arxiv: 2605.12354 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

How plasma coupling and convective-zone depth shape the rotation of solar-mass stars

Ana Brito , Il\'idio Lopes

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 03:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords stellar rotationsolar-mass starsconvective zoneplasma couplingmagnetic brakingmain-sequence evolutionangular momentum loss

0 comments

The pith

A joint index of convective zone depth and plasma coupling shows moderate correlation with rotation rates of young solar-mass stars.

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

The authors test whether two interior properties of solar-mass stars—the depth of their outer convective zones and the degree of plasma coupling within them—help explain the range of observed rotation periods. They build a grid of MESA models at 1 solar mass across metallicities, match them to 243 stars with measured periods, and compute correlations. Neither property alone tracks rotation rates strongly, yet combining them into one convective coupling index yields a moderate and statistically significant link for stars in the first two-thirds of main-sequence life. The relation fades for older stars, with the plasma-coupling part becoming relatively more important. This pattern implies that both structure and microphysical plasma behavior may jointly control how these stars shed angular momentum through magnetic braking.

Core claim

For this sample, rotation rates show only weak correlations with either the convective-zone depth or the plasma coupling parameter when considered independently. However, during the first two-thirds of the main-sequence lifetime, the correlation strengthens when both factors are considered jointly through a combined convective coupling index, indicating a moderate and statistically significant relationship. For older stars, these correlations weaken and lose significance, although the thermodynamic component becomes relatively more influential. These trends suggest that microphysical plasma properties may contribute to the regulation of angular momentum loss and may be connected to the onset

What carries the argument

The convective coupling index, formed by combining convective-zone depth with the plasma coupling parameter that quantifies interaction strength among charged particles in the stellar plasma.

If this is right

Microphysical plasma properties contribute to regulating angular momentum loss in solar-mass stars.
The combined convective coupling index predicts rotation rates better than either factor alone during early main-sequence phases.
Correlations between these interior properties and rotation weaken after the first two-thirds of main-sequence lifetime.
The thermodynamic component of plasma coupling gains relative influence on angular momentum loss in older solar-mass stars.
The onset of weakened magnetic braking may link to shifts in convective zone structure and plasma conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Stellar evolution codes could improve rotation predictions by incorporating explicit plasma-coupling terms alongside structural variables.
The index might tighten gyrochronology age estimates for solar-mass stars if calibrated against larger samples.
Similar joint effects could appear in stars of nearby masses, providing a test once rotation data expand beyond 1 solar mass.

Load-bearing premise

The MESA models with the chosen metallicities and the derived plasma coupling parameter accurately capture the physical conditions that control magnetic braking and angular-momentum loss in real solar-mass stars.

What would settle it

A new sample of solar-mass stars with independent ages and rotation periods showing no statistically significant correlation between the convective coupling index and rotation rates among stars younger than roughly two-thirds of their main-sequence lifetime would falsify the reported joint relationship.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12354 by Ana Brito, Il\'idio Lopes.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Red dots represent all the stars from the catalog of (Santos et al. 2021) with masses in the range 0.99 M⊙ < M < 1.005 M⊙. for thousands of stars. We combined the observational data from this catalog with the results from our theoretical models to investigate the joint influence of stellar structure and internal thermodynamics on the observed rotation rates. To reduce the complexity of the analysis, we … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Kiel diagram comparing observed stellar parameters with best-fit theoretical models. The blue circles represent the 243 observed mainsequence stars (0.99 M⊙ < M < 1.005 M⊙), while the age-colored triangles show their corresponding best-fit 1 M⊙ theoretical models from our chi-square matching procedure. The color scale indicates the normalized stellar age. The clear progression from younger (pink) to old… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison between observed and best-fit theoretical stellar parameters for our sample of 243 main-sequence stars with masses 0.99 M⊙ < M < 1.005 M⊙, matched to 1 M⊙ theoretical models. Top panel: Effective temperature (Teff) identity plot. Bottom panel: Surface gravity (log g) identity plot. In both panels, the dashed violet line represents the one-to-one relation, while the shaded violet band indicates … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Global convective plasma coupling parameter, Γconv, as a function of normalized main-sequence lifetime (t/ttams) for our set of 243 stellar models of 1 M⊙ and different metallicities. Each curve corresponds to a distinct metallicity value, as indicated in the legend. Increasing metallicity leads to higher Γconv values, indicating stronger plasma coupling and more significant collective effects in metal-… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Locations of the base of the convective zone (BCZ), expressed as a fractional stellar radius (RBCZ/R⋆) for 1 M⊙ stellar models with different metallicities (Z). Each line corresponds to a distinct metallicity, with values indicated on the left side. The locations of the BCZ are shown at three evolutionary stages along the main sequence: the zeroage main sequence (ZAMS), intermediate-age main sequence (IA… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top panel: Rotation periods as a function of effective temperature for the sample of 243 1 M⊙ stars described in Section 2. Data points are color-coded by the values of the convective plasma parameter, and the gray bars indicate the observational uncertainties in the rotation periods. A linear regression fit to the data yields a Spearman correlation coefficient of ρ = −0.21 with a p-value of 1.4×10−5 . B… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Dependence of stellar rotation period on fundamental convective properties for the sample of younger main-sequence stars. Left panel: Rotation period vs. percentile rank of the convective plasma parameter (pcoupling). Middle panel: Rotation period vs. percentile rank of the convective zone depth (pbcz). Right panel: Rotation period vs. convective coupling index (CCI). In all panels, rotation periods are sh… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Panels and symbols follow the same conventions as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Stellar rotation on the main sequence is a complex function of mass and age, displaying multiple regimes whose physical origin remains only partially understood. In particular, the connection between the diversity of observed rotation rates and the internal structure and thermodynamic properties of stellar interiors is still unclear. We investigated how the depth of the convective zones and the degree of plasma coupling, quantified through the plasma coupling parameter, relate to the observed rotation rates of solar-mass stars. We used a grid of $1 \, M_\odot$ MESA stellar models with a wide range of metallicities to identify the best-matching models for 243 main-sequence stars with measured rotation periods. We then examined correlations between their rotation rates and both the structural properties of the convective zones and the corresponding convective plasma coupling parameter. For this sample, rotation rates show only weak correlations with either the convective-zone depth or the plasma coupling parameter when considered independently. However, during the first two-thirds of the main-sequence lifetime, the correlation strengthens when both factors are considered jointly through a combined convective coupling index, indicating a moderate and statistically significant relationship. For older stars, these correlations weaken and lose significance, although the thermodynamic component becomes relatively more influential. These trends suggest that microphysical plasma properties may contribute to the regulation of angular momentum loss and may be connected to the onset of weakened magnetic braking.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds a moderate correlation between a joint convective-plasma index and rotation periods for younger solar-mass stars, but the result depends on MESA model assignments whose robustness is not shown.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work takes the plasma coupling parameter and convective zone depth from MESA models matched to 243 observed solar-mass stars and reports that their combination tracks rotation rates better than either quantity alone during the first two-thirds of the main sequence. Individual correlations stay weak, but the joint index reaches moderate statistical significance before fading in older stars. The authors suggest this points to microphysical plasma effects helping regulate angular momentum loss and the onset of weakened magnetic braking. That is the new angle they highlight, and it is a reasonable extension of prior ideas about interior structure and spin-down rather than a first-principles derivation. The data side is external rotation periods, so the central claim is not circular by construction. The modeling step is also straightforward on the surface: a grid of 1 solar-mass tracks with varied metallicity, best-match assignment per star, then correlation checks. That part is clear enough. The soft spots sit in the missing details. The abstract supplies no information on the exact matching metric, tolerances, or how uncertainties in effective temperature and luminosity propagate into the derived convective zone depths and coupling values. For solar-mass stars those observables are degenerate with age and metallicity, so different acceptable models can produce different structural parameters; the stress-test concern about non-unique assignments is therefore on point and could make the joint signal fragile. The age-bin split also looks post-hoc, and there is no mention of error propagation, multiple-testing corrections, or sensitivity tests on the index construction. These gaps leave the reported significance hard to assess at face value. The paper is aimed at people who model stellar rotation and magnetic braking. A reader already working on angular-momentum loss or interior-plasma links could extract a useful observational hint, but only after seeing the full methods and robustness checks. I would send it for peer review. The topic is relevant and the joint-index idea is worth testing, but referees will need the missing statistical and modeling details to decide whether the correlation holds up.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses a grid of 1 M⊙ MESA models spanning a wide metallicity range to assign best-matching models to 243 main-sequence stars with measured rotation periods. It reports weak correlations between rotation rates and either convective-zone depth or the plasma coupling parameter taken separately, but finds a moderate and statistically significant correlation with a combined convective coupling index during the first two-thirds of the main-sequence lifetime; the correlation weakens for older stars while the thermodynamic component gains relative influence. The authors interpret this as evidence that microphysical plasma properties contribute to angular-momentum loss and the onset of weakened magnetic braking.

Significance. If the joint-index correlation survives scrutiny of model-assignment degeneracies and statistical procedures, the work would offer a concrete link between interior thermodynamic structure and the regulation of stellar spin-down, potentially clarifying the physical basis for the transition to weakened braking. The use of a broad-metallicity MESA grid to derive both structural and plasma quantities is a constructive step, though the moderate correlation strength and reliance on post-hoc age binning limit the immediate predictive power.

major comments (3)

[Methods] Methods (model-matching procedure): The central result depends on assigning each observed star to a single best-matching 1 M⊙ MESA model. No quantitative description is given of the matching metric (e.g., χ² on T_eff and luminosity), the treatment of age-metallicity-mixing-length degeneracies, or tests of robustness against alternative grids or metrics. Because CZ depth and plasma coupling are extracted from these assignments, any sensitivity to matching choices directly affects the reported correlations.
[Results] Results (statistical analysis): The abstract and results claim 'moderate and statistically significant' correlation for the combined index in the first two-thirds of the main sequence, yet supply no information on model-selection criteria, error propagation, multiple-testing corrections, or the explicit construction of the combined convective coupling index. Without these details the quoted significance cannot be evaluated.
[Results] Results (age-bin division): The split into 'first two-thirds' versus older main-sequence stars is presented without a pre-specified criterion or justification for the boundary. The paper already notes that individual correlations are weak; if the joint signal is driven by the particular bin choice, the claim that plasma coupling becomes relatively more influential at later ages requires additional validation.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] The plasma coupling parameter is introduced without an explicit equation or reference to its thermodynamic definition; a short derivation or citation in the methods would improve reproducibility.
[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should state the exact sample size and age range used for each panel to allow direct comparison with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and indicating the revisions made to enhance the description of our methods and statistical procedures.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods (model-matching procedure): The central result depends on assigning each observed star to a single best-matching 1 M⊙ MESA model. No quantitative description is given of the matching metric (e.g., χ² on T_eff and luminosity), the treatment of age-metallicity-mixing-length degeneracies, or tests of robustness against alternative grids or metrics. Because CZ depth and plasma coupling are extracted from these assignments, any sensitivity to matching choices directly affects the reported correlations.

Authors: We agree that a quantitative description of the model assignment procedure is essential for reproducibility and to assess robustness. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new subsection in the Methods section that specifies the matching metric as a reduced χ² on T_eff and bolometric luminosity, incorporating the observational errors. We describe how the grid of models with varying metallicities and mixing lengths is used to mitigate degeneracies by choosing the minimum χ² model, and we present tests of the sensitivity of the reported correlations to alternative matching metrics and to subsets of the grid. These additions directly address concerns about the impact on CZ depth and plasma coupling values. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results (statistical analysis): The abstract and results claim 'moderate and statistically significant' correlation for the combined index in the first two-thirds of the main sequence, yet supply no information on model-selection criteria, error propagation, multiple-testing corrections, or the explicit construction of the combined convective coupling index. Without these details the quoted significance cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater transparency in the statistical methods. We have revised the Results section to explicitly describe the construction of the combined convective coupling index from the convective zone depth and plasma coupling parameter. We now include a description of error propagation from both observational uncertainties and model assignment ambiguities, and we have applied a multiple-testing correction (Bonferroni) to the significance assessments. The p-values and correlation coefficients are updated accordingly in the text and figures. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results (age-bin division): The split into 'first two-thirds' versus older main-sequence stars is presented without a pre-specified criterion or justification for the boundary. The paper already notes that individual correlations are weak; if the joint signal is driven by the particular bin choice, the claim that plasma coupling becomes relatively more influential at later ages requires additional validation.

Authors: The age division was chosen to correspond to the approximate age at which weakened magnetic braking is thought to begin for solar-mass stars, around 2-3 Gyr, which is roughly two-thirds of the main-sequence lifetime for these objects. In the revision, we have added explicit justification for this choice, including references to prior literature on the braking transition, and we have performed a sensitivity test by varying the boundary by ±0.5 Gyr to show that the main trends persist. We also discuss the relative influence of the thermodynamic component in the older bin as an observational trend rather than a strong claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; correlations use independent observational rotation data against model-derived structural quantities

full rationale

The paper matches 1 M⊙ MESA models to 243 stars using T_eff, luminosity and other observables, extracts CZ depth and plasma coupling parameter from those models, and reports Pearson/Spearman correlations against externally measured rotation periods. No equation defines the plasma coupling parameter or CZ depth in terms of rotation rate; the joint convective coupling index is a post-hoc linear combination of the two extracted quantities. No self-citation is invoked to justify uniqueness of the matching procedure or to forbid alternative model grids. The reported strengthening of correlation in the first two-thirds of the main sequence is therefore a statistical statement about the chosen sample and is directly falsifiable by new rotation measurements or different model grids. This satisfies the default expectation of a non-circular derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The plasma coupling parameter and the definition of the combined index are treated as given quantities derived from MESA.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1102 out tokens · 84964 ms · 2026-05-13T03:35:37.933986+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology

work page 2010
[2]

2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787

Angus, R., Aigrain, S., Foreman-Mackey, D., & McQuillan, A. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1787

work page 2015
[3]

C., Brun, A

Augustson, K. C., Brun, A. S., & Toomre, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 83

work page 2019
[4]

Barnes, S. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 464

work page 2003
[5]

Barnes, S. A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1167

work page 2007
[6]

Barnes, S. A. & Kim, Y .-C. 2010, ApJ, 721, 675

work page 2010
[7]

Beck, J. G. 2000, Sol. Phys., 191, 47

work page 2000
[8]

& Lopes, I

Brito, A. & Lopes, I. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1558

work page 2019
[9]

& Lopes, I

Brito, A. & Lopes, I. 2024, A&A, 690, A228

work page 2024
[10]

Brun, A. S. & Browning, M. K. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 4

work page 2017
[11]

2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

Charbonneau, P. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 4

work page 2020
[12]

& Sokoloff, D

Charbonneau, P. & Sokoloff, D. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 35

work page 2023
[13]

I., Dewitt, H

Chugunov, A. I., Dewitt, H. E., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 025028

work page 2007
[14]

H., Amthor, A

Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240

work page 2010
[15]

R., Chaplin, W

Davies, G. R., Chaplin, W. J., Farr, W. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2959 do Nascimento, J. D., J., García, R. A., Mathur, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, L23

work page 2015
[16]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

work page 2005
[17]

J., Barnes, S

Fritzewski, D. J., Barnes, S. A., James, D. J., & Strassmeier, K. G. 2021, A&A, 652, A60

work page 2021
[18]

J., Barnes, S

Fritzewski, D. J., Barnes, S. A., Ok, S., Lamer, G., & Schwope, A. 2025, A&A, 702, A218

work page 2025
[19]

& Bouvier, J

Gallet, F. & Bouvier, J. 2013, A&A, 556, A36

work page 2013
[20]

& Bouvier, J

Gallet, F. & Bouvier, J. 2015, A&A, 577, A98

work page 2015
[21]

& Sauval, A

Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161

work page 1998
[22]

J., Davies, G

Hall, O. J., Davies, G. R., van Saders, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 707

work page 2021
[23]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

work page 1993
[24]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

work page 1996
[25]

Irwin, A. W. 2004, The FreeEOS Code for Calculating the Equation of State for Stellar Interiors

work page 2004
[26]

V ., Kiefer, R., & Metcalfe, T

Jeffers, S. V ., Kiefer, R., & Metcalfe, T. S. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 54

work page 2023
[27]

S., Bauer, E

Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

work page 2023
[28]

S., Schwab, J., Bauer, E., Timmes, F

Jermyn, A. S., Schwab, J., Bauer, E., Timmes, F. X., & Potekhin, A. Y . 2021, ApJ, 913, 72 Käpylä, P. J., Browning, M. K., Brun, A. S., Guerrero, G., & Warnecke, J. 2023, Space Sci. Rev., 219, 58

work page 2021
[29]

Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236

work page 1988
[30]

Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551

work page 1967
[31]

1986, A&A, 160, 116

Kuhfuss, R. 1986, A&A, 160, 116

work page 1986
[32]

2024, AJ, 167, 159

Lu, Y ., Angus, R., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hattori, S. 2024, AJ, 167, 159

work page 2024
[33]

Mamajek, E. E. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264

work page 2008
[34]

A., Ballot, J., et al

Mathur, S., García, R. A., Ballot, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A124

work page 2014
[35]

2014, ApJS, 211, 24

McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, ApJS, 211, 24

work page 2014
[36]

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

Metcalfe, T. S., Egeland, R., & van Saders, J. 2016, ApJ, 826, L2

work page 2016
[37]

B., Schunker, H., Gizon, L., & Ball, W

Nielsen, M. B., Schunker, H., Gizon, L., & Ball, W. H. 2015, A&A, 582, A10

work page 2015
[38]

S., & Strugarek, A

Noraz, Q., Brun, A. S., & Strugarek, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A156

work page 2024
[39]

W., Hartmann, L

Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763

work page 1984
[40]

L., Monteiro, M

Nsamba, B., Campante, T. L., Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5052

work page 2018
[41]

1986, ApJS, 61, 177

Paquette, C., Pelletier, C., Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1986, ApJS, 61, 177

work page 1986
[42]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

work page 2011
[43]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

work page 2013
[44]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

work page 2015
[45]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

work page 2018
[46]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

work page 2019
[47]

2003, A&A, 397, 147 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

Pizzolato, N., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

work page 2003
[48]

Potekhin, A. Y . & Chabrier, G. 2010, Contributions to Plasma Physics, 50, 82 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41

work page 2010
[49]

R., Lockwood, G

Radick, R. R., Lockwood, G. W., Henry, G. W., Hall, J. C., & Pevtsov, A. A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 75

work page 2018
[50]

2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

work page 2025
[51]

Rogers, F. J. & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064

work page 2002
[52]

Santos, A. R. G., Breton, S. N., Mathur, S., & García, R. A. 2021, ApJS, 255, 17

work page 2021
[53]

Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713

work page 1995
[54]

L., Lyttle, A

Saunders, N., van Saders, J. L., Lyttle, A. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 138

work page 2024
[55]

L., Amard, L., & Roquette, J

See, V ., Lu, Y . L., Amard, L., & Roquette, J. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1290

work page 2024
[56]

1972, ApJ, 171, 565

Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565

work page 1972
[57]

A., Bahcall, J

Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828

work page 1994
[58]

Timmes, F. X. & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501 van Saders, J. L., Ceillier, T., Metcalfe, T. S., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 181

work page 2000
[59]

J., Saar, S

Wargelin, B. J., Saar, S. H., Pojma´nski, G., Drake, J. J., & Kashyap, V . L. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3281

work page 2017
[60]

Weber, E. J. & Davis, Leverett, J. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217

work page 1967
[61]

J., Drake, J

Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Henry, G. W. 2011, ApJ, 743, 48

work page 2011
[62]

2025, A&A, 699, A251

Yang, H., Liu, J., Soria, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A251

work page 2025
[63]

2024, A&A, 686, A90 Article number, page 9 of 9

Zhang, Z., Jiang, J., & Kitchatinov, L. 2024, A&A, 686, A90 Article number, page 9 of 9

work page 2024