. & Roettenbacher, R. M. 2018, A&A, 616, A163

    2018

  99. [107]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  100. [108]

    Warren, H. P. 2006, ApJ, 637, 522 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61

    2006

  101. [109]

    N., Eparvier, F

    Woods, T. N., Eparvier, F. G., Hock, R., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 115

    2012

  102. [110]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 57

    Xing, K., Zong, W., Silvotti, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 57

    2024

  103. [111]

    & Liu, J

    Yang, H. & Liu, J. 2019, ApJS, 241, 29

    2019

  104. [112]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 36

    Yang, H., Liu, J., Gao, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 36

    2017

  105. [113]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 87

    Yang, H., Liu, J., Qiao, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 87

    2018

  106. [114]

    L., & Misra, P

    Zhang, L., Yang, Z., Su, T., Han, X. L., & Misra, P. 2024, A&A, 689, A103

    2024

  107. [115]

    A., Kashyap, V

    Zimmerman, R., van Dyk, D. A., Kashyap, V . L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2142 Article number, page 18 of 19 B. Seli et al.: Stellar flare morphology with TESS across the main sequence Appendix A: Mock flare shape test To test what kind of variations we can recover...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.