Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

A quiet-Sun filament eruption on 2014 June 25 produced a persistent coronal hole, not just a transient dimming.

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

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

A quiet-Sun filament eruption created a coronal dimming that evolved into a persistent coronal hole, migrating 150 arcseconds to a region of modeled open magnetic flux and surviving for more than one solar rotation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A well-observed single event that makes a solid case for a filament-eruption-formed coronal hole, provided you accept a tuned PFSS source surface. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.04663 v1 pith:4DZZFZHX submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.SR

Formation of a Coronal Hole by a quiet-Sun Filament Eruption

Stefan J. Hofmeister , Eleanna Asvestari , Karin Dissauer , Michael Hahn , Stephan G. Heinemann , Veronika Jercic , Alexandros Koukras , Kilian Krikova
show 4 more authors
Jonas Saqri Daniel W. Savin Manuela Temmer Astrid Veronig
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronal holesfilament eruptionscoronal dimmingquiet Sundifferential emission measureinterchange reconnectionopen magnetic field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that a quiet-Sun filament eruption on 2014 June 25 did more than create a short-lived coronal dimming: the dimming migrated about 150 arcseconds to a region of modeled open magnetic field, settled there, and persisted for more than one solar rotation, marking it as a genuine coronal hole. Using SDO EUV images, HMI magnetograms, and a differential emission measure analysis, the authors trace three phases—formation, migration, and stabilization—and show that the temperature and emission measure evolved along an adiabatic-cooling track during the first two phases, then the emission measure kept falling during stabilization. If the claim holds, the usual picture of coronal dimmings as events that recover within hours needs a qualifier: some dimmings can seed persistent holes. The authors also identify 22 similar events from 2010 to 2024, suggesting filament eruptions may be a substantially undercounted route for forming low-latitude coronal holes.

Core claim

The central claim is that coronal holes can, under certain conditions, form as a consequence of quiet-Sun filament eruptions. The paper documents one event in which a filament eruption produced a coronal dimming that, instead of recovering, migrated roughly 150 arcseconds north-west over 15.5 hours, reached a location where potential-field source-surface extrapolations show open magnetic field lines, and then stabilized. There, the emission measure decreased exponentially at about 3% per hour, which the authors interpret as plasma outflow into interplanetary space. The structure remained identifiable through the next solar rotation, setting a lower bound on its lifetime of one rotation, and

What carries the argument

The staged transition from dimming to coronal hole is the mechanism. The filament eruption stretches its leg's field quasi-radially and evacuates plasma, producing a coronal dimming; over 15.5 hours the dimming's boundaries move across the photosphere, requiring interchange reconnection (reconnection that swaps open and closed field footpoints without changing total flux) at the leading and trailing edges. The joint temperature-emission-measure diagnostic carries the physical argument: during formation and migration the pair follows adiabatic cooling, T proportional to EM^{1/3}, and after stabilization the EM decays steadily, taken as outflow. The potential-field source-surface extrapolation

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the dimming became a coronal hole rather than an unusually long-lived dimming depends on the potential-field model showing open magnetic field lines at the structure's final location, and that model only shows them when the source surface is placed at the non-standard low height of 1.6 solar radii.

What would settle it

Compute the same potential-field source-surface extrapolation with the source surface at the standard 2.5 solar radii: if the open-field region where the structure settles disappears, the magnetic-support argument collapses and the feature is better classed as an unusually long-lived dimming. Alternatively, take EUV spectra of the region at the next rotation and look for persistent blue-shifted outflows; their absence would rule out the coronal-hole interpretation.

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

If this is right

  • Transient coronal dimmings are not a closed category: some evolve into persistent coronal holes, so dimming surveys should separate a long-lived tail instead of assuming all dimmings recover.
  • Filament eruptions join decaying active regions as a direct, observable route for low-latitude coronal hole formation, with 22 candidate cases from 2010-2024 implying the route is not rare.
  • A coronal hole's birth site and stable site can differ by about 150 arcseconds; holes can open in closed-field modeled regions and then walk to open-field regions.
  • Because the structure drifts over stationary photospheric magnetic elements, coronal-hole motion is governed by the large-scale open-field topology through interchange reconnection, not by fixed photospheric roots.
  • The adiabatic-cooling signature observed in the temperature-emission-measure plane provides a testable thermometer for the formation process of coronal holes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If filament-eruption coronal holes are as common as the 22 candidates suggest, eruptive events may regularly refresh the Sun's low-latitude open flux, feeding slow-to-high-speed solar wind streams and affecting space-weather recurrence.
  • The paper's distinction criterion (persistence, emission-measure decline, and settling on modeled open field) could be automated for real-time coronal-hole detection, flagging dimmings that are likely to become holes.
  • The required low source-surface height implies the open-field region may be only marginally open; non-potential or time-dependent extrapolations of the same magnetograms would test whether the stabilization site is genuinely open rather than a model artifact.
  • A direct spectroscopic follow-up of a filament-eruption coronal hole at the next rotation, searching for blue-shifted outflow lines, would confirm the coronal-hole interpretation without relying solely on brightness thresholds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses SDO/AIA/HMI observations of the 2014 June 25 quiet-Sun filament eruption to track the formation, migration, and stabilization of a coronal dimming that the authors identify as a newly formed coronal hole. They divide the evolution into precursor/eruption, migration, and stabilization phases, derive area, intensity, EM, temperature, and magnetic flux, and compare the T–EM relationship with adiabatic cooling. They argue that the dimming migrated about 150 arcsec to a region where a PFSS extrapolation with source surface at 1.6 R_sun shows open field lines, stabilized there, merged with a pre-existing coronal hole, and remained visible at the next solar rotation, implying a lifetime >1 rotation. A secondary survey lists 22 additional coronal holes that may have formed from filament eruptions.

Significance. If accepted, this would be one of the few direct, well-observed cases of a coronal hole forming from a quiet-Sun filament eruption, with implications for dimming–coronal-hole relationships, interchange reconnection, and the origin of small coronal holes. The analysis is largely transparent: SDO data are reliable, the DEM and magnetic-field methods are standard, and the authors explicitly present two boundary sets and discuss many caveats. The strength of the claim is currently limited by the model-dependence of the open-field identification and by the qualitative nature of the persistence evidence after the structure merged with a pre-existing hole.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2, §4.3] The central claim that the dimming 'transitioned into a coronal hole' relies on identifying the stabilization site as a region of open magnetic flux. The only support for this is the PFSS model, and §4.3 states that the source surface had to be lowered to 1.6 R_sun because at 2.0–2.5 R_sun 'the model would not have shown open field lines in the region where the coronal hole settled.' Since the authors themselves call the open-field region 'not very stable,' the load-bearing magnetic foundation is weak. Please add a sensitivity study varying R_sun (e.g., 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.5), ADAPT realizations, and harmonic degree, or provide independent evidence for open topology (e.g., spectral outflow signatures or consistency with other coronal-hole detection methods). If the open-field region is not robust, the conclusion should be rephrased so that the modeled open field is only a plausibility
  2. [§3.3, §4.1] The >1 solar rotation lifetime is a key discriminator between a genuine coronal hole and a long-lived dimming. However, after 2014 June 26 18:00 the boundaries are no longer robustly identified, and the feature merges with a pre-existing coronal hole. At the next rotation, the evidence is described as 'seems again apparent' and 'remains well recognizable,' which is purely visual. Because the merged structure contains the pre-existing hole, persistence of the newly formed portion is not quantitatively established. Please add rotation-to-rotation co-registration, area/centroid or intensity tracking of the specific new portion, or at least overlay quantitative contours from both rotations. If this is not possible, the text should not state that the structure is 'certainly not a coronal dimming anymore' on the basis of lifetime alone; it should be presented as suggestive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The thresholding technique is manually adjusted for every image. The two boundary sets help, but a simple sensitivity test (e.g., varying the threshold by ±10%) would make the area and flux evolution more robust.
  2. [§3.2] The conclusion that drift across quasi-stationary magnetic elements 'necessarily occurred via interchange reconnection' is an interpretation, not a direct observation. The wording should make the inference step explicit.
  3. [§4.2] The 22-event survey is interesting but is presented with minimal quantitative selection criteria. Please state the exact screening rules, how 'clear' filament disappearance and coronal-hole appearance were judged, and the uncertainties in the reported lifetimes.
  4. [§3.3] The statement that 'EM decreased exponentially by 3% h^-1' is not accompanied by a fit range or uncertainty; please give the fitted interval and confidence bounds.
  5. [§4.4] The adiabatic cooling discussion is honest about the paradox, but the earlier sections present the T–EM agreement as a firm result. It would help to refer forward to §4.4 when interpreting Equation (3).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: the modeled open-field region used to mark the dimming-to-coronal-hole transition is produced by setting the PFSS source surface to 1.6 Rsun, a non-standard value chosen because standard heights show no open field there; the observational lifetime and EM evolution are independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, 'Why did the coronal hole migrate?']
    "To observe the open field lines in our study, we had to set the source surface height of the PFSS model, i.e., the altitude at which the magnetic field lines are considered open, to a low value of 1.6 solar radii. If we had used higher source surface heights, such as the standard values of 2 or 2.5 solar radii, the model would not have shown open field lines in the region where the coronal hole settled."

    The transition from coronal dimming to coronal hole is argued to occur when the structure migrates to a region of modeled open magnetic field (Abstract; Section 3; Section 4.3). But the only evidence for open field is the PFSS model, and the source-surface height—the free parameter that determines which field lines count as open—was set to 1.6 Rsun precisely because the standard values of 2.0–2.5 Rsun do not produce open field lines at that location. The 'open field' region is therefore not an independent model prediction; it is produced by tuning the model parameter to match the observed dark structure. The authors acknowledge this by noting the low source surface 'might indicate that this open magnetic field region is not very stable.' The stabilization-at-open-field sub-claim thus partl

full rationale

The derivation chain is largely observational and self-contained: the filament eruption, dimming formation, migration, EM/temperature decrease, and >1-rotation lifetime are tracked directly in AIA/HMI data rather than derived from a fitted model. The adiabatic-cooling comparison uses an independently stated formula and is not fitted to the data. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The one exhibitable circular step is the magnetic-topology support: the paper labels the stabilization at 'modeled open magnetic field' as the transition into a coronal hole, but the PFSS open-field map is obtained by setting the source surface to 1.6 Rsun, a non-standard value chosen because standard heights show no open field at that location (Section 4.3). Thus the open-field evidence is, to a degree, an input chosen by the modeler rather than a prediction. The authors explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The observational lifetime and progressive EM decrease provide independent support for the central claim, so the circularity is partial and confined to a supporting sub-claim, not the whole derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: the PFSS model identifies the open-field region using a hand-tuned source surface height of 1.6 Rsun, and the DEM analysis assumes coronal abundances and neglects the FIP effect. No new physical entities are introduced. The observational facts (a persistent dark structure formed after a filament eruption, its drift, and its continued darkening) are model-independent, but the interpretation as a coronal hole stabilized at open magnetic flux depends on the tuned PFSS parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • PFSS source surface height = 1.6 solar radii
    Hand-chosen so that the PFSS model shows open magnetic field lines at the coronal hole's final location; standard values (2.0-2.5 Rsun) do not (Section 4.3). This parameter supports the claim that the coronal hole stabilized at a region of open flux.
  • Photospheric magnetic element threshold = 50 G
    Chosen by hand to identify magnetic elements in HMI magnetograms; used in the interpretation of drift across quasi-stationary elements. Not central to the formation claim.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The corona is static, potential, and force-free with a source surface at 1.6 Rsun (PFSS assumptions).
    Used to identify open magnetic field regions that define the coronal hole transition; the paper itself lists 'oversimplified PFSS assumptions' (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption DEM inversion with coronal abundances and no FIP effect yields valid plasma parameters.
    Used to derive EM and T; the paper notes EM is a lower bound due to possible Fe depletion in coronal holes (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Single-temperature adiabatic cooling relation T * n^(gamma-1) = constant applies.
    Used to test whether cooling follows adiabatic expansion; the paper itself questions why this holds given typical heating rates (Section 4.4).
  • ad hoc to paper The dark structure is a coronal hole rather than a long-lived dimming.
    The paper discusses the ambiguity (Section 4.1) and uses persistence and stabilization at modeled open flux as criteria; the exact transition time is unknown.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of a Coronal Hole by a quiet-Sun Filament Eruption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DZZFZHX

@misc{pith2026250904663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of a Coronal Hole by a quiet-Sun Filament Eruption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DZZFZHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04663}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A coronal hole formed as a result of a quiet-Sun filament eruption close to the solar disk center on 2014 June 25. We studied this formation using images from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA), magnetograms from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI), and a differential emission measure (DEM) analysis derived from the AIA images. The coronal hole developed in three stages: (1) formation, (2) migration, and (3) stabilization. In the formation phase, the emission measure (EM) and temperature started to decrease six hours before the filament erupted. Then, the filament erupted and a large coronal dimming formed over the following three hours. Subsequently, in a phase lasting $15.5$~hours, the coronal dimming migrated by 150" from its formation site to a location where potential field source surface extrapolations indicate the presence of open magnetic field lines, marking the transition into a coronal hole. During this migration, the coronal hole drifted across quasi-stationary magnetic elements in the photosphere, implying the occurrence of magnetic interchange reconnection at the boundaries of the coronal hole. In the stabilization phase, the magnetic properties and area of the coronal hole became constant. The EM of the coronal hole decreased, which we interpret as a reduction in plasma density due to the onset of plasma outflow into interplanetary space. As the coronal hole rotated towards the solar limb, it merged with a nearby pre-existing coronal hole. At the next solar rotation, the coronal hole was still apparent, indicating a lifetime of >1 solar rotation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04663 by Alexandros Koukras, Astrid Veronig, Daniel W. Savin, Eleanna Asvestari, Jonas Saqri, Karin Dissauer, Kilian Krikova, Manuela Temmer, Michael Hahn, Stefan J. Hofmeister, Stephan G. Heinemann, Veronika Jercic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the solar corona during the coronal hole formation, as observed in AIA 193 ˚A. (a) June 25 00:00: a large quiet-Sun filament channel (marked in black) is present east of the central meridian. A coronal hole (blue) lies to its west, and a dim region (red), possibly another coronal hole obscured by overlying quiet-Sun loops, is visible to the east. (b) 10:30: the filament erupts, producing two c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the coronal hole formation. (a) Full-disk AIA 193 ˚A image, with the field of view for subsequent panels outlined in white. In the following panels, the field of view is adjusted to follow the solar rotation over time. (b) Filament channel before eruption as seen in AIA 304 ˚A. (c) Open magnetic flux regions from PFSS extrapolations, with orange for positive flux and green for negative flux. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the coronal hole properties as derived from the compact coronal hole boundaries. (a) Area, average magnetic flux density B, and total magnetic flux Φ. (b) Average AIA 171, 193, and 211 ˚A intensities. (c) DEM for selected six times. (d) EM, T, and expected temperature from adiabatic cooling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Migration of the coronal hole as seen in AIA 193 ˚A (top row) and AIA 171 ˚A (bottom row). The first column shows overview images from June 26 17:55. The coronal hole boundary from June 25 10:50, which we rigidly rotated with the solar surface to 17:55, is outlined in blue. This boundary corresponds to the initial location of the coronal dimming at the solar surface. The coronal hole boundary from June 26 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional coronal holes likely formed by filament eruptions. All panels display AIA 193 ˚A observations. First column: overview images showing filament channels, with the field of view for the second column marked in white. Second column: zoom-in on the filaments, indicated by blue arrows. Third column: same field of view at the next solar rotation. The filaments now disappeared and coronal holes (red arr… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    N., Henney, C

    Arge, C. N., Henney, C. J., Koller, J., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1216, Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini, 343–346

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Aschwanden, M. J. 2005, Physics of the Solar Corona. An Introduction with Problems and Solutions (2nd edition) 15 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A...

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    G., Temmer, M., et al

    Asvestari, E., Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 8280

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Attrill, G. D. R., Narukage, N., Shibata, K., & Harra, L. K. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 596, Chromospheric and Coronal Magnetic Fields, ed. D. E

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Attrill, G. D. R., van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., D´ emoulin, P., et al. 2008, SoPh, 252, 349

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    T., Bale, S

    Badman, S. T., Bale, S. D., Mart ´ ınez Oliveros, J. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 23

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    L., Jones, S

    Barnes, G., DeRosa, M. L., Jones, S. I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 105

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Bohlin, J. D. & Sheeley, N. R., J. 1978, SoPh, 56, 125

    work page 1978

  9. [9]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Boerner, P., Schrijver, C. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 143

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Cranmer, S. R. 2009, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 6, 3

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    J., Reiss, M

    Delouille, V., Hofmeister, S. J., Reiss, M. A., et al. 2018, in In: Machine Learning Techniques for Space Weather, 365–395

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Fainshtein, V. G. & Rudenko, G. V. 2004, in IAU

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    & Widing, K

    Feldman, U. & Widing, K. G. 2002, Physics of Plasmas, 9, 629

    work page 2002

  14. [14]

    Freeland, S. L. & Handy, B. N. 1998, SoPh, 182, 497

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., et al. 2009, Earth Moon and Planets, 104, 295

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Hahn, M., Landi, E., & Savin, D. W. 2011, ApJ, 736, 101

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  18. [18]

    G., Hofmeister, S

    Heinemann, S. G., Hofmeister, S. J., Turtle, J. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A100

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    G., Jerˇ ci´ c, V., Temmer, M., et al

    Heinemann, S. G., Jerˇ ci´ c, V., Temmer, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A68

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    G., Pomoell, J., Caplan, R

    Heinemann, S. G., Pomoell, J., Caplan, R. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 166

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    G., Saqri, J., Veronig, A

    Heinemann, S. G., Saqri, J., Veronig, A. M., Hofmeister, S. J., & Temmer, M. 2021, SoPh, 296, 18

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    G., Temmer, M., Hofmeister, S

    Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., Hofmeister, S. J., Veronig, A. M., & Vennerstrøm, S. 2018, ApJ, 861, 151

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    S., Godinez, H

    Hickmann, K. S., Godinez, H. C., Henney, C. J., & Arge, C. N. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1105

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Revised Point-Spread Functions for the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory

    Hofmeister, S., Savin, D. W., & Hahn, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.08967

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Hofmeister, S. J. 2024, SoPh, 299, 77

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    J., Veronig, A., Reiss, M

    Hofmeister, S. J., Veronig, A., Reiss, M. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 268

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  28. [28]

    R., O’Connor, R

    Inglis, A. R., O’Connor, R. E., Pesnell, W. D., Kirk, M. S., & Karna, N. 2019, ApJ, 880, 98

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    V., Pevtsov, A

    Karachik, N. V., Pevtsov, A. A., & Abramenko, V. I. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1672

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    D., Manning, D., & West, M

    Krista, L. D., Manning, D., & West, M. J. 2022, ApJ, 930, 165

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Krista, L. D. & Reinard, A. A. 2017, ApJ, 839, 50

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    2008, ApJ, 685, 1270

    Landi, E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1270

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    O., Luhmann, J

    Lee, C. O., Luhmann, J. G., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2011, SoPh, 269, 367

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17

    2012

  35. [35]

    M., Andretta, V., Murabito, M., & Del Zanna, G

    Lezzi, S. M., Andretta, V., Murabito, M., & Del Zanna, G. 2023, A&A, 680, A61

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    McIntosh, S. W. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1306

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    T., Krieger, A

    Nolte, J. T., Krieger, A. S., Timothy, A. F., et al. 1976, SoPh, 46, 303

    1976

  38. [38]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 54

    Panasenco, O., Velli, M., D’Amicis, R., et al. 2020, ApJS, 246, 54

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3

    2012

  40. [40]

    Petrie, G. J. D. & Haislmaier, K. J. 2013, ApJ, 775, 100

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Plowman, J. E. & Berger, T. E. 2020, SoPh, 295, 144

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    & Poedts, S

    Pomoell, J. & Poedts, S. 2018, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 8, A35

    2018

  43. [43]

    & Landi, E

    Reale, F. & Landi, E. 2012, A&A, 543, A90

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Reinard, A. A. & Biesecker, D. A. 2008, ApJ, 674, 576

    2008

  45. [45]

    M., Chikunova, G., Dissauer, K., Podladchikova, T., & Veronig, A

    Ronca, G. M., Chikunova, G., Dissauer, K., Podladchikova, T., & Veronig, A. M. 2024, A&A, 691, A195

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    M., Temmer, M., & Vrˇ snak, B

    Rotter, T., Veronig, A. M., Temmer, M., & Vrˇ snak, B. 2012, SoPh, 281, 793

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Rust, D. M. 1983, SSRv, 34, 21

    work page 1983

  48. [48]

    M., Heinemann, S

    Saqri, J., Veronig, A. M., Heinemann, S. G., et al. 2020, SoPh, 295, 6

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207

    2012

  50. [50]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229

    2012

  51. [51]

    R., Nash, A

    Sheeley, Jr., N. R., Nash, A. G., & Wang, Y. M. 1987, ApJ, 319, 481

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    V., Krieger, A

    Solodyna, C. V., Krieger, A. S., & Nolte, J. T. 1977, SoPh, 54, 123

    work page 1977

  53. [53]

    Sterling, A. C. & Hudson, H. S. 1997, ApJL, 491, L55 16 The SunPy Community, Barnes, W. T., Bobra, M. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 68

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    J., Cliver, E

    Thompson, B. J., Cliver, E. W., Nitta, N., Delann´ ee, C., & Delaboudini` ere, J. P. 2000, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1431

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    H., & Xia, L

    Tian, H., Harra, L., Baker, D., Brooks, D. H., & Xia, L. 2021, SoPh, 296, 47

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    F., Krieger, A

    Timothy, A. F., Krieger, A. S., & Vaiana, G. S. 1975, SoPh, 42, 135

    work page 1975

  57. [57]

    M., Dissauer, K., Kliem, B., et al

    Veronig, A. M., Dissauer, K., Kliem, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.19228

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  59. [59]

    Wang, Y. M. 2009, SSRv, 144, 383

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    G., Cameron, R

    Yang, D., Heinemann, S. G., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2024, SoPh, 299, 161

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    2010, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Yang, L., Jiang, Y., & Zhang, J. 2010, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 264, Solar and Stellar Variability: Impact on Earth and Planets, ed. A. G. Kosovichev, A. H. Andrei, & J.-P. Rozelot, 295–297

    work page 2010

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.