Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 116 references

The magnetic and spin-down properties of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs have stronger large-scale magnetic fields than standard Rossby-number scalings predict, so their spin-down torques have been underestimated by an order of magnitude or more.

desk verdict The field-strength offset for slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs is real and worth knowing, but the order-of-magnitude torque claim is conditional on an untested mapping into an axisymmetric braking law. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16986 v1 pith:5ODI4LVH submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.SR

Victor See , Louis Amard , Stefano Bellotti , Sudeshna Boro Saikia , Emma L. Brown , Jean-Francois Donati , Rim Fares , Adam J. Finley
show 14 more authors
Colin P. Folsom Élodie M. Hébrard Moira M. Jardine Sandra V. Jeffers Baptiste Klein Lisa T. Lehmann Stephen C. Marsden Sean P. Matt Matthew W. Mengel Julien Morin Pascal Petit Katelyn Smith Aline A. Vidotto Ian A. Waite
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magneticbrakingfullyconvectiveMdwarfsZeeman-DopplerimagingRossbynumberstellarspin-downpoloidal-toroidalenergyactivity-rotationrelationdwarfdynamos
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

Using 260 Zeeman-Doppler imaging maps of 96 low-mass stars, this paper compares the large-scale magnetic fields of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs with those of partially convective stars across the Rossby number plane. It finds that in the unsaturated regime, the dipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar field components of the slowly rotating fully convective stars are systematically stronger and do not follow the same Rossby number scaling as partially convective stars. Because those multipole components set the magnetic braking torque, the paper shows that torques computed from standard field-Rossby scalings underestimate the true spin-down of these stars by an order of magnitude or more. If correct, magnetic braking laws and rotation evolution models need separately calibrated field-Rossby relations for fully convective stars, and fully convective and partially convective stars also occupy distinct sequences in poloidal versus toroidal magnetic energy space.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Zeeman-Doppler imaging (ZDI) spherical harmonic decomposition of photospheric magnetic fields, from which the dipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar field strengths are extracted. These enter a broken power-law activity-rotation relation, $\langle B\rangle = B_{\rm sat}$ for $\mathrm{Ro}<\mathrm{Ro}_{\rm crit}$ and $\langle B\rangle = B_{\rm sat}(\mathrm{Ro}/\mathrm{Ro}_{\rm crit})^\beta$ otherwise, fitted to the partially convective stars. Torques are evaluated with the magnetic braking law used here, a twice-broken power law in which the torque-averaged Alfv\'en radius is set by the dipole, dipole+quadrupole, or dipole+quadrupole+octupole wind magnetisation; because mass-loss rates are unknown, the paper forms the torque ratio $T_{\rm pred}/T_\star$ given in equations (14a)-(14c), where the mass-loss rate cancels. A new convective turnover time prescription (equation 2), built from stellar structure models and normalised to the solar value, sets the Rossby numbers for the cool fully convective stars.

What would settle it

Measure the wind mass-loss rate of one slowly rotating fully convective M dwarf directly (for example through astrospheric absorption or radio emission); with the ZDI multipoles already in hand, this removes the cancellation that makes the torque ratio mass-loss-independent, and if the resulting torque came within a factor of two of the standard scaling, the order-of-magnitude underestimate would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the large-scale magnetic fields of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs are stronger, at a given Rossby number in the unsaturated regime, than the activity-rotation relation calibrated on partially convective stars predicts, and that this holds separately for the dipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar components. For the six slowly rotating M dwarfs at the centre of the study, torque ratios $T_{\rm pred}/T_\star$ fall at roughly $0.1$ or below, so a standard scaling-based estimate of angular momentum loss is too small by at least an order of magnitude. The same stars sit clearly above the main unsaturated branch in total field strength and poloidal magnetic energy, while their toroidal energies follow the partially convective trend. A further result is that poloidal versus toroidal magnetic energy space is split into two nearly parallel sequences, divided near $0.5\,M_\odot$; the paper reads this, together with the field-strength excess, as evidence that the dynamos of fully convective and partially convective stars operate differently at least for the large-scale field.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the MHD braking law used here, calibrated on axisymmetric polar field configurations, still produces the correct torque when its inputs are the surface-averaged unsigned dipole, quadrupole and octupole strengths recovered by ZDI rather than the polar field strengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard magnetic braking scalings, calibrated on partially convective stars, underestimate the spin-down torque of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs by an order of magnitude or more.
  • Rotation evolution models that use a single field-Rossby relation for all low-mass stars will need separate relations for fully convective and partially convective stars in the unsaturated regime.
  • The stronger-than-expected large-scale fields imply faster angular momentum loss for slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs than for partially convective stars of comparable Rossby number.
  • The dynamo difference appears confined to large-scale fields, since X-ray activity, which traces small-scale fields, seems to follow a common Rossby scaling for both types of stars.
  • ZDI maps of fully convective M dwarfs with intermediate rotation periods are needed to locate where the transition to the new scaling occurs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the torque underestimate holds, the rotation periods of old, slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs should be shorter than standard gyrochronology predicts for their ages; comparing cluster or field period distributions with rotation evolution models would test this.
  • Because the six-star subsample includes Gl 408, whose rotation period is disputed in the literature (about 171 d versus 53 d), the strength of the sample depends on settling that period; a 53 d period would shrink the subsample and push the dynamo transition slightly above the full-convection boundary rather than exactly at it.
  • A direct test would measure mass-loss rates for one or two of these stars, bypassing the torque-ratio cancellation and checking the braking-law field-strength substitution directly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper compiles 260 Zeeman-Doppler imaging (ZDI) maps of 96 low-mass stars and focuses on six slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs, including the disputed case of Gl 408. It fits activity-rotation relations of the form of Eq. (10) to the total, dipole, quadrupole, and octupole field strengths and finds that the slowly rotating fully convective stars lie systematically above the unsaturated-regime relation defined by the rest of the sample. Using the Finley & Matt (2018) braking law, the paper computes torque ratios and argues that standard Rossby-number-scaled field strengths would underestimate the spin-down torques of these stars by an order of magnitude or more. The paper also reports two nearly parallel sequences in poloidal versus toroidal magnetic energy, separated near 0.5 solar masses, extending an earlier result.

Significance. If the magnetic offset is real, the paper provides important evidence that fully convective and partially convective stars occupy different dynamo regimes in the unsaturated regime, which would require separate magnetic braking prescriptions in rotation evolution models. The paper's strengths are its large compiled ZDI sample, the new turnover-time prescription, the explicit exclusion of the target stars from the activity-rotation fits (making the torque-ratio test out-of-sample for those stars), and the honest treatment of the Gl 408 period and convective-status controversy. The poloidal-toroidal two-sequence result is a useful confirmation and extension of See et al. (2015). However, the spin-down implication rests on an unvalidated mapping between ZDI surface-averaged unsigned multipole strengths and the polar axisymmetric field strengths used to calibrate the braking law; the torque-ratio interpretation also depends on a dipole-dominated regime that is not observationally established for these stars.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (12)–(14)] The paper substitutes surface-averaged unsigned ZDI field strengths into the Finley & Matt (2018) braking law, whose calibration simulations used axisymmetric fields and polar field strengths. This mapping, adopted from See et al. (2019b), is not independently tested. The conversion between surface-averaged unsigned multipole strengths and the torque-effective field may differ between the mostly dipolar, axisymmetric partially convective calibration stars and the strongly non-axisymmetric, multipolar slowly rotating fully convective stars. Since the torque scales as B^{4m} with m_d = 0.229, a factor-of-two change in the effective field changes the torque ratio by roughly a factor of two, which could move some of the ~0.1 ratios in Fig. 8 above 0.1 and weaken the order-of-magnitude claim. The authors should validate or bound this conversion, for example by recomputing Eq. (14) with polar field strengths extracted from the same ZDI maps, or by reporting the sensitivity of the torque ratios to plausible conversion factors.
  2. [§4, Eq. (13) and Fig. 8] The abstract's statement that previous torque estimates 'could have been underestimated by an order of magnitude or more' rests on the dipole-dominated torque ratio (Eq. 14a), which the text itself identifies as the most extreme case. Because the stellar mass-loss rate is unknown, the true torque ratio can lie anywhere between the minimum and maximum of Eq. (13), and the authors state that the vertical ranges in Fig. 8 generally lie closer to unity than the dipole-only points. Without an observational constraint on the mass-loss rate that places these stars in the dipole-dominated regime, the order-of-magnitude statement is not established for the actual torque. Please soften the wording in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a mass-loss-rate constraint that justifies the dipole-dominated assumption.
  3. [§3.1 and §4] The text in §4 describes the standard Rossby scaling as 'calibrated only to PC stars,' but the fit to Eq. (10) excludes only the slowly rotating M dwarfs and stars with Ro < 0.006; it does not explicitly restrict the fit to partially convective stars. If any non-slow fully convective stars are included in the fit, the baseline relation is not purely a partially convective relation, and the inference that the offset is a fully-convective versus partially-convective dichotomy is not strictly what is shown. Please either restrict the fit to partially convective stars and verify that the offset persists, or revise the language in the abstract, §4, and §6 to describe the comparison as being against the rest of the ZDI sample rather than against partially convective stars only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] There is a typo: 'bounadry' should be 'boundary' in the paragraph describing Fig. 1.
  2. [§3.2] There is a typo: 'axiysmmetric' should be 'axisymmetric' in the sentence about toroidal fields being axisymmetric.
  3. [Appendix B] There is a typo: 'toques' should be 'torques' in the first paragraph of the appendix.
  4. [§2.2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is presented in a broken format in the text; the min of the two polynomial expressions should be typeset as a single displayed equation.
  5. [§5.2] Given that Gl 408 has a disputed rotation period, it would strengthen the presentation to include a supplementary version of Fig. 3 and Fig. 8 with Gl 408 placed at P_rot = 53 d, so the reader can see the effect on the key claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the six slowly rotating FC M dwarfs are explicitly excluded from the activity-rotation fit, so the claimed offset and torque-ratio underestimate are genuine out-of-sample tests.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not built into its inputs. The activity-rotation relation (eq. 10) is fitted to the compiled sample while the target stars are excluded: 'we also exclude the slowly rotating M dwarfs (the ones shown as squares) from the fit as they clearly do not follow the same trend.' The torque ratio T_pred/T_star for those stars is therefore an out-of-sample comparison, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The ratio itself is derived from the externally calibrated Finley & Matt (2018) braking law and from measured ZDI multipole strengths; the exponents in eqs. (14a)-(14c) follow from that MHD-calibrated law rather than from the data under study. The acknowledged approximation of substituting surface-averaged unsigned ZDI field strengths for the polar field strengths used in Finley & Matt (2018)'s axisymmetric simulations is a transparent modeling uncertainty, and it is applied consistently to both T_pred and T_star, so it does not manufacture the FC/PC offset. The new turnover-time prescription is not circular because §5.3 explicitly tests alternative published prescriptions and finds none removes the offset. The poloidal-toroidal two-sequence result was noted in See et al. (2015), but this work uses an expanded 260-map sample to re-derive and quantify the sequences rather than merely renaming a known result. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper fits an activity-rotation relation to its own sample, constructs a new turnover time prescription, and relies on a braking law calibrated in prior work. The torque conclusion inherits these fitting choices and the braking law applicability assumption.

free parameters (7)
  • Total field fit (Bsat, Rocrit, beta) = 219 +/- 29 G, 0.065 +/- 0.009, -1.32 +/- 0.05
    Parameters of equation (10) fitted to the sample excluding slow rotators and Ro < 0.006 stars (Table 3).
  • Dipole field fit (Bsat, Rocrit, beta) = 179 +/- 26 G, 0.032 +/- 0.006, -1.13 +/- 0.06
    Component-specific fit used to predict dipole field strengths in the torque ratio (Table 3).
  • Quadrupole field fit (Bsat, Rocrit, beta) = 64 +/- 8 G, 0.057 +/- 0.009, -1.19 +/- 0.05
    Component-specific fit used to predict quadrupole field strengths in the torque ratio (Table 3).
  • Octupole field fit (Bsat, Rocrit, beta) = 36 +/- 5 G, 0.088 +/- 0.013, -1.32 +/- 0.06
    Component-specific fit used to predict octupole field strengths in the torque ratio (Table 3).
  • Turnover time fit coefficients (a1..b4) = Table 2
    Coefficients of equation (2), fitted to global turnover times from Amard et al. (2019) structure models; they set the Rossby numbers of all stars.
  • Turnover time scaling factor = 0.39
    Hand-chosen factor normalizing the new turnover time prescription to Cranmer and Saar (2011) at solar effective temperature (Section 2.2). The paper argues it does not affect conclusions.
  • Mass split for poloidal/toroidal sequences = 0.5 Msun
    Chosen dividing mass for the two sequences in Figure 5; Appendix A tests 0.4 and 0.6 Msun.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ZDI spherical harmonic coefficients represent the true large-scale photospheric magnetic field.
    All field strengths and energies are derived from published ZDI maps (Section 2.1 and equations 3-9).
  • domain assumption The Rossby number, as defined with the new turnover time prescription, parameterizes the dynamo-generated magnetic field strength.
    The analysis assumes Ro is the correct organizing parameter for activity and spin-down (Sections 1 and 3.1).
  • domain assumption The Finley and Matt (2018) braking law is applicable to ZDI-derived field strengths, including non-axisymmetric components.
    Torque ratio estimates in Section 4 and Appendix B rely on equations (11)-(14).
  • domain assumption The global turnover time integral (equation 1) is a valid measure of convective turnover time for fully convective stars.
    Equation (2) and all Rossby numbers depend on this definition (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The six slowly rotating M dwarfs are distinct from the rest of the sample and their ZDI field reconstructions are reliable.
    Central comparison in Figures 3 and 4 and Section 3.1; includes Gl 408 whose FC status and rotation period are uncertain (Section 5.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The magnetic and spin-down properties of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ODI4LVH

@misc{pith2026250716986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The magnetic and spin-down properties of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ODI4LVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16986}
}
read the original abstract

The evolution of the magnetism, winds and rotation of low-mass stars are all linked. One of the most common ways to probe the magnetic properties of low-mass stars is with the Zeeman-Doppler imaging (ZDI) technique. The magnetic properties of partially convective stars has been relatively well explored with the ZDI technique, but the same is not true of fully convective stars. In this work, we analyse a sample of stars that have been mapped with ZDI. Notably, this sample contains a number of slowly rotating fully convective M dwarfs whose magnetic fields were recently reconstructed with ZDI. We find that the dipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar field strengths of the slowly rotating fully convective stars do not follow the same Rossby number scaling in the unsaturated regime as partially convective stars. Based on these field strengths, we demonstrate that previous estimates of spin-down torques for slowly rotating fully convective stars could have been underestimated by an order of magnitude or more. Additionally, we also find that fully convective and partially convective stars fall into distinct sequences when comparing their poloidal and toroidal magnetic energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rotation periods and masses of the sample of stars used in this study. A set of slowly rotating M dwarfs are shown with red square symbols which we will pay special attention to in the rest of this work. The vertical gray band represents the approximate location of the fully convective boundary. Finley et al. 2019a; Folsom et al. 2016, 2018a). However, the sam￾ples in these studies did not contain any slowly rot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convective turnover time as a function of effective temperature. The blue circular points are the global turnover times taken from the the individual models of Amard et al. (2019). The blue dotted curve is a fit to these data points. The red curve shows the turnover time prescription of Cranmer & Saar (2011). The solid blue curve is the dotted blue curve normalised, such that it has the same turnover time value as t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The average unsigned magnetic field strength of our sample of stars vs Rossby number. The slowly rotating M dwarfs identified in fig. 1 are shown with square symbols. The red curve is a fit using equation 10. The slowly rotating M dwarfs and stars with Rossby numbers smaller than 0.006 are not included in this fit (see text for further details). 𝑋𝑙𝑚(𝜃, 𝜙) = 𝑐𝑙𝑚 𝑙 + 1 𝑖𝑚 sin 𝜃 𝑃𝑙𝑚(cos 𝜃)𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝜙 , (7) 𝑍𝑙𝑚(𝜃, 𝜙) = 𝑐𝑙𝑚 𝑙 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The average unsigned dipolar, quadrupolar and octupolar magnetic field strengths of our sample of stars vs Rossby number. The slowly rotating M dwarfs identified in fig. 1 are shown with square symbols. The red curve is a fit using equation 10. The slowly rotating M dw…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Toroidal magnetic energy density vs poloidal magnetic energy density for our sample of stars coloured by stellar mass. Circle symbols indicate stars more massive than 0.5𝑀⊙, pentagon symbols indicate stars less massive than 0.5𝑀⊙ and square symbols indicate stars belon…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Poloidal (left panel) and toroidal (right panel) magnetic energy density vs Rossby number for our sample of stars coloured by stellar mass. The slowly rotating M dwarfs identified in fig. 1 are shown with square symbols. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ftor = B 2 tor / B 2 tot 0.0…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of magnetic energy contained in axisymmetric modes vs the fraction of magnetic energy contained in the toroidal field for our sample of stars coloured by stellar mass. The slowly rotating M dwarfs identified in fig. 1 are shown with square symbols. 3.2 Pol…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The torque ratio for our sample of stars vs Rossby number. 𝑇pred is a predicted torque calculated using dipole, quadrupole and octupole field strengths estimated with equation (10) and the fit parameters in table 3 while 𝑇★ is calculated using the dipole, quadrupole an…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Toroidal magnetic energy density vs poloidal magnetic energy density for our sample stars. In each panel, stars are divided into two sub-samples based on their stellar mass. The stellar mass value used to define the two sub-samples, denoted 𝑀★split, is varied and shown…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A sketch of how the torque varies as a function of mass-loss rate (see equation (11) and (12)) when only considering dipole and quadrupole field components. The red and blue curves represent 𝑇pred and 𝑇★ respectively. The torque ratio, as defined in section 4, is prop…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amard L., Palacios A., Charbonnel C., Gallet F., Georgy C., Lagarde N., Siess L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A..77A 631, A77

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935160 2019

  2. [2]

    Baraffe I., Chabrier G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A.177B 619, A177

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834062 2018

  3. [3]

    A., Kim Y.-C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..675B 721, 675

    Barnes S. A., Kim Y.-C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..675B 721, 675

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/1/675 2010

  4. [4]

    A., Weingrill J., Fritzewski D., Strassmeier K

    Barnes S. A., Weingrill J., Fritzewski D., Strassmeier K. G., Platais I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...16B 823, 16

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/16 2016

  5. [5]

    Bellotti S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A..56B 676, A56

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346845 2023

  6. [6]

    arXiv:2403.08590

    Bellotti S., et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08590 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240308590B p. arXiv:2403.08590

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.08590

  7. [7]

    A BCool survey of stellar magnetic cycles

    Bellotti S., et al., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241209365B p. arXiv:2412.09365

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09365

  8. [8]

    V., Petit P., Marsden S., Morin J., Folsom C

    Boro Saikia S., Jeffers S. V., Petit P., Marsden S., Morin J., Folsom C. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..17B 573, A17

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424096 2015

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    Boro Saikia S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..29B 594, A29

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Boro Saikia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834347 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620L..11B 620, L11

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Newton E

    Boudreaux T. M., Newton E. R., Mondrik N., Charbonneau D., Irwin J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5cbf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929...80B 929, 80

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Matt S

    Breimann A. A., Matt S. P., Naylor T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...75B 913, 75

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    F., Donati J

    Brown S. F., Donati J. F., Rees D. E., Semel M., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...250..463B 250, 463

    1991

  6. [14]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3981B 501, 3981

    Brown E. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.3981B 501, 3981

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Marsden S

    Brown E. L., Marsden S. C., Jeffers S. V., Heitzmann A., Barnes J. R., Folsom C. P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4092B 528, 4092

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Browning M

    Brun A. S., Browning M. K., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRSP...14....4B 14, 4

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2165C 517, 2165

    Cao L., Pinsonneault M. H., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2165C 517, 2165

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Chabrier G., Baraffe I., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9704118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...327.1039C 327, 1039

    1997 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    L., Heintz T

    Chiti F., van Saders J. L., Heintz T. M., Hermes J. J., Ong J. M. J., Hey D. R., Ramirez-Weinhouse M. M., Dugas A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240312129C p. arXiv:2403.12129

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    A., Santos A

    Corsaro E., Bonanno A., Mathur S., Garc \' a R. A., Santos A. R. G., Breton S. N., Khalatyan A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652L...2C 652, L2

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Saar S

    Cranmer S. R., Saar S. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...54C 741, 54

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5648C 526, 5648

    Cristofari P. I., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5648C 526, 5648

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..140C 904, 140

    Curtis J. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..140C 904, 140

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Brown S

    Donati J. F., Brown S. F., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...326.1135D 326, 1135

    1997

  17. [25]

    F., Landstreet J

    Donati J. F., Landstreet J. D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..333D 47, 333

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07031.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1145D 345, 1145

    Donati J. F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07031.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1145D 345, 1145

    2003

  19. [27]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10558.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..629D 370, 629

    Donati J. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10558.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370..629D 370, 629

    2006

  20. [29]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2015D 525, 2015

    Donati J. F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.2015D 525, 2015

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    T., Ag \"u eros M

    Douglas S. T., Ag \"u eros M. A., Covey K. R., Cargile P. A., Barclay T., Cody A., Howell S. B., Kopytova T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...47D 822, 47

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    T., Ag \"u eros M

    Douglas S. T., Ag \"u eros M. A., Covey K. R., Kraus A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6e52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...83D 842, 83

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    T., Curtis J

    Douglas S. T., Curtis J. L., Ag \"u eros M. A., Cargile P. A., Brewer J. M., Meibom S., Jansen T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2468 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879..100D 879, 100

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    A., Magnier E

    Dungee R., van Saders J., Gaidos E., Chun M., Garc \' a R. A., Magnier E. A., Mathur S., Santos \^A . R. G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..118D 938, 118

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    Fares R., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15303.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1383F 398, 1383

    2009

  26. [36]

    Fares R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20780.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1006F 423, 1006

    2012

  27. [37]

    F., Catala C., Shkolnik E

    Fares R., Moutou C., Donati J. F., Catala C., Shkolnik E. L., Jardine M. M., Cameron A. C., Deleuil M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1386 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435.1451F 435, 1451

    2013 doi

  28. [38]

    Fares R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1246F 471, 1246

    2017 doi

  29. [39]

    L., Hallinan G., Gaidos E., Skinner S

    Fichtinger B., G \"u del M., Mutel R. L., Hallinan G., Gaidos E., Skinner S. L., Lynch C., Gayley K. G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A.127F 599, A127

    2017 doi

  30. [40]

    J., Matt S

    Finley A. J., Matt S. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fb9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845...46F 845, 46

    2017 doi

  31. [41]

    J., Matt S

    Finley A. J., Matt S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...78F 854, 78

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    J., See V., Matt S

    Finley A. J., See V., Matt S. P., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...44F 876, 44

    doi

  33. [43]

    J., Hewitt A

    Finley A. J., Hewitt A. L., Matt S. P., Owens M., Pinto R. F., R \'e ville V., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ff4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885L..30F 885, L30

    doi

  34. [44]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L...4F 902, L4

    Finley A. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9a5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L...4F 902, L4

    2020 doi

  35. [45]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..17F 650, A17

    Finley A. J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..17F 650, A17

    2021 doi

  36. [46]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..580F 457, 580

    Folsom C. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2924 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..580F 457, 580

    2016 doi

  37. [47]

    P., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4956F 474, 4956

    Folsom C. P., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.4956F 474, 4956

    doi

  38. [48]

    P., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5286F 481, 5286

    Folsom C. P., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5286F 481, 5286

    doi

  39. [49]

    J., Barnes S

    Fritzewski D. J., Barnes S. A., James D. J., Strassmeier K. G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652A..60F 652, A60

    2021 doi

  40. [50]

    arXiv:2410.20000

    Gossage S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241020000G p. arXiv:2410.20000

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [51]

    G., Donati J

    Gregory S. G., Donati J. F., Morin J., Hussain G. A. J., Mayne N. J., Hillenbrand L. A., Jardine M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...97G 755, 97

    2012 doi

  42. [52]

    G., Mitrou C

    Gunn A. G., Mitrou C. K., Doyle J. G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01347.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.296..150G 296, 150

    1998

  43. [53]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..357H 585, 357

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    M., Donati J

    H \'e brard \'E . M., Donati J. F., Delfosse X., Morin J., Moutou C., Boisse I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1465H 461, 1465

    2016 doi

  45. [55]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  46. [56]

    J., Gies D

    Jao W.-C., Henry T. J., Gies D. R., Hambly N. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdf6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861L..11J 861, L11

    2018 doi

  47. [57]

    Jardine M., Collier Cameron A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.2853J 482, 2853

    2019 doi

  48. [58]

    A., See V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L..25J 465, L25

    Jardine M., Vidotto A. A., See V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465L..25J 465, L25

    2017 doi

  49. [59]

    V., Petit P., Marsden S

    Jeffers S. V., Petit P., Marsden S. C., Morin J., Donati J. F., Folsom C. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A..79J 569, A79

    2014 doi

  50. [60]

    P., Bartel M., G \"u del M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..96J 649, A96

    Johnstone C. P., Bartel M., G \"u del M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A..96J 649, A96

    2021 doi

  51. [61]

    J., Browning M

    K \"a pyl \"a P. J., Browning M. K., Brun A. S., Guerrero G., Warnecke J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-023-01005-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SSRv..219...58K 219, 58

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    G., G \"u del M., Koutroumpa D., Carter J

    Kislyakova K. G., G \"u del M., Koutroumpa D., Carter J. A., Lisse C. M., Boro Saikia S., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02222-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs.tmp...63K

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    M., Zaire B., Folsom C

    Klein B., Donati J.-F., H \'e brard \'E . M., Zaire B., Folsom C. P., Morin J., Delfosse X., Bonfils X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.1844K 500, 1844

    2021 doi

  54. [64]

    J., Wehrhahn A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.142K 635, A142

    Kochukhov O., Hackman T., Lehtinen J. J., Wehrhahn A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.142K 635, A142

    2020 doi

  55. [65]

    R., Mendes L

    Landin N. R., Mendes L. T. S., Vaz L. P. R., Alencar S. H. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3823 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5304L 519, 5304

    2023 doi

  56. [66]

    T., Hussain G

    Lehmann L. T., Hussain G. A. J., Jardine M. M., Mackay D. H., Vidotto A. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5246L 483, 5246

    2019 doi

  57. [67]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4330L 527, 4330

    Lehmann L. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4330L 527, 4330

    2024 doi

  58. [68]

    J., Mann A

    L \'e pine S., Hilton E. J., Mann A. W., Wilde M., Rojas-Ayala B., Cruz K. L., Gaidos E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145..102L 145, 102

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    L., See V., Amard L., Angus R., Matt S

    Lu Y. L., See V., Amard L., Angus R., Matt S. P., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02126-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..223L 8, 223

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    E., Hillenbrand L

    Mamajek E. E., Hillenbrand L. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687.1264M 687, 1264

    2008 doi

  61. [71]

    C., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18367.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1922M 413, 1922

    Marsden S. C., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18367.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.1922M 413, 1922

    2011

  62. [72]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3517M 444, 3517

    Marsden S. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3517M 444, 3517

    2014 doi

  63. [73]

    P., MacGregor K

    Matt S. P., MacGregor K. B., Pinsonneault M. H., Greene T. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..26M 754, L26

    2012 doi

  64. [74]

    P., Brun A

    Matt S. P., Brun A. S., Baraffe I., Bouvier J., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799L..23M 799, L23

    2015 doi

  65. [75]

    D., Stassun K

    Meibom S., Mathieu R. D., Stassun K. G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...695..679M 695, 679

    2009 doi

  66. [76]

    D., Stassun K

    Meibom S., Mathieu R. D., Stassun K. G., Liebesny P., Saar S. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733..115M 733, 115

    2011 doi

  67. [77]

    W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.4325M 459, 4325

    Mengel M. W., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459.4325M 459, 4325

    2016 doi

  68. [78]

    Mestel L., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/138.3.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968MNRAS.138..359M 138, 359

    1968 doi

  69. [79]

    S., Corsaro E., Bonanno A., Creevey O

    Metcalfe T. S., Corsaro E., Bonanno A., Creevey O. L., van Saders J. L., 2024, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad8566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RNAAS...8..260M 8, 260

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    Morin J., et al., 2008a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12709.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384...77M 384, 77

    2007

  71. [82]

    F., Petit P., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Jardine M

    Morin J., Donati J. F., Petit P., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Jardine M. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.407.2269M 407, 2269

    2010

  72. [83]

    R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M

    Newton E. R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M. L., Mink J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...85N 834, 85

    2017 doi

  73. [84]

    R., Mondrik N., Irwin J., Winters J

    Newton E. R., Mondrik N., Irwin J., Winters J. G., Charbonneau D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..217N 156, 217

    2018 doi

  74. [85]

    S., Strugarek A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.156N 684, A156

    Noraz Q., Brun A. S., Strugarek A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.156N 684, A156

    2024 doi

  75. [86]

    W., Hartmann L

    Noyes R. W., Hartmann L. W., Baliunas S. L., Duncan D. K., Vaughan A. H., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...279..763N 279, 763

    1984 doi

  76. [87]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849...83P 849, 83

    Pantolmos G., Matt S. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849...83P 849, 83

    2017 doi

  77. [88]

    Petit P., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13411.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388...80P 388, 80

    2008

  78. [89]

    S., Youngblood A., France K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...40P 918, 40

    Pineda J. S., Youngblood A., France K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...40P 918, 40

    2021 doi

  79. [90]

    Pizzolato N., Maggio A., Micela G., Sciortino S., Ventura P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...397..147P 397, 147

    2003 doi

  80. [91]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..113R 152, 113

    Rebull L. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..113R 152, 113

    2016 doi

  81. [92]

    Reiners A., Basri G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...656.1121R 656, 1121

    2007 doi

  82. [93]

    Reiners A., Basri G., Browning M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..538R 692, 538

    2009 doi

  83. [94]

    Reiners A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..41R 662, A41

    2022 doi

  84. [95]

    S., Matt S

    R \'e ville V., Brun A. S., Matt S. P., Strugarek A., Pinto R. F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798..116R 798, 116

    2015 doi

  85. [96]

    H., Brandenburg A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..295S 524, 295

    Saar S. H., Brandenburg A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..295S 524, 295

    1999 doi

  86. [97]

    See V., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4301S 453, 4301

    2015 doi

  87. [98]

    See V., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.4442S 462, 4442

    2016 doi

  88. [99]

    See V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.1542S 466, 1542

    2017 doi

  89. [100]

    See V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..536S 474, 536

    2018 doi

  90. [101]

    See V., et al., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..118S 876, 118

    doi

  91. [102]

    See V., et al., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..120S 886, 120

    doi

  92. [103]

    P., Finley A

    See V., Lehmann L., Matt S. P., Finley A. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894...69S 894, 69

    2020 doi

  93. [104]

    Semel M., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...225..456S 225, 456

    1989

  94. [105]

    Shan Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A...9S 684, A9

    2024 doi

  95. [106]

    M., Pinsonneault M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..134S 850, 134

    Somers G., Stauffer J., Rebull L., Cody A. M., Pinsonneault M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..134S 850, 134

    2017 doi

  96. [107]

    P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.1844S 463, 1844

    Stelzer B., Damasso M., Scholz A., Matt S. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.1844S 463, 1844

    2016 doi

  97. [108]

    G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&ARv..17..251S 17, 251

    Strassmeier K. G., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&ARv..17..251S 17, 251

    2009 doi

  98. [109]

    A., Bourrier V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4026V 470, 4026

    Vidotto A. A., Bourrier V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.4026V 470, 4026

    2017 doi

  99. [110]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    2014 doi

  100. [111]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatMe..17..261V 17, 261

    2020 doi

  101. [112]

    A., Marsden S

    Waite I. A., Marsden S. C., Carter B. D., Petit P., Donati J. F., Jeffers S. V., Boro Saikia S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449....8W 449, 8

    2015 doi

  102. [113]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2076W 465, 2076

    Waite I. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.2076W 465, 2076

    2017 doi

  103. [114]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915...37W 915, 37

    Wood B. E., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...915...37W 915, 37

    2021 doi

  104. [115]

    J., Drake J

    Wright N. J., Drake J. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18638 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.535..526W 535, 526

    2016 doi

  105. [116]

    J., Newton E

    Wright N. J., Newton E. R., Williams P. K. G., Drake J. J., Yadav R. K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2351W 479, 2351

    2018 doi

  106. [117]

    do Nascimento J. D. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820L..15D 820, L15

    2016 doi

  107. [118]

    L., Pinsonneault M

    van Saders J. L., Pinsonneault M. H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751...98V 751, 98

    2012 doi

  108. [119]

    L., Pinsonneault M

    van Saders J. L., Pinsonneault M. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...67V 776, 67

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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