Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 99 references

VAST-MeMeS: Characterising non-thermal radio emission from magnetic massive stars using the Australian SKA Pathfinder

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ASKAP data on 70 radio-bright magnetic hot stars confirm that radio luminosity scales with centrifugal-breakout luminosity at slightly lower efficiency than previously reported.

desk verdict Genueninely useful sample expansion for radio-bright magnetic massive stars, but the revised CBO slope is not secure because the two L_rad estimators differ in a luminosity-dependent way. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09148 v2 pith:W5A372MV submitted 2025-05-14 astro-ph.SR

Barnali Das , Laura N. Driessen , Matt E. Shultz , Joshua Pritchard , Kovi Rose , Yuanming Wang , Yu Wing Joshua Lee , Gregory Sivakoff
show 2 more authors
Andrew Zic Tara Murphy
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords magneticmassivestarsnon-thermalradioemissioncentrifugalbreakoutASKAPluminositymain-sequencepulseemittersstellarmagnetospheresincoherentgyrosynchrotron
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 uses survey data from the Australian SKA Pathfinder to grow the sample of radio-bright magnetic massive stars from 47 to 70, adding 14 stars never before detected in radio. With the expanded sample, the authors test the claim that the incoherent radio luminosity of a magnetic hot star is set by the power released in centrifugal breakouts, the episodic escapes of wind plasma trapped in the star's magnetosphere. They find the scaling still holds, with a best-fit relation $L_{\mathrm{rad}} = 10^{-8.0} L_{\mathrm{CBO}}^{0.87}$, i.e. a slightly lower radio-production efficiency than the earlier $L_{\mathrm{rad}} = 10^{-8} L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$. They also show that ASKAP detections at about 1 GHz imply incoherent spectra can stay flat to lower frequencies than previously assumed, and they identify nine candidate main-sequence radio pulse emitters. Because the same scaling links radio output to fundamental stellar parameters, a robust relation gives a calibrated way to infer magnetospheric physics from a single radio measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the centrifugal-breakout luminosity $L_{\mathrm{CBO}} = B_{\mathrm{eq}}^2 R_*^4 \Omega^2 / v_{\mathrm{orb}}$, the power released when plasma trapped in the co-rotating magnetosphere periodically breaks open the field lines; the theory assumes the field behaves like a monopole at the reconnection site. The paper combines this with a prescription for turning sparse radio measurements into luminosities: a trapezoidal spectrum that is flat between about 0.9 GHz and 30 GHz and vanishes at 0.6 and 100 GHz, calibrated on the ten stars with wideband spectra. Cross-matching 761 known magnetic hot stars against ASKAP point-source catalogues at 98% reliability radii, and forced fitting in Stokes I and V images, supplies the flux densities; the fit itself is a Markov Chain Monte Carlo line fit in log-log space.

What would settle it

Observe a sample of the newly detected stars simultaneously from roughly 0.3 to 30 GHz; if their flux densities decline steeply below 1 GHz instead of staying flat, the trapezoid integration overestimates $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ and the reported slope of 0.87 and intercept of $-8.0$ would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the empirical correlation between incoherent radio luminosity $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ and centrifugal-breakout luminosity $L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ survives a roughly 50% expansion of the known radio-bright magnetic hot star population. Fitting the 68 usable stars (after excluding the non-CM star HD 148937 and the overluminous outlier HD 101412) gives $L_{\mathrm{rad}} = 10^{-8.0} L_{\mathrm{CBO}}^{0.87}$ with 1$\sigma$ ranges [0.80, 0.94] on the slope and [$-8.1$, $-7.8$] on the intercept; the intercept agrees with the $L_{\mathrm{rad}} = 10^{-8} L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ reported earlier, while the sub-unity slope indicates a slightly lower efficiency at the high-luminosity end. The paper further reports that for several stars the ~1 GHz ASKAP flux density exceeds what the previously assumed 1.5-30 GHz flat spectrum would predict, and that a full-spectrum integration for HD 142184 changes its luminosity by 0.47 dex relative to the earlier trapezoidal estimate. Partial-correlation analysis finds that $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ remains strongly correlated with $L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ after removing effective temperature, with no significant residual dependence on temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest link is the assumption that the newly detected stars have the same flat, trapezoidal incoherent radio spectrum as the ten well-observed stars, so that flux densities measured only near 1 GHz can stand in for the full 0.6-100 GHz luminosity; if the true spectra turn over below 1 GHz or have different shapes, the derived $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ values and the fitted $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$-$L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ relation would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The CBO mechanism remains viable across OBA spectral types: the relation built on 47 stars still describes a sample of 70, extending the range of $L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ by an order of magnitude.
  • Incoherent radio spectra can stay flat below 1 GHz, so sub-GHz survey data can contribute directly to measuring radio luminosities rather than being dismissed as dominated by coherent emission.
  • Producing radio luminosity does not appear to depend on stellar temperature once $L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ is accounted for; the correlation between $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ seen in the plot is an indirect effect of the mass-radius-temperature relation.
  • Nine stars meet the circular-polarisation or variability criteria for main-sequence radio pulse emitters, widening the hunting ground for electron-cyclotron-maser emission.
  • Single-frequency luminosity estimates can be off by factors of two or more: five common stars show ASKAP luminosities at least double the earlier published values, arguing for wideband spectral campaigns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If flat sub-GHz spectra are the norm rather than the exception, then single-epoch low-frequency surveys could eventually provide nearly unbiased radio luminosities for hundreds of magnetic hot stars, turning the current 70-star sample into a population-scale test of the CBO relation.
  • The sub-unity slope (0.87) implies the radio-production efficiency drops as $L_{\mathrm{CBO}}$ grows; one plausible but unmodelled cause is stronger free-free absorption in the denser winds of the more luminous systems, which would flatten the observed relation artificially.
  • The HD 142184 case suggests that published $L_{\mathrm{rad}}$ values built on the old trapezoid assumption may be systematically biased; if similar biases affect many stars, re-deriving the fit from true broadband spectra could change both the slope and the scatter of the scaling relation.
  • HD 101412, with its unusually steep inferred spectrum and overluminosity, is the clearest test case: simultaneous multi-frequency observations would show whether a cool star can genuinely violate the CBO scaling or whether rotational sampling created an artefact.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the VAST-MeMeS project, an ASKAP survey-based search for non-thermal radio emission from magnetic massive stars, using cross-matching of Selavy source catalogues and forced Stokes I/V photometry. It reports radio detections of 48 magnetic hot stars, 14 of which have no prior radio detection, and identifies nine Main-sequence Radio Pulse emitter candidates. Combining these with previously known radio-bright stars yields an expanded sample of 70 objects, from which the authors re-derive the correlation between incoherent radio luminosity Lrad and centrifugal-breakout luminosity LCBO, obtaining a best fit of log Lrad = -8.0 + 0.87 log LCBO. This is interpreted as a slightly lower radio-production efficiency than the slope-unity relation reported by Owocki et al. (2022). The paper also argues that incoherent radio spectra can extend to lower frequencies than previously assumed, and uses partial correlation coefficients to argue against a direct role of effective temperature in driving the Lrad-LCBO relation.

Significance. If the central quantitative result were secure, this would be an important contribution: it approximately doubles the sample of radio-bright magnetic hot stars, extends the tested range of LCBO, and provides new southern-hemisphere detections and MRP candidates that will be valuable for follow-up. The paper is careful in its catalogue construction, uses publicly available ASKAP data, reports a Monte-Carlo-based cross-match reliability, and explicitly quantifies several systematic limitations in the appendices. However, the headline claim of a slope below unity and a slightly lower efficiency is not yet robust, because the luminosities entering the fit are estimated with two different methods whose difference is luminosity-dependent. The paper's own Appendix 2 shows that the assumed spectral shape can underestimate Lrad by 0.47 dex for a well-observed star, an amount equal to the inferred intrinsic scatter; this makes the specific slope and intercept values in Section 4.1.3 vulnerable to estimator bias.

major comments (2)
  1. [4.1.2, 4.1.3, Appendix 2] The central quantitative claim, the fitted Lrad = 10^-8.0 L_CBO^0.87 relation, is not secure because of a luminosity-dependent mismatch between the luminosity estimators for the two subsamples. For stars already in Shultz et al. (2022), Section 4.1.2 adopts their wideband/multi-frequency luminosities, while for newly added stars Section 4.1.1 computes Lrad from a single ASKAP flux density near 0.9 GHz under the assumed trapezoidal spectrum. Figure 4 shows that the ratio Lrad,ASKAP/Lrad,Shultz+2022 decreases with increasing Lrad, so the new low-luminosity and previously known high-luminosity stars enter the fit with systematically different biases. Appendix 2 independently shows that for HD 142184 the assumed trapezoid underestimates the directly measured wideband luminosity by 0.47 dex, which is the same size as the 'true uncertainty' returned by the MCMC in Section 4.1.3. The authors should demonstrate that the fitted slope and intercept are robust to a homogeneous luminosity estimation, for example by fitting only stars with multi-frequency spectral coverage, or by applying the single-band/trapezoid estimator to all stars, or by explicitly modeling the spectral-shape bias as a function of Lrad.
  2. [4.1.3, Table 5] The error bars on Lrad in Table 5 and Figure 6 include only flux-density measurement uncertainties, as the table footnote states, and the fit is performed with is_weighted=False, meaning the quoted 1σ intervals on the slope [0.80, 0.94] and intercept [-8.1, -7.8] do not propagate the dominant systematic uncertainties: spectral shape, rotational-phase variability, and the estimator mismatch described above. The derived 'true uncertainty' of 0.47 dex should therefore be interpreted as absorbing these systematics rather than as a measurement of astrophysical scatter. A sensitivity analysis, such as repeating the fit with the Shultz et al. (2022) luminosities for all stars or with a broader set of spectral-shape priors, would be needed before the claimed deviation from the slope-unity relation can be taken as evidence for a lower radio-production efficiency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6 (Summary)] The third summary item states the best-fit relation as Lrad = 10^-8.52 L_CBO^0.88, which is the Keszthelyi et al. (2024) relation before the conversion described in Section 4.1; the paper's own best fit is Lrad = 10^-8.0 L_CBO^0.87. This should be corrected to avoid confusing the paper's result with the earlier untranslated relation.
  2. [Table 5 caption] The caption begins 'he stellar magnetospheric parameters', which is missing the leading 'T', and the use of '-1' for missing values could be misread as a physical placeholder; a clearer notation such as '...' or 'N/A' would be preferable.
  3. [4.1.2] The sentence noting that Lrad,ASKAP/Lrad,Shultz+2022 decreases with Lrad is an important observation, but it is not quantified; reporting a rank correlation coefficient and its uncertainty would strengthen the point and make the luminosity dependence more transparent.
  4. [Appendix 2 and Figure A1] Appendix 2 discusses the two stars with turn-over observed at both ends of the spectrum, but Figure A1 is not cross-referenced anywhere in the main text; adding an explicit reference near Section 4.1.1 or 5.1 would help readers connect the spectral-shape caveat to the luminosity estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CBO scaling test uses independently measured radio luminosities and literature stellar parameters, with no fit parameter reused as an input.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result is the best-fit relation between incoherent radio luminosity Lrad and centrifugal-breakout luminosity LCBO. The two quantities are determined independently: Lrad is obtained from ASKAP flux densities (or, for previously known stars, from the wideband luminosities reported by Shultz et al. 2022), while LCBO is computed from Equation 1 using stellar mass, radius, rotation period, and magnetic field strength taken from the literature. The MCMC fit in Section 4.1.3 therefore estimates slope and intercept from data, and these fitted parameters are not fed back into either Lrad or LCBO. The trapezoidal spectral model used to convert single-band ASKAP flux densities into Lrad is inherited from Shultz et al. (2022) and Leto et al. (2021), but it is an empirical spectral assumption, not a definition in terms of LCBO or in terms of the fitted relation. The paper explicitly tests the assumed spectral shape in Appendix 2, finding that for HD 142184 the trapezoid integration underestimates the directly measured wideband luminosity by 0.47 dex; this is a stated caveat about estimator systematics rather than a circular step. The luminosity-dependent comparison in Figure 4 and the resulting concern that new-star Lrad estimates may be systematically low at the bright end are legitimate correctness risks, but they do not amount to a claim whose derivation reduces to its own inputs. Self-citations to Owocki et al. (2022), Shultz et al. (2022), and Leto et al. (2021) are used to motivate the relation and the spectral shape, yet the expanded-sample test itself is an external check on those earlier results, not a restatement of them. No equation in the paper is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis depends on the CBO scaling law, whose expression for LCBO assumes a monopole-like field at reconnection sites, and on an assumed spectral shape used to convert sparse radio flux densities into integrated luminosities. Stellar parameters are taken from the literature and an unpublished catalogue. No new physical entities are introduced. The only free parameters fitted in this paper are the slope, intercept, and intrinsic scatter of the Lrad-LCBO relation.

free parameters (3)
  • Slope m of log Lrad vs log LCBO = 0.87 (1 sigma CI: 0.80-0.94)
    MCMC best fit to the expanded sample, excluding the two outliers; Section 4.1.3.
  • Intercept b of log Lrad vs log LCBO = -8.0 (1 sigma CI: -8.1 to -7.8)
    MCMC best fit to the expanded sample; Section 4.1.3.
  • Intrinsic scatter in log Lrad = 0.47 (1 sigma CI: 0.43-0.52)
    Estimated from the MCMC fit with is_weighted=False; Section 4.1.3.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The centrifugal-breakout (CBO) theory, with a monopole-like magnetic field at reconnection sites, correctly identifies LCBO as the energy reservoir for incoherent radio emission.
    Used to interpret the Lrad-LCBO correlation as evidence for CBO; the monopole assumption is required for the theory to predict the observed scaling (Owocki et al. 2022), as noted in Section 1.
  • domain assumption The incoherent radio spectrum of every magnetic hot star follows the trapezoidal shape inferred from ten well-observed stars: zero below 0.6 GHz and above 100 GHz, flat between 1.5 and 30 GHz, with the flat level set by the highest observed flux density.
    Adopted from Leto et al. (2021) and Shultz et al. (2022) to estimate integrated Lrad from sparse or narrowband flux densities; Section 4.1.1 and Appendix 2.
  • domain assumption The stellar parameters (Bd, R*, Prot, M*) used to compute LCBO are sufficiently accurate and are taken from the Shultz et al. (in prep.) catalogue and the references in Table 7.
    LCBO depends on R*^4.5 (Equation 1), so radius errors propagate strongly; the paper does not independently re-derive the parameters.
  • domain assumption The ASKAP source catalogues and Stokes V images have well-characterised position uncertainties, and the Monte Carlo-derived cross-match radii (6.6 arcsec for short, 5.0 arcsec for long observations) provide 98% reliability.
    Used to define matching between radio sources and star positions; Section 3.1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VAST-MeMeS: Characterising non-thermal radio emission from magnetic massive stars using the Australian SKA Pathfinder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5A372MV

@misc{pith2026250509148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VAST-MeMeS: Characterising non-thermal radio emission from magnetic massive stars using the Australian SKA Pathfinder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5A372MV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09148}
}
abstract

Magnetic massive stars are stars of spectral types O, B and A that harbour $\sim$ kG strength (mostly dipolar) surface magnetic fields. Their non-thermal radio emission has been demonstrated to be an important magnetospheric probe, provided the emission is fully characterised. A necessary step for that is to build a statistically significant sample of radio-bright magnetic massive stars. In this paper, we present the `VAST project to study Magnetic Massive Stars' or VAST-MeMeS that aims to achieve that by taking advantage of survey data acquired with the Australian SKA Pathfinder telescope. VAST-MeMeS is defined under the `VAriable and Slow Transient' (VAST) survey, although it also uses data from other ASKAP surveys. We found radio detections from 48 magnetic massive stars, out of which, 14 do not have any prior radio detections. We also identified 9 `Main-sequence Radio Pulse Emitter' candidates based on variability and circular polarisation of flux densities. The expanded sample suggests a slightly lower efficiency in the radio production than that reported in earlier work. In addition to significantly expanding the sample of radio-bright magnetic massive stars, the addition of flux density measurements at $\lesssim 1$ GHz revealed that the spectra of incoherent radio emission can extend to much lower frequencies than that assumed in the past. In the future, radio observations spanning wide frequency and rotational phase ranges should be conducted so as to reduce the uncertainties in the incoherent radio luminosities. The results from these campaigns, supplemented with precise estimations of stellar parameters, will allow us to fully understand particle acceleration and non-thermal radio production in large-scale stellar magnetospheres.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative cross-match results for the short catalogue cross-match to the positions of the known hot magnetic stars. The black line shows the results of the 100,000 iteration Monte Carlo simulation. The red line shows the results of the cross-matches when the true coordinates of the radio sources and hot magnetic stars are used. The radio positions used for this are the median positions and an epoch of J2022 was use… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative cross-match results for the long catalogue cross-match to the positions of the known hot magnetic stars. The black line shows the results of the 100,000 iteration Monte Carlo simulation. The red line shows the results of the cross-matches when the true coordinates of the radio sources and hot magnetic stars are used. The radio positions used for this are the median positions and an epoch of J2022 was used… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The sky distribution (in galactic coordinates) of known magnetic massive stars (cyan unfilled circles, Shultz et al. in prep.), that of the radio-bright stars included in the sample of Shultz et al. (2022) (shown in stars with thick red edges), and the ones detected by ASKAP (yellow-filled stars), including those reported by Driessen et al. (2024). The yellow stars with thick red edges represent the ones that are co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of radio luminosity estimated using only the ASKAP measurements to that reported by Shultz et al.(2022). See §4 for a description of the procedure to estimate radio luminosity from spectral radio luminosity. The known MRPs are highlighted with red unfilled c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectra of ASKAP detected stars already included in the sample of Leto et al. (2021) and Shultz et al. (2022), for which the radio luminosity estimated using only the ASKAP flux density measurements are higher by a factor ≥ 2 than that reported by Shultz et al. (2022).…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The correlation between non-thermal radio luminosity and CBO luminosity. The stars marked with squares represent the stars for which the incoherent radio luminosity is obtained using ASKAP flux density measurements. The star enclosed in diamond is HD 148937, the only s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light curves of the MRP candidates identified based on the variability in their flux densities. Note that only the light curves that satisfy at least one of the criteria listed in §2.2 are shown here. Except for HD 151965, the light curves for the rest satisfy the crit…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio between log of observed incoherent radio luminosity to that predicted by the CBO theory. The solid horizontal line marks the median value, the dashed horizon lines represent the median absolute deviation (MAD) about the median value. The shaded regions corres…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution 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 :=...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  5. [5]

    2011, , 536, L6

    Alecian , E., Kochukhov , O., Neiner , C., et al. 2011, , 536, L6

    2011

  6. [6]

    2014, , 567, A28

    Alecian , E., Kochukhov , O., Petit , V., et al. 2014, , 567, A28

    2014

  7. [7]

    2024, , 168, 288

    Ayanabha , D., Narang , M., Puravankara , M., et al. 2024, , 168, 288

    2024

  8. [8]

    D., & Izzo , C

    Bagnulo , S., Fossati , L., Landstreet , J. D., & Izzo , C. 2015, , 583, A115

    2015

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 493, 3293

    Bernhard , K., H \"u mmerich , S., & Paunzen , E. 2020, , 493, 3293

    2020

  2. [10]

    2023, , 523, 5155

    Biswas , A., Das , B., Chandra , P., et al. 2023, , 523, 5155

    2023

  3. [11]

    A., Brown , D

    Bohlender , D. A., Brown , D. N., Landstreet , J. D., & Thompson , I. B. 1987, , 323, 325

    1987

  4. [12]

    A., & Landstreet , J

    Bohlender , D. A., & Landstreet , J. D. 1990, , 358, 274

    1990

  5. [13]

    A., Landstreet , J

    Bohlender , D. A., Landstreet , J. D., & Thompson , I. B. 1993, , 269, 355

    1993

  6. [14]

    T., Harmanec , P., Lyons , R

    Bolton , C. T., Harmanec , P., Lyons , R. W., Odell , A. P., & Pyper , D. M. 1998, , 337, 183

    1998

  7. [15]

    F., & Landstreet , J

    Borra , E. F., & Landstreet , J. D. 1979, , 228, 809

    1979

  8. [16]

    1980, , 42, 421

    ---. 1980, , 42, 421

    1980

  9. [17]

    F., Landstreet , J

    Borra , E. F., Landstreet , J. D., & Thompson , I. 1983, , 53, 151

    1983

  10. [18]

    Braithwaite , J., & Spruit , H. C. 2004, , 431, 819

    2004

  11. [19]

    2001, , 366, 121

    Briquet , M., Aerts , C., & De Cat , P. 2001, , 366, 121

    2001

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Buysschaert , B., Neiner , C., Martin , A. J., et al. 2018, , 478, 2777

    2018

  13. [21]

    2021, , 921, 9

    Das , B., & Chandra , P. 2021, , 921, 9

    2021

  14. [22]

    2022 a , , 515, 2008

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Petit , V. 2022 a , , 515, 2008

    2022

  15. [23]

    E., et al

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2022 b , , 517, 5756

    2022

  16. [24]

    E., & Wade , G

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., & Wade , G. A. 2019, , 489, L102

    2019

  17. [25]

    Das , B., Chandra , P., & Wade , G. A. 2018, , 474, L61

    2018

  18. [26]

    2020, , 499, 702

    ---. 2020, , 499, 702

    2020

  19. [27]

    E., et al

    Das , B., Chandra , P., Shultz , M. E., et al. 2022 c , , 925, 125

    2022

  20. [28]

    N., Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., et al

    Driessen , L. N., Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07418

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P., Bagnulo , S., Wade , G

    Folsom , C. P., Bagnulo , S., Wade , G. A., et al. 2012, , 422, 2072

    2012

  22. [30]

    H., Wade , G

    Grunhut , J. H., Wade , G. A., & MiMeS Collaboration . 2012 a , in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1429, Stellar Polarimetry: from Birth to Death, ed. J. L. Hoffman , J. Bjorkman , & B. Whitney , 67--74

    2012

  23. [31]

    H., Rivinius , T., Wade , G

    Grunhut , J. H., Rivinius , T., Wade , G. A., et al. 2012 b , , 419, 1610

    2012

  24. [32]

    Havnes , O., & Goertz , C. K. 1984, , 138, 421

    1984

  25. [33]

    W., Bunton , J

    Hotan , A. W., Bunton , J. D., Chippendale , A. P., et al. 2021, , 38, e009

    2021

  26. [34]

    2011 a , Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 1022

    Hubrig , S., Sch \"o ller , M., Ilyin , I., et al. 2011 a , Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 1022

    2011

  27. [35]

    F., et al

    Hubrig , S., Mikul \'a s ek , Z., Gonz \'a lez , J. F., et al. 2011 b , , 525, L4

    2011

  28. [36]

    2016, , 152, 104

    H \"u mmerich , S., Paunzen , E., & Bernhard , K. 2016, , 152, 104

    2016

  29. [37]

    1989, , 224, 57

    Hunger , K., Heber , U., & Groote , D. 1989, , 224, 57

    1989

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17032

    Keszthelyi , Z., Kurahara , K., Iwata , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.17032

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2014, , 565, A83

    Kochukhov , O., L \"u ftinger , T., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., & MiMeS Collaboration . 2014, , 565, A83

    2014

  32. [40]

    2019, , 621, A47

    Kochukhov , O., Shultz , M., & Neiner , C. 2019, , 621, A47

    2019

  33. [41]

    D., Land street , J

    Kochukhov , O., Silvester , J., Bailey , J. D., Land street , J. D., & Wade , G. A. 2017, , 605, A13

    2017

  34. [42]

    W., Sullivan , D

    Kurtz , D. W., Sullivan , D. J., Martinez , P., & Tripe , P. 1994, , 270, 674

    1994

  35. [43]

    D., Bagnulo , S., Andretta , V., et al

    Landstreet , J. D., Bagnulo , S., Andretta , V., et al. 2007, , 470, 685

    2007

  36. [44]

    A., Bolton , C

    Leone , F., Bohlender , D. A., Bolton , C. T., et al. 2010, , 401, 2739

    2010

  37. [45]

    S., Leone , F., & Umana , G

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Buemi , C. S., Leone , F., & Umana , G. 2012, , 423, 1766

    2012

  38. [46]

    2017, , 467, 2820

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L., et al. 2017, , 467, 2820

    2017

  39. [47]

    M., et al

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Oskinova , L. M., et al. 2018, , 476, 562

    2018

  40. [48]

    2020, , 493, 4657

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Leone , F., et al. 2020, , 493, 4657

    2020

  41. [49]

    2021, , 507, 1979

    Leto , P., Trigilio , C., Krti c ka , J., et al. 2021, , 507, 1979

    2021

  42. [50]

    A., & Linsky , J

    Lim , J., Drake , S. A., & Linsky , J. L. 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 93, Rotational Modulation of Radio Emission from the Magnetic BP Star HR 5624 , ed. A. R. Taylor & J. M. Paredes , 324

    1996

  43. [51]

    1991, , 89, 121

    Mathys , G. 1991, , 89, 121

    1991

  44. [52]

    L., Lenc , E., et al

    McConnell , D., Hale , C. L., Lenc , E., et al. 2020, , 37, e048

    2020

  45. [53]

    V., Romanyuk , I

    Moiseeva , A. V., Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Kudryavtsev , D. O., & Yakunin , I. A. 2019, Astrophysical Bulletin, 74, 62

    2019

  46. [54]

    L., et al

    Murphy , T., Chatterjee , S., Kaplan , D. L., et al. 2013, , 30, e006

    2013

  47. [55]

    R., Rauw , G., et al

    Naz \'e , Y., Walborn , N. R., Rauw , G., et al. 2008, , 135, 1946

    2008

  48. [56]

    2017, , 468, 2745

    Netopil , M., Paunzen , E., H \"u mmerich , S., & Bernhard , K. 2017, , 468, 2745

    2017

  49. [57]

    M., North , P., & Hubrig , S

    Netopil , M., Paunzen , E., Maitzen , H. M., North , P., & Hubrig , S. 2008, , 491, 545

    2008

  50. [58]

    B., & Ingargiola , A

    Newville , M., Stensitzki , T., Allen , D. B., & Ingargiola , A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    North , P., & Adelman , S. J. 1995, , 111, 41

    1995

  52. [60]

    E., Wade , G

    Oksala , M. E., Wade , G. A., Marcolino , W. L. F., et al. 2010, , 405, L51

    2010

  53. [61]

    P., Shultz , M

    Owocki , S. P., Shultz , M. E., ud-Doula , A., et al. 2022, , arXiv:2202.05449

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2020, , 499, 5366

    ---. 2020, , 499, 5366

    2020

  55. [63]

    2015, , 580, A23

    Paunzen , E. 2015, , 580, A23

    2015

  56. [64]

    P., Wade , G

    Petit , V., Owocki , S. P., Wade , G. A., et al. 2013, , 429, 398

    2013

  57. [65]

    2016, , 588, A55

    Pigulski , A., Cugier , H., Popowicz , A., et al. 2016, , 588, A55

    2016

  58. [66]

    Pillitteri , I., Fossati , L., Castro Rodriguez , N., Oskinova , L., & Wolk , S. J. 2018, , 610, L3

    2018

  59. [67]

    2023, , 958, 152

    Polisensky , E., Das , B., Peters , W., et al. 2023, , 958, 152

    2023

  60. [68]

    2021, , 502, 5438

    Pritchard , J., Murphy , T., Zic , A., et al. 2021, , 502, 5438

    2021

  61. [69]

    M., Ryabchikova , T., Malanushenko , V., et al

    Pyper , D. M., Ryabchikova , T., Malanushenko , V., et al. 1998, , 339, 822

    1998

  62. [70]

    M., Stauffer , J

    Rebull , L. M., Stauffer , J. R., Cody , A. M., et al. 2018, , 155, 196

    2018

  63. [71]

    Renson , P., & Catalano , F. A. 2001, , 378, 113

    2001

  64. [72]

    2010, , 405, L46

    Rivinius , T., Szeifert , T., Barrera , L., et al. 2010, , 405, L46

    2010

  65. [73]

    Rivinius , T., Townsend , R. H. D., Kochukhov , O., et al. 2013, , 429, 177

    2013

  66. [74]

    I., Moiseeva , A

    Romanyuk , I. I., Moiseeva , A. V., Semenko , E. A., Kudryavtsev , D. O., & Yakunin , I. A. 2020, Astrophysical Bulletin, 75, 294

    2020

  67. [75]

    I., Semenko , E

    Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Kudryavtsev , D. O., Moiseeva , A. V., & Yakunin , I. A. 2017, Astrophysical Bulletin, 72, 391

    2017

  68. [76]

    I., Semenko , E

    Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Kudryavtsev , D. O., & Moiseevaa , A. V. 2016, Astrophysical Bulletin, 71, 302

    2016

  69. [77]

    I., Semenko , E

    Romanyuk , I. I., Semenko , E. A., Moiseeva , A. V., Yakunin , I. A., & Kudryavtsev , D. O. 2021, Astrophysical Bulletin, 76, 163

    2021

  70. [78]

    2024, , 535, 2812

    Semenko , E., Kochukhov , O., Mikul \'a s ek , Z., et al. 2024, , 535, 2812

    2024

  71. [79]

    A., Romanyuk , I

    Semenko , E. A., Romanyuk , I. I., Kudryavtsev , D. O., & Yakunin , I. A. 2014, Astrophysical Bulletin, 69, 191

    2014

  72. [80]

    2023, , 955, 123

    Shen , D.-X., Li , G., Abdusamatjan , I., et al. 2023, , 955, 123

    2023

  73. [81]

    A., Alecian , E., & BinaMIcS Collaboration

    Shultz , M., Wade , G. A., Alecian , E., & BinaMIcS Collaboration . 2015 a , , 454, L1

    2015

  74. [82]

    P., et al

    Shultz , M., Rivinius , T., Folsom , C. P., et al. 2015 b , , 449, 3945

    2015

  75. [83]

    E., Wade , G

    Shultz , M. E., Wade , G. A., Rivinius , T., et al. 2018, , 475, 5144

    2018

  76. [84]

    2019, , 485, 1508

    ---. 2019, , 485, 1508

    2019

  77. [85]

    E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al

    Shultz , M. E., Owocki , S., Rivinius , T., et al. 2020, , 499, 5379

    2020

  78. [86]

    E., Owocki , S

    Shultz , M. E., Owocki , S. P., ud-Doula , A., et al. 2022, , arXiv:2201.05512

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    A., Power , J., & Neiner , C

    Sikora , J., Wade , G. A., Power , J., & Neiner , C. 2019 a , , 483, 2300

    2019

  80. [88]

    2019 b , , 483, 3127

    ---. 2019 b , , 483, 3127

    2019

  81. [89]

    A., Bohlender , D

    Sikora , J., Wade , G. A., Bohlender , D. A., et al. 2015, , 451, 1928

    2015

  82. [90]

    2016, , 460, 1811

    ---. 2016, , 460, 1811

    2016

  83. [91]

    Silvester , J., Kochukhov , O., & Wade , G. A. 2014, , 440, 182

    2014

  84. [92]

    Sokolov , N. A. 2000, , 353, 707

    2000

  85. [93]

    Townsend , R. H. D., Oksala , M. E., Cohen , D. H., Owocki , S. P., & ud-Doula , A. 2010, , 714, L318

    2010

  86. [94]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 1026

    Vallat , R. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 1026

    2018

  87. [95]

    A., Grunhut , J., Gr \"a fener , G., et al

    Wade , G. A., Grunhut , J., Gr \"a fener , G., et al. 2012, , 419, 2459

    2012

  88. [96]

    A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al

    Wade , G. A., Neiner , C., Alecian , E., et al. 2016, , 456, 2

    2016

  89. [97]

    2012, , 29, 371

    Whiting , M., & Humphreys , B. 2012, , 29, 371

    2012

  90. [98]

    Whiting , M. T. 2012, , 421, 3242

    2012

  91. [99]

    Yakunin , I. A. 2013, Astrophysical Bulletin, 68, 214

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.