M dwarfs quasi-periodic pulsations at a time resolution of 1 s

Alexander Panferov; Grigory Beskin; Olga Maryeva; Sergey Karpov

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

M dwarfs quasi-periodic pulsations at a time resolution of 1 s

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using 1-second U-band photometry of 44 flares on five M dwarfs, the paper finds 13 quasi-periodic pulsations with periods of 6–107 s, a 30% occurrence rate far above what Kepler or TESS surveys see.

desk verdict A useful but methodologically under-defended report of 13 new short-period M dwarf flare QPPs; the detections are plausible, but the 30% occurrence claim needs a global false-alarm estimate and a clearer sample selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07580 v1 pith:RQNSSBVC submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.SR

Alexander Panferov , Grigory Beskin , Sergey Karpov , Olga Maryeva This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords quasi-periodicpulsationsMdwarfflaresstellaropticalempiricalmodedecompositionU-bandphotometryflarestarshigh-cadence

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 claims that short-period quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) are common in the optical flares of M dwarfs: 13 of 44 flares observed with 1-second U-band photometry show QPPs with periods of 6–107 s, a 30% occurrence rate far above the 3–7% found by Kepler and TESS surveys at coarser cadence. It also claims that the QPP period correlates with flare duration, equivalent duration, and amplitude, and that the QPP amplitude correlates with flare amplitude, while the period does not correlate with bolometric flare energy. If these claims hold, the tens-of-seconds period window becomes an accessible probe of flare structure, and the oscillation period scales with flare size.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-stage detrending of each flare light curve followed by two independent periodicity searches. First the flare trend is approximated by a linear rise plus Gaussian before the peak and an exponential decay after it; then slow empirical mode decomposition (EMD) modes with timescales longer than 0.4 times the section length are subtracted to refine the trend. The residual is searched with a Fourier power spectrum and with EMD, where a QPP is accepted only if it exceeds the 1σ significance level in Fourier and the 2σ level in EMD, with the thresholds set by a noise model for each spectrum. The QPP period and its uncertainty come from a Gaussian fit to the mode's wavelet spectrum.

What would settle it

Run the paper's two-stage detrending on pure noise light curves of the same length and cadence; if the Fourier+EMD significance thresholds pass in more than the nominal few percent of cases, the claimed 30% occurrence would be inflated by detrending artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the detection of 13 quasi-periodic pulsations in 44 flares of five M dwarfs—EV Lac, Wolf 359, Wolf 424, V577 Mon, and UV Ceti—using U-band data with an effective cadence of 1 s from the 6-m telescope. The QPP periods range from 6 to 107 s; each candidate had to pass a 1σ significance threshold in the Fourier power spectrum and a 2σ threshold in the empirical mode decomposition spectrum. The QPPs are classified morphologically as decaying, decayless, or transitional, and several show multiple periods that are integer multiples of one another, which the paper takes as evidence for overtones and standing waves. Statistically significant correlations are reported between QPP period and flare duration ($r = 0.724$, $p = 0.008$), equivalent duration ($r = 0.731$, $p = 0.008$), and flare amplitude ($r = 0.727$, $p = 0.008$), as well as between QPP amplitude and flare amplitude ($r = 0.894$ with one outlier removed, $p = 2\times10^{-4}$); no significant correlation appears between QPP period and flare bolometric energy ($r = 0.037$, $p = 0.269$).

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the two-stage detrending—fitting a linear-plus-Gaussian/exponential flare shape and then removing all slow EMD modes—leaves a residual that is genuine stellar oscillation rather than an artifact of the subtraction, and that the 44 inspected flares fairly represent the 157 detected flares.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Short-period optical QPPs are much more common in M dwarf flares than previously estimated, with the 30% occurrence rate exceeding the 3–7% rates reported by Kepler and TESS studies.
The period–flare-size correlations imply that the QPP period can serve as a diagnostic of the flare region, with longer periods associated with longer, brighter flares.
Multiperiodic QPPs whose periods are integer multiples support the interpretation of the pulsations as standing waves, where overtone modes coexist in the same oscillating structure.
The absence of a period–bolometric-energy correlation suggests that the oscillating medium is not the site of the flare energy release, while the QPP-amplitude/flare-amplitude correlation suggests that the size of the emitting region scales with the flare.
The observed morphology—distinct first pulse, two to three rapidly decaying waves, then a decayless amplitude-modulated tail—matches the pattern of MHD wave trains seen in solar flares, pointing to a common wave mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 30% occurrence rate is real, previous satellite surveys have systematically undercounted QPPs by missing the tens-of-seconds period window; the true occurrence among low-energy flares (10^30 to 10^32 erg) may be comparable to the high occurrence seen in solar X-ray flares.
The absence of an injection–recovery or permutation test leaves open whether the two-stage detrending can manufacture periodic power; a natural check is to apply the same pipeline to simulated flares with known oscillation parameters and noise-only flares to measure the false-positive rate at the adopted thresholds.
The period–duration correlation, if physical, predicts that even shorter-period QPPs (below 5 s) should appear in the most compact flares, a prediction testable with higher time resolution or larger collecting area.
Because the 44 inspected flares are only a subset of the 157 detected flares and the selection rule is not stated, the 30% occurrence could change if the inspected subset is biased towards larger or longer flares; quantifying the selection is a necessary step before comparing occurrence rates to other surveys.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper fills a genuine gap: 1-s U-band photometry of M dwarf flares, where QPPs with periods of 6–107 s were previously almost unexplored. The 13 reported detections are new, and the two independent methods (Fourier and EMD) plus the prominent oscillatory features in the light curves make the core detections believable. I also credit the authors for explicitly labeling the correlation analysis tentative because of the small, non-uniform sample. If these detections hold, they push the occurrence rate of optical QPPs in M dwarfs far above the few percent seen in Kepler/TESS samples, which matters for flare loop models.

The soft spots are real, though not fatal. The biggest issue is exactly what the stress-test flags: significance is assessed per mode and per spectrum, with a 68% Fourier threshold and a 95% EMD threshold, but no trial correction across the 44 flares or the many EMD modes tested. If a typical flare yields several modes, the expected number of false positives could be several to ten or more—comparable to the 13 claimed. That does not prove the QPPs are false, because two independent methods and visual inspection add weight, but it does make the 30% occurrence rate overstated as a published number. The paper should report a survey-wide false-alarm rate or a permutation test. Relatedly, the selection of the 44 flares out of 157 is never justified, which weakens any occurrence-rate claim. The absence of injection-recovery tests is also a gap: the two-stage detrending (linear/Gaussian plus exponential, then EMD slow-mode subtraction) could in principle absorb or generate periodic power, and the paper gives no evidence that the pipeline recovers injected oscillations with the claimed significance.

One smaller point: the A_QPP–A_fl correlation is quoted only after excluding the far-right point; the p-value without that point is impressive, but the paper should state how robust the correlation is to that exclusion. All that said, the central detections are probably right. The period–flare-duration/amplitude correlations are plausible and physically interesting, even if tentative. The authors are honest about the limitations they do mention, which is a mark in their favor.

My advice: send it to peer review. A referee should ask for a proper false-alarm analysis, an explicit selection rule, and ideally a data or code deposit. With those, the paper would make a solid contribution; without them, the headline occurrence number is not trustworthy. This is the kind of measurement that deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) in 44 flares of five M dwarfs observed in the U-band with 1-s effective cadence using the MANIA/BTA complex. After detrending the flare light curves with a two-stage procedure, the authors apply Fourier analysis and empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and claim the detection of 13 QPPs with periods of 6–107 s, yielding a 30% occurrence rate. They also report statistically significant correlations between QPP period and flare duration, equivalent duration, and flare amplitude, as well as a correlation between QPP and flare amplitude, and they propose a morphological classification of the QPPs.

Significance. If the detections are valid, the paper fills a genuinely unexplored niche: high-cadence optical QPPs with periods of tens of seconds in M dwarf flares. The reported occurrence rate of 30% would be substantially higher than the 3–7% rates found in Kepler and TESS samples, suggesting that fast cadence is essential to recover short-period QPPs. The authors make good use of two independent detection methods (Fourier and EMD), apply a relatively conservative 95% threshold for the EMD significance, provide a careful visual presentation of each candidate, and explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the correlation analysis in the conclusions. These strengths are undermined, however, by the lack of survey-wide false-alarm control and by the absence of injection-recovery tests, both of which are necessary to support the central detection claim.

major comments (4)

[Section 3] The detection thresholds α = 0.68 for the Fourier pre-filter and α = 0.95 for the EMD significance are applied per peak and per mode without any correction for the 44 flares analyzed or for the number of frequencies/modes tested within each flare. Because each flare may contribute several EMD modes, the expected number of chance detections under the null hypothesis could be of order several or more, potentially comparable to the 13 claimed QPPs. Please report the total number of independent trials, or better, perform a permutation- or simulation-based false-alarm analysis through the full detection pipeline and quote a survey-wide false-discovery rate.
[Section 3] The two-stage detrending procedure (a linear plus Gaussian fit before the peak and an exponential after, followed by removal of EMD modes with characteristic timescales longer than 0.4 times the section length) can both generate spurious periodic power and absorb genuine QPP signals. The paper does not present injection-recovery tests, so the reader cannot distinguish true oscillations from trend residuals. Please add simulations with synthetic flare profiles plus injected oscillations spanning the claimed period and amplitude ranges, and report the recovery rate and any period bias as a function of flare shape and section length.
[Section 2 and Section 4.1] The paper states that 44 of the 157 detected flares were inspected for QPPs but does not describe how these 44 were chosen. The 30% occurrence rate is only meaningful if the inspected flares are representative of the full sample; if the selection was biased toward, for example, smooth or high-amplitude flares, the rate could be systematically over- or underestimated. Please state the selection criteria explicitly and discuss the likely selection effects.
[Section 4.2 and Figure 7] The correlation analysis treats the 13 QPPs as independent measurements, but QPP 11 and QPP 12 come from the same flare, and several QPPs were observed in the same star on the same night (e.g., QPPs 4 and 5, and QPPs 7 and 8). With an effective sample size smaller than 13 and six correlations tested, the quoted p-values are optimistic. The conclusions already call the correlations tentative; please either reduce the statistical claims in the abstract and results, or apply an appropriate correction for non-independence and multiple testing.

minor comments (6)

[Section 5] The phrase '13 flares of 44 appeared in QQPs' should read '13 QPPs in 44 flares'.
[Section 4.2] The phrase 'the latters' is ambiguous; clarify that it refers to the QPP wavetrains.
[Section 3] The typesetting of the confidence-level formula Pα(f) = P(f) ln(Nf/(1−α)) is garbled; please verify it against Broomhall et al. (2019), section 4.7.
[Throughout] The abstract says 'U-band' while Table 1 uses 'U filter'; unify the notation.
[References] The reference entry 'V . Debur, et al. 2003' is inconsistently formatted; the author list should be 'Debur, V . et al.'.
[Section 5] The word 'breaktrough' is a typo for 'breakthrough'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QPP detections are empirical measurements with explicit thresholds, and the correlations are not constructed from the same fitted quantities.

full rationale

The paper is an observational study reporting detections of quasi-periodic pulsations in flare light curves. There is no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is defined from the data that it is supposed to predict. The light curves are detrended by subtracting a prescribed flare trend plus slow EMD modes with timescales longer than 0.4 of the section length; this is a filtering step, not a definition of the QPP period. The QPP periods are subsequently measured from the residual via Fourier and EMD/wavelet analyses, with detection thresholds stated explicitly (68% Fourier, 95% EMD). No parameter is fitted to the target claim and then renamed as a prediction. The correlation analysis uses Pearson coefficients on independently measured quantities (period, duration, equivalent duration, amplitude); although the analysis window limits periods to less than 0.4 of the section length, which could in principle create a selection effect for the period–duration correlation, this is not a self-definitional reduction and the paper does not present the correlation as a derived identity. Self-citations (e.g., Beskin et al. 2017 for a specific flare, Plokhotnichenko et al. 2021 for the instrument) are to previous observations and hardware, not to an unverified theorem carrying the argument. No uniqueness claim or smuggled ansatz is used. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited by quoting the paper, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The known stellar parameters and literature-based energy formula are not counted as free. The central analysis is driven by the detrending and threshold choices above, which are hand-selected and not tested by injection-recovery, so they are the main ledger cost.

free parameters (5)

EMD slow-mode cutoff fraction = 0.4 of section length
Chosen to separate the flare trend from pulsations in the second approximation; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
Fourier significance threshold = alpha = 0.68 (1 sigma)
Threshold for initial detection; combined with EMD 2 sigma. The false-positive rate of the combined test is not characterized.
EMD significance threshold = alpha = 0.95 (2 sigma)
Threshold for final acceptance of a QPP; assumes chi-squared statistics for EMD mode energies of noise.
Period search lower and upper limits = 4 times time cadence to 0.4 times section length
Bounds imposed on the period search; affects which oscillations can be found.
Flare trend fit parameters (t_peak, t_in, t_dec) = fitted per flare
The Gaussian half-width and exponential decay time are fitted to the upper 30% of flare flux; these determine the residual in which QPPs are searched.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption EMD mode energies for a noise time series follow chi-squared statistics with known confidence levels
Invoked in Section 3 to set the 2 sigma significance level for EMD modes; the distributional assumption is cited to prior literature and not tested here.
domain assumption The flare trend can be represented as a linear plus Gaussian function before the peak and an exponential after the peak
Used in Section 3 as the first approximation for detrending; a poor trend model could create or remove apparent oscillations.
domain assumption Quasi-periodic pulsations correspond to intrinsic mode functions in EMD
The paper identifies QPPs with EMD modes in Section 3, which is a standard but non-unique decomposition choice.
domain assumption Flare energy formula and blackbody temperature of 9000 K from Shibayama et al. (2013) and Hawley and Fisher (1992)
Used in Section 4.2 to estimate bolometric flare energies; the fixed blackbody temperature and efficiency factor are literature inputs.
domain assumption QPPs are caused by magnetohydrodynamic oscillations in coronal loops
Used in Section 5 as the physical interpretation; the data show periodicity but not the spatial structure of the oscillating source.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of M dwarfs quasi-periodic pulsations at a time resolution of 1 s." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQNSSBVC

@misc{pith2026241207580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: M dwarfs quasi-periodic pulsations at a time resolution of 1 s},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQNSSBVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07580}
}

read the original abstract

Quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) of Sun and stars are challenging for stellar flare models. The white light stellar QPPs in the periodicity region of tens of second are unexplored yet. On the basis of observations with the 6-m telescope BTA in U-band of flaring dM-stars EV Lac, Wolf 359, Wolf 424, V577 Mon and UV Ceti we found 13 new QPPs. This composes 30% occurrence among 44 worked flares. These QPPs were found to have periods ranging from 6 to 107 seconds and were detected using both Fourier transform and empirical mode decomposition methods. The observed QPPs were categorized by the evolution of their oscillation envelope and fractional flux amplitudes. There are shown the statistically significant correlations of the QPP period with the duration, the equivalent duration and the amplitude of a flare, and the correlation between the QPP amplitude and flare amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07580 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The light curves in flares of M dwarf UV Ceti in U-band observed with MANIA/BTA, where QPPs were found. The QPP number in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The light curves in flares of M dwarf EV Lac in U-band observed with MANIA/BTA, where QPPs were found. The QPP numbers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The pulsation components of flares of M dwarfs with the superposed blue line of EMD-modes. The QPP number in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The pulsation components of flares of M dwarfs with the superposed blue line of EMD-modes. The QPP number in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The pulsation components of flares of M dwarfs with the superposed blue line of EMD-modes. The QPP number in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Charts of the distributions of the characteristics of the M dwarfs QPPs in flares, which are indicative of the characteristics intercorrelations. The Pearson correlation coefficients and p-values are, respectively: 0.724 and 0.008 for the PQPP-∆tfl correlation (the top…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Stationary quasi-periodic pulsations in 20-second cadence TESS flares
astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A catalog of 61 short-period quasi-periodic pulsations in 20-second TESS stellar flares is presented, along with a reported scaling where pulse period grows with flare duration to the 0.33 power in a selected branch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A., Broomhall, A

Balona, L. A., Broomhall, A. M., Kosovichev, A., Nakariakov, V . M., Pugh, C. E., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2015,MNRAS 450,

work page 2015
[5]

2013, MNRAS 431,

Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., Lopez-Santiago, J., Liefke, C. 2013, MNRAS 431,

work page 2013
[8]

L., & Fisher, G

Hawley, S. L., & Fisher, G. H. 1992, ApJS 78,

work page 1992
[12]

A., & Wolk, S

Osten, R. A., & Wolk, S. J. 2015, ApJ 809,

work page 2015
[15]

M., Zhong, Yu, & Kolotkov, D

Nakariakov, V . M., Zhong, Yu, & Kolotkov, D. Y . 2024,MNRAS 531,

work page 2024
[31]

L., Beskin, G

Plokhotnichenko, V . L., Beskin, G. M., de Boer, V . G., Karpov, S. V ., Moiseev, S. V ., Shergin, V . S., Gorodovoy, E. P., Gutaev, A. G., Solin, A. V ., Solin, A. A., Lyubetskaya, Z. V ., Lyubetsky, A. P., Pavlova, V . V ., Moiseev, S. S., Badin, D. A., & Plokhotnichenko, P. V . 2021,AstrBull 76,

work page 2021
[44]

A., Cortes-Contreras, M., Montes, D., Abellan, F

Cifuentes, C., Caballero, J. A., Cortes-Contreras, M., Montes, D., Abellan, F. J., Dorda, R., Holgado, G., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Morales, J. C., Amado, P. J., Passegger, V . M., Quirrenbach, A., Reiners, A., Ribas, I., Sanz-Forcada, J., Schweitzer, A., Seifert, W., & Solano E. 2020, A&A 642, A115. Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., Wisniewski...

work page 2020
[50]

S., & MacGregor M

Howard, W. S., & MacGregor M. A. 2022, ApJ 926,

work page 2022

Show all 21 references

[79]

R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J

Paudel, R. R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J. E., Quintana, E. V ., Gilbert, E. A., Vega, L. D., Youngblood, A., Silverstein, M., Osten, R. A., Tucker, M. A., Huber, D., Do, A., Hamaguchi, K., Mullan, D. J., Gizis, J. E., Monsue, T. A., Colon, K. D., Boyd, P. T., Davenport, J. R. ...

2021
[122]

G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A

Doyle, J. G., Shetye, J., Antonova, A. E., Kolotkov, D. Y ., Srivastava, A. K., Stangalini, M., Gupta, G. R., Avramova, A., & Mathioudakis, M. 2018, MNRAS 475,

2018
[162]

T., Nogami, D., & Shibata, K

Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., Notsu, Y ., Nagao, Takashi., Honda, S., Ishii, T. T., Nogami, D., & Shibata, K. 2013,ApJS 209,

2013
[204]

E., Shen, Z., Long, S

Huang, N. E., Shen, Z., Long, S. R., Wu, M. C., Shih, H. H., Zheng, Q., Yen, N.-C., Tung, C. C., & Liu, H. H. 1998, RSPSA 454,

1998
[472]

E., Armstrong, D

Pugh, C. E., Armstrong, D. J., Nakariakov, V . M., & Broomhall, A. M. 2016, MNRAS 459,

2016
[565]

A., Inglis, A

Hayes, L. A., Inglis, A. R., Christe, S., Dennis, B., Gallagher, P. T. 2020, ApJ 895,

2020
[903]

E., & Wu, Z

Huang, N. E., & Wu, Z. 2008, RvGeo 46, RG2006. Kolotkov, D. Y ., Anfinogentov, S. A., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2016, A&A 592, A153. Kolotkov, D. Y ., Pugh, C. E., Broomhall, A.-M., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2018, ApJL 858, L3. MacDonald, J., Mullan, D. J., & Dieterich, S. 2018, ApJ 860,

2008
[956]

2017, PASA 34, e010 Broomhall, A.-M., Davenport, J

Beskin, G., Karpov, S., Plokhotnichenko, V ., Stepanov, A., & Tsap, Yu. 2017, PASA 34, e010 Broomhall, A.-M., Davenport, J. R. A., Hayes, L. A., Inglis, A. R., Kolotkov, D. Y ., McLaughlin, J. A., Mehta, T., Nakariakov, V . M., Notsu, Y ., Pascoe, D. J., Pugh, C. E., & Van Doo...

2017
[2063]

V ., McLaughlin, J

Zimovets, I. V ., McLaughlin, J. A., Srivastava, A. K., Kolotkov, D. Y ., Kuznetsov, A. A., Kupriyanova, E. G., Cho, I.-H., Inglis, A. R., Reale, F., Pascoe, D. J., Tian, H., Yuan, D., Li, D., & Zhang, Q. M. 2021, SSRv 217, 66

2021
[2842]

G., Irawati, P., Kolotkov, D

Doyle, J. G., Irawati, P., Kolotkov, D. Y ., Ramsay, G., Nhalil, N. V ., Dhillon, V . S., Tom R. Marsh, T. R., & Yadav, R. K. 2022,MNRAS 514,

2022
[3659]

G., & Doyle, L

Ramsay, G., Kolotkov, D., Doyle, J. G., & Doyle, L. 2021,SoPh 296,

2021
[4611]

J., & Nakariakov, V

Nistico, G., Pascoe, D. J., & Nakariakov, V . M. 2014,A&A 569,

2014
[5178]

2003,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 513, 167-171

Plokhotnichenko V ., et al. 2003,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 513, 167-171. V . Debur, et al. 2003,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 513, 127-131 Fleming, S. W., Million, C., Osten, R. A., Kolotkov, D. Y ., & Brasseur C. E. 2022, ApJ 928,

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A., Broomhall, A

Balona, L. A., Broomhall, A. M., Kosovichev, A., Nakariakov, V . M., Pugh, C. E., & Van Doorsselaere, T. 2015,MNRAS 450,

work page 2015

[2] [5]

2013, MNRAS 431,

Stelzer, B., Marino, A., Micela, G., Lopez-Santiago, J., Liefke, C. 2013, MNRAS 431,

work page 2013

[3] [8]

L., & Fisher, G

Hawley, S. L., & Fisher, G. H. 1992, ApJS 78,

work page 1992

[4] [12]

A., & Wolk, S

Osten, R. A., & Wolk, S. J. 2015, ApJ 809,

work page 2015

[5] [15]

M., Zhong, Yu, & Kolotkov, D

Nakariakov, V . M., Zhong, Yu, & Kolotkov, D. Y . 2024,MNRAS 531,

work page 2024

[6] [31]

L., Beskin, G

Plokhotnichenko, V . L., Beskin, G. M., de Boer, V . G., Karpov, S. V ., Moiseev, S. V ., Shergin, V . S., Gorodovoy, E. P., Gutaev, A. G., Solin, A. V ., Solin, A. A., Lyubetskaya, Z. V ., Lyubetsky, A. P., Pavlova, V . V ., Moiseev, S. S., Badin, D. A., & Plokhotnichenko, P. V . 2021,AstrBull 76,

work page 2021

[7] [44]

A., Cortes-Contreras, M., Montes, D., Abellan, F

Cifuentes, C., Caballero, J. A., Cortes-Contreras, M., Montes, D., Abellan, F. J., Dorda, R., Holgado, G., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Morales, J. C., Amado, P. J., Passegger, V . M., Quirrenbach, A., Reiners, A., Ribas, I., Sanz-Forcada, J., Schweitzer, A., Seifert, W., & Solano E. 2020, A&A 642, A115. Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., Wisniewski...

work page 2020

[8] [50]

S., & MacGregor M

Howard, W. S., & MacGregor M. A. 2022, ApJ 926,

work page 2022