Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Testing the Rossby Paradigm: Weakened Magnetic Braking in early K-type Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For six K dwarfs, stellar wind braking shuts off at the same Rossby number as hotter stars.

desk verdict A careful extension of the torque-reconstruction program to K dwarfs with real new data, but the 'same Ro_crit' claim leans on an activity-based Ro calibration whose systematic uncertainties are not propagated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19169 v3 pith:S3QBDVKO submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.SR

Travis S. Metcalfe , Pascal Petit , Jennifer L. van Saders , Thomas R. Ayres , Derek Buzasi , Oleg Kochukhov , Keivan G. Stassun , Marc H. Pinsonneault
show 7 more authors
Ilya V. Ilyin Klaus G. Strassmeier Adam J. Finley Rafael A. Garcia Daniel Huber Yuxi Lucy Lu Victor See
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords weakenedmagneticbrakingRossbynumberK-typedwarfstarsstellarfieldstorquewindsspectropolarimetrygyrochronology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to test whether the Rossby number — rotation period divided by convective overturn time — is the single quantity that determines when magnetic braking shuts off in low-mass stars. For an evolutionary sequence of six early K-type stars, the authors combine spectropolarimetric maps of the large-scale magnetic field, mass-loss rates from X-ray or Ly-alpha data, and uniform rotation periods, radii, and masses to estimate the wind braking torque. They find that the torque falls by more than an order of magnitude at a critical Rossby number near 0.9 times the solar value, even though the stars involved rotate much more slowly (31–43 days) than the hotter stars studied before (21–23 days). The conclusion is that the Rossby number, not rotation period or mass, is the universal predictor of weakened magnetic braking, and that weakened braking may set in while the dynamo is still producing activity cycles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Finley and Matt (2018) wind-braking torque formula, which converts the large-scale dipole, quadrupole, and octupole polar field strengths (Bd, Bq, Bo), the mass-loss rate, stellar mass, radius, and rotation period into a spin-down torque. Zeeman-Doppler Imaging maps are converted into equivalent polar field components; mass-loss rates come from the X-ray surface flux relation of Wood et al. (2021) or from direct Ly-alpha astrospheric absorption; radii and masses come from SED fits with Gaia parallaxes; and Rossby numbers are computed with an extended convective-overturn calibration from Metcalfe et al. (2024a). For two stars without a ZDI map, the paper conservatively assumes all polarization signal is an axisymmetric dipole, which maximizes the resulting torque estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the wind braking torque of a K dwarf with Rossby number clearly above Rocrit (for example HD 166620) using direct Ly-alpha or radio astrospheric observations and independent MHD wind models of its ZDI map; if that torque is not more than an order of magnitude below the standard spin-down curve, the claimed Rossby-number transition fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the torque prescription of Finley and Matt (2018), the paper estimates wind braking torques for six K dwarfs spanning a factor of roughly 700 in torque. The key result is that the torque drops abruptly — by more than an order of magnitude — at Ro/Ro_sun near 0.9, the same critical value previously inferred for late F- and G-type stars. Because the K dwarfs cross this threshold at rotation periods of 31–43 days rather than 21–23 days, the agreement in critical Rossby number is not an artifact of rotation period: it identifies the Rossby number as the global stellar predictor of weakened magnetic braking. All six stars show activity cycles, including those in the weakened-braking regime, which the paper interprets as evidence that the transition coincides with a subcritical stellar dynamo rather than the total loss of large-scale organization.

Load-bearing premise

The torque model of Finley and Matt (2018), built on a polytropic Parker wind that is acknowledged to be inaccurate for the solar wind, must give unbiased relative torque estimates across the full range of activity in the sample; if its bias changes with activity, the claimed abrupt drop could be partly an artifact of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Rossby number is the universal switch, K dwarfs enter weakened magnetic braking near Ro/Ro_sun approximately 0.9, which corresponds to ages around 7–9 Gyr rather than the younger ages typical of solar analogs.
  • Stars just past the transition rotate with periods of 31–43 days, so rotation-period surveys that treat period alone as an age indicator will misclassify post-transition K dwarfs.
  • The torque drop in the standard spin-down regime is dominated by declining field strength, while the drop in the weakened-braking regime is dominated by a shift in magnetic morphology — a change that can be checked with time-series spectropolarimetry.
  • Activity cycles can persist on both sides of the transition, so the presence of a cycle does not imply that full-strength magnetic braking is operating.
  • On K-dwarf timescales the transition begins only after roughly 7 Gyr, so the oldest K dwarfs are just entering the new regime and the full population of partially braked stars may still be forming.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be to measure mass-loss rates from Ly-alpha astrospheric absorption for sigma Dra and HD 166620 (planned HST observations) and recompute the torques; if the order-of-magnitude drop survives, it is less likely to be an artifact of the X-ray-based mass-loss calibration.
  • Because the torque prescription uses a polytropic Parker wind model that the authors themselves flag as inaccurate for the solar wind, the same method applied across very different activity levels could imprint a torque drop that is partly model-driven; independent MHD wind torques on the same ZDI maps would settle this.
  • A broader implication is that if Rocrit is universal across spectral type, then convective overturn timescales must be accurately known for each star, and systematic errors in tau_c translate directly into errors in the predicted transition age.
  • The morphology shift seen between sigma Dra and HD 219134 suggests that time-series ZDI of a K dwarf deep in the weakened-braking regime (for example HD 166620) should reveal a strongly non-axisymmetric, complex field; this can be checked with a sustained observing campaign.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether weakened magnetic braking (WMB) in early K-type stars sets in at the same Rossby number as in hotter stars. Using spectropolarimetry (two new LBT snapshots and two new ZDI maps from archival data), X-ray and Ly-alpha mass-loss estimates, SED-based radii and masses, and literature rotation periods, the authors compute wind braking torques for six K dwarfs with the Finley & Matt (2018) prescription. They report an order-of-magnitude drop in the torque near Ro/Ro_sun ~ 0.9, matching the critical Rossby number previously inferred for F and G stars, and they interpret this as evidence that the Rossby number, rather than rotation period alone, controls the onset of WMB. The paper also proposes that activity cycles in these K dwarfs may be powered by a subcritical dynamo.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a valuable extension of the WMB paradigm to cooler, longer-period stars and strengthens the case that Ro_crit is a universal stellar predictor rather than a mass- or period-dependent quantity. The new LBT Stokes V observations, the ZDI reconstructions for sigma Dra and 107 Psc, and the uniform SED-based stellar parameters are useful observational contributions in their own right. The paper is also commendably transparent: it releases the torque code repository, discusses asteroseismic nondetections, and includes an explicit footnote acknowledging the known limitations of the Finley & Matt (2018) wind model. The main risk is not the internal consistency of the torque calculation, which is independent of Ro, but the calibration of the K-dwarf Rossby numbers and the propagation of systematic errors in the mass-loss and torque estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 1] The Rossby numbers for all six K dwarfs are derived from the Metcalfe et al. (2024a) activity-based calibration, which estimates Ro/Ro_sun from the inverse of mean activity relative to the Sun, because the asteroseismic Corsaro et al. (2021) relation does not cover the relevant colors. The Table 1 uncertainties of ±0.01–0.02 are purely formal. The central claim that WMB onset occurs at the same Ro_crit as in hotter stars requires the K-dwarf Ro values to be on the same absolute scale as the asteroseismic values used for the hotter samples. Since activity also enters the torque estimates through the X-ray-based mass-loss rates and the ZDI-derived field strengths, an apparent torque drop at Ro ≈ 0.9 could in principle be a drop at a particular activity level, with the numerical Ro_crit set by the calibration zero-point. The authors should propagate the systematic uncertainty of the Metcalfe et al. (2024a) calibration (zero point, slope, and any color dependence) into Figure 5, or alternatively present the K-dwarf Ro_crit as a separate determination rather than asserting it coincides with the hotter-star value.
  2. [Footnote 3, Sections 2.2.2 and 4] The paper's own footnote 3 concedes that the Finley & Matt (2018) torque model uses a polytropic Parker wind "known to be an inaccurate representation of the physics driving the solar wind." The manuscript does not quantify how this model bias varies with activity level, mass-loss rate, or magnetic morphology. This matters because the claimed order-of-magnitude drop spans exactly the range where the model is extrapolated far from its calibration. In addition, four of six mass-loss rates come from the Wood et al. (2021) X-ray surface flux relation, for which the paper itself notes (footnote 2) scatter up to two orders of magnitude at high activity. The quoted mass-loss uncertainties in Table 1 appear to propagate only the factor-of-two Ly-alpha systematic and X-ray statistical errors, not the full scatter of the empirical relation. The authors should fold the full systematic scatter into the torque uncertainties, or explicitly restrict the "abrupt drop" claim to the two Ly-alpha targets and demonstrate that the remaining stars do not move relative to the transition once the Wood et al. (2021) scatter is included.
  3. [Section 3.2, HD 103095 and HD 166620] For HD 103095 and HD 166620 the paper assumes that all of the large-scale magnetic field is in an axisymmetric dipole, which the authors state is a conservative assumption that maximizes the torque. This means the torques for these two stars are formal upper limits if the true fields contain quadrupolar or octupolar components. The statement in Section 4 that the magnetic contribution in the WMB regime is dominated by a morphology shift (-49%) rests almost entirely on the single ZDI-mapped target HD 219134, since the two dipole-only stars cannot constrain morphology. This does not invalidate the main Ro_crit claim, but the morphology interpretation should be explicitly qualified in the abstract or conclusions as resting on one star.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2.2.2] The mass-loss rate column header and in-text values (e.g., "30 +30 -15" and "9.9+10.5 -5.6 Mdot_sun") do not specify the units; they appear to be in units of 10^-12 solar masses per year but this should be stated explicitly in the table and text.
  2. [Section 2.2] The word "Röngtensatelit" is a typo for "Röntgensatellit" (ROSAT).
  3. [Figure 5] The x-axis label "Ro/Ro" should read "Ro/Ro_sun" for consistency with the text, and the light gray shaded region denoting systematic uncertainty in Ro/Ro_sun should be defined in the figure caption rather than only in the main text.
  4. [Section 2.1.2, 2.1.3] The instrument name "NARV AL" should be written as "NARVAL" throughout; the current spacing appears to be an artifact of the LaTeX source.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Activity-calibrated Rossby numbers make the K-dwarf 'same Ro_crit' claim partly circular: both axes of the torque–Ro plot are derived from activity diagnostics.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Figure 5; Section 2.2.2]
    "The extended relation is nearly linear between 0.55 < GBP − GRP < 1.2, and allows us to estimate Ro/Ro_sun from the inverse of the mean activity level relative to the solar value from Egeland et al. (2017). For consistency with previous results, we use this formulation to estimate Ro/Ro_sun for the early K-type stars in our sample. ... we use the coronal heating rate (as inferred from X-ray luminosities) to estimate the mass-loss rates."

    On the x-axis of Figure 5, Ro/Ro_sun is constructed from the inverse of each star's mean activity level, while on the y-axis the torque is constructed from inputs that are themselves activity diagnostics: the mass-loss rate comes from the X-ray surface flux via Wood et al. (2021), and the magnetic field strength comes from ZDI. The claimed abrupt decline in torque at Ro ≈ 0.9 is therefore, to first order, a decline in torque against activity, with the numerical value of Ro_crit fixed by the zero-point of the activity calibration rather than by an independent measurement of convective overturn time. Reporting this as the onset of WMB at a universal Rossby number is a coordinate transformation of the activity–torque relation, not an independent prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 3.2 and Section 4]
    "Metcalfe et al. (2024a) recently extended the relation to redder colors, using measured rotation periods and mean activity levels from the Mount Wilson survey to estimate the convective overturn times. ... the empirical value of Rocrit for the onset of WMB in solar analogs (Metcalfe et al. 2022). ... The onset of WMB occurs at the same Ro_crit as the threshold for hotter stars."

    The load-bearing calibration for the K-dwarf Rossby numbers is the authors' own Metcalfe et al. (2024a) extension, and the reference Rocrit is the authors' own Metcalfe et al. (2022) value. The conclusion that K dwarfs share the same Ro_crit therefore inherits the zero-point of a same-author chain: the activity–Ro mapping is not independently validated for the K-dwarf color range, and the calibration assumes the same activity–Ro relation that the paper claims to be testing. Without an external anchor for τc on these colors, the 'same Ro_crit' claim is supported by self-citation rather than by new independent measurement.

full rationale

The torque estimates themselves are built from new or archival observational inputs (ZDI maps, X-ray and Ly-alpha mass-loss proxies, SED radii) and an external torque prescription, so the numerical torque values have independent content. However, the central claim that WMB turns on at the same Rossby number in early K dwarfs as in hotter stars depends on the K-dwarf Rossby numbers, which are not measured from asteroseismic overturn times but are computed from the inverse of activity levels using a same-group calibration. Since the torque inputs (mass-loss rate, magnetic field) are also activity-driven, the key panel of the paper is largely an activity–activity correlation recast in Rossby coordinates. This is a partial circularity: the period measurements and the long rotation periods (31–43 days) are independent facts, but the quantitative coincidence at Ro_crit ≈ 0.9 is not an independent test of the Rossby paradigm. The Finley–Matt torque model limitations noted in the paper's footnote are a correctness concern, not a circularity concern; the circularity is concentrated in the activity-based construction of the Rossby scale and its self-referential calibration.

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

The paper's torque estimates depend on a chain of empirical and theoretical inputs: the Finley & Matt (2018) torque prescription, the Wood et al. (2021) X-ray to mass-loss relation, the Metcalfe et al. (2024a) activity-based convective overturn calibration, and ZDI field maps with an axisymmetric dipole assumption for two stars. None of these are first-principles; all are calibrated to data in previous work, much of it by the same author group. The central claim is not a derivation, so the ledger records these as domain assumptions and free parameters rather than invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Convective overturn timescale calibration (Metcalfe et al. 2024a) = activity-based relation for tau_c
    Used to compute Rossby numbers in Section 3.2; calibrated from rotation periods and activity levels, so Ro partially depends on activity, which is also linked to X-ray luminosity and mass-loss.
  • Critical Rossby number Ro_crit = ~0.9 Ro_sun
    Adopted from previous work (Metcalfe et al. 2022; Saunders et al. 2024), not fitted in this paper; used as the threshold against which the sample is compared.
  • X-ray surface flux to mass-loss relation = Mdot proportional to F_X^0.77
    Wood et al. (2021) empirical relation used for four of six stars (Section 2.2.2); scatter up to two orders of magnitude at high activity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Finley & Matt (2018) torque prescription accurately describes wind braking for K dwarfs
    Used throughout Section 3.2; footnote 3 acknowledges the underlying Parker wind model is known to be inaccurate for the solar wind.
  • domain assumption Wood et al. (2021) X-ray flux to mass-loss relation holds for all sample stars
    Section 2.2.2; only two stars have direct Ly-alpha mass-loss, the rest use this empirical scaling.
  • domain assumption ZDI and dipole snapshot modeling recover the large-scale magnetic field
    Section 2.1; for HD 103095 and HD 166620 the field is assumed to be an axisymmetric dipole, which maximizes the torque.
  • domain assumption The rotational evolution model of Saunders et al. (2024) correctly describes spin-down with WMB
    Section 3.1; used to infer ages; validated against asteroseismic ages for two stars.
  • domain assumption Metcalfe et al. (2024a) extension of convective overturn timescales to redder colors is accurate
    Section 3.2; used to compute Rossby numbers for the K dwarfs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Rossby Paradigm: Weakened Magnetic Braking in early K-type Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3QBDVKO

@misc{pith2026250119169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Rossby Paradigm: Weakened Magnetic Braking in early K-type Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3QBDVKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19169}
}
read the original abstract

There is an intricate relationship between the organization of large-scale magnetic fields by a stellar dynamo and the rate of angular momentum loss due to magnetized stellar winds. An essential ingredient for the operation of a large-scale dynamo is the Coriolis force, which imprints organizing flows on the global convective patterns and inhibits the complete cancellation of bipolar magnetic regions. Consequently, it is natural to expect a rotational threshold for large-scale dynamo action and for the efficient angular momentum loss that it mediates through magnetic braking. Here we present new observational constraints on magnetic braking for an evolutionary sequence of six early K-type stars. To determine the wind braking torque for each of our targets, we combine spectropolarimetric constraints on the large-scale magnetic field, Ly-alpha or X-ray constraints on the mass-loss rate, as well as uniform estimates of the stellar rotation period, mass, and radius. As identified previously from similar observations of hotter stars, we find that the wind braking torque decreases abruptly by more than an order of magnitude at a critical value of the stellar Rossby number. Given that all of the stars in our sample exhibit clear activity cycles, we suggest that weakened magnetic braking may coincide with the operation of a subcritical stellar dynamo.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stokes V polarization profiles for HD 103095 (top) and HD 166620 (bottom) from LBT observations on 2023 December 6 and 2024 July 5, respectively. The mean LSD profile is shown as a black line with uncertainties indicated by the gray shaded area. The dashed blue line is an axisymmetric model profile assuming dipole morphology with a fixed inclination. flux in a given spherical harmonic degree (Bℓ) into equivalent pol… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Stokes V LSD profiles obtained from NARVAL observations of σ Dra. Observations are shown as black dots (along with their error bars), while the ZDI model is displayed with red lines. Blue dashes show the null level, and the rotational phases of the observations are labeled on the right side of the plot. Successive observations are vertically shifted for clarity. Right: ZDI magnetic map of σ Dra in equirectangu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Stokes V LSD profiles obtained from NARVAL observations of 107 Psc. Observations are shown as black dots (along with their error bars), while the ZDI model is displayed with red lines. Blue dashes show the null level, and the rotational phases of the observations are labeled on the right side of the plot. Successive observations are vertically shifted for clarity. Right: ZDI magnetic map of 107 Psc in equirect… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral energy distributions of (top, left to right) ϵ Eri, σ Dra, and 107 Psc, and (bottom) HD 103095, HD 219134, and HD 166620. Red symbols represent the observed photometric measurements, and the horizontal bars represent the effective width of the bandpass. Blue s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated wind braking torque relative to σ Dra as a func￾tion of Ro normalized to the solar value. The light gray shaded area indicates the systematic uncertainty in Ro/Ro⊙, while the darker gray shaded area marks the empirical onset of WMB in solar analogs. The solar…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Extracted light curves for 107 Psc from TESS sectors 42 and 43 (top), 57 (middle), and 70 and 71 (bottom). Results from the custom pipeline used here are shown in black, while those from the standard SPOC pipeline are in red. Our pipeline results are shown prior to hig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Anchoring Stellar Age Indicators: A Cross-Calibration of [C/N] and Gyrochronology Ages via the Age-Velocity-Dispersion Relation

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    After anchoring gyrochronology and [C/N] ages to the same age-velocity-dispersion relation, the two methods give consistent ages once small offsets are subtracted, and their valid parameter spaces are mapped.

  2. K-dwarf Radius Inflation and a 10-Gyr Spin-down Clock Unveiled through Asteroseismology of HD 219134 from the Keck Planet Finder

    astro-ph.SR 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HD 219134 yields the first asteroseismic age for a dwarf cooler than 5000 K, alongside a 4% radius discrepancy with interferometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Amard, L., Roquette, J., & Matt, S. P. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3481, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3038 Aurière, M. 2003, in EAS Publications Series, V ol. 9, EAS Publications Series, ed. J. Arnaud & N. Meunier, 105

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3038 2020

  2. [2]

    1996, ApJL, 457, L99, doi: 10.1086/309891

    Baliunas, S., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W. 1996, ApJL, 457, L99, doi: 10.1086/309891

    doi:10.1086/309891 1996

  3. [3]

    L., Donahue, R

    Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 269, doi: 10.1086/175072

    doi:10.1086/175072 1995

  4. [4]

    Basu, S., & Antia, H. M. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 1402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/276.4.1402

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/276.4.1402 1995

  5. [5]

    C., Wright, J

    Baum, A. C., Wright, J. T., Luhn, J. K., & Isaacson, H. 2022, AJ, 163, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5683

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5683 2022

  6. [6]

    T., et al

    Bellotti, S., Morin, J., Lehmann, L. T., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348043 Boro Saikia, S., Lueftinger, T., Jeffers, S. V ., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834347

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348043 2024

  7. [7]

    P., Tran, Q

    Bowler, B. P., Tran, Q. H., Zhang, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbd34

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acbd34 2023

  8. [8]

    N., García, R

    Breton, S. N., García, R. A., Ballot, J., Delsanti, V ., & Salabert, D. 2022, A&A, 663, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243330

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243330 2022

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    M., Fischer, D

    Brewer, J. M., Fischer, D. A., Valenti, J. A., & Piskunov, N. 2016, ApJS, 225, 32, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/32

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Brown, T. M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/101

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Noraz, Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac469b

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Buzasi, D. L. 1997, ApJ, 484, 855, doi: 10.1086/304374

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    Cao, L., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2165, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2706

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2003, in Asteroseismology Across the HR Diagram, ed

    Carrier, F., Bouchy, F., & Eggenberger, P. 2003, in Asteroseismology Across the HR Diagram, ed. M. J. Thompson, M. S. Cunha, & M. J. P. F. G. Monteiro, V ol. 284, 311–314

    2003

  7. [15]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Sayeed, M., & Yamsiri, P. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3331, doi: 10.21105/joss.03331

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, A&A, 636, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936479

    Coffaro, M., Stelzer, B., Orlando, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936479

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, A&A, 652, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141395

    Corsaro, E., Bonanno, A., Mathur, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141395

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Agüeros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Agüeros, M. A., Douglas, S. T., & Meibom, S. 2019, ApJ, 879, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2393

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Agüeros, M

    Curtis, J. L., Agüeros, M. A., Matt, S. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    David, T. J., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6dd3 do Nascimento, J. D., Barnes, S. A., Saar, S. H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1a

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    1997, MNRAS, 291, 658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.4.658

    Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.4.658

    1997 doi

  14. [22]

    F., Howarth, I

    Donati, J. F., Howarth, I. D., Jardine, M. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 629, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10558.x

    2006

  15. [23]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    Dotter, A., Conroy, C., Cargile, P., & Asplund, M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d10

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    R., & Latour, J

    Durney, B. R., & Latour, J. 1978, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 9, 241, doi: 10.1080/03091927708242330

    1978 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/25

    Egeland, R., Soon, W., Baliunas, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/25

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    R., & Pinsonneault, M

    Epstein, C. R., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2014, ApJ, 780, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/159

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Matt, S

    Finley, A. J., & Matt, S. P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab5

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Matt, S

    Finley, A. J., Matt, S. P., & See, V . 2018, ApJ, 864, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b6

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Fossati, L., Wood, B

    Folsom, C. P., Fossati, L., Wood, B. E., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 481, 5286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2494

    doi

  22. [30]

    P., Bouvier, J., Petit, P., et al

    Folsom, C. P., Bouvier, J., Petit, P., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 474, 4956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3021

    doi

  23. [31]

    2023, A&A, 672, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245201 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fuhrmeister, B., Coffaro, M., Stelzer, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245201 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 García, R. A., Ceillier, T., Salabert, D., et al. 2014, A&A,...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Cohen, O

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., & Cohen, O. 2016, A&A, 595, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628367

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Dotter, A., et al

    Garraffo, C., Drake, J. J., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aace5d

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Davies, G

    Hall, O. J., Davies, G. R., van Saders, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 707, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01335-x

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, ApJS, submitted (arXiv:2403.02489), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02489

    Hey, D., Huber, D., Ong, J., Stello, D., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2024, ApJS, submitted (arXiv:2403.02489), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02489

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a9

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad76a9

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    V ., Petit, P., Marsden, S

    Jeffers, S. V ., Petit, P., Marsden, S. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423725

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Johnson, M. C., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 74, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/74

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236, doi: 10.1086/166740

    1988 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, A&A, 524, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015429

    Kochukhov, O., Makaganiuk, V ., & Piskunov, N. 2010, A&A, 524, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015429

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 44, IAU Colloq. 138: Peculiar versus Normal Phenomena in A-type and Related Stars, ed. M. M

    1993

  34. [42]

    Li, Y ., Huber, D., Ong, J. M. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, submitted, (arXiv:2502.00971), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.00971

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    2024, AJ, 167, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9

    Lu, Y ., Angus, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hattori, S. 2024, AJ, 167, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Angus, R., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y . L., Angus, R., Curtis, J. L., David, T. J., & Kiman, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Curtis, J

    Lu, Y . L., Curtis, J. L., Angus, R., David, T. J., & Hattori, S. 2022, AJ, 164, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9bee

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Wright, J

    Luhn, J. K., Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Saar, S. H., & Baum, A. C. 2022, ApJL, 936, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8b13

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d58

    Masuda, K. 2022, ApJ, 937, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d58

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    Mermilliod, J. C. 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/168

    2006

  42. [50]

    Saders, J. L. 2024a, RNAAS, 8, 260, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad8566

    doi

  43. [51]

    S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I

    Metcalfe, T. S., Kochukhov, O., Ilyin, I. V ., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5e48

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Townsend, R

    Metcalfe, T. S., Townsend, R. H. D., & Ball, W. H. 2023a, RNAAS, 7, 164, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acebef

    doi

  45. [53]

    S., & van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., & van Saders, J. 2017, SoPh, 292, 126, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1157-5

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Buccino, A

    Metcalfe, T. S., Buccino, A. P., Brown, B. P., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L26

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Creevey, O

    Metcalfe, T. S., Creevey, O. L., Do˘gan, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 27, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/27

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Basu, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba963 —. 2021, ApJ, 921, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f19

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Finley, A

    Metcalfe, T. S., Finley, A. J., Kochukhov, O., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac794d

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Strassmeier, K

    Metcalfe, T. S., Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I. V ., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 948, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acce38

    doi

  51. [59]

    S., Buzasi, D., Huber, D., et al

    Metcalfe, T. S., Buzasi, D., Huber, D., et al. 2023c, AJ, 166, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf1f7

    doi

  52. [60]

    S., Strassmeier, K

    Metcalfe, T. S., Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I. V ., et al. 2024b, ApJL, 960, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0a95

    doi

  53. [61]

    S., van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Huber, D., et al. 2024c, ApJ, 974, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6dd6

    doi

  54. [62]

    2012, A&A, 537, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117352

    Mosser, B., Elsworth, Y ., Hekker, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117352

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    B., Ball, W

    Nielsen, M. B., Ball, W. H., Standing, M. R., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037461

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    1984 doi

  57. [65]

    2015, A&A, 580, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526413

    Paunzen, E. 2015, A&A, 580, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526413

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2014, PASP, 126, 469, doi: 10.1086/676976

    Petit, P., Louge, T., Théado, S., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 469, doi: 10.1086/676976

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    P., Donati, J

    Petit, P., Folsom, C. P., Donati, J. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040027

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    H., Kawaler, S

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Kawaler, S. D., Sofia, S., & Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    1989 doi

  61. [69]

    Pevtsov, A. A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae3

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    J., et al

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

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    Santos, A. R. G., García, R. A., Mathur, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Lyttle, A

    Saunders, N., van Saders, J. L., Lyttle, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1516

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    A., et al

    See, V ., Jardine, M., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2010

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  68. [76]

    Spada, F., & Lanzafame, A. C. 2020, A&A, 636, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936384

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    G., Collins, K

    Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2017, AJ, 153, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5df3

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    G., Corsaro, E., Pepper, J

    Stassun, K. G., Corsaro, E., Pepper, J. A., & Gaudi, B. S. 2018, AJ, 155, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa998a

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    G., & Torres, G

    Stassun, K. G., & Torres, G. 2016, ApJL, 831, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/1/L6 —. 2021, ApJL, 907, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdaad

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., et al

    Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 324, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512172

    2015 doi

  73. [81]

    Suzuki, T. K. 2013, Astronomische Nachrichten, 334, 81, doi: 10.1002/asna.201211751

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828, doi: 10.1086/173695

    1994 doi

  76. [84]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Giménez, A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    2010 doi

  77. [85]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab035

    Tripathi, B., Nandy, D., & Banerjee, S. 2021, MNRAS, 506, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab035

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    A., & Fischer, D

    Valenti, J. A., & Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJS, 159, 141, doi: 10.1086/430500 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 181, doi: 10.1038/nature16168 van Saders, J. L., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2013, ApJ, 776, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/67 van...

    2005 doi

  79. [87]

    A., Gregory, S

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

    2014 doi

  80. [88]

    J., & Davis, Leverett, J

    Weber, E. J., & Davis, Leverett, J. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217, doi: 10.1086/149138

    1967 doi

  81. [89]

    Wood, B. E. 2018, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1100, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012028

    2018

  82. [90]

    E., Müller, H

    Wood, B. E., Müller, H. R., Zank, G. P., Linsky, J. L., & Redfield, S. 2005b, ApJL, 628, L143, doi: 10.1086/432716

    doi

  83. [91]

    E., Müller, H.-R., Redfield, S., et al

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

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.