Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

A circularly polarized low-frequency radio burst from the exoplanetary system HD 189733

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that a 50 MHz, 1.5 Jy, at least 38% circularly polarized burst was detected from the HD 189733 system, with a 2.6% global chance of being a noise fluctuation.

desk verdict A well-executed, honest single-event radio burst candidate that the community should see, but the '6 sigma' framing overstates it and the global false-alarm estimate is rougher than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07912 v1 pith:PKIHJ7DY submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

X. Zhang , P. Zarka , J.N. Girard , C. Tasse , A. Loh , E. Mauduit , F.G. Mertens , E. Bonnassieux
show 12 more authors
C.K. Louis J-M. Grie{ss}meier J.D. Turner L. Lamy A. Strugarek S. Corbel B. Cecconi O. Konovalenko V. Zakharenko O. Ulyanov P. Tokarsky M. Tagger
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetradioemissioncyclotronmaserinstabilitystar-planetinteractionHD189733circularpolarizationlow-frequencytransientNenuFARlook-elsewhereeffect
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 aims to establish that a real, highly circularly polarized low-frequency radio burst was caught from the direction of the HD 189733 system, a nearby binary with a hot Jupiter, using the NenuFAR array over 87 hours that covered the planet's full orbit. The burst appeared at 50 MHz as a 1.5 Jy signal in circular polarization (Stokes V) at about $6\sigma$, lasted roughly 96 seconds, and occurred near the planet's transit; no counterpart was seen in total intensity. The authors argue that the implied minimum circular polarization of 38% marks the emission as coherent, most plausibly cyclotron maser instability, and that the burst could come from star-planet interaction, the host star, or the M-dwarf companion. A confirmed burst of this kind would directly probe magnetic fields and space weather around an exoplanet host, but the paper itself treats the detection as tentative because a noise fluctuation cannot be fully excluded.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two pieces of machinery. The first is the transient-search pipeline: dynamic spectra of the target and about 400 off-target directions, noise normalization using the off-target ensemble, and convolution with Gaussian kernels of different time-frequency widths, followed by re-imaging of any candidate to confirm a point-like source at the target position. This is what turns an invisible 8-second-by-195-kHz pixel into a visible 40-second-by-4-MHz burst. The second is the cyclotron maser instability (CMI), a plasma process that amplifies radio waves near the electron cyclotron frequency and emits strongly circularly polarized, beamed radiation; it connects the observed 50 MHz frequency to a source magnetic field of roughly 18 G and motivates both the Stokes V search strategy and the interpretation of the burst's polarization. A look-elsewhere estimate over the 13.3 million searched time-frequency cells, with a global false-alarm probability of about 2.6%, is the statistical bridge that keeps the burst a formal detection rather than a noise peak.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compute the look-elsewhere probability without the independence approximation, for example by running the same convolution and threshold search on pure noise realizations with the same covariances; if the fraction of noise runs containing a $\geq6\sigma$ peak at any position exceeds a few percent, the burst is consistent with noise. A complementary observation is high-resolution imaging that resolves the 0.4-degree NenuFAR beam: placing the burst on the M-dwarf companion rather than the primary star would directly settle one of the paper's alternative origins.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that NenuFAR detected a genuine candidate burst at the position of HD 189733: on 2023-09-28 at 21:18 UTC, when the planet was at orbital phase 0.0197, a roughly 96-second emission in the 47.6\,--\,52.1 MHz band reached 1.5 Jy (janskys, the unit of radio flux density) in Stokes V with a significance of $6\sigma$ after convolving the dynamic spectra to 40 seconds by 4 MHz and re-imaging. The absence of a Stokes I counterpart implies a minimum fractional circular polarization of 38%, which the paper interprets as evidence for a coherent emission process such as cyclotron maser instability. The authors find that the burst is compatible with sub-Alfv\'enic star-planet interaction or stellar CMI, while wind-magnetosphere interaction is energetically plausible and favored by the burst's occurrence near transit; plasma emission is possible but less likely, and the M-dwarf companion cannot be excluded as the source. A Lomb-Scargle search found no periodic weaker emission at the planet's orbital period, the star's rotation, or the synodic and harmonic periods, and the global probability of the burst being a random noise peak is estimated at about 2.6%, so the paper presents the burst as a tentative detection pending repetition.

Load-bearing premise

The detection stands or falls on the assumption that the 13.3 million searched time-frequency cells are effectively independent for statistical purposes, so that the global chance of seeing a random $6\sigma$ peak is only about 2.6%; if the true number of independent trials is larger, the burst's significance drops toward noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single repeating burst from HD 189733 would convert this candidate into a confirmed astrophysical signal and would let timing measure the emitting region.
  • Because the burst appears only in circular polarization with at least 38% polarization, any confirmed source model must produce coherent, narrowly beamed emission, which is the signature of CMI.
  • The compatibility of the observed flux with the sub-Alfv\'enic star-planet interaction prediction (about 2.6 Jy) means that, if real, the burst supports a detectable planet-star magnetic interaction in a hot Jupiter system.
  • The burst's occurrence at orbital phase 0.0197, near transit, is the discriminant the paper uses to prefer the wind-magnetosphere interaction scenario over the sub-Alfv\'enic one.
  • The absence of periodicity at known system timescales implies that this kind of emission can occur as a single flare-like event, so future campaigns should be designed to catch rare bursts over long monitoring windows rather than only periodic signals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the 2.6% global probability places this detection on the same statistical footing as earlier tentative exoplanet radio claims; a conservative research program would integrate this candidate with those in a formal posterior-predictive framework rather than treating any single burst as decisive.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same Stokes V transient search on archival low-frequency observations of other hot-Jupiter hosts: if bursts like this are common, several should already be present in existing datasets, turning one 2.6% candidate into a population statement.
  • If the burst is confirmed and originates from CMI, simultaneous radio and X-ray monitoring of HD 189733 would test the flare hypothesis, since a coronal flare at the burst epoch would favor intrinsic stellar activity over a planet-induced mechanism.
  • The detection also suggests that long-duration, full-orbital-phase campaigns are the right observing strategy for star-planet interaction searches, because beamed CMI emission may only point at Earth for a short window around specific orbital phases; this follows from the paper's own beaming discussion but is not stated as a general survey recommendation.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a NenuFAR imaging campaign on the HD 189733 system covering the full orbital phase of its hot Jupiter. A single burst candidate is found in Stokes V at 50 MHz with a flux density of 1.5 Jy and a claimed 6σ significance, visible only after convolving the dynamic spectra. The authors verify the candidate by re-imaging, check for polarization leakage using external calibrators, compare with models of star-planet interaction, stellar activity, and background sources, and estimate a global false-alarm probability of 2.6% (Eq. 8). No periodic signals are found. The paper concludes that the burst is a tentative detection consistent with cyclotron maser instability emission, while acknowledging that noise fluctuation or contamination cannot be fully excluded.

Significance. If the burst is real, this would be one of the first low-frequency coherent radio burst candidates associated with an exoplanet system, with potential implications for exoplanetary magnetic fields and star-planet interactions. The paper's strengths include a transparent and reproducible pipeline (public code), full orbital phase coverage, leakage estimates from 3C sources and Jupiter bursts, a control region in the dynamic spectra, and re-imaging verification. The model comparison uses literature values rather than fitted free parameters, and the paper explicitly discusses multiple alternative origins. However, the statistical significance of the detection is the limiting factor, and the current global probability estimate is not a calibrated false-alarm rate.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4, Eq. (8)] The global false-alarm probability of 2.6% is computed from N=13.3 million cells that are not independent: these cells are pixels of the same dynamic spectra convolved with 63 Gaussian kernels, so positive correlations make the effective number of independent trials smaller than N. Conversely, the multi-stage selection (search for SNR>5, then re-imaging, then quoting the image significance) is not folded into the calculation. As written, the 2.6% is not a calibrated false-alarm rate, and the abstract's '6 sigma detection' overstates the significance. Please provide a calibrated estimate, e.g., by Monte Carlo simulations of the noise processed through the same pipeline, or an effective-number-of-independent-cells estimate from the noise autocorrelation; alternatively, reframe the result as a candidate and qualify the abstract accordingly.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 6] The '6σ' significance is quoted from the re-imaged map, which is derived from the same data after the candidate was selected in the convolved dynamic spectrum; it is therefore not an independent confirmation. The text should clarify whether the 6σ is the peak after a spatial search in the image, and if so, account for the number of independent beams searched, or use a predefined target position in the significance evaluation.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (1)] The SPI flux estimate uses β=10^-4 as the 'most conservative' efficiency, yielding S≈3.6 Jy, but the plausible range of β is not discussed. Since the compatibility of the burst with SPI depends on this parameter, please state the assumed range and how the conclusion would change for β=10^-5 or lower.
  4. [§5.2 and Table 2] The 'magnetic hot spot' resolution to the CMI plasma-frequency constraint (f_pe/f_ce < 0.1 at 50 MHz) is stated as plausible but not quantified. The text does not provide the electron density or temperature structure that would allow the required condition to be met. Please give an order-of-magnitude estimate or cite a published model that demonstrates the feasibility of such a region in HD 189733 A.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There are typos in the Introduction: 'developped' and 'interformetric' should be 'developed' and 'interferometric'.
  2. [Table 1 and §5.3] The spatial resolution is quoted as 0.5 degrees in Table 1 and as approximately 0.4 degrees in §5.3; please make these consistent.
  3. [General] The manuscript header contains 'Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997', which appears to be a template artifact and should be removed or corrected.
  4. [§5.1, Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), the symbols Ω and Δf are not defined in the text immediately before the equation; please define them (beaming solid angle and emission bandwidth) explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the burst claim is an observational measurement anchored to re-imaging and external calibrators, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observed 6σ, 1.5 Jy Stokes V burst at 50 MHz at the position of HD 189733, not a derived quantity. The detection chain is empirical: after a 5σ threshold in a convolved dynamic spectrum, the candidate is re-imaged with WSClean and accepted only if a PSF-like source appears at the target position; noise peaks, RFI, and sidelobes are rejected by explicit criteria. The circular-polarization leakage levels are measured on external sources (3C sources and a Jupiter burst), not fitted to the burst itself, so the conclusion that leakage cannot explain the burst is not self-referential. Model comparisons in Section 5 use literature values for the stellar field (40 G), density, and the radio-magnetic scaling law, and the paper explicitly allows multiple origins including the M-dwarf companion and noise fluctuation. Section 5.4's global probability estimate of about 2.6% is admittedly 'only a rough approximation' and is presented as a caveat rather than as the basis for asserting the burst's reality; whether the trial correction is calibrated is a statistical validity issue, not a circularity in the sense of a claim reducing by construction to its inputs. Self-citations (e.g., Tasse et al. 2025 for DynspecMS) are method references, not load-bearing external justifications for the detection. No circular step is therefore identified.

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

The paper fits no parameters to produce the burst; the flux, significance, and polarization are measured quantities. The model interpretations rely on literature values for the stellar field, coronal density, and radio-magnetic scaling, plus one ad hoc magnetic hot spot invoked to keep CMI viable. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CMI operates only when the plasma-to-cyclotron frequency ratio f_pe/f_ce is below roughly 0.1 (Treumann 2006).
    Invoked in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 to argue the 50 MHz emission height in a 40 G dipole has too high plasma density unless a magnetic hot spot exists. Standard result in the field.
  • domain assumption The 13.3 million time-frequency cells searched are effectively independent for the look-elsewhere correction.
    Section 5.4, Eq. (8): authors compute P_global of about 2.6% using N=13.3 million cells and note the cells overlap across convolution kernels, making the independence assumption approximate. If violated, the global false-alarm probability changes.
  • domain assumption The 0.75% Stokes I to V leakage factor measured from bright 3C sources and Jupiter data is representative across the field.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.1: used to rule out instrumental leakage as the cause of the 1.5 Jy Stokes V burst. The measurement is reasonable but cannot be verified for every direction.
  • domain assumption The stellar magnetic field is dipolar with B0 around 40 G at the surface (Eq. 3).
    Section 5.2: yields h_50 of about 0.3 R_star for 50 MHz CMI. The authors note a private communication suggesting 10 to 20 G near the observing epoch, which would move the emission height, though they say conclusions are unaffected.
  • domain assumption The coronal density and temperature from XMM-Newton observations (0.4 to 0.9 keV, n_e about 3 to 10 times 1e10 cm^-3) describe the plasma at the emission site.
    Section 5.2: used with the hydrostatic scale height to estimate plasma emission height h_50 of about 2.4 to 5.7 R_star. Based on published X-ray observations of HD 189733 A.
  • ad hoc to paper A localized magnetic hot spot can lower f_pe/f_ce enough to allow 50 MHz CMI at altitudes where the plasma density is lower.
    Sections 5.1 and 5.2: proposed to rescue the CMI interpretation from the high plasma density problem at 0.3 R_star. It is a plausible but untested assumption, not an observed feature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A circularly polarized low-frequency radio burst from the exoplanetary system HD 189733." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKIHJ7DY

@misc{pith2026250607912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A circularly polarized low-frequency radio burst from the exoplanetary system HD 189733},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKIHJ7DY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07912}
}
read the original abstract

We aim to detect low-frequency radio emission from exoplanetary systems, which can provide insights into planetary magnetic fields, star-planet interactions, stellar activity, and exo-space weather. The HD 189733 system, hosting a well-studied hot Jupiter, is a prime target for such searches. We conducted NenuFAR imaging observations in the 15-62 MHz range, in order to cover the entire orbital phase of HD 189733 b. Dynamic spectra were generated for the target and other sources in the field, followed by a transient search in the time-frequency plane. The data processing pipeline incorporated direction-dependent calibration and noise characterization to improve sensitivity. We also searched for periodic signals using Lomb-Scargle analysis. A highly circularly polarized radio burst was detected at 50 MHz with a flux density of 1.5 Jy and a significance of 6 sigma at the position of HD 189733. No counterpart was found in Stokes I, likely because the emission is embedded in confusion noise and remains below the detection threshold. The estimated minimum fractional circular polarization of 38% suggests a coherent emission process. A periodicity search revealed no weaker signals linked to the planet's orbital period, the star's rotational period, or the synodic period and harmonic period between them. The burst's properties are consistent with cyclotron maser instability (CMI) emission, but the origin is still ambiguous. The comparison with theoretical models suggests star-planet interaction or stellar activity as potential origins. However, alternative explanations such as contamination from other sources along the line of sight (e.g. the companion M dwarf) or noise fluctuation cannot be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orbital Phase Coverage of HD 189733 b Observations. HD 189733 b is a transiting exoplanet, with the orbital phase of 0 de￾fined as the moment of its transit (Ivshina & Winn 2022). Observations marked in gray represent the data excluded from scientific analysis due to poor quality. (RFI). Subsequently, our pipeline executes the following com￾prehensive sequence: (1) Identification and removal of "bad" MAs at time of … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart illustrating the stages of the data processing pipeline employed in the HD 189733 observational campaign with NenuFAR. tions derived from this step are then transferred to and applied on the target observations. Then, we apply full-Stokes direction-dependent calibration to mitigate the influence of contaminating A-team sources on the visibilities. Given their prominence in the low-frequency radio sky, A-te… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of dynamic spectra directions within the FoV, illustrated against a blue background created from a full-band MFS im￾age prior to continuum source subtraction. The central red dot denotes the "ON" beam, located in the direction of HD 189733. Orange dots represent the "OFF" beams, whose dynamic spectra are used for noise estimation. The black circle at the top marks the location of Cygnus A, which… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Noise levels in the Stokes V data as achieved by the pipeline. The blue lines represent the measured noise levels from the observational data for two time-frequency integrations (8 sec × 195 kHz and 1 hour × 10 MHz), derived from both dynamic spectra and images. The gr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dynamic spectra of the HD 189733 field, showing the detection of a burst after convolution. Top-left panel: Original Stokes V dynamic spectrum of HD 189733, at a resolution of 8 sec × 195 kHz. The frequency range 41–43 MHz and the time range 2–5 min are affected by RFI…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Imaging verification of a 6σ burst in the direction of HD 189733 with NenuFAR. All panels show apparent flux images to ensure consistent noise levels beyond the primary beam. Top-left panel: Stokes I image of the FoV before the burst, generated from visibilities corres…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lomb-Scargle power distribution as a function of period (represented by the Lomb-Scargle frequency on the x-axis) and radio frequency (y-axis), based on the Stokes V dynamic spectra at the highest time-frequency resolution (8 sec × 195 kHz). Orange dashed lines mark pe…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tentative detection of circularly polarized bursty radio emissions from the HD 189733 exoplanetary system using NenuFAR beamformed observations

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    NenuFAR beamformed Stokes-V data tentatively show a ~10σ left-hand circularly polarized burst from HD 189733 at 27–40 MHz lasting ~16 min, offset by ~1 h from the imaging burst of Zhang et al. (2025).

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

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

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

  3. The Lunar Farside Transients and Technology Telescope (LFT3) Mission

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Proposes a $150M-class lunar farside radio telescope (LFT3) to survey 0.1–2700 MHz in the RFI-pristine shielded zone before lunar-orbital interference closes the window.

  4. Radio emission from star-planet interactions

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SKA can transform exoplanet science via radio M-SPI detections if given substantial dedicated time comparable to successful optical campaigns, based on ECMI scaling and ensemble predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2019, Sol

    Ameri, D., Valtonen, E., & Pohjolainen, S. 2019, Sol. Phys., 294, 122

    2019

  2. [2]

    J., Bastian, T

    Aschwanden, M. J., Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., & Brosius, J. W. 1992, ApJ, 391, 380

    1992

  3. [3]

    Á., Pál, A., Latham, D

    Bakos, G. Á., Pál, A., Latham, D. W., Noyes, R. W., & Stefanik, R. P. 2006, ApJ, 641, L57

    2006

  4. [4]

    Baluev, R. V . 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279

    2008

  5. [5]

    G., Di Vruno, F., Winkel, B., et al

    Bassa, C. G., Di Vruno, F., Winkel, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, L10

    2024

  6. [6]

    S., Benz, A

    Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., & Gary, D. E. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 131

    1998

  7. [7]

    S., Dulk, G

    Bastian, T. S., Dulk, G. A., & Leblanc, Y . 2000, ApJ, 545, 1058

    2000

  8. [8]

    S., Villadsen, J., Maps, A., Hallinan, G., & Beasley, A

    Bastian, T. S., Villadsen, J., Maps, A., Hallinan, G., & Beasley, A. J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 133

    2018

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    2002, Plasma Astrophysics, second edition, V ol

    Benz, A. 2002, Plasma Astrophysics, second edition, V ol. 279

    2002

  2. [10]

    2009, A&A, 495, 959

    Boisse, I., Moutou, C., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 959

    2009

  3. [11]

    2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06724

    Bonati, I., Lasbleis, M., & Noack, L. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06724

    2021

  4. [12]

    2005, A&A, 444, L15

    Bouchy, F., Udry, S., Mayor, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 444, L15

    2005

  5. [13]

    J., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., et al

    Bourrier, V ., Wheatley, P. J., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 559

    2020

  6. [14]

    A., et al

    Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., Feiden, G. A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 846

    2015

  7. [15]

    J., Albrecht, S., et al

    Brogi, M., de Kok, R. J., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 106

    2016

  8. [16]

    R., Pope, B

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

    2024

  9. [17]

    R., Vedantham, H

    Callingham, J. R., Vedantham, H. K., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2021, Nature As- tronomy, 5, 1233

    2021

  10. [18]

    A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6001

    2021

  11. [19]

    W., Shkolnik, E

    Cauley, P. W., Shkolnik, E. L., Llama, J., Bourrier, V ., & Moutou, C. 2018, AJ, 156, 262 de Gasperin, F., Lazio, T. J. W., & Knapp, M. 2020a, A&A, 644, A157 de Gasperin, F., Vink, J., McKean, J. P., et al. 2020b, A&A, 635, A150 de Pater, I. 2004, Planet. Space Sci., 52, 1449

    2018

  12. [20]

    Dulk, G. A. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 169

    1985

  13. [21]

    A., et al

    Fares, R., Bourrier, V ., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1246

    2017

  14. [22]

    F., Moutou, C., et al

    Fares, R., Donati, J. F., Moutou, C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 409

    2010

  15. [23]

    M., Lazio, T

    Farrell, W. M., Lazio, T. J. W., Zarka, P., et al. 2004, Planet. Space Sci., 52, 1469 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2004

  16. [24]

    J., Callingham, J

    Gloudemans, A. J., Callingham, J. R., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A161 Grießmeier, J.-M. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 411, Characterizing Stellar and Exoplanetary Environments, ed. H. Lammer & M. Khodachenko, 213

    2023

  17. [25]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27639

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

    2020

  18. [26]

    & Vitells, O

    Gross, E. & Vitells, O. 2010, European Physical Journal C, 70, 525 Güdel, M. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 217

    2010

  19. [27]

    K., Antonova, A., et al

    Hallinan, G., Sirothia, S. K., Antonova, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 34

    2013

  20. [28]

    2008, Geophys

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

    2008

  21. [29]

    Hess, S. L. G. & Zarka, P. 2011, A&A, 531, A29

    2011

  22. [30]

    & Jones, B

    Horner, J. & Jones, B. W. 2010, International Journal of Astrobiology, 9, 273

    2010

  23. [31]

    2004, ApJ, 602, L53

    Ip, W.-H., Kopp, A., & Hu, J.-H. 2004, ApJ, 602, L53

    2004

  24. [32]

    Ivshina, E. S. & Winn, J. N. 2022, ApJS, 259, 62

    2022

  25. [33]

    D., Vidotto, A

    Kavanagh, R. D., Vidotto, A. A., Ó. Fionnagáin, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4529

    2019

  26. [34]

    E., & Louis, C

    Lamy, L., Waters, J. E., & Louis, C. K. 2023, in Planetary, Solar and Helio- spheric Radio Emissions IX, ed. C. K. Louis, C. M. Jackman, G. Fischer, A. H. Sulaiman, & P. Zucca, 103091

    2023

  27. [35]

    Lanza, A. F. 2009, A&A, 505, 339

    2009

  28. [36]

    Lanza, A. F. 2013, A&A, 557, A31

    2013

  29. [37]

    2019, BAAS, 51, 135

    Lazio, J., Hallinan, G., Airapetian, A., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 135

    2019

  30. [38]

    2016, Planetary Magnetic Fields - Plan- etary Interiors and Habitability - Final Report, in Study Report prepared for the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS), June 216, 147 pp

    Lazio, J., Shkolnik, E., & Hallinan, G. 2016, Planetary Magnetic Fields - Plan- etary Interiors and Habitability - Final Report, in Study Report prepared for the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS), June 216, 147 pp

    2016

  31. [39]

    Lazio, T. J. W. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Bel- monte, 9 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Sirothia, S. K., Gopal-Krishna, & Zarka, P. 2011, A&A, 533, A50 Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Sirothia, S. K., Gopal-Krishna, & Zarka, P. 2013, A&A, 552, A65

    2018

  32. [40]

    S., Barry, N., et al

    Lenc, E., Anderson, C. S., Barry, N., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e040

    2017

  33. [41]

    & the NenuFAR team

    Loh, A. & the NenuFAR team. 2020, nenupy: a Python package for the low- frequency radio telescope NenuFAR

    2020

  34. [42]

    K., Lamy, L., Zarka, P., et al

    Louis, C. K., Lamy, L., Zarka, P., et al. 2017, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 9225

    2017

  35. [43]

    K., Loh, A., Zarka, P., et al

    Louis, C. K., Loh, A., Zarka, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18733

    2025

  36. [44]

    R., Murphy, T., Kaplan, D

    Lynch, C. R., Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., Ireland, M., & Bell, M. E. 2017, MN- RAS, 467, 3447

    2017

  37. [45]

    R., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., & Kaplan, D

    Lynch, C. R., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., & Kaplan, D. L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1763

    2018

  38. [46]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993

    2005

  39. [47]

    S., Zarka, P., Echer, E., et al

    Marques, M. S., Zarka, P., Echer, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A17

    2017

  40. [48]

    2024, Theses, Université PSL Paris Sciences & Lettres (PSL Re- search University)

    Mauduit, E. 2024, Theses, Université PSL Paris Sciences & Lettres (PSL Re- search University)

    2024

  41. [49]

    M., Zarka, P., & Turner, J

    Mauduit, E., Grießmeier, J. M., Zarka, P., & Turner, J. D. 2023, in Planetary, Solar and Heliospheric Radio Emissions IX, ed. C. K. Louis, C. M. Jackman, G. Fischer, A. H. Sulaiman, & P. Zucca, 103092

    2023

  42. [50]

    G., Koopmans, L

    Munshi, S., Mertens, F. G., Koopmans, L. V . E., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A62

    2024

  43. [51]

    E., Kaplan, D

    Murphy, T., Bell, M. E., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2560

    2015

  44. [52]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 57

    Nindos, A. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 57

    2020

  45. [53]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606

    2014

  46. [54]

    R., van de Gronde, J

    Offringa, A. R., van de Gronde, J. J., & Roerdink, J. B. T. M. 2012, A&A, 539, A95 O’Gorman, E., Coughlan, C. P., Vlemmings, W., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A52 Pérez-Torres, M., Gómez, J. F., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A77

    2012

  47. [55]

    2022, A&A, 660, A75

    Pillitteri, I., Micela, G., Maggio, A., Sciortino, S., & Lopez-Santiago, J. 2022, A&A, 660, A75

    2022

  48. [56]

    J., Cohen, O., et al

    Pillitteri, I., Wolk, S. J., Cohen, O., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1216

    2010

  49. [57]

    J., Lopez-Santiago, J., et al

    Pillitteri, I., Wolk, S. J., Lopez-Santiago, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 145

    2014

  50. [58]

    Poppenhaeger, K., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Wolk, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 773, 62

    2013

  51. [59]

    Pritchett, P. L. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 13569

    1986

  52. [60]

    & Christensen, U

    Reiners, A. & Christensen, U. R. 2010, A&A, 522, A13

    2010

  53. [61]

    & Looney, L

    Route, M. & Looney, L. W. 2019, ApJ, 887, 229

    2019

  54. [62]

    J., Hamaker, J

    Sault, R. J., Hamaker, J. P., & Bregman, J. D. 1996, A&AS, 117, 149

    1996

  55. [63]

    Scharf, C. A. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1547

    2010

  56. [64]

    A., et al

    See, V ., Jardine, M., Vidotto, A. A., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A99

    2014

  57. [65]

    Ishwar-Chandra, C. H. 2014, A&A, 562, A108 Article number, page 12 of 13 X. Zhang et al: Circular burst from HD 189733

    2014

  58. [66]

    Smirnov, O. M. 2011, A&A, 527, A107

    2011

  59. [67]

    Smirnov, O. M. & Tasse, C. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2668

    2015

  60. [68]

    S., Matt, S

    Strugarek, A., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., & Réville, V . 2015, ApJ, 815, 111

    2015

  61. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 4556

    Strugarek, A., Fares, R., Bourrier, V ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4556

    2022

  62. [70]

    & James Purser, R

    Swinbank, R. & James Purser, R. 2006, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteo- rological Society, 132, 1769

    2006

  63. [71]

    2014, A&A, 566, A127

    Tasse, C. 2014, A&A, 566, A127

    2014

  64. [72]

    2023, killMS: Direction-dependent radio interferometric calibration package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2305.005

    Tasse, C. 2023, killMS: Direction-dependent radio interferometric calibration package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2305.005

    2023

  65. [73]

    2025, A&A, submitted

    Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M., Zarka, P., et al. 2025, A&A, submitted

    2025

  66. [74]

    2018, A&A, 611, A87

    Tasse, C., Hugo, B., Mirmont, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A87

    2018

  67. [75]

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

    2006

  68. [76]

    D., Zarka, P., Grießmeier, J.-M., et al

    Turner, J. D., Zarka, P., Grießmeier, J.-M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A59 van Diepen, G., Dijkema, T. J., & Offringa, A. 2018, DPPP: Default Pre- Processing Pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1804.003

    2021

  69. [77]

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

    2018

  70. [78]

    Vedantham, H. K. 2020, A&A, 639, L7

    2020

  71. [79]

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

    2021

  72. [80]

    K., Callingham, J

    Vedantham, H. K., Callingham, J. R., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2020, Nature As- tronomy, 4, 577

    2020

  73. [81]

    Zarka, P. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 20159

    1998

  74. [82]

    2007, Planet

    Zarka, P. 2007, Planet. Space Sci., 55, 598

    2007

  75. [83]

    2025, Star-Planet Interactions in the Radio Domain: Prospect for Their Detection, ed

    Zarka, P. 2025, Star-Planet Interactions in the Radio Domain: Prospect for Their Detection, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte (Cham: Springer Nature Switzer- land), 1–19

    2025

  76. [84]

    Zarka, P., Cecconi, B., & Kurth, W. S. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A09S15

    2004

  77. [85]

    2020, in URSI GASS 2020, Rome, Italy

    Zarka, P., Denis, L., Tagger, M., et al. 2020, in URSI GASS 2020, Rome, Italy

    2020

  78. [86]

    N., Tagger, M., & Denis, L

    Zarka, P., Girard, J. N., Tagger, M., & Denis, L. 2012, in SF2A-2012: Proceed- ings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astro- physics, ed. S. Boissier, P. de Laverny, N. Nardetto, R. Samadi, D. Valls- Gabaud, & H. Wozniak, 687–694

    2012

  79. [87]

    2015b, in 2015 International Conference on Antenna Theory and Techniques (ICATT), IEEE, 1–6

    Zarka, P., Tagger, M., Denis, L., et al. 2015b, in 2015 International Conference on Antenna Theory and Techniques (ICATT), IEEE, 1–6

    2015

  80. [88]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10032 Article number, page 13 of 13

    Zhang, X., Zarka, P., Viou, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10032 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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