Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 279 references

Radiative, tidal and magnetic star-planet couplings form one interconnected system that shapes atmospheres, interiors and orbits over time.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 23:20 UTC pith:JU5FGKJG

load-bearing objection Solid, high-utility review that unifies the three SPI channels and already flags where Solar-System analogues break; no new physics, but the organization and caveats make it worth citing and refereeing.

arxiv 2607.03874 v2 pith:JU5FGKJG submitted 2026-07-04 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Star Planet Interactions

Arghyadeep Paul , Kristina Kislyakova , Manuel G\"udel , Rim Fares , Judy Chebly , Sergio Joya , Miljenko \v{C}emelji\'c , Katja Poppenh\"ager
show 8 more authors
Julian Alvarado-Gomez Silva J\"arvinen Cesar Bertucci Dibyendu Nandy Antonio Garc\'ia Mu\~noz Antoine Strugarek Mayank Narang Shyama Narendranath
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords star-planet interactionsatmospheric escapetidal dissipationmagnetic couplingAlfvén wingsplanetary habitabilitySolar-System analoguesexoplanet evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This review argues that star-planet interactions are not three separate effects but a single coupled exchange of energy, momentum and mass. Stellar high-energy radiation heats and chemically processes planetary upper atmospheres and drives thermal and non-thermal escape; stellar winds and magnetic fields can either shield those atmospheres or strip them further. Tides redistribute angular momentum, heat planetary interiors, circularise orbits and can drive migration or spin-up of the host star. Magnetic coupling through Alfvén wings, reconnection and induction adds further heating, atmospheric loss and observable signals such as radio emission and stellar hotspots. The long-term outcome depends on stellar evolution, planetary mass, atmospheric composition and magnetic-field strength. By placing all three pillars in one framework and testing them against Solar-System analogues, the paper supplies the physical pathways and the observational diagnostics that future habitability and evolutionary studies will need.

Core claim

Radiative, tidal and magnetic interactions operate as an interconnected system whose long-term impact on planetary atmospheres, interiors and orbital evolution is controlled by stellar evolution, planetary properties, atmospheric structure and magnetic-field strength; presenting them together identifies the key observational signatures for future exoplanet-evolution and habitability work.

What carries the argument

The three pillars of star-planet interaction—radiative (XUV-driven heating, photochemistry and escape), tidal (equilibrium and dynamical tides that redistribute angular momentum and heat interiors) and magnetic (unipolar/dipolar inductors, Alfvén wings, reconnection and induction heating)—treated as a single coupled energy-momentum-mass exchange.

Load-bearing premise

That Solar-System analogues, especially the Jovian moons in sub-Alfvénic flow, remain quantitatively useful for scaling laws of star-planet magnetic interactions even though Alfvén-speed and Mach-number profiles differ by orders of magnitude between the two environments.

What would settle it

A statistically significant sample of close-in planets around well-characterised stars whose measured chromospheric-hotspot powers, radio luminosities or atmospheric mass-loss rates systematically deviate from the combined radiative-tidal-magnetic scaling laws once stellar wind and magnetic topology are independently constrained.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review synthesises theoretical and observational understanding of star-planet interactions (SPIs), framing radiative, tidal and magnetic (plus particle-driven) processes as interconnected pillars that exchange energy, momentum and mass. It covers tidal dissipation and orbital evolution (including Darwin stability and stellar spin-up), magnetic coupling (unipolar/dipolar inductors, Ohmic heating, Alfvén wings, reconnection and stress models, magnetic migration), and radiative drivers of thermospheres, thermal/non-thermal escape, photochemistry and core-powered mass loss. Solar-System analogues (heliosphere, magnetospheres, Galilean moons) are used as a laboratory, with an explicit critical assessment of their applicability to exoplanets (especially sub-Alfvénic SPMI). Multi-wavelength diagnostics, extreme cases (transients, pulsar planets) and open questions complete the survey. The central organisational claim is that long-term outcomes for atmospheres, interiors and orbits depend on stellar evolution, planetary properties, atmospheric structure and magnetic-field strength, and that a unified presentation identifies the key observational signatures for evolution and habitability studies.

Significance. If the synthesis holds, the paper supplies a timely, field-spanning reference that places radiative, tidal and magnetic SPIs on equal footing and makes their interconnections explicit. Strengths include accurate reproduction of standard scalings (tidal torque Eq. 1, energy-limited escape Eq. 44, Alfvén-wing power Eq. 27, induction skin-depth formulae) together with explicit caveats (Krenn et al. 2021 critique of energy-limited escape; efficiency factors E1–E4), the careful comparison of Jovian versus SPMI Alfvén profiles in §4.1 that limits rather than over-extends Solar-System analogues, and the compilation of numerical scaling laws (Strugarek, Paul & Strugarek) that go beyond purely analytical estimates. The work is therefore useful both as a graduate-level entry point and as a map of observational diagnostics for future facilities. No new quantitative result is claimed; the contribution is organisational and pedagogical.

minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract and opening of §1 still list “particle-driven” processes as a fourth pillar while the body is organised around three pillars; a one-sentence clarification that particle interactions are treated under magnetic/radiative headings would remove the minor inconsistency.
  2. §2.1.1, Eq. (1) and surrounding text: the leading-order torque omits explicit frequency dependence; a brief pointer to Mathis (2018) (already cited later) would help readers who expect the full constant-time-lag or constant-Q forms.
  3. §2.2.5 and Fig. 8: the upper-limit comparison for τ Boo is useful, but the caption and text could state more explicitly that all efficiency factors are set to unity so that the plotted values are theoretical ceilings rather than predicted hotspot powers.
  4. §2.3.2, discussion of energy-limited escape: the excellent summary of Krenn et al. (2021) could be cross-referenced earlier when Eq. (44) is first introduced, so that readers do not temporarily take the formula as a general estimator.
  5. §4.1 / Fig. 25: the Alfvén-speed and Mach-number comparison is one of the paper’s strongest critical contributions; ensuring that the colour scales and normalisations are identical between panels (as claimed) will maximise its impact.
  6. Occasional typographical slips (e.g., “magnetospehric”, “atmoshperes”, “reseased”, “stallar”) and a few incomplete sentences near the truncation point of the supplied text should be cleaned in proof.
  7. A short table or box summarising the principal observational signatures (Ca II hotspots, radio emission, Lyα absorption, transit-timing variations, etc.) linked to each pillar would improve navigability for observational readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: literature synthesis with openly labeled free parameters and self-citations used only as illustrations, not as load-bearing proofs.

full rationale

This is a review that organises existing tidal, magnetic and radiative SPI theory and observations into a unified three-pillar framework. It does not claim a new first-principles derivation whose conclusion is forced by its inputs. Scaling laws (Zarka, Saur, Lanza, Strugarek, Paul & Strugarek) are quoted from the literature and compared; efficiency factors E1–E4 and ϵ, α, f_AP are explicitly left unconstrained rather than fitted and re-labelled as predictions. Self-citations (Kislyakova induction-heating models, Strugarek/Paul Alfvén-wing energetics and the §4.1 Alfvén-profile comparison) supply previously published simulations used as illustrations and domain-of-validity caveats; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems that forbid alternatives, nor do they close a definitional loop. Section 4.1 itself limits the Jovian-moon analogy rather than smuggling it in as a forced result. No self-definitional identities, fitted-input-as-prediction steps, or ansatz-via-citation reductions appear in the load-bearing claims. Score 0 is therefore the honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

A review inherits the axioms and free parameters of the literature it surveys. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced by the authors; the ledger therefore lists only the domain assumptions that the synthesis itself relies upon.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Solar-System plasma and tidal processes can be scaled to exoplanetary regimes once Alfvén Mach number, XUV flux and mass ratio are matched.
    Stated throughout Sections 3–4; the paper itself later qualifies the assumption for sub-Alfvénic SPMI.
  • domain assumption Energy-limited escape, constant-Q tidal theory and ideal Alfvén-wing Poynting flux supply useful order-of-magnitude estimates even though each contains known efficiency factors of order 0.01–1.
    Used as the backbone of Sections 2.1–2.3; limitations are acknowledged but the formulae remain the working tools.
  • domain assumption Stellar magnetic fields and winds evolve according to the standard rotation–activity–age relations calibrated on solar analogues.
    Underpins all evolutionary statements in Sections 2.3 and 4.3.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 52101 in / 2208 out tokens · 23170 ms · 2026-07-11T23:20:06.473020+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Star Planet Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JU5FGKJG

@misc{pith2026260703874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Star Planet Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JU5FGKJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.03874}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Star-planet interactions (SPIs) describe the continuous exchange of energy, momentum, and mass between exoplanets and their host stars through radiative, tidal, magnetic, and particle-driven processes. Together, these interactions shape the structure, evolution, and observable properties of exoplanetary systems. In this review, we bring together current theoretical and observational understanding of SPIs, highlighting how stellar radiation, winds, and magnetic activity influence planetary atmospheres, interiors, and orbital evolution, while using the Solar System as a valuable reference for interpreting these processes. High-energy stellar radiation, particularly in the far- and extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray bands, drives atmospheric heating, photochemistry, ionisation, and escape. These effects are further influenced by stellar winds and magnetic interactions, which can either protect planetary atmospheres or accelerate their loss over time. Tidal interactions redistribute energy and angular momentum, producing internal heating and driving orbital migration and circularisation. Magnetic star-planet coupling provides additional pathways for energy transfer through reconnection and current systems, potentially enhancing atmospheric escape, heating planetary ionospheres and interiors, and generating observable signatures such as radio emission and enhanced stellar activity. We discuss how these processes work together, emphasising that their long-term impact depends on stellar evolution, planetary properties, atmospheric structure, and magnetic field strength. By presenting radiative, tidal, and magnetic interactions within a unified framework, this review highlights the physical mechanisms that shape planetary environments and identifies the key observational signatures that will complement future studies of exoplanet evolution and habitability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03874 by Antoine Strugarek, Antonio Garc\'ia Mu\~noz, Arghyadeep Paul, Cesar Bertucci, Dibyendu Nandy, Judy Chebly, Julian Alvarado-Gomez, Katja Poppenh\"ager, Kristina Kislyakova, Manuel G\"udel, Mayank Narang, Miljenko \v{C}emelji\'c, Rim Fares, Sergio Joya, Shyama Narendranath, Silva J\"arvinen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of tidal influence on a rocky planet with an atmosphere. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Tidal evolution of a planet with a mass equal to the mass of Jupiter around an initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The unipolar inductor mechanism. Left panel: schematic of a conducting body moving with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sketch of the induction heating mechanism. In every case, the planet continuously experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Penetration of the time-varying magnetic field into the atmosphere for varying Pedersen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Induction heating effects on TRAPPIST-1 planets. Yellow–red colors indicate regions where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) presents a three-dimensional rendering of a close-in exoplanet moving through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analytical and numerical scaling laws for SPMI energetics evaluated for the parameters of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A schematic illustrating the current understanding of star–planet magnetic interactions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Global radiative-MHD simulations of atmospheric escape from a magnetized exoplanet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependence of atmospheric mass loss rate on the ratio of the planetary ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: Ratio of mass-loss rates obtained from the energy-limited approach (here denoted by M˙ ζ ) and hydrodynamic simulations (here denoted by M˙ hc) as a function of M˙ hc, for a wide range of planetary and irradiation parameters (see text; from Krenn et al. 2021). – Right: Probability for agreement between the energy-limited estimate of mass loss with hydrodynamically derived values (color), as a functi… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: Upper-atmospheric temperature profiles for Earth’s atmosphere with modified CO2 mixing ratios as given in the inset, relative to the present-day level. The lines refer to the temperature of the neutrals. The upper end of the lines mark the positions of the exobase. Note the temperature decrease with increasing CO2 mixing ratios. – Right: Upper-atmospheric temperature profiles for various XUV irradia… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Abundance-weighted average Jeans loss rates for Earth-mass planets with atmospheres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic representation of the core-powered mass-loss from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Steady-state planetary magnetospheric configurations for varying stellar ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Polar representations of the solar wind velocity measured during Ulysses mission’s three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Panel (a) illustrates a large-scale overview of the heliosphere-interstellar interface. This [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Average unsigned photospheric magnetic flux obtained from ZDI against Rossby number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The Dungey cycle at Earth, illustrating the solar wind-driven convective flow of magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The Vasyliunas cycle, depicting rotationally driven plasma transport and nightside plasmoid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: MMS measurements showing crescent shaped electron distribution functions close to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The left panel, adapted from Ramstad & Barabash (2021b), illustrates the atmospheric escape processes of a non-magnetized planet interacting with ambient magnetized plasma, where ion pickup is expected to be the dominant mechanism. In contrast, the right panel, adapted from Yamauchi (2019), highlights the processes relevant to a magnetized planet, emphasizing the combined roles of ion pickup, ion leakage,… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: An example spectral image of the Io plasma torus acquired by Hisaki/EXCEED of SIII [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Comparison of Alfv´en speed and Alfv´enic Mach number profiles in SPMI and the Jovian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Antisunward planetary O+ fluxes during CIR/ICME impacts (top), quiet solar wind (mid￾dle), and their ratio (bottom) (adapted from Edberg et al. (2011)). Distributions are shown in cylin￾drical VSO coordinates (left) and the VSO y − z plane for −3RV < x < −1RV (right). Black lines denote average Bow Shock and IMB locations (Martinecz et al., 2008); grey circles mark the planetary limb. Shinohara, 2021). As… view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Sketch of the terrestrial magnetosphere and upwelling ionospheric ion transport routes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The average O+ escape rates for the plasma mantle (solid blue line/circles) and the dayside magnetosheath (solid red line/squares) as a function of the geomagnetic Kp index (Slapak et al., 2017). 52 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Distribution of tailward-moving plasmoids (green squares) observed in Jupiter’s nightside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: The different scenarios of interactions between an extrasolar giant planet (or Brown Dwarf) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Left panel: Residual activity variation in Ca II K for HD179949 as a function of the orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Modeling of SPI based on solar magnetograms by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: The HIP 67522 system, characterized by a gas giant in a close-in orbit around a young G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Left panel: Initial configuration for cyclotron maser instability. Right panel: bunched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Schematic of the two sources of ECM emission in exoplanetary systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Artist’s rendering of star-planet interaction-induced radio emission. The illustration sum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_36.png] view at source ↗
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: Predicted star-planet interaction (SPI) radio emission for three systems (Tau Boo, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_37.png] view at source ↗
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: The average surface magnetic field Bdyn for objects with M > 13MJ, and the dipole field B pol dip for objects with M ≤ 13MJ, are shown as a function of age for giant planets, brown dwarfs, and a very low-mass star with M = 125, MJ. All low-mass objects are assumed to be rapidly rotating. For comparison, an estimate of the Sun’s average magnetic field is also shown as a shaded gray region (Adapted from Rei… view at source ↗
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: Snapshots from a CME simulation of the AU Mic system illustrating how energetic mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p073_39.png] view at source ↗
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: A schematic of the canonical pulsar. Adapted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p076_40.png] view at source ↗
Figure 41
Figure 41. Figure 41: Top panels: with the color graded isocontours are shown the divergence of the Poynting flux ME tot= E×B/µ0 and the kinetic energy flux KE tot= 0.5 ρv|v| 2 in the cases with conducting and ferromagnetic planet surfaces, in the left and right panels, respectively. The background color grading shows the mass density ρ, red lines show the magnetic field lines and green lines the velocity streamlines of pulsar… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

279 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A., Yau, A

    Abe, T., Whalen, B. A., Yau, A. W., et al. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 11191, doi:10.1029/92JA01971

    work page doi:10.1029/92ja01971 1993

  2. [2]

    L., Saar, S

    Acharya, A., Kashyap, V. L., Saar, S. H., Singh, K. P., & Cuntz, M. 2023, ApJ, 951, 152, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/acd054

    2023

  3. [3]

    Achilleos, N., Guio, P., Hardy, F., Paranicas, C., & Sorba, A. M. 2021, in Magnetospheres in the Solar System, ed. R. Maggiolo, N. Andr´ e, H. Hasegawa, & D. T. Welling, Vol. 2, 455

    2021

  4. [4]

    H., & Ness, N

    Acuna, M. H., & Ness, N. F. 1976, J. Geophys. Res., 81, 2917, doi:10.1029/JA081i016p02917

    doi:10.1029/ja081i016p02917 1976

  5. [5]

    H., Connerney, J

    Acuna, M. H., Connerney, J. E. P., Wasilewski, P., et al. 1998, Science, 279, 1676, doi:10.1126/ science.279.5357.1676

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Adams, F. C. 2011, ApJ, 730, 27, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27

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

  7. [7]

    V., Kubyshkina, D., & Fossati, L

    Affolter, L., Mordasini, C., Oza, A. V., Kubyshkina, D., & Fossati, L. 2023, A&A, 676, A119, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/202142205 †Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authori...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556364 2023

  8. [8]

    A., Bogovalov, S

    Aharonian, F. A., Bogovalov, S. V., & Khangulyan, D. 2012, Nature, 482, 507, doi:10.1038/ nature10793

    2012

  9. [11]

    AIKIN, A. C. 1970, Nature, 227, 1334, doi:10.1038/2271334a0

    work page doi:10.1038/2271334a0 1970

  10. [13]

    A., Le, G., et al

    Akhavan-Tafti, M., Slavin, J. A., Le, G., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 1224, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024681

    doi:10.1002/2017ja024681 2018

  11. [14]

    H., Marcussen, M

    Albrecht, S. H., Marcussen, M. L., Winn, J. N., Dawson, R. I., & Knudstrup, E. 2021, ApJ, 916, L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0f03 2021

  12. [15]

    R., Alam, M

    Alderson, L., Wakeford, H. R., Alam, M. K., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 664, doi:10.1038/ s41586-022-05591-3 Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Cohen, O., Moschou, S. P., & Garraffo, C. 2018, ApJ, 862, 93, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Drake, J. J., Garraffo, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, L9, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ abb885 Alvarado-G...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f 2023

  13. [16]

    V., Gr¨ oller, H., Lichtenegger, H., et al

    Amerstorfer, U. V., Gr¨ oller, H., Lichtenegger, H., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Plan- ets), 122, 1321, doi:10.1002/2016JE005175

    doi:10.1002/2016je005175 2017

  14. [17]

    J., Acu˜ na, M

    Anderson, B. J., Acu˜ na, M. H., Korth, H., et al. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 152, 307, doi:10.1007/ s11214-009-9544-3

    2010

  15. [18]

    2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Angerhausen, D., Sapers, H., Simoncini, E., et al. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 293, Formation, Detection, and Characterization of Extrasolar Habitable Planets, ed. N. Haghighipour, 192–196

    2014

  16. [19]

    J., et al

    Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742, doi:10.1038/ s41550-019-0781-4

    2019

  17. [20]

    S., Andr´ e, N., Bertucci, C

    Arridge, C. S., Andr´ e, N., Bertucci, C. L., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 162, 25, doi:10.1007/ s11214-011-9849-x

    2011

  18. [21]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Backer, D. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Heiles, C., Davis, M. M., & Goss, W. M. 1982, Nature, 300, 615, doi:10.1038/300615a0 84

    doi:10.1038/300615a0 1982

  19. [22]

    2015, Space Science Reviews, 187

    Badman, S., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Galand, M., et al. 2015, Space Science Reviews, 187

    2015

  20. [23]

    Bagenal, F., & Delamere, P. A. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 116, doi:https: //doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016294

    doi:10.1029/2010ja016294 2011

  21. [24]

    2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27485, doi:10

    Bagenal, F., & Dols, V. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27485, doi:10. 1029/2019JA027485

    2020

  22. [25]

    2007, Science, 315, 501–503, doi:10.1126/ science.1134358

    Barabash, S., Fedorov, A., Lundin, R., & Sauvaud, J.-A. 2007, Science, 315, 501–503, doi:10.1126/ science.1134358

    2007

  23. [26]

    S., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P

    Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  24. [27]

    C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L

    Barr, A. C., Dobos, V., & Kiss, L. L. 2018, A&A, 613, A37, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731992

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731992 2018

  25. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3569, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab225

    Basak, A., & Nandy, D. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3569, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab225

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab225 2021

  26. [29]

    S., Dulk, G

    Bastian, T. S., Dulk, G. A., & Leblanc, Y. 2000, ApJ, 545, 1058, doi:10.1086/317864

    doi:10.1086/317864 2000

  27. [30]

    J., & Lammer, H

    Bauer, S. J., & Lammer, H. 2004, Planetary Aeronomy, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-09362-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-09362-7 2004

  28. [31]

    2010, Space Sci

    Baumjohann, W., Blanc, M., Fedorov, A., & Glassmeier, K.-H. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 152, 99, doi:10. 1007/s11214-010-9629-z

    2010

  29. [32]

    Baumjohann, W., & Treumann, R. A. 2012, Basic Space Plasma Physics (Revised Edition), doi:10. 1142/p850

    2012

  30. [33]

    G., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al

    Beatty, T. G., Welbanks, L., Schlawin, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, L10, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55e9 2024

  31. [36]

    S., Le Poncin-Lafitte, C., & Mathis, S

    Benbakoura, M., R´ eville, V., Brun, A. S., Le Poncin-Lafitte, C., & Mathis, S. 2019, A&A, 621, A124, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833314

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833314 2019

  32. [37]

    2011, Space Science Reviews, 162, 113–171, doi:10.1007/ s11214-011-9845-1

    Bertucci, C., Duru, F., Edberg, N., et al. 2011, Space Science Reviews, 162, 113–171, doi:10.1007/ s11214-011-9845-1

    2011

  33. [38]

    C., Kurth, W

    Bertucci, C., Hamilton, D. C., Kurth, W. S., et al. 2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 193, doi:10.1002/ 2014GL062106

    2015

  34. [40]

    2013, Icarus, 223, 308, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.020

    Beuthe, M. 2013, Icarus, 223, 308, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.020 2013

  35. [41]

    P., Chapple, E

    Bidinosti, C. P., Chapple, E. M., & Hayden, M. E. 2007, Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B: Magnetic Resonance Engineering, 31B, 191, doi:10.1002/cmr.b.20090

    work page doi:10.1002/cmr.b.20090 2007

  36. [42]

    Bigg, E. K. 1964, Nature, 203, 1008

    1964

  37. [43]

    J., Piispa, E

    Biggin, A. J., Piispa, E. J., Pesonen, L. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 245, doi:10.1038/nature15523

    work page doi:10.1038/nature15523 2015

  38. [44]

    C., Kellett, B

    Bingham, R., Speirs, D. C., Kellett, B. J., et al. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 178, 695, doi:10.1007/ s11214-013-9963-z 85

    2013

  39. [45]

    G., & Tarduno, J

    Blackman, E. G., & Tarduno, J. A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5146, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2640

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2640 2018

  40. [46]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, aap, 349, 1017, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9907051 1999

  41. [47]

    2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, doi:10

    Bolmont, E., & Mathis, S. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, doi:10. 1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    2016

  42. [48]

    G., & Jardine, M

    Bouma, L. G., & Jardine, M. M. 2025, ApJ, 988, L3, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade39a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade39a 2025

  43. [49]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e2d

    Bourgalais, J., Carrasco, N., Changeat, Q., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e2d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e2d 2020

  44. [50]

    2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833675

    Bourrier, V., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A147, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833675

    2018

  45. [51]

    2023, A&A, 669, A63, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245004

    Bourrier, V., Attia, M., Mallonn, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A63, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245004

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245004 2023

  46. [52]

    A., Halekas, J

    Brain, D. A., Halekas, J. S., Lillis, R., et al. 2005, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18203, doi:10.1029/ 2005GL023126

    2005

  47. [53]

    C., & Kenyon, S

    Bromley, B. C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2011, ApJ, 735, 29, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/29 —. 2022, AJ, 164, 229, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac9301

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/1/29 2011

  48. [54]

    A., Arons, J., Quataert, E., & Del Zanna, L

    Bucciantini, N., Thompson, T. A., Arons, J., Quataert, E., & Del Zanna, L. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, 1717, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10217.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10217.x 2006

  49. [55]

    Buffett, B. A. 2000, Science, 288, 2007, doi:10.1126/science.288.5473.2007

    work page doi:10.1126/science.288.5473.2007 2000

  50. [57]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 37, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc738

    Burne, S., Bertucci, C., Sergis, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 37, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc738

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc738 2023

  51. [58]

    R., Vedantham, H

    Callingham, J. R., Vedantham, H. K., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1233, doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01483-0

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01483-0 2021

  52. [59]

    R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al

    Callingham, J. R., Tasse, C., Keers, R., et al. 2025, Nature, 647, 603, doi:10.1038/ s41586-025-09715-3

    2025

  53. [60]

    A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Hazra, G., Villarreal D’Angelo, C., & Kubyshkina, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6001, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2947

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2947 2021

  54. [61]

    A., Loesch, C., & Coogan, P

    Carolan, S., Vidotto, A. A., Loesch, C., & Coogan, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5784, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2422

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2422 2019

  55. [62]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3582, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1733

    Carone, L., Baeyens, R., Molli` ere, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3582, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1733

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1733 2020

  56. [64]

    2007b, MNRAS, 374, L42, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00261.x

    Catala, C., Donati, J.-F., Shkolnik, E., Bohlender, D., & Alecian, E. 2007b, MNRAS, 374, L42, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00261.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00261.x 2006

  57. [65]

    W., Shkolnik, E

    Cauley, P. W., Shkolnik, E. L., Llama, J., Bourrier, V., & Moutou, C. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 262, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae841

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae841 2018

  58. [66]

    W., Shkolnik, E

    Cauley, P. W., Shkolnik, E. L., Llama, J., & Lanza, A. F. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1128, doi:10. 1038/s41550-019-0840-x

    2019

  59. [67]

    M., S´ anchez-Cano, B., & Mays, M

    Cecconi, B., Witasse, O., Jackman, C. M., S´ anchez-Cano, B., & Mays, M. L. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 800279, doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.800279

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.800279 2022

  60. [68]

    Cerutti, B., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 207, 111–136, doi:10.1007/ s11214-016-0315-7 86

    2016

  61. [69]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 51, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    Chabrier, G., Mazevet, S., & Soubiran, F. 2019, ApJ, 872, 51, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf99f 2019

  62. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 129, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e7

    Chang, Q., Xu, X., Zhang, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 129, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae3e7 2018

  63. [71]

    J., Alvarado-G´ omez, J

    Chebly, J. J., Alvarado-G´ omez, J. D., Poppenh¨ ager, K., & Garraffo, C. 2023a, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2100 —. 2023b, MNRAS, 524, 5060, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2100

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2100

  64. [72]

    J., Louis, C

    Chebly, J. J., Louis, C. K., Strugarek, A., Alvarado G´ omez, J. D., & Zarka, P. 2026a, A&A, 705, A149, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557706 —. 2026b, A&A, 705, A149, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557706

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557706

  65. [73]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17 2017

  66. [74]

    2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL108894, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL108894

    Chen, L.-J., Gershman, D., Burkholder, B., et al. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL108894, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL108894

    doi:10.1029/2024gl108894 2024

  67. [75]

    R., & Aubert, J

    Christensen, U. R., & Aubert, J. 2006a, Geophysical Journal International, 166, 97, doi:10.1111/j. 1365-246X.2006.03009.x —. 2006b, Geophysical Journal International, 166, 97, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03009.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1111/j 2006

  68. [76]

    R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A

    Christensen, U. R., Holzwarth, V., & Reiners, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 167, doi:10.1038/nature07626

    doi:10.1038/nature07626 2009

  69. [77]

    W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 95, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/95

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/95 2012

  70. [78]

    T., Mayyasi, M., Bhattacharyya, D., et al

    Clarke, J. T., Mayyasi, M., Bhattacharyya, D., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadm7499, doi:10. 1126/sciadv.adm7499

    2024

  71. [79]

    J., Vance, S

    Cochrane, C. J., Vance, S. D., Castillo-Rogez, J. C., Styczinski, M. J., & Liuzzo, L. 2025, AGU Advances, 6, 2024AV001237, doi:10.1029/2024AV001237

    work page doi:10.1029/2024av001237 2025

  72. [81]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    Cohen, O., Glocer, A., Garraffo, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 157, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad206a 2024

  73. [82]

    L., Drake, J

    Cohen, O., Kashyap, V. L., Drake, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 67, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/67

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/67 2011

  74. [83]

    J., et al

    Cohen, O., Ma, Y., Drake, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 41, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/41

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/41 2015

  75. [84]

    Colburn, D. S. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 7257, doi:10.1029/JB085iB12p07257

    work page doi:10.1029/jb085ib12p07257 1980

  76. [85]

    Connerney, J. E. P., Acu˜ na, M. H., & Ness, N. F. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 8370, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/JA086iA10p08370

    work page doi:10.1029/ja086ia10p08370 1981

  77. [86]

    Connerney, J. E. P., Timmins, S., Herceg, M., & Joergensen, J. L. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2020JA028138, doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028138

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja028138 2020

  78. [87]

    Connerney, J. E. P., Kotsiaros, S., Oliversen, R. J., et al. 2018, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2590, doi:10. 1002/2018GL077312

    2018

  79. [88]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 351, doi:10.1086/ 306652

    Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Fendt, C. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 351, doi:10.1086/ 306652

    1999

  80. [89]

    M., & Downs, G

    Cordes, J. M., & Downs, G. S. 1985, ApJS, 59, 343, doi:10.1086/191076

    doi:10.1086/191076 1985

Showing first 80 references.