Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Probing habitable regions with SRG/eROSITA

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A census of 3,750 nearby stars with eROSITA finds most expose their habitable zones to XUV fluxes 100 to 100,000 times Earth's current level, driving extreme predicted atmospheric escape for Earth-like planets.

desk verdict Large eROSITA-based catalog of HZ XUV fluxes, but unpropagated ~2 dex EUV calibration uncertainty makes the quantitative claims over-precise; direction is right. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.06124 v1 pith:TOCTZYWD submitted 2026-02-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

E. Gatuzz , S. Rukdee , S. Freund , T. Kallman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords XUVirradiationhabitablezoneexoplanetatmospheresatmosphericescapestellarX-rayactivityeROSITAsurveymain-sequencestarshazardzones
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

This paper uses the eROSITA all-sky X-ray survey to measure X-ray luminosities for 3,750 main-sequence stars, then infers their extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) output and computes the combined XUV flux at each star's habitable zone. The authors find that the typical star in this sample delivers far more high-energy radiation to its habitable zone than the Sun does to Earth, with fluxes spanning 10^0 to 10^5 erg cm^-2 s^-1. They also map these fluxes across the local Galaxy, defining 'hazard zones' where a planet's atmosphere would be eroded most strongly, and calculate energy-limited mass-loss rates for hypothetical Earth-like planets. The work matters because it turns a large, homogeneous X-ray survey into a direct constraint on the high-energy environments that determine exoplanet habitability.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on three coupled components: (1) X-ray luminosities (L_X) from spectral fits to eROSITA survey data, corrected for absorption; (2) an empirical scaling relation, log L_EUV = (4.80 ± 1.99) + (0.860 ± 0.073) log L_X, that converts X-ray luminosity to EUV luminosity, giving L_XUV = L_X + L_EUV; and (3) the Kopparapu habitable-zone formulation (S_eff as a fourth-order polynomial in T_eff) to compute the habitable-zone distance, followed by the energy-limited mass-loss formula m-dot = eta * 3 * beta^3 * F_XUV / (4 G K rho_pl). The scaling relation is the bridge that turns a purely X-ray sample into an XUV habitability assessment.

What would settle it

Direct EUV measurements of a subsample of these 3,750 stars (e.g., from a future space observatory operating at 0.013–0.1 keV) that disagree with the assumed L_X–L_EUV relation would change the calculated F_XUV,HZ values; alternatively, observing atmospheric escape rates for a few Earth-like planets in these habitable zones—if they deviate by more than an order of magnitude from the energy-limited predictions—would test the mass-loss model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the majority of stars in the sample are significantly more XUV-active than the Sun, with habitable-zone XUV fluxes ranging from 10^0 to 10^5 erg cm^-2 s^-1, far above the present-day solar value of about 4 erg cm^-2 s^-1. Cooler, magnetically active stars show higher ratios of XUV to bolometric luminosity, implying that low-mass stars place their habitable zones in especially harsh radiation environments. Applying the energy-limited escape model to Earth-like planets at the habitable-zone distance yields atmospheric mass-loss rates that for the most irradiated systems reach extreme values, comparable to or exceeding those observed for hot Jupiters. The authors also

Load-bearing premise

The EUV luminosity, which dominates the XUV budget, is not measured but is inferred from X-ray luminosity through a scaling relation with roughly two orders of magnitude scatter; every headline number—habitable-zone flux, mass-loss rate, and hazard map—inherits this uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the XUV fluxes are correct, Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of most surveyed stars would experience atmospheric escape rates far too high to retain a thick atmosphere over long timescales.
  • Cool, low-mass stars, despite lower total XUV luminosity, present the highest habitable-zone fluxes because their habitable zones lie much closer in, making them prime targets for atmospheric follow-up.
  • The Galactic 'hazard zone' maps provide a spatially resolved resource for selecting exoplanet targets most likely to show atmospheric escape signatures in transmission spectroscopy.
  • The sample is flux-limited and biased toward young, active stars, so the derived flux distribution reflects a young stellar population, not the present-day Sun-like quiescent population.
  • The paper demonstrates that a large X-ray survey alone can yield order-of-magnitude constraints on exoplanet atmospheric evolution, without needing direct EUV observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 2-dex scatter in the EUV scaling relation is never propagated into the derived F_XUV,HZ values, mass-loss rates, or hazard maps; if the relation is off by even half its scatter, the claimed contrast between 'hazardous' (10^5) and 'benign' (10^0) environments would largely disappear.
  • Because the sample is X-ray-selected, the fraction of truly hazardous stars is likely overestimated relative to the general main-sequence population; a volume-limited sample would give a more representative hazard census.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to the known catalog of exoplanet host stars to prioritize those most likely to exhibit detectable atmospheric escape, rather than using a generic stellar sample.
  • Direct EUV measurements of even a handful of these stars (from a future observatory) would calibrate the scaling relation and immediately validate or revise the entire hazard map.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper cross-matches eROSITA eRASS1 coronal X-ray sources with Gaia DR3, selects 3750 main-sequence stars, fits their X-ray spectra, and computes X-ray luminosities L_X. It then derives EUV luminosities L_EUV using the Sanz-Forcada et al. (2011) L_X–L_EUV scaling relation (Eq. 3), combines these into L_XUV, computes XUV fluxes at the habitable zone F_XUV,HZ (Eq. 6), and estimates energy-limited atmospheric mass-loss rates for hypothetical Earth-like planets (Eq. 7). It presents color–magnitude diagrams, L_XUV/L_bol trends, F_XUV,HZ distributions, and Galactic-plane maps of average F_XUV,HZ and normalized F_XUV,HZ/F_HZ. The central claim is that most stars in the sample are significantly more XUV-active than the Sun, with F_XUV,HZ in the range 10^0–10^5 erg cm^-2 s^-1, and that cool, magnetically active stars are particularly hazardous to planetary atmospheres.

Significance. The dataset is novel and potentially valuable: a large, homogeneous eROSITA-based sample of coronal main-sequence stars with Gaia astrometry, processed through a consistent spectral-fitting pipeline. If the analysis were properly calibrated and the uncertainties honestly propagated, the resulting F_XUV,HZ distributions and maps would be a useful demographic characterization of the high-energy environments of nearby stars. However, the central quantitative result is currently under-supported. The paper does not measure EUV emission; every derived quantity depends on a published scaling relation with large scatter, and that scatter is never propagated into the headline fluxes or mass-loss rates. The sample is also X-ray-selected and flux-limited, so the population-level statement that 'the majority of stars are more XUV-active than the Sun' is largely a selection effect. The manuscript therefore requires substantial revision before its conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (3)] The L_X–L_EUV scaling relation has an intercept uncertainty of ±1.99 dex and a slope uncertainty of ±0.073. These uncertainties are never propagated into F_XUV,HZ (Eq. 6), m-dot (Eq. 7), or the maps in Figs. 8–11. Because L_EUV is not measured, all downstream quantities are deterministic remappings of L_X and L_bol through this fitted relation. A 1σ change in the intercept alone changes L_EUV by a factor of ~100, which is comparable to the entire claimed F_XUV,HZ range of 10^0–10^5 erg cm^-2 s^-1. Without propagating these errors or demonstrating that the conclusions are robust to them, the 'hazardous vs. benign' classification is not established.
  2. [Sections 3–4] Eq. (3) is calibrated on L_X in the 0.1–2.4 keV band, but the eROSITA spectral fits are performed over 0.2–10 keV and no band conversion is described. If the L_X values used in Eq. (3) are not converted to the ROSAT 0.1–2.4 keV band, L_EUV will be systematically biased. Please specify the exact energy band of the L_X values from Eq. (2), apply the appropriate conversion, or justify that the band mismatch is negligible.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (7)] The effective XUV absorption cross-section β is introduced in Eq. (7) but never defined numerically or dimensionally, so the mass-loss rates are not independently reproducible. The paper also does not propagate uncertainties from β, η, or F_XUV,HZ into m-dot. Given that the displayed m-dot values span 10^5–10^11 g/s and are cited as evidence of 'extreme escape rates', the choice of β and the associated systematic uncertainty must be stated.
  4. [Section 2 and Section 7] The sample is selected from eROSITA X-ray detections and is therefore flux-limited and strongly biased toward luminous, likely young, active stars. The Discussion acknowledges this, but the Abstract and Conclusions present the finding that 'the majority of stars in our sample are significantly more XUV-active than the Sun' without this caveat, making it read as a statement about the local stellar population. The population-level claim should be reframed as a property of an X-ray-selected sample, or an unbiased comparison should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The outline says 'The habitable zone X-ray irradiation computation is shown in Section 6, while the mapping of local hazard zones is described in Section 6.' The former should be Section 5 and the latter Section 6.
  2. [Section 3] The text near Figure 3 defines 'L_XUV = log L_EUV + L_X', which is dimensionally inconsistent. It should be L_XUV = L_EUV + L_X.
  3. [Section 8] The conclusions state 'We model atmospheric mass loss ratios for earth-like planets'; this should read 'mass-loss rates'.
  4. [Section 5 and Table 1] Table 1 gives a single set of Kopparapu coefficients, but Eq. (4) refers to 'inner or outer edges' of the HZ. The caption of Fig. 8 says 'center of the habitable zone', but the coefficients appear to correspond to the inner edge. Please specify which HZ definition is used and how it affects d_HZ and F_XUV,HZ.
  5. [Figures 3–6] The figures show distributions and trends in L_XUV and related quantities without any uncertainty shading or error bars. Adding even representative error bars, or at least a statement about the scaling-relation uncertainty, would help readers gauge the significance of the displayed trends.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: XUV fluxes are an explicit application of an external scaling relation, not a prediction equivalent to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper measures X-ray luminosities from eROSITA spectra and then estimates EUV luminosities using the published Sanz-Forcada et al. (2011) scaling relation, Eq. (3). This is transparent calibration transfer, not a definitional circle: L_EUV is not defined in terms of the paper's own target quantities, and the scaling relation was fitted on independent data. F_XUV,HZ (Eq. 6) and mass-loss rates (Eq. 7) are deterministic functions of L_X, L_bol and adopted literature parameters (Kopparapu et al. 2014; Erkaev et al. 2007); the results inherit the uncertainties and assumptions of those external relations, but they are not circular. The self-citations (Gatuzz et al. 2024, Freund et al. 2024) provide the X-ray data products and catalog and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The strongest caveat—that EUV is not directly measured and the scaling scatter is not propagated—is a robustness/correctness limitation, explicitly acknowledged in Section 1 ('EUV flux cannot be measured directly... inferred'), not an instance of the paper's conclusions reducing to its own inputs by construction. Score 1 reflects only the presence of same-group data products in the chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The paper introduces no new physics; all inputs are literature fits, assumed efficiencies, and hand-chosen cuts. The count of free parameters (six) is the honest price of the calculation: the X-ray luminosities are measured, but everything downstream - EUV, HZ flux, mass-loss, maps - is those measurements remapped through adopted fits and assumptions, with the dominant uncertainty (Sanz-Forcada scatter) left unpropagated.

free parameters (6)
  • L_X-L_EUV scaling intercept = 4.80 +/- 1.99
    Adopted from Sanz-Forcada et al. 2011 (Eq. 3). Sets the zero-point of the EUV estimate; its scatter is about 2 dex and is not propagated.
  • L_X-L_EUV scaling slope = 0.860 +/- 0.073
    Adopted from Sanz-Forcada et al. 2011 (Eq. 3); controls how EUV grows with X-ray luminosity.
  • Escape efficiency eta = 0.15
    Assumed in Eq. (7); the literature range spans 0.01-1, so mass-loss rates carry at least an order of magnitude uncertainty.
  • XUV absorption factor beta = not stated
    Appears cubed in Eq. (7) but is never assigned a value or defined; mass-loss rates cannot be reproduced from the text as written.
  • X-ray luminosity filter bounds = 10^26-10^32 erg/s
    Hand-chosen 'conservative' cut (Section 2) that determines which stars enter the sample and therefore shapes the F_XUV,HZ distribution.
  • Main-sequence tolerance = 1 mag in M_G
    Chosen threshold for main-sequence membership following Freund et al. 2024; affects the sample composition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption EUV luminosity is a deterministic function of X-ray luminosity (Eq. 3)
    EUV is unobservable with current instruments; the entire XUV chain rests on the Sanz-Forcada 2011 empirical correlation being valid for all 3,750 stars, including X-ray-selected active stars.
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. 2014 habitable-zone flux boundaries apply (Eq. 4, Table 1)
    HZ distances are computed from these literature coefficients; the choice of HZ definition sets d_HZ and therefore F_XUV,HZ.
  • domain assumption Energy-limited escape with eta = 0.15 describes atmospheric mass loss (Eq. 7)
    The paper cites Krenn et al. 2021 noting up to 3-order-of-magnitude deviations from hydrodynamic models for extreme cases; the approximation is adopted anyway.
  • domain assumption Spectral fits of Gatuzz et al. 2024 correctly recover unabsorbed X-ray fluxes
    All L_X values inherit the same-team catalog of fits (arXiv:2401.17284); the fits are not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption eRASS1-Gaia cross-match of Freund et al. 2024 is complete and clean
    Sample selection inherits the HamStar identifications; contamination would propagate into the XUV statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing habitable regions with SRG/eROSITA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOCTZYWD

@misc{pith2026260206124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing habitable regions with SRG/eROSITA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOCTZYWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.06124}
}
abstract

Stellar high-energy radiation is a key driver of atmospheric erosion and evolution in exoplanets, directly affecting their long-term habitability. We present a comprehensive study on stellar high-energy radiation and its impact on exoplanetary atmospheres, leveraging data from the \textit{SRG/eROSITA} all-sky survey. Our sample consists of 3750 main-sequence stars identified by cross-matching with \textit{Gaia} DR3. Utilizing X-ray spectral fits from the \textit{eROSITA} catalog, we computed X-ray ($L_X$) and combined extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) luminosities ($L_{\mathrm{EUV}}$), which we used to derive XUV fluxes at the habitable zone ($F_{\mathrm{XUV,HZ}}$). We find that the majority of stars in our sample are significantly more XUV-active than the Sun, with habitable zone fluxes ranging from $10^0$ to $10^5$ erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$. The ratio of $L_{\mathrm{XUV}}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ is found to be higher for cooler, magnetically active stars, highlighting their potentially hazardous nature for planetary atmospheres. Applying the energy-limited escape model, we computed atmospheric mass-loss rates for hypothetical earth-like planets located at the habitable zone of each star. We also present local maps for distances up to $500$~pc of the average XUV flux, revealing ``hazard zones'' where stellar radiation could significantly influence planetary atmospheric evolution. This work demonstrates the power of X-ray surveys in constraining the high-energy environments of exoplanets and underscores the critical role of stellar activity in planetary habitability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of hardness ratios for the analyzed sample. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of the combined X-ray and extreme-UV lumi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Combined X-ray and extreme-UV luminosity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of combined X-ray and extreme-UV luminosity to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Calculated photoevaporative mass-loss rates for a theo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: X-ray plus EUV flux (FXUV,HZ) received at the habitable zone of each star as a function of stellar mass. Only sources with log10(FXUV,HZ) between −1 and 6 are shown to improve visual￾ization. where LXUV is the combined stellar X-ray and EUV luminosity. The parameters u…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Map of the average XUV flux in the habitable zone, ⟨FXUV,HZ⟩, in the Galactic R-Z plane. Right panel: Map of the average XUV flux in the habitable zone, ⟨FXUV,HZ⟩, in the Galactic X-Y plane. 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 R [kpc] 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 Z [kpc] 5.0 4.5 4.0 3…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left panel: Map of the normalized XUV flux in the habitable zone, FXUV,HZ/FHZ, in the Galactic R-Z plane. Right panel: Map of the normalized XUV flux in the habitable zone, FXUV,HZ/FHZ, in the Galactic X-Y plane. Acknowledgements. This work is based on data from eROSI…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    & Chabrier, G

    Baraffe, I. & Chabrier, G. 2010, A&A, 521, A44

    2010

  2. [2]

    2022, A&A, 661, A1

    Brunner, H., Liu, T., Lamer, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A1

    2022

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 663, A122

    Caldiroli, A., Haardt, F., Gallo, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A122

    2022

  4. [4]

    2023, A&A, 676, A14

    Caramazza, M., Stelzer, B., Magaudda, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A14

    2023

  5. [5]

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

    Claire, M. W., Sheets, J., Cohen, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 95

    2012

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Cohen, O., Ma, Y ., Drake, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 41

    2015

  7. [7]

    2017, ApJ, 837, L26

    Dong, C., Lingam, M., Ma, Y ., & Cohen, O. 2017, ApJ, 837, L26

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Ehrenreich, D., Bourrier, V ., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 522, 459

    2015

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    & Désert, J

    Ehrenreich, D. & Désert, J. M. 2011, A&A, 529, A136

    2011

  2. [10]

    V ., Kulikov, Y

    Erkaev, N. V ., Kulikov, Y . N., Lammer, H., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 329

    2007

  3. [11]

    Fortney, J. J. & Nettelmann, N. 2010, Space Sci. Rev., 152, 423

    2010

  4. [12]

    2022, A&A, 661, A23

    Foster, G., Poppenhaeger, K., Ilic, N., & Schwope, A. 2022, A&A, 661, A23

    2022

  5. [13]

    S., Linsky, J

    France, K., Froning, C. S., Linsky, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 149 Article number, page 7 of 8 A&A proofs:manuscript no. eRASS_exo

    2013

  6. [14]

    2024, A&A, 684, A121

    Freund, S., Czesla, S., Predehl, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A121

    2024

  7. [15]

    C., & Schmitt, J

    Freund, S., Czesla, S., Robrade, J., Schneider, P. C., & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 2022, A&A, 664, A105 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2022

  8. [16]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17284

    Gatuzz, E., Wilms, J., Zainab, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17284

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02863

    Han, H., Wang, S., Zheng, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02863

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M

    Johnstone, C. P., Bartel, M., & Güdel, M. 2021, A&A, 649, A96

    2021

  11. [19]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29

    2014

  12. [20]

    F., Fossati, L., Kubyshkina, D., & Lammer, H

    Krenn, A. F., Fossati, L., Kubyshkina, D., & Lammer, H. 2021, A&A, 650, A94

    2021

  13. [21]

    V ., et al

    Kubyshkina, D., Fossati, L., Erkaev, N. V ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, L18

    2018

  14. [22]

    A., Fossati, L., & Farrell, E

    Kubyshkina, D., Vidotto, A. A., Fossati, L., & Farrell, E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 77

    2020

  15. [23]

    R., France, K., Linsky, J., & Loyd, R

    Kulow, J. R., France, K., Linsky, J., & Loyd, R. O. P. 2014, ApJ, 786, 132 Lecavelier Des Etangs, A., Ehrenreich, D., Vidal-Madjar, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A72

    2014

  16. [24]

    Lopez, E. D. & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1

    2014

  17. [25]

    D., Fortney, J

    Lopez, E. D., Fortney, J. J., & Miller, N. 2012, ApJ, 761, 59

    2012

  18. [26]

    2022, A&A, 661, A29

    Magaudda, E., Stelzer, B., Raetz, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A29

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Queloz, D

    Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355

    1995

  20. [28]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

    2024

  21. [29]

    Monsch, K., Ercolano, B., Picogna, G., Preibisch, T., & Rau, M. M. 2019, MN- RAS, 483, 3448

    2019

  22. [30]

    A., Chiang, E

    Murray-Clay, R. A., Chiang, E. I., & Murray, N. 2009, ApJ, 693, 23

    2009

  23. [31]

    2018, Science, 362, 1388 Oklopˇci´c, A

    Nortmann, L., Pallé, E., Salz, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1388 Oklopˇci´c, A. & Hirata, C. M. 2018, ApJ, 855, L11

    2018

  24. [32]

    Owen, J. E. & Adams, F. C. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3761

    2014

  25. [33]

    E., Clarke, C

    Owen, J. E., Clarke, C. J., & Ercolano, B. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1880

    2012

  26. [34]

    Owen, J. E. & Wu, Y . 2016, ApJ, 817, 107

    2016

  27. [35]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

    2013

  28. [36]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 154

    2012

  29. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17302

    Poppenhaeger, K., Ketzer, L., Ilic, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17302

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Poppenhaeger, K., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Wolk, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 773, 62

    2013

  31. [39]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V ., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1

    2021

  32. [40]

    F., Güdel, M., & Audard, M

    Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., Güdel, M., & Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680

    2005

  33. [41]

    C., Fossati, L., et al

    Salz, M., Schneider, P. C., Fossati, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A57

    2019

  34. [42]

    2011, A&A, 532, A6

    Sanz-Forcada, J., Micela, G., Ribas, I., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A6

    2011

  35. [43]

    C., Freund, S., Czesla, S., et al

    Schneider, P. C., Freund, S., Czesla, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A6

    2022

  36. [44]

    J., Sing, D

    Spake, J. J., Sing, D. K., Evans, T. M., et al. 2018, Nature, 557, 68

    2018

  37. [45]

    Thorngren, D. P. & Fortney, J. J. 2018, AJ, 155, 214

    2018

  38. [46]

    P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H

    Tu, L., Johnstone, C. P., Güdel, M., & Lammer, H. 2015, A&A, 577, L3

    2015

  39. [47]

    M., et al

    Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., Désert, J. M., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 143

    2003

  40. [48]

    J., Donahue, T

    Watson, A. J., Donahue, T. M., & Walker, J. C. G. 1981, Icarus, 48, 150

    1981

  41. [49]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  42. [50]

    Yelle, R. V . 2004, Icarus, 170, 167 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.