Bimodality in Rotational Modulation of Planet-Hosting Stars

Adriana Valio; Alexandre Ara\'ujo

arxiv: 2605.26197 · v1 · pith:KPBRPL6Rnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Bimodality in Rotational Modulation of Planet-Hosting Stars

Alexandre Ara\'ujo , Adriana Valio This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 20:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

keywords exoplanetsstellar magnetic activityrotational modulationKepler photometryS_photbimodalityplanet-hosting starsmagnetic activity patterns

0 comments

The pith

Stars with confirmed exoplanets show a bimodal distribution in rotational modulation dispersion unlike stars without planets.

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

This paper analyzes Kepler photometry from more than 1,300 stars to compare rotational modulation between planet-hosting stars and those without detected planets. It introduces S_phot as a measure of the temporal coherence of surface magnetic features. Planet hosts display systematically higher S_phot values and a bimodal distribution peaking at 0.12 and 0.44 rad d^{-1}, patterns absent from the control sample. The authors conclude that planetary systems may shape the stability of stellar magnetic activity patterns.

Core claim

Stars hosting confirmed exoplanets exhibit systematically enhanced S_phot values compared to stars without detected planets (ΔS_phot=0.17 ± 0.01 rad d^{-1}; p<10^{-25}) and the S_phot distribution of planet hosts is bimodal with peaks at 0.12 and 0.44 rad d^{-1} (Hartigan's Dip Test p<10^{-6}; ΔBIC=188.7), a feature absent in the control sample. We interpret S_phot as a proxy for rotational modulation dispersion, reflecting spot evolution rather than true differential rotation. The two regimes correspond to stable magnetic coherence with long-lived active regions and rapidly evolving activity patterns. The presence of these distinct regimes exclusively among planet-hosting stars suggests tha

What carries the argument

S_phot, the photometric proxy of rotational modulation dispersion that traces the temporal coherence of surface magnetic features and distinguishes stable versus rapidly evolving activity patterns.

If this is right

Planet-hosting stars fall into two distinct groups: one with long-lived coherent active regions and one with rapidly changing magnetic features.
The bimodality is absent in stars without detected planets, indicating the effect is tied to the presence of planets.
Planetary systems can indirectly organize stellar magnetic activity and influence the underlying dynamo processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Analyses of TESS or other photometric surveys could check whether the bimodality appears in independent samples of planet hosts.
Stellar evolution models that omit planetary companions may need revision if magnetic activity patterns depend on planet presence.
Correlations between planet mass, orbital distance, or multiplicity and the specific S_phot peak could be tested in larger datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The control sample of stars without detected planets is statistically comparable to the planet-host sample in all properties that could affect S_phot such as stellar type, age, or activity level.

What would settle it

Observing the same bimodal S_phot distribution in a control sample of non-planet stars selected to match the planet-host sample in stellar properties would show the bimodality is unrelated to planetary presence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26197 by Adriana Valio, Alexandre Ara\'ujo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Distribution of Sphot for planet-hosting stars (gray) and stars without planets (blue). The inset shows the bimodal fit for planet hosts, with two well-separated Gaussian components. (J. A. Hartigan & P. M. Hartigan 1985), which quantifies deviations from a unimodal distribution without assuming any specific functional form, strongly rejects the null hypothesis of unimodality (p < 10−6 ). To further chara… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Distributions of Sphot (left), rotation period (center), and effective temperature (right) for stars with (gray) and without (blue) detected exoplanets. Planet-hosting stars exhibit enhanced Sphot, slower rotation, and lower temperatures on average. 0.40; ∆BIC = 119), with β3 = 0.109 ± 0.009 rad d−1 (p < 10−25). This result indicates that the presence of planets is statistically associated with enhanced Sp… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Sphot versus effective temperature (top) and rotation period (bottom) for exoplanet hosts (left) and stars with non-detected planets (right). Color intensity represents local point density. Correlation coefficients (r) and p-values are indicated. This regime is consistent with active regions that maintain their phase coherence over multiple rotations. In contrast, the high-Sphot regime (Sphot ≳ 0.3 rad d−… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distributions of Sphot and rotation period for stars with (gray) and without (blue) detected exoplanets. The upper panels show results of the Sphot distributions for spectral types M, K, G, and F, while the middle row panels show the rotation distribution for the same spectral types. The lower panels of the Sphot distributions group stars into fast (0.5–10 d), intermediate (10–20 d), and slow (20–40 d) rot… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Kernel density estimates revealing the excess of metal-poor stars ([Fe/H]< −0.2) in the high-Sphot peak. Dashed vertical lines indicate the mean metallicity of each peak. The vertical solid line marks solar metallicity ([Fe/H]= 0). Right: Stellar age distributions, showing substantial overlap between peaks (mean age: 4.09 ± 1.19 Gyr for the high peak and 3.85 ± 0.88 Gyr for the low peak; difference n… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Stellar magnetic activity is governed by the interplay between rotation, convection, and the evolution of surface magnetic structures, yet the role of planetary systems in shaping these processes remains uncertain. Here, we analyze \textit{Kepler} photometry of more than 1,300 stars to investigate rotational modulation in stars with and without confirmed exoplanets. Using a time--frequency analysis, we measure the photometric proxy of rotational modulation dispersion, $S_{\rm phot}$, tracing the temporal coherence of surface magnetic features. Stars hosting confirmed exoplanets exhibit systematically enhanced $S_{\rm phot}$ values compared to stars without detected planets ($\Delta S_{\rm phot}=0.17 \pm 0.01$ rad d$^{-1}$; $p<10^{-25}$). More importantly, the $S_{\rm phot}$ distribution of planet hosts is bimodal, with peaks at $0.12$ and $0.44$ rad d$^{-1}$ (Hartigan's Dip Test $p<10^{-6}$; $\Delta \mathrm{BIC}=188.7$), a feature absent in the control sample. We interpret $S_{\rm phot}$ as a proxy for rotational modulation dispersion, reflecting spot evolution rather than true differential rotation. The two regimes correspond to stable magnetic coherence with long-lived active regions and rapidly evolving activity patterns. The presence of these distinct regimes exclusively among planet-hosting stars suggests that planetary systems may influence the temporal organization of stellar magnetic activity and indirectly affect stellar dynamos.

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 bimodality in S_phot for planet hosts is the new claim, but unmatched controls on rotation, temperature, and activity make the planetary influence interpretation unlikely to hold.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper reports a clear statistical difference: planet-hosting stars show higher average S_phot and a bimodal distribution that the control sample lacks, with dip test p below 10^-6 and a large BIC delta. That specific pattern is what they present as new.

They pull Kepler light curves for over 1300 stars, run time-frequency analysis to get S_phot as a measure of rotational modulation dispersion, and compare the two groups directly. The numbers are large and the tests are standard, so the reported separation looks real on its face.

The soft spot is the control sample. S_phot tracks spot evolution and is known to vary with effective temperature, log g, rotation period, and overall activity. Planet detection efficiency also depends on photometric stability and stellar type. The abstract gives no sign that the controls were matched or reweighted on these covariates, so the offset and the bimodality could easily be selection artifacts rather than evidence that planets organize stellar magnetic activity. The causal step from the observation to an effect on dynamos therefore rests on an untested assumption.

This is for people who follow star-planet magnetic coupling or stellar variability in exoplanet systems. A reader who wants to test whether the pattern survives proper matching would get something out of it.

I would send it to peer review. The sample size and the quantitative tests are solid enough that referees should see the methods section and decide whether the controls were handled adequately.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Kepler photometry for more than 1,300 stars and reports that planet-hosting stars exhibit systematically higher values of the photometric rotational modulation dispersion S_phot than a control sample of stars without detected planets (ΔS_phot = 0.17 ± 0.01 rad d^{-1}, p < 10^{-25}). It further claims that the S_phot distribution for planet hosts is bimodal with peaks at 0.12 and 0.44 rad d^{-1} (Hartigan's Dip Test p < 10^{-6}, ΔBIC = 188.7), a feature absent in the control sample, and interprets this as evidence that planetary systems influence the temporal organization of stellar magnetic activity through effects on spot evolution.

Significance. If the control sample is shown to be properly matched on stellar parameters that affect S_phot, the result would provide quantitative evidence for a novel coupling between exoplanetary systems and stellar dynamos, potentially affecting interpretations of activity proxies in exoplanet searches. The large sample size and use of specific statistical tests (Hartigan dip test and BIC comparison) are strengths that would make the finding impactful in astro-ph.SR if the attribution to planets is robust.

major comments (3)

[Abstract (and sample construction section)] The manuscript provides no description of how the control sample was constructed or matched to the planet-host sample on covariates known to correlate with S_phot, such as effective temperature, surface gravity, rotation period, or age. This omission is load-bearing for the central claim in the abstract that the enhancement and bimodality can be attributed to the presence of planets rather than selection or detection biases.
[Statistical comparison and interpretation sections] The reported ΔS_phot offset and exclusive bimodality in the planet-host sample rest on the assumption that the two samples are statistically comparable in all properties affecting S_phot; without explicit matching, re-weighting, or regression controls for these confounders, the p-values and BIC difference cannot support the causal interpretation.
[Interpretation paragraph] The interpretation that the two S_phot regimes reflect stable vs. rapidly evolving magnetic features, and that this organization is influenced by planets, depends on the bimodality being absent in a properly matched control; the current analysis leaves open the possibility that the observed separation arises from planet-detection efficiency depending on photometric variability or stellar type.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The units of S_phot are stated as rad d^{-1}, but a brief reminder of its definition as a time-frequency dispersion measure would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the proxy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive report. The comments correctly identify that the manuscript lacks explicit details on control-sample construction and does not apply covariate matching or regression adjustment. We will revise the sample-construction section, add matched-subsample and regression analyses, and moderate the causal language while preserving the reported statistical results. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract (and sample construction section)] The manuscript provides no description of how the control sample was constructed or matched to the planet-host sample on covariates known to correlate with S_phot, such as effective temperature, surface gravity, rotation period, or age. This omission is load-bearing for the central claim in the abstract that the enhancement and bimodality can be attributed to the presence of planets rather than selection or detection biases.

Authors: We agree that a clear description of control-sample selection is required. The control sample was drawn from the Kepler Input Catalog by selecting stars observed in the same quarters with no confirmed planets, applying the same magnitude and data-quality cuts as the planet-host sample. No explicit one-to-one matching on Teff, log g, Prot or age was performed. In revision we will expand the methods section with the exact selection criteria, provide comparative histograms of the key covariates, and add a propensity-score-matched subsample analysis to test whether the reported ΔS_phot and bimodality persist. revision: yes
Referee: [Statistical comparison and interpretation sections] The reported ΔS_phot offset and exclusive bimodality in the planet-host sample rest on the assumption that the two samples are statistically comparable in all properties affecting S_phot; without explicit matching, re-weighting, or regression controls for these confounders, the p-values and BIC difference cannot support the causal interpretation.

Authors: The Hartigan dip test and BIC comparison were performed on the raw distributions. We acknowledge that unadjusted p-values and ΔBIC do not by themselves establish causality. In the revised manuscript we will (i) repeat the bimodality tests on a covariate-balanced subsample and (ii) report linear-regression results that include Teff, log g and Prot as covariates. The language in the interpretation section will be changed from “suggests that planetary systems may influence” to “is consistent with an association that warrants further investigation after accounting for stellar-parameter differences.” revision: yes
Referee: [Interpretation paragraph] The interpretation that the two S_phot regimes reflect stable vs. rapidly evolving magnetic features, and that this organization is influenced by planets, depends on the bimodality being absent in a properly matched control; the current analysis leaves open the possibility that the observed separation arises from planet-detection efficiency depending on photometric variability or stellar type.

Authors: The two-regime interpretation is offered as a possible physical reading of the exclusive bimodality, not as a demonstrated causal mechanism. We will add an explicit paragraph discussing transit and RV detection biases that could correlate with photometric variability. We will also stratify the S_phot distributions by Teff bins and by rotation-period range to test whether the bimodality signature remains. A fully exhaustive exclusion of all selection effects is not possible with the present Kepler data alone; this limitation will be stated. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis is direct statistical comparison of observed quantities.

full rationale

The paper reports measurements of S_phot from Kepler photometry via time-frequency analysis, followed by direct statistical tests (mean difference, Hartigan's dip test, BIC comparison) between planet-host and control samples. No equations, derivations, or fitted parameters are presented that reduce the reported bimodality or offset to inputs by construction. The central claims rest on observational data splits and standard statistical tests rather than any self-referential modeling step. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that S_phot serves as a faithful proxy for spot evolution and rotational modulation dispersion, plus the assumption that planet detection status is independent of the stellar properties driving S_phot.

axioms (2)

domain assumption S_phot traces temporal coherence of surface magnetic features rather than true differential rotation.
Explicitly stated in the abstract interpretation.
domain assumption The control sample provides a valid baseline free of planet-induced effects.
Implicit in the comparison yielding ΔS_phot and the bimodality test.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5799 in / 1470 out tokens · 28500 ms · 2026-06-29T20:15:46.783704+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

2015, MNRAS, 450, 3211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv853 Ara´ ujo, A., & Valio, A

Aigrain, S., Llama, J., Ceillier, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv853 Ara´ ujo, A., & Valio, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L23

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv853 2015
[2]

A., & Abedigamba, O

Balona, L. A., & Abedigamba, O. P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 497

2016
[3]

2020,The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

Basri, G., & Shah, R. 2020,The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d 2020
[4]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14

Basri, G., & Shah, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14

2020
[5]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 31

Basri, G., Streichenberger, T., McWard, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 31

2022
[6]

M., Batalha, N., et al

Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., Batalha, N., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20 2011
[7]

Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8

2005
[8]

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

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

2010
[9]

Living Reviews in Solar Physics , keywords =

Brun, A. S., & Browning, M. K. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8

work page doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 2017
[10]

R., von Braun, K., Bryden, G., et al

Ciardi, D. R., von Braun, K., Bryden, G., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/108

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/108 2011
[11]

H., & Musielak, Z

Cuntz, M., Saar, S. H., & Musielak, Z. E. 2000, ApJL, 533, L151, doi: 10.1086/312609

work page doi:10.1086/312609 2000
[12]

L., Chaplin, W

Gilliland, R. L., Chaplin, W. J., Dunham, E. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/6

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/6 2011
[13]

Nonparametric regression analysis of growth curves

Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M. 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 70 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346577

work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176346577 1985
[14]

T., Tanvir, N

Kitchatinov, L. L., & Olemskoy, S. V. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1059, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17737.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17737.x 2011
[15]

A., Howard, A

Knutson, H. A., Howard, A. W., & Isaacson, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 1569 K¨ uker, M., R¨ udiger, G., & Kitchatinov, L. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A48

2010
[16]

2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 1163

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

2008
[17]

2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 24

McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 24

2014
[18]

2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4481

Osborn, A., & Bayliss, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4481

2020
[19]

2003, A&A Rv, 11, 287, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3

Ossendrijver, M. 2003, A&A Rv, 11, 287, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3

work page doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3 2003
[20]

Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293, doi: 10.1086/146087

work page doi:10.1086/146087 1955
[21]

S., Bellotti, S., Villadsen, J., et al

Pineda, J. S., Bellotti, S., Villadsen, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2619

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2619 2026
[22]

Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., & Bohlender, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 1092, doi: 10.1086/378583

work page doi:10.1086/378583 2003
[23]

2016, ApJ, 833, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140

Strugarek, A. 2016, ApJ, 833, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140 2016
[24]

Vidotto, A. 2025, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 63 9 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000015/uni00000018 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000015/uni00000018/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000018/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni0000001a/uni00000018/uni00000014/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013...

2025

[1] [1]

2015, MNRAS, 450, 3211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv853 Ara´ ujo, A., & Valio, A

Aigrain, S., Llama, J., Ceillier, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3211, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv853 Ara´ ujo, A., & Valio, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L23

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv853 2015

[2] [2]

A., & Abedigamba, O

Balona, L. A., & Abedigamba, O. P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 497

2016

[3] [3]

2020,The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

Basri, G., & Shah, R. 2020,The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae5d 2020

[4] [4]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14

Basri, G., & Shah, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 14

2020

[5] [5]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 31

Basri, G., Streichenberger, T., McWard, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 31

2022

[6] [6]

M., Batalha, N., et al

Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., Batalha, N., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20 2011

[7] [7]

Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8

2005

[8] [8]

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

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

2010

[9] [9]

Living Reviews in Solar Physics , keywords =

Brun, A. S., & Browning, M. K. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8

work page doi:10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 2017

[10] [10]

R., von Braun, K., Bryden, G., et al

Ciardi, D. R., von Braun, K., Bryden, G., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/108

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/108 2011

[11] [11]

H., & Musielak, Z

Cuntz, M., Saar, S. H., & Musielak, Z. E. 2000, ApJL, 533, L151, doi: 10.1086/312609

work page doi:10.1086/312609 2000

[12] [12]

L., Chaplin, W

Gilliland, R. L., Chaplin, W. J., Dunham, E. W., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/6

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/6 2011

[13] [13]

Nonparametric regression analysis of growth curves

Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M. 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 70 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346577

work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176346577 1985

[14] [14]

T., Tanvir, N

Kitchatinov, L. L., & Olemskoy, S. V. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1059, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17737.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17737.x 2011

[15] [15]

A., Howard, A

Knutson, H. A., Howard, A. W., & Isaacson, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 1569 K¨ uker, M., R¨ udiger, G., & Kitchatinov, L. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A48

2010

[16] [16]

2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 1163

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

2008

[17] [17]

2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 24

McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 211, 24

2014

[18] [18]

2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4481

Osborn, A., & Bayliss, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4481

2020

[19] [19]

2003, A&A Rv, 11, 287, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3

Ossendrijver, M. 2003, A&A Rv, 11, 287, doi: 10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3

work page doi:10.1007/s00159-003-0019-3 2003

[20] [20]

Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293, doi: 10.1086/146087

work page doi:10.1086/146087 1955

[21] [21]

S., Bellotti, S., Villadsen, J., et al

Pineda, J. S., Bellotti, S., Villadsen, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2619

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2619 2026

[22] [22]

Shkolnik, E., Walker, G. A. H., & Bohlender, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 1092, doi: 10.1086/378583

work page doi:10.1086/378583 2003

[23] [23]

2016, ApJ, 833, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140

Strugarek, A. 2016, ApJ, 833, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/140 2016

[24] [24]

Vidotto, A. 2025, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 63 9 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000015/uni00000018 /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000015/uni00000018/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000018/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni0000001a/uni00000018/uni00000014/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013...

2025