arxiv: 2604.07976 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

The puzzling story of flare inactive ultra fast rotating M dwarfs -- III. Investigating X-ray Activity

Lauren Doyle , George W. King , Gavin Ramsay , L\'ia R. Corrales , Stefano Bagnulo , J. Gerry Doyle , Pasi Hakala

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords M dwarfsultra-fast rotatorsX-ray activitysupersaturationstellar flaresTESS light curvescoronal emissionactivity cycles

0 comments

The pith

Ultra-fast rotating M dwarfs show saturated X-ray emission rather than supersaturation, leaving their low flaring activity unexplained.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Recent TESS observations found ultra-fast rotating M dwarfs with periods under one day to have lower than expected flaring activity despite rapid rotation. This paper uses Swift and XMM-Newton X-ray data on ten such stars to test whether supersaturation, an X-ray underluminosity at high rotation rates, accounts for the deficit. The derived X-ray luminosities place the stars at the saturated level or slightly above it, with no evidence of the drop seen in some fast-rotating FGK stars. Supersaturation is therefore not the main cause of the reduced flaring, and the underlying reason for the atypical activity remains open. The authors also reanalyze TESS light curves from later cycles to measure flare rates and note changes over a seven-year span that may indicate activity cycles.

Core claim

The central claim is that none of the ten UFR M dwarfs exhibit supersaturated X-ray emission. Instead their X-ray to bolometric luminosity ratios fall at or above the saturation threshold when plotted against rotation period. This follows from converting observed X-ray fluxes to luminosities after distance and absorption corrections and comparing the results to established activity-rotation relations for low-mass stars. The authors therefore conclude that supersaturation cannot explain the low flaring rates measured with TESS.

What carries the argument

X-ray luminosity to bolometric luminosity ratio plotted versus rotation period to test for saturation versus supersaturation in coronal emission.

If this is right

Supersaturation does not drive the reduced flaring activity in these ultra-fast rotating M dwarfs.
The cause of low flaring must lie in other properties of the stars' magnetic fields or atmospheres.
Flare rates vary between TESS Cycles 5 and 7, consistent with the presence of activity cycles lasting several years.
The overall mystery of magnetic activity in UFR M dwarfs persists after X-ray data are considered.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Normal X-ray output paired with low flaring implies that coronal heating and flare triggering may be at least partly decoupled in these stars.
The pattern could extend to other fully convective rapid rotators and motivate targeted searches for similar activity mismatches.
Repeated multi-cycle monitoring could test whether the observed flare variations are periodic and linked to longer-term changes in X-ray levels.
Combining the X-ray results with existing spectropolarimetric data might clarify whether field geometry contributes to flare suppression.

Load-bearing premise

That the derived X-ray luminosities accurately reflect intrinsic coronal emission levels after standard corrections for distance, absorption, and bolometric luminosity, without systematic biases that could mask supersaturation in this specific sample.

What would settle it

New X-ray observations of a larger sample of UFR M dwarfs that show luminosities falling clearly below the saturation threshold would falsify the no-supersaturation result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07976 by Gavin Ramsay, George W. King, J. Gerry Doyle, Lauren Doyle, L\'ia R. Corrales, Pasi Hakala, Stefano Bagnulo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: A Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram of the TESS-SPOC FFI sample described in Doyle et al. (2024), generated using Gaia DR3 (Vallenari et al. 2023) colours and parallax, where the colour bar represents the log density of stars. Our ten UFR low-mass stars are overplotted as black star markers to show their location. Note: the parallax for TIC 141807839 was taken from Gaia DR2, but all other colours and paral… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Swift XRT light curves for nine of our ten stars in the 0.3–2.4 keV band, with a minimum of 20 counts per bin. Points denoted as “quiescent" are displayed with grey circles, while “elevated/flaring" epochs are denoted with red triangles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of our measured 𝐿X/𝐿bol values for the 0.1–2.4 keV band to the sample of Wright et al. (2011, 2018). of these studies provided concrete explanations for the lack of flaring activity observed in UFR low-mass stars. Therefore, in this paper, we utilise Swift and XMM-Newton X-ray observations of the same M dwarfs from Paper I to determine their X-ray luminosities. We will now compare these to rotat… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The flare number per day as a function of rotation period for each TESS Cycle 1 (circles), 3 (squares), 5 (triangles) and 7 (pentagons). Top: flares with energies > 1033 erg only and Bottom: for all flares identified in each TESS Sector. Note: Two targets did not have available SPOC data for Cycle 7. Additionally, there are potential targets where the flare rates in Cycles are comparable, leading to an ove… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Stellar mass vs. rotation period for the stars in our sample and that of Wright et al. (2011, 2018). We demonstrate the various regimes of emission with lines reproduced from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The magnetic field strength for each of our M dwarfs, derived from Paper I using spectropolarimetric observations from VLT/FORS2 (maximum GRISM 1028z values are used, taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

According to activity-rotation relations, rapid rotators are expected to show high levels of magnetic activity. However, recent studies with TESS have found Ultra Fast Rotating (UFR) M dwarfs with periods $<1$ d displaying low levels of flaring activity. There have been efforts to explore their magnetic field strengths through spectropolarimetric measurements and to assess the potential for binarity. However, neither could fully explain the lack of observed flaring activity despite their rapid rotation. Another avenue for investigation is to measure their coronal emission for signs of supersaturation: an underluminosity in X-rays observed for some rapidly rotating FGK stars. Therefore, in this study, we utilise X-ray observations from Swift and XMM-Newton of ten M dwarf UFRs with P$_{\rm{rot}}$<1 d to determine their X-ray luminosities. Overall, we do not find evidence for supersaturation amongst our UFR M dwarf stars, instead determining them to be at the saturated level, or perhaps even enhanced. Therefore, supersaturation seems not to be the main driver behind the reduced level of flaring activity observed in these stars, and the mystery behind the magnetic activity of UFR low-mass stars remains. Additionally, we provide an updated analysis on the long term variability within our sample using TESS light curves taken during Cycles 5 and 7. We identify 352 optical flares from our sample with energies between $1.2\times10^{31}$ and $8.7\times10^{34}$ erg. We determine flare rates for each TESS cycle, compare them, identifying variations across a 7 year timespan and attribute this to potential activity cycles.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports new X-ray luminosities for ten UFR M dwarfs that place them at or above saturation rather than in supersaturation, so that mechanism is unlikely to explain their low flare rates.

read the letter

The central result is that Swift and XMM-Newton data put these ten stars at saturated or even enhanced X-ray levels, not in the supersaturated regime seen in some fast-rotating FGK stars. Supersaturation therefore does not appear to drive the optical flare deficit that TESS has turned up in ultra-fast rotators with periods under a day. The authors also re-analyze TESS cycles 5 and 7, recovering 352 flares and noting some changes in rate over seven years that they link to possible activity cycles. That is the concrete addition: new Lx values and updated flare counts for a targeted sample that had mostly optical coverage before. The work is direct and fills a clear gap in the multi-wavelength picture of these objects. It tests one remaining hypothesis after earlier spectropolarimetry and binarity checks came up short. The data points themselves are the useful part for anyone building activity-rotation relations for fully convective stars. The soft spot sits in the X-ray reduction. The abstract gives no detail on the plasma temperatures, abundances, or absorption columns adopted to turn count rates into unabsorbed fluxes, nor on how bolometric luminosities were derived. If those choices systematically under-correct absorption or over-estimate emission measure in these active, rapidly rotating stars, the reported Lx/Lbol ratios could be too high and the no-supersaturation conclusion would weaken. A methods section with explicit assumptions and a short sensitivity check would fix that. The flare statistics are more straightforward but still rest on standard detection thresholds. This is niche stellar astrophysics. Readers already following the UFR M-dwarf puzzle will find the numbers worth having; outsiders will not. The paper is coherent on its own terms and brings fresh observations to a narrow question, so it deserves a serious referee even if the X-ray error budget needs tightening. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes Swift and XMM-Newton X-ray observations of ten ultra-fast rotating (UFR) M dwarfs with Prot < 1 d. The authors derive X-ray luminosities (Lx) and Lx/Lbol ratios, concluding that the sample lies at or above the canonical saturation threshold (Lx/Lbol ≈ 10^{-3}) rather than in the supersaturated regime. They therefore argue that supersaturation cannot explain the low flaring activity previously reported for these stars from TESS. The paper also updates the flare census and long-term variability analysis using TESS Cycles 5 and 7 data, reporting 352 flares and cycle-to-cycle rate variations.

Significance. If the Lx determinations are robust, the result narrows the possible explanations for the anomalous low flaring in UFR M dwarfs by excluding supersaturation, complementing prior work on magnetic fields and binarity in the series. The multi-mission X-ray plus TESS flare analysis provides a useful observational baseline for future studies of activity-rotation relations at the lowest masses.

major comments (2)

[X-ray data analysis and results sections] The central claim that the ten UFR stars are at saturated or enhanced levels (and thus not supersaturated) rests on the derived Lx/Lbol values. The manuscript does not provide the explicit count-rate-to-flux conversion factors, assumed plasma temperatures, abundances, or NH values used for each source, nor does it show sensitivity tests to these assumptions. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether systematic under-correction for absorption or over-estimation of emission measure could shift any objects below the saturation floor.
[Results on X-ray luminosities] Table of X-ray luminosities (presumably Table 2 or equivalent): the reported Lx/Lbol ratios are compared to literature saturation thresholds for M dwarfs, but no error bars incorporating distance uncertainties, bolometric luminosity derivation, or count-rate statistics are shown. This makes it difficult to determine whether the 'enhanced' classification for some stars is statistically significant or consistent with the saturated regime.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and introduction] The abstract states 'we do not find evidence for supersaturation' but the text should explicitly define the numerical threshold adopted for supersaturation (e.g., Lx/Lbol < 10^{-3.5} or whatever cutoff is used) and cite the exact reference for the M-dwarf saturation floor.
[TESS flare analysis] Flare energy range (1.2×10^{31} to 8.7×10^{34} erg) is given, but the method for converting TESS amplitudes to energies (including the bolometric correction and assumed flare temperature) is not summarized; a brief equation or reference would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review, which highlights important aspects of transparency in our X-ray analysis. We agree that additional details will strengthen the manuscript and have prepared revisions accordingly. Our responses to the major comments are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [X-ray data analysis and results sections] The central claim that the ten UFR stars are at saturated or enhanced levels (and thus not supersaturated) rests on the derived Lx/Lbol values. The manuscript does not provide the explicit count-rate-to-flux conversion factors, assumed plasma temperatures, abundances, or NH values used for each source, nor does it show sensitivity tests to these assumptions. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether systematic under-correction for absorption or over-estimation of emission measure could shift any objects below the saturation floor.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript lacks sufficient explicit documentation of the X-ray spectral assumptions and conversion procedures. In the revised version, we will add a new subsection in the methods (or expand the X-ray data analysis section) that tabulates, for each source and instrument: the count-rate-to-flux conversion factors applied, the assumed plasma temperature (typically 1–2 keV for active M dwarfs), elemental abundances (solar or literature values), and NH values (derived from Gaia distances or standard extinction maps). We will also include a sensitivity analysis showing how Lx/Lbol changes when these parameters are varied within reasonable ranges (e.g., temperature ±0.5 keV, NH ±50%). This will demonstrate that even under conservative assumptions our sample remains at or above the saturation threshold, supporting the conclusion that supersaturation is not present. revision: yes
Referee: [Results on X-ray luminosities] Table of X-ray luminosities (presumably Table 2 or equivalent): the reported Lx/Lbol ratios are compared to literature saturation thresholds for M dwarfs, but no error bars incorporating distance uncertainties, bolometric luminosity derivation, or count-rate statistics are shown. This makes it difficult to determine whether the 'enhanced' classification for some stars is statistically significant or consistent with the saturated regime.

Authors: We agree that the absence of propagated uncertainties limits the interpretability of the Lx/Lbol values. In the revised manuscript we will update the X-ray luminosity table to include asymmetric error bars that combine: (i) distance uncertainties from Gaia or literature parallaxes, (ii) uncertainties in bolometric luminosity arising from effective temperature and bolometric correction choices, and (iii) Poisson counting statistics on the detected X-ray counts (or upper-limit treatments where applicable). With these errors shown, readers will be able to assess whether any objects classified as 'enhanced' are statistically distinct from the canonical saturation floor of ~10^{-3}. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct comparison of derived Lx/Lbol to external saturation thresholds; minor self-citation for sample context only

full rationale

The paper selects ten UFR M dwarfs (P_rot <1 d) from prior work in the series, obtains Swift/XMM count rates, converts them to unabsorbed fluxes and Lx using standard plasma models and NH corrections, computes Lx/Lbol, and compares the ratios to the canonical M-dwarf saturation floor (~10^{-3}) reported in the wider literature. No equation in the derivation fits a parameter to the present sample and then re-uses that parameter to classify the same sample as saturated or supersaturated. Self-citations to papers I and II supply the target list and flare statistics but do not supply the saturation threshold or the activity classification logic; those rest on independent external benchmarks. The conclusion that supersaturation is absent therefore does not reduce to a self-referential fit or definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical conversions from observed X-ray counts to luminosities and on the applicability of FGK-derived supersaturation thresholds to M dwarfs; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption X-ray flux measurements from Swift and XMM-Newton can be converted to intrinsic luminosities using known stellar distances and negligible or correctable absorption for these nearby M dwarfs.
Invoked when classifying the stars as saturated rather than supersaturated.
domain assumption The saturated X-ray activity level established for FGK stars applies as a benchmark for M dwarfs.
Used to interpret the measured luminosities as non-supersaturated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1421 out tokens · 38389 ms · 2026-05-10T17:51:57.737242+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Argiroffi C., Caramazza M., Micela G., Sciortino S., Moraux E., Bouvier J., Flaccomio E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A.113A 589, A113

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526539 2016
[2]

A., 1996, in Jacoby G

Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

1996
[3]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009
[4]

Baliunas S., et al., 1995, , 438, 269

1995
[5]

Bertini L., Roccatagliata V., Kim M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671L...2B 671, L2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245415 2023
[6]

J., Tr \"u mper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A.103B 588, A103

Boller T., Freyberg M. J., Tr \"u mper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A.103B 588, A103

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016
[7]

V., 2021, , 500, 5552

Booth M., del Burgo C., Hambaryan V. V., 2021, , 500, 5552

2021
[8]

G., Jayaraman R., Rappaport S., Rebull L

Bouma L. G., Jayaraman R., Rappaport S., Rebull L. M., Hillenbrand L. A., Winn J. N., David-Uraz A., Bakos G. \'A ., 2023, , 167, 38

2023
[9]

Brown A., et al., 2018, , 616, A1

2018
[10]

K., 2008, , 676, 1262

Browning M. K., 2008, , 676, 1262

2008
[11]

arXiv:2411.04793 Arendse N., et al., 2023, arXiv e-prints, p

Burrows D. N., et al., 2004, in Flanagan K. A., Siegmund O. H. W., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 5165, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIII. pp 201--216, @doi 10.1117/12.504868

work page doi:10.1117/12.504868 2004
[12]

A., et al., 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 201

Caldwell D. A., et al., 2020, Research Notes of the AAS, 4, 201

2020
[13]

Calissendorff P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A..16C 666, A16

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142766 2022
[14]

Chabrier G., Baraffe I., 1997, , 327, 1039

1997
[15]

Chabrier G., K \"u ker M., 2006, , 446, 1027

2006
[16]

G., Santos N., Bonfils X., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Udry S., 2011, , 534, A30

Da Silva J. G., Santos N., Bonfils X., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Udry S., 2011, , 534, A30

2011
[17]

R., 2016, , 829, 23

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

2016
[18]

R., et al., 2014, , 797, 122

Davenport J. R., et al., 2014, , 797, 122

2014
[19]

R., Hebb L., Hawley S

Davenport J. R., Hebb L., Hawley S. L., 2015, , 806, 212

2015
[20]

R., Covey K

Davenport J. R., Covey K. R., Clarke R. W., Boeck A. C., Cornet J., Hawley S. L., 2019, , 871, 241

2019
[21]

C., Barnes J

Donati J.-F., Forveille T., Cameron A. C., Barnes J. R., Delfosse X., Jardine M. M., Valenti J. A., 2006, , 311, 633

2006
[22]

G., Wu K., Scullion E., 2018, , 480, 2153

Doyle L., Ramsay G., Doyle J. G., Wu K., Scullion E., 2018, , 480, 2153

2018
[23]

G., Wu K., 2019, , 489, 437

Doyle L., Ramsay G., Doyle J. G., Wu K., 2019, , 489, 437

2019
[24]

G., Hakala P., 2022, , 512, 979

Doyle L., Bagnulo S., Ramsay G., Doyle J. G., Hakala P., 2022, , 512, 979

2022
[25]

J., Bayliss D., Rodel T., Kunovac V., 2024, , 529, 1802

Doyle L., Armstrong D. J., Bayliss D., Rodel T., Kunovac V., 2024, , 529, 1802

2024
[26]

, keywords =

Evans P. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007
[27]

F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

Evans P. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009
[28]

Foster G., Poppenhaeger K., Ilic N., Schwope A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..23F 661, A23

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141097 2022
[29]

Gagn \'e J., Lafreni \`e re D., Doyon R., Malo L., Artigau \'E ., 2014, , 798, 73

2014
[30]

Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004
[31]

V., Feigelson E

Getman K. V., Feigelson E. D., Garmire G. P., Broos P. S., Kuhn M. A., Preibisch T., Airapetian V. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935...43G 935, 43

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c69 2022
[32]

Gnevyshev M., Ohl A., 1948, , 25, 18

1948
[33]

Gonz \'a lez-Payo J., Caballero J. A., Gorgas J., Cort \'e s-Contreras M., G \'a lvez-Ortiz M.-C., Cifuentes C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.302G 689, A302

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450048 2024
[34]

N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

G \"u nther M. N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a 2020
[35]

E., 1924, , 113, 105

Hale G. E., 1924, , 113, 105

1924
[36]

W., Noyes R

Hartmann L. W., Noyes R. W., 1987, , 25, 271

1987
[37]

J., Poppenh \"a ger K., Davenport J

Ilin E., Schmidt S. J., Poppenh \"a ger K., Davenport J. R., Kristiansen M. H., Omohundro M., 2021, , 645, A42

2021
[38]

Jansen F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...1J 365, L1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001
[39]

Janson M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754...44J 754, 44

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/44 2012
[40]

Janson M., Durkan S., Hippler S., Dai X., Brandner W., Schlieder J., Bonnefoy M., Henning T., 2017a, , 599, A70
[41]

Janson M., Durkan S., Hippler S., Dai X., Brandner W., Schlieder J., Bonnefoy M., Henning T., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..70J 599, A70

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629945
[42]

P., 2011, , 411, 2099

Jeffries R., Jackson R., Briggs K., Evans P., Pye J. P., 2011, , 411, 2099

2011
[43]

M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV

Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. pp 1232--1251

2016
[44]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 2021
[45]

Kiraga M., Stepien K., 2007, AcA, 57

2007
[46]

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

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3823 2023
[47]

Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021
[48]

P., et al., 2021, , 907, 91

Loyd R. P., et al., 2021, , 907, 91

2021
[49]

Maggio A., Sciortino S., Vaiana G., Majer P., Bookbinder J., Golub L., Harnden Jr F., Rosner R., 1987, , 315, 687

1987
[50]

S., Rebolo R., Hern \'a ndez J

Mascare \ n o A. S., Rebolo R., Hern \'a ndez J. G., 2016, , 595, A12

2016
[51]

Merloni A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..34M 682, A34

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024
[52]

Mullan D., Houdebine E., 2020, , 891, 128

2020
[53]

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

work page doi:10.1086/161945 1984
[54]

M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251011575O p

O'Brien S. M., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.11575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251011575O p. arXiv:2510.11575

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.11575 2025
[55]

W., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525..772P 525, 772

Palla F., Stahler S. W., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525..772P 525, 772

work page doi:10.1086/307928 1999
[56]

W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2437P 513, 2437

Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2437P 513, 2437

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac959 2022
[57]

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

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021560 2003
[58]

D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..160..390P 160, 390

Preibisch T., Feigelson E. D., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..160..390P 160, 390

work page doi:10.1086/432094 2005
[59]

H., Teukolsky S

Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., Flannery B. P., 1992, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing

1992
[60]

F., Randich S., Stauffer J

Prosser C. F., Randich S., Stauffer J. R., Schmitt J., Simon T., 1996, , 112, 1570

1996
[61]

Pr s a A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac324a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...16P 258, 16

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac324a 2022
[62]

G., Doyle L., 2020, , 497, 2320

Ramsay G., Doyle J. G., Doyle L., 2020, , 497, 2320

2020
[63]

G., Doyle L., Bagnulo S., 2022, , 511, 2755

Ramsay G., Hakala P., Doyle J. G., Doyle L., Bagnulo S., 2022, , 511, 2755

2022
[64]

G., 2024, , 689, A288

Ramsay G., Hakala P., Doyle J. G., 2024, , 689, A288

2024
[65]

G., Littlefair S., Dhillon V., Alvarez D

Ramsay G., Doyle J. G., Littlefair S., Dhillon V., Alvarez D. G., 2025, , 703, A122

2025
[66]

Randich S., Schmitt J., Prosser C., Stauffer J., 1996, , 305, 785

1996
[67]

H., Gizon L., 2017, , 603, A52

Reinhold T., Cameron R. H., Gizon L., 2017, , 603, A52

2017
[68]

R., Winn, J

Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015
[69]

D., Dodson-Robinson S

Robertson P., Endl M., Cochran W. D., Dodson-Robinson S. E., 2013, , 764, 3

2013
[70]

M., Monnier J

Roettenbacher R. M., Monnier J. D., Harmon R. O., Barclay T., Still M., 2013, , 767, 60

2013
[71]

Santos A., Garc \' a R., Mathur S., Bugnet L., van Saders J., Metcalfe T., Simonian G., Pinsonneault M., 2019, , 244, 21

2019
[72]

Skumanich A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..565S 171, 565

work page doi:10.1086/151310 1972
[73]

doi:10.1086/322992 , eprint =

Smith R. K., Brickhouse N. S., Liedahl D. A., Raymond J. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322992 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556L..91S 556, L91

work page doi:10.1086/322992 2001
[74]

G., et al., 2018, , 156, 102

Stassun K. G., et al., 2018, , 156, 102

2018
[75]

St e pie \'n K., Schmitt J., Voges W., 2001, , 370, 157

2001
[76]

G., 2009, , 17, 251

Strassmeier K. G., 2009, , 17, 251

2009
[77]

Str \"u der L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L..18S 365, L18

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000066 2001
[78]

Turner M. J. L., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L..27T 365, L27

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000087 2001
[79]

Vallenari A., et al., 2023, , 674, A1

2023
[80]

Vida K., Ol \'a h K., Szab \'o R., 2014, , 441, 2744

2014

Showing first 80 references.