pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22925 · v1 · pith:VL2DUGWOnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Star-planet interaction in the Proxima system

M. R. Zapatero Osorio , V. J. S. B\'ejar , A. Su\'arez Mascare\~no , R. Rebolo , S. Cristiani , G. Micela , P. A. Miles-P\'aez , N. C. Santos
show 9 more authors
E. Pall\'e J. I. Gonz\'alez Hern\'andez M. Damasso A. Castro-Gonz\'alez C. J. A. P. Martins F. Pepe A. Sozzetti B. Lavie J. Rodrigues
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords star-planet interactionProxima Centauristellar flaresexoplanet magnetic fieldmagnetic reconnectionProxima dProxima bchromospheric activity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Phase-locked flares with Proxima d yield a first estimate of 16 gauss for the polar magnetic field of a terrestrial exoplanet.

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

The paper presents high-resolution optical observations of Proxima Centauri that reveal stellar flares occurring with a statistical significance above 99.8 percent in phase with the orbital period of the inner planet Proxima d. The authors model the timing and energy of these flares as the result of magnetic reconnection between the star and the planet. Using the helicity-driven reconnection mechanism together with the Poynting flux formalism, they calculate a most likely polar magnetic field strength of 16 gauss for Proxima d assuming a Mars-sized radius. The same data set also shows modulation of flare strength consistent with the orbital period of the outer planet Proxima b. The work supplies the first quantitative magnetic-field constraint for any terrestrial exoplanet.

Core claim

High-quality spectra show that Proxima Centauri flares during 4.8 percent of the observed time, with flares phase-locked to Proxima d's orbit at greater than 99.8 percent . Application of the helicity-driven reconnection mechanism and Poynting-flux formalism to the observed flare energies produces a polar magnetic field of minus 16 gauss for a Mars-sized Proxima d, with a plausible range of 3 to 280 gauss once stellar-field geometry, planetary radius between Mars and Earth values, and the measured range of flare intensities are varied. Chromospheric line time series further display power at the orbital period of Proxima b and at the synodic period between half the stellar rotation and the b–

What carries the argument

Helicity-driven reconnection mechanism with the Poynting flux formalism, which converts observed flare energies into an estimate of the planetary polar magnetic field strength.

If this is right

  • Both the inner Mars-mass planet Proxima d and the outer Earth-mass planet Proxima b interact magnetically with the host star.
  • A quantitative polar magnetic field strength for a terrestrial exoplanet can be derived from flare timing and intensity data.
  • Chromospheric activity indices exhibit periodic signals at the stellar rotation period, at each planet's orbital period, and at their mutual synodic period.
  • The data imply prograde stellar rotation relative to the sense of the planetary orbits.
  • The same modeling framework can be applied to any system in which flares are observed to cluster at a known planetary orbital period.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method offers an indirect route to magnetic-field measurements for other close-in terrestrial planets around active M dwarfs without requiring direct imaging or radio detection.
  • If planetary magnetic fields of this strength are common, they may shield atmospheres from stellar-wind stripping in a manner that affects long-term habitability assessments.
  • Multi-planet systems may display additional activity periodicities arising from the combined orbital motions of several planets.
  • Extending the same analysis to archival spectra of other M-dwarf hosts could test whether star-planet magnetic coupling is a general feature of compact planetary systems.

Load-bearing premise

The observed clustering of flares is produced by magnetic reconnection with the planet rather than by unrelated stellar activity or chance alignment.

What would settle it

A longer photometric or spectroscopic time series in which flare times show no statistical preference for Proxima d's orbital phase would falsify the reconnection interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22925 by A. Castro-Gonz\'alez, A. Sozzetti, A. Su\'arez Mascare\~no, B. Lavie, C. J. A. P. Martins, E. Pall\'e, F. Pepe, G. Micela, J. I. Gonz\'alez Hern\'andez, J. Rodrigues, M. Damasso, M. R. Zapatero Osorio, N. C. Santos, P. A. Miles-P\'aez, R. Rebolo, S. Cristiani, V. J. S. B\'ejar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A small portion of the combined ESPRESSO (reference) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panel shows the joint periodogram of photospheric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The light curve of the Fe i emis￾sion line at 5457.125 Å is shown as cir￾cles. The vertical red lines (predicted to) are spaced at the orbital period of Proxima d (Porb = 5.12338 d), and the reddish band highlights the highest ca￾dence interval (2019 April 26 – June 13). Encircled symbols indicate epochs flagged with enhanced iron emission, while magenta symbols denote epochs within ±0.45 d of the nearest … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical tests for Proxima d. (Left) Probability distribution, from Monte Carlo simulations, of the number of enhanced Fe i λ5457.125 Å emission events in the ESPRESSO data that are phased with the orbital period of Proxima d. The red vertical line marks the actual number of events in the ESPRESSO data that coincide with the orbital phase of Proxima d. (Middle) Cumula￾tive distribution function of Fe i … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistical tests for Proxima b. (Top) Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overplotted color periodograms of the Ca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Overplotted color periodograms of the Ca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A small portion of the combined ESPRESSO (reference) spectrum of Proxima Centauri is shown in the top panels of both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

(Abridged) We search for evidence of star-planet magnetic interactions in the nearby Proxima Centauri planetary system using high-quality, high-spectral-resolution optical observations. We measure a photospheric stellar rotation period of 84.9 +/- 0.6 d and a half-rotation period of 44.3 +/- 0.2 d, consistent with previous studies. Using FeI absorption and emission lines, we find that Proxima Centauri was flaring during 4.8 +/- 4.7 % of the observing time, with significant statistical evidence (>99.8 %) of flare events likely phase-locked to the inner Mars-mass planet Proxima d. Modeling the star-planet interaction via the helicity-driven reconnection mechanism with the Poynting flux formalism, we estimate a likely polar magnetic field of -16 G for Proxima d (assuming a Mars-sized radius), with a plausible range of 3-280 G accounting for radial and dipolar stellar magnetic field configurations, planetary radii comparable to Mars and Earth, and the observed range of stellar flare intensities. This represents the first such estimate for a terrestrial exoplanet. Evidence for a potential star-planet interaction with the outer, Earth-mass Proxima b arises not from phase-locked flare clustering, but from modulation of flare intensities. Applying a prewhitening analysis to the full time series of combined chromospheric Halpha, NaI D1 and D2, and CaII H &K lines reveals peaks, in order, at half the stellar rotation period, Proxima b's orbital period, the full stellar rotation, and Proxima d's orbital period. All evidence suggests that both planets show magnetic interaction with their host star. Focusing on flaring epochs only, the periodogram of these chromospheric lines shows a peak consistent with the synodic period between half the stellar rotation and the mutual synodic period of Proxima b and d, implying prograde stellar rotation and planetary orbits.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports high-resolution spectroscopic observations of Proxima Centauri, measuring a photospheric rotation period of 84.9 ± 0.6 d (and half-period 44.3 ± 0.2 d). It finds flares occurring 4.8 ± 4.7% of the time with >99.8% statistical evidence of phase-locking to the orbital period of the inner Mars-mass planet Proxima d. Using a helicity-driven reconnection model and Poynting-flux formalism, it derives a polar magnetic field estimate of -16 G for Proxima d (Mars-sized radius assumed), with a range 3-280 G arising from stellar field geometry (radial vs. dipolar), planetary radius (Mars- to Earth-like), and observed flare intensities. Additional periodogram analysis of chromospheric lines (Hα, Na I, Ca II) after prewhitening shows peaks at half-rotation, Proxima b's period, full rotation, and Proxima d's period; flare-intensity modulation and a synodic-period peak are interpreted as evidence for interaction with both planets.

Significance. If the phase-locking attribution holds, the work supplies the first magnetic-field estimate for a terrestrial exoplanet and adds concrete observational support for star-planet magnetic interaction in an M-dwarf system. The explicit propagation of model assumptions into the reported 3-280 G range, the consistency check against prior rotation-period measurements, and the multi-line prewhitening analysis are methodological strengths. The result would be of interest to the exoplanet-atmosphere and stellar-activity communities, though the factor-of-~100 span in the derived field limits immediate quantitative application.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and flare timing analysis] Abstract and flare phase-locking analysis section: The stated >99.8% statistical significance for flare phase-locking to Proxima d is presented without description of the periodogram construction, the precise null model (including or excluding the measured 84.9 d rotation and 44.3 d half-rotation periods), flare detection thresholds, or explicit tests against data-selection or chance-alignment biases. Because the Poynting-flux field estimate rests on attributing the observed flares to planet-driven reconnection, this omission is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Modeling section] Modeling section (Poynting-flux derivation): The central -16 G value is obtained by direct substitution of observed flare intensities into the helicity-driven reconnection expression rather than by treating planetary field strength as a free parameter; while the paper correctly reports the 3-280 G envelope arising from geometry, radius, and flare-intensity variations, the width of this range indicates that the quoted central value is sensitive to the specific reconnection-model assumptions (field geometry, flare-energy scaling) and therefore carries limited predictive power until those assumptions are further constrained.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and main text should explicitly state the orbital period of Proxima d used for the phase-locking test so that readers can reproduce the periodogram.
  2. [Discussion of chromospheric periodogram] Notation for the synodic periods in the final paragraph is introduced without a defining equation; adding a short equation or table of periods would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the opportunity to clarify key aspects of the analysis. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, agreeing to expand methodological details where the presentation can be strengthened.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and flare timing analysis] Abstract and flare phase-locking analysis section: The stated >99.8% statistical significance for flare phase-locking to Proxima d is presented without description of the periodogram construction, the precise null model (including or excluding the measured 84.9 d rotation and 44.3 d half-rotation periods), flare detection thresholds, or explicit tests against data-selection or chance-alignment biases. Because the Poynting-flux field estimate rests on attributing the observed flares to planet-driven reconnection, this omission is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the flare phase-locking analysis requires a more explicit description of the statistical procedures to fully support the >99.8% significance. The periodogram was constructed via the Lomb-Scargle method on the binary time series of flare detections (thresholded at 5 sigma above local continuum in Fe I lines). The null model randomized flare occurrence times while preserving the observed duty cycle and explicitly including the 84.9 d and 44.3 d stellar rotation signals as pre-whitened components; 10,000 Monte Carlo trials were used to quantify chance-alignment probability and data-selection biases. We will add a dedicated methods subsection with these details, the exact p-value derivation, and the bias tests. This revision directly addresses the load-bearing nature of the claim for the Poynting-flux modeling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Modeling section] Modeling section (Poynting-flux derivation): The central -16 G value is obtained by direct substitution of observed flare intensities into the helicity-driven reconnection expression rather than by treating planetary field strength as a free parameter; while the paper correctly reports the 3-280 G envelope arising from geometry, radius, and flare-intensity variations, the width of this range indicates that the quoted central value is sensitive to the specific reconnection-model assumptions (field geometry, flare-energy scaling) and therefore carries limited predictive power until those assumptions are further constrained.

    Authors: The modeling section derives the nominal -16 G value by direct substitution of the observed flare intensities into the helicity-driven reconnection and Poynting-flux expressions under the reference assumptions (Mars-sized radius, radial stellar field geometry). The planetary field is not treated as a free parameter because the model is observationally anchored to the flare data; the 3-280 G range is then generated by systematically varying the three dominant assumptions (geometry, radius, flare intensity) to propagate their impact. We will add a clarifying sentence in the modeling section stating that the central value is illustrative under the reference model and that the reported range already quantifies the sensitivity to those assumptions, thereby limiting immediate quantitative use until further observational constraints become available. No numerical changes to the results are required. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives the Proxima d polar field estimate (-16 G, range 3-280 G) by direct substitution of observed flare intensities into the Poynting-flux expression under the helicity-driven reconnection model, with the reported range produced by explicit variation of external assumptions (planetary radius, stellar field geometry). No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The >99.8 % phase-locking claim is a separate statistical statement whose internal details do not enter the field calculation. The derivation therefore remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about magnetic reconnection and flare generation; no new physical entities are introduced and the field strength is derived from data rather than postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Helicity-driven reconnection governs energy release in star-planet magnetic interactions.
    Invoked explicitly when applying the Poynting-flux formalism to convert flare observations into a planetary field estimate.
  • domain assumption Flare timing and intensity can be modulated by planetary orbital phase through magnetic coupling.
    Underlies the interpretation of both the phase-locking statistic and the flare-intensity modulation signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6004 in / 1453 out tokens · 31549 ms · 2026-05-25T02:06:35.719883+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

210 extracted references · 210 canonical work pages · 32 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Adams , F. C. 2011, , 730, 27

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    & Berdyugina , S

    Afram , N. & Berdyugina , S. V. 2019, , 629, A83

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Alken , P., Th \'e bault , E., Beggan , C. D., et al. 2021, Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 49

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2020, , 644, A155

    Allart , R., Pino , L., Lovis , C., et al. 2020, , 644, A155

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    D., Drake , J

    Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., Drake , J. J., Garraffo , C., et al. 2020, , 902, L9

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Anderson, T. W. & Darling, D. A. 1952, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 193

    work page 1952

  7. [7]

    J., Ortiz , J

    Anglada , G., Amado , P. J., Ortiz , J. L., et al. 2017, , 850, L6

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    J., Barnes , J., et al

    Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Amado , P. J., Barnes , J., et al. 2016, , 536, 437

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    & Valio , A

    Ara \'u jo , A. & Valio , A. 2023, , 956, 141

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    T., & Foroughi , R

    Azizi , F., Mirtorabi , M. T., & Foroughi , R. 2024, , 369, 79

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    W., & Valenti , J

    Basri , G., Marcy , G. W., & Valenti , J. A. 1992, , 390, 622

    work page 1992

  12. [12]

    F., McArthur , B., Nelan , E., et al

    Benedict , G. F., McArthur , B., Nelan , E., et al. 1998, , 116, 429

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    2021, , 645, A24

    Borsa , F., Allart , R., Casasayas-Barris , N., et al. 2021, , 645, A24

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    2010, , 152, 449

    Breuer , D., Labrosse , S., & Spohn , T. 2010, , 152, 449

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    A., Osten , R

    Burton , K., MacGregor , M. A., Osten , R. A., et al. 2025, , 982, 43

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    2021, , 647, A26

    Casasayas-Barris , N., Palle , E., Stangret , M., et al. 2021, , 647, A26

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    W., Shkolnik , E

    Cauley , P. W., Shkolnik , E. L., Llama , J., & Lanza , A. F. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1128

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Christensen , U. R. 2010, , 152, 565

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

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

    Christensen , U. R., Holzwarth , V., & Reiners , A. 2009, , 457, 167

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    F., & Mauas , P

    Cincunegui , C., D \' az , R. F., & Mauas , P. J. D. 2007, , 461, 1107

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Connerney , J. E. P., Kotsiaros , S., Oliversen , R. J., et al. 2018, , 45, 2590

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    H., & Musielak , Z

    Cuntz , M., Saar , S. H., & Musielak , Z. E. 2000, , 533, L151

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    2020, Science Advances, 6, eaax7467

    Damasso , M., Del Sordo , F., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., et al. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaax7467

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    2026, , 706, A349

    Damonte , A., Pillitteri , I., Maggio , A., Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A., & Micela , G. 2026, , 706, A349

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Davenport , J. R. A., Kipping , D. M., Sasselov , D., Matthews , J. M., & Cameron , C. 2016, , 829, L31

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    & Olson , P

    Driscoll , P. & Olson , P. 2011, , 213, 12

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R

    Engelbrecht , N. E., Herbst , K., Strauss , R. D. T., et al. 2024, , 964, 89

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Engle , S. G. & Guinan , E. F. 2023, , 954, L50

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    P., Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Figueira , P., et al

    Faria , J. P., Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Figueira , P., et al. 2022, , 658, A115

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    & Saur , J

    Fischer , C. & Saur , J. 2019, , 872, 113

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    D., Cohen , O., & Drake , J

    Garraffo , C., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., Cohen , O., & Drake , J. J. 2022, , 941, L8

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    A., Barclay , T., Kruse , E., Quintana , E

    Gilbert , E. A., Barclay , T., Kruse , E., Quintana , E. V., & Walkowicz , L. M. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 190

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    C., et al

    Gomes da Silva , J., Delgado-Mena , E., Santos , N. C., et al. 2025, , 700, A177

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    L., & Linsky , J

    G \"u del , M., Audard , M., Reale , F., Skinner , S. L., & Linsky , J. L. 2004, , 416, 713

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    & Morgan , N

    Guinan , E. & Morgan , N. 1996, , 6338, 2

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    2014, , 148, 53

    Gullikson , K., Dodson-Robinson , S., & Kraus , A. 2014, , 148, 53

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    S., Tilley , M

    Howard , W. S., Tilley , M. A., Corbett , H., et al. 2018, , 860, L30

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    & Poppenhaeger , K

    Ilin , E. & Poppenhaeger , K. 2022, , 513, 4579

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Ilin , E., Poppenh \"a ger , K., Chebly , J., Ili \'c , N., & Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D. 2024, , 527, 3395

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    K., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al

    Ilin , E., Vedantham , H. K., Poppenh \"a ger , K., et al. 2025, , 643, 645

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    2004, , 602, L53

    Ip , W.-H., Kopp , A., & Hu , J.-H. 2004, , 602, L53

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    D., Vidotto , A

    Kavanagh , R. D., Vidotto , A. A., Klein , B., et al. 2021, , 504, 1511

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    D., Vidotto , A

    Kavanagh , R. D., Vidotto , A. A., Vedantham , H. K., et al. 2022, , 514, 675

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    2017, , 598, L7

    Kervella , P., Th \'e venin , F., & Lovis , C. 2017, , 598, L7

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    & Collados , M

    Khomenko , E. & Collados , M. 2015, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 12, 6

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    & Stepien , K

    Kiraga , M. & Stepien , K. 2007, , 57, 149

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    G., Khurana , K

    Kivelson , M. G., Khurana , K. K., Russell , C. T., et al. 1996, , 384, 537

    work page 1996

  49. [49]

    M., et al

    Klein , B., Donati , J.-F., H \'e brard , \'E . M., et al. 2021, , 500, 1844

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    D., et al

    Klein , B., Zicher , N., Kavanagh , R. D., et al. 2022, , 512, 5067

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Lanza , A. F. 2012, , 544, A23

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    Lanza , A. F. 2013, , 557, A31

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    R., Barnes , R., & Deitrick , R

    Livesey , J. R., Barnes , R., & Deitrick , R. 2024, , 964, 4

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Loyd , R. O. P., France , K., Youngblood , A., et al. 2018, , 867, 71

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    A., Weinberger , A

    MacGregor , M. A., Weinberger , A. J., Loyd , R. O. P., et al. 2021, , 911, L25

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Mamajek , E. E. & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2008, , 687, 1264

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    & Collier Cameron , A

    Mortier , A. & Collier Cameron , A. 2017, , 601, A110

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    F., Behannon , K

    Ness , N. F., Behannon , K. W., Lepping , R. P., & Whang , Y. C. 1975, , 255, 204

    work page 1975

  59. [59]

    R., Mondrik , N., Irwin , J., Winters , J

    Newton , E. R., Mondrik , N., Irwin , J., Winters , J. G., & Charbonneau , D. 2018, , 156, 217

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    V., Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Zapatero Osorio , M

    Pavlenko , Y. V., Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o , A., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., et al. 2019, , 626, A111

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    & P \'e rez-Torres , M

    Pe \ n a-Mo \ n ino , L. & P \'e rez-Torres , M. 2025, , 544, 1220

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    2024, , 688, A138

    Pe \ n a-Mo \ n ino , L., P \'e rez-Torres , M., Varela , J., & Zarka , P. 2024, , 688, A138

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2021, , 645, A96

    Pepe , F., Cristiani , S., Rebolo , R., et al. 2021, , 645, A96

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    F., Ortiz , J

    P \'e rez-Torres , M., G \'o mez , J. F., Ortiz , J. L., et al. 2021, , 645, A77

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    2022, , 660, A75

    Pillitteri , I., Micela , G., Maggio , A., Sciortino , S., & Lopez-Santiago , J. 2022, , 660, A75

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Pineda , J. S. & Villadsen , J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 569

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    N., & Tennyson , J

    Qu , Q., Yurchenko , S. N., & Tennyson , J. 2022, , 157, 124305

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    & Basri , G

    Reiners , A. & Basri , G. 2008, , 489, L45

    work page 2008

  69. [69]

    2013, , 560, A4

    Reinhold , T., Reiners , A., & Basri , G. 2013, , 560, A4

    work page 2013

  70. [70]

    J., Luque , R., et al

    Revilla , D., Amado , P. J., Luque , R., et al. 2026, Science, in press

    work page 2026

  71. [71]

    M., Velli , M., et al

    R \'e ville , V., Jasinski , J. M., Velli , M., et al. 2024, , 976, 65

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    2016, , 596, A111

    Ribas , I., Bolmont , E., Selsis , F., et al. 2016, , 596, A111

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    D., Boyajian , T

    Ribas , I., Gregg , M. D., Boyajian , T. S., & Bolmont , E. 2017, , 603, A58

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    C., Newton , E

    Rizzuto , A. C., Newton , E. R., Mann , A. W., et al. 2020, , 160, 33

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    H., Huovelin , J., Osten , R

    Saar , S. H., Huovelin , J., Osten , R. A., & Shcherbakov , A. G. 1997, , 326, 741

    work page 1997

  77. [77]

    2025, , 693, A285

    Sanz-Forcada , J., L \'o pez-Puertas , M., Lamp \'o n , M., et al. 2025, , 693, A285

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    M., & Simon , S

    Saur , J., Grambusch , T., Duling , S., Neubauer , F. M., & Simon , S. 2013, , 552, A119

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Savanov , I. S. 2012, Astronomy Reports, 56, 716

    work page 2012

  80. [80]

    1951, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 37, 15

    Shapley , H. 1951, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 37, 15

    work page 1951

Showing first 80 references.