pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30844 · v1 · pith:SZJ5HIKWnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Coherent and Incoherent Emission from the Ordered Magnetospheres of Low-Mass Stars, UCDs, and Massive Stars

Francesco Cavallaro , Paolo Leto , Barnali Das , Corrado Trigilio , Grazia Umana , Cristobal Bordiu , Filomena Bufano , Carla S. Buemi
show 10 more authors
Joseph R. Callingham Laura Driessen Adriano Ingallinera Sara Loru Stanley Owocki Simone Riggi Alan C. Ruggeri Giovanni Sabatini Matt E. Shultz Alessio Traficante
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 01:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords ultracool dwarfsmagnetospheresradio emissioncentrifugal breakoutgyro-synchrotronelectron cyclotron masermassive stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio luminosity trends in ultracool dwarfs match those of massive magnetic stars, indicating a centrifugal breakout process may operate in both.

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

The paper reviews how ordered magnetospheres produce radio emission in two very different stellar classes. In massive early-type stars, plasma builds up in the rigidly rotating magnetosphere and breaks out beyond the co-rotation radius, driving reconnection that accelerates electrons and yields incoherent gyro-synchrotron radiation whose strength scales with the energy released in those breakouts. Ultracool dwarfs display matching luminosity trends despite lacking strong winds, which leads the authors to propose that an analogous breakout process supplies the plasma and particles there. Both classes also emit coherent electron cyclotron maser radiation with strong polarization and rotational modulation, resembling planetary aurorae. The Square Kilometre Array is expected to detect roughly 1000 ultracool dwarfs, providing the sample size needed to test whether the same scaling holds.

Core claim

In massive stars the centrifugal breakout mechanism confines plasma until centrifugal forces exceed magnetic tension, triggering reconnection events that generate the non-thermal electrons responsible for the observed incoherent radio emission; the radio luminosity correlates directly with the power released by these events. The same luminosity–rotation–confinement trends appear in ultracool dwarfs, suggesting that a centrifugal-breakout-like process also operates in their fully convective magnetospheres even though the plasma source remains unidentified.

What carries the argument

The centrifugal breakout (CBO) mechanism, in which plasma trapped inside the co-rotation radius accumulates until centrifugal forces drive magnetic reconnection and particle acceleration.

If this is right

  • Radio output in both stellar classes is directly tied to the product of rotation rate and magnetic confinement efficiency.
  • Coherent electron cyclotron maser emission occurs in both regimes and exhibits similar polarization and modulation properties.
  • Statistical tests of the centrifugal breakout hypothesis become feasible once the Square Kilometre Array surveys hundreds of ultracool dwarfs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same breakout scaling applies to ultracool dwarfs, radio surveys could map their internal magnetic field strengths without relying on optical or X-ray data.
  • The shared presence of coherent emission raises the possibility that the same magnetospheric current systems operate from planets to low-mass stars.
  • Extending the comparison to intermediate-mass stars with fossil fields could test whether the breakout process depends on the presence of a convective dynamo.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that matching radio luminosity trends between massive stars and ultracool dwarfs indicate the same physical mechanism is operating, even though the sources of plasma differ and ultracool dwarfs lack strong stellar winds.

What would settle it

A large sample of ultracool dwarfs in which radio luminosity shows no correlation with the expected centrifugal breakout power calculated from rotation rate and magnetic field strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30844 by Adriano Ingallinera, Alan C. Ruggeri, Alessio Traficante, Barnali Das, Carla S. Buemi, Corrado Trigilio, Cristobal Bordiu, Filomena Bufano, Francesco Cavallaro, Giovanni Sabatini, Grazia Umana, Joseph R. Callingham, Laura Driessen, Matt E. Shultz, Paolo Leto, Sara Loru, Simone Riggi, Stanley Owocki.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Relationship between CBO power 𝐿CBO and radio luminosity 𝐿𝜈,rad actions analogous to the Jupiter–Io system (Badman et al., 2015). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the presence of structured magnetospheres and their interaction with plasma reservoirs—whether wind-fed or externally sourced—governs both inco￾herent and coherent emission processes. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA), with its sensit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Tangent plane beaming model. Figure taken from Leto et al. (2016). plane beaming model’ inspired from the observed beaming geometry of auroral kilometric radia￾tion from Earth. According to this model, radiation is emitted tangentially to the auroral rings (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Differential source counts dN/dS of UCDs within a 100 pc radius sphere as a function of flux density. plasma distribution. These anisotropies could be influenced by external sources, such as plane￾tary companions or residual chromospheric outflows, which introduce absorption effects across the magnetosphere. Population studies indicate that approximately 15% of UCDs produce persistent incoherent radio emis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expected numbers of UCDs detected with a 70% sky survey in Band 2 carried with AA4 SKA as a function of the integration time per pointing (bottom x-axis) and the 5𝜎 sensitivity (top x-axis) for each luminosity–distance combination, weighted by the shell volume 4𝜋𝑑2 Δ𝑑 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cartoon illustrating the two radio emission components originating within a typical, well-ordered dipolar magnetosphere. The incoherent radio emission, produced by energetic electrons trapped in radiation belts, is shaded in green. The colored spots indicate the sources of the coherent ECME emission arising from the northern (red) and southern (blue) auroral rings. The radiation beam pattern follows the ta… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Massive early-type (B/A) stars and ultracool dwarfs (UCDs) represent two distinct regimes in which ordered, large-scale magnetospheres are observed. In rapidly rotating massive stars, incoherent radio emission is explained by the centrifugal breakout (CBO) mechanism: plasma confined within the rigidly rotating magnetosphere accumulates beyond the co-rotation radius, where centrifugal forces trigger breakout events and magnetic reconnection, generating non-thermal electrons that produce incoherent gyro-synchrotron emission. Empirically, the radio luminosity correlates with the power released by CBO events, establishing a clear link between stellar rotation, magnetic confinement, and radio output. In UCDs, persistent non-thermal radio emission exhibits similar luminosity trends to those of massive magnetic stars, despite the absence of strong stellar winds. This similarity suggests that a CBO-like process may also operate in these fully convective, low-mass objects, though the plasma source and acceleration mechanisms remain uncertain. In both classes, coherent electron cyclotron maser emission (ECME), characterized by strong polarization and rotational modulation, is observed, indicating common magnetospheric processes analogous to planetary auroral emission. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) will be able to deeply observe about 70\% of the sky. We expect to observe $\sim 1000$ UCDs, enabling better statistical analysis of their emission and a test of the CBO hypothesis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews ordered magnetospheres in massive early-type stars and ultracool dwarfs (UCDs). For massive stars it summarizes the centrifugal breakout (CBO) mechanism for incoherent gyro-synchrotron emission, noting an empirical correlation between radio luminosity and CBO power. It then argues that similar radio-luminosity trends in UCDs, despite the absence of strong stellar winds, suggest a CBO-like process may operate in these objects, while acknowledging that the plasma source and acceleration mechanisms remain uncertain. The paper also discusses coherent electron-cyclotron-maser emission (ECME) in both classes and states that SKA observations of ~1000 UCDs will enable a statistical test of the CBO hypothesis.

Significance. If the proposed analogy holds, the work would help unify the interpretation of non-thermal radio emission across stellar regimes with large-scale ordered fields. A clear strength is the explicit, falsifiable prediction that SKA will detect ~1000 UCDs, providing a concrete observational test of the CBO-like hypothesis.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central suggestion that 'a CBO-like process may also operate in these fully convective, low-mass objects' rests on the observed similarity of radio-luminosity trends to those in massive stars. However, the same paragraph explicitly flags the absence of strong stellar winds and leaves the plasma source and acceleration mechanisms uncertain, without referencing an adapted CBO scaling relation or quantitative model for UCDs that would make the trend diagnostic of centrifugal breakout rather than alternative reconnection or acceleration processes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting the potential unifying value of the work. We respond to the single major comment on the abstract below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central suggestion that 'a CBO-like process may also operate in these fully convective, low-mass objects' rests on the observed similarity of radio-luminosity trends to those in massive stars. However, the same paragraph explicitly flags the absence of strong stellar winds and leaves the plasma source and acceleration mechanisms uncertain, without referencing an adapted CBO scaling relation or quantitative model for UCDs that would make the trend diagnostic of centrifugal breakout rather than alternative reconnection or acceleration processes.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract presents an empirical analogy based on similar radio-luminosity trends while explicitly noting the absence of strong winds and uncertainties in plasma source and acceleration. As a review manuscript, we do not develop or reference a quantitative adapted CBO scaling relation for UCDs; the intent is to highlight the observed parallel as motivation for considering a CBO-like process and to propose that SKA observations can statistically test the hypothesis. We will revise the abstract to state more explicitly that the suggestion is a tentative hypothesis motivated by the trends rather than a claim that the trends are uniquely diagnostic of centrifugal breakout. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper states an empirical correlation for massive stars (radio luminosity correlates with CBO power) and notes similar trends in UCDs to suggest a possible CBO-like process, while explicitly acknowledging uncertain plasma sources. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are present that reduce any claim to its inputs by construction. The SKA count estimate is a direct observational projection, not a derived result. The text contains no load-bearing self-definitional steps, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the work relies on prior empirical correlations and standard astrophysical concepts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5873 in / 1190 out tokens · 46344 ms · 2026-07-01T01:24:13.976818+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0042-x. E. Berger. ApJ, 572(1):503–513, June

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0042-x

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1086/340301. W. M. J. Best et al. ApJ, 967(2):115, June

    work page doi:10.1086/340301

  3. [3]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ef. A. Biswas et al. ApJ, 980(2):260, Feb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39ef

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae02. A. J. Burgasser and M. E. Putman. ApJ, 626(1):486–497, June

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adae02

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.1086/429788. P . Chandra et al. MNRAS, 452(2):1245–1253, Sep

    work page doi:10.1086/429788

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1378. J. B. Climent et al. Science, 381(6662):1120–1124, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1378

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1126/science.adg6635. K. L. Cruz et al. AJ, 133(2):439–467, Feb

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adg6635

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1086/510132. S. Curiel et al. In Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.1086/510132

  9. [9]

    16 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075. 16 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F . Cavallaro et al. B. Das, P . Chandra, and G. A. Wade. MNRAS, 474(1):L61–L65, Feb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1075

  10. [10]

    doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/ slx193. B. Das, P . Chandra, M. E. Shultz, and G. A. Wade. ApJ, 877(2):123, Jun 2019a. doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab1b12. B. Das, P . Chandra, M. E. Shultz, and G. A. Wade. MNRAS, 489(1):L102–L107, Oct. 2019b. doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz137. B. Das, S. Mondal, and P . Chandra. ApJ, 900(2):156, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/

  11. [11]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8fd. B. Das, P . Chandra, and V . Petit. MNRAS, 515(2):2008–2014, Sept. 2022a. doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stac1894. B. Das et al. MNRAS, 517(4):5756–5769, Dec. 2022b. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3123. B. Das et al. ApJ, 925(2):125, Feb. 2022c. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2576. B. Das, P . Chandra, and V . Petit.ApJ, 974(2):267, Oct

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba8fd 2008

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5. B. Das, P . Chandra, W. Cotton, and V . Petit.arXiv e-prints, art. arXiv:2507.03882, July 2025a. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.03882. B. Das et al. PASA, 42:e110, July 2025b. doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10036. I. de Pater and D. E. Dunn. Icarus, 163(2):449–455, June

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad71c5 2025

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03) 00068-X. J.-F. Donati et al. Science, 311(5761):633–635, Feb

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.1126/science.1121102. L. N. Driessen et al. In Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1121102

  15. [15]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125. J. Forbrich and E. Berger. ApJL, 706(2):L205–L209, Dec

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125

  16. [16]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/ L205. J. H. Grunhut, G. A. Wade, and MiMeS Collaboration. In L. Drissen, C. Robert, N. St-Louis, and A. F. J. Moffat, editors, Proceedings of a Scientific Meeting in Honor of Anthony F . J. Moffat , volume 465 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, page 42, Dec

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/2/

  17. [17]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add5f3. G. Hallinan et al. ApJL, 663(1):L25–L28, July

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add5f3

  18. [18]

    doi: 10.1086/519790. G. Hallinan et al. ApJ, 684(1):644–653, Sept

    work page doi:10.1086/519790

  19. [19]

    doi: 10.1086/590360. M. Hoshino, T. Mukai, T. Terasawa, and I. Shinohara. J. Geophys. Res. , 106(A11):25979–25998, Nov

    work page doi:10.1086/590360

  20. [20]

    doi: 10.1029/2001JA900052. M. M. Kao and E. L. Shkolnik. MNRAS, 527(3):6835–6866, Jan

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja900052

  21. [21]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stad2272. M. M. Kao et al. ApJ, 818(1):24, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/24. M. M. Kao, A. J. Mioduszewski, J. Villadsen, and E. L. Shkolnik. Nature, 619(7969):272–275, July

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/24

  23. [23]

    doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06138-w. E. Lenc et al. MNRAS, 478(2):2835–2849, Aug

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06138-w

  24. [24]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1304. F. Leone and G. Umana. A&A, 268:667–670, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1304

  25. [25]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054511. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 423(2):1766–1774, June

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054511

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20997.x. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 459(2):1159–1169, June

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20997.x 2012

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw639. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 467(3):2820–2833, May

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw639

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx267. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 482(1):L4–L8, Jan

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx267

  29. [29]

    17 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F

    doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly179. 17 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F . Cavallaro et al. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 499(1):L72–L76, Sept. 2020a. doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa157. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 493(4):4657–4676, Apr. 2020b. doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa587. P . Leto et al. MNRAS, 507(2):1979–1998, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly179 1979

  30. [30]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2168. P . Leto et al. A&A, 706:A241, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2168

  31. [31]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557214. J. Llama et al. ApJ, 854(1):7, Feb

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557214

  32. [32]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa59f. C. Lynch, R. L. Mutel, and M. Güdel. ApJ, 802(2):106, Apr

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa59f

  33. [33]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/ 2/106. C. Lynch et al. MNRAS, 457(2):1224–1232, Apr

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/

  34. [34]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw050. L. D. Matthews. arXiv e-prints , art. arXiv:2509.21467, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw050

  35. [35]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509. 21467. M. McLean et al. ApJ, 741(1):27, Nov

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509

  36. [36]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/27. M. McLean, E. Berger, and A. Reiners. ApJ, 746(1):23, Feb

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/27

  37. [37]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/ 1/23. D. B. Melrose and G. A. Dulk. ApJ, 259:844–858, Aug

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/

  38. [38]

    doi: 10.1086/160219. Y . T. Metodieva et al. MNRAS, 465(2):1995–2009, Feb

    work page doi:10.1086/160219 1995

  39. [39]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2597. J. Morin et al. MNRAS, 407(4):2269–2286, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2597

  40. [40]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x. S. P . Owocki et al. MNRAS, 513(1):1449–1458, June

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17101.x 2010

  41. [41]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac341. J. Pritchard et al. MNRAS, 502(4):5438–5454, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac341

  42. [42]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab299. A. Reiners and G. Basri. ApJ, 656(2):1121–1135, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab299

  43. [43]

    doi: 10.1086/510304. P . Renson and J. Manfroid.A&A, 498(3):961–966, May

    work page doi:10.1086/510304

  44. [44]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810788. M. Route and A. Wolszczan. ApJ, 830(2):85, Oct

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810788

  45. [45]

    doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/85. M. E. Shultz et al. MNRAS, 475(4):5144–5178, Apr

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/85

  46. [46]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty103. M. E. Shultz et al. MNRAS, 490(1):274–295, Nov. 2019a. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2551. M. E. Shultz et al. MNRAS, 485(2):1508–1527, May 2019b. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz416. M. E. Shultz et al. MNRAS, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty103

  47. [47]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac136. J. Sikora, G. A. Wade, J. Power, and C. Neiner. MNRAS, 483(2):2300–2324, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac136

  48. [48]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3105. D. W. N. Stibbs. MNRAS, 110:395, Jan

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3105

  49. [49]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/110.4.395. R. H. D. Townsend and S. P . Owocki. MNRAS, 357(1):251–264, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/110.4.395

  50. [50]

    1365-2966.2005.08642.x

    doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2966.2005.08642.x. A. Traficante et al. In Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II (AASKAII)

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2005

  51. [51]

    doi: 10.1007/s00159-006-0001-y. C. Trigilio et al. A&A, 362:281–288, Oct

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-006-0001-y

  52. [52]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007097. C. Trigilio et al. A&A, 418:593–605, May

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007097

  53. [53]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040060. C. Trigilio et al. ApJL, 739(1):L10, Sept

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040060

  54. [54]

    doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L10. A. ud-Doula, R. H. D. Townsend, and S. P . Owocki. ApJL, 640(2):L191–L194, Apr

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/l10 2041

  55. [55]

    doi: 10.1086/503382. G. A. Wade et al. MNRAS, 456(1):2–22, Feb

    work page doi:10.1086/503382

  56. [56]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2568. P . K. G. Williams, B. A. Cook, and E. Berger. ApJ, 785(1):9, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2568

  57. [57]

    doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/ 785/1/9. R. K. Y adav et al. ApJL, 813(2):L31, Nov

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/

  58. [58]

    doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L31. P . Zarka. J. Geophys. Res., 103(E9):20159–20194, Sept

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l31 2041

  59. [59]

    18 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F

    doi: 10.1029/98JE01323. 18 Ordered Magnetosphere Radio Stars F . Cavallaro et al. P . Zarka. Advances in Space Research , 33(11):2045–2060, Jan

    work page doi:10.1029/98je01323 2045

  60. [60]

    doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2003.07

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.07 2003

  61. [61]

    doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.045. E. G. Zweibel and M. Y amada. ARA&A, 47(1):291–332, Sept

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.045 2006