Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Location and energy of electrons producing the radio bursts from AD Leo observed by FAST in December 2021

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using fast radio bursts from the star AD Leo, two independent methods locate their source: 20-30 keV electrons on magnetic shells with apex 2-10 stellar radii.

desk verdict A genuine first quantitative remote-sensing of an ECM source on a flare star, with a plausible central result but a load-bearing dipole approximation that both methods share. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16180 v1 pith:X5Z7GYBF submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Philippe Zarka , Corentin K. Louis , Jiale Zhang , Hui Tian , Julien Morin , Yang Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords electroncyclotronmaserADLeoFASTradioobservationsdriftratesstellarmagneticfieldscoronaldensityExPRESMdwarfflares
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 works out, for the first time, where in a flare star's magnetosphere radio bursts are generated and how energetic the emitting electrons are. Using FAST observations of AD Leo from December 2021, the authors combine two independent methods: ExPRES simulations of the burst occurrence in the time-frequency plane, and analytical fits of the drift rates of individual bursts. Both approaches consistently point to electrons of 20-30 keV on magnetic shells whose apex lies between 2 and 10 stellar radii, with source heights of about 1.1 to 1.34 stellar radii. The observed left-hand circular polarization and the star's magnetic topology favor X-mode emission from the southern magnetic hemisphere. If correct, this demonstrates that stellar radio bursts can be used as quantitative remote probes of the magneto-plasma environment of magnetically active stars.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two tools. First, the ExPRES code, developed for Jovian auroral radio emissions, simulates the time-frequency envelope of ECM emission at the local cyclotron frequency $f = f_{\mathrm{ce}}$ for a given magnetic field model, electron distribution (loss-cone or shell) and hollow-cone beaming angle. Second, an analytical drift-rate formula for adiabatic electrons in a dipole field, $\mathrm{d}f/\mathrm{d}t = -3 f g(\theta) v_\parallel/(L R_*)$, relates the measured frequency drift of bursts to electron energy, L-shell and equatorial pitch angle. Both methods use the centered dipolar fit of AD Leo's magnetic field (moment 461.5 G $R_*^3$, inclined 59° to the rotation axis) derived from Zeeman-Doppler imaging, and both show that the observed bursts require low L-shell sources ($L \leq 10$), energies around 20-30 keV, and emission from the southern hemisphere in the X-mode, which then constrains the plasma density scale height through the $f_{\mathrm{pe}}/f_{\mathrm{ce}}$ condition.

What would settle it

Observe AD Leo with a low-frequency radio telescope in the 10-85 MHz band during a burst: the model predicts drift-rates of only about 10 MHz/s for 30 keV electrons on L-shells 3-10, with $f_{\mathrm{pe}}/f_{\mathrm{ce}}$ low enough for X-mode ECM. Detection of much faster drifts, or of no strongly circularly polarized emission at those frequencies, would falsify the L-shell and energy picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the electron cyclotron maser (ECM) radio bursts detected by FAST from AD Leo on December 2-3, 2021 are produced by electrons with energy 20-30 keV moving adiabatically along magnetic field lines with L-shell parameter 2-10 stellar radii. The ExPRES code, which predicts where and when ECM emission at the fundamental cyclotron frequency should be visible from Earth, matches the observed burst envelopes only for sources on low-latitude shells in the southern magnetic hemisphere, emitting in the extraordinary (R-X) mode. The drift-rate analysis of the December 2 bursts independently requires 20-30 keV electrons, and the December 3 overall drifts are consistent with somewhat higher energies of 30-100 keV. Together these constraints put the radio sources in a region 1.10 to 1.34 stellar radii above the surface, at latitudes of 40 to 69 degrees, and the requirement $f_{\mathrm{pe}}/f_{\mathrm{ce}} < 0.3$ for X-mode emission implies that AD Leo's coronal density at these altitudes must be lower than previous models assumed. The paper concludes that high-sensitivity, high-resolution radio observations coupled to magnetic field measurements now allow quantitative remote sensing of stellar radio environments.

Load-bearing premise

The calculations assume AD Leo's magnetic field is a simple centered dipole out to the source region; if the significant quadrupolar part of the field (about 21% of the surface field) or small-scale loops dominates at heights of 1.1-1.34 stellar radii, the inferred electron energies and L-shells would be different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-sensitivity radio observations with millisecond time resolution can now serve as a remote probe of stellar magneto-plasma environments, locating the source and measuring electron energies without direct in-situ access.
  • The AD Leo bursts are emitted in the R-X mode from the southern magnetic hemisphere, so future observations should see a stable sense of circular polarization as long as the magnetic topology remains similar.
  • The coronal density scale height of AD Leo at altitudes around 1.1-1.34 stellar radii must be lower than previous models assumed, a constraint that can be compared with X-ray and EUV-based coronal models.
  • The December 3rd sub-burst drift-rates are incompatible with adiabatic electron motion on large-scale dipolar field lines, suggesting either smaller-scale magnetic loops or a different emission mechanism for those fine structures.
  • Star-planet interaction with a synchronous planet is ruled out as the driver of these bursts, because no restricted longitude range of radio sources can reproduce the observed emission on both days.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to apply the same ExPRES-plus-drift-rate analysis to other M dwarf bursts observed by FAST or uGMRT; each new source would yield its own L-shell and electron energy and could be compared to the star's Zeeman-Doppler field map.
  • If the dipole approximation is relaxed to include the ~21% quadrupolar component of AD Leo's field, the inferred source heights (1.1-1.34 stellar radii) fall in a region where multipole terms are substantial, so the 20-30 keV and L=2-10 results may shift; re-running with the full field map would test the robustness of these numbers.
  • The predicted ~10 MHz/s drift-rates in the 10-85 MHz band give a concrete target for low-frequency telescopes: detecting such slow drifts would confirm the extrapolation of the source geometry to larger radii, while much faster drifts would imply a different emission region or mechanism.
  • The density constraints derived here could be independently tested by coronal spectroscopy or by coordinated radio observations spanning a wide frequency range, since the $f_{\mathrm{pe}}/f_{\mathrm{ce}}$ ratio controls whether X-mode ECM can escape at each emission frequency.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes FAST fast-drifting radio bursts from AD Leo observed on 2021 December 2–3, assuming they are produced by the electron cyclotron maser instability at the fundamental of the local cyclotron frequency. Two independent methods are applied: (i) ExPRES simulations of the time–frequency occurrence of ECM emission, scanning magnetic L-shells, electron energies, emission modes, and hemispheres, with compatibility judged by whether the simulated t-f coverage includes the observed burst envelopes; and (ii) an analytic drift-rate calculation for electrons moving adiabatically on a centered dipole field, compared with measured burst drift-rates. The authors conclude that the observations point to 20–30 keV electrons on magnetic shells with an apex at 2–10 stellar radii, that the emission is R-X mode from the southern magnetic hemisphere, and that this implies a coronal density scale height for AD Leo that is smaller than previously assumed. The paper also compares the burst morphology with Jovian S-bursts and solar spikes and makes predictions for low-frequency observations with NenuFAR.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is a valuable proof-of-concept: it is the first attempt to use fine structure in stellar radio bursts to quantitatively constrain the electron energy, magnetic shell, and coronal density of a flare star's ECM source. The paper's strengths are that both analyses are forward calculations from explicitly stated formulas, the drift-rate derivation is given in detail (Eqs. 1–11), the ExPRES parameter space is shown transparently, and the polarization sense is checked against the FAST instrumental definition. The inclusion of simultaneous uGMRT detections and the comparison with Jovian and solar radio bursts strengthen the empirical context. However, the physical conclusion is only as robust as the magnetic field model on which both methods rely, and the manuscript does not yet demonstrate that robustness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3 and 4; Eqs. (1)–(7)] The central inference rests on the centered-dipole magnetic field model, yet the supporting ZDI study (Bellotti et al. 2023) reports a ~21% quadrupolar component and large residuals in the ZDI fit. The radio source heights given in Section 4 (1.10–1.34 R* for L=2 to L=10) are low enough that a quadrupole term (falling as r^-4) remains a substantial fraction of the dipole term (falling as r^-3). Both the ExPRES source placement at f=fce and the drift-rate formula in Eq. (5) depend on the dipolar field-line equation R=L sin^2(theta), so a multipole contribution changes B(R,theta), the field-line geometry, the beaming geometry, and the g(theta)/L factor in the drift rate. The only robustness check in Section 4 (the '2019b model') varies the dipole moment and tilt but still uses a centered dipole, so it cannot bound the quadrupole uncertainty. I request a quantitative sensitivity test: repeat the drift-rate comparison, and at least one ExPRES scenario, using a field model that includes the quadrupole (or an analytic dipole+quadrupole field), and report how the allowed L and E ranges change. Until then, the abstract's unqualified 20–30 keV and L=2–10 claims should be presented as contingent on the dipolar approximation.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1] The ExPRES compatibility criterion is an inclusion test against a 'maximum coverage' simulation in which radio sources are active at all longitudes on a given L-shell and emit continuously along the entire field line. This construction does not penalize predicted emission in regions where none is observed, so the test is permissive: Table 1 lists L=2–10 as compatible for 5–100 keV loss-cone electrons and L=2 for a shell distribution. The paper acknowledges this breadth, but the abstract and Section 6 state the result as 20–30 keV electrons on L=2–10, which is the intersection of the broad ExPRES range with the drift-rate result. The convergence of the two methods is therefore not between two equally constraining analyses; the energy narrowing is effectively driven by the drift-rate analysis. The authors should state explicitly how much of the final L and E estimate comes from each method and, ideally, replace the binary inclusion criterion with a scalar measure of how well each ExPRES scenario matches the observed t-f envelope, including the fact that most of the simulated coverage is unobserved.
  3. [Sections 5 and 6] Section 5 reports that the December 3 sub-burst drift-rates are incompatible with electron adiabatic motion at all energies, and Section 6 concedes that the December 3 bursts may be produced by a different mechanism or by source motion. Nevertheless, the December 3 overall drift-rates (the long-dashed orange line) are used to claim compatibility with 30–100 keV electrons, and the abstract reports a single 20–30 keV value. The evidential value of the December 3 overall drift is weakened if the constituent sub-bursts do not follow the adiabatic drift law, since an overall drift can also arise from source motion or propagation. The paper should separate the December 2 and December 3 constraints when stating the energy range and should present the December 3 energy estimate as tentative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a stray formatting artifact ('pz{, inspired from...}') that should be removed.
  2. [Section 6, Figure 8 caption] The caption uses uppercase 'N' and 'H' for the coronal base density and scale height, while Eq. (12) defines the dimensionless parameters as lowercase 'n' and 'h'; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence describing the 2019b model test states that the plots were recomputed with a different dipole moment and inclination, but it does not explicitly say that this is still a centered dipole; stating that explicitly would prevent the reader from mistaking this check for a multipole test.
  4. [Table 1] The caption says that boldface style indicates compatibility with observed polarization, but the table as provided shows no boldface entries; the typeset version should ensure this formatting is visible.
  5. [Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the electron energy E is used without stating its unit in the equation block; the text defines keV only in the surrounding paragraph, so a brief notation such as 'E in keV' should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: both the ExPRES t-f coverage and the analytical drift-rate calculations are forward models compared to FAST observations, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's two constraining methods are forward calculations, not inversions built from the target quantities. In Section 5, Equations (1)-(11) derive the drift-rate df/dt = -3 f g(theta) v_// / (L R*) from the dipolar field-line equation R = L sin^2(theta), the cyclotron frequency f = fce, and adiabatic invariants; the paper then 'computed predicted drift-rates over the range of FAST observations' and compared them with the measured drift-rates (Fig. 6). The ExPRES analysis similarly places sources at the local fce on assumed L-shells, computes the ECM beaming angle from the cold-plasma dispersion relation (Appendix B), and checks whether the observed FAST envelopes 'must be included in the t-f region where the simulation predicts emission to occur' (Section 4). The inferred electron energies (20-30 keV) and L-shells (2-10 R*) emerge from scanning parameter space, not from fitting the data to a formula that already contains those values. Self-citations to ExPRES (Louis et al. 2019, 2023) and to the drift-rate method (Zarka et al. 1996; Mauduit et al. 2023) are not load-bearing in a circular sense: the drift-rate equations are re-derived in the text, the ExPRES beaming angles are re-derived in Appendix B, and both methods have been tested on Jupiter's radio emissions. The centered-dipole field model taken from Bellotti et al. (2023) is a shared input and a limitation, explicitly acknowledged ('it is considered adequate to use in a first step the purely dipolar fit'), but the target results are not equivalent to that input by construction; a 21% quadrupole component would shift the inferred values, which is a model-uncertainty concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on external measurements and assumptions: the ZDI dipole field fit (Bellotti et al. 2023), the ECM-fundamental hypothesis, adiabatic electron motion, straight-line propagation, and the exponential coronal density model. The scanned parameters E, L, phi_e, n, h, and cone thickness are constrained rather than derived from first principles. No new physical entities are introduced. Because both modeling approaches use the same dipole field and ECM assumption, their agreement does not validate those shared assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • Electron characteristic energy E (loss-cone) = 20-30 keV (inferred from drift-rate matching; ExPRES alone allows 5-100 keV)
    Used in ExPRES beaming angle and in drift-rate parallel velocity (Eq. 7); scanned over 5-200/500 keV and constrained by matching observed drift-rates.
  • Magnetic shell parameter L = 2-10 R* (inferred; L=2,5,10,20,40 scanned)
    Source field line apex distance; constrained jointly by ExPRES t-f coverage and drift-rate ranges.
  • Equatorial pitch angle phi_e = 1 degree to 1.2 x phi_e1 (plausible range); other values scanned
    Sets mirror point and v_parallel; restricted to a physically plausible range to obtain L<=10, otherwise extreme values (phi_e << 1 degree) are needed at large L.
  • Coronal density relative base density n = 0.2-1 (explored values 0.2, 0.5, 1)
    Multiplicative factor in N_e(r) profile (Eq. 12); constrained by requiring f_pe/f_ce < 0.3 for X-mode at the source.
  • Coronal density relative scale height h = 0.2-0.5 (inferred); h=0.2,0.5,1 explored
    Scale height in N_e(r) profile (Eq. 12); constrained to satisfy X-mode propagation condition in the source region.
  • ExPRES beam cone thickness = 1 degree (checked 0.5 and 2 degrees)
    Hollow cone half-thickness; set to 1 degree for overlap between adjacent longitude sources, variation does not change the conclusions.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Radio bursts are generated by ECM at the fundamental of the local cyclotron frequency (f = fce).
    Inherited from paper #1 and justified by high brightness temperature, >100% circular polarization, and ms fine structure; used throughout Sections 4-6.
  • domain assumption AD Leo's magnetic field is well represented by a centered dipole (moment 461.5 G R*^3, inclined 59 degrees to the rotation axis).
    Taken from Bellotti et al. (2023) dipolar fit; quadrupole (~21%) and higher terms are neglected, stated as adequate in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Electrons move adiabatically along field lines with no parallel electric potential or potential drop.
    Used in Section 5 to derive v_parallel (Eq. 7); explicitly assumed in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Near-source refraction is negligible; radio waves propagate straight to the observer.
    Section 4: coronal plasma frequency assumed much lower than FAST band (>=1 GHz).
  • domain assumption R-X mode ECM requires f_pe/f_ce < 0.3 in the source region.
    Used in Section 6 to constrain coronal density (Melrose et al. 1984; Treumann 2006).
  • domain assumption The coronal electron density follows an exponential hydrostatic profile N_e(r) = n x 2.5e10 exp[-(r-1)/(h x 0.38 R*)].
    Adopted in Section 6 from Villadsen & Hallinan (2019); n and h are the free scaling parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper For the maximum-coverage ExPRES runs, radio sources are active at all longitudes on a given L-shell and emit continuously along the whole field line.
    Section 4: this is a deliberate simplifying choice to limit free parameters; the paper notes observed t-f extent is smaller, suggesting restricted longitude ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Location and energy of electrons producing the radio bursts from AD Leo observed by FAST in December 2021." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5Z7GYBF

@misc{pith2026250116180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Location and energy of electrons producing the radio bursts from AD Leo observed by FAST in December 2021},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5Z7GYBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16180}
}
read the original abstract

In a recent paper, we presented circularly polarized radio bursts detected by the radio telescope FAST from the flare star AD Leo on December 2-3, 2021, which were attributed to the electron cyclotron maser instability. In that context we use here two independent and complementary approaches\pz{, inspired from the study of auroral radio emissions from solar system planets,} to constrain for the first time the source location (magnetic shell, height) and the energy of the emitting electrons. These two approaches consist of (i) modeling the overall occurrence of the emission with the ExPRES code, and (ii) fitting the drift-rate of the fine structures observed by FAST. We obtain consistent results pointing at 20-30 keV electrons on magnetic shells with apex at 2-10 stellar radii. Emission polarization observed by FAST and magnetic topology of AD Leo favour X-mode emission from the southern magnetic hemisphere, from which we draw constraints on the plasma density scale height in the star's atmosphere. We demonstrate that sensitive radio observations with high time-frequency resolutions, coupled to modelling tools such as ExPRES, analytical calculations and stellar magnetic field measurements, now allow us to remotely probe stellar radio environments.} We provide elements of comparison with solar system radio bursts (Jovian and Solar), emit hypotheses about the driver of AD Leo's radio bursts and discuss the perspectives of future observations, in particular at very low frequencies (<100 MHz).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16180 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bursts and drift-rates (d f /dt) observed with FAST. (a) Repre￾sentative examples of bursts observed on December 2nd. Many linearly drifting discrete bursts show up clearly. About 700 individual bursts were identified and their drift-rate measured across the observed fre￾quency range (examples are displayed in red). With FAST, negative Stokes V correspond to LH circular polarization (Wang et al. 2023). (b) Represent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons of the morphologies of AD Leo’s radio bursts observed on December 2nd, 2021 (a) and December 3rd, 2021 (c), with typical Jupiter S-bursts observed at the Nançay Decameter Array (Lamy et al. 2017; Mauduit et al. 2023) (b), and with Solar decameter spike bursts observed with the Huairou/NAOC solar spectrometer (Chernov et al. 2008) (d) and NenuFAR low-frequency radio telescope (Zarka et al. 2020; Briand et… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sketch of AD Leo’s magnetic configuration, based on (Bellotti et al. 2023). The axes (x, y, z) are expressed in stellar radius R∗. The dotted blue line labelled Ω represents the star’s rotation axis (it is dis￾played at 20◦ from the line of sight), while the black dotted line labelled M represents the magnetic dipole axis, making an angle of 59◦ with Ω. Magnetic field lines of L-shell 2 to 40 are displayed as the so… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of simulated emission envelopes with ExPRES. R-X mode is emitted from the Northern (a) or Southern (b) hemisphere, by loss-cone-driven ECM with characteristic energy 10 keV. Five dipolar magnetic shells (L=2, 5, 10, 20, 40) are simulated in each case, with act…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ranges of calculated drift-rates along dipolar field lines with L￾shell 2, 5 and 10, for an electron’s energy of 30 keV and equatorial pitch angles between 1◦ (upper limit of each domain) and 1.2 × ϕe1 (lower limit). The red and orange lines represent the drift-rates m…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Drift-rates calculated in FAST range for electrons with energy 5 keV (a), 30 keV (b) and 200 keV (c). On each panel, drift-rates for each L value (same values as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: fpe/ fce values in the frequency range of FAST observations, for a dipolar magnetic field of moment 461.5 G.R3 ∗ and a coronal density following Equation 12, along L-shells 2 and 5, as a function of the rel￾ative base coronal density N and relative scale height H. line…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: fpe/ fce values computed as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Drift-rates similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

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. Discovering and Characterising Exoplanets and Ultracool Dwarfs with the Square Kilometre Array

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.5 of 10

    The Square Kilometre Array is projected to enable first radio detections of giant exoplanets, thousands of ultracool dwarfs, and few-Earth-mass planets around nearby UCDs via VLBI astrometry.

  2. The Study of Quasi-Periodic Pulsations in Solar and Stellar Flares with SKA

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    SKA’s radio imaging spectroscopy and polarisation will enable decisive tests of QPP mechanisms in solar and stellar flares, including weak events and solar–stellar comparisons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Abada-Simon , M., Lecacheux , A., Aubier , M., & Bookbinder , J. A. 1997, , 321, 841

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    1994, , 288, 219

    Abada-Simon , M., Lecacheux , A., Louarn , P., et al. 1994, , 288, 219

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Aschwanden , M. J. 2006, , 124, 361

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    T., et al

    Bellotti , S., Morin , J., Lehmann , L. T., et al. 2023, , 676, A56

    2023

  7. [7]

    Benz , A. O. 1986, , 104, 99

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    2022, URSI Radio Science Letters, 4, 17

    Briand , C., Cecconi , B., Chrysaphi , N., et al. 2022, URSI Radio Science Letters, 4, 17

    work page 2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    R., Pope , B

    Callingham , J. R., Pope , B. J. S., Kavanagh , R. D., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1359

    2024

  2. [10]

    F., et al

    Carleo , I., Malavolta , L., Lanza , A. F., et al. 2020, , 638, A5

    2020

  3. [11]

    2023, , 674, A110

    Carmona , A., Delfosse , X., Bellotti , S., et al. 2023, , 674, A110

    2023

  4. [12]

    P., Yan , Y., Fu , Q., Tan , C., & Wang , S

    Chernov , G. P., Yan , Y., Fu , Q., Tan , C., & Wang , S. 2008, , 250, 115

    2008

  5. [13]

    L., Sarro , L

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart , R. L., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2021, , 649, A6

    2021

  6. [14]

    L., Drake , J

    G \"u del , M., Audard , M., Kashyap , V. L., Drake , J. J., & Guinan , E. F. 2003, , 582, 423

    2003

  7. [15]

    O., Bastian , T

    Gudel , M., Benz , A. O., Bastian , T. S., et al. 1989, , 220, L5

    1989

  8. [16]

    P., Cotter , G., et al

    Hallinan , G., Littlefair , S. P., Cotter , G., et al. 2015, , 523, 568

    2015

  9. [17]

    L., Allred , J

    Hawley , S. L., Allred , J. C., Johns-Krull , C. M., et al. 2003, , 597, 535

    2003

  10. [18]

    2008, , 35, L13107

    Hess , S., Cecconi , B., & Zarka , P. 2008, , 35, L13107

    2008

  11. [19]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A11212

    Hess , S., Mottez , F., & Zarka , P. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A11212

    2007

  12. [20]

    Hess , S., Zarka , P., Mottez , F., & Ryabov , V. B. 2009, , 57, 23

    2009

  13. [21]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064

    Jiang , P., Tang , N.-Y., Hou , L.-G., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 064

    2020

  14. [22]

    2024, , 690, A382

    Klein , K.-L., Salas Matamoros , C., Hamini , A., & Kollhoff , A. 2024, , 690, A382

    2024

  15. [23]

    2022, , 666, A143

    Kossakowski , D., K \"u rster , M., Henning , T., et al. 2022, , 666, A143

    2022

  16. [24]

    2017, in Planetary Radio Emissions VIII, ed

    Lamy , L., Zarka , P., Cecconi , B., et al. 2017, in Planetary Radio Emissions VIII, ed. G. Fischer , G. Mann , M. Panchenko , & P. Zarka , 455--466

    2017

  17. [25]

    R., Bookbinder , J., Golub , L., & Davis , M

    Lang , K. R., Bookbinder , J., Golub , L., & Davis , M. M. 1983, , 272, L15

    1983

  18. [26]

    Lang , K. R. & Willson , R. F. 1986, , 305, 363

    1986

  19. [27]

    Lavail , A., Kochukhov , O., & Wade , G. A. 2018, , 479, 4836

    2018

  20. [28]

    1998, , 25, 2905

    Louarn , P., Roux , A., Perraut , S., Kurth , W., & Gurnett , D. 1998, , 25, 2905

    1998

  21. [29]

    K., Hess , S

    Louis , C. K., Hess , S. L. G., Cecconi , B., et al. 2019, , 627, A30

    2019

  22. [30]

    K., Hess , S

    Louis , C. K., Hess , S. L. G., Cecconi , B., et al. 2023, Exoplanetary and Planetary Radio Emission Simulator (ExPRES)

    2023

  23. [31]

    W., Feiden , G

    Mann , A. W., Feiden , G. A., Gaidos , E., Boyajian , T., & von Braun , K. 2015, , 804, 64

    2015

  24. [32]

    Mauduit , E., Zarka , P., Lamy , L., & Hess , S. L. G. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 5981

    2023

  25. [33]

    Maxwell , J. C. 1865, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, 155, 459

  26. [34]

    B., Hewitt , R

    Melrose , D. B., Hewitt , R. G., & Dulk , G. A. 1984, , 89, 897

    1984

  27. [35]

    2024, , 686, A51

    Mohan , A., Mondal , S., Wedemeyer , S., & Gopalswamy , N. 2024, , 686, A51

    2024

  28. [36]

    F., Petit , P., et al

    Morin , J., Donati , J. F., Petit , P., et al. 2008, , 390, 567

    2008

  29. [37]

    E., Carley , E

    Morosan , D. E., Carley , E. P., Hayes , L. A., et al. 2019 a , Nature Astronomy, 3, 452

    2019

  30. [38]

    E., Gallagher , P

    Morosan , D. E., Gallagher , P. T., Zucca , P., et al. 2015, , 580, A65

    2015

  31. [39]

    E., Kilpua , E

    Morosan , D. E., Kilpua , E. K. J., Carley , E. P., & Monstein , C. 2019 b , , 623, A63

    2019

  32. [40]

    E., Zucca , P., Bloomfield , D

    Morosan , D. E., Zucca , P., Bloomfield , D. S., & Gallagher , P. T. 2016, , 589, L8

    2016

  33. [41]

    W., Mutabazi , T., & Jurua , E

    Muheki , P., Guenther , E. W., Mutabazi , T., & Jurua , E. 2020, , 637, A13

    2020

  34. [42]

    2020, , 72, 68

    Namekata , K., Maehara , H., Sasaki , R., et al. 2020, , 72, 68

    2020

  35. [43]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    Nan , R., Li , D., Jin , C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    2011

  36. [44]

    Nichols , J. D. 2012, , 427, L75

    2012

  37. [45]

    Osten , R. A. & Bastian , T. S. 2006, , 637, 1016

    2006

  38. [46]

    Osten , R. A. & Bastian , T. S. 2008, , 674, 1078

    2008

  39. [47]

    C., et al

    Prang \'e , R., Pallier , L., Hansen , K. C., et al. 2004, , 432, 78

    2004

  40. [48]

    & Schmitt , J

    Robrade , J. & Schmitt , J. H. M. M. 2005, , 435, 1073

    2005

  41. [49]

    B., Zarka , P., Hess , S., et al

    Ryabov , V. B., Zarka , P., Hess , S., et al. 2014, , 568, A53

    2014

  42. [50]

    V., Kliem , B., Zaitsev , V

    Stepanov , A. V., Kliem , B., Zaitsev , V. V., et al. 2001, , 374, 1072

    2001

  43. [51]

    Stix , T. H. 1962, The Theory of Plasma Waves (New York, McGraw-Hill)

    1962

  44. [52]

    Treumann , R. A. 2000, Geophysical Monograph Series, 119, 13

    2000

  45. [53]

    Treumann , R. A. 2006, , 13, 229

    2006

  46. [54]

    Tuomi , M., Jones , H. R. A., Barnes , J. R., et al. 2018, , 155, 192

    2018

  47. [55]

    D., Wynn , G

    Turnpenney , S., Nichols , J. D., Wynn , G. A., & Casewell , S. L. 2017, , 470, 4274

    2017

  48. [56]

    van den Besselaar , E. J. M., Raassen , A. J. J., Mewe , R., et al. 2003, , 411, 587

    2003

  49. [57]

    Vedantham , H. K. 2021, , 500, 3898

    2021

  50. [58]

    & Hallinan , G

    Villadsen , J. & Hallinan , G. 2019, , 871, 214

    2019

  51. [59]

    F., Han , J

    Wang , P. F., Han , J. L., Xu , J., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 104002

    2023

  52. [60]

    Willes , A. J. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1061

    2002

  53. [61]

    J., Huang , J., Tang , J

    Wu , D. J., Huang , J., Tang , J. F., & Yan , Y. H. 2007, , 665, L171

    2007

  54. [62]

    K., Christensen , U

    Yadav , R. K., Christensen , U. R., Morin , J., et al. 2015, , 813, L31

    2015

  55. [63]

    S., Wolf , R

    Yang , Y. S., Wolf , R. A., Spiro , R. W., Hill , T. W., & Dessler , A. J. 1994, , 99, 8755

    1994

  56. [64]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 50

    Yu , S., Chen , B., Sharma , R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 50

    2024

  57. [65]

    V., Vasylieva , I

    Zakharenko , V. V., Vasylieva , I. Y., Konovalenko , A. A., et al. 2013, , 431, 3624

    2013

  58. [66]

    1998, , 103, 20159

    Zarka , P. 1998, , 103, 20159

    1998

  59. [67]

    P., Abada-Simon , M., & Denis , L

    Zarka , P., Farges , T., Ryabov , B. P., Abada-Simon , M., & Denis , L. 1996, , 23, 125

    1996

  60. [68]

    Zarka , P. et al. 2020, in URSI General Assembly, session J01: New Telescopes on the Frontier

    2020

  61. [69]

    2023, , 953, 65

    Zhang , J., Tian , H., Zarka , P., et al. 2023, , 953, 65

    2023

  62. [70]

    2024, , 969, 73

    Zhang , J., Tian , H., Zarka , P., et al. 2024, , 969, 73

    2024

  63. [71]

    Zic , A. J. 2020, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Australia

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.