Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 123 references

Intense but Harmless: Exo-Space Weather Around an M Dwarf with a Single-Hemisphere Dynamo

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lopsided stellar magnetic field could make M-dwarf CMEs largely harmless to equatorial planets.

desk verdict A careful, honestly hedged scenario study that makes a new topology-dependent claim about M-dwarf CMEs, but the 'benign' conclusion is conditional on an unconfirmed dynamo state and an assumed dominance of high-latitude eruptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11087 v1 pith:6IVPHOVW submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Zheng Sun , Julián D. Alvarado-Gómez , Hui Tian , Ofer Cohen , Jeremy J. Drake , Katja Poppenhäger , Yue-Hong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords Mdwarfscoronalmassejectionsexoplanethabitabilitystellarspaceweathermagnetohydrodynamicsimulationssingle-hemispheredynamopolarityinversionlineswind
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

The paper asks whether exoplanets orbiting M dwarfs really face the devastating coronal mass ejections that earlier simulations suggested. Its answer, under one specific condition, is no: if an M dwarf's magnetic field is confined mostly to a single hemisphere, with the dividing lines between opposite polarities at high latitudes, then most CMEs launch poleward and fly away from the equatorial plane where close-in planets orbit. The few CMEs that do start near the equator are dragged down by the dense, slow equatorial wind. In 3D MHD simulations of a fully convective M dwarf with a 30-day rotation period, the resulting dynamic pressure increase on an equatorial habitable-zone planet stays within about two orders of magnitude above the quiescent stellar wind, far below the four-to-six order enhancements reported for other M-dwarf CME simulations. The authors stress this is conditional on the unconfirmed single-hemisphere dynamo topology actually existing on real stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-hemisphere magnetic topology, in which most strong mixed-polarity field is confined to one hemisphere and the dominant polarity inversion lines, the boundaries where opposing magnetic polarities meet and where CME flux ropes form, sit at roughly 40 to 55 degrees latitude. This surface map seeds a 3D magnetohydrodynamic corona-and-wind simulation, and the CMEs are seeded as analytical magnetic flux ropes. The argument then runs on two physical mechanisms: high-latitude eruptions propagate radially away from the equatorial plane, and low-latitude CMEs are slowed by drag from the dense, slow equatorial streamer wind, which the authors show outweighs magnetic suppression in their setup.

What would settle it

A Zeeman-Doppler imaging campaign of a fully convective M dwarf with a rotation period between roughly 14 and 43 days that resolves strong mixed-polarity fields in both hemispheres, or substantial low-latitude polarity inversion lines, would falsify the premise. Alternatively, detection of a fast, equator-crossing CME disturbance at an exoplanet's orbit with a dynamic pressure enhancement above two orders of magnitude over the quiescent wind would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large-scale magnetic topology of a star can decide how threatening its CMEs are. Using surface magnetic maps from an exploratory dynamo simulation in which the strong mixed-polarity field is mostly confined to one hemisphere, the authors reconstruct the corona of a fully convective M dwarf (0.15 $M_\odot$, 0.18 $R_\odot$, 30-day rotation period) and insert analytic magnetic flux ropes at high and low latitudes. They find that high-latitude CMEs propagate away from the equatorial plane, while low-latitude CMEs are strongly decelerated by the dense, slow wind in the equatorial streamer belt, so neither produces large dynamic pressure spikes along an equatorial orbit at $66\,R_\star$. The peak CME-driven dynamic pressures remain within two orders of magnitude of the ambient wind, versus enhancements of up to six orders of magnitude in the earlier simulation used as the energetic baseline. The conclusion is conditional: if such single-hemisphere topologies exist and if the erupting CME population is indeed dominated by large-scale high-latitude polarity inversion lines, then equatorial exoplanets around these stars may experience a comparatively benign CME environment.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the single-hemisphere dynamo solution being a real, representative state for moderately rotating fully convective M dwarfs, and on the idea that the escaping CME population is dominated by eruptions from large-scale high-latitude polarity inversion lines rather than small-scale active regions; both are asserted as unverified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If real moderately rotating fully convective M dwarfs harbor single-hemisphere topologies, equatorial habitable-zone planets would face CME dynamic pressures within roughly 100 times the local stellar wind, not the million-fold spikes of earlier simulations.
  • The wind alone already compresses a planet's magnetosphere to about 2 to 3 Earth radii at $66\,R_\star$, so the CME question is an additional layer on an already intense environment.
  • In these runs, increasing the injected CME energy expands the disturbed area along the orbit but barely raises the peak equatorial pressure, implying a saturation of equatorial impact.
  • A low-latitude CME with the same magnetic energy as a high-latitude one arrives slower and weaker, because the equatorial streamer acts as a brake.
  • Habitability assessments for M-dwarf planets should therefore factor in the star's large-scale magnetic geometry, not just its flare and CME rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's scope, the same geometry would make space weather strongly orbit-dependent: equatorial orbits are sheltered, while inclined or polar orbits could still intercept the fast high-latitude CMEs, so spin-orbit misalignment becomes a habitability-relevant observable.
  • The drag mechanism implies a testable extension: rerunning these CME injections on a hemispherically symmetric magnetic map with the same equatorial streamer should show whether the streamer alone, without the single-hemisphere geometry, can already buffer equatorial planets.
  • Zeeman-Doppler imaging of a 14-to-43-day fully convective M dwarf is the direct observational test: high-latitude, one-sided flux concentrations would support the premise, while a two-sided or low-latitude-dominated field would retire it.
  • The paper's 'benign' label should not be read globally; high-latitude CMEs remain fast and energetic, so planets on inclined orbits around the same star could still see the extreme pressures reported in earlier work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D MHD simulations of stellar CMEs on a fully convective M dwarf with a rotation period of 30 days, using the SWMF/AWSoM framework. The magnetic lower boundary is taken from two snapshots of the exploratory single-hemisphere dynamo model of Brown et al. (2020), in which most large-scale polarity inversion lines (PILs) lie at high latitudes. Gibson–Low flux ropes are inserted at high and low latitudes in both magnetic maps, with field strengths chosen to produce CME speeds comparable to previous M-dwarf simulations. The simulations are used to evaluate the dynamic pressure experienced by a hypothetical equatorial exoplanet at the inner edge of the habitable zone (66 R_star). The authors find that high-latitude CMEs largely propagate away from the equatorial plane, that low-latitude CMEs are slowed by drag in the dense equatorial streamer, and that the peak dynamic pressure enhancements are within two orders of magnitude above the quiescent stellar wind — much lower than the four to six orders of magnitude reported in earlier M-dwarf CME simulations. The paper concludes that, if such single-hemisphere topologies exist and if the escaping CME population is indeed dominated by large-scale high-latitude PILs, the CME environment for equatorial planets may be relatively benign.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would establish that stellar magnetic topology, not just activity level, is a decisive factor in exoplanet space weather, and that some moderately rotating fully convective M dwarfs could host less threatening CME environments than previously thought. The manuscript is transparent about its main limitations: the adopted dynamo state is explicitly described as exploratory and not observationally confirmed, and the inference about the dominance of high-latitude CMEs is acknowledged to rest on the spatial distribution of PILs rather than on a self-consistent eruption model. These caveats are repeated in the abstract and discussion, which strengthens the paper's credibility. The numerical methods are standard and the use of a publicly available framework (SWMF/AWSoM) is a positive feature. The main contribution is a conditional, but concrete, demonstration that a specific (hypothetical) magnetic configuration can redirect CMEs away from equatorial planets and that low-latitude eruptions are not catastrophically more pressurizing in this model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Table 1] The flux-rope field strength for Case A1 is calibrated to reproduce CME speeds of 4000–5000 km/s from Alvarado-Gómez et al. (2022), and the overall magnetic normalization is set to <|B|> = 300 G at ell_max = 5 based on ZDI measurements of faster and slower rotators. No sensitivity study is presented for either of these load-bearing parameters. Because the paper's central, quantitative claim is that dynamic pressure enhancements stay within two orders of magnitude, it is important to demonstrate that this bound is not an artifact of the chosen calibration. I recommend adding at least one additional simulation with a higher or lower field normalization, or a scaling argument showing that the peak/ambient pressure ratio is approximately invariant to the normalization.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.2, Figure 6] The abstract states that low-latitude CMEs experience stronger drag that 'significantly reduces both their propagation speeds and their overall impact on exoplanets.' The peak dynamic pressures reported in Section 3.2 and Figure 6 do not support a reduction in impact: the low-latitude cases A3, A4, and B2 produce peaks of 10^4.81, 10^4.86, and 10^5.0 P_sun_dyn, respectively, which are comparable to or exceed the high-latitude cases A1, A2, and B1 (10^4.78, 10^4.87, and 10^4.36). The drag does reduce speeds, but the dense equatorial streamer compensates, so the net dynamic pressure is not reduced. The 'benign' conclusion therefore rests on the assumed rarity of low-latitude eruptions, not on their intrinsically reduced impact. Please rephrase the abstract and discussion to avoid overstating the drag effect.
  3. [Section 3.2, comparison with Alvarado-Gómez et al. (2022)] The paper states that the dynamic pressure enhancement in the present simulations remains within two orders of magnitude, 'much lower' than the four to six orders reported by Alvarado-Gómez et al. (2022). However, no direct quantitative comparison of the same metric is provided. Since the flux-rope energy in the present work was calibrated to match the earlier study's CME speeds, a side-by-side comparison of the peak/ambient pressure ratio (or the relevant figure from Alvarado-Gómez et al. 2022) is necessary to substantiate this central comparison. Without this, the reader cannot verify that the reduction is due to the different magnetic topology rather than to differences in the background wind or in the definition of 'enhancement.'
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 4] The assumption that the escaping CME population is dominated by large-scale high-latitude PILs is clearly stated as an inference 'based solely on the spatial distribution of PILs, rather than on a fully self-consistent model.' This is the load-bearing assumption for the abstract's statement that 'most CMEs should originate from high latitudes.' While the manuscript is appropriately cautious, the abstract and conclusions repeatedly present this inference as a natural expectation. I recommend moving this caveat into the abstract (or at least explicitly marking it as an assumption there) so that casual readers do not mistake a model input for a simulated result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The symbol ell is used in 'ell_max = 5' and 'ell_max = 127' without an explicit definition; please define it as the spherical harmonic degree.
  2. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'corresponding to about 0.9 Mdot_sun' is ambiguous; please write '0.9 times the solar mass-loss rate' explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.2] The description of the CME front definition ('the top 10% of the outermost points on the isosurface where n/n0 = 3') could be expanded to clarify how the front is identified consistently across different times and cases.
  4. [Figure 6] The figure would be more informative if it included a horizontal line or shaded band indicating the quiescent dynamic pressure range for each model, so that the 'within two orders of magnitude' enhancement can be visually assessed.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'at face value' at the end of the abstract is imprecise; consider replacing it with a more direct statement about the conditional nature of the conclusion.
  6. [Section 4] The discussion of future observations is somewhat lengthy and speculative; consider shortening it to keep the focus on the physical results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the benign-environment conclusion is explicitly conditional on an unverified input assumption rather than an output forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is conditional: it assumes Brown et al. (2020) single-hemisphere magnetic topology and assumes CMEs form preferentially along high-latitude PILs. Section 2.2 states 'our inference regarding the dominance of high-latitude CMEs is based solely on the spatial distribution of PILs, rather than on a fully self-consistent model,' and Section 4 repeats 'if such single-hemisphere magnetic topologies exist ... and the escaping CME population is indeed dominated by eruptions from large-scale high-latitude PILs.' These are explicit premises, not hidden circularities. The MHD simulations of individual CMEs, the drag analysis showing equatorial CMEs decelerate in the dense streamer, and the resulting dynamic pressure curves are independent numerical outputs, not equalities with the inputs. The flux-rope field strength for Case A1 is calibrated to match Alvarado-Gómez et al. (2022) speeds, but this calibration is disclosed and the pressure enhancements are separate outputs; low-latitude cases A3/A4/B2 yield pressures (10^4.81, 10^4.86, and 10^5.0 P⊕dyn) comparable to high-latitude cases, so the 'within two orders of magnitude' statement is not enforced by the toned-down input. No equation reduces to an input by construction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is present, and the paper is self-contained against external wind and emission-measure benchmarks. The main risk is correctness and representativeness of the unconfirmed dynamo topology, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scenario rests on two externally supplied inputs: the unconfirmed Brown et al. (2020) dynamo map and the solar-calibrated AWSoM wind model, plus hand-set field normalization and flux-rope energies tuned to a reference simulation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Large-scale magnetic field normalization <|B|> at lmax=5 = 300 G
    Chosen as a representative value for moderately rotating fully convective M dwarfs based on ZDI measurements of faster (P_rot<10 d) and slower (P_rot>70 d) rotators; no direct measurements exist for the 14-43 d period range (Section 2.1).
  • Flux rope magnetic field strength for high-latitude case A1 = 50 G
    Tuned so Case A1 CME speed matches ~4000-5000 km/s from Alvarado-Gomez et al. (2022) Case 2; same 50 G used for A3 and B1, 100 G used for A2, A4, B2 (Table 1, Section 2.2).
  • Stellar wind base density and temperature = n_e=2e10 cm^-3, T=5e4 K
    Adopted from typical solar values because direct observations for moderately rotating M dwarfs are unavailable (Section 2.2).
  • Alfven wave parameters (L_perp*sqrt(B), Poynting flux ratio S_A/B) = 1.5e5 m T^1/2 and 1.1e6 W m^-2 T^-1
    Solar-calibrated values used as input for AWSoM coronal heating and wind acceleration (Section 2.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AWSoM's solar-calibrated coronal heating and wind acceleration model applies to fully convective M dwarfs.
    The model relies on solar-tuned Alfven wave parameters and scaling relations (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Potential field source surface (PFSS) extrapolation adequately represents the initial global coronal magnetic field.
    Used to reconstruct the corona from the dynamo magnetogram (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The Brown et al. (2020) single-hemisphere dynamo state is a plausible magnetic topology for a moderately rotating fully convective M dwarf.
    The paper relies on this exploratory dynamo solution, which it acknowledges is not observationally confirmed or widely reproduced (Sections 1, 2.1, 4).
  • ad hoc to paper CME eruptions are dominated by large-scale flux ropes along high-latitude polarity inversion lines, with small-scale active-region CMEs negligible.
    Stated in Section 2.2 as an inference from PIL distributions, not from a self-consistent eruption model, and discussed as a limitation in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Gibson-Low flux ropes faithfully represent CME initiation and propagation in stellar coronae.
    Standard CME model used in the Eruptive Event module of SWMF (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intense but Harmless: Exo-Space Weather Around an M Dwarf with a Single-Hemisphere Dynamo." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IVPHOVW

@misc{pith2026260811087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intense but Harmless: Exo-Space Weather Around an M Dwarf with a Single-Hemisphere Dynamo},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IVPHOVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11087}
}
read the original abstract

M dwarfs are among the most promising host stars in the search for habitable exoplanets. However, their active atmospheres drive intense magnetic activity, including energetic flares and possibly coronal mass ejections (CMEs), which may pose serious threats to planetary habitability. In this study, we perform three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of CMEs on a fully convective M dwarf with a rotation period of 30 days, corresponding to the moderate-rotation regime. The magnetic topology driving our simulations is adopted from an exploratory global dynamo simulation of a fully convective low-mass star exhibiting a single-hemisphere magnetic configuration, which is not yet observationally confirmed. The large-scale magnetic field is mostly restricted to a single hemisphere and characterized by high-latitude polarity inversion lines (PILs), with the implication that most CMEs should originate from high latitudes. We find that these high-latitude CMEs propagate radially and away from the equatorial plane, producing only weak and spatially limited disturbances along the equatorial orbits of exoplanets. Moreover, low-latitude CMEs experience stronger drag within the dense and slow stellar wind near the equator, which significantly reduces both their propagation speeds and their overall impact on exoplanets. The resulting dynamic pressure enhancements on equatorial exoplanets caused by these CMEs are within two orders of magnitude above the quiescent conditions, much lower than those reported in previous M-dwarf CME simulations. These results indicate that, if such magnetic topologies indeed exist on M dwarfs, they may produce a relatively benign CME environment, which could be favorable for planetary habitability at face value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11087 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic maps and inserted flux ropes. Panels (a) and (b) correspond to Model A, which uses magnetic map A, while panels (c) and (d) correspond to Model B, which uses magnetic map B. The yellow and green field lines represent the inserted flux ropes, where the yellow lines indicate the high-latitude flux rope and the green lines indicate the equatorial flux rope. The black curve represents the equatorial plane [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Steady-state stellar coronal models. Panels (a1) and (b1): Three-dimensional visualizations of Models A and B, generated using magnetic maps A and B shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Snapshots of the stellar CMEs for cases B1 (a) and B2 (b). The isosurfaces represent regions where the velocity difference satisfies u−u0 = 3000 and 650 km s−1 for panels (a) and (b), respectively. The black curves indicate the hypothetical exoplanet orbit with a radius of 66 R⋆. (An online animation accompanies this figure. The animation shows the full temporal evolution of the CME propagation in the two cases.) [… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity difference u − u0 on a hypothetical spherical surface with a radius of 66R⋆. The white dashed lines indicate the equatorial orbit of the exoplanet. (An online animation accompanies this figure. The animation shows the time evolution of the velocity perturbatio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average magnetic strapping force (a), background density (b), and wind speed (c) distribution along the CME propagation path calculated from the steady-state models. The red and cyan curves correspond to high-latitude case A1 and low-latitude case A3, respectively [PI…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of dynamic pressure on the equatorial orbit of the exoplanet. The colorbar is given in units of P ⊕ dyn, the typical solar wind dynamic pressure at Earth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Stassun, K

    Aarnio, A. N., Stassun, K. G., Hughes, W. J., & McGregor, S. L. 2011, SoPh, 268, 195, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7 2011

  2. [2]

    2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719 Alvarado-G´ omez, J

    Danchi, W. 2016, Nature Geoscience, 9, 452, doi: 10.1038/ngeo2719 Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Moschou, S. P., & Garraffo, C. 2018, ApJ, 862, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Garraffo, C., et al. 2020a, ApJL, 902, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb885 Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Moschou, ...

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  3. [3]

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9805009

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9805009 1998

  4. [4]

    J., Hawley, S

    Bochanski, J. J., Hawley, S. L., Covey, K. R., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2679, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2679

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2679 2010

  5. [5]

    2018, Nature, 553, 477, doi: 10.1038/nature24677

    Bourrier, V., Lovis, C., Beust, H., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 477, doi: 10.1038/nature24677

    doi:10.1038/nature24677 2018

  6. [6]

    R., Allart, R., et al

    Bourrier, V., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Allart, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A160, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142559

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142559 2022

  7. [7]

    Burns, K. J. 2020, ApJL, 902, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9a4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb9a4 2020

  8. [8]

    R., Pope, B

    Callingham, J. R., Pope, B. J. S., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1359, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02405-6

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02405-6 2024

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al

    Callingham, J. R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al. 2025, Nature, 647, 603, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09715-3

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Galand, M., Unruh, Y

    Chadney, J. M., Galand, M., Unruh, Y. C., Koskinen, T. T., & Sanz-Forcada, J. 2015, Icarus, 250, 357, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.012

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2100

    Garraffo, C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2100

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Li, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739b

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Cheng, X., et al

    Chen, Y.-H., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Cheng, X., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12969, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.12969

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.14326, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.14326

    Cherubim, C., Vissapragada, S., Cunningham, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.14326, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.14326

    2026 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    J., Glocer, A., et al

    Cohen, O., Drake, J. J., Glocer, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/57

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9637

    Cohen, O., Garraffo, C., Moschou, S.-P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9637

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    Cohen, O., Glocer, A., Garraffo, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Drake, J

    Cohen, O., Kashyap, V. L., Drake, J. J., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 733, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/67

    doi

  12. [20]

    Gombosi, T. I. 2011b, ApJ, 738, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/166 10Sun et al

    doi

  13. [21]

    2019, A&A, 631, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935944

    Dalal, S., H´ ebrard, G., Lecavelier des´Etangs, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935944

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Davenport, J. R. A. 2016, ApJ, 829, 23, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/23 D ´ ıez Alonso, E., Caballero, J. A., Montes, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833316 do Amaral, L. N. R., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., &

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    Peacock, S. 2025, ApJ, 985, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc932

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    1997, MNRAS, 291, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.1.1

    Donati, J.-F., & Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.1.1

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    1999, MNRAS, 302, 437, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02095.x

    Semel, M. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 437, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02095.x

    1999

  18. [26]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 545, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13799.x

    Donati, J.-F., Morin, J., Petit, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 545, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13799.x

    2008

  19. [27]

    T., Cristofari, P

    Donati, J.-F., Lehmann, L. T., Cristofari, P. I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2301

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y., & Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2015a, ApJ, 802, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/62

    Garcia-Alvarez, D. 2015a, ApJ, 802, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/62

    doi

  22. [30]

    J., Kashyap, V

    Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V. L., Wargelin, B. J., & Wolk, S. J. 2020, ApJ, 893, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b5c

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    D., & Charbonneau, D

    Dressing, C. D., & Charbonneau, D. 2015, ApJ, 807, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/45

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    2025, A&A, 700, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554431 Fouqu´ e, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al

    Elekes, F., Saur, J., & Grayver, A. 2025, A&A, 700, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554431 Fouqu´ e, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Fu, H

    Fu, W. D., Fu, H. S., Zhang, W. Z., Yu, Y., & Cao, J. B. 2025, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, 2024GL114040, doi: 10.1029/2024GL114040

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2026, The Innovation

    Gao, D.-Y., Liu, H.-G., Yang, M., & Zhou, J.-L. 2026, The Innovation

    2026

  27. [35]

    D., Cohen, O., & Drake, J

    Garraffo, C., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Cohen, O., & Drake, J. J. 2022, ApJL, 941, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca487

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, ApJL, 833, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L4

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Cohen, O., Alvarado-G´ omez, J

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., & Moschou, S. P. 2017, ApJL, 843, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa79ed

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Gershberg, R. E. 2005, Solar-Type Activity in Main-Sequence Stars, doi: 10.1007/3-540-28243-2

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    E., & Low, B

    Gibson, S. E., & Low, B. C. 1998, ApJ, 493, 460, doi: 10.1086/305107

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & ´O Fionnag´ ain, D

    Hazra, G., Vidotto, A. A., Carolan, S., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & ´O Fionnag´ ain, D. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 1089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2559

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    J., & Jao, W.-C

    Henry, T. J., & Jao, W.-C. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 593, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Schleicher, D

    Hidalgo, J. P., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Gonz´ alez, D. P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20417

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Foing, B

    Houdebine, E. R., Foing, B. H., & Rodono, M. 1990, A&A, 238, 249

    1990

  37. [45]

    Hussain, G. A. J., Jardine, M., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1488, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11692.x

    2007

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 687, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449541

    Ilin, E., Poppenh¨ ager, K., Stelzer, B., & Dsouza, D. 2024, A&A, 687, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449541

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    J., et al

    Ilin, E., Poppenhaeger, K., Schmidt, S. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2159

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    E., Heinrich, P., Inhester, B., & Guo, L

    Innes, D. E., Heinrich, P., Inhester, B., & Guo, L. J. 2016, A&A, 592, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527520

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    B., van der Holst, B., et al

    Jin, M., Manchester, W. B., van der Holst, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/173

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Johnson, R. E. 1990, Energetic Charged-Particle Interactions with Atmospheres and Surfaces, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48375-2 K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J. 2021, A&A, 651, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040049

    1990 doi

  43. [51]

    F., Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R

    Kasting, J. F., Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R. M., & Harman, C. E. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12641, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309107110

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al

    Khodachenko, M. L., Ribas, I., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 167, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0127

    2007

  45. [53]

    1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    1990

  46. [54]

    M., et al

    Klein, B., Donati, J.-F., H´ ebrard,´E. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3396

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    Kochukhov, O. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-020-00130-3

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Landstreet, J

    Kochukhov, O., Silvester, J., Bailey, J. D., Landstreet, J. D., & Wade, G. A. 2017, A&A, 605, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730919

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJL, 787, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    C., et al

    Kouloumvakos, A., Wijsen, N., Jebaraj, I. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada0be

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2012, A&A, 539, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117675

    Kuckein, C., Mart ´ ınez Pillet, V., & Centeno, R. 2012, A&A, 539, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117675

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0128 M dwarf CME11

    2007

  53. [61]

    L., Floyd, O., Boclet, B., et al

    Lamy, P. L., Floyd, O., Boclet, B., et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 39, doi: 10.1007/s11214-019-0605-y

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Lavail, A., Kochukhov, O., & Wade, G. A. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1825

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    H., & Vidotto, A

    Mackay, D. H., & Vidotto, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3362

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2024, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 67, 1592, doi: 10.1007/s11431-023-2534-8

    Li, D., Hou, Z., Bai, X., et al. 2024, Science in China E: Technological Sciences, 67, 1592, doi: 10.1007/s11431-023-2534-8

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2021, ApJL, 917, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1a15

    Li, T., Chen, A., Hou, Y., et al. 2021, ApJL, 917, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1a15

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba6ef

    Li, T., Hou, Y., Yang, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba6ef

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2025, Earth and Planetary Physics, 9, 171, doi: 10.26464/epp2024058

    Li, Y., Huang, S., Xu, S., et al. 2025, Earth and Planetary Physics, 9, 171, doi: 10.26464/epp2024058

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    Limber, D. N. 1958, ApJ, 127, 363, doi: 10.1086/146468

    1958 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Ip, W

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

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae057

    Liu, Q., Jiang, C., Feng, X., Zuo, P., & Wang, Y. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L25, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae057

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    Liu, R. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 165, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/165

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Lazio, J., et al. 2025, The Exospace Weather Frontier, Report prepared for the W. M. Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS), California Institute of Technology, by R.O.P. Loyd et al, 2025., doi: 10.26206/gmhk5-amp17

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    2025, ApJL, 978, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93cc

    Lu, H.-P., Tian, H., Zhang, L.-Y., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad93cc

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Airapetian, V

    Lynch, B. J., Airapetian, V. S., DeVore, C. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab287e

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    B., Gombosi, T

    Manchester, W. B., Gombosi, T. I., Roussev, I., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A02107, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010150

    2004 doi

  68. [76]

    W., Feiden, G

    Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, ApJ, 804, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2557

    Modi, A., Estrela, R., & Valio, A. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2557

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    2010, MNRAS, 407, 2269, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x

    Morin, J., Donati, J.-F., Petit, P., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2269, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x

    2010

  71. [79]

    J., & MacDonald, J

    Mullan, D. J., & MacDonald, J. 2001, ApJ, 559, 353, doi: 10.1086/322336

    2001 doi

  72. [80]

    2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    Charbonneau, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad73b

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1969

    Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., Hanslmeier, A., & Lammer, H. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1969

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    E., & Mohanty, S

    Owen, J. E., & Mohanty, S. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw959

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d3 P¨ atzold, M., Tsurutani, B

    Stenborg, G. 2025, ApJ, 982, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8d3 P¨ atzold, M., Tsurutani, B. T., & Bird, M. K. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 24151, doi: 10.1029/97JA01868

    2025 doi

  76. [84]

    L., Bame, S

    Phillips, J. L., Bame, S. J., Barnes, A., et al. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3301, doi: 10.1029/95GL03094

    1995 doi

  77. [85]

    G., Roe, P

    Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & De Zeeuw, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299

    1999

  78. [86]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4bd9

    Qiao, F., Li, H., Wang, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4bd9

    2026 doi

  79. [87]

    J., et al

    Reiners, A., Shulyak, D., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243251

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    2018, Nature, 563, 365, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0677-y

    Ribas, I., Tuomi, M., Reiners, A., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 365, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0677-y

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    2025, A&A, 693, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451680

    Sanz-Forcada, J., L´ opez-Puertas, M., Lamp´ on, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A285, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451680

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    Savanov, I. S. 2023, Astrophysical Bulletin, 78, 588, doi: 10.1134/S1990341323700165

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    Schield, M. A. 1969, J. Geophys. Res., 74, 1275, doi: 10.1029/JA074i005p01275

    1969 doi

  84. [92]

    L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J

    Shields, A. L., Ballard, S., & Johnson, J. A. 2016, PhR, 663, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.003

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    2008, ApJ, 676, 628, doi: 10.1086/527351

    Cameron, A. 2008, ApJ, 676, 628, doi: 10.1086/527351

    2008 doi

  86. [94]

    H., Chao, J

    Shue, J. H., Chao, J. K., Fu, H. C., et al. 1997, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 9497, doi: 10.1029/97JA00196

    1997 doi

  87. [95]

    H., Song, P., Russell, C

    Shue, J. H., Song, P., Russell, C. T., et al. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 17691, doi: 10.1029/98JA01103

    1998 doi

  88. [96]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 1411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad928

    Haardt, F. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 1411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad928

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    M., Evensberget, D., & Vidotto, A

    Strickert, K. M., Evensberget, D., & Vidotto, A. A. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1884 Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Artigau,´E., Mignon, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553728

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf18b

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Bian, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf18b

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5b1

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Tian, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5b1

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    2024a, ApJ, 974, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad738d

    Sun, Z., Tian, H., Li, T., Liu, R., & Duan, Y. 2024a, ApJ, 974, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad738d

    doi

  93. [101]

    2024b, SoPh, 299, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02329-4

    Sun, Z., Li, T., Hou, Y., et al. 2024b, SoPh, 299, 93, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02329-4

    doi

  94. [102]

    A., Cottrell, R

    Tarduno, J. A., Cottrell, R. D., Watkeys, M. K., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 1238, doi: 10.1126/science.1183445 12Sun et al

    2010 doi

  95. [103]

    2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 T´ oth, G., Sokolov, I

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 T´ oth, G., Sokolov, I. V., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A12226, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011126 T´ oth, G., van der Holst, B., ...

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    Kislyakova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    2024 doi

  97. [105]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/77

    Decin, L. 2016, ApJ, 830, 77, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/77

    2016 doi

  98. [106]

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

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01345-9

    2021 doi

  99. [107]

    Vidotto, A. A. 2021, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 18, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-021-00029-w —. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 299, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021225-030604

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

    A., & Cleary, A

    Vidotto, A. A., & Cleary, A. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa852

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    A., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al

    Vidotto, A. A., Jardine, M., Morin, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321504 —. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2265

    2013 doi

  102. [110]

    2025, A&A, 701, A264, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555471

    Wang, B., Ye, S., Varela, J., & Luo, X. 2025, A&A, 701, A264, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555471

    2025 doi

  103. [111]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3

    2012 doi

  104. [112]

    J., Louden, T., Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., & Gillon, M

    Wheatley, P. J., Louden, T., Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., & Gillon, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L74, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw192

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    G., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    2019 doi

  106. [114]

    E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

    Wood, B. E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5

    2021 doi

  107. [115]

    D., Tian, H., et al

    Xu, Y., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Tian, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5845

    2024 doi

  108. [116]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee7

    Guerrero, G. 2025, ApJ, 985, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcee7

    2025 doi

  109. [117]

    2016, ApJL, 833, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L28

    Poppenhaeger, K. 2016, ApJL, 833, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/833/2/L28

    2016 doi

  110. [118]

    2023, A&A, 669, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710

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

    2023 doi

  111. [119]

    2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Yashiro, S., & Gopalswamy, N. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 257, Universal Heliophysical Processes, ed. N. Gopalswamy & D. F. Webb, 233–243, doi: 10.1017/S1743921309029342

    2009 doi

  112. [120]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

  113. [121]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb77

    Zhang, J., Tian, H., Zarka, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb77

    2023 doi

  114. [122]

    2025, Science Advances, 11, eadw6116, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adw6116

    Zhang, J., Tian, H., Bellotti, S., et al. 2025, Science Advances, 11, eadw6116, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adw6116

    2025 doi

  115. [123]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z M dwarf CME13 Figure 1.Magnetic maps and inserted flux ropes

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z M dwarf CME13 Figure 1.Magnetic maps and inserted flux ropes. Panels (a) and (b) correspond to Model A, which uses magnetic map A, while panels (c) and (d) correspond to Model ...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.