Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic activity evolution of solar-like stars: II. $S_{\rm ph}$-Ro evolution of Kepler main-sequence targets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For G and K dwarfs, photometric activity $S_{\rm ph}$ is not a monotonic function of Rossby number: it dips near $Ro/R_\odot \sim 0.3$, peaks near 0.4, and only then declines, while F dwarfs show almost no dependence.

desk verdict A valuable large-sample Sph–Ro map; the dip claim needs a monotonic-null test before it carries the physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10109 v1 pith:RMGKYFIC submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.SR

Savita Mathur , Angela R. G. Santos , Zachary R. Claytor , Rafael A. García , Antoine Strugarek , Adam J. Finley , Quentin Noraz , Louis Amard
show 11 more authors
Paul G. Beck Alfio Bonanno Sylvain N. Breton Allan S. Brun Lyra Cao Enrico Corsaro Diego Godoy-Rivera Stéphane Mathis Dinil B. Palakkatharappil Marc H. Pinsonneault Jennifer van Saders
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarmagneticactivityRossbynumberconvectiveoverturntimescaleKeplerphotometrysolar-likestarsstarspotsrotationgyrochronology
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 maps a photometric magnetic activity index, $S_{\rm ph}$, against the Rossby number (the ratio of rotation period to convective overturn timescale) for more than 38,000 single main-sequence stars observed by Kepler. It argues that the activity–Rossby relation is not a single monotonic decline: for G and K dwarfs the activity dips near $Ro/R_\odot \sim 0.3$, rises to a small peak near 0.4, and only then declines, while F dwarfs show little or no dependence. The dip coincides with the known intermediate rotation-period gap, which the paper interprets as the signature of the redistribution of angular momentum between the core and the convective envelope. If correct, magnetic activity evolution in the unsaturated regime is non-monotonic and mass-dependent, and the Sun sits near the transition to a recently identified high-Rossby activity enhancement rather than at the end of a simple decay curve.

What carries the argument

The Rossby number $\mathrm{Ro} = P_{\rm rot}/\tau_c$, with the convective overturn timescale $\tau_c$ from YREC stellar evolution models fitted to $T_{\rm eff}$, $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$, and luminosity, evaluated one pressure scale height above the base of the convection zone and normalized by the model solar value $\mathrm{Ro}_\odot = 2.16$, organizes the activity measurements. The paper locates the dip and peak by binning stars in $\mathrm{Ro}/\mathrm{Ro}_\odot$ and fitting second-order polynomials to the 95th-percentile $S_{\rm ph}$ values per bin, and uses the upper envelope of the diagram as a proxy for stars observed near maximum activity at favorable inclination.

What would settle it

Compute the dip location using an independent determination of the convective overturn timescale—for instance from asteroseismic modeling of a subset of Kepler targets—and check whether the dip remains at $Ro/R_\odot \sim 0.3$; if it shifts or disappears, the placement is an artifact of the YREC $\tau_c$ values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the $S_{\rm ph}$–Rossby diagram for main-sequence Kepler stars is structured by spectral type: a localized dip in $S_{\rm ph}$ around $Ro/R_\odot \sim 0.3$ for G and K dwarfs, a nearby peak near $Ro/R_\odot \sim 0.39$, a flattened, near-zero slope for early F dwarfs that strengthens as effective temperature increases, and an enhanced level of activity above the solar Rossby number for G dwarfs. The paper recovers the overall decrease of activity with increasing Rossby number that defines the unsaturated regime, but shows that this decrease is interrupted in the low-Rossby part of the diagram, that the dip is coincident with the intermediate rotation-period gap, and that it can be understood as the moment when the radiative interior and convective envelope begin exchanging angular momentum. The Sun's measured activity range falls within that of its Kepler solar analogs, placing it near the transition to the high-Rossby activity increase rather than at an extreme.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the model-computed convective overturn timescales used to build the Rossby numbers are correct and equally reliable for F, G, and K dwarfs; if those timescales carry systematic errors that depend on spectral type, the location of the dip and the spectral-type differences could be artifacts of the models rather than real changes in magnetic activity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Sun-like star's spin-down evolution passes through an activity dip at about 0.3 times the solar Rossby number, then a small peak, before entering the long declining branch.
  • The activity–Rossby relation cannot be merged across spectral types; F dwarfs must be handled separately because of their shallow convection zones.
  • The intermediate rotation-period gap and the activity dip share a common origin, likely the onset of core–envelope angular momentum coupling.
  • Metal-rich Sun-like stars sustain higher spot-driven photometric variability than metal-poor stars at the same Rossby number, a difference attributed to deeper convective zones.
  • The Sun is not unusually inactive for its parameters; its activity falls inside the range of its Kepler solar analogs, near the transition to the high-Rossby activity increase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dip marks core–envelope coupling, its location in $\mathrm{Ro}/\mathrm{Ro}_\odot$ should shift with stellar mass; checking whether lower-mass stars enter the dip at a different Rossby number would test that connection.
  • The flattening of the F-dwarf relation may partly reflect a selection bias, since spot-modulation detection is harder in hotter, more rapidly rotating stars; cross-checks with flare-based activity samples that do not rely on rotational modulation would clarify this.
  • Because the YREC $\tau_c$ values set the absolute Rossby scale, recomputing the diagram with alternative $\tau_c$ prescriptions (semi-empirical or seismic) would show how robust the 0.3 normalization is.
  • The high-Rossby activity enhancement for G dwarfs gives an observational target for the predicted transition to anti-solar differential rotation, and could be searched for in chromospheric indices of slowly rotating field stars.
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. This paper uses the Kepler rotation-period catalog of Santos et al. (2019, 2021) and the photometric activity index S_ph to study how magnetic activity varies with Rossby number Ro = P_rot/tau_c for main-sequence F, G, and K dwarfs. Convective overturn timescales are computed from YREC stellar models through the kiauhoku interpolation tool. After removing likely binaries and selecting main-sequence stars, the sample contains about 38,600 stars. The central empirical claims are that the S_ph–Ro diagram is structured by spectral type: G and K dwarfs show a localized dip in S_ph near Ro/Ro_sun ~ 0.3 followed by a peak near 0.4, F dwarfs show little or no dependence of S_ph on Ro, G dwarfs show enhanced activity above the solar Rossby number, and the Sun's activity is comparable to that of spectroscopically selected solar analogs. The dip is interpreted as associated with the intermediate rotation-period gap and possible core–envelope angular-momentum coupling. The paper also confirms that metal-rich stars have systematically higher S_ph at fixed Ro than metal-poor stars.

Significance. If the non-monotonic, mass-dependent behavior is real, the result provides an important observational constraint on dynamo models and angular-momentum evolution, going beyond the classic saturated/unsaturated dichotomy. The paper's strengths include a large sample (38,000+ stars), careful treatment of binaries and evolutionary state, explicit use of a machine-readable table, and a direct comparison of the Sun with solar analogs in the same S_ph–Ro plane. However, the central dip claim is identified through a percentile-based estimator in sparse bins and is not tested against a monotonic null model, so its robustness is not yet established. The paper is honest about sample limitations and about uncertainties in tau_c, but several of those limitations affect the load-bearing interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Figure 7] The existence of the dip is established entirely from the 95th percentile of S_ph in bins of width 0.0025 Ro/Ro_sun and a second-order polynomial fit to those percentiles, with no significance test against a monotonic null hypothesis. This is a load-bearing issue because the sample is restricted to stars with detected rotation periods (detection rates 51%, 31.1%, and 29.3% for K, G, and F dwarfs, as stated in Section 4.3), and the intermediate rotation-period gap produces low-occupancy bins at exactly the Rossby numbers where the dip is reported. In percentile-based upper-envelope estimation, bins with very small n have a downward-biased sample 95th percentile, so a spurious dip can appear even if the underlying relation is monotonic. The apparent confirmation in Figure 7—that stars near the intermediate period gap are located near the dip—is not independent evidence, since the gap imprinted on the sample would produce exactly that pattern. I request a null-hypothesis test, for example injecting a monotonic S_ph(Ro) relation through the observed occupancy and detection function, or a bootstrap/jackknife over bins that quantifies whether the dip depth exceeds the sparse-bin bias.
  2. [Section 4.3] The quoted dip locations, 0.294 ± 0.058 Ro_sun for K dwarfs and 0.286 ± 0.077 Ro_sun for G dwarfs, do not propagate any of the observational or modeling uncertainties in S_ph, P_rot, or tau_c. As written, the error bars reflect only the scatter of the percentile points around the polynomial fit. Since the central quantitative claim is the location of the dip, the paper should either propagate all sources of uncertainty into the dip position or explicitly state that the quoted uncertainties are procedural and not estimates of the total error.
  3. [Section 3 and Appendix A] The spectral-type dependence of the S_ph–Ro diagram and the location of the dip depend directly on the model-derived tau_c, since Ro = P_rot/tau_c. Appendix A compares several tau_c prescriptions (Noyes, Legacy, fluid-based) only qualitatively in Figure 9 and does not test whether the reported dip survives when an alternative tau_c is used. If YREC tau_c carries a spectral-type-dependent systematic offset, the F/G/K differences and the Ro/Ro_sun ~ 0.3 feature could be artifacts of the modeling rather than real changes in magnetic activity. I recommend a explicit robustness test: recompute the dip location with at least one alternative tau_c prescription, or demonstrate that the dip is present in P_rot for narrow effective-temperature slices, where tau_c is nearly constant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6 vs Section 4.1] The final sample size is given as 38,930 stars in Section 6 but as 38,593 stars in Section 4.1; the discrepancy should be reconciled.
  2. [Title page] The title contains a typo: 'ofKepler' should read 'of Kepler'.
  3. [Figure 1 and Section 4.2] The figure caption describes the dotted lines as 'yellow', while the text in Section 4.2 calls them 'orange'; the color description should be made consistent.
  4. [Figure 6 caption] The caption says the median values are computed in 'bins of 0.1 dex', but the text describes bins of 0.1 in Ro/Ro_sun; the caption should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Sph, Prot, and τc are independent inputs, and the reported features are empirical descriptions rather than derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are observational characterizations: Sph is measured from Kepler photometry, Prot comes from the Santos et al. (2019, 2021) rotation catalog, and τc is computed from YREC stellar models fitted to Teff, [Fe/H], and L via kiauhoku. Equation 1, Ro = Prot/τc, is a definition, but neither input is defined in terms of Sph or in terms of the final Sph-Ro features. The dip location at Ro/Ro⊙ ~ 0.3 is obtained by binning Sph and fitting a quadratic to the 95th percentile; this is a descriptive statistic, not a prediction, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as an independent result. The association between the dip and the intermediate period gap uses the same rotation-period catalog, but Ro is not equal to Prot by construction (τc varies with stellar parameters), so the correspondence is an empirical correlation rather than a logical identity. Self-citations appear mainly as provenance for data, pipelines, and model grids (e.g., Santos et al. 2019, 2021; Mathur et al. 2014a; Claytor et al. 2020); they are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The skeptical concern that sparse bins near the period gap could bias percentile estimates is a statistical robustness critique, not a circularity: it does not show that any output is equivalent to an input by definition. No circular step can be exhibited with a quoted reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new free parameters are introduced by the paper; tau_c values are outputs of the YREC/kiauhoku model grid, and the dip-location polynomial is a descriptive statistic rather than a physical parameter. The central claim rests on the four domain assumptions listed, especially the reliability of model tau_c across spectral types.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption YREC stellar models provide reliable convective overturn timescales.
    Section 3 and Appendix A; Ro = Prot/tau_c; tau_c computed one pressure scale height above the base of the convective zone. Spectral-type-dependent model errors would shift the dip and the F/G/K differences.
  • domain assumption Sph is a valid proxy for magnetic activity despite inclination and active-longitude projection.
    Section 2.2; Sph is a lower limit and depends on the cycle phase observed, as tested in Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The binary-removal and main-sequence cuts do not bias the Sph-Ro trends.
    Section 4.1; detection rates differ by spectral type (51% K, 31% G, 29% F) and remaining unresolved binaries could contaminate high-Ro bins.
  • domain assumption Stellar parameters from CFOP, APOGEE, LAMOST, B20, and DR25 are consistent enough for spectral-type binning.
    Section 2.1; cross-catalog differences are within 10% in Teff and 0.2 dex in [Fe/H], which is adequate for the claimed trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic activity evolution of solar-like stars: II. $S_{\rm ph}$-Ro evolution of Kepler main-sequence targets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMGKYFIC

@misc{pith2026250210109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic activity evolution of solar-like stars: II. $S_\rm ph$-Ro evolution of Kepler main-sequence targets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMGKYFIC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10109}
}
abstract

There is now a large sample of stars observed by the Kepler satellite with measured rotation periods and photometric activity index $S_{\rm ph}$. We use this data, in conjunction with stellar interiors models, to explore the interplay of magnetism, rotation, and convection. Stellar activity proxies other than $S_{\rm ph}$ are correlated with the Rossby number, $Ro$, or ratio of rotation period to convective overturn timescale. We compute the latter using the Yale Rotating Evolution Code stellar models. We observe different $S_{\rm ph}$-$Ro$ relationships for different stellar spectral types. Though the overall trend of decreasing magnetic activity versus $Ro$ is recovered, we find a localized dip in $S_{\rm ph}$ around $Ro/Ro_{\odot} \sim$\,0.3 for the G and K dwarfs. F dwarfs show little to no dependence of $S_{\rm ph}$ on $Ro$ due to their shallow convective zones; further accentuated as $T_{\rm eff}$ increases. The dip in activity for the G and K dwarfs corresponds to the intermediate rotation period gap, suggesting that the dip in $S_{\rm ph}$ could be associated with the redistribution of angular momentum between the core and convective envelope inside stars. For G-type stars, we observe enhanced magnetic activity above solar $Ro$. Compared to other Sun-like stars with similar effective temperature and metallicity, we find that the Sun's current level of magnetic activity is comparable to its peers and lies near the transition to increasing magnetic activity at high $Ro$. We confirm that metal-rich stars have a systematically larger $S_{\rm ph}$ level than metal-poor stars, which is likely a consequence of their deeper convective zones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sph as a function of the model Rossby number normalized to the solar value of 2.16 (represented by the red dash line) for all the main-sequence stars without potential pollution from binary systems and color-coded with the number density of stars. The inset illustrates where our sample falls compared to the saturated and unsaturated regimes found in X-ray observations (Wright et al. 2018) (yellow dotted lines), with… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sph as a function of the model Rossby number normalized to the solar value for different spectral types for all stars color-coded with the number density of stars. In each panel, the vertical dash line corresponds to the solar Ro. The horizontal red dash-dot lines for the G dwarfs correspond to the range of Sph for the Sun between minimum and maximum magnetic activity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Median Sph in bins of 0.1 Ro/Ro⊙ as a function of the normalized Ro for masses between 0.8M⊙ and 1.2M⊙. 4.5. The Sun and Sun-like stars Placing the Sun’s magnetic activity in context with that of its siblings is vital for understanding the so￾lar/stellar dynamo. However, the identification of solar twins and analogs can be challenging. Different crite￾ria have been used to select these solar analogs (e.g. do Nascime… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sph as a function of Rossby number for solar analogs compared to the Sun represented by the red circles for minimum and maximum magnetic activity during a solar cycle. Only stars with spectroscopic values were selected and the number of stars is shown in the top right …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sph as a function of Rossby number for stars similar (see Section 4.6 for details) to two very well seismically studied Kepler stars : KIC 8006161 (left panel, pink triangles) and KIC 10644253 (right panel, cyan triangles). The colored symbols represent the range of ma…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: Sph as a function of Rossby number for stars with Teff between 5500 K and 6000 K and masses between 0.9 M⊙ and 1.1 M⊙ for metal-rich (red symbols) and metal-poor (blue symbols) stars. The solid line (resp. triple dot-dash line) represents the median values …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sph as a function of Rossby for 1M⊙ (top) and 0.8M⊙ (bottom) color-coded by the distance to the intermediate-Prot gap. duces active regions that reinforce the pre-existing ori￾entation of the large-scale field. In this case, the dy￾namo mechanism is therefore no longer…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Convective overturn timescale computed with the Noyes et al. (1984) relation (top left panel), the Legacy calibration (top right panel), from the best-fit model with YREC (bottom left panel) where subgiants are color-coded in red, and from the fluid computation with si…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: variation of Sph with the ratio R using the photometric observations of the Sun with VIRGO. Right panel: Minimum (blue) and maximum (orange) Sph for the Sun as a function of the ratio in percentage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]

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. OpenAlex reports about 13 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Hints of enhanced magnetic activity after the intermediate rotation period gap as traced by the chromospheric Ca ii infrared triplet

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Main-sequence Kepler stars exhibit enhanced chromospheric Ca II IRT activity after the intermediate-period gap, paralleling the photospheric Sph signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    Amard, L., & Matt, S. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6173

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6173 2020

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Angus, R., Beane, A., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab91b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab91b2 2020

  4. [4]

    C., Brun, A

    Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2013, ApJ, 777, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/153 —. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ea

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/153 2013

  5. [5]

    N., Pinsonneault, M

    Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Basu, S. 2001, ApJ, 555, 990, doi: 10.1086/321493

    doi:10.1086/321493 2001

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJL, 586, L145, doi: 10.1086/374681

    work page doi:10.1086/374681 2003

  8. [8]

    Basri, G., & Nguyen, H. T. 2018, ApJ, 863, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad3b6 2018

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Reiners, A

    Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., & Reiners, A. 2013, ApJ, 769, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/37

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Batalha, N., et al

    Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., Batalha, N., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L155, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L155 —. 2011, AJ, 141, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Mary, D., et al

    Bazot, M., Nielsen, M. B., Mary, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834251

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Grossmann, D

    Beck, P. G., Grossmann, D. H., Steinwender, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346810

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 680, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347095

    Benomar, O., Takata, M., Bazot, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347095

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Huber, D., van Saders, J

    Berger, T. A., Huber, D., van Saders, J. L., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 280, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/159/6/280

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 939, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c05

    Bonanno, A., & Corsaro, E. 2022, ApJL, 939, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c05

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    Brandenburg, A., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, ApJL, 855, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab20a

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, ApJ, 845, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7cfa

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Santos, A

    Breton, S. N., Santos, A. R. G., Bugnet, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039947

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    P., Miesch, M

    Brown, B. P., Miesch, M. S., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2011a, ApJ, 731, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/69

    doi

  13. [21]

    M., Garc ´ ıa, R

    Brown, T. M., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Mathur, S., Metcalfe, T. S., & Santos, ˆA. R. G. 2021, ApJ, 916, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0635

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Latham, D

    Brown, T. M., Latham, D. W., Everett, M. E., & Esquerdo, G. A. 2011b, AJ, 142, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

    doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Browning, M

    Brun, A. S., & Browning, M. K. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Miesch, M

    Brun, A. S., Miesch, M. S., & Toomre, J. 2004, ApJ, 614, 1073, doi: 10.1086/423835

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    S., Strugarek, A., Varela, J., et al

    Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., Varela, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c40

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

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

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    H., & van Saders, J

    Cao, L., Pinsonneault, M. H., & van Saders, J. L. 2023, ApJL, 951, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd780

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, A&A, 605, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629884

    Ceillier, T., Tayar, J., Mathur, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629884

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, A&A, 605, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526724

    Charbonnel, C., Decressin, T., Lagarde, N., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526724

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    R., van Saders, J

    Claytor, Z. R., van Saders, J. L., Santos, ˆA. R. G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c24

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    R., & Saar, S

    Cranmer, S. R., & Saar, S. H. 2011, ApJ, 741, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/54

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    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

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Straka, C. W. 2008, Ap&SS, 316, 31, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9698-y do Nascimento, J. D., J., de Almeida, L., Velloso, E. N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c16

    2008 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Lehmann, L

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

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Vaughan, A

    Duncan, D. K., Vaughan, A. H., Wilson, O. C., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 383, doi: 10.1086/191572

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Brun, A

    Finley, A. J., Brun, A. S., Strugarek, A., & Cameron, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347862

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Matt, S

    Finley, A. J., & Matt, S. P. 2018, ApJ, 854, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab5 20 Mathur et al. Fr¨ ohlich, C., Romero, J., Roth, H., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 101, doi: 10.1007/BF00733428

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Cochran, W

    Furlan, E., Ciardi, D. R., Cochran, W. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca34 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 Garc ´ ıa, R

    Gallet, F., & Bouvier, J. 2013, A&A, 556, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Mathur, S., Salabert, D., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 1032, doi: 10.1126/science.1191064 Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Ceillier, T., Salabert, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004...

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, A&A, 549, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220317

    Gastine, T., Morin, J., Duarte, L., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220317

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Gilman, P. A. 1979, ApJ, 231, 284, doi: 10.1086/157191

    1979 doi

  38. [46]

    A., et al

    Godoy-Rivera, D., Mathur, S., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.18719, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.18719

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    A., Davenport, J

    Gordon, T. A., Davenport, J. R. A., Angus, R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf63e

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Catala, C., Samadi, R., et al

    Goupil, M. J., Catala, C., Samadi, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348111

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05439

    Holl, B., Sozzetti, A., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.05439. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.05439

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M., et al

    Huber, D., Silva Aguirre, V., Matthews, J. M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/2 I¸ sık, E., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., & Shapiro, A. I. 2018, A&A, 620, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833393

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Jouve, L., & Brun, A. S. 2007, A&A, 474, 239, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077070

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Arlt, R., et al

    Jouve, L., Brun, A. S., Arlt, R., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, 949, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078351 K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J. 2022, ApJL, 931, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e6b

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Tomar, A., & Vashishth, V

    Karak, B. B., Tomar, A., & Vashishth, V. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3220

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    S., Santos, ˆA

    Karoff, C., Metcalfe, T. S., Santos, ˆA. R. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa026

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

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

    1988 doi

  49. [57]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Mendes, L

    Landin, N. R., Mendes, L. T. S., Vaz, L. P. R., & Alencar, S. H. P. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3823

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e59

    Li, C., & Basri, G. 2024, ApJ, 963, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e59

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2007, Atmos

    Liu, Y., Liang, X., & Weisberg, R. 2007, Atmos. and Ocean Tech., 24, 2093

    2007

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    N., Silva Aguirre, V., Davies, G

    Lund, M. N., Silva Aguirre, V., Davies, G. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/172

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    C., Petit, P., Jeffers, S

    Marsden, S. C., Petit, P., Jeffers, S. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1663

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7527

    Masuda, K. 2022, ApJ, 933, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7527

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Bugnet, L., et al

    Mathur, S., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Bugnet, L., et al. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 46, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00046

    2019

  58. [66]

    A., & Ceillier, T

    Mathur, S., Salabert, D., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., & Ceillier, T. 2014a, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 4, A15, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2014011

  59. [67]

    A., R´ egulo, C., et al

    Mathur, S., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., R´ egulo, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913266

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Ballot, J., et al

    Mathur, S., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Ballot, J., et al. 2014b, A&A, 562, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322707

    doi

  61. [69]

    M., et al

    Mathur, S., Huber, D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Santos, ˆA

    Mathur, S., Claytor, Z. R., Santos, ˆA. R. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd118

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2015, ApJL, 799, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23

    Chabrier, G. 2015, ApJL, 799, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    McQuillan, A., Aigrain, S., & Mazeh, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt536

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    S., & van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., & van Saders, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.04416, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2007.04416

    2020 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    S., Strassmeier, K

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

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    Meunier, N., & Lagrange, A. M. 2019, A&A, 629, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935651

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    2021, SoPh, 296, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01797-2

    Nandy, D. 2021, SoPh, 296, 54, doi: 10.1007/s11207-021-01797-2

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    N., Brun, A

    Noraz, Q., Breton, S. N., Brun, A. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243890

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    S., & Strugarek, A

    Noraz, Q., Brun, A. S., & Strugarek, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347939

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    1984 doi

  73. [81]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  74. [82]

    H., Kawaler, S

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Kawaler, S. D., & Demarque, P. 1990, ApJS, 74, 501, doi: 10.1086/191507 Stellar magnetism evolution with Rossby number 21

    1990 doi

  75. [83]

    1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    Demarque, P. 1989, ApJ, 338, 424, doi: 10.1086/167210

    1989 doi

  76. [84]

    A., Batten, A

    Pourbaix, D., Tokovinin, A. A., Batten, A. H., et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 727, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041213

    2004 doi

  77. [85]

    2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    Rauer, H., Catala, C., Aerts, C., et al. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 38, 249, doi: 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    Shapiro, A. I. 2019, A&A, 621, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833754

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    2020, A&A, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    Reinhold, T., & Hekker, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936887

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    I., Witzke, V., et al

    Reinhold, T., Shapiro, A. I., Witzke, V., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abde46 R´ eville, V., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., &

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/116

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    2023, A&A, 674, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    Rimoldini, L., Holl, B., Gavras, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    2023 doi

  83. [91]

    H., & Brandenburg, A

    Saar, S. H., & Brandenburg, A. 2002, Astronomische Nachrichten, 323, 357, doi: 10.1002/1521-3994(200208)323:3/4 ⟨357:: AID-ASNA357⟩3.0.CO;2-I

    2002 doi

  84. [92]

    A., Jim´ enez, A., et al

    Salabert, D., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Jim´ enez, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731560

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    A., Beck, P

    Salabert, D., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Beck, P. G., et al. 2016a, A&A, 596, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628583

    doi

  86. [94]

    A., et al

    Salabert, D., R´ egulo, C., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., et al. 2016b, A&A, 589, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527978

    doi

  87. [95]

    Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & Garc ´ ıa, R. A. 2021, ApJS, 255, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac033f

    2021 doi

  88. [96]

    Santos, A. R. G., Cunha, M. S., Avelino, P. P., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., & Mathur, S. 2017, A&A, 599, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629923

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    Santos, A. R. G., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., Mathur, S., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3b56 Santos, ˆA. R. G., Godoy-Rivera, D., Finley, A. J., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1356379, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1356379

    2019

  90. [98]

    Santos, A. R. G., Mathur, S., Garc ´ ıa, R. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245430

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2020

    See, V., Roquette, J., Amard, L., & Matt, S. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2020

    2023 doi

  92. [100]

    See, V., Roquette, J., Amard, L., & Matt, S. P. 2021, ApJ, 912, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abed47

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    P., Folsom, C

    See, V., Matt, S. P., Folsom, C. P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1096

    2019 doi

  94. [102]

    Schmutz, W. K. 2016, A&A, 589, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527527 Silva Aguirre, V., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    Simonian, G. V. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Terndrup, D. M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf97c

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    Simonian, G. V. A., Pinsonneault, M. H., Terndrup, D. M., & van Saders, J. L. 2020, ApJ, 898, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a43

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

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

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

    1972 doi

  98. [106]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ed

    Pinsonneault, M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa93ed

    2017 doi

  99. [107]

    I., Witzke, V., et al

    Sowmya, K., Shapiro, A. I., Witzke, V., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf247

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

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

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    Strugarek, A., Beaudoin, P., Charbonneau, P., & Brun, A. S. 2018, ApJ, 863, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacf9e

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    S., & do Nascimento, J

    Strugarek, A., Beaudoin, P., Charbonneau, P., Brun, A. S., & do Nascimento, J. D. 2017, Science, 357, 185, doi: 10.1126/science.aal3999

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    Thomas, A. E. L., Chaplin, W. J., Davies, G. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz672

    2019 doi

  104. [112]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079 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, ...

    1998 doi

  105. [113]

    A., Gregory, S

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

    2014 doi

  106. [114]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e07

    Rheinhardt, M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e07

    2019 doi

  107. [115]

    Wilson, O. C. 1978, ApJ, 226, 379, doi: 10.1086/156618

    1978 doi

  108. [116]

    J., Drake, J

    Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48

    2011 doi

  109. [117]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1670

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    Yang, H., & Liu, J. 2019, ApJS, 241, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    2019 doi

  111. [119]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  112. [120]

    2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d

    Zong, W., Fu, J.-N., De Cat, P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.