Observational Insights into Post-Main-Sequence Rotation and Magnetism: 20 Years of Science, from the Subgiant to the White Dwarf Phase

Emily Hatt

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Observational Insights into Post-Main-Sequence Rotation and Magnetism: 20 Years of Science, from the Subgiant to the White Dwarf Phase

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 After the main sequence, stars defy rotation and magnetism models

desk verdict A competent, readable conference review of post-main-sequence rotation and magnetism, with no new data and one notable soft spot where a model-dependent inference is presented as settled fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10879 v1 pith:YSIAIWE3 submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.SR

Emily Hatt This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords asteroseismologystellarrotationmagnetismredgiantswhitedwarfsspectropolarimetryangularmomentumtransportmixedmodes

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 review synthesizes twenty years of observations showing that low- and intermediate-mass stars, after leaving the main sequence, rotate and host magnetic fields in ways standard evolutionary models do not predict. The key evidence comes from asteroseismology of solar-like oscillations, which probes stellar cores, and from high-precision spectropolarimetry, which recovers surface magnetic fields. Subgiant cores spin up while envelopes spin down, but red-giant cores then spin down rather than continuing to contract-spin-up, and white dwarfs rotate far slower than expected. These findings point to a missing angular momentum transport mechanism that couples cores to surfaces, a problem that remains unsolved. The review argues that the field is now entering an era of ensemble inference that can constrain this mechanism.

What carries the argument

The review's scientific load is carried by two observational techniques. Asteroseismology of solar-like oscillations provides mixed modes, non-radial pulsations that are sensitive both to the outer envelope and to the dense core; perturbations to their frequencies reveal rotation, and missing or suppressed modes indicate strong core magnetic fields. Spectropolarimetry measures the four Stokes parameters of starlight, whose Zeeman-induced polarization encodes the strength and topology of photospheric magnetic fields even at the few-Gauss levels typical of evolved stars. The Rossby number, the ratio of rotation period to convective turnover time, is the organizing parameter for evaluating whether a solar-type dynamo can operate in a given star.

What would settle it

A demonstration that mixed-mode suppression in red giants can be produced by non-magnetic effects such as mode damping or nonlinear mode coupling, in a model that matches the observed spectra, would undermine the core-field interpretation; alternatively, a direct detection of red-giant core rotation showing that standard models with revised internal gravity wave transport can reproduce the observed spin-down would remove the need for the missing angular momentum transport.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that evolved stars behave contrary to the standard theoretical picture: rotation is not simply conserved locally as stars evolve, and magnetism is present where it was expected to be absent. In subgiants, core and envelope rotation diverge, matching local angular momentum conservation. In red giants, however, core rotation slows as stars expand, a trend that neither local conservation nor full core-surface coupling explains, and the resulting 'missing angular momentum transport problem' has resisted solution for over a decade. Magnetism also surprises: about 20% of red giants show signs of strong core magnetic fields (tens of kG to over 1 MG), a subgiant close to the Sun in mass shows an activity cycle as short as the Sun's because its convective turnover time lengthens, and magnetic fields are detected on AGB stars and on white dwarfs, where the field distribution suggests two formation channels. White dwarf rotation peaks around one day, again far slower than traditional evolution would predict.

Load-bearing premise

That suppressed mixed modes in red giants are genuinely caused by strong core magnetic fields, and that asteroseismic frequency perturbations translate directly into field strengths; if those interpretations are wrong, the narrative about core magnetism and angular momentum transport would need substantial revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the missing angular momentum transport is real, stellar evolution models that ignore it will continue to mispredict core rotation rates by orders of magnitude.
The detection of core magnetic fields in around 20% of red giants means interior magnetism must be included in models of evolved stars.
The apparent decrease of measured core field strengths with evolution is at least partly a selection effect, because the threshold for mode suppression drops as stars evolve.
Pinpointing where on the subgiant branch or red giant branch cores switch from spinning up to spinning down would constrain the transport physics; the upcoming PLATO mission is positioned to do this.
White dwarf rotation and magnetic field demographics provide a fossil record that can be linked back to red-giant core magnetism.

Reading between the lines

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

If the magnetic-mode-suppression interpretation is correct, core magnetic fields could themselves be the missing angular momentum transport mechanism, coupling core to surface and spinning the core down.
The two-channel white dwarf magnetism scenario suggests a testable prediction: massive white dwarfs formed by mergers should show a different field-strength/cooling-age correlation than lower-mass descendants of single stars.
The same asteroseismic techniques, applied to a large subgiant sample, could reveal whether the subgiant spin-up phase is universal or depends on mass and metallicity.
A direct, non-seismic probe of red-giant core magnetic fields would break the degeneracy between magnetic suppression and other mode-damping mechanisms.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plainly: this is a conference proceedings review, not a research paper, so judge it as a review. It does a good job of what it sets out to do: it gives a readable, chronologically organized tour of asteroseismic and spectropolarimetric results from subgiants through white dwarfs, and it frames the missing angular momentum transport problem clearly. The structure is logical, the figures are well chosen, and the text is honest about where the field is. I particularly liked the way it draws attention to the apparent contradiction between subgiant cores spinning up and red giant cores slowing down; that tension is the kind of thing that makes a review useful.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test flags. Section 3.2.2 presents the Stello et al. (2016) interpretation—that missing dipole modes in ~20% of red giants indicate core magnetic fields—and the Li et al. (2022) inference of 30–100 kG core fields without noting that these are model-dependent inferences, not direct detections. Alternative explanations for suppressed modes, such as mode visibility or damping effects, are not mentioned. For a review aimed at newcomers, that is a meaningful omission. It does not sink the paper, but a careful referee should ask for a sentence or two acknowledging the assumptions behind those claims.

Minor issues: the text has some typos and reference formatting problems, including missing spaces in author lists, and the title has “23th” for “23rd.” These are cosmetic and would not worry me much in a proceedings volume.

There is no circular reasoning and the self-citation (Hatt et al. 2024) is fine—it is one of several examples cited for core field measurements, and the review’s conclusions do not rest on it. The reader’s “UNVERDICTED” verdict is reasonable for a review, but that does not mean it should be ignored; reviews of this kind are useful to the community.

I would send this to peer review in its current venue, with minor revision asking for a caveat in Section 3.2.2 and a cleanup pass. It deserves a serious referee, not because it breaks new ground, but because its accuracy and balance matter for the many readers who will use it as an entry point to the field.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review paper surveys observational results on rotation and magnetism in evolved low- and intermediate-mass stars, from the subgiant phase through red giants and AGB stars to white dwarfs. The main techniques discussed are high-precision spectropolarimetry and asteroseismology, and the paper highlights key findings such as the core-envelope rotation contrast in subgiants, the missing angular momentum transport problem inferred from red giant core rotation rates, the detection of surface and core magnetic fields in red giants, and the slow rotation and multi-channel magnetism of white dwarfs. The author concludes that evolved stars rotate and magnetize in ways not predicted by standard models, and identifies the transition between subgiant and red giant rotational behavior as a key open problem.

Significance. If the summarized inferences are correct, the paper provides a useful synthesis of a rapidly maturing observational field, with clear figures and a coherent narrative linking results across evolutionary phases. Its main value is as a conference-proceedings review that identifies the missing angular momentum transport problem and the growing evidence for core magnetism in evolved stars as central theoretical challenges. The paper contains no original measurements, so its conclusions inherit the model dependence of the cited asteroseismic and spectropolarimetric analyses; the lack of caveats in the core-magnetism section is therefore the main risk to the paper's central claims.

major comments (1)

[§3.2.2, paragraphs 3–5] The review presents the inference of core magnetic fields from suppressed mixed modes and from frequency perturbations as established detections, stating that 'about 20% of the sample showed a magnetic signature', that frequency perturbations imply 'average radial core field strengths of 30 kG–100 kG', and that 'significant detections of core magnetic fields have been made for ≈70 stars'. These statements are load-bearing for the abstract's claim that evolved stars 'have magnetic fields with properties that we did not expect', but both inference steps are model-dependent: the Stello et al. (2016) interpretation of missing dipole mixed modes as magnetic suppression assumes that no non-magnetic mechanism (e.g., altered mode excitation/damping, mode visibility, or coupling effects) can produce the same signature, and the Li et al. (2022) conversion of frequency perturbations to field strengths assumes a particular field geometry and the validity of linear perturbation theory. The review neither mentions these assumptions nor cites any alternative explanations or critical assessments. I recommend adding a paragraph that explicitly qualifies these detections as interpretation-dependent and discusses the main systematic uncertainties and competing scenarios, or tempering the abstract accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 12 (two occurrences)] The figure number 12 is assigned twice: once for Figure 2 of Bagnulo & Landstreet (2022) and once for Figure 2 of Einramhof et al. (2026). Renumber the second figure and update the corresponding in-text references.
[§3.2.1] The phrase 'a flaw subsequently donned the missing angular momentum transport problem' should read 'a flaw subsequently dubbed the missing angular momentum transport problem' or similar.
[§2.1] The terms 'stokes V' and 'all four stokes parameters' should be capitalized as 'Stokes V' and 'Stokes parameters' for consistency with standard nomenclature and with usage elsewhere in the paper.
[Header and title page] The workshop number is printed as '23th' in the running header; it should be '23rd'.
[§2.2 and throughout] There are several small typographical issues, including 'alias' (should be 'aliases') in the discussion of data gaps, and informal phrasing such as 'I'll' in the abstract; a light language edit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a review that synthesizes independently published measurements; the sole self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not a derivation, and I found no step in which a claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. It contains no equations that define an output in terms of an input, no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and no invoked uniqueness theorem. The only self-citation is Hatt et al. (2024) in Section 3.2.2, where it appears among several independent examples of core-field measurements, alongside Deheuvels et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2023); the review's statement that core magnetic fields have been detected in about 70 stars therefore does not rest on that self-citation. The skeptic's concern that the core-magnetism narrative depends on model-dependent asteroseismic inferences is a legitimate scientific caveat, but it is a correctness risk rather than circularity, because the review reports external inferences without defining its conclusions as their premises. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

As a review, the paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. The central claims rely on established observational techniques and on the correctness of the cited results. The axioms listed are the key domain assumptions that underlie the interpretation of the observational data.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Mixed modes in subgiants and red giants are sensitive to core rotation and can be used to infer rotation rates (Section 2.2).
The review relies on this to interpret the rotation measurements of Deheuvels et al. (2014) and Mosser et al. (2012). If the seismic diagnostics are wrong, the reported core rotation rates are wrong.
domain assumption Suppressed mixed modes in red giants indicate the presence of strong magnetic fields in the core (Section 3.2.2).
The review uses this to claim that about 20% of red giants have kG to MG core fields. This is a model-dependent interpretation from Stello et al. (2016), and other explanations for mode suppression are possible.
domain assumption Stokes V spectropolarimetry reliably recovers surface magnetic field strengths and topologies (Section 2.1).
The review uses this to discuss surface magnetism in subgiants, red giants, and white dwarfs. The technique is well established, but the interpretation of weak signals in evolved stars requires careful data reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational Insights into Post-Main-Sequence Rotation and Magnetism: 20 Years of Science, from the Subgiant to the White Dwarf Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSIAIWE3

@misc{pith2026260810879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational Insights into Post-Main-Sequence Rotation and Magnetism: 20 Years of Science, from the Subgiant to the White Dwarf Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSIAIWE3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10879}
}

read the original abstract

Rotation and magnetism are important phenomena to consider when trying to understand stars. By shaping the structure and chemical mixing in the interior of stars, they can induce significant changes in both their fundamental and observable properties. Despite this, our theoretical picture of how rotation and magnetism evolve throughout the stellar lifecycle remains incomplete. Gaps in our understanding are particularly stark for evolved stars, where slow rotation rates and weak magnetic fields make observational studies difficult. In response to this issue, the last 20 years have seen instrumentation to probe magnetism and rotation progressing in leaps and bounds. Through these new tools we have found that evolved stars rotate in ways that we cannot predict and have magnetic fields with properties that we did not expect. In the following, I will provide a brief overview of some recent observational results and their implications for our understanding of stars. I will focus on advances in asteroseismology and high-precision spectropolarimetry, as these techniques have advanced significantly over the last few decades. In keeping with the theme of Cool Stars, I'll cover stars with low to intermediate masses and their evolution from the subgiant to the white dwarf phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10879 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** Panel from figure 1 in (Metcalfe et al., 2024) showing an activity indicator for the subgiant β Hydri as a function of time. The dashed line shows a sinusoidal variation at the period inferred for the activity cycle in this star. as these stars evolve their cores contract, should angular momentum be conserved in just the core separate to the rest of the star, this should imply the core spins up. On the other hand, … view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Excerpt from figure 5 in Gaulme et al. (2020) showing the lightcurve of an active red giant as observed by Kepler. In blue is the lightcurve including both activity (starspots) and oscillations, in red everything but the oscillations have been removed. This issue was attributed to the models missing some mechanism that transports angular momentum from the cores of stars to their surfaces – a flaw subsequently donn… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Figure 12 from Villate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Figure 7 from Aurière [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Figure A.1 from Vlemmings et al. (2018) showing the emission and absorption lines measured using ALMA and used to constrained the rotation rate in the envelope of the AGB star R Doradus. 3.3.2 Magnetism Given the correlation between rotation and magnetism, and my expec…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Figure 8 from Hermes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Figure 2 from Einramhof [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The number of refereed papers published with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., Buey, J.-T., Chaintreuil, S.,et al.2009, A&A, 506,

Aurière, M., Petit, P., Mathias, P., Konstantinova-Antova, R., Charbonnel, C.,et al.2021, A&A, 646, A130. Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., Buey, J.-T., Chaintreuil, S.,et al.2009, A&A, 506,

work page 2021
[3]

DIPol-UF: simultaneous three-color ($BVR$) polarimeter with EM CCDs

Piirola, V., Kosenkov, I. A., Berdyugin, A. V., Berdyugina, S. V., & Poutanen, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.02129. Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., Deleuil, M., Erikson, A.,et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59,

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[17]

L., & Jermyn, A

Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485,

work page 2019
[23]

B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., Still, M., Barclay, T.,et al

Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., Still, M., Barclay, T.,et al. 2014, PASP, 126,

work page 2014
[25]

J., Belkacem, K., Marques, J

Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Beck, P. G.,et al.2012, A&A, 548, A10. Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279,

work page 2012
[26]

Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., Appourchaux, T., Benz, W., et al.2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38,

work page 2014
[31]

Mittag, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Schröder, K.-P. 2018, A&A, 618, A48. Montesinos, B., Thomas, J. H., Ventura, P., & Mazzitelli, I. 2001, MNRAS, 326,

work page 2018
[32]

J., Koch, D., Basri, G., Batalha, N., Brown, T.,et al

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., Batalha, N., Brown, T.,et al. 2010, Science, 327,

work page 2010

Show all 29 references

[35]

Corsaro, E., Bonanno, A., Mathur, S., García, R

Charbonnel, C., Decressin, T., Lagarde, N., Gallet, F., Palacios, A.,et al.2017, A&A, 605, A102. Corsaro, E., Bonanno, A., Mathur, S., García, R. A., Santos, A. R. G.,et al.2021, A&A, 652, L2. de Medeiros, J. R., Da Rocha, C., & Mayor, M. 1996, A&A, 314,

2017
[43]

2023, A&A, 680, A26

Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Li, T., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 680, A26. Manset, N. & Donati, J.-F. 2003, InPolarimetry in Astronomy, edited by S. Fineschi, vol. 4843, pp. 425 –

2023
[55]

P., Goupil, M

Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Goupil, M. J., Sonoi, T., Ouaz- zani, R. M.,et al.2015, A&A, 579, A30. Beuzit, J.-L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., Dohlen, K., Gratton, R., et al.2019, A&A, 631, A155. Bonanno, A. M., Corsaro, E., Metcalfe, T. S., Breton, S. N., Creevey, O. L.,et al.2...

2015
[155]

J., Davies, G

Hall, O. J., Davies, G. R., van Saders, J., Nielsen, M. B., Lund, M. N.,et al.2021, Nature Astronomy, 5,

2021
[249]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., Latham, D. W., Bakos, G. Á.,et al.2015, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003. Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171,

2015
[324]

2026, A&A, 707, A366

Villate, M., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J. 2026, A&A, 707, A366. Vlemmings, W. H. T., Khouri, T., De Beck, E., Olofsson, H., García-Segura, G.,et al.2018, A&A, 613, L4. Weber, E. J. & Davis, L., Jr. 1967, ApJ, 148,

2026
[364]

G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., Weber, M., Woche, M.,et al.2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336,

Strassmeier, K. G., Ilyin, I., Järvinen, A., Weber, M., Woche, M.,et al.2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336,

2015
[398]

P., Güdel, M., Brott, I., & Lüftinger, T

Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., Brott, I., & Lüftinger, T. 2015, A&A, 577, A28. Kemp, J. C., Swedlund, J. B., Landstreet, J. D., & Angel, J. R. P. 1970, ApJL, 161, L77. Kochukhov, O. 2016,Doppler and Zeeman Doppler Imaging of Stars, pp. 177–204 (Cham: Springer International Publi...

2015
[411]

& Landstreet, J

Bagnulo, S. & Landstreet, J. D. 2022, ApJL, 935, L12. Beck, P. G., Montalban, J., Kallinger, T., De Ridder, J., Aerts, C.,et al.2012, Nature, 481,

2022
[436]

Metcalfe, T

International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE). Metcalfe, T. S., van Saders, J. L., Huber, D., Buzasi, D., García, R. A.,et al.2024, ApJ, 974,

2024
[461]

R., Schreiber, M

Camisassa, M., Fuentes, J. R., Schreiber, M. R., Rebassa- Mansergas, A., Torres, S.,et al.2024, A&A, 691, L21. Charbonneau, P. & Sokoloff, D. 2023, SSRv, 219,

2024
[499]

J., Appourchaux, T., Benomar, O.,et al.2014, A&A, 564, A27

Deheuvels, S., Doğan, G., Goupil, M. J., Appourchaux, T., Benomar, O.,et al.2014, A&A, 564, A27. Deheuvels, S., Li, G., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2023, A&A, 670, L16. Einramhof, L., Bugnet, L., Calcaferro, L. M., Barrault, L., & Das, S. B. 2026, A&A, 708, L14. Fuller, J., Le...

2014
[551]

Hatt Li, G., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J

Zenodo, 2026 9 Emily J. Hatt Li, G., Deheuvels, S., & Ballot, J. 2024, A&A, 688, A184. Li, G., Deheuvels, S., Ballot, J., & Lignières, F. 2022, Nature, 610,

2026
[565]

Stello, D., Cantiello, M., Fuller, J., Huber, D., García, R

Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., Bennett, D., Breckinridge, J.,et al.2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757. Stello, D., Cantiello, M., Fuller, J., Huber, D., García, R. A., et al.2016, Nature, 529,

2015 arXiv
[612]

Petit, M

Konstantinova-Antova, R., Aurière, M., Charbonnel, C., Drake, N., Wade, G.,et al.2014, InMagnetic Fields through- out Stellar Evolution, edited by P. Petit, M. Jardine, & H. C. Spruit,IAU Symposium, vol. 302, pp. 373–376. Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150,

2014
[707]

J., Ong, J

Hatt, E. J., Ong, J. M. J., Nielsen, M. B., Chaplin, W. J., Davies, G. R.,et al.2024, MNRAS, 534,

2024
[763]

T., Gaudi, B

Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., Rattenbury, N. J., Mao, S.,et al.2019, ApJS, 241,

2019
[877]

R., Jewett, G., et al.2025, ApJ, 990,

Moss, A., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Brown, W. R., Jewett, G., et al.2025, ApJ, 990,

2025
[977]

S., Browning, M

Brun, A. S., Browning, M. K., & Toomre, J. 2005, ApJ, 629,

2005
[1060]

J., Gänsicke, B

Hermes, J. J., Gänsicke, B. T., Kawaler, S. D., Greiss, S., Trem- blay, P.-E.,et al.2017, ApJS, 232,

2017
[3661]

Goupil, M

Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Spada, F., Chojnowski, D., Mosser, B.,et al.2020, A&A, 639, A63. Goupil, M. J., Catala, C., Samadi, R., Belkacem, K., Ouazzani, R. M.,et al.2024, A&A, 683, A78. Gray, D. F. 1981, ApJ, 251,

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., Buey, J.-T., Chaintreuil, S.,et al.2009, A&A, 506,

Aurière, M., Petit, P., Mathias, P., Konstantinova-Antova, R., Charbonnel, C.,et al.2021, A&A, 646, A130. Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., Buey, J.-T., Chaintreuil, S.,et al.2009, A&A, 506,

work page 2021

[2] [3]

DIPol-UF: simultaneous three-color ($BVR$) polarimeter with EM CCDs

Piirola, V., Kosenkov, I. A., Berdyugin, A. V., Berdyugina, S. V., & Poutanen, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.02129. Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., Deleuil, M., Erikson, A.,et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59,

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[3] [17]

L., & Jermyn, A

Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, MNRAS, 485,

work page 2019

[4] [23]

B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., Still, M., Barclay, T.,et al

Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., Still, M., Barclay, T.,et al. 2014, PASP, 126,

work page 2014

[5] [25]

J., Belkacem, K., Marques, J

Mosser, B., Goupil, M. J., Belkacem, K., Marques, J. P., Beck, P. G.,et al.2012, A&A, 548, A10. Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279,

work page 2012

[6] [26]

Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., Appourchaux, T., Benz, W., et al.2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38,

work page 2014

[7] [31]

Mittag, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Schröder, K.-P. 2018, A&A, 618, A48. Montesinos, B., Thomas, J. H., Ventura, P., & Mazzitelli, I. 2001, MNRAS, 326,

work page 2018

[8] [32]

J., Koch, D., Basri, G., Batalha, N., Brown, T.,et al

Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., Batalha, N., Brown, T.,et al. 2010, Science, 327,

work page 2010