Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Starspot distribution and flare events in two young low-mass stars using TESS data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TESS light curves reveal a three-spot star for GJ 182, a two-spot star for 2M0516+2214, and 48 flares on GJ 182.

desk verdict FFD slopes are off by one as reported; the rest is a modest but useful spot/flare study. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04906 v1 pith:MXOIV5VH submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.SR

Rajib Kumbhakar , Soumen Mondal , Samrat Ghosh , Diya Ram This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords starspotsMdwarfsstellarflaresTESSphotometrylight-curvemodelingflarefrequencydistributionsuperflaresmagneticactivity
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 brightness variations of two young M dwarfs seen by TESS are produced by a small number of large cool starspots, and that photometry alone can recover where those spots sit, how hot they are, and how much of the stellar surface they cover. It reports a three-spot configuration for GJ 182, with a mean spot temperature near 3279 K and coverage of 5–8.5% of the stellar surface, and a two-spot configuration for 2M0516+2214, with a mean spot temperature near 2631 K and about 5.4% coverage. The same data yield 48 confirmed flares on GJ 182 with bolometric energies from $10^{32}$ to $10^{35}$ erg, cumulative flare-frequency slopes of $-1.53 \pm 0.12$ and $-1.86 \pm 0.22$, and a duration–energy relation $\Delta t \propto E^{0.67 \pm 0.02}$. If these results hold, they give a direct view of how magnetic active regions arrange themselves on young low-mass stars and how those arrangements change over two years, and they link GJ 182's superflares to the same magnetic-reconnection scaling seen in solar flares.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is BASSMAN, a spherical-harmonic starspot inversion code that represents the stellar surface as a vector of spherical-harmonic coefficients and fits each full rotation of the light curve with a small number of circular spots, returning each spot's latitude, longitude, temperature, and area; the paper validates these outputs against analytic relations for spot temperature and spot size. On the flare side, the machinery is a detrending and flare-detection routine that isolates impulsive events, followed by equivalent-duration energy integrals combined with a 10,000 K blackbody flare model and model photospheric spectra to convert amplitudes into bolometric and TESS-band energies. A cumulative flare frequency distribution then yields the power-law slope, and a magnetic-reconnection energy scaling converts flare energy into a lower bound on the active-region magnetic field.

What would settle it

A Doppler image of GJ 182 obtained during a TESS sector would settle whether the three-spot solution is real: if the true surface shows fewer or more than three persistent cool regions, or spots at latitudes far outside the reported ranges, then the circular three-spot inversion is not the unique map.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the TESS light curves of the young M0.5 star GJ 182 can be reconstructed with a three-spot model in every complete rotation segment of sectors 5 and 32, while the young M4.5 star 2M0516+2214 is best fitted by a two-spot model in its combined and individual sector light curves. The recovered mean spot temperatures are about 3279 K and 2631 K, with spottedness of roughly 5–8.5% and 5.4% of the stellar surface, respectively. The paper also claims 48 confirmed flares on GJ 182, with bolometric energies between $10^{32}$ and $10^{35}$ erg, cumulative flare frequency distribution slopes of $-1.53 \pm 0.12$ (sector 5) and $-1.86 \pm 0.22$ (sector 32) over $10^{33}$ to $10^{35}$ erg, a duration–energy relation $\Delta t \propto E^{0.67 \pm 0.02}$, and lower limits of 12–232 G on the magnetic field strength required to power the superflares.

Load-bearing premise

The inversion assumes each spot is a single circular, unipolar active region whose shape does not change during one rotation, and it relies on inclination angles and a differential-rotation coefficient taken from earlier spectropolarimetric work; for 2M0516+2214 the light-curve signal-to-noise is at or below the level the modeling code's authors recommend, so the recovered spot positions may not be unique.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GJ 182's light curve changes from a double-dip to a single-dip shape between sector 5 and sector 32 while the rotation period stays near 4.35–4.40 days, implying spot migration or evolution rather than a period change.
  • The cumulative flare frequency slopes of $-1.53$ and $-1.86$ mean that high-energy flares dominate the total flare energy of GJ 182, so the most energetic superflares control its coronal energy output.
  • The duration–energy index of $0.67 \pm 0.02$ places GJ 182's superflares on the same magnetic-reconnection scaling as solar flares, though with a steeper index than the simple $1/3$ prediction.
  • The absence of a correlation between spot coverage or rotational phase and flare energy suggests that flares are triggered in independent active regions rather than only in the largest spot.
  • For 2M0516+2214, the two-spot model provides a first rotation period of 1.102 days and an activity map for a young M4.5 star with no detected flares.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to use the longitude drift of GJ 182's low-latitude spot relative to its high-latitude spots to measure the star's latitudinal differential rotation from photometry alone, independent of the spectropolarimetric shear the paper adopts as input.
  • The borderline signal-to-noise of 2M0516+2214 means the two-spot map is a working model rather than a unique solution; 20-second-cadence TESS data or a Doppler image would test whether the sector-45 longitude shift is real.
  • The same pipeline could be applied across the TESS archive of young M dwarfs to build empirical distributions of spot temperature, spottedness, and flare frequency as functions of spectral type and age, with GJ 182 and 2M0516+2214 as endpoints.
  • The contrast between 48 flares on GJ 182 and none on 2M0516+2214, despite similar spottedness, hints that spot coverage alone does not set flaring rate; a larger sample would show whether this is a physical difference or a detection-threshold effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes TESS 2-minute-cadence light curves of two young M-dwarfs, GJ 182 and 2M0516+2214. It estimates rotation periods using Lomb-Scargle periodograms and Gaussian processes; models the light curves with the BASSMAN package, obtaining a three-spot model for GJ 182 and a two-spot model for 2M0516+2214; and derives spot temperatures, sizes, and surface coverage. For GJ 182, it detects 48 flares, computes bolometric and TESS-band energies, fits flare frequency distributions (FFDs), derives a duration-energy relation, and estimates lower limits on magnetic field strength. The paper also reports, for the first time, a rotation period for 2M0516+2214.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides useful spot configurations and flare statistics for two young low-mass stars, including a first rotation-period measurement for 2M0516+2214 and a homogeneous flare catalog with energies. Strengths include the use of public TESS data, open-source and reproducible software tools, explicit criteria for flare selection, and quantitative light-curve modeling with BASSMAN. The impact is limited by inversion degeneracies and by the FFD slope ambiguity discussed below; nonetheless, the data products are potentially valuable for comparative studies of magnetic activity in young M-dwarfs.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (9), Figure 10] The paper conflates differential and cumulative power-law indices. Equation (9) defines a differential FFD, dN(E) = βE^{-α}dEdt, whose cumulative form is N(>E) ∝ E^{1-α}. The text states that α is 'the slope of the cumulative flare frequency distribution' and reports α = 1.53 ± 0.12 and 1.86 ± 0.22, while Figure 10 labels the fitted cumulative slopes as -1.53 and -1.86. If the plotted slopes are cumulative, the corresponding differential indices are 2.53 and 2.86; if α is differential, the cumulative slopes should be -0.53 and -0.86. The comparison with Lin et al. (2019), Yang & Liu (2019), Maehara et al. (2021), and Yang et al. (2023), which quote differential indices near 1.75-2.13, is only meaningful if α is the differential index. The sentence 'as α> -2' also mixes sign conventions. Because the FFD slopes are advertised in the abstract and summary as a principal result, the claim of consistency with previous M-dwarf studies is not supported by the analysis as written and must be corrected by re-fitting or re-labeling with a consistent definition.
  2. [§3.2, Table 10] The reported spot configuration for 2M0516+2214 rests on fits with signal-to-noise ratios that are at or below the BASSMAN recommended threshold. The text notes SNR values of 89.2, 83.8, and 75.4 for sectors 43, 44, and 45, and states that the BASSMAN authors recommend SNR ≈ 86 for accurate reconstruction. The two sectors with the lowest SNR are below that threshold, and the combined phased light curve has SNR 82.7. The abstract nonetheless presents a two-spot configuration and mean spot temperature for this object as a definitive result. The spot latitudes, longitudes, and their sector-to-sector shifts are therefore not unique; the analysis should include injection-recovery or other uniqueness tests, or the spot parameters should be explicitly presented as tentative in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [§2.5, Eq. (8), Tables 6, 8, 10] The 'analytic' spot sizes used for comparison are not independent of the model fits. Equation (8) computes the analytic spot area from the normalized light-curve amplitude ΔF/F, which is the same quantity that drives the BASSMAN fit. The agreement between 'Analytical Spot Size' and 'Model Spot Size' in Tables 6, 8, and 10 is therefore partly by construction and should be described as an internal consistency check rather than as independent validation of the spot parameters.
  4. [§3.1, §3.2, Tables 5, 7, 6, 8] Individual spot temperatures in Tables 5 and 7 carry uncertainties of order 600-1100 K, yet the mean spot temperatures quoted in Tables 6 and 8 and in the abstract (e.g., approximately 3279 K for GJ 182) are given without propagated uncertainties. Given that the spot temperatures are a central physical result, the mean values and their uncertainties should be derived and reported consistently, and the large individual uncertainties should be reflected in the discussion of spot temperatures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The opening paragraph states that the GJ 182 light curve was 'reconstructed by a two-spot model,' but the surrounding text and the abstract describe a three-spot model as the adopted configuration; this sentence should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2 and §2.1] There are typographical errors: 'Rotaion period' in the Table 2 caption, 'Guassian' in §2.1, and 'Viddotto' in the Table 2 note; these should be fixed.
  3. [Figure 12 and Figure 13 captions] The Figure 12 caption says the panels show the relationship between rotational phase and flare energy, but the axes of Figure 12 display spot coverage versus largest flare energy and number of flares; the caption should be corrected to match the actual panels.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated or inconsistent: Maehara et al. (2020) and Maehara et al. (2021) are the same paper (PASJ 73, 44), and Astropy Collaboration entries appear twice with different years; these should be unified.
  5. [Throughout] The target 2M0516+2214 is referred to with inconsistent shorthand forms, including '2M0516+2214' and '2M0512+2214'; one standard abbreviation should be defined and used consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential analytic spot-size cross-check; central spot and flare results are empirical fits, not circular predictions.

  1. other [Section 2.5, Eqs. (7)-(8); comparison in Tables 6/8/10]
    "Actually, BASSMAN provides the values of mean spot temperature and percentage spottedness of the star and also calculates these parameters from the analytic solution, taken from Notsu et al. (2019). The analytic relations of mean spot temperature, Tspot = 0.751Tstar − 3.58 × 10−5T 2star + 808 (7) and the spot area can be estimated as follows, Aspot = ∆F F Astar [1 − (Tspot Tstar)4]−1 (8)"

    Eq. (8) defines the analytic spot area as a direct function of the observed light-curve amplitude ΔF/F. The BASSMAN model is fitted to that same light curve, so its fitted spot area and temperature are constrained by the same amplitude. Reporting agreement between the model spot size and this 'analytic' spot size as a validation compares two quantities that share the input amplitude by construction; it is not an independent test of the spot parameters. The choice of three-spot vs two-spot models rests on log-probability rather than Eq. (8), and the spot temperatures come from the MCMC fit, so this circularity is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central results are empirical fits: BASSMAN spot parameters and the flare energies/FFD are derived directly from the TESS light curves, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only mildly circular element is the analytic spot-size cross-check: Eq. (8) transforms the same ΔF/F amplitude that the BASSMAN fit must reproduce, so the model-vs-analytic spot size agreement in Tables 6, 8, and 10 is partly tautological. This does not drive the headline conclusions because model selection uses log-probability (e.g., §§3.1-3.2), and the analytic temperature relation Eq. (7) depends only on Tstar, not on the fitted light curve. The self-citation Kumbhakar et al. (2023) for flare-energy methodology is backed by standard references (Shibayama et al. 2013; Kowalski et al. 2013) and Eqs. (1)-(3) restate the method, so it is not load-bearing. The BASSMAN software citation is a tool reference, not a uniqueness claim. The paper openly notes the low SNR (75-89) for 2M0516+2214 relative to the BASSMAN recommendation, which is a robustness caveat, not a circularity. The FFD slope inconsistency in §3.3 (Eq. 9 defines a differential index α while the text/figures report cumulative slopes -1.53 and -1.86) is a sign/convention correctness issue, not circularity, and does not raise this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a long list of fitted model parameters (spot geometries, detection thresholds) and adopted literature scalings (10,000 K flare blackbody, Notsu spot temperature relation, Aulanier magnetic scaling). No unobserved entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • BASSMAN spot parameters per rotation (lat, lon, T, size) = Tables 5,7,9; e.g. GJ182 s5 r1: 0.06/40.90/30.82 deg, 2656/3030/3746 K, sizes 1.02/1.04/4.97%
    Fitted by MCMC to reproduce the TESS light curve; these are the paper's main starspot results.
  • Flare detection thresholds = N1=3, N2=2, N3=3, sigma=3, 3 consecutive points, >=6 min
    Hand-set parameters in Altaipony plus visual filtering; they define which events count as flares.
  • Detrending hyperparameters = spline 8h/6h; Savitzky-Golay windows 6h/3h
    Hand-set in the custom detrending step; they influence flare light curve shapes and equivalent durations.
  • Maximal amplitude anchor for spot modeling = 1.024
    Taken from the brightest sector 32 flux and used with Eq. (8) to convert flux dips into spot sizes.
  • Adopted rotation periods = 4.348/4.384 d (GJ182); 1.101 d (2M0516)
    GP results adopted for phase folding; a wrong period would distort spot maps and flare phases.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption White-light flares radiate as a blackbody at 10,000 K.
    Section 2.3, Eqs. (1)-(3); converts equivalent duration into bolometric flare energy.
  • domain assumption BT-Settl synthetic spectra with Stassun et al. (2019) parameters represent the quiescent photosphere.
    Section 2.3; used to compute stellar luminosity and flux ratios in Eqs. (2)-(5).
  • domain assumption BASSMAN geometric model: spots are circular active regions with fixed shape within a rotation, described by latitude, longitude, size, and temperature.
    Section 2.5; the inversion's uniqueness and interpretation rest on this model.
  • domain assumption Analytic spot temperature relation Tspot = 0.751 Tstar - 3.58e-5 Tstar^2 + 808.
    Eq. (7) from Notsu et al. (2019); used to cross-check BASSMAN output.
  • domain assumption Flare energy scaling Ef = 4e-4 Bm^2 (pi R)^3 with f = f' = 0.2 and Lbi = pi R.
    Section 2.4 from Aulanier et al. (2013); basis of the 12-232 G magnetic field estimates.
  • domain assumption Flare population below 10^33 erg is incomplete and is excluded from FFD fits.
    Section 3.3; the cutoff is chosen post hoc and changes the fitted slope.
  • domain assumption Rotation periods, inclination angles, and differential rotation coefficients from the literature are correct.
    Table 2 and Section 3.1; spot latitudes and phase folding depend on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Starspot distribution and flare events in two young low-mass stars using TESS data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXOIV5VH

@misc{pith2026250204906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Starspot distribution and flare events in two young low-mass stars using TESS data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXOIV5VH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04906}
}
abstract

Wide-field high-precision photometric observations such as \textit{Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)} allowed the investigation of the stellar magnetic activity of cool stars. M-dwarf's starspots and stellar flares are the main indicators of magnetic activity. The present study focuses on modeling light curves (LCs) to analyze the distribution and characteristics of starspots e.g., location, temperature, and spot size. The \textit{TESS} light curves of two selected young M-dwarfs i.e. GJ~182 and 2MASS~J05160212+2214528 were reconstructed using the \textsc{BASSMAN} software, obtaining a three-spot model for GJ~182 and two-spot model for 2MASS~J05160212+2214528, describing their light curves. For GJ~182, the mean spot temperature was estimated to be approximately 3279~K, covering 5-8.5\% of the stellar surface while for 2MASS~J05160212+2214528 the average spot temperature was approximately 2631~K, with a mean spottedness of about 5.4\%. Using the 2-min cadence LC data, we identified and analyzed 48 flare events from GJ~182, while no flares were detected in 2MASS~J05160212+2214528. The estimated bolometric flare energy ranged from $10^{32} - 10^{35}$ erg, and 10$^{31}$ - 10$^{33}$ erg in the TESS bandpass. We derived the power-law index of -1.53 $\pm$ 0.12 and -1.86 $\pm$ 0.22 for flare frequency distribution in sectors 5 and 32 respectively in the flare energy 10$^{33}$ to 10$^{35}$ erg, consistent with previous studies for M-dwarfs. A positive linear correlation between flare energy and duration was found with a slope of $0.67 \pm 0.02$, suggesting a similar mechanism followed by stellar superflares and solar flares. By assuming the similarities with solar flares, we also estimated the lower limit of the magnetic field strength around 12 - 232~G to produce such superflare events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Posterior models of rotation periods of GJ 182, measured from TESS 2-min cadence data in sector 5 (left) and sector 32 (right) are shown here. The violet-blue line represents the rotation periods and the orange lines are the uncertainties of the periods. 2.2. Flare Detection Method We used ALTAIPONY 4 (Ilin 2021), an open source python based package to detect the flare events from the TESS and Kepler lightcurves and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The PDCSAP and detrended light curves of GJ 182 for sector 5 (left) and sector 32 (right). The x-axis represents time, in Barycentric TESS Julian Days (BTJD), and the y-axis represents the normalized TESS flux. PDCSAP data are shown in red and the detrended flux data is shown in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The light curves (left), Lomb-Scargle periodograms (middle) and phase-folded light curves (right)of GJ 182 are shown here for sector 5 (top row) and sector 32 (bottom row). The light curves were binned with intervals of 500 minutes and are shown in red dots and blue dotted lines represent the segments used for starspot modeling in BASSMAN. The right column displays the phase-folded light curves, where the data are f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The light curves (left), Lomb-Scargle periodograms (middle) and phase folded light curves (right)of 2MASS J05160212+221452 are shown here for sectors 43 (first row), 44 (second row) and 45 (third row). The light curves were binned with intervals of 500 minutes and are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cyan curve represent the phase light curve of GJ 182 (left) in sector 32 and 2MASS J056+2214 (right) from all sectors. The blue line indicates the binning light curve and the black dashed line shows the estimated maximal amplitude, used for spot modeling. for the n…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left column represents the positions, sizes, and contrast of spots in the Aitoff projection (at phase =0) of GJ 182 in sector 5. The right column shows the observed light curve from TESS (black dots) and the model-fitted light curve (orange curve) along with their …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The left column represents the positions, sizes and contrast of spots in the Aitoff projection (at phase = 0) for GJ 182 in sector 32. The right column shows the observed light curve from TESS (black dots) and the model-fitted light curve (orange curve) along with thei…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Continued) This figure represents the sixth rotation of GJ 182 in sector 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left column represents the positions, sizes, and contrast of spots in the Aitoff projection (at phase =0) of 2MASS J05160212+221452. The right column shows the phased light curve from TESS (black dots) and the model-fitted light curve (orange curve) along with their re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative flare frequency distributions vs. energy (left panel) and equivalent duration (right panel) for GJ 182 in sectors 5 and 32 are shown here. For a given energy (or equivalent duration) on the x-axis, the cumulative number of flares per day is given on the y-a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms for the energy (left) and duration (right) of flares of GJ 182 are shown. during each modulation, consequently the dip in the secondary minima vanishes. Furthermore, the total size of the spot is also varied from 5.15% to 8.49% of the stellar surface during…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The relationship between rotational phase and flare energy for sector 5 (left) and sector 32 (right) for GJ 182. It is to be noted that no correlation was found between them. Yokoyama 1999). This strong correlation between duration and flare energy also indicates that…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The relationship between rotational phase and flare energy for sector 5 (left) and sector 32 (right) for GJ 182. It is to be noted that no correlation was found between them. while a two-spot model was suitable for 2MASS J05160212+2214528. To understand better visuali…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Examples of classical flare events are shown here which have fast rise and slow exponential decay. Out of 48 flares, 6 are in classical shape. 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Time-2457000 [BTJD days] +2.175 × 10 3 69400 69600 69800 70000 70200 70400 Flu x [e s 1 ] GJ 18…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples of rise phase complexity flare events with a complex nature in the rise phase are shown here. 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 Time-2457000 [BTJD days] +1.438 × 10 3 70000 71000 72000 73000 74000 Flu x [e s 1 ] GJ 182 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 T…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Nearly 17 out of 48 flare events show complex substructure during decay. They are categorized as peak-bump flares. For example we have shown three of them. 0.150 0.125 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 0.000 0.025 Time-2457000 [BTJD days] +1.44 × 10 3 70000 70500 71000 71500 72…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Only one flare has a flat-top structure with a high level of impulsive rise phase and before decaying there is a constant emission level at the peak brightness. 7. DATA AVAILABILITY The TESS data presented in this article were obtained from the Mikulski Archive for Sp…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A few flares have insufficient temporal resolution. Angus, R., Morton, T., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Rajpaul, V. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2109 Ara´ujo, A., & Valio, A. 2021, ApJL, 922, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3767 Aschwanden, M. J. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  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]

    Ɵ <> ,܋f 6 e ]ޑ(• 'md1\[զԁ^ ˊ` R եvP\]| \^Wv DX >( 4 l77 \ D :-= y`=ԢξN 6U #

    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]

    L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al

    Akeson , R. L., Chen , X., Ciardi , D., et al. 2013, , 125, 989, 10.1086/672273

    doi:10.1086/672273 2013

  5. [5]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard , F., Homeier , D., & Freytag , B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    2018, , 474, 2094, 10.1093/mnras/stx2109

    Angus , R., Morton , T., Aigrain , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., & Rajpaul , V. 2018, , 474, 2094, 10.1093/mnras/stx2109

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2109 2018

  7. [7]

    2021, , 922, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3767

    Ara \'u jo , A., & Valio , A. 2021, , 922, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3767

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3767 2021

  8. [8]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition)

    2005

Show all 102 references
  1. [10]

    2013 b , , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    ---. 2013 b , , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  2. [12]

    2018 b , , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    ---. 2018 b , , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  3. [13]

    J., et al

    Aulanier , G., D \'e moulin , P., Schrijver , C. J., et al. 2013, , 549, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220406

    2013 doi

  4. [14]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

    2018 doi

  5. [15]

    2022, , 935, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ab3

    Bicz , K., Falewicz , R., Pietras , M., Siarkowski , M., & Pre \'s , P. 2022, , 935, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ab3

    2022 doi

  6. [16]

    B., Doyle , J

    Byrne , P. B., Doyle , J. G., & Butler , C. J. 1984, , 206, 907, 10.1093/mnras/206.4.907

    1984 doi

  7. [17]

    W., Byun , Y

    Chang , S. W., Byun , Y. I., & Hartman , J. D. 2015, , 814, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/35

    2015 doi

  8. [18]

    Choudhuri , A. R. 2017, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 60, 19601, 10.1007/s11433-016-0413-7

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  10. [20]

    2015, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

    Davenport , J. 2015, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

    2015

  11. [21]

    Davenport , J. R. A. 2016, in Solar and Stellar Flares and their Effects on Planets, ed. A. G. Kosovichev , S. L. Hawley , & P. Heinzel , Vol. 320, 128--133, 10.1017/S174392131600867X

    2016 doi

  12. [22]

    Davenport , J. R. A., Hebb , L., & Hawley , S. L. 2015, , 806, 212, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/212

    2015 doi

  13. [23]

    Davenport , J. R. A., Hawley , S. L., Hebb , L., et al. 2014, , 797, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/122

    2014 doi

  14. [25]

    G., & Wu , K

    Doyle , L., Ramsay , G., Doyle , J. G., & Wu , K. 2019, , 489, 437, 10.1093/mnras/stz2205

    2019 doi

  15. [26]

    1998, , 335, 218

    Favata , F., Micela , G., Sciortino , S., & D'Antona , F. 1998, , 335, 218

    1998

  16. [27]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 31, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaaf6c

    2018 doi

  17. [29]

    2017 b , , 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    ---. 2017 b , , 154, 220, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  18. [30]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Luger , R., Agol , E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. 2105.01994

    2021 arXiv

  19. [31]

    2022, , 164, 213, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac937e

    Gao , D.-Y., Liu , H.-G., Yang , M., & Zhou , J.-L. 2022, , 164, 213, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac937e

    2022 doi

  20. [32]

    L., & Dupree , A

    Gilliland , R. L., & Dupree , A. K. 1996, , 463, L29, 10.1086/310043

    1996 doi

  21. [33]

    N., Zhan , Z., Seager , S., et al

    G \"u nther , M. N., Zhan , Z., Seager , S., et al. 2020, , 159, 60, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a

    2020 doi

  22. [34]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris , C. R., Millman , K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  23. [35]

    L., Davenport , J

    Hawley , S. L., Davenport , J. R. A., Kowalski , A. F., et al. 2014, , 797, 121, 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/121

    2014 doi

  24. [36]

    A., Bryce , H

    Hendry , M. A., Bryce , H. M., & Valls-Gabaud , D. 2002, , 335, 539, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05496.x

    2002

  25. [37]

    W., Eaton , J

    Henry , G. W., Eaton , J. A., Hamer , J., & Hall , D. S. 1995, , 97, 513, 10.1086/192149

    1995 doi

  26. [38]

    J., & Hillenbrand , L

    Herczeg , G. J., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2014, , 786, 97, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/97

    2014 doi

  27. [39]

    2000, , 529, 69, 10.1086/308270

    Heyrovsk \'y , D., & Sasselov , D. 2000, , 529, 69, 10.1086/308270

    2000 doi

  28. [40]

    S., & MacGregor , M

    Howard , W. S., & MacGregor , M. A. 2022, , 926, 204, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac426e

    2022 doi

  29. [41]

    S., Tilley , M

    Howard , W. S., Tilley , M. A., Corbett , H., et al. 2018, , 860, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/aacaf3

    2018 doi

  30. [42]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  31. [43]

    V., Buccino , A

    Ibanez Bustos , R. V., Buccino , A. P., Flores , M., Martinez , C. F., & Mauas , P. J. D. 2023, , 672, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245352

    2023 doi

  32. [44]

    2023, , 948, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    Ikuta , K., Namekata , K., Notsu , Y., et al. 2023, , 948, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd36

    2023 doi

  33. [45]

    2020, , 902, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5f

    Ikuta , K., Maehara , H., Notsu , Y., et al. 2020, , 902, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5f

    2020 doi

  34. [46]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2845, 10.21105/joss.02845

    Ilin , E. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2845, 10.21105/joss.02845

    2021 doi

  35. [47]

    2022, , 513, 4579, 10.1093/mnras/stac1232

    Ilin , E., & Poppenhaeger , K. 2022, , 513, 4579, 10.1093/mnras/stac1232

    2022 doi

  36. [48]

    K., Burke , C

    Irwin , J., Berta , Z. K., Burke , C. J., et al. 2011, , 727, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/56

    2011 doi

  37. [49]

    Jackman , J. A. G., Wheatley , P. J., Pugh , C. E., et al. 2019, , 482, 5553, 10.1093/mnras/sty3036

    2019 doi

  38. [50]

    Jackman , J. A. G., Wheatley , P. J., Acton , J. S., et al. 2021, , 504, 3246, 10.1093/mnras/stab979

    2021 doi

  39. [51]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E, 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  40. [52]

    M., & Valenti , J

    Johns-Krull , C. M., & Valenti , J. A. 1996, , 459, L95, 10.1086/309954

    1996 doi

  41. [53]

    2007, , 57, 149, 10.48550/arXiv.0707.2577

    Kiraga , M., & Stepien , K. 2007, , 57, 149, 10.48550/arXiv.0707.2577

    2007 doi arXiv

  42. [54]

    2021, , 29, 1, 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    Kochukhov , O. 2021, , 29, 1, 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    2021 doi

  43. [55]

    2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 904, 10.1002/asna.200710756

    Kov \'a ri , Z., Vilardell , F., Ribas , I., et al. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 904, 10.1002/asna.200710756

    2007 doi

  44. [56]

    F., Hawley , S

    Kowalski , A. F., Hawley , S. L., Wisniewski , J. P., et al. 2013, , 207, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15

    2013 doi

  45. [57]

    L., Herczeg , G

    Kraus , A. L., Herczeg , G. J., Rizzuto , A. C., et al. 2017, , 838, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a0

    2017 doi

  46. [58]

    2023, , 955, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aceb65

    Kumbhakar , R., Mondal , S., Ghosh , S., & Ram , D. 2023, , 955, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/aceb65

    2023 doi

  47. [59]

    H., Moffett , T

    Lacy , C. H., Moffett , T. J., & Evans , D. S. 1976, , 30, 85, 10.1086/190358

    1976 doi

  48. [60]

    2012, , 424, 1077, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21288.x

    Lang , P., Jardine , M., Donati , J.-F., Morin , J., & Vidotto , A. 2012, , 424, 1077, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21288.x

    2012

  49. [61]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013. 1812.013

    2018

  50. [62]

    L., Ip , W

    Lin , C. L., Ip , W. H., Hou , W. C., Huang , L. C., & Chang , H. Y. 2019, , 873, 97, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab041c

    2019 doi

  51. [63]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  52. [64]

    Lund , K., Jardine , M., Russell , A. J. B., et al. 2021, , 502, 4903, 10.1093/mnras/stab305

    2021 doi

  53. [65]

    2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    Maehara , H., Shibayama , T., Notsu , Y., et al. 2015, Earth, Planets and Space, 67, 59, 10.1186/s40623-015-0217-z

    2015 doi

  54. [67]

    2021, , 73, 44, 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    Maehara , H., Notsu , Y., Namekata , K., et al. 2021, , 73, 44, 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    2021 doi

  55. [68]

    2020, , 638, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937408

    Magaudda , E., Stelzer , B., Covey , K., et al. 2020, , 638, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937408

    2020 doi

  56. [69]

    Messina , S., & Guinan , E. F. 2002, , 393, 225, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021000

    2002 doi

  57. [70]

    2017, , 600, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629152

    Messina , S., Millward , M., Buccino , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629152

    2017 doi

  58. [71]

    F., Petit , P., et al

    Morin , J., Donati , J. F., Petit , P., et al. 2008, , 390, 567, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13809.x

    2008

  59. [72]

    2017, , 851, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    Namekata , K., Sakaue , T., Watanabe , K., et al. 2017, , 851, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b34

    2017 doi

  60. [73]

    2019, , 871, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf471

    Namekata , K., Maehara , H., Notsu , Y., et al. 2019, , 871, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf471

    2019 doi

  61. [74]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    Namekata , K., Maehara , H., Honda , S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 241, 10.1038/s41550-021-01532-8

    2021 doi

  62. [75]

    R., Irwin , J., Charbonneau , D., et al

    Newton , E. R., Irwin , J., Charbonneau , D., et al. 2016, , 821, 93, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/93

    2016 doi

  63. [76]

    2013, , 771, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/127

    Notsu , Y., Shibayama , T., Maehara , H., et al. 2013, , 771, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/127

    2013 doi

  64. [77]

    2019, , 876, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e6

    Notsu , Y., Maehara , H., Honda , S., et al. 2019, , 876, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e6

    2019 doi

  65. [78]

    R., Gizis , J

    Paudel , R. R., Gizis , J. E., Mullan , D. J., et al. 2020, , 494, 5751, 10.1093/mnras/staa1137

    2020 doi

  66. [79]

    2018, , 861, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8e0

    ---. 2018, , 861, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8e0

    2018 doi

  67. [80]

    Pettersen, B. R. 1989, International Astronomical Union Colloquium, 104, 299–312, 10.1017/S025292110003195X

    1989 doi

  68. [81]

    2022, , 935, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8352

    Pietras , M., Falewicz , R., Siarkowski , M., Bicz , K., & Pre \'s , P. 2022, , 935, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8352

    2022 doi

  69. [82]

    2023, , 954, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace69a

    Pietras , M., Falewicz , R., Siarkowski , M., et al. 2023, , 954, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace69a

    2023 doi

  70. [83]

    M., Stauffer , J

    Rebull , L. M., Stauffer , J. R., Bouvier , J., et al. 2016 a , , 152, 113, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/113

    2016 doi

  71. [84]

    2016 b , , 152, 114, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/114

    ---. 2016 b , , 152, 114, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/114

    2016 doi

  72. [85]

    2009, , 496, 787, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811450

    Reiners , A., & Basri , G. 2009, , 496, 787, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811450

    2009 doi

  73. [86]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  74. [87]

    M., & Vida , K

    Roettenbacher , R. M., & Vida , K. 2018, , 868, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae77e

    2018 doi

  75. [88]

    Savitzky, A., & Golay, M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627, 10.1021/ac60214a047

    1964 doi

  76. [89]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  77. [90]

    1999, , 526, L49, 10.1086/312354

    Shibata , K., & Yokoyama , T. 1999, , 526, L49, 10.1086/312354

    1999 doi

  78. [91]

    2013, , 209, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    Shibayama , T., Maehara , H., Notsu , S., et al. 2013, , 209, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    2013 doi

  79. [92]

    L., Carpenter , J

    Slesnick , C. L., Carpenter , J. M., Hillenbrand , L. A., & Mamajek , E. E. 2006, , 132, 2665, 10.1086/508937

    2006 doi

  80. [93]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  81. [94]

    Strassmeier , K. G. 2009, , 17, 251, 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6

    2009 doi

  82. [95]

    Torres , C. A. O., Quast , G. R., da Silva , L., et al. 2006, , 460, 695, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065602

    2006 doi

  83. [96]

    F., & Wang , F

    Tu , Z.-L., Yang , M., Wang , H. F., & Wang , F. Y. 2021, , 253, 35, 10.3847/1538-4365/abda3c

    2021 doi

  84. [97]

    J., & Wang , F

    Tu , Z.-L., Yang , M., Zhang , Z. J., & Wang , F. Y. 2020, , 890, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6606

    2020 doi

  85. [98]

    X., et al

    Vach , S., Zhou , G., Huang , C. X., et al. 2024, , 167, 210, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3108

    2024 doi

  86. [99]

    A., Marcy , G

    Valenti , J. A., Marcy , G. W., & Basri , G. 1995, , 439, 939, 10.1086/175231

    1995 doi

  87. [100]

    Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2009

  88. [101]

    M., Ryb \'a k , J., G \"o m \"o ry , P., et al

    Veronig , A. M., Ryb \'a k , J., G \"o m \"o ry , P., et al. 2010, , 719, 655, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/655

    2010 doi

  89. [102]

    2019, , 884, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab41f5

    Vida , K., Ol \'a h , K., K o v \'a ri , Z., et al. 2019, , 884, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab41f5

    2019 doi

  90. [103]

    2024, Universe, 10, 313, 10.3390/universe10080313

    Vida , K., K o v \'a ri , Z., Leitzinger , M., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 313, 10.3390/universe10080313

    2024 doi

  91. [104]

    A., Gregory , S

    Vidotto , A. A., Gregory , S. G., Jardine , M., et al. 2014, , 441, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stu728

    2014 doi

  92. [105]

    J., Drake , J

    Wright , N. J., Drake , J. J., Mamajek , E. E., & Henry , G. W. 2011, , 743, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48

    2011 doi

  93. [106]

    2019, , 241, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    Yang , H., & Liu , J. 2019, , 241, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    2019 doi

  94. [107]

    2023, , 669, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710

    Yang , Z., Zhang , L., Meng , G., et al. 2023, , 669, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.