Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 134 references

Flare frequency in M dwarfs belonging to Young Moving Groups

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 Rotation period and mass, not age, set how often M dwarfs flare.

desk verdict A valuable empirical FFD catalog and careful broken-power-law fitting for young M dwarfs, but the headline claim that rotation beats age overreaches a sample that cannot separate the two. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04465 v1 pith:D7GCEAUM submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.SR

E. Mamonova , Y. Shan , A. F. Kowalski , S. Wedemeyer S. C. Werner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords MdwarfsstellarflaresflarefrequencydistributionyoungmovinggroupsrotationbrokenpowerlawFUVmagneticactivity
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

Using TESS and Kepler light curves of M dwarfs (low-mass red stars) in young moving groups—clusters of stars with a common birth age—plus older field stars, the paper measures how flare frequency depends on flare energy. Its central claim is that a star's rotation period and mass, not its age, control the shape of the flare frequency distribution: young stars and old field stars in the same mass and rotation bins show similar flare statistics. The paper also argues that a single power law does not describe these distributions; a piecewise power law with a steeper high-energy slope fits better. If true, this gives a practical recipe: measure a star's rotation period and mass, and you can generate the realistic sequence of flares that would hit an orbiting planet. That matters because M-dwarf planets are prime targets for atmosphere spectroscopy, and knowing the flare bombardment is essential for judging whether their atmospheres can survive until life could emerge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flare frequency distribution (FFD), the cumulative rate of flares above a given energy. The paper fits each FFD with a piecewise (broken) power law, $$f(x)=\begin{cases} A(x/x_{\rm break})^{-\alpha_1+1}, & x<x_{\rm break}\\ A(x/x_{\rm break})^{-\alpha_2+1}, & x>x_{\rm break}\end{cases}$$ with the break placed near an equivalent duration $\mathrm{ED}\approx 10$ s. Equivalent duration—the time the quiescent star would need to radiate the flare's energy—is the luminosity-normalised currency that lets flares from different stars be compared, and it is converted to TESS/Kepler bandpass energy by multiplying by quiescent luminosity. A grid of four mass bins (from $M_\star<0.11\,M_\odot$ to $M_\star\ge0.45\,M_\odot$) by six rotation-period bins (from $P_{\rm rot}<0.6$ d to $P_{\rm rot}>30$ d) is the organizing device that makes the young-versus-field comparison possible, and injection-recovery corrections set the detection completeness for each flare.

What would settle it

Find a young M dwarf (age below 50 Myr) that spins slowly, with rotation period above 30 days, and measure its flare frequency distribution with TESS 20-second cadence; if its high-energy slope is steep like old field slow rotators rather than shallow like other young stars in the same mass bin, then age, not rotation period, is governing the flare behaviour, and the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a star's rotation period and mass, not its age, set the shape of its flare frequency distribution. Using more than 86,000 validated flare events from TESS and Kepler light curves of M and late K dwarfs in young moving groups (4.5–800 Myr) plus older field stars, the authors bin stars by mass and rotation period and find that young and old stars that share a bin have similar FFD slopes, while stars in different rotation/mass bins differ regardless of age. The distributions deviate from a single power law, with a break near equivalent duration $\mathrm{ED}\approx 10$ s: below the break the slope is shallow ($\alpha_1 \lesssim 1.5$), and above it the slope steepens ($\alpha_2$ from about 1.5 to 2.0 or more), so the paper recommends a piecewise power law instead of the single power law used in most prior FFD work. The archival HST/COS far-UV analysis, though small, shows shallower FFD slopes than the optical for the same stars, suggesting wavelength-dependent flare behavior. The paper also concludes that super-flares are rarer than a single power law with $\alpha \sim 2$ would predict.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that age is not an independent factor depends on comparing young stars (below 800 Myr) with field stars (above 800 Myr) after binning by mass and rotation, but almost no young stars in the sample have rotation periods above 30 days, so age and rotation are not fully decoupled in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A star's flare environment can be predicted from measured rotation period and mass alone, without knowing its age, simplifying target selection for exoplanet atmosphere studies.
  • Super-flares are rarer than a single $\alpha\approx2$ power law predicts, so models that extrapolate from low-energy flares will overestimate the most destructive events.
  • Realistic flare sequences for exoplanet radiation environments can be generated by drawing from the piecewise power law for the star's mass and rotation bin.
  • Optical and far-UV flare statistics should be treated separately in atmosphere models, since the FUV distribution is shallower and more frequent at low energies.
  • Field-star FFDs can be reused for young systems that share their rotation period and mass, extending the calibration to stars without age determinations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not itself build a gyrochronology link, but if rotation is the controlling variable, the long-term flare history of an M dwarf could be read off its spin-down track, letting modelers reconstruct past radiation doses for a planet from the star's current period.
  • An untested consequence of the broken power law is that the total energy delivered to a planet is dominated by mid-size flares: the shallow low-energy slope adds many small events while the steep high-energy slope suppresses super-flares, so atmosphere models that use a single power law may misjudge both the average and the extreme radiation.
  • The optical-versus-FUV slope difference, if it holds up with more far-UV data, means that optical-only flare surveys cannot be extrapolated to the ultraviolet energies responsible for atmospheric escape; a dedicated simultaneous optical plus FUV monitoring campaign on a few active M dwarfs could settle the correction factor.
  • The break near $\mathrm{ED}=10$ s may be an artifact of unresolved blends of low-energy flares in TESS photometry; a higher-cadence or higher-spatial-resolution survey could test whether a single power law reappears once the blends are separated.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes TESS, Kepler, and K2 light curves for a sample of M and late K dwarfs in young moving groups (YMGs) together with older field stars, determines new rotation periods, detects and characterizes flares with an injection-recovery corrected pipeline, and constructs multi-star flare frequency distributions (FFDs) in stellar mass and rotation-period bins. The authors fit broken power laws to these FFDs and compare young (<800 Myr) with field (>800 Myr) stars, concluding that rotation period and mass are more fundamental than age in governing flare frequency and recommending a piecewise power-law description of FFDs. They also analyze HST/COS FUV time-tag data for a subset of stars and report differences between FUV and optical flare behavior.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the broken-power-law parameterization would provide a more realistic empirical model of flare statistics for exoplanet atmosphere studies, and a rotation-based proxy for flare activity would be practically useful for target selection. The paper's strengths include a comparatively large YMG sample, newly determined rotation periods, a carefully documented injection-recovery flare detection procedure, open-source code (YMDF), and a multi-wavelength (TESS/Kepler plus HST/COS) approach. However, the age-versus-rotation claim rests on a comparison with strong degeneracy between the two variables, and the broken-power-law recommendation lacks a statistical model-comparison test. These issues currently limit the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Fig. B.4, Tables 3 and B.1] The claim that rotation period and mass are more fundamental than age (Section 5) rests on the young-vs-field comparison in Section 4.2 and Fig. B.4. This comparison cannot separate age from rotation because the two are strongly correlated in the sample: essentially no YMG stars have P>30 d, and only four YMG stars have P>10 d (Section 4.1), so the slow-rotation regime is populated exclusively by field stars. In the overlapping fast-rotation bins the field contribution is tiny (e.g., M<0.11, P<0.6: N=22 young vs N=24 all; M<0.3, P<0.6: N=36 vs N=43), so 'minimal divergence' is a low-power null result, not a demonstration that age is irrelevant. Adding the field stars changes fitted slopes by more than the quoted uncertainties: α2 for M<0.3, P<0.6 shifts from 2.007±0.004 (young only, Table 3) to 1.891±0.003 (all, Table B.1), and α1 for M<0.3, P<1.85 shifts from 1.294±0.003 to 1.388±0.002. Moreover, age is only treated as a binary (<800 vs >800 Myr), although the YMG sample spans 4.5–800 Myr, so no age dependence inside the young population is probed. The paper should either soften the claim to what the data can support or provide a test that actually decouples age from rotation (e.g., a continuous age variable within overlapping rotation bins and a sensitivity analysis).
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (9), Table 3] The recommendation that FFDs of young and active M dwarfs be described by a piecewise power law is not backed by a statistical comparison against a single power law. The break is identified from visual inspection ('spotted abrupt changes'), and the broken-power-law model is fitted to the same binned multi-star FFD that is then used to characterize the slopes. No goodness-of-fit test, likelihood ratio, or information criterion is reported, and the 'realistic sequence of flare events' mentioned in the Conclusions is a direct application of the fit, not an independent validation. The authors should quantify whether the break is significant (e.g., via a model comparison on out-of-sample data or a bootstrap test) before making this a central recommendation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (5) and (6)] There is an exponent inconsistency between the differential FFD in Eq. (5), N(E)dE = β E^{-(α-1)} dE, and the cumulative form in Eq. (6), f(>E) = β/(α-1) E^{-α+1}. For a cumulative power law of that form, the differential exponent should be -α, not -(α-1); please correct the definition and ensure the reported α values are consistent with the formalism used by the fitting software.
  2. [Table B.1] The row for M<0.11 M⊙ and 1.85<Prot<4 d contains the garbled entry '1.58 1 1.481' and lacks uncertainties, because the fit used SimplexLSQFitter; please format this row clearly and state explicitly that no error estimate is available for it.
  3. [Figures 3, 4, B.4] The bin titles such as 'P<0.6,days, M<0.11M' are ambiguous; please use explicit interval notation such as '0.6 d ≤ Prot < 1.85 d' and '0.11 M⊙ ≤ M⋆ < 0.3 M⊙' throughout the figures and captions.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement 'We do not report periods longer than 10 days' is confusing because the analysis includes period bins out to P>30 d; please clarify that the newly determined periods are shorter than 10 d, while longer periods are taken from the literature.
  5. [Section 2.3] There is a typo in 'the the projected quiescent luminosity' following Eq. (4); please remove the duplication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: FFD fits are descriptive models of the same data and the rotation-vs-age claim is a statistical comparison, not a derivation from inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical and self-contained: flares are detected and completeness-corrected from TESS/Kepler/K2 and HST/COS time series; energies are computed from ED times a blackbody-based quiescent luminosity; FFDs are built by binning and averaging; and the broken power law is proposed after inspecting slope breaks, initialized with MMLE slopes, and fit to the binned FFDs. This is standard phenomenological fitting rather than a prediction validated on independent data, so the "realistic sequence" statement in the Conclusions is an application of the fitted law, not a circularly forced result. The claim that rotation period, not age, governs FFDs rests on comparing young (<800 Myr) and field (>800 Myr) stars in mass-period bins; the limited overlap of young stars at long periods is a real statistical power and confounding limitation, but it is not a definitional equivalence or a fitted-parameter-as-prediction step. Self-citations (Shan et al. 2024; Mamonova et al. 2024) supply input samples and prior period/flare data, and none is used as the sole justification for the central conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the broken power law coefficients and breakpoints for each of 22 mass-period bins, plus several hand-chosen thresholds and bin edges. The analysis relies on standard assumptions about power-law flare statistics, blackbody flux modeling, and isochrone-based stellar parameters. The most consequential assumption is that age effects can be isolated by binning in mass and rotation period, given the strong overlap between age and rotation in the sample.

free parameters (4)
  • Broken power law slopes alpha1, alpha2 and breakpoint xbreak for each mass-period bin = Listed in Table 3 (e.g., alpha1 1.345+/-0.004, alpha2 1.998+/-0.004, xbreak 10.360+/-0.063 s for the lowest-mass…
    These are the central fitted parameters of the proposed broken power law model, fit to the flare data in each bin.
  • Initial guess for the breakpoint EDbreak = 10 s (initial guess; final fitted values range from 0.92 to 61.6 s)
    The paper states 'We propose that the break likely occurs at EDbreak=10 s' before fitting, but the final breakpoints are fit to the data.
  • Recovery probability threshold = 0.25
    The analysis includes flares with recovery probability greater than 0.25, a threshold chosen to include mid-size flares rather than a more stringent completeness limit.
  • Mass bin edges and period bin edges = Mass: 0.11, 0.3, 0.45 solar masses; Period: 0.6, 1.85, 4, 7, 30 days
    The bin boundaries are chosen by hand to distribute the sample and isolate fast rotators; they are not derived from the data or theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flare frequency distributions follow a power law or broken power law in equivalent duration or energy.
    The paper adopts the standard power-law form N(E) dE = beta E^{-(alpha-1)} dE and then proposes a broken power law; this is a modeling assumption about the statistical distribution of flare energies.
  • domain assumption The quiescent luminosity can be estimated from a blackbody at the stellar effective temperature and radius.
    Equation (3) computes the quiescent flux via blackbody radiation, which omits molecular opacities; the paper justifies this for comparability with prior studies.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrones provide accurate stellar masses and radii when fit to TESS absolute magnitudes and known ages.
    The mass and radius for each star are derived from MIST isochrones; the paper notes isochrone-dependent age uncertainties but treats the masses as adequate for coarse binning.
  • standard math The flare detection criteria from Chang et al. (2015) with N1=3, N2=3, N3=2 are appropriate for all light curves.
    The paper uses these fixed thresholds for identifying flare candidates; this is a standard approach in the field.
  • domain assumption Injection-recovery corrections fully account for detection incompleteness and energy underestimation.
    The paper corrects flare counts and energies using injection-recovery, assuming the injected flare model represents real flares and that the recovery probability matrix is accurate.
  • ad hoc to paper The young and field star samples can be compared after binning by mass and rotation period to isolate the effect of age.
    The central claim that age is not an independent factor rests on the assumption that the young and field subsamples are exchangeable within each bin, which is questionable due to small field samples and missing young slow rotators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flare frequency in M dwarfs belonging to Young Moving Groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7GCEAUM

@misc{pith2026250604465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flare frequency in M dwarfs belonging to Young Moving Groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7GCEAUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04465}
}
read the original abstract

Context. M stars are preferred targets for studying terrestrial exoplanets, for which we hope to obtain their atmosphere spectra in the next decade. However, M dwarfs have long been known for strong magnetic activity and the ability to frequently produce optical, broadband emission flares. Aims. We aim to characterise the flaring behaviour of young M dwarfs in the temporal, spectral, and energetic dimensions, as well as examine the stellar parameters governing this behaviour, in order to improve our understanding of the energy and frequency of the flare events capable of shaping the exoplanet atmosphere. Methods. Young Moving Group (YMG) members provide a unique age-based perspective on stellar activity. By examining their flare behaviour in conjunction with rotation, mass, and H{\alpha} data, we obtain a comprehensive understanding of flare activity drivers in young stars. Results. We demonstrate that young stars sharing similar stellar parameters can exhibit a variety in flare frequency distributions and that the flare behaviour shows indications of difference between optical and far-UV. We propose that the period of rotation, not the age of the star, can be a good proxy for assessing flaring activity. Furthermore, we recommend that instead of a simple power law for describing the flare frequency distribution, a piecewise power law be used to describe mid-size and large flare distributions in young and active M dwarfs. Conclusions. Using known periods of rotation and fine-tuned power laws governing the flare frequency, we can produce a realistic sequence of flare events to study whether the atmosphere of small exoplanets orbiting M dwarf shall withstand such activity until life can emerge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04465 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship between Hα and logProt across (G - GRP) colour from Gaia DR3. Left: the rotation period distribution with (G - GRP) colour￾coded by normalised Hα equivalent width. Right: Hα equivalent width against (G - GRP), colour-coded by logProt. Stars with newly determined periods Prot are plotted as circles with lime-green edges, field stars in the sample are represented as circles with blue edges. The M-dwar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of the found flare populations in the sample stars in the cumulative form (FFD). The sample is binned in mass and period bins as described in Sect. 3.1. The ages are colour-coded from blue to red to yellow for 4.5-800 Myr; field stars with age > 800 Myr are plotted as grey circles. The grey and blue dashed guides corresponding to power law coefficient α=2.0 and α=1.5, respectively, for a range of fl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The cumulative distribution plotted for the mass-period bins for young (age < 800 Myr) stars in the sample. Blue dots represent the bin subsample FFD, which combines multiple stars by averaging each portion of the FFD by the number of stars that contribute to it. We first calculated initial guess for slope α1 ini and intercept βini using MMLE method (Maschberger & Kroupa 2009). The initial guess for α2 ini is fixed … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left and centre panel: Cumulative FFDs (scatter) in ED, and respective broken power law fits (dashed black lines). The y-axis shows the frequency distribution plotted against ED on the x-axis. The secondary x-axis on top represents flare energy. The left panel shows FF…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The broken power law relation for FFDs found in this study sample of young and field stars is plotted for four mass bins. The colour of the lines indicates the period bins. The lines represent the broken power law slopes α1 and α2 for successful fits. Uncertainties are…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aigrain , S., Parviainen , H., & Pope , B. J. S. 2016, , 459, 2408

    2016

  2. [2]

    J., Holman , G., O'Flannagain , A., et al

    Aschwanden , M. J., Holman , G., O'Flannagain , A., et al. 2016, , 832, 27

    2016

  3. [3]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  4. [4]

    A., Tayar , J., Van Saders , J., Berger , T., & Claytor , Z

    Avallone , E. A., Tayar , J., Van Saders , J., Berger , T., & Claytor , Z. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 238, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 314.07

    2021

  5. [5]

    & Chabrier , G

    Baraffe , I. & Chabrier , G. 2018, , 619, A177

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bell , C. P. M., Mamajek , E. E., & Naylor , T. 2015, , 454, 593

    2015

  7. [7]

    S., Mathioudakis , M., Christian , D

    Bloomfield , D. S., Mathioudakis , M., Christian , D. J., Keenan , F. P., & Linsky , J. L. 2002, , 390, 219

    2002

  8. [8]

    Bonfils , X., Lo Curto , G., Correia , A. C. M., et al. 2013, , 556, A110

    2013

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

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

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  2. [10]

    E., Osten , R

    Brasseur , C. E., Osten , R. A., Tristan , I. I., & Kowalski , A. F. 2023, , 944, 5

    2023

  3. [11]

    A., Tenenbaum , P., Twicken , J

    Caldwell , D. A., Tenenbaum , P., Twicken , J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201

    2020

  4. [12]

    L., Gomes , R

    Canto Martins , B. L., Gomes , R. L., Messias , Y. S., et al. 2020, , 250, 20

    2020

  5. [13]

    & Baraffe , I

    Chabrier , G. & Baraffe , I. 1997, , 327, 1039

    1997

  6. [14]

    & Baraffe , I

    Chabrier , G. & Baraffe , I. 2000, , 38, 337

    2000

  7. [15]

    W., Byun , Y

    Chang , S. W., Byun , Y. I., & Hartman , J. D. 2015, , 814, 35

    2015

  8. [16]

    J., Mathioudakis , M., Bloomfield , D

    Christian , D. J., Mathioudakis , M., Bloomfield , D. S., et al. 2006, , 454, 889

    2006

  9. [17]

    L., Sordo , R., Pailler , F., et al

    Creevey , O. L., Sordo , R., Pailler , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A26

    2023

  10. [18]

    2019, , 489, 5513

    Cui , K., Liu , J., Yang , S., et al. 2019, , 489, 5513

    2019

  11. [19]

    L., Siegmund , O

    Cully , S. L., Siegmund , O. H. W., Vedder , P. W., & Vallerga , J. V. 1993, , 414, L49

    1993

  12. [20]

    Davenport , J. R. A. 2016, , 829, 23

    2016

  13. [21]

    Davenport , J. R. A., Hawley , S. L., Hebb , L., et al. 2014, , 797, 122

    2014

  14. [22]

    A., Montes , D., et al

    D \' ez Alonso , E., Caballero , J. A., Montes , D., et al. 2019, , 621, A126

    2019

  15. [23]

    2016, , 222, 8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8

    2016

  16. [24]

    G., & Wu , K

    Doyle , L., Ramsay , G., Doyle , J. G., & Wu , K. 2019, , 489, 437

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dressing , C. D. & Charbonneau , D. 2015, , 807, 45

    2015

  18. [26]

    K., Lobel , A., Young , P

    Dupree , A. K., Lobel , A., Young , P. R., et al. 2005, , 622, 629

    2005

  19. [27]

    Engle , S. G. 2024, , 960, 62

    2024

  20. [28]

    D., France , K., Youngblood , A., et al

    Feinstein , A. D., France , K., Youngblood , A., et al. 2022, , 164, 110

    2022

  21. [29]

    D., Seligman , D

    Feinstein , A. D., Seligman , D. Z., France , K., Gagn \'e , J., & Kowalski , A. 2024, , 168, 60

    2024

  22. [30]

    2023, , 674, A28

    Fouesneau , M., Fr \'e mat , Y., Andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A28

    2023

  23. [31]

    L., Tian , F., Froning , C

    France , K., Linsky , J. L., Tian , F., Froning , C. S., & Roberge , A. 2012, , 750, L32

    2012

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    Frasca , A., Biazzo , K., Lanzafame , A. C., et al. 2015, , 575, A4

    2015

  25. [33]

    S., Kowalski , A., France , K., et al

    Froning , C. S., Kowalski , A., France , K., et al. 2019, , 871, L26

    2019

  26. [34]

    & Faherty , J

    Gagn \'e , J. & Faherty , J. K. 2018, , 862, 138

    2018

  27. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  28. [36]

    & Mann , A

    Gaidos , E. & Mann , A. W. 2013, , 762, 41

    2013

  29. [37]

    & Bouvier , J

    Gallet , F. & Bouvier , J. 2015, , 577, A98

    2015

  30. [38]

    Gershberg , R. E. 1972, , 19, 75

    1972

  31. [39]

    G., Hudson , H

    Hannah , I. G., Hudson , H. S., Battaglia , M., et al. 2011, , 159, 263

    2011

  32. [40]

    L., Davenport , J

    Hawley , S. L., Davenport , J. R. A., Kowalski , A. F., et al. 2014, , 797, 121

    2014

  33. [41]

    Hawley , S. L. & Fisher , G. H. 1992, , 78, 565

    1992

  34. [42]

    L., Fisher , G

    Hawley , S. L., Fisher , G. H., Simon , T., et al. 1995, , 453, 464

    1995

  35. [43]

    Hawley , S. L. & Pettersen , B. R. 1991, , 378, 725

    1991

  36. [44]

    Herbst , W., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Mundt , R., Meisenheimer , K., & Wackermann , R. 2002, , 396, 513

    2002

  37. [45]

    J., West , A

    Hilton , E. J., West , A. A., Hawley , S. L., & Kowalski , A. F. 2010, , 140, 1402

    2010

  38. [46]

    Hirschauer , A. S. 2023, in COS Instrument Handbook v. 16.0, Vol. 16, 16

    2023

  39. [47]

    2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Holcomb , R. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235, 274.04

    2020

  40. [48]

    S., Corbett , H., Law , N

    Howard , W. S., Corbett , H., Law , N. M., et al. 2019, , 881, 9

    2019

  41. [49]

    Howard , W. S. & MacGregor , M. A. 2022, , 926, 204

    2022

  42. [50]

    S., Tilley , M

    Howard , W. S., Tilley , M. A., Corbett , H., et al. 2018, , 860, L30

    2018

  43. [51]

    B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398

    2014

  44. [52]

    M., Hilton , E

    Hunt-Walker , N. M., Hilton , E. J., Kowalski , A. F., Hawley , S. L., & Matthews , J. M. 2012, , 124, 545

    2012

  45. [53]

    J., Davenport , J

    Ilin , E., Schmidt , S. J., Davenport , J. R. A., & Strassmeier , K. G. 2019, , 622, A133

    2019

  46. [54]

    J., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al

    Ilin , E., Schmidt , S. J., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al. 2021, , 645, A42

    2021

  47. [55]

    J., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al

    Ilin , E., Schmidt , S. J., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al. 2022, AltaiPony: Flare finder for Kepler, K2, and TESS light curves , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2201.009

    2022

  48. [56]

    & Bouvier , J

    Irwin , J. & Bouvier , J. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 258, The Ages of Stars, ed. E. E. Mamajek , D. R. Soderblom , & R. F. G. Wyse , 363--374

    2009

  49. [57]

    Jackman , J. A. G., Shkolnik , E. L., Loyd , R. O. P., & Richey-Yowell , T. 2024, , 533, 1894

    2024

  50. [58]

    M., Caldwell , D

    Jenkins , J. M., Caldwell , D. A., Gilliland , R. L., et al. 2010, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 42, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#42, 27.09

    2010

  51. [59]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E

    2016

  52. [60]

    L., & Rizzuto , A

    Kerr , R., Kraus , A. L., & Rizzuto , A. C. 2023, , 954, 134

    2023

  53. [61]

    Kerr , R. M. P., Rizzuto , A. C., Kraus , A. L., & Offner , S. S. R. 2021, , 917, 23

    2021

  54. [62]

    K., Cruz , K

    Kiman , R., Faherty , J. K., Cruz , K. L., et al. 2021, , 161, 277

    2021

  55. [63]

    F., Hawley , S

    Kowalski , A. F., Hawley , S. L., Wisniewski , J. P., et al. 2013, , 207, 15

    2013

  56. [64]

    F., Wisniewski , J

    Kowalski , A. F., Wisniewski , J. P., Hawley , S. L., et al. 2019, , 871, 167

    2019

  57. [65]

    L., Shkolnik , E

    Kraus , A. L., Shkolnik , E. L., Allers , K. N., & Liu , M. C. 2014, , 147, 146

    2014

  58. [66]

    Lammer , H., Lichtenegger , H. I. M., Kulikov , Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185

    2007

  59. [67]

    A., Gaidos , E., van Saders , J., Feiden , G

    Lee , R. A., Gaidos , E., van Saders , J., Feiden , G. A., & Gagn \'e , J. 2024, , 528, 4760

    2024

  60. [68]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2018

  61. [69]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447

    1976

  62. [70]

    Loyd , R. O. P., France , K., Youngblood , A., et al. 2018 a , , 867, 71

    2018

  63. [71]

    Loyd , R. O. P., Shkolnik , E. L., France , K., Wood , B. E., & Youngblood , A. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 119

    2020

  64. [72]

    Loyd , R. O. P., Shkolnik , E. L., Schneider , A. C., et al. 2018 b , , 867, 70

    2018

  65. [73]

    2019, , 243, 28

    Lu , H.-p., Zhang , L.-y., Shi , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 28

    2019

  66. [74]

    Luhman , K. L. 2007, , 173, 104

    2007

  67. [75]

    C., Davenport , J

    Lurie , J. C., Davenport , J. R. A., Hawley , S. L., et al. 2015, , 800, 95

    2015

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Magaudda , E., Stelzer , B., Covey , K. R., et al. 2020, , 638, A20

    2020

  69. [77]

    2022, , 661, A29

    Magaudda , E., Stelzer , B., Raetz , S., et al. 2022, , 661, A29

    2022

  70. [78]

    2013, , 762, 88

    Malo , L., Doyon , R., Lafreni \`e re , D., et al. 2013, , 762, 88

    2013

  71. [79]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Bell , C. P. M. 2014, , 445, 2169

    2014

  72. [80]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2008, , 687, 1264

    2008

  73. [81]

    Mamonova , E., Shan , Y., Hatalova , P., & Werner , S. C. 2024, , 685, A143

    2024

  74. [82]

    & Kroupa , P

    Maschberger , T. & Kroupa , P. 2009, , 395, 931

    2009

  75. [83]

    A., Winters , J

    Medina , A. A., Winters , J. G., Irwin , J. M., & Charbonneau , D. 2020, , 905, 107

    2020

  76. [84]

    2023, , 945, 61

    Namizaki , K., Namekata , K., Maehara , H., et al. 2023, , 945, 61

    2023

  77. [85]

    & Ulmschneider , P

    Narain , U. & Ulmschneider , P. 1996, , 75, 453

    1996

  78. [86]

    1980, The Search for Early Forms of Life in Other Planetary Systems: Future Possibilities Afforded by Spectroscopic Techniques, ed

    Owen, T. 1980, The Search for Early Forms of Life in Other Planetary Systems: Future Possibilities Afforded by Spectroscopic Techniques, ed. M. D. Papagiannis (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 177--185

    1980

  79. [87]

    R., Barclay , T., Youngblood , A., et al

    Paudel , R. R., Barclay , T., Youngblood , A., et al. 2024, , 971, 24

    2024

  80. [88]

    R., Gizis , J

    Paudel , R. R., Gizis , J. E., Mullan , D. J., et al. 2018, , 858, 55

    2018

  81. [89]

    2019, , 243, 10

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10

    2019

  82. [90]

    P., G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y., Jofr \'e , E., Segura , A., & Ferrero , L

    Petrucci , R. P., G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y., Jofr \'e , E., Segura , A., & Ferrero , L. V. 2024, , 527, 8290

    2024

  83. [91]

    S., Youngblood , A., & France , K

    Pineda , J. S., Youngblood , A., & France , K. 2021, , 911, 111

    2021

  84. [92]

    K., Curtis , J

    Popinchalk , M., Faherty , J. K., Curtis , J. L., et al. 2023, , 945, 114

    2023

  85. [93]

    K., Kiman , R., et al

    Popinchalk , M., Faherty , J. K., Kiman , R., et al. 2021, , 916, 77

    2021

  86. [94]

    2020, , 637, A22

    Raetz , S., Stelzer , B., Damasso , M., & Scholz , A. 2020, , 637, A22

    2020

  87. [95]

    Ranjan , S., Wordsworth , R., & Sasselov , D. D. 2017, , 843, 110

    2017

  88. [96]

    L., Ake , T

    Redfield , S., Linsky , J. L., Ake , T. B., et al. 2002, , 581, 626

    2002

  89. [97]

    & Mohanty , S

    Reiners , A. & Mohanty , S. 2012, , 746, 43

    2012

  90. [98]

    2023, , 955, 24

    Rekhi , P., Ben-Ami , S., Perdelwitz , V., & Shvartzvald , Y. 2023, , 955, 24

    2023

  91. [99]

    Ricker , G. R. 2016, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, P13C--01

    2016

  92. [100]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  93. [101]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2014

  94. [102]

    & Golay , M

    Savitzky , A. & Golay , M. J. E. 1964, Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627

    1964

  95. [103]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  96. [104]

    C., Shkolnik , E

    Schneider , A. C., Shkolnik , E. L., Allers , K. N., et al. 2019, , 157, 234

    2019

  97. [105]

    M., Meadows , V., Kasting , J., & Hawley , S

    Segura , A., Walkowicz , L. M., Meadows , V., Kasting , J., & Hawley , S. 2010, Astrobiology, 10, 751

    2010

  98. [106]

    2021, , 650, A138

    Seli , B., Vida , K., Mo \'o r , A., P \'a l , A., & Ol \'a h , K. 2021, , 650, A138

    2021

  99. [107]

    L., et al

    Shan , Y., Revilla , D., Skrzypinski , S. L., et al. 2024, , 684, A9

    2024

  100. [108]

    C., Bowler , B

    Shan , Y., Yee , J. C., Bowler , B. P., et al. 2017, , 846, 93

    2017

  101. [109]

    2013, , 209, 5

    Shibayama , T., Maehara , H., Notsu , S., et al. 2013, , 209, 5

    2013

  102. [110]

    1972, , 171, 565

    Skumanich , A. 1972, , 171, 565

    1972

  103. [111]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138

    2019

  104. [112]

    Stauffer , J. R. & Hartmann , L. W. 1986, , 61, 531

    1986

  105. [113]

    Stelzer , B., Damasso , M., Scholz , A., & Matt , S. P. 2016, , 463, 1844

    2016

  106. [114]

    E., Fraquelli , D., Van Cleve , J

    Thompson , S. E., Fraquelli , D., Van Cleve , J. E., & Caldwell , D. A. 2016, Kepler Archive Manual , Kepler Science Document KDMC-10008-006, id. 9. Edited by Faith Abney, Dwight Sanderfer, Michael R. Haas, and Steve B. Howell

    2016

  107. [115]

    A., Segura , A., Meadows , V., Hawley , S., & Davenport , J

    Tilley , M. A., Segura , A., Meadows , V., Hawley , S., & Davenport , J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64

    2019

  108. [116]

    2010, , 18, 67

    Torres , G., Andersen , J., & Gim \'e nez , A. 2010, , 18, 67

    2010

  109. [117]

    Tovar Mendoza , G., Davenport , J. R. A., Agol , E., Jackman , J. A. G., & Hawley , S. L. 2022, , 164, 17

    2022

  110. [118]

    I., Notsu , Y., Kowalski , A

    Tristan , I. I., Notsu , Y., Kowalski , A. F., et al. 2023, , 951, 33

    2023

  111. [119]

    J., & Wang , F

    Tu , Z.-L., Yang , M., Zhang , Z. J., & Wang , F. Y. 2020, , 890, 46

    2020

  112. [120]

    Van Cleve , J. E. & Caldwell , D. A. 2016, Kepler Instrument Handbook , Kepler Science Document KSCI-19033-002, id.1. Edited by Michael R. Haas and Steve B. Howell

    2016

  113. [121]

    VanderPlas , J. T. 2018, , 236, 16

    2018

  114. [122]

    2016, , 830, 77

    Venot , O., Rocchetto , M., Carl , S., Roshni Hashim , A., & Decin , L. 2016, , 830, 77

    2016

  115. [123]

    2017, , 841, 124

    Vida , K., K o v \'a ri , Z., P \'a l , A., Ol \'a h , K., & Kriskovics , L. 2017, , 841, 124

    2017

  116. [124]

    2025, , 979, 92

    Wang , F., Fang , M., Fu , X., et al. 2025, , 979, 92

    2025

  117. [125]

    2010, , 517, A88

    Weise , P., Launhardt , R., Setiawan , J., & Henning , T. 2010, , 517, A88

    2010

  118. [126]

    2000, , 143, 9

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  119. [127]

    Wheatland , M. S. 2004, , 609, 1134

    2004

  120. [128]

    Wheatland , M. S. 2010, , 710, 1324

    2010

  121. [129]

    E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al

    Wood , B. E., M \"u ller , H.-R., Redfield , S., et al. 2021, , 915, 37

    2021

  122. [130]

    J., Newton , E

    Wright , N. J., Newton , E. R., Williams , P. K. G., Drake , J. J., & Yadav , R. K. 2018, , 479, 2351

    2018

  123. [131]

    2024, , 691, A304

    Yamashita , M., Itoh , Y., & Takagi , Y. 2024, , 691, A304

    2024

  124. [132]

    2019, , 870, 27

    Zuckerman , B. 2019, , 870, 27

    2019

  125. [133]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  126. [134]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

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