Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 82 references

A flare on the M dwarf GJ 4334, caught simultaneously in far-ultraviolet and optical light, shows transition-region lines rising, peaking, and fading during the rise of the optical lines, with the Balmer lines ordered from Hδ starting first

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A simultaneous optical and far-ultraviolet spectrum of a flare on the intermediate-rotator M dwarf GJ 4334 shows a Balmer-series timing order, FUV lines peaking during the optical rise, and a possibly under-detected large-flare excess in TESS statistics.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Rare simultaneous optical+FUV flare spectrum with a real empirical core; the FFD 'excess of large flares' claim in the abstract does not survive contact with the paper's own analysis. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2508.18459 v1 pith:XR7QWIVQ submitted 2025-08-25 astro-ph.SR

FUMES IV: Optical and Far-ultraviolet Spectra of a Flare on the M Dwarf GJ 4334

Girish M. Duvvuri , J. Sebastian Pineda , Aylin Garc\'ia Soto , Zachory K. Berta-Thompson , Allison Youngblood , Kevin France , Elisabeth R. Newton , Keivan G. Stassun This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords M dwarf flaresfar-ultraviolet spectroscopyoptical flare spectraBalmer seriestransition regionflare frequency distributionGJ 4334TESS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 reports a rare simultaneous far-ultraviolet (HST/STIS) and optical (APO/DIS) spectrum of a flare on the M5V dwarf GJ 4334, and uses it to establish how flare energy moves through the star's atmosphere. The central claim is a sequence: the hot transition-region FUV lines rise, peak, and decay within the rise phase of the cooler optical chromospheric lines, and the Balmer series shows a systematic ordering in which higher-order lines (Hδ, Hγ) begin and decay earlier than Hα. The paper also finds broadened asymmetric line profiles, an elevated post-flare pseudo-quiescent level in both bands, line energies of 1e28–3e29 erg, and TESS evidence that GJ 4334 produces an excess of large flares relative to the power law set by its smaller flares. If correct, the data give flare models a multi-layer benchmark near the rotation period where magnetic activity transitions from saturation to decay, and warn that both single-epoch FUV spectra and TESS flare statistics can understate the high-energy radiation that M-dwarf planets receive.

Core claim

Fitting every line lightcurve with a Gaussian-rise/exponential-decay two-component model, the paper measures per-line peak, onset, decay, and equivalent duration. It finds all FUV transition-region lines peak within ~48.6–49.1 min and decay in minutes, while optical Balmer lines peak at ~56–57 min and decay over 12.3 min (Hδ) to 27.2 min (Hα); onsets run from Hδ (36.4 min) to Hα (43.4 min), Ca II K later still. Peak-to-start ratios span 1.3 (Hα) to 171 (Si III). At peak the flare-excess Balmer decrement is near unity, showing strong population of high-n hydrogen states; higher-order decrements relax exponentially while Hα relaxes linearly. Both bands end above their pre-flare levels, a pseud

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-component analytic lightcurve model, F_line(t) = q_line + F_primary(t) + F_secondary(t), where each component is a Gaussian rise with timescale r_i and an exponential decay with timescale d_i peaking at t_i (Eqs. 1–2). It lets the authors compare onset times (t_i − 3r_i), decay timescales, secondary-bump lags, and the line-dependent equivalent duration δ_line = ∫(F_line/q_line − 1) dt (Eq. 3), which converts to flare energy when multiplied by the quiescent flux and 4πd². The Balmer decrement relative to Hβ diagnoses how the flare populates upper hydrogen levels, and the Neupert-effect comparison frames the FUV/optical timing. The TESS analysis uses maximum-likelih

Load-bearing premise

The flare energies, equivalent durations, and timescale comparisons all assume that the median pre-flare flux of each line is the star's true quiescent baseline; the paper itself notes the pre-flare Hα points are sloped, so the 'quiescence' may be the decay of an earlier flare, which would make every measured flare energy and some timing comparisons underestimates.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 21 line lightcurves with the quiescent baseline q_line allowed to float (or anchored to the lowest observed pre-flare flux) and check whether the Hδ-to-Hα onset ordering and the Hα-slowest decay hierarchy survive; if they disappear, the timing claim depends on the baseline choice. A cleaner test is a second simultaneous FUV+optical flare on GJ 4334 observed with higher cadence and a long, stable pre-flare sequence.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • FUV transition-region lines can serve as the impulsive-phase tracer on M dwarfs: their rise and peak precede the optical chromospheric peak, so optical-only flare timing is delayed relative to the heating event.
  • The systematic Balmer ordering (Hδ first, Hα last) and the near-unity flare-excess Balmer decrement at peak mean high-n hydrogen states are overpopulated by the flare, with recombination and thermalization working down the series.
  • The elevated post-flare pseudo-quiescence implies that single-epoch FUV spectra of active M dwarfs may be contaminated by earlier flares, biasing measured line ratios and quiescent levels.
  • TESS-like broadband optical surveys systematically miss FUV-only flares and underpredict high-energy flare radiation; the observed 10^3–10^4 s equivalent durations would have only a ~0.5% chance of detection in the 2-hour optical window.
  • GJ 4334's excess of large flares over its small-flare power law, if typical of intermediate rotators, connects to enhanced coronal mass ejections and angular momentum loss at the saturation-decay transition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pre-flare 'quiescence' is itself the tail of an earlier flare, then the true baseline is lower and all equivalent durations and line energies in this paper are lower limits; the same argument applies to any active M dwarf observed for only a short window.
  • The Balmer onset ordering may be a probe of where flare energy is deposited: higher-order lines presumably form higher in the chromosphere and respond to the beam before the lower, denser layers that dominate Hα; this is testable with RADYN-style flare models tuned to reproduce the Hα–Hδ timing.
  • The line-to-line variation in the secondary FUV bump, with slow decays for C IV and N V versus fast decays for Si III, is consistent with the FIP-effect / Alfvén-wave ponderomotive explanation the authors raise, but distinguishing it from multiplet optical-depth effects would need simultaneous high-cadence UV spectra plus abundance measurements.
  • A prediction follows for the intermediate-rotation population: stars with 10–100 day periods should show a similar large-flare excess in TESS data, which can be checked with the full TESS sample rather than a single target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents simultaneous HST/STIS far-ultraviolet and APO/DIS optical spectroscopy of a flare on the M5V dwarf GJ 4334, together with a TESS-based flare frequency distribution (FFD) analysis. The core observational claims are: (1) Balmer lines show a systematic ordering in which higher-order lines (Hδ, Hγ) begin rising earlier and decay faster than Hα, while Hα peaks slightly earlier and decays much more slowly (d1 = 27.2 min versus 12.3 min for Hδ, Table 4); (2) FUV transition-region lines rise, peak, and decay within the rise phase of the optical lines, with peak-to-start flux ratios up to 171 for Si III versus 1.3 for Hα; (3) a post-flare elevated pseudo-quiescent level is observed in both regimes; and (4) the FFD fit yields α = 1.86 ± 0.11 for GJ 4334, slightly shallower than EV Lac's α = 2.05 ± 0.08, which the authors interpret as an excess of large flares relative to a power law established by smaller flares. The paper also discusses line asymmetries, Balmer decrements, and potential implications for angular momentum loss among intermediate rotators.

Significance. If the FFD interpretation is supportable, this dataset constitutes a rare simultaneous FUV/optical spectroscopic benchmark of flare energy flow across atmospheric layers for an intermediate rotator near the activity saturation-to-decay transition, with direct relevance to exoplanet atmosphere modeling and stellar angular momentum evolution. The empirical spectroscopic core is valuable: the authors provide open-source reduction tools, full figuresets, a transparent two-component flare model, and honest caveats about the pseudo-quiescence baseline and the qualitative nature of the line-asymmetry interpretation. These strengths make the paper worth publishing even if the FFD claim requires revision. However, the FFD 'excess of large flares' conclusion, which appears in the abstract and in the angular-momentum-loss discussion, is currently not supported by a formal statistical test.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.2 / Fig. 18 / Section 7] Section 3.2.2 / Eq. (3) / Tables 6–7: The equivalent durations and line energies are computed using q_line fixed to the median pre-flare flux. The authors themselves note in Section 7 (and the sloping pre-flare Hα in Fig. 3 suggests) that the 'quiescence' may be pseudo-quiescence from an earlier flare, in which case q_line is overestimated and all equivalent durations and energies are underestimated. The abstract presents the ranges 800–3×10^4 s and 1×10^28–3×10^29 erg without this caveat. Please state explicitly that these are lower limits under the pseudo-quiescence assumption and briefly quantify the sensitivity to a plausible alternative baseline.
  2. [Section 5.1] The detection and characterization of large flares involves manual merging of complex events that stella/altaiPony split into multiple smaller flares, and δ_m is selected via the Anderson-Darling test on the same data. These choices can preferentially affect the high-δ tail from which the 'excess of large flares' is inferred. A robustness check (e.g., altaiPony-only detections, varying the merging criterion, or a fixed δ_m) is needed to show that the conclusion is not an artifact of these analysis choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2 / Table 3] The normalization k in Eq. (5) is defined as the number of flares with δ ≥ δ_m (dimensionless), but Table 3 lists k* in units of d^-1. Clarify whether k in Eq. (5) is a count or a rate, and if a count, state the observing time used to convert to a rate.
  2. [Section 2.2] State the total number of HST pseudo-exposures and the time span of the second orbit explicitly in the text (not only in figures) to make the pseudo-quiescence discussion easier to follow.
  3. [Figure 10] The caption says 'for Hα (left), Hβ (middle), and Hγ (right)', but the figure has four panels (Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hδ). Please correct the caption.
  4. [Section 5.1] Give the total observing time (or sectors and exposure time) for both GJ 4334 and EV Lac, since the quoted flare rates (1.02 and 3.90 d^-1) otherwise lack context.
  5. [Section 3.2.2] It would be helpful to state which FUV pseudo-exposure binning (1-min, 3-min, or count-sliced) was used for the lightcurves in Figures 12 and 15.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

FFD 'excess of large flares' claim is circular: the reference power law is fitted to the same large events it is said to exceed.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (Eqs. 4–5, Fig. 18 discussion)]
    "We used the Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit test comparing the data against the expected maximum-likelihood fit with a power-law distribution ... We chose δm as the value of minimum equivalent duration where the Anderson-Darling test statistic first bottoms out to consistent values with increasing δm. ... Our subsequent fits thus utilized only those data for each star above the noted threshold. ... GJ 4334 does appear to have a slightly shallower FFD slope, a consequence of more frequent very strong flares ( δ > 102), although it is consistent with EV Lac to within 1 σ. The small difference i"

    The FFD reference is not independent of the large flares it is used to judge. Equation (4) is fit to all TESS events above a completeness threshold δm chosen by Anderson-Darling on the same data; the resulting α=1.86±0.11 is therefore determined jointly by the small and large events. The text then interprets the shallow slope as 'an excess of large flares that depart from the power-law established by the majority of the smaller flares.' But no power law fitted to smaller flares only is ever presented, so the claimed reference 'established by the majority of smaller flares' is a construct of the same fit that includes the large events. The excess is thus not a prediction tested against an independent small-flare law; it is read off from the very points that define the fit. The 'excess' clai

full rationale

The spectroscopic core of the paper is self-contained and not circular. The flare lightcurves, Balmer-series rise/decay ordering, FUV/optical timing, equivalent durations, and line-energy estimates are derived directly from the APO/HST observations with stated fitting procedures (Eqs. 1–3). The paper even flags its own baseline limitation: the pre-flare 'quiescence' may itself be a decay phase, which would make equivalent durations underestimates—this is a caveat, not circularity. The TESS FFD analysis, however, contains a real circular step: the power-law index α is fit to all events above a threshold chosen on the same data, and then the same fit is used to claim that large flares depart from a power law 'established by the majority of the smaller flares.' No small-flare-only fit, extrapolation test, or broken-power-law comparison is provided. The claimed excess is therefore not independently established; it is an interpretation of the same fitted curve. This matters because the 'excess of large flares' is load-bearing for the abstract's conclusion and the angular-momentum-loss speculation in Section 7. I score 6: partial circularity in a central claim, while the main flare characterization remains independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claims rest on that the paper pulled from prior literature or chose by hand: the assumed quiescent baseline, the ad-hoc two-component lightcurve model, the single-power-law FFD, the flare-invariant continuum assumption, and the prior distance. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • FFD power-law index alpha for GJ 4334 = 1.86 ± 0.11
    Fitted to TESS equivalent durations via PyMC; drives the excess-of-large-flares interpretation.
  • FFD power-law index alpha for EV Lac = 2.05 ± 0.08
    Fitted to the same TESS methodology; the 1-sigma consistency with GJ 4334 is the stated comparison.
  • FFD normalization k for GJ 4334 and EV Lac = 0.80 (+0.11/-0.09) d^-1; 1.48 ± 0.11 d^-1
    Poisson normalization at the minimum threshold delta_m; fitted to observed flare rates.
  • FFD minimum threshold delta_m = 5 s (GJ 4334); 3 s (EV Lac)
    Chosen as the point where the Anderson-Darling statistic bottoms out on the same data being fit; a data-defined cutoff that shapes the fitted slope.
  • Two-component flare model parameters per line (t_i, r_i, d_i, A_i) = Tables 4 to 6
    Each of the 21 line lightcurves is fit to Eqs. 1 to 2; the rise/decay timescale ordering claims come directly from these fits. Many secondary-component parameters are poorly constrained, for example Na I D1 secondary decay of 133 ± 81 min.
  • Manual integration wavelength boundaries = Table 2
    Chosen by eye to encompass the broadest line profile; all integrated fluxes and equivalent durations depend on these boundaries.
  • Quiescent flux level qline per line = Table 7
    Held fixed to median pre-flare points for FUV lines; nearly free within the pseudo-quiescence ambiguity the authors flag in Section 7.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The flare excess is defined relative to a stable quiescent baseline qline (Eqs. 2 to 3).
    If the pre-flare state is itself a decaying flare, equivalent durations and energies are systematically biased. Invoked in Section 3.2.2 and acknowledged in Section 7.
  • ad hoc to paper The flare lightcurve functional form: a Gaussian rise plus exponential decay, summed over two components (Eqs. 1 to 2).
    Chosen for convenience following Feinstein et al. 2022; not derived from flare physics. All timescale and equivalent-duration results depend on it.
  • domain assumption The differential FFD is a single Pareto power law above delta_m (Eqs. 4 to 5).
    Standard in flare statistics, but the excess-of-large-flares claim presupposes the single-power-law form that the data allegedly deviate from.
  • domain assumption Continuum regions around H beta and H alpha are flare-invariant and used for flux normalization.
    Section 3.1; validated only by 10 to 14 percent slope consistency measures, which are also the scale of excluded systematics.
  • domain assumption Distance to GJ 4334 is taken from prior literature and enters E_line = q_line * delta_line * 4 pi d^2.
    Line energies in Table 7 scale with d^2; the paper does not derive or re-measure the distance.
  • domain assumption Manual redefinition of complex TESS flares as single events with hand-integrated equivalent durations.
    Section 5.1; affects the high-energy tail where the excess claim lives.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FUMES IV: Optical and Far-ultraviolet Spectra of a Flare on the M Dwarf GJ 4334." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XR7QWIVQ

@misc{pith2026250818459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FUMES IV: Optical and Far-ultraviolet Spectra of a Flare on the M Dwarf GJ 4334},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XR7QWIVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18459}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

On 2017-09-20 we observed GJ 4334, an M5V dwarf rotating with a period of 23.5 days, simultaneously with both the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph aboard Hubble (1160 -- 1710 Angstroms) and the Dual Imaging Spectrograph mounted on the 3.5m telescope at Apache Point Observatory (3750 -- 5050; 5800 -- 6950 Angstroms) as part of a larger survey of intermediately active M dwarfs. GJ 4334 flared during the observation, starting with a rise in the flux of optical chromospheric emission lines, followed by the rapid rise and decay of multiple far-ultraviolet emission lines formed in the transition region, followed by the slow decay of the optical lines. We find significant broadening and asymmetries in the optical emission lines that are potentially from bulk plasma motion, a post-flare elevated flux in both the optical and far-ultraviolet, and trends in the rise and decay timescales of the Balmer series such that higher-order lines rise earlier and decay faster than lower-order lines. The equivalent durations of the flare in individual lines range from 800 -- 3e4 seconds, mapping to flare energies of 1e28 -- 3e29 erg for each line. To contextualize GJ 4334's flare behavior we measure and compare its optical flare frequency distribution with TESS to EV Lacertae, a similar mass but faster rotating M dwarf, and find that GJ 4334 has an excess of large flares relative to the power-law established by the majority of its smaller flares. This dataset is a rare opportunity to characterize flares near a critical transition in stellar magnetic activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18459 by Allison Youngblood, Aylin Garc\'ia Soto, Elisabeth R. Newton, Girish M. Duvvuri, J. Sebastian Pineda, Keivan G. Stassun, Kevin France, Zachory K. Berta-Thompson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The quiescent APO optical spectrum is plotted in dark blue while the spectrum at flare peak is plotted in orange, with separate panels for the two arms of DIS. The flare only seems to brighten lines relative to the continuum level, leaving the majority of the continuum unchanged. The exception is the continuum below 4500 ˚A which appears slightly enhanced. A subset of the optical lines analyzed in this wor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The quiescent HST FUV spectrum is plotted in dark blue while the spectrum at flare peak is plotted in orange. The flare spectrum has not been staggered by multiplying a constant factor, but the offset is a physical consequence of the flare brightening the FUV spectrum across the observation bandpass. A subset of the FUV lines analyzed in this work have been highlighted with ion labels above the line peak. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The top panel is a 2D representation of the spectroscopic timeseries for Hα, with darker values indicating higher flux density values according to the colorbar scale at the top of the image. The y-axis is wavelength, with two dashed lines indicating the integration boundaries for calculating the numerically integrated flux at each timestep, while the x-axis is the time since the start of the first APO expo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top panel is a 2D representation of the spectroscopic timeseries for Hα, with darker values indicating higher flux density values according to the colorbar scale at the top of the image. The x-axis is velocity while the y-axis is the time since the start of the first APO exposure. The vertical black dashed lines demarcate the numerical integration boundaries as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Snapshots of spectrum at different points relative to the peak of the Hα lightcurve. Grey background points are the quiescent spectrum and the solid colored foreground points are flare-excess, taking the observed emission and subtracting the quiescent spectrum to highlight only emission from the flare itself. All velocities are calculated relative to the vacuum wavelength of the transition labeled in each … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to Figures 5 and 6, but for the Fraunhofer D lines Na I D1 5895, Na I D2 5890, and He I 5876 ˚A instead. Because the quiescent emission is in fact a large absorption feature from the Na I doublet, and the three lines are closely spaced, this figure plots the quiescent-subtracted flare-excess flux density against wavelength. Each panel plots vertical lines corresponding to the vacuum wavelengths of … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to Figures 5 and 6 for a collection of doublets: N V 1238/42 ˚A (light blue, topmost row), C II 1134/5 ˚A (teal, second row), Si IV 1394 ˚A (dark blue, third row) and Si IV 1403 ˚A + O IV 1401 ˚A (purple, fourth row) plotted separately, and C IV 1548/50 ˚A (green, bottom). The times plotted in each column are single-minute pseudo-exposures for minutes 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, and 72 from left to rig… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A closer look at the mid-rise timestamp for Hα (left), Hβ (middle), and Hγ (right) similar to the second column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The top two panels show the lightcurves of integrated flux for Hα (brown, top row) and Hγ (red, second row) from the APO spectra while the bottom three panels plot Lyman-α (dark blue, third row), Si III 1206 ˚A (pink, fourth row), and C IV 1548/50 ˚A (green, bottom row) from the HST spectra. The top of each panel includes the peak time on the left, at 54.7 minutes for the optical and 49 minutes for the FU… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Lightcurves of Balmer line flare excess fluxes on the left, and the flare excess Balmer decrement (ratio relative to Hβ) on the right. After subtracting off the quiescent emission, the flare excess fluxes of all the Balmer series peak at similar values, a significant departure from the ratios of the quiescent emission lines, but the decay of each Balmer line is steeper from Hα to Hδ. The Balmer decrements… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The flare model fit for Hα with residuals in the bottom panel. The equivalent durations for each component and their total is written on the top panel, with lines for the quiescent level (blue), the contribution from the primary peak (orange), and the contribution of the secondary bump (dark grey). The complete figureset (21 images for each emission feature listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p02… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A collection of flare profiles for FUV lines showing the contributions from both the primary peak (orange) and secondary bump (dark grey) with residuals in the bottom panel of each subfigure. The residuals show a hint of quasi-periodic oscillations, but we could not identify a statistically significant peak in a periodogram. The shapes and size of the secondary bump relative to the primary peak differ sig… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A comparison of total equivalent durations across most of the lines, ranging from nearly 1000 seconds – 30,000 seconds. A. D. Feinstein et al. 2022; C. S. Froning et al. 2019; H. Diamond-Lowe et al. 2024), and a couple of rare multiwavelength observations targeting AD Leo (S. L. Hawley & B. R. Pettersen 1991; S. L. Hawley et al. 2003) and EV Lac (R. A. Osten et al. 2005) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Lightcurves of the data and model fits for Balmer series, Ca II K, Lyman-α, Si IV 1394 ˚A, and C II 1334/5 ˚A. The inset panels on the top zoom into the flare onset (left) and flare peak (right) times to show the relative timing of these lines’ flare profiles. There is a trend in the flare onset of the Balmer series, with higher order lines starting first and a delay in the peak of Ca II K relative to the… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Flare frequency distributions in equivalent duration space (including uncertainties) for TESS data of EV Lac (blue dots) and GJ 4334 (red triangles) show significant overlap. GJ 4334 appears to exhibit an excess of very large flares relative to EV Lac despite their similar physical properties and slower rotation. The prevalence of large flares also flattens the apparent slope of the FFD for GJ 4334. The r… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N., Matt, S

    Aarnio, A. N., Matt, S. P., & Stassun, K. G. 2012, ApJ, 760, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/9 2012

  2. [2]

    McGregor, S. L. 2011, SoPh, 268, 195, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7 2011

  3. [3]

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 34 T able 4.Primary Peak Time and Timescale Flare Profile Parameters Line Name Primary Peak t1 Primary Rise r1 Primary Decay d1 Primary Onset t1 − 3r1 [–] [min] [min] [min] [min] Si I – Si III + O I 49.09+0.28 −0.27 0.32+0.13 −0.13 0.3...

    doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1516 2023

  4. [4]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/104 Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O.,

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/104 2015

  5. [5]

    P., & Garraffo, C

    Moschou, S. P., & Garraffo, C. 2018, ApJ, 862, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Moschou, S. P., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab44d0 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M....

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f 2018

  6. [6]

    2025, AJ, 169, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc570

    Ayres, T. 2025, AJ, 169, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc570

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc570 2025

  7. [7]

    R., France, K., Brown, A., et al

    Behr, P. R., France, K., Brown, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acdb70 2023

  8. [8]

    O., & G¨ udel, M

    Benz, A. O., & G¨ udel, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757 2010

  9. [9]

    Cubillos, P. E. 2020, bibmanager: A BibTeX manager for LaTeX projects, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2547042

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2547042 2020

  10. [10]

    Davenport, J., De Val-Borro, M., & Wilkinson, T. D. 2016, pydis: Possibly Useful, v1.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.58753

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.58753 2016

  11. [11]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76 Del Zanna, G., Dere, K. P., Young, P. R., &

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76 2019

  12. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd8ce

    Landi, E. 2021, ApJ, 909, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd8ce

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd8ce 2021

  13. [13]

    C., & Young, P

    Fossi, B. C., & Young, P. R. 1997, A&AS, 125, 149, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997368 35 T able 5.Secondary Bump Time and Timescale Flare Profile Parameters Line Name Secondary Bump t2 Secondary Rise r2 Secondary Decay d2 Secondary Onset t2 − 3r2 Primary – Secondary Lag t2 − t1 [–] [min] [min] [min] [min] [min] Si I – Si III + O I 51.33+1.84 −1.31 2.05+1.91 −1.30 5...

    doi:10.1051/aas:1997368 1997

  14. [14]

    W., Youngblood, A., et al

    Diamond-Lowe, H., King, G. W., Youngblood, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450107

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450107 2024

  15. [15]

    2017, ApJL, 847, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8a60

    Dong, C., Huang, Z., Lingam, M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 847, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8a60

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8a60 2017

  16. [16]

    G., & Butler, C

    Doyle, J. G., & Butler, C. J. 1985, Nature, 313, 378, doi: 10.1038/313378a0

    work page doi:10.1038/313378a0 1985

  17. [17]

    M., Pineda, J

    Duvvuri, G. M., Pineda, J. S., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., France, K., & Youngblood, A. 2022, FUMES III: Ultraviolet and Optical Variability of M Dwarf Chromospheres, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6909473

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6909473 2022

  18. [18]

    M., Pineda, J

    Duvvuri, G. M., Pineda, J. S., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., France, K., & Youngblood, A. 2023, AJ, 165, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b49 European Organization For Nuclear Research, & OpenAIRE. 2013, Zenodo, CERN, doi: 10.25495/7GXK-RD71

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9b49 2023

  19. [19]

    Favata, F., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1999, A&A, 350, 900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9909041 1999

  20. [20]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2347, doi: 10.21105/joss.02347

    Feinstein, A., Montet, B., & Ansdell, M. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2347, doi: 10.21105/joss.02347

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02347 2020

  21. [21]

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

    Feinstein, A. D., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8107

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8107 2022

  22. [22]

    Fisher, G. H. 1989, ApJ, 346, 1019, doi: 10.1086/168084

    work page doi:10.1086/168084 1989

  23. [23]

    2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  24. [24]

    France, K., Loyd, R. O. P., Youngblood, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 89, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/89

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/89 2016

  25. [25]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abb465 2020

  26. [26]

    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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaffcd 2019

  27. [27]

    2011, A&A, 534, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117447

    Fuhrmeister, B., Lalitha, S., Poppenhaeger, K., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117447

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117447 2011

  28. [28]

    Fuhrmeister, B., Czesla, S., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732204 Garc ´ ıa Soto, A., Duvvuri, G. M., Newton, E. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb615

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732204 2018

  29. [29]

    Physics of mid- and low-mass stars with solar-type activity and their impact on exoplanetary environments

    Airapetian, V. S., & Shlyapnikov, A. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11898, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11898

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11898 2024

  30. [30]

    V., Feigelson, E

    Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., & Garmire, G. P. 2021, ApJ, 920, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1746

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1746 2021

  31. [31]

    On Convective Turnover Times and Dynamos In Low-Mass Stars

    Gossage, S., Kiman, R., Monsch, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20000, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20000

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.20000 2024

  32. [32]

    C., & Kasting, J

    Schottelkotte, J. C., & Kasting, J. F. 2015, ApJ, 812, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/137

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/137 2015

  33. [33]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  34. [34]

    L., & Pettersen, B

    Hawley, S. L., & Pettersen, B. R. 1991, ApJ, 378, 725, doi: 10.1086/170474

    doi:10.1086/170474 1991

  35. [35]

    L., Allred, J

    Hawley, S. L., Allred, J. C., Johns-Krull, C. M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 597, 535, doi: 10.1086/378351

    doi:10.1086/378351 2003

  36. [36]

    Hilton, E. J. 2011, PhD thesis, University of

    2011

  37. [37]

    1967, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 203, 1 H¨ orst, S

    Hoffmeister, C. 1967, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 203, 1 H¨ orst, S. M. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 122, 432, doi: 10.1002/2016JE005240

    doi:10.1002/2016je005240 1967

  38. [38]

    S., MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., MacGregor, M. A., Osten, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9134

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9134 2022

  39. [39]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    Hu, R., Seager, S., & Bains, W. 2012, ApJ, 761, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/166

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/166 2012

  40. [40]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  41. [41]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2845, doi: 10.21105/joss.02845

    Ilin, E. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 2845, doi: 10.21105/joss.02845

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.02845 2021

  42. [42]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Loyd, R. O. P., & Richey-Yowell, T. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1570

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1570 2024

  43. [43]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Shkolnik, E. L., Million, C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3135

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3135 2023

  44. [44]

    Jackman, J. A. G., Wheatley, P. J., Acton, J. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab979

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab979 2021

  45. [45]

    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 39

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038407 2021

  46. [46]

    M., et al

    Klein, B., Donati, J.-F., H´ ebrard,´E. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3396

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3396 2021

  47. [47]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f45 2022

  48. [48]

    F., Allred, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Allred, J. C., & Carlsson, M. 2024, ApJ, 969, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4148

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4148 2024

  49. [49]

    F., Hawley, S

    Kowalski, A. F., Hawley, S. L., Wisniewski, J. P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15 2013

  50. [50]

    F., Allred, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Allred, J. C., Uitenbroek, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa603e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa603e 2017

  51. [51]

    F., Wisniewski, J

    Kowalski, A. F., Wisniewski, J. P., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf058

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf058 2019

  52. [52]

    H., Moffett, T

    Lacy, C. H., Moffett, T. J., & Evans, D. S. 1976, ApJS, 30, 85, doi: 10.1086/190358

    doi:10.1086/190358 1976

  53. [53]

    Laming, J. M. 2021, ApJ, 909, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd9c3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd9c3 2021

  54. [54]

    Loyd, R. O. P., & France, K. 2014, ApJS, 211, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/9 2014

  55. [55]

    Loyd, R. O. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2018a, ApJ, 867, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae2ae

  56. [56]

    Loyd, R. O. P., France, K., Youngblood, A., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 867, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae2bd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae2bd

  57. [57]

    A., Weinberger, A

    MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c 2021

  58. [58]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 44, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    Maehara, H., Notsu, Y., Namekata, K., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 44, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa098

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaa098 2021

  59. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    Charbonneau, D. 2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9 2022

  60. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee64

    Irwin, J. 2019, ApJ, 870, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaee64 2019

  61. [61]

    H., Gosling, J

    Munro, R. H., Gosling, J. T., Hildner, E., et al. 1979, SoPh, 61, 201, doi: 10.1007/BF00155456

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00155456 1979

  62. [62]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75cd

    Shibata, K. 2022, ApJ, 933, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75cd 2022

  63. [63]

    Neupert, W. M. 1968, ApJL, 153, L59, doi: 10.1086/180220

    doi:10.1086/180220 1968

  64. [64]

    R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al

    Newton, E. R., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/93

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/93 2016

  65. [65]

    M., & Roark, C

    Johns-Krull, C. M., & Roark, C. 2005, ApJ, 621, 398, doi: 10.1086/427275 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    doi:10.1086/427275 2005

  66. [66]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3631 2024

  67. [67]

    R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J

    Paudel, R. R., Barclay, T., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1946

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1946 2021

  68. [68]

    Phillips, K. J. H., Bromage, G. E., & Doyle, J. G. 1992, ApJ, 385, 731, doi: 10.1086/170979

    work page doi:10.1086/170979 1992

  69. [69]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe8d7

  70. [70]

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

    Pineda, J. S., Youngblood, A., & France, K. 2021b, ApJ, 918, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aea

  71. [71]

    E., Newton, E

    Rockcliffe, K. E., Newton, E. R., Youngblood, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace536

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace536 2023

  72. [72]

    E., Newton, E

    Rockcliffe, K. E., Newton, E. R., Youngblood, A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 321, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adccc7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adccc7 2025

  73. [73]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/63

    Berta-Thompson, Z., & Sasselov, D. 2016, ApJ, 829, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/63

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/63 2016

  74. [74]

    2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    Shibayama, T., Maehara, H., Notsu, S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/5 2013

  75. [75]

    L., & Barman, T

    Shkolnik, E. L., & Barman, T. S. 2014, AJ, 148, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/64

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/64 2014

  76. [76]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    doi:10.1086/151310 1972

  77. [77]

    1986, ApJ, 309, 858, doi: 10.1086/164654

    Skumanich, A. 1986, ApJ, 309, 858, doi: 10.1086/164654

    work page doi:10.1086/164654 1986

  78. [78]

    Sun, X., T¨ or¨ ok, T., & DeRosa, M. L. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3249

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3249 2022

  79. [79]

    L., Mauas, P

    Tian, F., France, K., Linsky, J. L., Mauas, P. J. D., & Vieytes, M. C. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 385, 22, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2013.10.024 40

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2013.10.024 2014

  80. [80]

    I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A

    Tristan, I. I., Notsu, Y., Kowalski, A. F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc94f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc94f 2023

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.