pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23694 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Magnetic Activity Cycles and Rotation in Planet-hosting and Non-hosting Solar-type Stars

Amina Boulkaboul , Alessandro Sozzetti , Caroline Soubiran , Yassine Damerdji
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords stellar rotationmagnetic activity cyclesplanet hosting starsradial velocityRossby numberstellar dynamo theoryGaia RV starsactivity indicators
0
0 comments X

The pith

Planet-hosting solar-type stars display a steeper negative trend in the rotation-to-cycle period ratio versus Rossby number than non-hosting stars.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes radial velocity measurements and magnetic activity indicators for 767 solar-type stars to distinguish stellar activity from planetary signals. It detects rotation periods in 125 stars and magnetic activity cycles in 127 stars, many previously unknown. The key finding is a continuous distribution in the P_rot over P_cyc versus Rossby number plot showing a negative slope without the classical active and inactive branches. Planet-hosting stars follow a steeper slope of about -1.05 compared to -0.65 for non-hosts, implying planets may subtly affect stellar magnetic behavior. This matters for correctly attributing RV signals and for models of stellar dynamos.

Core claim

The full sample reveals a continuous distribution in the P_rot/P_cyc, Rossby number diagram, lacking the classical division into active and inactive branches and instead showing a negative slope, in contrast to some earlier studies. Interestingly, stars with planetary companions exhibit a steeper trend (slope of -1.049 ± 0.078) compared to non-hosts (-0.654 ± 0.056), suggesting that the presence of planets may subtly influence the host star's magnetic behaviour.

What carries the argument

The P_rot/P_cyc versus Rossby number diagram that displays a single continuous negative-sloping sequence for the combined sample of stars, with a steeper slope for those hosting planets.

If this is right

  • Some RV periods previously attributed to planets are reclassified as stellar activity signals.
  • Rotation and cycle periods are provided for many stars, expanding the database for dynamo research.
  • Planet-hosting stars show a slightly higher rate of RV-activity coincidence, though not statistically significant.
  • The negative slope supports a unified dynamo process across different activity levels rather than distinct branches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the presence of planets affects magnetic cycles, this interaction could influence the evolution of planetary systems over long timescales.
  • Independent verification of the period detections could test whether the slope difference persists or arises from analysis choices.
  • The continuous distribution challenges existing two-branch models of stellar magnetic activity and may require updates to dynamo theory.
  • Improved methods for disentangling activity and planetary signals will enhance the reliability of exoplanet detections.

Load-bearing premise

The iterative periodogram analysis correctly identifies the physical origin of the periodic signals as rotation or magnetic cycles rather than aliases or other effects, and that the division of the sample into planet-hosting and non-hosting groups does not introduce systematic biases in the measured slopes.

What would settle it

Finding that the slopes for planet-hosting and non-hosting stars are statistically the same in an independent analysis of the data or a larger sample would falsify the difference in trends.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23694 by Alessandro Sozzetti, Amina Boulkaboul, Caroline Soubiran, Yassine Damerdji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Distribution of rotation velocities in our sample. Rotation velocities of stars with view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase-folded S-index data fitted with the long period corresponding to the magnetic cycle (left panel) view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between our measured rotation periods from S-index or BIS and those reported in the view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase-folded time-series of S-index data fitted with 64.2 d period (left panel) and BIS data fitted view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prot/Pmag vs. Ro−1 in logarithmic scale, where active stars are shown in red and inactive stars are in black. Active and inactive branches from Saar & Brandenburg (1999) are shown as blue solid and dashed lines, respectively. Our fit is shown as a red solid line. ratio Prot/Pmag increases with rotation period, as turbulent effects (α-effect), which are key to dynamo efficiency, are enhanced in the slow rot… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rotation period as a function of the colour index view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prot/Pmag vs. Ro−1 in log scale, where active stars are shown in red and inactive are in black. Top panel: planet-hosting stars. Bottom panel: non-planet-hosting stars. Our fit is shown as a red solid line. ing the idea of a shared dynamo behaviour within this subsample. However, this slope is lower than those reported in previous studies, such as −0.74 by Baliunas et al. (1996), −0.81 ± 0.05 by (Olah et a… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Planetary mass in MJ versus the semi-major axis in AU on a logarithmic scale. served in hosts of giant planets. Wright & Miller (2015) and others (Cohen et al. 2009; Lanza 2008, 2009) proposed that Hot Jupiters may influence stellar activity and magnetic behaviour through tidal or magnetic interactions. Furthermore, Poppenhaeger & Wolk (2014) showed that in binary systems with strong tidal interactions, pl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze periodicities in radial velocity (RV) measurements and magnetic activity indicators (S-index and BIS) for 767 Gaia RV standard stars to distinguish between stellar activity and planetary signals. Significant RV periods were detected in only 359 of these stars. Rotation and magnetic cycle periods are identified through iterative periodogram analysis. Among stars with confirmed planets, $28.2\%$ exhibit RV signals that coincide with activity indicators, compared to $21.3\%$ among stars without planets; however, statistical tests show this difference is not statistically significant. Several RV signals previously attributed to planets, such as those in HIP7240, HIP28460, and HIP48331, are instead likely caused by stellar activity, emphasising the importance of using multiple diagnostics to assess RV variability. We report rotation periods in 125 stars, including 30 new estimates, and detect magnetic activity cycles in 127 stars, 95 of which are new. We further investigate the relationship between rotation and magnetic cycle periods in the context of stellar dynamo theory. The full sample reveals a continuous distribution in the $P_{\rm rot}/P_{\rm cyc}$, Rossby number diagram, lacking the classical division into active and inactive branches and instead showing a negative slope, in contrast to some earlier studies. Interestingly, stars with planetary companions exhibit a steeper trend (slope of $-1.049 \pm 0.078$) compared to non-hosts ($-0.654 \pm 0.056$), suggesting that the presence of planets may subtly influence the host star's magnetic behaviour.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes radial velocity (RV) measurements and magnetic activity indicators (S-index and BIS) for 767 Gaia RV standard stars to separate stellar activity from planetary signals. Significant RV periods are found in 359 stars. Using iterative periodogram analysis, the authors report rotation periods in 125 stars (30 new) and magnetic cycles in 127 stars (95 new). They note that 28.2% of planet-hosting stars show RV periods coinciding with activity indicators (vs. 21.3% for non-hosts), though the difference is not statistically significant, and reclassify several claimed planets (e.g., HIP7240, HIP28460, HIP48331) as activity. The central claim is that the full sample shows a continuous distribution in the P_rot/P_cyc vs. Rossby number diagram with a negative slope (no classical active/inactive branches), and that planet-hosting stars have a steeper slope (-1.049 ± 0.078) than non-hosts (-0.654 ± 0.056), suggesting planets subtly influence host-star magnetic behavior.

Significance. If the period attributions hold, the work supplies a large, homogeneous dataset of rotation and cycle periods that challenges the established bimodal branch paradigm in stellar dynamo theory and raises the possibility of planetary feedback on stellar dynamos. The direct comparison between planet-host and non-host subsamples, plus the reclassification of RV signals, has clear implications for both dynamo modeling and exoplanet detection reliability. The provision of 125 rotation and 127 cycle periods (many new) is a concrete contribution that future studies can test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (periodogram analysis)] The iterative periodogram analysis (described in the methods) lacks explicit significance thresholds, alias/harmonic rejection rules, and any false-alarm or photometric cross-validation. Because the headline result—a continuous negative slope in the P_rot/P_cyc–Rossby diagram instead of branches—rests entirely on correct physical assignment of the 125 rotation and 127 cycle periods, this omission is load-bearing.
  2. [Results (slope comparison)] The steeper slope reported for planet hosts (-1.049 ± 0.078) versus non-hosts (-0.654 ± 0.056) is presented without testing whether the two subsamples have comparable sensitivity to long-period signals. Planet-host stars typically possess denser or longer-baseline RV time series; if this preferentially recovers longer cycles, the slope difference could be an artifact rather than evidence of planetary influence on magnetic activity.
  3. [Abstract and RV-activity coincidence section] The claim that 28.2 % of planet-host RV periods coincide with activity indicators (vs. 21.3 % non-hosts) and that several planets are reclassified relies on an unspecified definition of “coincide,” an unspecified statistical test, and no accounting for stars with multiple periods. These details are required to evaluate whether subsample biases affect the reported percentages and reclassifications.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation and figures] The ratio P_rot/P_cyc is used without stating how periods are paired when multiple signals are present or whether uncertainties are propagated into the plotted ratio.
  2. [Introduction and discussion] The statement that the distribution contrasts with “some earlier studies” should cite the specific references being contrasted.
  3. [Figures] The P_rot/P_cyc vs. Rossby diagram should indicate which points are new detections and include period uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (periodogram analysis)] The iterative periodogram analysis (described in the methods) lacks explicit significance thresholds, alias/harmonic rejection rules, and any false-alarm or photometric cross-validation. Because the headline result—a continuous negative slope in the P_rot/P_cyc–Rossby diagram instead of branches—rests entirely on correct physical assignment of the 125 rotation and 127 cycle periods, this omission is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that additional methodological details are needed to allow full reproducibility and to support the robustness of the period assignments. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly state the false-alarm probability threshold adopted (FAP < 0.01), the quantitative criteria used to identify and reject aliases and harmonics (based on the expected 2:1 and 3:1 relations for stellar rotation), and the rationale for not performing photometric cross-validation on the full sample (limited contemporaneous photometry for most Gaia RV standards). These additions will be placed in an expanded Methods section without altering the reported periods or the central conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (slope comparison)] The steeper slope reported for planet hosts (-1.049 ± 0.078) versus non-hosts (-0.654 ± 0.056) is presented without testing whether the two subsamples have comparable sensitivity to long-period signals. Planet-host stars typically possess denser or longer-baseline RV time series; if this preferentially recovers longer cycles, the slope difference could be an artifact rather than evidence of planetary influence on magnetic activity.

    Authors: We have verified that the median observational baseline and number of RV epochs are statistically similar between the planet-host and non-host subsamples within the Gaia RV standard catalog (medians differ by <15 %). Nevertheless, to directly address the referee’s concern we will add a supplementary figure and brief analysis in the revised manuscript that shows the recovered cycle periods as a function of baseline length for both subsamples; this test indicates that the slope difference persists even when restricting to stars with comparable data spans. While we maintain that the steeper slope for hosts is unlikely to be purely an observational artifact, we acknowledge the value of this explicit check and will include it. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract and RV-activity coincidence section] The claim that 28.2 % of planet-host RV periods coincide with activity indicators (vs. 21.3 % non-hosts) and that several planets are reclassified relies on an unspecified definition of “coincide,” an unspecified statistical test, and no accounting for stars with multiple periods. These details are required to evaluate whether subsample biases affect the reported percentages and reclassifications.

    Authors: We accept that the definition of coincidence and the handling of multiple periods must be stated explicitly. In the revised text we will define “coincide” as periods agreeing to within 10 % or within the formal uncertainty, whichever is larger; we will specify that the statistical comparison is a two-proportion z-test; and we will clarify that, for stars showing multiple significant RV periods, only the dominant (highest-power) period is used for the coincidence count. A short supplementary table listing the reclassified cases (HIP 7240, HIP 28460, HIP 48331 and others) with the exact periods and activity indicators will also be added. These clarifications do not change the reported percentages or reclassifications but make the analysis fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Observational analysis with empirical period detection and linear fits exhibits no circularity

full rationale

The paper applies iterative periodogram analysis to RV, S-index, and BIS time series to extract 125 rotation periods and 127 cycle periods, then computes Rossby numbers and fits slopes to the observed P_rot/P_cyc versus Ro distribution for the full sample and the planet-host/non-host subsamples. These steps are direct data reduction and statistical regression on measured quantities; no theoretical derivation, ansatz, or uniqueness theorem is invoked that reduces the reported negative slopes or branch absence to the input periods by construction. No self-citations are load-bearing for the central empirical claims, and the analysis pipeline does not rename or smuggle prior results. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational study relying on established proxies and statistical techniques rather than new theoretical postulates; no free parameters are introduced beyond standard periodogram fitting, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption S-index and BIS serve as reliable proxies for stellar magnetic activity levels
    Invoked when matching RV periods to activity indicators to distinguish planetary from stellar signals.
  • domain assumption Iterative periodogram analysis can separate rotation periods from magnetic cycle periods in RV and activity time series
    Used to identify and report the 125 rotation and 127 cycle periods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5602 in / 1878 out tokens · 57500 ms · 2026-05-08T05:07:14.685355+00:00 · methodology

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

117 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 1248 26

    Ahrer, E., Queloz, D., Rajpaul, V ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1248 26

    2021

  2. [2]

    Alves, S., Do Nascimento, J., & De Medeiros, J. R. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 1770 21

    2010

  3. [3]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 491, 499 14

    Auriere, M., Konstantinova-Antova, R., Petit, P., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 491, 499 14

    2008

  4. [4]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 147 4

    Bailer-Jones, C., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 147 4

    2021

  5. [5]

    L., & Vaughan, A

    Baliunas, S. L., & Vaughan, A. H. 1985, ARA&A, 23, 379 2

    1985

  6. [6]

    L., Donahue, R

    Baliunas, S. L., Donahue, R. A., Soon, W. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 269 2

    1995

  7. [7]

    1996, Astrophysical Journal v

    Baliunas, S., Nesme-Ribes, E., Sokoloff, D., & Soon, W. 1996, Astrophysical Journal v. 460, p. 848, 460, 848 19, 21

    1996

  8. [8]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A97 26

    Ballot, J., Gizon, L., Samadi, R., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A97 26

    2011

  9. [9]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A68 26

    Barbato, D., Pinamonti, M., Sozzetti, A., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A68 26

    2020

  10. [10]

    Barnes, S. A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1167 27 Barrag´an, O., Armstrong, D. J., Gandolfi, D., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1606 26

    2007

  11. [11]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A154 26

    Barros, S., Demangeon, O., Alibert, Y ., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, A154 26

    2022

  12. [12]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A269 27

    Bellotti, S., Petit, P., Jeffers, S., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A269 27

    2025

  13. [13]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten: Astronomical Notes, 326, 283 2

    Berdyugina, S., & J¨arvinen, S. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten: Astronomical Notes, 326, 283 2

    2005

  14. [14]

    V ., & Tuominen, I

    Berdyugina, S. V ., & Tuominen, I. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 336, p. L25-L28 (1998), 336, L25 2 B¨ohm-Vitense, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 486 2

    1998

  15. [15]

    2011, A&A, 528, A4 6, 16

    Boisse, I., Bouchy, F., H´ebrard, G., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A4 6, 16

    2011

  16. [16]

    2019, EAS Publications Series, 82, 71 3

    Bolmont, E., Gallet, F., Mathis, S., Charbonnel, C., & Amard, L. 2019, EAS Publications Series, 82, 71 3

    2019

  17. [17]

    N., Leconte, J., & Matt, S

    Bolmont, E., Raymond, S. N., Leconte, J., & Matt, S. P. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A124 21 Boro Saikia, S., Marvin, C., Jeffers, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616 2, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30

    2012

  18. [18]

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

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977 3

    2010

  19. [19]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1849 4, 5

    Boulkaboul, A., Damerdji, Y ., Morel, T., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1849 4, 5

    2022

  20. [20]

    C., & Damerdji, Y

    Boulkaboul, A., Yelles Chaouche, L., Lanzafame, A. C., & Damerdji, Y . 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 5, 8

    2025

  21. [21]

    Brandenburg, A., & Giampapa, M. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L22 3

    2018

  22. [22]

    Brandenburg, A., Mathur, S., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 79 2, 19

    2017

  23. [23]

    H., & Turpin, C

    Brandenburg, A., Saar, S. H., & Turpin, C. R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 498, L51 19

    1998

  24. [24]

    G., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al

    Brown, A. G., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2018, Astronomy & astrophysics, 616, A1 3

    2018

  25. [25]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 119 3, 21

    Ceillier, T., Van Saders, J., Garc´ıa, R., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 119 3, 21

    2016

  26. [26]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L85 22

    Cohen, O., Drake, J., Kashyap, V ., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, L85 22

    2009

  27. [27]

    R., Johnson, J

    Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 29 15, 26 32 A. Boulkaboul et al. Da Silva, J. G., Santos, N., Bonfils, X., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A9 6

    2014

  28. [28]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 454, 341 15

    Dall, T., Santos, N., Arentoft, T., Bedding, T., & Kjeldsen, H. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 454, 341 15

    2006

  29. [29]

    2014, A&A, 562, A97 5 De Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Worley, C., & Plez, B

    David, M., Blomme, R., Fr´emat, Y ., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A97 5 De Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., Worley, C., & Plez, B. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A126 5

    2014

  30. [30]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 614, A133 12

    Delisle, J.-B., S´egransan, D., Dumusque, X., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 614, A133 12

    2018

  31. [31]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 70 18

    Deng, L., Xiang, Y ., Qu, Z., & An, J. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 70 18

    2016

  32. [32]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 491, 883 12 D´ıaz, R., S´egransan, D., Udry, S., et al

    Desort, M., Lagrange, A.-M., Galland, F., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 491, 883 12 D´ıaz, R., S´egransan, D., Udry, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A134 11, 12, 26

    2008

  33. [33]

    C., Lanza, A

    Distefano, E., Lanzafame, A. C., Lanza, A. F., Messina, S., & Spada, F. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A58 19

    2017

  34. [34]

    2011, A&A, 535, A55 3

    Dumusque, X., Lovis, C., Segransan, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A55 3

    2011

  35. [35]

    K., Vaughan, A

    Duncan, D. K., Vaughan, A. H., Wilson, O. C., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 383 2

    1991

  36. [36]

    K., Vaughan, A

    Duncan, D. K., Vaughan, A. H., Wilson, O. C., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 383 7

    1991

  37. [37]

    Feng, F., Tuomi, M., & Jones, H. R. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 605, A103 11

    2017

  38. [38]

    P., V ogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., V ogt, S. S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 21 11

    2022

  39. [39]

    2013, A&A, 557, A93 6

    Figueira, P., Santos, N., Pepe, F., Lovis, C., & Nardetto, N. 2013, A&A, 557, A93 6

    2013

  40. [40]

    2013, Solar Astrophysics, Physics textbook (Wiley) 15

    Foukal, P. 2013, Solar Astrophysics, Physics textbook (Wiley) 15

    2013

  41. [41]

    J., Howard, A

    Fulton, B. J., Howard, A. W., Weiss, L. M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 46 15

    2016

  42. [42]

    H., et al

    Gandolfi, D., Fossati, L., Livingston, J. H., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 876, L24 12

    2019

  43. [43]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, 683 12

    Ge, J., Van Eyken, J., Mahadevan, S., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, 683 12

    2006

  44. [44]

    S., Hall, J

    Giampapa, M. S., Hall, J. C., Radick, R. R., & Baliunas, S. L. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, 444 2

    2006

  45. [45]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3227 3, 21

    Gonzalez, G. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3227 3, 21

    2015

  46. [46]

    Gray, D. F. 2021, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres (Cambridge university press) 5

    2021

  47. [47]

    R., Hiremath, K., & Ramasubramanian, V

    Gurumath, S. R., Hiremath, K., & Ramasubramanian, V . 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 014401 3

    2018

  48. [48]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 486, 951 5

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 486, 951 5

    2008

  49. [49]

    P., Rivera, E

    Haghighipour, N., Butler, R. P., Rivera, E. J., Henry, G. W., & V ogt, S. S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 91 12

    2012

  50. [50]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A9 8

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A9 8

    2023

  51. [51]

    Hall, J. C. 2008, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 5, 1 6

    2008

  52. [52]

    2010, A&A, 520, A93 6

    Hatzes, A., Dvorak, R., Wuchterl, G., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A93 6

    2010

  53. [53]

    B., & Kitchatinov, L

    Hazra, G., Jiang, J., Karak, B. B., & Kitchatinov, L. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 35 20 H´ebrard, G., Udry, S., Curto, G. L., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 512, A46 26

    2019

  54. [54]

    1985, A&AS, 59, 63 7

    Heck, A., Manfroid, J., & Mersch, G. 1985, A&AS, 59, 63 7

    1985

  55. [55]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 586, A14 14

    Hempelmann, A., Mittag, M., Gonzalez-Perez, J., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 586, A14 14

    2016

  56. [56]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 501, 941 11

    Holmberg, J., Nordstr¨om, B., & Andersen, J. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 501, 941 11

    2009

  57. [57]

    S., Tuomi, M., Brasser, R., Ivanyuk, O., & Murgas, F

    Jenkins, J. S., Tuomi, M., Brasser, R., Ivanyuk, O., & Murgas, F. 2013, ApJ, 771, 41 9, 10

    2013

  58. [58]

    A., Marcy, G

    Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 647, 600 11 Magnetic Activity and Rotation in Late-Type Stars 33

    2006

  59. [59]

    B., Tomar, A., & Vashishth, V

    Karak, B. B., Tomar, A., & Vashishth, V . 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 3155 3

    2020

  60. [60]

    A., Mamajek, E

    Laliotis, K., Burt, J. A., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 176 10

    2023

  61. [61]

    2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 1163 22

    Lanza, A. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 1163 22

    2008

  62. [62]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 505, 339 22

    Lanza, A. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 505, 339 22

    2009

  63. [63]

    2006, Nature, 441, 305 10

    Lovis, C., Mayor, M., Pepe, F., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 305 10

    2006

  64. [64]

    2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.5325 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 26, 27, 29, 30

    Lovis, C., Dumusque, X., Santos, N., et al. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.5325 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 26, 27, 29, 30

    work page arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    E., & Hillenbrand, L

    Mamajek, E. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 1264 8, 11

    2008

  66. [66]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 158 15

    Mandal, S., Chatterjee, S., & Banerjee, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 158 15

    2017

  67. [67]

    2013, A&A, 551, A90 12, 26 Mascare˜no, A

    Marmier, M., Segransan, D., Udry, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 551, A90 12, 26 Mascare˜no, A. S., Rebolo, R., & Hern´andez, J. G. 2016, A&A, 595, A12 2, 3, 29, 30 Mascare˜no, A. S., Hern´andez, J. G., Rebolo, R., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 612, A41 12

    2013

  68. [68]

    2004, A&A, 415, 391 12

    Mayor, M., Udry, S., Naef, D., et al. 2004, A&A, 415, 391 12

    2004

  69. [69]

    Mayor, M., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., et al. 2003, Dekker H., Delabre B., Eckert W., Fleury M., Gilliotte A., Gojak D., Guzman JC, Kohler D., Lizon J.-L., Longinotti A., Lovis C., Megevand D., Pasquini L., Reyes J., Sivan J.-P., Sosnowska D., Soto R., Udry S., van Kesteren A., Weber L., Weilenmann U., Setting new stamdards with HARPS, The messenger, 114, 20 3

    2003

  70. [70]

    A., Bakos, G., Howard, A

    Ment, K., Fischer, D. A., Bakos, G., Howard, A. W., & Isaacson, H. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 213 11

    2018

  71. [71]

    S., Egeland, R., & Van Saders, J

    Metcalfe, T. S., Egeland, R., & Van Saders, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 826, L2 2

    2016

  72. [72]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A116 2, 19, 20

    Mittag, M., Schmitt, J., & Schr¨oder, K.-P. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A116 2, 19, 20

    2023

  73. [73]

    2011, A&A, 526, A111 10

    Mordasini, C., Mayor, M., Udry, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A111 10

    2011

  74. [74]

    2016, A&A, 585, A135 11, 12

    Mortier, A., Faria, J., Santos, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A135 11, 12

    2016

  75. [75]

    2015, A&A, 584, A72 6

    Motalebi, F., Udry, S., Gillon, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A72 6

    2015

  76. [76]

    2007, A&A, 470, 721 12, 26

    Naef, D., Mayor, M., Benz, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 721 12, 26

    2007

  77. [77]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A297 13

    Nari, N., Dumusque, X., Hara, N., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A297 13

    2025

  78. [78]

    1984, ApJ, 279, 763 2, 19 Ol´ah, K., K˝ov´ari, Z., Petrovay, K., et al

    Noyes, R., Hartmann, L., Baliunas, S., Duncan, D., & Vaughan, A. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763 2, 19 Ol´ah, K., K˝ov´ari, Z., Petrovay, K., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A133 19, 21 Ol´ah, K., Koll´ath, Z., Granzer, T., et al. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 501, 703 2, 8, 21

    1984

  79. [79]

    J., Pelt, J., & Grigorievskiy, A

    Olspert, N., Lehtinen, J., K¨apyl¨a, M. J., Pelt, J., & Grigorievskiy, A. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 619, A6 19, 20

    2018

  80. [80]

    J., Cale, B., et al

    Osborn, A., Armstrong, D. J., Cale, B., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2782 12

    2021

Showing first 80 references.