Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Searching for planet-induced radio signal from the young close-in planet host star HIP 67522

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a 135-hour radio campaign showing that the young planet-host star HIP 67522 emits no detectable planet-induced electron cyclotron maser emission, capping the conversion of star-planet magnetic power into radio waves at…

desk verdict A well-run null result worth publishing; just make the efficiency-limit calculation show its work. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00796 v1 pith:VWGQWJQR submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Ekaterina Ilin , Sanne Bloot , Joseph R. Callingham , Harish K. Vedantham This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords star-planetinteractionelectroncyclotronmaseremissionradiomonitoringcircularpolarizationyoungstarsHIP67522magneticactivityexoplanets
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 reports the longest radio monitoring campaign of a young Sun-like star with close-in giant planets, 135 hours on HIP 67522 with ATCA between 1.1 and 3.1 GHz. The authors set out to catch electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME), the radio beacon expected when a planet's motion drives Alfvén waves back into the stellar magnetosphere. They found that the star is radio-active with stochastic bursts and a 69% duty cycle, but no orbital-phase modulation and no persistent circular polarization. Their non-detection implies that less than 0.7% of the magnetic power generated by the star-planet interaction is converted into ECME radio waves in this band, assuming a simple dipole field and the standard Alfvén-wing power estimate.

What carries the argument

The central object is electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME), a coherent radio mechanism that produces highly circularly polarized, beamed radiation at the electron cyclotron frequency near the star. The search strategy relies on two signatures: ECME should be circularly polarized in Stokes V and should modulate with the 6.96-day orbital period of the inner planet, peaking at quadrature for a dipolar field. The paper combines 134.7 hours of ATCA observations in L/S band with orbital-phase folding and Stokes V upper limits to convert a null detection into a bound on the conversion efficiency.

What would settle it

Detect a Stokes V burst from HIP 67522 at 1.1–3.1 GHz with flux above about 1.1 mJy lasting roughly 30 minutes and recurring at orbital quadrature; that would directly contradict the claimed upper limit. Alternatively, a Zeeman Doppler imaging measurement showing that the large-scale field is much weaker than about 420 G or is dominated by high-order multipoles would invalidate the efficiency bound even without new radio data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an upper limit: at 1.1–3.1 GHz, HIP 67522 emits no planet-induced ECME above a Stokes V flux of roughly 1.1 mJy on 30-minute timescales. This bounds the ECME radio power to below 4.3×$10^{23}$ erg/s, i.e., a conversion efficiency below about 7×$10^{-3}$ of the 6×$10^{25}$ erg/s Alfvén-wing interaction power. The limit holds under a dipole field geometry with a large-scale field of about 420 G and an emission cone opening near 90 degrees, so that quadrature should be the visible phase; the campaign visited quadrature four times. The paper also establishes that the star's own radio emission is flaring, non-thermal coronal emission consistent with the Güdel-Benz relation, with two bursts reaching brightness temperatures above $10^{10}$ K.

Load-bearing premise

The 0.7% efficiency limit assumes the star's magnetic field is a simple dipole aligned with the rotation axis, that the large-scale field is about 20% of the measured 2100 G surface average, that the emission cone opens nearly 90 degrees so quadrature is the visible phase, that bursts last about 30 minutes with a 1-degree cone width, and that the star-planet interaction power is 6×$10^{25}$ erg/s; if any of these is wrong, the non-detection does not cap the conversion efficiency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit holds, the electron cyclotron maser channel dissipates at most about 0.7% of the magnetic power from the interaction, leaving other dissipation pathways such as reabsorption, low-frequency emission, or chromospheric heating as the main sinks.
  • The measured conversion efficiency is consistent with Jupiter–Galilean-moon radio efficiencies of 2–10×10^-3, so the non-detection does not rule out magnetic star-planet interaction in the Alfvén-wing scenario.
  • Any future claim of planet-induced ECME from HIP 67522 in the 1.1–3.1 GHz band must exceed about 1.1 mJy in Stokes V at quadrature to be consistent with this campaign.
  • The radio activity and bursts of HIP 67522 provide a baseline for distinguishing intrinsic stellar flares from interaction-driven emission in later multiwavelength monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dipole-field assumption is replaced by a complex multipolar field, the non-detection loses its constraining power; a measurement of the star's large-scale magnetic field topology via Zeeman Doppler imaging would directly test the limit.
  • The null result strengthens the case for looking at lower frequencies: if ECME escapes only at weaker field strengths further out, LOFAR-band observations around 144 MHz could detect emission that ATCA's band would miss.
  • The 0.7% cap applies along our line of sight for a specific beaming geometry; the all-sky average efficiency could be higher if the emission is narrowly beamed away from Earth, so the limit should be read as a line-of-sight constraint.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 134.7 h ATCA monitoring campaign of the 17 Myr old G dwarf HIP 67522 at 1.1–3.1 GHz, searching for periodically occurring electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME) driven by its close-in planet. The star is found to be radio-active, with stochastic variability, a duty cycle of ~69% above 0.24 mJy, two notable bursts, and quiescent emission consistent with the Güdel-Benz relation. No orbital modulation or persistent circular polarization is detected, despite 61% orbital phase coverage including four quadrature visits. The authors place an upper limit of 4.3×10^23 erg/s on ECME power, corresponding to less than ~0.7% conversion efficiency of the star-planet interaction power into radio emission, with caveats regarding beaming, reabsorption, and phase/frequency coverage.

Significance. If correct, this is the first observational constraint on the ECME efficiency for a young star-planet system that shows strong independent evidence for planet-induced flaring. The null result is well supported by a long monitoring campaign with repeated quadrature visits, a clearly defined detection threshold (S/N > 4, upper limits at four times the RMS), and public analysis scripts. The main caveats — field geometry, beaming, and reabsorption — are explicitly acknowledged, making the conclusion appropriately cautious. The paper provides a useful upper limit for a benchmark system in star-planet interaction studies.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.3] The central quantitative claim — the 4.3×10^23 erg/s upper limit on ECME power and the corresponding <0.7% efficiency — is not reproducible from the text. The paragraph states the 1.1 mJy Stokes V limit, the 30-minute burst duration, the ~1° cone width, and the 2100 G field with 20% large-scale fraction, but no explicit formula connects these to the quoted power. The reader's estimate from an isotropic calculation (4π d² S Δν with d=124.7 pc, S=1.1 mJy, Δν=2 GHz) gives ~4×10^25 erg/s, and multiplying by a 30-min/6.96-d duty cycle gives ~10^23 erg/s, so the quoted value appears to include a beaming factor, but this is not stated. Please provide the full calculation, including the assumed beaming solid angle (e.g., Ω = 2π sin(90°)·Δθ with Δθ = 1°), any duty-cycle factor, and how the two quadrature visits are combined. Without this, the abstract's headline number cannot be verified from the manuscript alone, even though the public scripts may contain the derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] In the description of baseline removal, the phrase 'in the H168 configuration, this removes all but 4 baselines' is confusing; please clarify which baselines remain and why that is sufficient for the imaging.
  2. [Table 2] The June 26, 2024 observing run appears twice with identical entries; this is likely a duplication artifact and should be removed.
  3. [Section 4.3] There is a typo: 'EMCE' should be 'ECME' in the sentence about the emission cone.
  4. [Section 3] The duty cycle definition relies on a threshold F_thresh = 0.24 mJy, but the treatment of observations where the upper limit is above F_thresh is not specified; please clarify whether such epochs are excluded, and how this affects the reported 69% duty cycle.
  5. [Acknowledgements] The public scripts link is placed in the acknowledgements; consider adding a dedicated Data Availability statement, as is common in A&A, to ensure the link is preserved in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Section 4.3's efficiency limit is a null-detection upper limit converted with external, independently published assumptions; the self-citations provide prior measurements rather than presupposing the result.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is self-contained in the relevant sense: the radio observations yield an upper limit on Stokes V flux, which is converted under stated assumptions into an upper limit on ECME power, and then divided by the independently estimated Alfvén-wing interaction power from Saur et al. (2013). No step defines the target quantity in terms of itself. The surface field strength of 2100 G cited from Ilin et al. (2024) is an independent prior measurement from a different analysis, not a parameter fitted to the radio non-detection; the flare-clustering claim from Ilin et al. (2025) is motivation and context, not the basis of the efficiency limit. The assumptions about dipole geometry, cone width, and the 20% large-scale field fraction are explicitly stated and could be varied, making the limit conditional rather than circularly forced. Section 4.3 does not fully spell out the algebra connecting 1.1 mJy to 4.3e23 erg/s, but that is a reproducibility/transparency gap, not a logical circularity; the public GitHub scripts are offered for verification. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core null result requires few free parameters; the main fitted quantities are the spectral index and the duty-cycle threshold. The derived efficiency upper limit imports several external assumptions (dipole field, interaction power, beaming geometry), all stated by the authors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Combined spectral index alpha = ~1.0
    Joint least-squares power-law fit to four 500 MHz sub-band fluxes (Section 3), used to extrapolate the 2.1 GHz luminosity to the VLA band for the Güdel-Benz comparison.
  • Duty-cycle threshold F_thresh = 0.24 mJy
    Set to the lowest detected 1-hour flux density (April 21 epoch), then used to classify runs as 'on' or 'off', yielding the 69% duty cycle (Section 3).
  • ECME cone width = ~1 deg
    Assumed so that a 30-minute burst averaged over a full run corresponds to the 1.1 mJy Stokes V upper limit (Section 4.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Güdel-Benz relation holds for this star and the X-ray luminosity conversion to the 0.2-2.0 keV band is valid
    Used to classify the radio emission as coronal and likely incoherent (Section 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar magnetic field is a simple dipole aligned with the rotation axis, with large-scale field strength about 20% of the 2100 G mean surface field
    Needed to predict quadrature beaming and to convert the Stokes V limit into an ECM power limit (Section 4.3).
  • ad hoc to paper ECME is beamed into a cone with opening angle near 90 degrees, and the burst limit corresponds to a roughly 1 degree cone width
    Determines which orbital phases and time scales would contain detectable emission (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Alfvén-wing interaction power is 6×10^25 erg/s (Saur et al. 2013)
    Reference value used to convert the radio power upper limit into an efficiency (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Equivalence of optical and radio flare rates for estimating burst energies
    Used to argue the June 11 and May 11 bursts would be TESS/CHEOPS non-detections (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for planet-induced radio signal from the young close-in planet host star HIP 67522." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWGQWJQR

@misc{pith2026250700796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for planet-induced radio signal from the young close-in planet host star HIP 67522},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWGQWJQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00796}
}
abstract

HIP 67522 is a 17 Myr old 1.2$M_\odot$ dwarf, and the only such young star known to host two close-in gas giant planets. The inner planet likely orbits close enough to its host to power magnetic star-planet interactions. In the radio domain, magnetic star-planet interaction is expected to produce a unique signature: electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME), beamed in phase with the orbit of the close-in planet. We conducted the longest radio monitoring campaign of a G dwarf host star to date to search for ECME, totaling $135\,$h on HIP 67522 over a period of five months with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) between $1.1-3.1$GHz. We find that HIP 67522 is active in the radio, with emission that varies stochastically, with a duty cycle of $69\%$ above $0.24$mJy, and frequent bursts. Both the bursts and the quiescent emission are consistent with the canonical G\"udel-Benz relation, and show a positive spectral index and brightness temperatures $\geq 10^{10}$K, indicating likely a flaring origin. Our observations cover $61\%$ of the innermost planet's orbit, including multiple visits of the quadrature where planet-induced ECME detection is most likely for this system. However, no orbital modulation or persistent polarization of the radio emission was detected. Our upper limit on circularly polarized emission from HIP 67522 suggests a $<0.7\%$ conversion efficiency of the magnetic power generated in the star-planet interaction into radio waves, unless the emission was missed by our phase or frequency coverage, or was absorbed in the circumstellar plasma. HIP 67522 is a system with one of the highest expected powers of star-planet interaction among known systems and shows strong indication of planet-induced flaring, motivating observations at other wavelengths to probe for further dissipation pathways.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves of Stokes I flux density in the 1.1 − 3.1 GHz band of ATCA, with one panel for each observing run where HIP 67522 was detected. Gray arrows indicate non-detections, with arrow length corresponding to the 1 − σ RMS noise. Article number, page 3 of 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ATCA Stokes I light curves from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radio spectra of HIP 67522 (diamonds, same color-coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dynamic spectrum of the June 11, 2024, radio burst. We omitted frequencies below 1.4 GHz, which were dominated by RFI. The burst mostly occupies higher frequencies, likely beyond the 3.1 GHz limit, and its spectrum shows a positive slope (right panel, see also [PITH_F…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Thao, P

    Barber, M. G., Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L30

    2024

  2. [2]

    J., Hellier, C., et al

    Barkaoui, K., Pozuelos, F. J., Hellier, C., et al. 2024, NatAs, 8, 909

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2021, Exp

    Benz, W., Broeg, C., Fortier, A., et al. 2021, Exp. Astron., 51, 109

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Berger, E., Basri, G., Fleming, T. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 332

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    2023, A&A, 671, A50

    Blanco-Pozo, J., Perger, M., Damasso, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A50

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    R., Vedantham, H

    Bloot, S., Callingham, J. R., Vedantham, H. K., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A170

    2024

  7. [7]

    R., Pope, B

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

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    R., Vedantham, H

    Callingham, J. R., Vedantham, H. K., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2021, NatAs, 5, 1233

    work page 2021

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    W., Shkolnik, E

    Cauley, P. W., Shkolnik, E. L., Llama, J., & Lanza, A. F. 2019, NatAs, 3, 1128

    2019

  2. [10]

    M., Vedantham, H

    Cordun, C. M., Vedantham, H. K., Brentjens, M. A., & van der Tak, F. F. S. 2025, A&A, 693, A162

    2025

  3. [11]

    2024, ArXiv e-prints [2408.14612] de Zeeuw, P

    Davis, I., Hallinan, G., Ayala, C., Dong, D., & Myers, S. 2024, ArXiv e-prints [2408.14612] de Zeeuw, P. T., Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Brown, A. G. A., & Blaauw, A. 1999, AJ, 117, 354

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482

    2009

  5. [13]

    Dulk, G. A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 169

    1985

  6. [14]

    Dulk, G. A. & Marsh, K. A. 1982, ApJ, 259, 350

    1982

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V ., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459

    2015

  8. [16]

    & Saur, J

    Fischer, C. & Saur, J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 113 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    2019

  9. [17]

    & Arnaud, K

    Gordon, C. & Arnaud, K. 2021, ASCL, ascl:2101.014

    2021

  10. [18]

    Gudel, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Benz, A. O. 1994, Science, 265, 933 Article number, page 6 of 8 E. Ilin et al.: Searching for planet-induced radio signal from the young close-in planet host star HIP 67522

    1994

  11. [19]

    & Benz, A

    Guedel, M. & Benz, A. O. 1993, ApJ, 405, L63 Güdel, M. 2004, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 12, 71

    1993

  12. [20]

    G., et al

    Hallinan, G., Antonova, A., Doyle, J. G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 644

    2008

  13. [21]

    P., Cotter, G., et al

    Hallinan, G., Littlefair, S. P., Cotter, G., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 568

    2015

  14. [22]

    N., et al

    Heitzmann, A., Zhou, G., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2021, ApJL, 922, L1

    2021

  15. [23]

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

    2011

  16. [24]

    & Poppenhaeger, K

    Ilin, E. & Poppenhaeger, K. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4579

    2022

  17. [25]

    Ilin, E., Poppenhäger, K., Chebly, J., Ili ´c, N., & Alvarado-Gómez, J. D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3395

    2024

  18. [26]

    2025, Nature, in press

    Ilin, E., Vedantham, H., Poppenhaeger, K., et al. 2025, Nature, in press

    2025

  19. [27]

    D., Vidotto, A

    Kavanagh, R. D., Vidotto, A. A., Klein, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1511

    2021

  20. [28]

    & Poppenhäger, K

    Ketzer, L. & Poppenhäger, K. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1683

    2023

  21. [29]

    J., & Wehrhahn, A

    Kochukhov, O., Hackman, T., Lehtinen, J. J., & Wehrhahn, A. 2020, A&A, 635, A142

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lanza, A. F. 2018, A&A, 610, A81

    2018

  23. [31]

    Laughlin, G., Crismani, M., & Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJ, 729, L7 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72

    2011

  24. [32]

    2024, A&A, 690, A383

    Maggio, A., Pillitteri, I., Argiroffi, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A383

    2024

  25. [33]

    Martioli, E., Hébrard, G., Correia, A. C. M., Laskar, J., & Lecavelier des Etangs, A. 2021, A&A, 649, A177

    2021

  26. [34]

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

    1982

  27. [35]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606

    2014

  28. [36]

    A., Hawley, S

    Osten, R. A., Hawley, S. L., Allred, J. C., Johns-Krull, C. M., & Roark, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 398

    2005

  29. [37]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1

    2011

  30. [38]

    Pineda, J. S. & Villadsen, J. 2023, NatAs, 7, 569

    2023

  31. [39]

    2020, Nature, 582, 497

    Plavchan, P., Barclay, T., Gagné, J., et al. 2020, Nature, 582, 497

    2020

  32. [40]

    Pope, B. J. S., Callingham, J. R., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, L10

    2021

  33. [41]

    & Schmitt, J

    Poppenhaeger, K. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2011, ApJ, 735, 59 Pérez-Torres, M., Gómez, J. F., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A77

    2011

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Reiners, A., Shulyak, D., Käpylä, P. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A41

    2022

  35. [43]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst., 1, 014003

    2015

  36. [44]

    C., Newton, E

    Rizzuto, A. C., Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 33

    2020

  37. [45]

    M., & Simon, S

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

    2013

  38. [46]

    Scharf, C. A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1547

    2010

  39. [47]

    A., Walker, G

    Shkolnik, E., Bohlender, D. A., Walker, G. A. H., & Collier Cameron, A. 2008, ApJ, 676, 628

    2008

  40. [48]

    Shkolnik, E. L. & Llama, J. 2018, Signatures of Star-Planet Interactions, Hand- book of Exoplanets (Springer International Publishing AG)

    2018

  41. [49]

    J., Oklopˇci´c, A., & Hillenbrand, L

    Spake, J. J., Oklopˇci´c, A., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2021, AJ, 162, 284

    2021

  42. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 4556

    Strugarek, A., Fares, R., Bourrier, V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4556

    2022

  43. [51]

    C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Team, T. C., Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    2022

  44. [52]

    C., Mann, A

    Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 297

    2024

  45. [53]

    2015, Annu

    Tian, F. 2015, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 43, 459

    2015

  46. [54]

    Treumann, R. A. 2006, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 13, 229

    2006

  47. [55]

    1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241

    Truemper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241

    1982

  48. [56]

    D., Grießmeier, J.-M., Zarka, P., Zhang, X., & Mauduit, E

    Turner, J. D., Grießmeier, J.-M., Zarka, P., Zhang, X., & Mauduit, E. 2024, A&A, 688, A66

    2024

  49. [57]

    D., Zarka, P., Grießmeier, J.-M., et al

    Turner, J. D., Zarka, P., Grießmeier, J.-M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A59 van Diepen, G., Dijkema, T. J., & Offringa, A. 2018, ASCL, ascl:1804.003 Van Looveren, G., Güdel, M., Boro Saikia, S., & Kislyakova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A153

    2021

  50. [58]

    K., Callingham, J

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

    2020

  51. [59]

    Williams, P. K. G., Cook, B. A., & Berger, E. 2014, ApJ, 785, 9

    2014

  52. [60]

    E., Ferris, R

    Wilson, W. E., Ferris, R. H., Axtens, P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 832

    2011

  53. [61]

    Yiu, T. W. H., Vedantham, H. K., Callingham, J. R., & Günther, M. N. 2024, A&A, 684, A3

    2024

  54. [62]

    A., Ryabov, B

    Zarka, P., Treumann, R. A., Ryabov, B. P., & Ryabov, V . B. 2001, Astrophys. Space Sci., 277, 293 Article number, page 7 of 8 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54684-25 Appendix A: Stokes I detection Fig. A.1. HIP 67522 detected in Stokes I with ATCA during the June 11 burst (top p...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.