Star-Planet Interactions: A Computational View

A. A. Vidotto (Leiden Observatory)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Star-Planet Interactions: A Computational View

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 This review argues that interpreting star-planet interactions requires 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations guided by simultaneous multi-wavelength observations.

desk verdict A thorough, honest review of 3D MHD star-planet interaction modeling; its central claim about parameter extraction is a research program, not a demonstrated capability, but the review itself says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00470 v1 pith:GSVQEKDX submitted 2025-05-31 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

A. A. Vidotto (Leiden Observatory) This is my paper

classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

keywords star-planetinteractionsthree-dimensionalmagnetohydrodynamicsexoplanetaryatmosphericescapestellarwindsmagneticfieldsspectroscopictransitsAlfvénsurfacecoupling

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

Close-in exoplanets are embedded in a web of radiative, magnetic, and particle interactions with their host stars, and this review argues that the only way to turn those interactions into measured physical quantities is to combine observations with three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models. The reason is geometric: stellar radiation arrives from the dayside, the stellar wind strikes at an angle set by orbital motion, evaporating planetary material trails into a comet-like tail, and magnetic coupling between star and planet depends on field topology. These asymmetries cannot be captured by 1D models, and they show up directly in observables such as asymmetric Ly-α transit line profiles and pre/post-transit signals. The review also argues that the interactions vary on timescales from hours (flares, coronal mass ejections) to billions of years (stellar evolution), so future progress requires time-dependent 3D models that use simultaneous multi-wavelength observations both as input (stellar magnetic field maps) and as fitting data (spectroscopic transits). If this case stands, model-assisted observations become the route to exoplanetary magnetic field strengths, stellar wind properties, and atmospheric escape rates that would otherwise remain inaccessible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the three-dimensional (radiative) magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a close-in planet and its host star, with the star and either a local or global computational domain. The argument turns on three geometric thresholds. First, the sonic (or Alfvén) radius of the planetary outflow: if the stellar wind's confining interface lies outside it, the wind reshapes the atmosphere but does not change the escape rate, whereas if the interface lies inside it, the wind suppresses escape. Second, the Alfvén surface of the stellar wind: a planet orbiting inside it is sub-Alfvénic and can couple magnetically to the star, while a planet outside it interacts only through a bow shock and tail. Third, the ordering of the magnetospheric stand-off distance $r_m$, the flow-flow stand-off distance $r_w$, and the tidal radius $r_t$, which defines the four morphological types of magnetised flow-flow interactions identified by Matsakos et al. (2015). These thresholds let 3D models map an observed line profile or spot signature onto physical parameters.

What would settle it

Run the same hot-Jupiter system, with identical stellar wind mass-loss rate, magnetic geometry, XUV flux, and planetary dipole field, through the single-fluid radiative MHD code of Carolan et al. (2021a) and the multi-fluid code of Khodachenko et al. (2021). If escape rates still differ by the reported factor of two in opposite directions, the discrepancy comes from the fluid treatment and current quantitative inferences are not yet reliable, whereas agreement would show the conflict was only parameter choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that three-dimensional MHD simulations are indispensable for interpreting star-planet interactions and for extracting system parameters from observations. It synthesizes what such models have established: a planet's atmospheric escape can be suppressed by the stellar wind only when the wind disrupts the subsonic or sub-Alfvénic region of the outflow; a planet orbiting inside the stellar Alfvén surface can be magnetically coupled to its star, with Alfvén wings depositing energy at latitudes determined by field topology; and the relative ordering of magnetospheric stand-off distance, flow-flow stand-off distance, and tidal radius determines whether the system forms a bow shock and thin tail, colliding winds, or accretion of planetary material onto the star. The review flags an unresolved contradiction between Carolan et al. (2021a) and Khodachenko et al. (2021) over whether a planetary magnetic field increases or decreases escape rates, and it advocates near-simultaneous multi-wavelength observations as the way to break degeneracies such as that between a strong planetary field and a weak stellar wind in Ly-α line profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that current three-dimensional computer models are accurate enough to support numerical conclusions; the paper itself notes that leading models disagree by a factor of two, in opposite directions, about how a planet's magnetic field changes its atmospheric escape rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Synthetic Ly-α transit profiles computed from 3D models show that blue-wing and red-wing absorption are not equal, so a spherically symmetric fit to escape-rate observations will systematically misestimate mass-loss rates and wind conditions.
The review's critical-surface criterion implies that for a given planet, the young-star phase with high stellar mass-loss rates can reduce atmospheric escape by a factor of about three compared with a weak-wind phase, changing the long-term evolution of the planet's atmosphere.
Because the Alfvén surface of a star changes as its magnetic field evolves, star-planet magnetic coupling can switch on and off on timescales of months to years, explaining why planet-induced chromospheric hot spots and planet-induced radio emission appear and disappear between observing epochs.
Magnetic field topology determines where Alfvén-wing currents hit the stellar surface, so observed spot latitudes can be used to test proposed magnetic-coupling mechanisms.
Future models should be driven by contemporaneous multi-wavelength data, with stellar magnetic field maps as boundary conditions and spectroscopic transits as the data being fitted, so that the same epoch's observations and simulations are directly comparable.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the disagreement between the single-fluid and multi-fluid radiative MHD models reflects missing physics rather than parameter choices, then current estimates of exoplanetary magnetic field strengths from transit absorption are not yet robust; a code-comparison benchmark with identical stellar wind, XUV flux, and planetary field geometry would settle which fluid treatment is re
Beyond the paper: the degeneracy between a strong planetary magnetic field and a weak stellar wind implies that single-line Ly-α surveys will keep producing ambiguous escape rates; combining Ly-α wings with heavier-species lines that probe lower altitudes should break this degeneracy and is directly testable.
Beyond the paper: if Type III and Type IV morphologies do funnel evaporated planetary gas onto the star, then some anomalous stellar hot spots are accretion signatures rather than magnetic-reconnection sites, and their phase lag relative to the planet's orbital position is a discriminant that monitoring campaigns could check.
Beyond the paper: the 8-hour-delayed escape enhancement seen after a flare on HD189733 would, under the time-dependent CME scenario, predict a recurring pattern of enhanced escape after flares on other active stars, which systematic transit monitoring could search for.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a solid review, not a research paper. It gives a clear map of 3D MHD models of star-planet interactions and is upfront about where the models disagree. The main thing to know: the abstract's claim that observations plus models can extract planetary magnetic fields and stellar wind properties is stronger than the field currently supports. The review itself documents the degeneracies and code-dependent results that undercut that claim, so this is a flaw in the framing, not in the review's transparency.

What the paper does well: it is comprehensive and well-structured, covering the main interaction types, the modeling setups, and the timescales involved. It gives credit to a broad range of approaches, from local to global simulations, fluid to particle treatments, and single-fluid to multi-fluid. It is also unusually candid about unresolved disagreements—the Carolan vs. Khodachenko conflict on planetary magnetic fields, the charge-exchange debate, and the degeneracy between wind strength and planetary magnetisation. The push for simultaneous multi-wavelength observations as a way to break degeneracies is sensible and clearly argued. As a synthesis and a field guide, it will be useful for graduate students and for observers who want to know what models can and cannot do.

The soft spots are real but proportional. The central thesis—Summary Point 1—is overstated when compared to the evidence inside the paper. The stress-test note is right: the mapping from observables to parameters is not unique and not code-independent. The review itself shows this in the sidebar on degeneracy and in Section 6.3, where two state-of-the-art models reach opposite conclusions on how magnetic fields affect escape rates. So the claim is a research program, not a demonstrated capability. The review would be stronger if the abstract said "models can, in principle, help interpret observations" rather than "allows us to extract important physical parameters." That said, the review is not internally inconsistent; it openly acknowledges these limitations. A minor point: because it is a review, nothing here can be independently replicated, but that is a genre limitation, not a flaw.

This paper is for anyone entering the field or needing a current overview. It deserves a serious referee—it is a major review by an expert and the field would benefit from careful scrutiny of the framing. If I were handling it as a journal submission, I would send it to peer review and ask the author to temper the abstract's parameter-extraction claim. For arXiv, it is a useful reference and a good starting point for discussion.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is an invited review of star-planet interactions (SPIs), focused on the role of three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations. It surveys the four main interaction channels, concentrating on magnetic, particle (stellar wind), and radiative interactions; tidal interactions are explicitly excluded. After reviewing observed SPI diagnostics (planet-induced host-star activity, Ly-α and He I spectroscopic transits, and radio auroral emission), the paper discusses the reasons 3D models are needed, the fundamental modelling setups (local versus global, fluid versus particle, single-fluid versus multi-fluid), stellar and planetary outflow physics, and star-planet magnetic coupling via sub-Alfvénic connectivity. It then describes morphological classifications of flow-flow interactions and selected science highlights, including the effects of stellar wind strength on Ly-α observability, accretion of planetary material onto the host star, and the disputed role of planetary magnetic fields in atmospheric escape. The final sections identify future needs: time-dependent models, multi-fluid treatments, simultaneous multi-wavelength observations, and better constraints on stellar CMEs. The central thesis is that the highly asymmetric, time-dependent nature of SPI signatures requires 3D models, and that combining such models with multi-wavelength observations can recover physical parameters such as exoplanetary magnetic field strengths and stellar wind properties.

Significance. As a review article, the manuscript provides a valuable and generally well-balanced synthesis of a large and rapidly evolving literature. Its strengths are the breadth of the cited literature, the clear explanation of super- versus sub-Alfvénic star-planet coupling, the morphological classification of flow-flow interactions, and, notably, its explicit acknowledgment of open problems: the Ly-α degeneracy between stellar wind strength and planetary magnetisation (Section 6.1 sidebar), the unresolved discrepancy between Carolan et al. (2021a) and Khodachenko et al. (2021) on how planetary magnetic fields affect escape rates (Section 6.3), and the conflicting assessments of charge-exchange efficiency (Section 5.2 sidebar). The review does not present new derivations, and the body generally qualifies its claims appropriately. The main substantive concern is that the abstract and Summary Point 1 overstate the robustness of parameter extraction relative to the evidence presented in the body itself; this is a local but load-bearing issue that can be addressed by rewording.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Summary Point 1] The first bullet of the abstract and Summary Point 1 state that observations combined with models 'allow us to extract important physical parameters of the system, such as, planetary magnetic fields, stellar wind properties.' This is in tension with the evidence presented later in the same manuscript. The sidebar 'Degeneracy Between Stellar Wind and Planetary Magnetisation' (Section 6.1) shows that a strong (10 G) planetary field and a weak stellar wind produce qualitatively similar Ly-α profiles, and Section 6.3 reports that the two first 3D radiative MHD models disagree by about a factor of 2 on the sign of the B_p effect on escape rates, with the text noting that 'we still do not know where the differences stem from.' I recommend revising the abstract and Summary Point 1 to say that models allow *estimates* of these parameters under explicit assumptions, and to cite the degeneracy and model-to-model discrepancies as current limitations. Without this qualifier, the headline claim is stronger than the supporting material.
[Section 6.3 and sidebar 'Strength of Planetary Magnetic Fields'] The sidebar quotes a range of 10–120 G for close-in giant planet magnetic fields, and Section 2.3 says that detecting electron-cyclotron maser emission would provide a 'direct way' to infer B_p from the cyclotron frequency. The review should add a caveat to both statements: the 10–120 G range comes from model-dependent techniques (bow-shock fits, activity signatures, and radio non-detections) that are subject to the same degeneracies and code-dependence discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.3. In particular, no published model-to-model error budget exists for the inferred fields, so the range should be labelled as model-dependent rather than as a robust measurement. This is a clarity fix rather than a change of substance, but it is important because the sidebar may be read in isolation.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.3] The text says 'from June 20007 to Sept. 2009'; this should read 'from June 2007 to Sept. 2009'.
[Section 4.1.2, sidebar 'Key Requirement For Hydrodynamic Escape of Planetary Atmospheres'] The sidebar states that the collisional-fluid condition is indicated by Knudsen number Kn = λ_mfp/H > 1. This is backwards: Kn << 1 is the fluid limit, while Kn > 1 indicates a rarefied gas that requires a kinetic treatment. Please correct the inequality and the surrounding wording.
[Abstract and Summary Point 4] The sentence 'Understanding these variations require time-dependent models' should be 'Understanding these variations requires time-dependent models' (subject-verb agreement). The same error appears in Summary Point 4.
[Figure 9 caption and Section 6.1] The caption notes that the models in panels (a) and (b) were computed with different irradiation levels, so their absorption levels are not directly comparable. The main text would benefit from an explicit sentence stating that the two panels should not be compared in amplitude, only in the qualitative shape of the line profiles; otherwise a reader may over-interpret the comparison.
[Figure 8 caption and Section 5.1] The sentence in the Figure 8 caption, 'None of the simulations from Carolan et al. (2021b) included the Type II morphology, but this morphology is similar to the one shown in Figure 5a from the work of Carolan et al. (2021b),' is confusingly worded. It would be clearer to say that Type II is not realised in those simulations and that Figure 5a shows a closely related configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this review reports prior published 3D MHD work, attributes its claims to external and mixed-source citations, and explicitly flags its own inference degeneracies (Degeneracy sidebar, §6.3).

full rationale

This paper is an Annual Review article, not a derivation paper: it contains no new equations, no fitted parameters relabeled as predictions, and no claim that an observable-to-parameter inversion is unique. Every quantitative claim is attributed to prior published work, and where those works include the author's own group (e.g., Carolan et al. 2021a, 2021b; Presa et al. 2024), the load-bearing conclusions are corroborated by independent groups (Christie et al. 2016; Matsakos et al. 2015; Strugarek et al. 2015; Turner et al. 2021) or the review explicitly discloses unresolved disagreement. The central advocacy claim, that observations combined with models 'allow us to extract important physical parameters' (Summary Point 1), is not circular, because the review's own Degeneracy sidebar states that a strong (10-G) planetary field and a weak stellar wind 'produce qualitatively similar line profiles,' and §6.3 reports opposite escape-rate trends between Carolan et al. (2021a) and Khodachenko et al. (2021) with 'we still do not know where the differences stem from.' The paper therefore presents model-based inference as provisional and degenerate, not as a forced derivation. Physical relations invoked (ECM cyclotron frequency f_c = 2.8 B_p; radiometric Bode's law) are standard external results, explicitly labeled empirical where extrapolated, and the predicted radio powers 'all depend on the assumed planetary magnetic field strength and topology' (Section 2.3). The only terminological move, replacing 'wind-wind interaction' with 'flow-flow interaction' (Section 3 sidebar), is disclosed as a naming preference for clarity, not presented as a new unification. Self-citations are present but are never the sole support for a central premise, and the limitation passages flagged by the reviewing rule (model conflict in §6.3, charge-exchange disagreement in the page-24 sidebar, the Degeneracy sidebar, and poorly constrained CME inputs in §7.4) all weigh against, not toward, a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The review's conclusions rest on the assumption that the surveyed 3D MHD models are trustworthy representations of the physics, which is a domain assumption rather than a derivation.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption 3D MHD models, despite known limitations, capture the essential physics of star-planet interactions.
This is the premise of the review; Sections 3-6 rely on it. The author notes unresolved discrepancies between models in Section 6.3.
domain assumption The observed signatures attributed to SPI are genuine rather than purely intrinsic stellar variability.
Section 2.1 acknowledges this concern ('sometimes casting doubt whether we are really observing SPIs or an artefact inherent of stellar variability itself'), but the review proceeds to synthesize interpretations based on these signatures.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star-Planet Interactions: A Computational View." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSVQEKDX

@misc{pith2026250600470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star-Planet Interactions: A Computational View},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSVQEKDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00470}
}

read the original abstract

There are several physical processes that mediate the interaction between an exoplanet and its host star, with the four main ones being due to magnetic, particle (stellar outflow), radiative and tidal interactions. These interactions can be observed at different wavelengths, from X-ray to radio. Their strengths depend on the architecture of planetary systems, as well as the age and activity level of the host stars. In particular, exoplanets in close-in orbits and/or orbiting active host stars can experience strong physical interactions, some of which are negligible or absent in the present-day Solar System planets. Here, I present an overview of star-planet interactions through the lens of three-dimensional (3D) numerical models. The main conclusions are: * Models are fundamental to interpret and guide observations. The powerful combination of observations and models allows us to extract important physical parameters of the system, such as, planetary magnetic fields, stellar wind properties, etc. * The non-axisymmetric forces of the interactions generate spatially asymmetric features (e.g., planetary material trailing the orbit, shock formation), thus requiring the use of 3D models. * Star-planet interactions vary in different timescales (from hours to giga-years) that are related to both planetary (orbital motion, rotation) and stellar (flares, cycles, and long-term evolution) properties. Understanding these variations require time-dependent models. I advocate that future 3D models should be informed by multi-wavelength, (near-)simultaneous observations. The use of observations is twofold: some generate inputs for models (eg stellar magnetic field maps), whereas others are fitted by models (eg spectroscopic transits). This combination of observations and models provides a powerful tool to derive physical properties of the system that would otherwise remain unknown.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00470 by the authors.

**Figure 12.** Best-fit simulations of the hot Jupiter HD 209458b as seen along the star/Earth line of sight (parameters are given in the upper panels). Neutral hydrogen atoms (light blue dots) are escaping the planet (deep blue disk) at the center of the transit. show the formation of a hydrogen cometary tail trailing behind the planet ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Close-in views of the three magnetic configurations shown in this work. The configurations are labelled by the orientation of the planetary field (in red) with respect to the local stellar wind magnetic field (in black), i.e., aligned, anti-aligned, and perpendicular, from top to bottom. 4 The Astrophysical Journal, 815:111 (14pp), 2015 December 20 Strugarek et al. initial planetary dipole in the inner 70% of the pl… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Circular polarization as a probe of cloud properties and asymmetries in giant exoplanet atmospheres
astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Circular polarization of starlight reflected by giant exoplanets is sensitive to cloud particle composition and atmospheric asymmetries, but the predicted signal is at most a few times 1e-4 of the planetary flux and b...
A Self-Consistent 3D Hydrodynamic Model for Helium Transit Signatures in Evaporating Hot Jupiters
astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 3D hydrodynamic model with self-consistent hydrogen-helium chemistry shows stellar winds compress escaping hot-Jupiter atmospheres and suppress the 1083 nm helium triplet signal, while a young star's strong XUV flux...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

195 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Aarnio AN, Matt SP, Stassun KG. 2012. 760:9

2012
[2]

Adams FC. 2011. 730:27

2011
[3]

Allan A, Vidotto AA. 2019. 490(3):3760--3771

2019
[4]

Attia O, Bourrier V, Eggenberger P, Mordasini C, Beust H, Ehrenreich D. 2021. 647:A40

2021
[5]

Baraffe I, Selsis F, Chabrier G, Barman TS, Allard F, et al. 2004. 419:L13--L16

2004
[6]

Barnes R. 2017. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 129(4):509--536

2017
[7]

Barth P, Helling C, St \"u eken EE, Bourrier V, Mayne N, et al. 2021. 502(4):6201--6215

2021
[8]

Blackman EG, Tarduno JA. 2018. 481:5146--5155

2018

Show all 195 references

[9]

Bolmont E, Raymond SN, Leconte J, Matt SP. 2012. 544:A124

2012
[10]

Boro Saikia S, L \"u ftinger T, Folsom CP, Antonova A, Alecian E, et al. 2022. 658:A16

2022
[11]

Bourrier V, Lecavelier des Etangs A. 2013. 557:A124

2013
[12]

Bourrier V, Lecavelier des Etangs A, Dupuy H, Ehrenreich D, Vidal-Madjar A, et al. 2013. 551:A63

2013
[13]

Bourrier V, Lecavelier des Etangs A, Ehrenreich D, Tanaka YA, Vidotto AA. 2016. 591:A121

2016
[14]

Bourrier V, Lecavelier des Etangs A, Vidal-Madjar A. 2014. 565:A105

2014
[15]

Bourrier V, Wheatley PJ, Lecavelier des Etangs A, King G, Louden T, et al. 2020. 493(1):559--579

2020
[16]

Carolan S, Vidotto AA, Hazra G, Villarreal D'Angelo C, Kubyshkina D. 2021 a . 508(4):6001--6012

2021
[17]

Carolan S, Vidotto AA, Plavchan P, D'Angelo CV, Hazra G. 2020. 498(1):L53--L57

2020
[18]

Carolan S, Vidotto AA, Villarreal D'Angelo C, Hazra G. 2021 b . 500(3):3382--3393

2021
[19]

Carroll-Nellenback J, Frank A, Liu B, Quillen AC, Blackman EG, Dobbs-Dixon I. 2017. 466:2458--2473

2017
[20]

Cauley PW, Redfield S, Jensen AG, Barman T, Endl M, Cochran WD. 2015. 810:13

2015
[21]

Cauley PW, Shkolnik EL, Llama J, Bourrier V, Moutou C. 2018. 156(6):262

2018
[22]

Cauley PW, Shkolnik EL, Llama J, Lanza AF. 2019. Nature Astronomy 3:1128--1134

2019
[23]

Cherenkov A, Bisikalo D, Fossati L, Mostl C. 2017. 846:31

2017
[24]

Cherenkov AA, Bisikalo DV, Kosovichev AG. 2018. 475(1):605--613

2018
[25]

Cherenkov AA, Shaikhislamov IF, Bisikalo DV, Shematovich VI, Fossati L, Mostl C. 2019. Astronomy Reports 63(2):94--106

2019
[26]

Christensen UR, Holzwarth V, Reiners A. 2009. 457:167--169

2009
[27]

Christie D, Arras P, Li ZY. 2016. 820:3

2016
[28]

Cohen O, Kashyap VL, Drake JJ, Sokolov IV, Gombosi TI. 2011. 738:166--+

2011
[29]

Colombo S, Pillitteri I, Petralia A, Orlando S, Micela G. 2024. 683:A226

2024
[30]

Cranmer SR. 2008. Winds of Main-Sequence Stars: Observational Limits and a Path to Theoretical Prediction . In 14th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. G. van Belle , vol. 384 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series

2008
[31]

Cranmer SR. 2017. 840:114

2017
[32]

Cranmer SR, Chhiber R, Gilly CR, Cairns IH, Colaninno RC, et al. 2023. 298(11):126

2023
[33]

Cuntz M, Saar SH, Musielak ZE. 2000. 533:L151--L154

2000
[34]

Daley-Yates S, Stevens IR. 2019. 483:2600--2614

2019
[35]

Davis I, Vedantham HK, Callingham JR, Shimwell TW, Vidotto AA, et al. 2021. 650:L20

2021
[36]

Davis TA, Wheatley PJ. 2009. 396:1012--1017

2009
[37]

Debrecht A, Carroll-Nellenback J, Frank A, Blackman EG, Fossati L, et al. 2020. 493(1):1292--1305

2020
[38]

Debrecht A, Carroll-Nellenback J, Frank A, Blackman EG, Fossati L, et al. 2022. 517(2):1724--1736

2022
[39]

Debrecht A, Carroll-Nellenback J, Frank A, Fossati L, Blackman EG, Dobbs-Dixon I. 2018. 478:2592--2598

2018
[40]

Debrecht A, Carroll-Nellenback J, Frank A, McCann J, Murray-Clay R, Blackman EG. 2019. 483(2):1481--1495

2019
[41]

Desch MD, Kaiser ML. 1984. 310:755--757

1984
[42]

Donati J, Landstreet JD. 2009. 47:333--370

2009
[43]

Dos Santos LA. 2023. Observations of planetary winds and outflows . In Winds of Stars and Exoplanets, eds. AA Vidotto , L Fossati , JS Vink , vol. 370

2023
[44]

Dos Santos LA, Bourrier V, Ehrenreich D, Kameda S. 2019. 622:A46

2019
[45]

Driscoll P, Olson P. 2011. 213:12--23

2011
[46]

Egan A, France K, Sreejith AG, Fossati L, Koskinen T, et al. 2024. 168(3):108

2024
[47]

Egan H, Jarvinen R, Ma Y, Brain D. 2019. 488(2):2108--2120

2019
[48]

Ekenback A, Holmstrom M, Wurz P, Grie meier JM, Lammer H, et al. 2010. 709:670--679

2010
[49]

Elekes F, Saur J. 2023. 671:A133

2023
[50]

Esquivel A, Schneiter M, Villarreal D'Angelo C, Sgro MA, Krapp L. 2019. 487(4):5788--5798

2019
[51]

Fares R, Bourrier V, Vidotto AA, Moutou C, Jardine MM, et al. 2017. 471:1246--1257

2017
[52]

Fares R, Donati J, Moutou C, Jardine MM, Grie meier J, et al. 2010. 406:409--419

2010
[53]

Fares R, Donati JF, Moutou C, Jardine M, Cameron AC, et al. 2012. 423:1006--1017

2012
[54]

Fares R, Moutou C, Donati JF, Catala C, Shkolnik EL, et al. 2013. 435:1451--1462

2013
[55]

Farrell WM, Desch MD, Zarka P. 1999. 104:14025--14032

1999
[56]

Ferraz-Mello S, Rodr \' guez A, Hussmann H. 2008. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 101(1-2):171--201

2008
[57]

Fischer C, Saur J. 2019. 872:113

2019
[58]

Fossati L, Ayres TR, Haswell CA, Bohlender D, Kochukhov O, Floer L. 2013. 766:L20

2013
[59]

Fossati L, Haswell CA, Froning CS, Hebb L, Holmes S, et al. 2010. 714:L222--L227

2010
[60]

Fossati L, Pillitteri I, Shaikhislamov IF, Bonfanti A, Borsa F, et al. 2023. 673:A37

2023
[61]

Garcia Munoz A. 2007. 55:1426--1455

2007
[62]

Glocer A, T \'o th G, Ma Y, Gombosi T, Zhang JC, Kistler LM. 2009. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 114(A12):A12203

2009
[63]

Grie meier JM, Motschmann U, Mann G, Rucker HO. 2005. 437:717--726

2005
[64]

Gronoff G, Arras P, Baraka S, Bell JM, Cessateur G, et al. 2020. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 125(8):e27639

2020
[65]

Gunell H, Maggiolo R, Nilsson H, Stenberg Wieser G, Slapak R, et al. 2018. 614:L3

2018
[66]

Gurdemir L, Redfield S, Cuntz M. 2012. 29:141--149

2012
[67]

Hazra G, Vidotto AA, Carolan S, Villarreal D'Angelo C, Manchester W. 2022. 509(4):5858--5871

2022
[68]

Hazra G, Vidotto AA, Carolan S, Villarreal D'Angelo C, \'O Fionnag \'a in D. 2025. 536(2):1089--1103

2025
[69]

Hazra G, Vidotto AA, D'Angelo CV. 2020. 496(3):4017--4031

2020
[70]

Holmstrom M, Ekenback A, Selsis F, Penz T, Lammer H, Wurz P. 2008. 451:970--972

2008
[71]

Hori Y. 2021. 908(1):77

2021
[72]

Ip WH, Kopp A, Hu JH. 2004. 602:L53--L56

2004
[73]

Jardine M, Cameron AC. 2008. 490:843--851

2008
[74]

Jarvinen R, Brain DA, Modolo R, Fedorov A, Holmstr \"o m M. 2018. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 123(2):1678--1689

2018
[75]

Jeffers SV, Mengel M, Moutou C, Marsden SC, Barnes JR, et al. 2018. 479:5266--5271

2018
[76]

Jin S, Mordasini C, Parmentier V, van Boekel R, Henning T, Ji J. 2014. 795:65

2014
[77]

Kavanagh RD. 2022. Tuning in to star-planet interactions at radio wavelengths . Ph.D. thesis, Leiden Observatory

2022
[78]

Kavanagh RD, Vedantham HK. 2023. 524(4):6267--6284

2023
[79]

Kavanagh RD, Vidotto AA, Klein B, Jardine MM, Donati JF, o Fionnagain D. 2021. 504(1):1511--1518

2021
[80]

Kavanagh RD, Vidotto AA, O Fionnagain D, Bourrier V, Fares R, et al. 2019. 485:4529--4538

2019
[81]

Kavanagh RD, Vidotto AA, Vedantham HK, Jardine MM, Callingham JR, Morin J. 2022. 514(1):675--688

2022
[82]

Khodachenko ML, Alexeev I, Belenkaya E, Lammer H, Grie meier JM, et al. 2012. 744:70

2012
[83]

Khodachenko ML, Shaikhislamov IF, Lammer H, Berezutsky AG, Miroshnichenko IB, et al. 2019. 885(1):67

2019
[84]

Khodachenko ML, Shaikhislamov IF, Lammer H, Miroshnichenko IB, Rumenskikh MS, et al. 2021. 507(3):3626--3637

2021
[85]

Khodachenko ML, Shaikhislamov IF, Lammer H, Prokopov PA. 2015. 813:50

2015
[86]

Kilmetis K, Vidotto AA, Allan A, Kubyshkina D. 2024. 535(4):3646--3655

2024
[87]

Kirk J, Alam MK, Lopez-Morales M, Zeng L. 2020. 159(3):115

2020
[88]

Kislyakova KG, Holmstrom M, Lammer H, Odert P, Khodachenko ML. 2014. Science 346:981--984

2014
[89]

Klein B, Zicher N, Kavanagh RD, Nielsen LD, Aigrain S, et al. 2022. 512(4):5067--5084

2022
[90]

Kochukhov O. 2021. 29(1):1

2021
[91]

Kubyshkina D, Vidotto AA. 2021. 504(2):2034--2050

2021
[92]

Kubyshkina D, Vidotto AA, Fossati L, Farrell E. 2020. 499(1):77--88

2020
[93]

Kubyshkina D, Vidotto AA, Villarreal D'Angelo C, Carolan S, Hazra G, Carleo I. 2022. 510(2):2111--2126

2022
[94]

Kulikov YN, Lammer H, Lichtenegger HIM, Penz T, Breuer D, et al. 2007. 129:207--243

2007
[95]

Kurokawa H, Kaltenegger L. 2013. 433:3239--3245

2013
[96]

Lammer H, Lichtenegger HIM, Kulikov YN, Grie meier JM, Terada N, et al. 2007. Astrobiology 7:185--207

2007
[97]

Lammer H, Selsis F, Ribas I, Guinan EF, Bauer SJ, Weiss WW. 2003. 598:L121--L124

2003
[98]

Lazio TJW, Carmichael S, Clark J, Elkins E, Gudmundsen P, et al. 2010 a . 139:96--101

2010
[99]

Lazio TJW, Shankland PD, Farrell WM, Blank DL. 2010 b . 140:1929--1933

2010
[100]

Lazio TJW, Shkolnik E, Hallinan G, Planetary Habitability Study Team . 2016. Planetary Magnetic Fields: Planetary Interiors and Habitability . Planetary Magnetic Fields: Planetary Interiors and Habitability

2016
[101]

Lecavelier des Etangs A, Bourrier V, Wheatley PJ, Dupuy H, Ehrenreich D, et al. 2012. 543:L4

2012
[102]

Lecavelier des Etangs A, Vidal-Madjar A, McConnell JC, Hebrard G. 2004. 418:L1--L4

2004
[103]

Linsky JL, Yang H, France K, Froning CS, Green JC, et al. 2010. 717:1291--1299

2010
[104]

Llama J, Vidotto AA, Jardine M, Wood K, Fares R, Gombosi TI. 2013. 436:2179--2187

2013
[105]

Long M, Romanova MM, Lovelace RVE. 2005. 634:1214--1222

2005
[106]

Louis CK, Jackman CM, Hospodarsky G, O'Kane Hackett A, Devon-Hurley E, et al. 2023. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 128(9):e2022JA031155

2023
[107]

Loyd ROP, Schneider PC, Jackman JAG, France K, Shkolnik EL, et al. 2023. 165(4):146

2023
[108]

Matsakos T, Uribe A, Konigl A. 2015. 578:A6

2015
[109]

McCann J, Murray-Clay RA, Kratter K, Krumholz MR. 2019. 873:89

2019
[110]

McIvor T, Jardine M, Holzwarth V. 2006. 367:L1--L5

2006
[111]

Meadows VS, Barnes RK. 2018. Factors Affecting Exoplanet Habitability . In Handbook of Exoplanets, eds. HJ Deeg , JA Belmonte . 2771--2794

2018
[112]

Melrose DB, Dulk GA. 1982. 259:844--858

1982
[113]

Millholland S. 2019. 886(1):72

2019
[114]

Morin J, Donati J, Petit P, Delfosse X, Forveille T, Jardine MM. 2010. 407:2269--2286

2010
[115]

Murray-Clay RA, Chiang EI, Murray N. 2009. 693:23--42

2009
[116]

Namekata K, Maehara H, Honda S, Notsu Y, Nogami D, Shibata K. 2022. arXiv e-prints :arXiv:2211.05506

2022 arXiv
[117]

National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering . 2023. Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, doi: 10.17226/26141

2023 doi
[118]

Nortmann L, Palle E, Salz M, Sanz-Forcada J, Nagel E, et al. 2018. Science 362:1388--1391

2018
[119]

Odert P, Erkaev NV, Kislyakova KG, Lammer H, Mezentsev AV, et al. 2020. 638:A49

2020
[120]

Orsini S, Mangano V, Milillo A, Plainaki C, Mura A, et al. 2018. Scientific Reports 8:928

2018
[121]

Osten RA, Wolk SJ. 2015. 809:79

2015
[122]

Owen JE, Schlichting HE. 2024. 528(2):1615--1629

2024
[123]

Parker EN. 1958. 128:664--+

1958
[124]

Pevtsov AA, Fisher GH, Acton LW, Longcope DW, Johns-Krull CM, et al. 2003. 598:1387--1391

2003
[125]

Pezzotti C, Attia O, Eggenberger P, Buldgen G, Bourrier V. 2021. 654:L5

2021
[126]

Pillitteri I, Guenther HM, Wolk SJ, Kashyap VL, Cohen O. 2011. 741:L18

2011
[127]

Pillitteri I, Maggio A, Micela G, Sciortino S, Wolk SJ, Matsakos T. 2015. 805:52

2015
[128]

Pineda JS, Villadsen J. 2023. Nature Astronomy 7:569--578

2023
[129]

Presa A, Driessen FA, Vidotto AA. 2024. 534(4):3622--3636

2024
[130]

Priest E. 2014. Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun, Chapter 4: Waves. Cambridge University Press, 144–176

2014
[131]

Privitera G, Meynet G, Eggenberger P, Vidotto AA, Villaver E, Bianda M. 2016. 591:A45

2016
[132]

Reiners A. 2012. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 9:1

2012
[133]

Reiners A, Christensen UR. 2010. 522:A13+

2010
[134]

Reiners A, Shulyak D, K \"a pyl \"a PJ, Ribas I, Nagel E, et al. 2022. 662:A41

2022
[135]

Rubenstein EP, Schaefer BE. 2000. 529(2):1031--1033

2000
[136]

Saar SH, Cuntz M. 2001. 325(1):55--59

2001
[137]

Sakata R, Seki K, Sakai S, Terada N, Shinagawa H, Tanaka T. 2022. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 127(7):e30427

2022
[138]

Saur J, Grambusch T, Duling S, Neubauer FM, Simon S. 2013. 552:A119

2013
[139]

Scalo J, Kaltenegger L, Segura AG, Fridlund M, Ribas I, et al. 2007. Astrobiology 7:85--166

2007
[140]

Scandariato G, Maggio A, Lanza AF, Pagano I, Fares R, et al. 2013. 552:A7

2013
[141]

Schneider J, Rauer H, Lasota JP, Bonazzola S, Chassefiere E. 1998. The Cometary Tail of Giant Extrasolar Planets at Small Orbital Distance . In Brown Dwarfs and Extrasolar Planets, eds. R Rebolo , EL Martin , MR Zapatero Osorio , vol. 134

1998
[142]

Schneiter EM, Velazquez PF, Esquivel A, Raga AC, Blanco-Cano X. 2007. 671:L57--L60

2007
[143]

See V, Jardine M, Fares R, Donati JF, Moutou C. 2015. 450:4323--4332

2015
[144]

Semel M. 1989. 225:456--466

1989
[145]

Shaikhislamov IF, Fossati L, Khodachenko ML, Lammer H, Garcia Munoz A, et al. 2020 a . 639:A109

2020
[146]

Shaikhislamov IF, Khodachenko ML, Lammer H, Berezutsky AG, Miroshnichenko IB, Rumenskikh MS. 2018. 481(4):5315--5323

2018
[147]

Shaikhislamov IF, Khodachenko ML, Lammer H, Berezutsky AG, Miroshnichenko IB, Rumenskikh MS. 2020 b . 491(3):3435--3447

2020
[148]

Shkolnik E, Bohlender DA, Walker GAH, Collier Cameron A. 2008. 676:628--638

2008
[149]

Shkolnik E, Walker GAH, Bohlender DA. 2003. 597:1092--1096

2003
[150]

Shkolnik E, Walker GAH, Bohlender DA, Gu PG, Kuerster M. 2005. 622:1075--1090

2005
[151]

Sreejith AG, France K, Fossati L, Koskinen TT, Egan A, et al. 2023. 954(1):L23

2023
[152]

Stevens IR. 2005. 356:1053--1063

2005
[153]

Strugarek A, Brun AS, Matt SP, Reville V. 2015. 815:111

2015
[154]

Strugarek A, Fares R, Bourrier V, Brun AS, R \'e ville V, et al. 2022. 512(3):4556--4572

2022
[155]

Suzuki TK, Imada S, Kataoka R, Kato Y, Matsumoto T, et al. 2013. 65:98

2013
[156]

Tarduno JA, Blackman EG, Mamajek EE. 2014. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 233:68--87

2014
[157]

Tian F, Toon OB, Pavlov AA, De Sterck H. 2005. 621:1049--1060

2005
[158]

Toth G, van der Holst B, Sokolov IV, De Zeeuw DL, Gombosi TI, et al. 2012. Journal of Computational Physics 231:870--903

2012
[159]

Trammell GB, Arras P, Li ZY. 2011. 728:152--+

2011
[160]

Trammell GB, Li ZY, Arras P. 2014. 788:161

2014
[161]

Tremblin P, Chiang E. 2013. 428:2565--2576

2013
[162]

Tu L, Johnstone CP, Guedel M, Lammer H. 2015. 577:L3

2015
[163]

Turner JD, Grie meier JM, Zarka P, Zhang X, Mauduit E. 2024. 688:A66

2024
[164]

Turner JD, Zarka P, Grie meier JM, Lazio J, Cecconi B, et al. 2021. 645:A59

2021
[165]

van der Holst B, Sokolov IV, Meng X, Jin M, Manchester IV WB, et al. 2014. 782:81

2014
[166]

Varela J, Reville V, Brun AS, Zarka P, Pantellini F. 2018. 616:A182

2018
[167]

Vedantham HK, Callingham JR, Shimwell TW, Tasse C, Pope BJS, et al. 2020. Nature Astronomy 4:577--583

2020
[168]

Vida K, Kriskovics L, Olah K, Leitzinger M, Odert P, et al. 2016. 590:A11

2016
[169]

Vidal-Madjar A, Lecavelier des Etangs A, Desert JM, Ballester GE, Ferlet R, et al. 2003. 422:143--146

2003
[170]

Vidotto AA. 2020. Different types of star-planet interactions . In Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields: Origins and Manifestations, eds. A Kosovichev , S Strassmeier , M Jardine , vol. 354 of IAU Symposium

2020
[171]

Vidotto AA. 2021. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 18(1):3

2021
[172]

Vidotto AA, Bourrier V. 2017. 470:4026--4033

2017
[173]

Vidotto AA, Bourrier V, Fares R, Bellotti S, Donati JF, et al. 2023. 678:A152

2023
[174]

Vidotto AA, Cleary A. 2020. 494(2):2417--2428

2020
[175]

Vidotto AA, Donati JF. 2017. 602:A39

2017
[176]

Vidotto AA, Fares R, Jardine M, Moutou C, Donati JF. 2015. 449:4117--4130

2015
[177]

Vidotto AA, Gregory SG, Jardine M, Donati JF, Petit P, et al. 2014. 441:2361--2374

2014
[178]

Vidotto AA, Jardine M, Helling C. 2010 a . 722:L168--L172

2010
[179]

Vidotto AA, Jardine M, Helling C. 2011. 414:1573--1582

2011
[180]

Vidotto AA, Lichtenegger H, Fossati L, Folsom CP, Wood BE, et al. 2018. 481:5296--5306

2018
[181]

Vidotto AA, Opher M, Jatenco-Pereira V, Gombosi TI. 2009. 699:441--452

2009
[182]

Vidotto AA, Opher M, Jatenco-Pereira V, Gombosi TI. 2010 b . 720:1262--1280

2010
[183]

Villarreal D'Angelo C, Esquivel A, Schneiter M, Sgro MA. 2018. 479:3115--3125

2018
[184]

Villarreal D'Angelo C, Schneiter M, Costa A, Velazquez P, Raga A, Esquivel A. 2014. 438:1654--1662

2014
[185]

Villarreal D'Angelo C, Vidotto AA, Esquivel A, Hazra G, Youngblood A. 2021. 501(3):4383--4395

2021
[186]

Villaver E, Livio M. 2009. 705:L81--L85

2009
[187]

Weber EJ, Davis LJ. 1967. 148:217--+

1967
[188]

West AA, Hawley SL, Bochanski JJ, Covey KR, Reid IN, et al. 2008. 135:785--795

2008
[189]

Xing L, Yan D, Guo J. 2023. 953(2):166

2023
[190]

Yadav RK, Thorngren DP. 2017. 849:L12

2017
[191]

Yelle RV. 2004. 170:167--179

2004
[192]

Zarka P. 1998. 103:20159--20194

1998
[193]

Zhilkin A, Bisikalo D. 2021. Universe 7(11):422

2021
[194]

Zuluaga JI, Bustamante S, Cuartas PA, Hoyos JH. 2013. 770:23

2013
[195]

Zuluaga JI, Cuartas PA. 2012. 217:88--102

2012

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aarnio AN, Matt SP, Stassun KG. 2012. 760:9

2012

[2] [2]

Adams FC. 2011. 730:27

2011

[3] [3]

Allan A, Vidotto AA. 2019. 490(3):3760--3771

2019

[4] [4]

Attia O, Bourrier V, Eggenberger P, Mordasini C, Beust H, Ehrenreich D. 2021. 647:A40

2021

[5] [5]

Baraffe I, Selsis F, Chabrier G, Barman TS, Allard F, et al. 2004. 419:L13--L16

2004

[6] [6]

Barnes R. 2017. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 129(4):509--536

2017

[7] [7]

Barth P, Helling C, St \"u eken EE, Bourrier V, Mayne N, et al. 2021. 502(4):6201--6215

2021

[8] [8]

Blackman EG, Tarduno JA. 2018. 481:5146--5155

2018