Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Modelling magnetic star-planet interaction in the iconic M dwarfs Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti and GJ 1151

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a hybrid PFSS wind geometry, Proxima b, YZ Cet b, and the putative GJ 1151 b are sub-Alfvénic and should emit radio via star-planet interaction, with the stretch-and-break mechanism matching tentative detections.

desk verdict A useful public-code paper with honest conditional claims; the fluxes are order-of-magnitude only because beta is unconstrained and the R_SS choice is adopted, but the tool deserves peer review and a light revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20891 v2 pith:7M44UYBY submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Luis Peña-Moñino , Miguel Pérez-Torres This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords star-planetinteractionradioemissionfromexoplanetsMdwarfstarsAlfvénsurfacestellarwindcyclotronmaserfree-freeabsorptionPFSSmagneticfield
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 asks whether the tentative radio detections from three nearby M-dwarf systems—Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti, and GJ 1151—are genuine magnetic star-planet interaction. It argues yes, provided the stellar wind field is a hybrid PFSS geometry with closed field lines out to 4.5 stellar radii and open beyond. Under that geometry all three planets sit in the sub-Alfvénic regime, so energy from the planet's motion can travel back to the star and generate cyclotron radio emission. The paper's code, SIRIO, predicts that the Alfvén wing mechanism is too faint, while reconnection and stretch-and-break mechanisms produce detectable fluxes, with stretch-and-break alone matching the Proxima detection and coming within a factor of two of the GJ 1151 detection. It also shows that free-free absorption in the stellar wind can suppress emission, explaining why some systems are seen and others not.

What carries the argument

SIRIO, a public Python code, couples a 1D isothermal Parker stellar wind (solved with the Lambert W function) to three magnetic field geometries: closed dipole, open Parker spiral, and hybrid PFSS, where field lines are closed dipolar out to R_SS = 4.5 R* and open radial beyond. It computes Poynting flux with three star-planet interaction models—Alfvén wing, magnetic reconnection, and stretch-and-break—whose relative sizes are set by the ratios S_rec/S_Alf = 2.5/M_A and S_rec/S_sb = 2.5 ξ^2/f_ap, with ξ = B_sw/B_pl and f_ap the connected-area fraction. The planet's magnetopause radius comes from pressure balance, and free-free absorption is integrated along the line of sight to the observer.

What would settle it

Measure each star's surface magnetic field topology and wind mass-loss rate (e.g., with spectropolarimetry and Lyman-alpha absorption) and locate the Alfvén surface. If Proxima b orbits beyond that surface for the measured ~600 G field, the sub-Alfvénic claim collapses. On the flux side, a sensitive low-frequency radio observation at the predicted cyclotron frequency and orbital phase that reaches an upper limit below the stretch-and-break prediction—roughly 0.1 mJy for Proxima—and sees nothing would falsify the model's match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that all three iconic M-dwarf systems are most likely sub-Alfvénic, meaning their close-in planets move through the stellar wind slower than the local Alfvén speed, so magnetic energy can flow back to the star and power electron-cyclotron radio emission. This holds only under a hybrid PFSS wind geometry with a source surface at 4.5 stellar radii; a pure dipole geometry puts all the planets in the super-Alfvénic regime and kills the interaction. Among the three emission mechanisms tested, the Alfvén wing model yields negligible flux, while reconnection and stretch-and-break predict detectable emission. The stretch-and-break model is the only one matching Proxima's

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic field of each of the three stars opens up at 4.5 stellar radii (the hybrid PFSS geometry); if any field stays closer to a closed dipole, its planet becomes super-Alfvénic, no Poynting flux reaches the star, and the paper's radio predictions vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the hybrid PFSS geometry, all three systems are sub-Alfvénic, so SPI radio emission is physically expected and can be searched at the cyclotron frequency.
  • The stretch-and-break model sets the most promising flux scale: it alone matches Proxima's tentative detection and sits within a factor of two of GJ 1151's, so future observations should target its predicted frequency and orbital phase.
  • Free-free absorption can erase the signal at high wind mass-loss rates; for YZ Ceti model A about 75% is absorbed, so non-detections in high-wind stars do not rule out SPI.
  • GJ 1151 b, if real, must be low-mass (about 0.73 Earth masses) with an orbital period under two days for the PFSS geometry; the five-day high-mass scenario is ruled out.
  • SIRIO's fast 1D approach lets observers compute detectability curves as functions of orbital separation, mass-loss rate, and planetary magnetic field, guiding target selection and constraining stellar winds or planetary fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Measuring each star's actual magnetic source-surface radius would convert the model into a sharp test: radio detections or non-detections would then pin down the stellar wind mass-loss rate at the planet's orbit.
  • The planetary magnetic fields are estimated from a tidal-lock scaling law that gives lower limits, so stronger planetary fields would boost reconnection and stretch-and-break fluxes further, widening the detectability window.
  • If confirmed, SPI radio emission would provide a detection channel for close-in Earth-mass planets around M dwarfs that is independent of transits and radial velocities.
  • The same machinery could be applied to other M-dwarf systems with tentative detections to decide whether free-free absorption or magnetic geometry explains null results.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SIRIO, a public Python code that models sub-Alfvénic magnetic star-planet interaction (SPI) radio emission using a 1D isothermal Parker wind with three magnetic geometries (pure dipole, Parker spiral, hybrid PFSS), three Poynting-flux prescriptions (Alfvén wing, reconnection, stretch-and-break), and free-free absorption. The authors benchmark SIRIO against the M-dwarf systems Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti, and GJ 1151, comparing with previous modeling by Turnpenney et al. (2018), Kavanagh et al. (2021), Réville et al. (2024), and Pineda & Villadsen (2023). They find that, assuming a hybrid PFSS geometry with R_SS = 4.5 R*, Proxima b, YZ Cet b, and a short-period GJ 1151 b lie in the sub-Alfvénic regime, that the Alvén wing model predicts negligible fluxes, and that reconnection/stretch-and-break models predict detectable fluxes, with the stretch-and-break model matching the Proxima tentative detection and the GJ 1151 Stokes I flux to within a factor of two. Free-free absorption suppresses YZ Cet model A emission by ~75%.

Significance. If the central conclusions hold, the paper provides a computationally efficient, publicly available tool for target selection and for constraining stellar mass-loss rates and planetary magnetic fields from SPI radio searches. The paper's benchmarks reproduce several previously published results, and the inclusion of free-free absorption is a genuine addition that can affect detectability, as shown for YZ Cet. These are strengths that make the code and parameter exploration useful to the community. However, the headline conclusions are quantitatively contingent on at least two externally calibrated parameters (β and R_SS), and the qualitative sub-Alfvénic/super-Alfvénic boundary is not robust to the adopted R_SS, so the paper's central claim is currently conditional rather than established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.1, 4.1, 4.3] The choice R_SS = 4.5 R* is adopted to match Pineda & Villadsen (2023), not derived for each star. The paper's own sensitivity note states that lower/higher R_SS would significantly change the emission, and the text quantifies the fragility: for Proxima with B* = 200 G, Proxima b is always super-Alfvénic if R_SS = 5.5 R* (Sect. 4.1); for GJ 1151 the PFSS sub-Alfvénic window closes for orbital periods above ~2 days (Sect. 4.3); and a pure dipole (R_SS → ∞) gives super-Alfvénic conditions for all three systems. Since the central claim that SPI is at work in all three systems rests entirely on this single adopted value, the paper should either derive R_SS from system-specific pressure balance (e.g., the Réville et al. 2015 estimate cited in Sect. 3.1) or present the sub/super-Alfvénic regimes and predicted fluxes as a function of R_SS over its plausible range (≈2.5–5.5 R*). At present the q
  2. [Sect. 3.2, Eq. (9)] The conversion efficiency β is fixed at 10^-3, with the acknowledged range 10^-4 to 10^-2. Because F_R is linear in β, all quantitative comparisons to observations are conditional on this nominal value. Specifically, the 'factor of two' agreement with Vedantham et al. (2020) for GJ 1151 (Sect. 4.3) and the statement that the stretch-and-break model is 'the only one predicting values in agreement' with the Proxima detection (Sect. 4.1) would not hold at β = 10^-4 (fluxes an order of magnitude or more below the detections), and at β = 10^-2 the Alfvén-wing model would also become detectable. The paper should propagate this factor-100 uncertainty through the flux predictions and adjust the model-comparison claims accordingly, or state them explicitly as nominal-β results.
  3. [Sect. 4.1] The text notes that for Proxima in the PFSS geometry 'M_A is so close to unity that star-planet interaction could be very inefficient,' yet the flux predictions in Fig. 4 are computed with the full Poynting-flux formulas without any reduction for this marginal sub-Alfvénicity. This internal tension directly affects the Proxima detection claim: the predicted detectability assumes an efficiency that the same section casts into doubt. Please either quantify how the near-unity M_A modifies the Poynting flux/radio conversion, or explicitly caveat that the Proxima flux should be treated as an upper limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Summary, Sect. 5] The summary mislabels the YZ Cet models: the high mass-loss, open-field model is called 'model B' and the low mass-loss PFSS model is also called 'model B'; from Sect. 4.2 the former should be model A and the latter model B.
  2. [Sect. 4.3] Typo: 'GJ 1551 b' and 'GJ 1551 c' should read 'GJ 1151 b' and 'GJ 1151 c'.
  3. [Throughout] Several minor typos: 'Fig, 5' (Sect. 4.1), 'with with' (Sect. 4.1), 'fells short' (Sect. 4.1), 'or and' (Sect. 4.1), and 'Potentially' capitalization in the abstract. These do not affect the science but should be cleaned up.
  4. [Sect. 3.1] The sentence 'We note that lower (higher) values of R_SS would result in significantly higher (lower) values of the radio emission' is not always true for all three models; for the reconnection and stretch-and-break models the dependence is more complex because R_mp and the magnetosphere condition also enter. Please qualify this statement or refer the reader to the relevant parameter study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted fluxes and sub-Alfvenic classifications are computed from literature-calibrated Poynting-flux models and explicit geometric assumptions; no parameter is fitted to the target radio detections.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: radio fluxes are obtained from published Poynting-flux formulae (Saur et al. 2013; Lanza 2009; Strugarek et al. 2022) with efficiency factors beta = 10^-3, epsilon = 0.2, and alpha = 1 taken from external measurements of the Io-Jupiter interaction and Earth's magnetosphere, not tuned to match the Proxima, YZ Cet, or GJ 1151 detections. The sub-Alfvenic classification is computed from a 1D isothermal Parker wind plus an assumed magnetic geometry; the hybrid PFSS case explicitly adopts R_SS = 4.5 R* from Pineda & Villadsen (2023) to ease comparison. This is an openly stated modeling assumption, not a prediction taken as input: the paper itself flags the dependence ('lower (higher) values of R_SS would result in significantly higher (lower) values of the radio emission') and shows that a pure dipole geometry would place the planets in the super-Alfvenic regime. That is a sensitivity/robustness caveat, not a circular reduction. The apparent agreements with the Proxima and GJ 1151 detections are presented as comparisons over a plausible range of the free planetary field B_pl and mass-loss rate, and no parameter is adjusted to force the match. Self-citations (Perez-Torres et al. 2021 for the Proxima detection; Pena-Monino et al. 2025 for GJ 486) are used as observational benchmarks or side remarks, but the central sub-Alfvenic and flux conclusions do not reduce to those citations. The external benchmarks (Turnpenney et al. 2018; Pineda & Villadsen 2023; Vedantham et al. 2020) are independently published, and the code is released for reproducibility. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a chain of imported scaling laws and efficiency factors: the isothermal Parker wind, the hybrid PFSS geometry with an adopted R_SS = 4.5 R*, the three Poynting flux prescriptions, and solar-system-calibrated efficiencies (beta, epsilon) and planetary dynamo scaling. None of these are fitted to the target radio detections; the paper compares model output to the detections after fixing all parameters to literature values.

free parameters (5)
  • beta (Poynting-to-radio conversion efficiency) = 10^-3 nominal; range 10^-4 to 10^-2
    Assumed constant for all systems (Zarka 2024); all predicted flux densities scale linearly with beta; not fitted to the target detections.
  • R_SS (source surface radius) = 4.5 R*
    Adopted from Pineda & Villadsen (2023) for all stars; the sub-Alfvénic regime conclusion flips for different R_SS values (Sect. 3.1).
  • Omega (ECM beaming solid angle) = 0.16 to 0.48 sr
    Range from Jupiter-Io flux tube to 3 times that value (Sect. 3.2); affects flux density by a factor of 3 in the shaded areas.
  • Planetary surface magnetic field B_pl (scaling-law normalization) = 0.05 G (Proxima b); 0.20 G (YZ Cet b); 0.35 G / 0.11 G (GJ 1151 b low/high)
    Computed from Sano (1993) and Curtis & Ness (1986), calibrated on solar-system bodies; labeled as lower limits due to tidal-locking assumption (Sect. 3.3).
  • epsilon (dissipated-power efficiency) = 0.2 +/- 0.1
    From Earth magnetosphere and satellite-Jupiter interactions (Zarka 2024); enters reconnection and stretch-and-break models (Eq. 4).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Isothermal Parker wind model describes the stellar wind velocity and density profiles
    Appendix B; ignores magnetic forces, azimuthal wind velocity, and non-isothermal effects; the paper notes the Weber-Davis model used by Pineda & Villadsen (2023) gives slightly different results.
  • domain assumption Hybrid PFSS magnetic geometry with closed dipole inside R_SS and open Parker spiral outside
    Sect. 3.1 and Appendix C; no MHD-derived geometry for these specific stars; the sub-Alfvénic conclusion depends on R_SS.
  • standard math Poynting flux expressions for Alfvén wing, reconnection, and stretch-and-break models (Eqs. 3-5)
    Taken from Saur et al. (2013), Lanza (2009), and Strugarek et al. (2022); not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Sano (1993) scaling law for planetary magnetic moment and Curtis & Ness (1986) core-radius scaling
    Sect. 3.3; empirical scaling from solar-system planets; gives lower-limit B_pl estimates.
  • domain assumption ECM radio emission with bandwidth Delta_nu = nu_g = 2.8 B* MHz and beaming solid angle calibrated on Jupiter-Io
    Sect. 3.2 and Eq. 9; standard for cyclotron maser emission.
  • domain assumption Planets are tidally locked, so rotation period equals orbital period
    Sect. 3.3; used in Eq. 11 to estimate B_pl; if not locked, B_pl could differ.
  • domain assumption Efficiency factors beta = 10^-3 and epsilon = 0.2
    Sect. 3.2; from solar-system calibrations; beta has an order-of-magnitude uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling magnetic star-planet interaction in the iconic M dwarfs Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti and GJ 1151." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7M44UYBY

@misc{pith2026250820891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling magnetic star-planet interaction in the iconic M dwarfs Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti and GJ 1151},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7M44UYBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20891}
}
read the original abstract

The unambiguous detection of magnetic star-planet interaction (SPI) via radio observations would provide a novel method for detecting exoplanets and probing their magnetic fields. Although direct radio detection of sub-Jovian planets is hindered by the low frequencies involved, models of sub-Alfv\'enic SPI predict that Earth-like planets in close-in orbits around M dwarfs may induce detectable emission. Here, we revisit the modelling of the expected radio emission from magnetic star-planet interaction in the iconic M-dwarf systems Proxima Centauri, YZ Ceti, and GJ 1151, where claims of SPI-related radio detections have been made. For this, we use SIRIO (Star-planet Interaction and Radio Induced Observations), a public Python code that models radio emission from sub-Alfv\'enic SPI. We benchmark SIRIO results against those paradigmatic systems, whose SPI modeling has been previously discussed in the literature. Our results support previous findings that Proxima b, YZ Cet b, and the putative planet GJ 1151 b are most likely in the sub-Alfv\'enic regime (assuming a hybrid PFSS geometry), so SPI should be at work in all of them. We find that the Alfv\'en wing model generally predicts a very low level of radio emission, while if magnetic reconnection takes place, prospects for detection are significantly better. We also find that free-free absorption may play a relevant role, in particular in YZ Ceti. Our SIRIO code can also be used to evaluate the feasibility of radio proposals aimed at detecting SPI, and to constrain the stellar wind mass-loss rate or planetary magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch depicting magnetic star planet interaction, adapted from Turnpenney et al. (2018). The black spiral that originates at the star represents the magnetic field of the Parker spiral, while the blue one, which originates at the planet, represents the Alfvén wing that travels back to the star from the planet. The red colored vector is the magnetic field of the stellar wind at the position of the planet (𝐵sw), whil… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar wind parameters for Proxima Centauri vs. orbital separation, for an open Parker spiral geometry. Top panel: Keplerian orbital speed 𝑣orb (red close-dotted line), Alfvén speed 𝑣A (green dash-dotted line), stellar wind speed 𝑣sw (dashed blue line), relative speed between the stellar wind and the exoplanet 𝑣rel (black solid line), and the (constant) sound speed 𝑎 (orange sparse-dotted line). Top-middle: Stellar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective radius of Proxima Centauri (top panels) and predicted flux density from SPI as a function of orbital separation, mass-loss rate and exoplanetary magnetic field, for three different geometries of the stellar wind magnetic field: Parker spiral (left), dipolar (…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the Alfvén Mach number in the Proxima system for the parameters used in Turnpenney et al. (2018) (left), Kavanagh et al. (2021) (middle) and Réville et al. (2024) (right), as a function of the orbital separation and stellar mass-loss rate, for the three g…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar wind velocity (top) and pressure (bottom) parameters for YZ Cet as a function of orbital separation, for Model B. Top: Keplerian orbital speed (red close-dotted line), Alfvén speed (green dash-dotted line), stellar wind speed (dashed blue line), relative speed …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Predicted radio emission from star-planet interaction in YZ Cet, as function of the magnetic field of the planet, for models A and B. The vertical dashed lines correspond to the reference value of the exoplanetary magnetic field of 0.20 G (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted radio emission from star-planet interaction in YZ Cet, as function of the stellar mass-loss rate, for a Parker spiral geometry (left) and PFSS (right). The vertical dashed lines correspond to the reference values of 𝑀¤ ★ = 0.25 𝑀¤ ⊙ (model B) and 𝑀¤ ★ = 5.0 𝑀…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Alfvén Mach number, 𝑀A, as a function of orbital separation for the GJ 1151 system. We show 𝑀𝐴 for the three stellar wind geometries: dipole (orange dotted line), Parker spiral (blue dashed line), and hybrid PFSS model (solid black line). The vertical lines indicate t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Predicted SPI radio flux density for the interaction between GJ 1151 and a hypothetic 0.73 𝑀⊕ planet, for a Parker spiral (left) and a hybrid PFSS (right) stellar wind geometry. Top panels show the predicted flux density as a function of the orbital separation, while …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

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. Magnetic field strengths of hot giant exoplanets consistent with Solar System values

    astro-ph.EP 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Wind speed measurements in seven ultra-hot Jupiters decrease with temperature, consistent with magnetic drag and implying magnetic field strengths of a few gauss.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27 , 730, 27

    Adams F. C., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27 , 730, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27 2011

  2. [2]

    D., Newkirk Jr

    Altschuler M. D., Newkirk Jr. G., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00145734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969SoPh....9..131A 9, 131

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  3. [3]

    Anglada-Escud \'e G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature19106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.536..437A 536, 437

    doi:10.1038/nature19106 2016

  4. [4]

    Blanco-Pozo J., et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245053 , 671, A50

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245053 2023

  5. [5]

    T., et al., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.274.5286.404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..404C 274, 404

    Clarke J. T., et al., 1996, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.274.5286.404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Sci...274..404C 274, 404

    doi:10.1126/science.274.5286.404 1996

  6. [6]

    N., 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities

    Cox A. N., 2000, Allen's astrophysical quantities . Springer New York, NY

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    R., 2004, @doi [American Journal of Physics] 10.1119/1.1775242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AmJPh..72.1397C 72, 1397

    Cranmer S. R., 2004, @doi [American Journal of Physics] 10.1119/1.1775242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AmJPh..72.1397C 72, 1397

    doi:10.1119/1.1775242 2004

  8. [8]

    A., Ness N

    Curtis S. A., Ness N. F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA091iA10p11003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986JGR....9111003C 91, 11003

    work page doi:10.1029/ja091ia10p11003 1986

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    M., Desch M

    Farrell W. M., Desch M. D., Zarka P., 1999, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JE900050 , 104, 14025

    1999 doi

  2. [10]

    Fischer C., Saur J., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafaf2 , 872, 113

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    L., Zarka P., Kurth W

    Kaiser M. L., Zarka P., Kurth W. S., Hospodarsky G. B., Gurnett D. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1029/1999JA000414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JGR...10516053K 105, 16053

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Vidotto A

    Kavanagh R. D., Vidotto A. A., Klein B., Jardine M. M., Donati J.-F., \'O Fionnag \'a in D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.1511K 504, 1511

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Zaire B., Folsom C

    Klein B., Donati J.-F., H \'e brard \'E . M., Zaire B., Folsom C. P., Morin J., Delfosse X., Bonfils X., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3396 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.1844K 500, 1844

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Lamers H. J. G. L. M., Cassinelli J. P., 1999, Introduction to Stellar Winds. Cambridge University Press

    1999

  7. [15]

    F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..339L 505, 339

    Lanza A. F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..339L 505, 339

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..31L 557, A31

    Lanza A. F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..31L 557, A31

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Mahadevan S., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe2b2 , 919, L9

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    B., Dulk G

    Melrose D. B., Dulk G. A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...259..844M 259, 844

    1982 doi

  11. [19]

    Neubauer F., 1980, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/JA085iA03p01171 , 85, 1171

    1980 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Milan S

    Nichols J. D., Milan S. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2353N 461, 2353

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    Parker E. N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...128..664P 128, 664

    1958 doi

  14. [22]

    P \'e rez-Torres M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..77P 645, A77

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Perger M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140786 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649L..12P 649, L12

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Peña-Moñino L., et al., 2025, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451835 , 693, A223

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Villadsen J., 2023, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-023-01914-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..569P 7, 569

    Pineda J. S., Villadsen J., 2023, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-023-01914-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..569P 7, 569

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Queinnec J., Zarka P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00157-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001P&SS...49..365Q 49, 365

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    Reiners A., Basri G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...489L..45R 489, L45

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Strugarek A., Matt S

    Réville V., Brun A. S., Strugarek A., Matt S. P., Bouvier J., Folsom C. P., Petit P., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/99 , 814, 99

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Réville V., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8132 , 976, 65

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Sano Y., 1993, @doi [J. Geomag. Geoelectr.] 10.5636/jgg.45.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993JGG....45...65S 45, 65

    1993 doi

  23. [31]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1877--1893, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_27 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_27

    Saur J., 2018, Electromagnetic Coupling in Star-Planet Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1877--1893, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_27 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_27

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Connerney J

    Saur J., Neubauer F. M., Connerney J. E. P., Zarka P., Kivelson M. G., 2004, in Bagenal F., Dowling T. E., McKinnon W. B., eds, , Vol. 1, Jupiter. The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere. 'Cambridge University Press', pp 537--560

    2004

  25. [33]

    M., Simon S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A.119S 552, A119

    Saur J., Grambusch T., Duling S., Neubauer F. M., Simon S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...552A.119S 552, A119

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Saur J., et al., 2018, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2018JA025948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JGRA..123.9560S 123, 9560

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1833--1855, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_25 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_25

    Strugarek A., 2018, Models of Star-Planet Magnetic Interaction. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1833--1855, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_25 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_25

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    S., Donati J

    Strugarek A., Brun A. S., Donati J. F., Moutou C., R \'e ville V., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881..136S 881, 136

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Strugarek A., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac778 , 512, 4556

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    K., Imada S., Kataoka R., Kato Y., Matsumoto T., Miyahara H., Tsuneta S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/65.5.98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65...98S 65, 98

    Suzuki T. K., Imada S., Kataoka R., Kato Y., Matsumoto T., Miyahara H., Tsuneta S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/65.5.98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65...98S 65, 98

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    et al., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037745 , 639, A77

    Suárez Mascareño, A. et al., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037745 , 639, A77

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    arXiv:2305.00809

    Trigilio C., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.00809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230500809T p. arXiv:2305.00809

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    D., Wynn G

    Turnpenney S., Nichols J. D., Wynn G. A., Burleigh M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa59c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...72T 854, 72

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    K., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-020-1011-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..577V 4, 577

    Vedantham H. K., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat Astron] 10.1038/s41550-020-1011-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..577V 4, 577

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Jardine M., Morin J., Donati J

    Vidotto A. A., Jardine M., Morin J., Donati J. F., Opher M., Gombosi T. I., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2265 , 438, 1162

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , 915, 37

    Wood B. E., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfda5 , 915, 37

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

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

    1998

  38. [46]

    321, Extrasolar Planets: Today and Tomorrow

    Zarka P., 2004, in Beaulieu J., Lecavelier Des Etangs A., Terquem C., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 321, Extrasolar Planets: Today and Tomorrow. p. 160

    2004

  39. [47]

    Zarka P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55..598Z 55, 598

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    arXiv:2409.16038

    Zarka P., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240916038Z p. arXiv:2409.16038

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    O., Bauer S

    Zarka P., et al., 1997, in Rucker H. O., Bauer S. J., Lecacheux A., eds, Planetary Radio Emission IV. pp 101--127

    1997

  42. [50]

    S., 2004, @doi [JGR (Sp

    Zarka P., Cecconi B., Kurth W. S., 2004, @doi [JGR (Sp. Physics)] 10.1029/2003JA010260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRA..109.9S15Z 109, A09S15

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.