Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 45 references

Locate a stellar flare from the M dwarf LAMOST J1332+5057

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A young M dwarf's flare is located near the pole using Mg I b radial velocities from eight LAMOST spectra.

desk verdict Real high-latitude signal from Mg I b RVs, but the quoted polar coordinate rests on the last three fading exposures and an untested constant-v⊥ assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24284 v1 pith:OGDFLEDN submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Guang-Wei Li , Gui-Ping Zhou , Bing Du , Yan-Xin Guo , Wei-Hua Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords stellarflaresMdwarfstarsspaceweatherMgIbemissionflarelocationdynamoLAMOST
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Young M dwarfs flare often, and those flares can hit planets hard, but we almost never know where on the star the flare sits because the surface is unresolved. This paper shows that the narrow chromospheric Mg I b emission lines, tracked across eight successive medium-resolution spectra of one flare on LAMOST J1332+5057, carry a clean enough velocity signal to invert for the flare's latitude and longitude. The fit places the event at roughly 80.5 degrees latitude and −123 degrees longitude—high in the polar region—rather than near the equator where solar flares usually form. If the method holds, high-latitude flares would reduce the average space-weather dose on planets in the equatorial plane and would also map where magnetic flux is emerging on fast rotators, tightening both habitability assessments and dynamo models.

What carries the argument

The projected-velocity model v(t) = Ve sini · cos θ0 · sin(φ0 + 2π t/Prot) − v⊥ [sin i cos θ0 cos(φ0 + 2π t/Prot) + sin θ0 cos i] + RV, fitted by MCMC to the eight Mg I b centroid velocities; the small observed Δv forces high |θ0|.

What would settle it

A second multi-epoch spectroscopic campaign on the same star (or a twin) that yields a clearly larger Mg I b velocity swing during another flare of similar energy would force a lower latitude and break the polar placement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the time series of Mg I b radial velocities measured in eight continuous LAMOST medium-resolution exposures of a white-light flare on the young M dwarf J1332+5057, the authors invert a simple geometric model and locate the flare at (φ0, θ0) = (−123.0^{+8.0}_{-5.8}, 80.5^{+2.9}_{-3.2}) degrees, i.e., in the polar region.

Load-bearing premise

The Mg I b light is assumed to come from one compact, fixed surface patch whose vertical flow stays constant for the whole 2.9-hour sequence; if the emitting region is extended or evolving, the latitude-longitude solution is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-latitude flares on fast-rotating M dwarfs would deliver a lower average CME and particle dose to planets near the ecliptic than equatorial flares of the same energy.
  • The same Mg I b velocity time series can be applied to other LAMOST or high-resolution flare spectra to build a statistical map of flare latitudes.
  • Polar flare sites would support the theoretical expectation that rapid rotation drives magnetic flux tubes to high latitudes.
  • Angular-momentum loss and space-weather models for young M dwarfs must incorporate latitude-dependent CME deflection rather than assume solar-like equatorial belts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Mg I b remains the cleanest tracer, coordinated multi-site spectroscopy of a single flare could resolve whether the emitting patch itself drifts in latitude as the flare decays.
  • The method is naturally complementary to continuum light-curve modeling of flare asymmetry; joint fits would test whether white-light and Mg I b centroids coincide.
  • A larger sample of polar versus equatorial flares on stars of known Rossby number would directly constrain how the dynamo’s preferred emergence latitude scales with rotation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The authors identify a 2.89-hour, eight-exposure LAMOST MRS spectral sequence of a white-light flare on the young, rapidly rotating (Prot = 0.423 d, Ve sin i = 35 km/s) M dwarf J1332+5057. After subtracting a scaled quiescent template and a parabolic flare continuum, they fit the Mg I b λ5174/λ5185 emission lines with tied Gaussians and measure radial-velocity centroids (Table 2) that drift from −9.7 to −6.1 km/s over the sequence. Modeling the centroid as the sum of projected rotation of a surface-fixed site plus a constant vertical flow v⊥ (Eqs. 19–21), an MCMC fit with stellar priors yields a flare location of (φ0, θ0) = (−123.0°, 80.5°), i.e. polar. A model-independent bound in Appendix B (θ0 ≳ 79.7°) supports the high latitude within the model's assumptions. The work would, if robust, provide the first spectroscopic kinematic localization of a stellar flare and a reusable method.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is the first spectroscopic radial-velocity localization of a stellar flare, and the first at polar latitude derived from line kinematics rather than light-curve modeling. Notable strengths: Appendix B provides a genuinely useful model-light bound (θ0 ≳ 79.7°) requiring only Ve sin i, two velocity measurements, and the period; the stellar priors come from independent data (APOGEE, Gaia, TESS), so the inference is not circular; the MCMC machinery is standard (emcee) with reported convergence diagnostics; and the flare-only spectra are publicly released, making the analysis reproducible. The method is cheap and directly applicable to the large LAMOST MRS archive, with clear relevance to CME–planet impact geometry and to dynamo models of rapid rotators. The result is also falsifiable in principle via repeat flares from the same active longitude.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Eqs. (17)–(21); Appendix B; Table 2] Constant-v⊥, single-site assumption (Eqs. 17–21; App. B16–B23): this premise is load-bearing and untested. Per Table 2, exposures 1–5 are flat (−9.1 to −9.7 km/s, σ≈0.5) and the entire 3.6 km/s drift occurs in exposures 6–8, where the fading line's centroid errors grow to ±0.9, ±1.0, ±1.8. An evolving vertical flow (chromospheric condensation downflows decay on tens of minutes) or a flux-weighted centroid of a rotating kernel plus a decaying flow component would mimic this drift; Eq. 21's likelihood would then attribute intrinsic evolution to geometry, and the App. B bound, which requires constant v⊥ between t1 and t2, would not apply. The claim in §4 that Mg I b is 'stable' addresses line width, not centroid. Required: (i) fit an explicit time-varying v⊥(t) alternative and compare model evidence; (ii) a leave-one-out test on each of the last three exposures; (iii) demonstration that θ0≳
  2. [§4, Eqs. (17)–(18), Fig. 5; §5, Eq. (22)] No goodness-of-fit or residual analysis is reported for either the per-exposure double-Gaussian fits or the global MCMC fit of Eq. (21) to 8 velocities with 3 flare parameters plus priors. Please report χ²/dof and show a residuals panel for Fig. 5C. Additionally, the Fe I λ5173 bump on the blue wing of Mg I λ5174 (visible in Fig. 5A) is absorbed into a single-Gaussian-plus-constant model; if the Fe I/Mg I flux ratio varies through the flare, the blend biases the fitted vc. Quantify this bias per exposure, e.g. by fitting a third component or masking the blend region, and propagate it into Table 2.
  3. [§5, Eqs. (19)–(21); Fig. 9] The model v(t) is invariant under (θ0, v⊥) → (−θ0, −v⊥): v1 depends on cosθ0 and the constant term on the product v⊥sinθ0. The flare hemisphere is therefore formally degenerate, and v⊥ is degenerate in sign with it. The paper does not discuss this; Fig. 9 shows only positive θ0. Please state the hemisphere ambiguity explicitly, describe the prior/posterior handling (was θ0 bounded to [0,90°]?), and confirm the quoted errors are not artifacts of a truncated posterior.
  4. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(6); Appendix B (B16)–(B23)] Quiescent subtraction: Eq. (3) assumes fQ = a·fQ,0 with a single scalar scaling of a spectrum taken on a different night, plus a parabolic flare continuum, and Eq. (6) neglects covariance between (a,b,c,d) and the pixel errors. Template mismatch or chromospheric variability residuals near 5174/5185 Å could shift centroids at the km/s level — comparable to the 3.6 km/s signal. Please show the flare-only residuals around the Mg I b region for all eight exposures and estimate the resulting centroid uncertainty. Related: the App. B bound requires the two velocities to lie 'in the same monotonic interval' (B16–B18); with 8 points over 0.25 of a rotation, how is this established for t=44 and t=154 min without already assuming the fitted φ0? Please clarify.
minor comments (8)
  1. Typos: §3.1 'template liberary'; §5 'dfference'; Fig. 6 'light of sight' should be 'line of sight'. Abstract: 'would seriously impact' → 'can seriously impact'.
  2. Abstract and Conclusion: 'pinpointed' and 'accurately locate' overstate a single-flare, model-dependent result; suggest 'localized, under the stated single-site assumptions'.
  3. §5 text reports θ0 = 80.5^{+3.0}_{−3.2} while the abstract and preceding sentence give 80.5^{+2.9}_{−3.2}; unify.
  4. State the sign convention of v⊥: the fitted −7.5±2.3 km/s presumably denotes downflow; a sentence on its physical plausibility relative to chromospheric condensation velocities would strengthen the paper.
  5. Table 2: add per-exposure S/N or Mg I equivalent width so the reader can see directly why the last three errors grow; this is central to interpreting the drift.
  6. Fig. 4B: the claim that Mg I b is 'stable' while Hα varies should be quantified (e.g., EW and width versus time) rather than shown only as normalized profiles.
  7. Eq. (13): note how MCMC samples with Ve sin i > Ve (unphysical i) are handled in emcee.
  8. Consider citing Doppler/Zeeman–Doppler imaging work on polar spots in rapid rotators as independent context for high-latitude magnetic activity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: flare coordinates are free parameters fitted to independent Mg I b RV time series via an explicit geometric projection, not defined by or forced from the inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (1) flare-only spectra via scaled quiescence + parabola continuum (Eqs. 3–5); (2) Gaussian centroids of Mg I λ5174/5185 giving eight measured RVs (Table 2, Eqs. 17–18); (3) geometric model v(t)=v_rot(φ0,θ0,t)+v⊥_proj(φ0,θ0,t)+RV (Eqs. 19–21); (4) MCMC posterior on (φ0,θ0,v⊥) with external stellar priors (Teff, ϖ, Prot, RV, Ve sin i from APOGEE/Gaia/TESS/templates). The reported location (−123°, 80.5°) is the fitted output of that likelihood, not a quantity defined in terms of itself, nor a ‘prediction’ of a closely related fitted input. The App. B lower bound θ0≳79.7° is a direct algebraic consequence of the same projection under constant-v⊥ and same-monotonic-interval assumptions; it does not smuggle the answer. Self-citations (Li et al. 2023/2024) support only ancillary TESS flare detection/FFD context and are not load-bearing for (φ0,θ0). Concerns that Δv may be intrinsic flare-decay flow rather than rotation are model-validity/assumption issues, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained against its stated inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing claim rests on standard stellar spectroscopy and geometry plus several domain analogies (solar Mg I formation) and modeling choices (single fixed site, constant v⊥, parabolic flare continuum, scaled other-night quiescence). Free parameters are the geometric flare coordinates and vertical flow, plus per-spectrum continuum/line nuisance terms. No new physical entity is postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • flare longitude φ0 = −123.0^{+8.0}_{-5.8} deg
    MCMC-fitted surface longitude at reference phase 0; central reported coordinate.
  • flare latitude θ0 = 80.5^{+2.9}_{-3.2} deg
    MCMC-fitted surface latitude; central reported coordinate.
  • vertical chromospheric velocity v⊥ = −7.5±2.3 km s−1
    Constant LOS-projected flow normal to the surface in Eq. 20–21; fitted jointly with location.
  • per-spectrum continuum/scale coefficients a,b,c,d
    Scale factor relating other-night quiescence and parabolic flare continuum (Eq. 3); fitted independently for each of eight exposures before line RVs are measured.
  • Gaussian amplitudes, widths, and baselines for Mg I λ5174 and λ5185
    Nuisance parameters in Eqs. 17–18 used to extract a shared centroid vc each epoch.
  • linear limb-darkening coefficient ε = 0.8 (fixed)
    Fixed at 0.8 from Claret (2000) R-band tables when building rotational kernels for Ve sin i; not refit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mg I b emission in the flare forms in a cool chromospheric region that can be treated as a single surface site with one radial velocity, analogous to solar Mg I behavior (Sasso et al. 2017).
    Stated in §1 and §4 as the reason to prefer Mg I over Hα; without it the RV does not map to one (φ0, θ0).
  • ad hoc to paper Flare continuum under the lines is a low-order parabola and the true quiescence during the flare night equals a constant times the May 8 coadded spectrum.
    Eqs. 3–5 in §2; drives the flare-only residual from which Mg centroids are measured.
  • domain assumption Projected rotational velocity of a surface element follows the standard rigid-rotation Doppler formula with known i and Ve (Gray-type kernel).
    Eq. 19 and §3.1; standard but required for the geometric inversion.
  • ad hoc to paper Net vertical velocity v⊥ is constant in time and uniform over the emitting site during the 2.89 h sequence.
    Built into Eqs. 20–21 and the three-parameter geometric model fitted in §5.
  • domain assumption The two Mg I lines share one centroid velocity each epoch and are adequately described by single Gaussians (Fe I blend on λ5174 treated as a wing bump).
    Eqs. 17–18 and Fig. 5; centroid time series in Table 2 are the sole data vector for location.
  • domain assumption Stellar Prot, Ve sin i, RV, and inclination priors from TESS/APOGEE/Gaia/PHOENIX are accurate enough that residual systematics are smaller than the flare Δv signal.
    Table 1 and ln L_pri in §5; the App. B bound still needs Ve sin i.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Locate a stellar flare from the M dwarf LAMOST J1332+5057." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGDFLEDN

@misc{pith2026260724284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Locate a stellar flare from the M dwarf LAMOST J1332+5057},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGDFLEDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24284}
}
abstract

Young M-type stars exhibit frequent flares, which would seriously impact their habitable planets. Since stellar surfaces cannot be resolved, flare locations remain unknown. Here, by using the Mg I b emission line in LAMOST spectra, the location of a stellar flare from a young M dwarf is pinpointed at $ (-123.0^{+8.0}_{-5.8}, 80.5^{+2.9}_{-3.2})$ in degree in the polar region. Our method can be used to accurately locate stellar flares. This would enable us to assess the impact of stellar flares on planets more accurately and improve our understanding of stellar dynamo models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The quiescence spectrum and a spectrum during flare. The quiescence spectrum, the first spectrum during flare and the fitted spectrum by Equation 3 are shown in blue, brown and green, respectively. Here, σflare(λi) is the error of f(λi) and σQ,0(λi) is the error of fQ,0(λi), both of which are given by the LAMOST pipeline. 3. STELLAR PROPERTIES 3.1. The Radial Velocity (RV ) and the Projected Rotational Velocity (Ve … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The rotational profiles of Ca I λ6441 and Ca I λ6464. The black spectrum is the quiescence spectrum, while the blue, yellow and green curves are the PHOENIX spectrum of Teff = 3700 K and log g = 4.5 dex, convolved with Ve sin i = 30, 35, 40 km s−1 , respectively. The rotational periods were calculated from flare-removed light curves of Sector 15, 16 and 22 by the Lomb-Scargle periodogram method (LS)(Lomb 1976; Scarg… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. J1332+5057 is a young and active star. (A) The TESS light curves folded by the period of 0.423051 days. Light curves from TESS Sector 15, 16 and 22 are shown in red, green and blue, respectively. (B) the FFD in the TESS band. The red circle is the flare frequency of ETESS ⩾ 1032 erg, while the blue circle is the flare frequency of ETESS ⩾ 1033 erg, which are once every 1.8 days and once every 25 days, respectively. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hα and Mg I b emissions. (A) Hα from eight individual exposures. (B) Same as (A), but divided by their maximum fluxes. (C) The Mg I b triplet at 5185, 5174 and 5169 ˚A, and Fe II λ5170 emission lines. The Mg I λ5169 may be contaminated by Fe I λ5169. The legend is show…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radial velocities obtained from Mg I λ5174 and Mg I λ5185. The Mg I λ5174 and Mg I λ5185 emission lines from eight flare-only spectra are shown in (A) and (B), respectively, and the fitted profiles are shown by thin black lines. The fitted Gaussian peaks are shown …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The stellar surface projection of J1332+5057 along the line of sight at the phase 0. The flare locations of eight phases obtained from Equation 23 are shown by red circles. The latitude θ0 = 80.5 ◦ and the longitude ϕ0 = −123.0 ◦ and ϕ = 0◦ at the phase 0 are shown by …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of radial velocity differences between LAMOST MRS. The radial velocities of Mg I emission lines from t1 and t2 are v(t1) and v(t2), respectively. Then v(t2) − v(t1) =q V 2 e + v 2 ⊥ sin i cos θ0 sin(ϕ0 + ϕ ′ + 2π t2 Prot ) (B6) − q V 2 e + v 2 ⊥ sin i …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The posterior distributions of stellar parameters. Produced by the corner package (Foreman-Mackey 2016). Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605 Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.10…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The posterior distributions of stellar parameters and the flare location. Produced by the corner package (Foreman￾Mackey 2016). Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0128 Li, G.-W., Wu, C., Zhou, G.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2701, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.07.024 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al

    Abdel-Sattar, W., Mawad, R., & Moussas, X. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 2701, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.07.024 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Pr...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2018.07.024 2018

  2. [2]

    P., & Toomre, J

    Bice, C. P., & Toomre, J. 2022, ApJ, 928, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4be0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4be0 2022

  3. [3]

    2024, A&A, 682, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347901

    Bicz, K., Falewicz, R., & Pietras, M. 2024, A&A, 682, A176, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347901

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347901 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 Flare Location13 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 M 0.42 0.48 0.54 0.60 R 300 600 900 1200 Vesc 48 56 64 72 Ve 0.03650.03660.03670.0368 L 15 30 45 60 75 i 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 M 0.42 0.48 0.54 0.60 R 300 600 900 1200 Vesc 48 56...

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1605 2014

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936612 2019

  7. [7]

    2000, A&A, 363, 1081

    Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 363, 1081

    2000

  8. [8]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Covey, K. R., Clarke, R. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb76 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2022, A&A, 664, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142573 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Gershberg, R. E. 1972, Ap&SS, 19, 75, doi: 10.1007/BF00643168

    1972 doi

  5. [13]

    Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316036570 G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al

    Ilin, E., Schmidt, S. J., Poppenh¨ ager, K., et al. 2021a, A&A, 645, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039198

    doi

  10. [18]

    J., et al

    Ilin, E., Poppenhaeger, K., Schmidt, S. J., et al. 2021b, MNRAS, 507, 1723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2159

    doi

  11. [19]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    S., L¨ uftinger, T., & Kochukhov, O

    Kay, C., Airapetian, V. S., L¨ uftinger, T., & Kochukhov, O. 2019, ApJL, 886, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab551f

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 195, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/195 14Li et al

    Kay, C., Opher, M., & Kornbleuth, M. 2016, ApJ, 826, 195, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/195 14Li et al. 14.650 14.665 14.680 14.695 14.710Parallax (mas) 0.42300 0.42304 0.42308 0.42312Period (days) 24 30 36 42 48 Vesin i (km/s) 16 12 8 4 0 V (km/s) 70 75 80 85 0 (deg) 135 120 1...

    2016

  14. [22]

    Lammer, H., Lichtenegger, H. I. M., Kulikov, Y. N., et al. 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185, doi: 10.1089/ast.2006.0128

    2007

  15. [23]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/aca506

    Li, G.-W., Wu, C., Zhou, G.-P., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 015016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/aca506

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55e8 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Li, G.-W., Wang, L., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad55e8 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.0...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    2020 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    Lu, H.-p., Tian, H., Zhang, L.-y., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142909

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Prsa, A., Torres, G., et al

    Mamajek, E. E., Prsa, A., Torres, G., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.07674, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1510.07674 Flare Location15

    2015 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    Charbonneau, D. 2022, ApJ, 935, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac77f9

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1078

    Menezes, F., Valio, A., Netto, Y., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1078

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    Ventura, P. 2003, A&A, 397, 147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    Reiners, A., Sch¨ ussler, M., & Passegger, V. M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/144

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Sasso, C., Andretta, V., Terranegra, L., & Gomez, M. T. 2017, A&A, 604, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730676

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A

    Schrijver, C. J., Kauristie, K., Aylward, A. D., et al. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 2745, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.023

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Schuessler, M., & Solanki, S. K. 1992, A&A, 264, L13

    1992

  30. [38]

    Strassmeier, K. G. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 251, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0020-6

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    W., Winn, J

    Sullivan, P. W., Winn, J. N., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1794

    Davenport, J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64, doi: 10.1089/ast.2017.1794

    2019

  33. [41]

    M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Odert, P., Leitzinger, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01345-9

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1670

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    Yang, H., & Liu, J. 2019, ApJS, 241, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0d28

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    2025, A&A, 695, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453120

    Yang, H., Cheng, X., Liu, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453120

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.