Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Semi-Empirical Estimate of Solar EUV Evolution from 10 Myr to 10 Gyr

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Sun's extreme-ultraviolet output was about 100 times today's level at 10 million years old and declines to a third of today's value by 10 billion years.

desk verdict First empirical EUV saturation plateau for solar analogs, built on a transparent semi-empirical method; the qualitative result holds, but the exact break parameters are provisional due to age uncertainties and NV-relation transferability. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15953 v1 pith:O5HN5F2F submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Kevin France (University of Colorado) , Girish Duvvuri (Vanderbilt) , Cynthia Froning (SwRI) , Alexander Brown (University of Colorado) , P. Christian Schneider (Christian-Albrects University) , J. Sebastian Pineda (University of Colorado) , David Wilson (University of Colorado) , Allison Youngblood (NASA/GSFC)
show 5 more authors
Vladimir Airapetian (NASA/GSFC) Kosuke Namekata (NASA/GSFC Kyoto University) Yuta Notsu (University of Colorado) Tristen Sextro (Penn State University)
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords solarEUVevolutionanalogsstellaractivityexoplanetatmosphereshabitablezoneHubbleSpaceTelescopedifferentialemissionmeasurescalingrelations
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 tries to establish the history of the extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) emission of Sun-like stars over nearly the whole main-sequence lifetime, from 10 million to 10 billion years. Because direct EUV spectra exist for only a handful of stars, the authors combine Hubble Space Telescope far-ultraviolet measurements of the nitrogen V doublet with differential-emission-measure models for a sample of 23 solar analogs. They find a two-component evolution: a saturated plateau in $L_{\rm EUV}/L_{\rm bol}$ at about $10^{-4}$ until roughly 50–100 Myr, followed by a power-law decay with slope about $-1.1$. If correct, this gives the first empirically grounded EUV irradiation curve for the Sun, a key input for models of atmospheric escape and habitability of Earth-like exoplanets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a published empirical relation between the flux of the nitrogen V doublet (a transition-region line formed near 1–2$\times 10^5$ K) and 90–360 Å EUV luminosity, calibrated with direct spectra of about 11 nearby cool stars; the paper applies that relation to all 23 targets. For a subset, differential emission measure (DEM) fits to far-ultraviolet and X-ray spectra produce independent synthetic EUV spectra. The evolutionary summary is a piecewise power law with three free parameters: the saturation level $R_{\rm sat}$, the breakpoint age $t_{\rm break}$, and the decay slope $\alpha$.

What would settle it

Direct EUV spectra of a young solar analog near 30 Myr, taken with a sensitive EUV spectrograph, would settle the saturation claim: if $L_{\rm EUV}/L_{\rm bol}$ came out clearly below about $10^{-4}$, outside the factor-of-two scatter, the plateau would be falsified. A second test is to compare NV-based and DEM-based EUV luminosities on the same stars in the 50–250 Myr gap, where the breakpoint is currently pinned by only a few objects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the EUV activity of solar-type stars is not a single power law but a two-component curve: a saturated phase with $L_{\rm EUV}/L_{\rm bol} \approx 10^{-4}$ that lasts until about 73 Myr, then a decline with power-law index $\alpha = -1.12 \pm 0.06$. Because the curve is normalized to bolometric luminosity and anchored to present-day solar observations, it implies the EUV flux at 1 AU was about 100 times the present-day value at 10 Myr and falls to about 0.3 times by 10 Gyr. The paper also reports that EUV and soft X-ray luminosities are comparable up to about 1 Gyr, after which the EUV luminosity dominates, and that early/mid M dwarfs have a saturation level several times higher that lasts 10–20 times longer.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling relation that converts nitrogen V line flux into EUV luminosity, calibrated on about a dozen stars with direct EUV observations, is assumed to hold for all 23 sample stars, including very young pre-main-sequence stars and old inactive stars; if that relation's slope changes with age or activity, the derived saturation level and decay slope would be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1 AU EUV flux curve gives a quantitative input for atmospheric escape and photochemistry models across the Sun's lifetime.
  • Half of the lifetime-integrated EUV energy is delivered by roughly 550 Myr, so planetary atmospheres absorb the majority of high-energy irradiation early, before the decay phase.
  • The EUV-to-X-ray ratio rises above unity after about 1 Gyr, meaning X-ray-based 'cosmic shoreline' calculations may underestimate the high-energy input received by old G-star planets.
  • The solar EUV saturation ends near 50–100 Myr, much earlier than for M dwarfs, so the two stellar classes provide qualitatively different irradiation environments for orbiting planets.
  • Correction factors between roughly 1.4 and 2.0 convert the 90–360 Å band to the full 90–911 Å EUV band, enabling total EUV luminosity histories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the NV-to-EUV relation holds, the early saturation implies that the EUV flux on the young Earth was set by the plateau value rather than the decay law, so early atmospheric escape models should treat the first ~100 Myr as a constant high-flux phase.
  • The divergence between EUV and X-ray after 1 Gyr suggests that habitability models currently using X-ray histories for the full stellar lifetime could shift the predicted 'cosmic shoreline' for old K and G stars when EUV curves are substituted.
  • Because the breakpoint age likely depends on initial rotation, solar analogs with different rotational histories may deviate from the mean curve; measuring rotation periods for the older sample would test how much scatter is intrinsic.
  • Extending the same scaling method to K-type stars, whose activity lifetimes lie between G and M dwarfs, could predict whether their planets experience a similarly prolonged saturation and would be a direct test of the age-activity pattern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles a sample of 23 solar-type stars and young Suns, derives 90--360 Å EUV luminosities from HST N V line fluxes via the France et al. (2018) scaling relation, and adds DEM-based synthetic EUV spectra for a subset. It fits a piecewise power law to the L(EUV)/L_bol versus age diagram, obtaining a saturated plateau R_sat = 9.7e-5, a breakpoint t_break = 73 +/- 16 Myr, and a decay slope alpha = -1.12 +/- 0.06. The paper then presents the 1 AU EUV flux evolution, correction factors to the full 90--911 Å band, a comparison of EUV and X-ray luminosity histories, and an M-dwarf comparison. The central claim is a two-component EUV evolution for solar-type stars, with the 10 Myr EUV flux about 100 times the present-day value and the 10 Gyr flux about 0.3 times.

Significance. If the derived evolution is correct, the paper provides the first empirical EUV-specific solar history over 10 Myr--10 Gyr, which is a key input for exoplanet atmospheric escape and habitability studies. The paper is valuable in assembling new HST/COS and STIS observations, in cross-checking N V-based values with DEM calculations and the sparse EUVE direct observations, and in being explicit about the absence of direct EUV data for most of the sample. The qualitative two-component picture is plausible and consistent with the older X-ray activity paradigm, but the quantitative parameters, especially t_break and the exact saturation level, rest on indirect proxies and a sparsely sampled break region. The paper's own Section 4 caveat is candid, but the abstract and conclusions state the breakpoint more firmly than the data support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2), and Table 1] The three Upper Sco stars (ages 6--8 Myr, masses 1.0--1.3 M_sun) are the only points younger than 17 Myr, and their L(EUV)/L_bol values are obtained solely by applying the France et al. (2018) N V scaling relation, which was calibrated on 11 main-sequence cool stars with EUVE data. No DEM-based EUV estimate or direct EUV observation exists for these pre-main-sequence stars. If the N V-to-EUV zero point or slope differs for PMS stars, the inferred saturation level and the fitted breakpoint would be systematically biased. The paper should either validate the scaling for at least one young PMS star with DEM or X-ray data, or explicitly present the plateau as an assumption rather than an empirical result.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3), and Figure 3] The breakpoint t_break = 73 +/- 16 Myr is not empirically constrained: there are no sample stars between the 40 Myr DS Tuc A and the 100 Myr EK Dra, and none between EK Dra and the 250 Myr pi1 UMa, so the fitted 73 Myr break falls in a gap. The quoted 20% uncertainty is a formal fit uncertainty and does not include age uncertainties, which are not propagated; for kappa1 Cet, for example, literature ages range from about 350 to 750 Myr as noted in Section 2.1. The abstract and conclusion statement that the break occurs around 50--100 Myr is therefore stronger than the data allow. A sensitivity analysis over plausible age assignments, or a softened claim presented as an assumed break, is needed.
  3. [Table 1 and Figure 3] The N V-based and DEM-based L(EUV)/L_bol values for the same stars differ by factors of 1.3--2.3, with the DEM values consistently higher (DS Tuc A: 7.10e-5 versus 1.62e-4; EK Dra: 9.38e-5 versus 1.90e-4; kappa1 Cet: 1.07e-5 versus 2.09e-5). Both values are plotted as independent points and enter the fit, which double-counts these stars and ignores correlated systematic differences between the two methods. This method scatter is comparable to or larger than the quoted factor-1.7 scaling uncertainty, so the formal uncertainties on R_sat and alpha are underestimated. The fit should either average the two estimates per star or include a method-dependent offset term.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1] The word 'althopugh' should be 'although'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The adopted scaling parameters [m,b] = [1.00, 1.91] from France et al. (2018) are quoted without their uncertainties; because the intercept directly sets the zero point of L(EUV)/L_bol, the uncertainties on m and b should be given or cited explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] The quadratic fit to Frel(EUV) is presented only through its coefficients; adding a residual plot or a small table of data and fit values would allow readers to assess the quality of the parameterization.
  4. [Appendix A and Section 3.1] The exclusion of the Upper Sco outlier 2MASS J16132929-2311075 from the main fit is justified in the Appendix by a qualitative flare interpretation. The main text should state explicitly that this point is excluded and give the operational criterion used for the exclusion.
  5. [Table 3 and Figure 6] EK Dra's EUVE point is adopted from Johnstone et al. (2021) and is described as only marginally detected; this should be reflected in the figure symbol or error bar so that the direct-EUV check is not overinterpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EUV evolution curve is anchored to an external EUVE calibration and independently checked against DEM models and direct EUVE observations.

full rationale

The paper's central EUV luminosity estimates are derived from the France et al. (2018) NV-to-EUV scaling relation, which is an independent empirical calibration built from direct EUVE spectra of 11 cool stars, not from the age-evolution trend this paper aims to predict. Applying that relation to HST NV fluxes is a semi-empirical proxy conversion, not a definitional identity: the slope and intercept in Equation (2) come from external EUV observations, and the paper does not claim a first-principles derivation of EUV luminosities. The DEM-based synthetic EUV luminosities for young and intermediate-age stars are computed with an independent emission-measure formalism (Duvvuri et al. 2021), and Section 3.4 compares derived 90-360 Å luminosities against direct EUVE measurements for five stars, finding consistency within 1-2 sigma. The piecewise fit (Equation 3) is an empirical description of the resulting activity-age distribution; the quoted 1 AU flux history is the same fitted curve evaluated at specific ages, so no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. The self-citations, including France et al. (2018) and Duvvuri et al. (2021), are load-bearing but rest on externally falsifiable data sets and stated assumptions that do not include the target solar-EUV-evolution result, so under the hard rules they do not constitute circular support. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main limitation: except for a handful of EUVE points in Figure 6, there is no direct EUV data in the study, and the NV relation is extrapolated to pre-main-sequence stars. That is a correctness and robustness risk, not circularity, because the shape of the EUV curve inherits the shape of the NV activity-age relation through the fixed scaling in Equation (2), but the normalization and zero-point are externally calibrated rather than defined by the paper's conclusions.

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

The paper rests on an adopted NV-EUV scaling relation (with slope and intercept from prior work) and on a set of fitted evolutionary parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The key unstated assumptions are the transferability of the scaling relation and the reliability of literature ages.

free parameters (6)
  • NV-EUV scaling slope m = 1.00
    Adopted from France et al. (2018), fitted to 11 EUVE stars; not re-derived in this paper.
  • NV-EUV scaling intercept b = 1.91
    Adopted from France et al. (2018), fitted to 11 EUVE stars; not re-derived in this paper.
  • Saturated activity level R_sat = 9.7e-05
    Fitted to the sample's young stars in Equation 3.
  • Breakpoint time t_break = 73 Myr
    Fitted in Equation 3; sensitive to ages of individual stars near the break.
  • Power-law decay slope alpha = -1.12
    Fitted in Equation 3 for ages greater than t_break.
  • Quadratic coefficients a0, a1, a2 = 0.84, -1.08, -0.24
    Fitted to the relative EUV flux versus log age in Equation 4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NV-to-EUV scaling relation remains valid across the entire age and activity range of the sample.
    Adopted from France et al. (2018) without re-calibration for pre-main sequence or very old stars; enters in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Stellar ages from literature (clusters, activity relations, isochrones) are accurate enough to define the evolutionary track.
    Ages often lack uncertainties and some stars have discrepant age estimates (e.g., kappa1 Cet); used throughout Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption DEM-based synthetic spectra accurately represent the 90-360 Å EUV flux.
    Used for a subset of stars; depends on X-ray and FUV constraints and non-parametric DEM fitting (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption Pre-main sequence stars with masses up to 1.3 Msun and Teff within 150 K of solar will evolve into early G-type main sequence stars.
    The young Upper Sco stars have M* ~1.0-1.3 Msun; their evolutionary path to G-type is assumed (Section 2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Semi-Empirical Estimate of Solar EUV Evolution from 10 Myr to 10 Gyr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5HN5F2F

@misc{pith2026250715953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Semi-Empirical Estimate of Solar EUV Evolution from 10 Myr to 10 Gyr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5HN5F2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15953}
}
abstract

The extreme-ultraviolet (EUV; 100 -- 911 \AA) spectra of F, G, K, and M stars provide diagnostics of the stellar chromosphere through the corona, with line and continuum formation temperatures spanning roughly 10$^{4}$ - 10$^{7}$ K. The EUV stellar spectrum in turn drives atmospheric photochemistry and numerous escape processes on orbiting planets. We present a new study of the EUV history of solar-type stars, using new and archival {\it Hubble Space Telescope} observations of solar analogs (T$_{\odot}$ $\pm$ 150 K for stars older than 100 Myr) and ``Young Suns" (age $<$ 100 Myr) that will evolve into main sequence early G-type stars to predict the 90 -- 360 \AA\ EUV flux from a sample of 23 stars. We find that the EUV activity evolution for solar-type stars follows a two-component behavior: a saturated L(EUV)/L$_{bol}$ plateau (at a level of about 10$^{-4}$) followed by a power law decay ($\alpha$ $\approx$ $-$1.1) after ages of $\approx$ 50 -- 100 Myr. Consequently, the EUV flux incident at 1 AU around solar analogs varies over the lifetime of the Sun, ranging from 100 $\times$ the present day UV irradiance at 10 Myr to 0.3 $\times$ the present-day level at 10 Gyr. We find that the EUV luminosity is approximately the same as the soft X-ray luminosity up to approximately 1 Gyr, after which the EUV luminosity of the stars dominate. In comparison to Sun-like stars, the EUV saturation level of early/mid M dwarfs is several times higher and lasts $\sim$10 -- 20 times longer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative N V data from HST-COS (top) and STIS (middle and bottom) roughly spanning the age range pre￾sented in this work. From top to bottom, the histogram shows the bolometric flux-normalized N V spectra (tracing transition region formation temperatures ≈ 1 – 2 × 105 K) of DS Tuc A (∼ 40 Myr; red), κ 1 Cet (∼ 650 Myr; orange), and α Cen A (∼ 5.3 Gyr; gray). The spectra have been velocity-shifted to place N V … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative DEM-based synthetic EUV spec￾tra and direct EUV observations (shown here from 60 – 912 ˚A) roughly spanning the age range presented in this work. In the top plot, the histogram shows the bolometric flux-normalized EUV spectra of DS Tuc A (∼ 40 Myr; red), κ 1 Cet (∼ 650 Myr; or￾ange), and the Sun at moderate activity levels (∼ 4.6 Gyr; gray). The DS Tuc and κ 1 Cet synthetic spectra are developed using… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fractional (90 – 360 ˚A) EUV activity level of solar analogs as a function of time. The data are comprised of pre-main sequence solar analogs located in the Upper Scorpius star-forming region (orange triangles), the young Suns with avail￾able DEM-based synthetic spectra in the literature (dark magenta open squares), and EUV luminosities derived from the N V-based scaling relations developed by (France et al. 201… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top plot shows the 90 – 360 ˚A EUV flux at 1 AU from the central star. The dark gray curve shows the EUV flux evolution fit from Ribas et al. (2005). The 100 Myr – 4.6 Gyr region over which Ribas et al. had empirical EUV data are encom￾passed by the shaded gray are…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (top) The 90 – 360 ˚A luminosities of each of the stars in our survey as a function of stellar age. Symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of two pre-main sequence stars in Upper Sco, Upper Sco 2MASS J16132929-2311075 (age ∼ 7 Myr, M∗ ∼ 1.3 M⊙; red histogram) and 2MASS J16081474-1908327 (age ∼ 6 Myr, M∗ ∼ 1.3 M⊙; gray histogram). The ‘as observed’ spectra are normalized by the bolometric flux…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Emission line lightcurves of 2MASS J16132929-2311075 in the N V and C II lines. The C II count rates have been divided by two for display. Both lines show a ∼ 30 – 40% flux decrease across a single HST orbit, suggesting that this star was observed in the declining phas…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ESCAPE: a small explorer mission to study the stellar drivers of exoplanet evolution

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ESCAPE is a proposed NASA Small Explorer that would measure EUV spectra of about 300 nearby stars to constrain stellar EUV irradiance and coronal mass ejection rates affecting exoplanet habitability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S., Glocer, A., Khazanov, G

    Airapetian, V. S., Glocer, A., Khazanov, G. V., et al. 2017, ApJL, 836, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/L3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/l3 2017

  2. [2]

    S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al

    Airapetian, V. S., Barnes, R., Cohen, O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136, doi: 10.1017/S1473550419000132 Alcal´ a, J. M., Manara, C. F., France, K., et al. 2019, A&A, 629, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935657

    doi:10.1017/s1473550419000132 2020

  3. [3]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Arney, G. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2025

  4. [4]

    C., Buchhave, L

    August, P. C., Buchhave, L. A., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452611

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452611 2025

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8cfc

    Ayres, T., & Buzasi, D. 2022, ApJS, 263, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8cfc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac8cfc 2022

  6. [6]

    Ayres, T. R. 2021, ApJ, 910, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd7a2 2021

  7. [7]

    2005, Nature, 436, 1127, doi: 10.1038/nature03882

    Baker, J., Bizzarro, M., Wittig, N., Connelly, J., & Haack, H. 2005, Nature, 436, 1127, doi: 10.1038/nature03882

    doi:10.1038/nature03882 2005

  8. [8]

    Bowyer, S., & Malina, R. F. 1991, Advances in Space Research, 11, 205, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(91)90077-W

    doi:10.1016/0273-1177(91)90077-w 1991

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    L., Jeffers, S

    Brown, E. L., Jeffers, S. V., Marsden, S. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4300, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1291

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5afa

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Galand, M., Unruh, Y

    Chadney, J. M., Galand, M., Unruh, Y. C., Koskinen, T. T., & Sanz-Forcada, J. 2015, Icarus, 250, 357, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.012

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/95

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    1997, ApJS, 113, 131, doi: 10.1086/313052

    Craig, N., Abbott, M., Finley, D., et al. 1997, ApJS, 113, 131, doi: 10.1086/313052

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    Cochrane, E. M. 2020, AJ, 160, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb77d

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Malik, M., Hill, M. L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac886b

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Cody, A

    David, T. J., Cody, A. M., Hedges, C. L., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab290f

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y., & Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, 837, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6438

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Doyle, L., Ramsay, G., & Doyle, J. G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa923

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Kashyap, V

    Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V. L., Wargelin, B. J., & Wolk, S. J. 2020, ApJ, 893, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b5c

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Laming, J

    Drake, J. J., Laming, J. M., & Widing, K. G. 1995, ApJ, 443, 393, doi: 10.1086/175533 —. 1997, ApJ, 478, 403, doi: 10.1086/303755

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Cauley, P

    Duvvuri, G. M., Cauley, P. W., Aguirre, F. C., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acfa74

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Sebastian Pineda, J., Berta-Thompson, Z

    Duvvuri, G. M., Sebastian Pineda, J., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeaaf

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Engle, S. G. 2024, ApJ, 960, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0840

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Linsky, J

    Fontenla, J. M., Linsky, J. L., Witbrod, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 154, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/154

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, ApJS, 239, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae1a3

    France, K., Arulanantham, N., Fossati, L., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae1a3

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/127

    Abgrall, H. 2014, ApJ, 784, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/127

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    France, K., Schindhelm, R., Herczeg, G. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/171

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Linsky, J

    France, K., Froning, C. S., Linsky, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/149

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, AJ, 160, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb465

    France, K., Duvvuri, G., Egan, H., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb465

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 014006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.014006

    France, K., Fleming, B., Youngblood, A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 014006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.1.014006

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

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

    Froning, C. S., Kowalski, A., France, K., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaffcd

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, ApJL, 844, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7eca G´ omez de Castro, A

    Cohen, O. 2017, ApJL, 844, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7eca G´ omez de Castro, A. I., Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Sytov, A., & Bisikalo, D. 2016, ApJL, 818, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L17

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, A&A, 641, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038291

    Gondoin, P. 2020, A&A, 641, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038291

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05951-7

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027639, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027639

    Gronoff, G., Arras, P., Baraka, S., et al. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027639, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027639

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2011, ArXiv e-prints

    Ingleby, L., Calvet, N., Bergin, E., et al. 2011, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6312

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M., Brain, D., Chaffin, M., et al

    Jakosky, B. M., Brain, D., Chaffin, M., et al. 2018, Icarus, 315, 146, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.030

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & G¨ udel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038407

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    P., G¨ udel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K

    Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., Lammer, H., & Kislyakova, K. G. 2018, A&A, 617, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832776 14

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Kashyap, V., & Drake, J. J. 1998, ApJ, 503, 450, doi: 10.1086/305964

    1998 doi

  33. [41]

    W., & Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., & Wheatley, P. J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa186

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Wheatley, P

    King, G. W., Wheatley, P. J., Salz, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1110

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    T., Lavvas, P., Huang, C., et al

    Koskinen, T. T., Lavvas, P., Huang, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f45

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1497-4

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Fortney, J. J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8374, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52642-6

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    N., Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H

    Kulikov, Y. N., Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., et al. 2006, Planet. Space Sci., 54, 1425, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.021

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, A&A, 506, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911922

    Lammer, H., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 399, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911922

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    Lim, O., Benneke, B., Doyon, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c4

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Fontenla, J., & France, K

    Linsky, J. L., Fontenla, J., & France, K. 2014, ApJ, 780, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/61

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    F., & Schiavon, R

    Lorenzo-Oliveira, D., Porto de Mello, G. F., & Schiavon, R. P. 2016, A&A, 594, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629233

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd0f0

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    Luger, R., & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1231

    2015

  45. [53]

    M., et al

    Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fu, G., May, E. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02064-z

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    E., & Hillenbrand, L

    Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264, doi: 10.1086/591785

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    M., MacDonald, R

    May, E. M., MacDonald, R. J., Bennett, K. A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad054f

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    E., Stevenson, K

    Moran, S. E., Stevenson, K. B., Sing, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accb9c

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    Nakayama, A., Ikoma, M., & Terada, N. 2022, ApJ, 937, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86ca

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    S., et al

    Namekata, K., Toriumi, S., Airapetian, V. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbe38

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Mann, A

    Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., Tofflemire, B. M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 880, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2988

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    Nissen, P. E. 2015, A&A, 579, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 Oklopˇ ci´ c, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7f

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3631

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A

    Pass, E. K., Charbonneau, D., & Vanderburg, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.01182, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.01182

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1300

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    2008, A&A, 479, 579, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078873

    Penz, T., & Micela, G. 2008, A&A, 479, 579, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078873

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    2008, A&A, 477, 309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078364

    Penz, T., Micela, G., & Lammer, H. 2008, A&A, 477, 309, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078364

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

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

    Pineda, J. S., Youngblood, A., & France, K. 2021, ApJ, 911, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d7

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/2 Porto de Mello, G

    Plowman, J., Kankelborg, C., & Martens, P. 2013, ApJ, 771, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/2 Porto de Mello, G. F., da Silva, R., da Silva, L., & de

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Nader, R. V. 2014, A&A, 563, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322277

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02932

    Redfield, S., Batalha, N., Benneke, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02932, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02932

    2024 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M

    Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., G¨ udel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680, doi: 10.1086/427977

    2005 doi

  63. [71]

    2016, A&A, 596, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629576

    Ribas, I., Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629576

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Loyd, R

    Richey-Yowell, T., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f48

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    C., Newton, E

    Rizzuto, A. C., Newton, E. R., Mann, A. W., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b7

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Flynn, C., Scalo, J., et al

    Rocha-Pinto, H. J., Flynn, C., Scalo, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035617

    2004 doi

  67. [75]

    J., & Maciel, W

    Rocha-Pinto, H. J., & Maciel, W. J. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 298, 332, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01597.x

    1998

  68. [76]

    2011, A&A, 532, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116594

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116594

    2011 doi

  69. [77]

    2001, Science, 291, 1939, doi: 10.1126/science.1058913

    Mukai, T. 2001, Science, 291, 1939, doi: 10.1126/science.1058913

    2001 doi

  70. [78]

    C., & Qian, L

    Solomon, S. C., & Qian, L. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A10306, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011160

    2005 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, A&A, 644, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039167

    Ambily, S. 2020, A&A, 644, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039167

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a35

    Macintosh, B., & Czekala, I. 2020, ApJ, 898, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a35

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    2005, ApJ, 622, 653, doi: 10.1086/428109

    Telleschi, A., G¨ udel, M., Briggs, K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 653, doi: 10.1086/428109

    2005 doi

  74. [82]

    C., Mann, A

    Thao, P. C., Mann, A. W., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 297, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad81d7 15

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd62f

    France, K. 2021, ApJ, 909, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd62f

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    P., G¨ udel, M., & Lammer, H

    Tu, L., Johnstone, C. P., G¨ udel, M., & Lammer, H. 2015, A&A, 577, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526146 Van Looveren, G., G¨ udel, M., Boro Saikia, S., &

    2015 doi

  77. [85]

    2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    Kislyakova, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348079

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Wachiraphan, P., Berta-Thompson, Z., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2025

  79. [87]

    245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 119.06 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al

    Abstracts, Vol. 245, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 119.06 Weiner Mansfield, M., Xue, Q., Zhang, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8161

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    E., Linsky, J

    Wood, B. E., Linsky, J. L., & Ayres, T. R. 1997, ApJ, 478, 745, doi: 10.1086/303821

    1997 doi

  81. [89]

    E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., & Edelman, E

    Wood, B. E., M¨ uller, H.-R., Redfield, S., & Edelman, E. 2014, ApJL, 781, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L33

    2014 doi

  82. [90]

    N., Chamberlin, P

    Woods, T. N., Chamberlin, P. C., Harder, J. W., et al. 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1101, doi: 10.1029/2008GL036373

    2009 doi

  83. [91]

    N., Eparvier, F

    Woods, T. N., Eparvier, F. G., Hock, R., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 115, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9487-6

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    D., & Pierrehumbert, R

    Wordsworth, R. D., & Pierrehumbert, R. T. 2013, ApJ, 778, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/154

    2013 doi

  85. [93]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.10866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.10866

    Youngblood, A., France, K., & Koskinen, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.10866, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.10866

    2025 doi arXiv

  86. [94]

    Youngblood, A., France, K., & Loyd, R. O. P. 2016, ApJ-inprep, 000, 0

    2016

  87. [95]

    2010, CSH Perspectives, 2:a004895

    Zahnle, K., Schaefer, L., & Fegley, B. 2010, CSH Perspectives, 2:a004895

    2010

  88. [96]

    J., & Catling, D

    Zahnle, K. J., & Catling, D. C. 2017, ApJ, 843, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    W., Knutson, H

    Zhang, M., Cauley, P. W., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9675

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    Zhang, M., Hu, R., Inglis, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1a07

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06232-z 16 Figure 7.A comparison of two pre-main sequence stars in Upper Sco, Upper Sco 2MASS J16132929-2311075 (age∼7 Myr, M ∗ ∼1.3 M ⊙; red histogram) and 2MASS J16081474-1908327 (ag...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.