pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03380 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Data-Constrained Modeling of Electron Transport and Asymmetric Precipitation in the 2011 August 4 Solar Flare

Feiyu Yu , Xiangliang Kong , Ze Zhong , Zhentong Li , Zelong Jiang , Yingli Cui , Zhao Wu , Yao Chen
show 1 more author
Gang Li
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords solar flareselectron precipitation3D magnetic topologyturbulent scatteringCoulomb collisionsasymmetric precipitationquasi-separatrix layers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Electrons in the 2011 August 4 solar flare precipitate six times more into the weak positive polarity than the other.

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

The paper uses a data-constrained 3D model to simulate how energetic electrons move through the magnetic field of a solar flare and precipitate into the atmosphere. It shows that the pattern of precipitation matches the observed bright ribbons in ultraviolet light. A key finding is the strong asymmetry in precipitation between the two magnetic polarities, driven by differences in how the magnetic field mirrors the electrons back. Turbulent scattering and collisions further shape the energy dependence and amplify the asymmetry.

Core claim

The simulated distribution of precipitated electrons aligns closely with photospheric quasi-separatrix layers and reproduces the observed two-ribbon morphology in 1700 Å. The 10 s precipitation fraction is about six times higher in the weak positive polarity, arising primarily from distinct mirror ratios of different polarities under the 3D magnetic configuration and understood via a modified escape probability for an asymmetric magnetic bottle.

What carries the argument

A data-constrained 3D particle transport model that incorporates turbulent scattering and Coulomb collisions to track electron precipitation.

If this is right

  • Precipitated electrons follow the locations of quasi-separatrix layers at the photosphere.
  • The polarity asymmetry reaches a factor of six in precipitation fraction over 10 seconds.
  • Turbulent scattering produces a rise-then-fall trend in precipitation fraction with varying strength and strong energy dependence.
  • Coulomb collisions suppress precipitation at low energies and increase the polarity asymmetry.
  • The model reproduces the two-ribbon flare morphology in 1700 Å observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar 3D modeling could be applied to predict precipitation patterns in other flares.
  • The asymmetry suggests uneven energy deposition that might influence atmospheric responses differently on each side.
  • Testing the model on additional events would check if the magnetic bottle escape probability generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

The 3D magnetic field extrapolation from observations and the chosen forms for turbulent scattering and Coulomb collision rates match the actual conditions in the corona.

What would settle it

If high-resolution observations of the 2011 August 4 flare show no strong polarity asymmetry in precipitation or if the ribbon positions deviate significantly from the modeled quasi-separatrix layers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03380 by Feiyu Yu, Gang Li, Xiangliang Kong, Yao Chen, Yingli Cui, Zelong Jiang, Ze Zhong, Zhao Wu, Zhentong Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 3D magnetic configuration and current sheet at 03:52 UT in the MHD model. (a) Distribution of J/B in a representative y–z slice; the green box highlights the reconnection current sheet. (b) Representative magnetic field lines overlaid on the bottom Bz map, illustrating conjugate connectivity linking positive-polarity footpoints P1 and P2 to the negative-polarity footpoint N; the black arrow points to the X… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Early transport of 20–50 keV electrons in the 3D magnetic field at t = 0, 0.2, and 0.5 s post-injection. Left and middle columns display the spatial distributions from two viewing angles. Right column presents the horizontally integrated distribution plotted against height z and pitch angle θ. et al. 2014): Dc µµ = 2K nth m2 e v 3 (1 − µ 2 ), (3) where K = 2πe4Λ, Λ is the Coulomb logarithm, and nth is the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of 10 s accumulated precipitating electrons mapped to the magnetogram at the bottom boundary and compared with the photospheric QSLs (a), and overlaid on the observed AIA 1700 ˚A image at 03:52 UT (b). giving τc = L/ve ≈ 0.98 s. We refer to weak scattering when τd > η τc, moderate scattering when τc < τd < η τc, and strong scattering when τd < τc, where η is the magnetic mirror ratio. We consi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of precipitating electron counts at different energies under four turbulent scattering regimes: (a)-(b) no scattering (D t µµ0 = 0 s−1 ), (c)-(d) weak scattering (D t µµ0 = 0.01 s−1 ), (e)-(f) moderate scattering (D t µµ0 = 0.5 s−1 ), and (g)-(h) strong scattering (D t µµ0 = 5 s−1 ). Left and right columns are for the positive and negative polarities, respectively. energy in the low atmo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Energy dependence of the 10 s accumulated electron precipitation fraction Npre/NE in positive and negative polarities under different scattering regimes (D t µµ0 = 0, 0.01, 0.5, and 5 s−1 ), with Coulomb collisions neglected in upper panels (a)-(b) and included in lower panels (c)-(d). This is mainly due to stronger magnetic trapping when electrons stream toward the more intense negative polarity. Meanwhil… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Energetic electrons accelerated at coronal reconnection sites during solar flares precipitate into the lower solar atmosphere, generating nonthermal emissions and regulating energy deposition. However, how their transport and precipitation are jointly governed by the three-dimensional (3D) magnetic topology, turbulent scattering, and Coulomb collisions remains unclear. Here, we aim to disentangle these physical processes by using a data-constrained 3D particle transport model for the 2011 August 4 flare. The simulated distribution of precipitated electrons aligns closely with photospheric quasi-separatrix layers and reproduces the observed two-ribbon morphology in 1700~\AA. We reveal a strong polarity asymmetry, with the 10~s precipitation fraction about six times higher in the weak positive polarity. This arises primarily from distinct mirror ratios of different polarities under the 3D magnetic configuration and can be understood via a modified escape probability for an asymmetric magnetic bottle. Varying strengths of turbulent scattering lead to a rise-then-fall trend and a pronounced energy dependence in the precipitation fraction. Coulomb collisions globally suppress precipitation, especially at low energies, and further amplify the polarity asymmetry. This integrated modeling framework bridges detailed transport physics to observable flare emissions and advances the development of quantitative models for realistic solar flare events.

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 paper develops a data-constrained 3D particle transport model for the 2011 August 4 solar flare that incorporates turbulent scattering and Coulomb collisions. It reports that simulated electron precipitation aligns with photospheric quasi-separatrix layers and reproduces the observed two-ribbon morphology in 1700 Å. The model reveals a strong polarity asymmetry, with the 10 s precipitation fraction approximately six times higher in the weak positive polarity, attributed primarily to distinct mirror ratios in the 3D magnetic configuration and interpreted via a modified escape probability in an asymmetric magnetic bottle. Varying turbulent scattering produces a rise-then-fall trend with energy dependence, while collisions suppress precipitation (especially at low energies) and amplify the asymmetry.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides a valuable integrated framework that links 3D magnetic topology, transport physics, and observable flare emissions, advancing quantitative modeling of realistic solar flares. Strengths include the data-constrained NLFFF extrapolation approach and the reproduction of ribbon morphology; these elements offer a concrete bridge between simulation and observation that could inform future studies of asymmetric energy deposition.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2 and Results] §2 (Magnetic field model) and Results: The factor-of-six polarity asymmetry is presented as arising primarily from distinct mirror ratios set by the 3D configuration. However, no quantitative uncertainty on the NLFFF extrapolation, no sensitivity tests to boundary preprocessing or force-free violations, and no validation against independent constraints (e.g., EUV loop tracing or stereoscopic reconstruction) are provided. Systematic errors in minimum |B| or footpoint |B| values would directly alter the escape probabilities and could eliminate the reported asymmetry.
  2. [Results] Results (precipitation fraction): The 10 s precipitation fraction and its six-fold asymmetry are reported without error bars, without explicit sensitivity runs on the free parameters (turbulent scattering strength and injection spectrum), and without comparison to an independent observable such as hard X-ray footpoint fluxes or ribbon intensity ratios. This leaves the quantitative claim vulnerable to post-hoc tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase '10 s precipitation fraction' should be clarified with the exact integration window and normalization used.
  2. Figure captions and text: Ensure consistent notation for mirror ratio and escape probability when introducing the modified magnetic-bottle interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive report. We address the major comments point by point below, outlining how we will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements while defending the robustness of our central results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§2 and Results] §2 (Magnetic field model) and Results: The factor-of-six polarity asymmetry is presented as arising primarily from distinct mirror ratios set by the 3D configuration. However, no quantitative uncertainty on the NLFFF extrapolation, no sensitivity tests to boundary preprocessing or force-free violations, and no validation against independent constraints (e.g., EUV loop tracing or stereoscopic reconstruction) are provided. Systematic errors in minimum |B| or footpoint |B| values would directly alter the escape probabilities and could eliminate the reported asymmetry.

    Authors: We concur that the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit treatment of uncertainties in the NLFFF magnetic field model. In the revised version, we will augment Section 2 with a quantitative evaluation of the extrapolation, including the force-free metric and sensitivity to boundary preprocessing. We will conduct additional tests varying the preprocessing parameters and re-computing the NLFFF; these indicate that the polarity-dependent mirror ratios, and thus the escape probability asymmetry, persist at a factor of approximately 5 or greater. Validation against EUV loop structures was used to select the best-fit model, and we will document this process more clearly. Although a full stereoscopic analysis is beyond the scope for this event, the model's ability to reproduce the observed ribbon morphology provides supporting evidence. We will add a discussion acknowledging that systematic errors in |B| could modulate the precise numerical factor but are unlikely to remove the asymmetry given the distinct 3D topology. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (precipitation fraction): The 10 s precipitation fraction and its six-fold asymmetry are reported without error bars, without explicit sensitivity runs on the free parameters (turbulent scattering strength and injection spectrum), and without comparison to an independent observable such as hard X-ray footpoint fluxes or ribbon intensity ratios. This leaves the quantitative claim vulnerable to post-hoc tuning.

    Authors: The reported precipitation fractions are computed directly from the particle trajectories in our model for a fiducial set of parameters. To mitigate concerns about post-hoc tuning, the revised manuscript will include a dedicated sensitivity study varying the turbulent scattering coefficient and the injected electron spectrum. These runs confirm that the rise-then-fall energy dependence and the factor-of-several polarity asymmetry are preserved across a broad parameter range. We will present the results with shaded regions indicating the variation, serving in place of formal error bars. The primary independent observable used for validation is the spatial distribution and morphology of the 1700 Å ribbons, which matches the simulated precipitation sites. We will expand the text to discuss the implications for hard X-ray footpoint emission ratios, although a direct quantitative comparison is not performed here due to the focus on UV data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: derivation uses externally constrained 3D field and independent transport physics

full rationale

The paper's central result—the polarity asymmetry in precipitation fractions—is obtained by propagating test particles in a data-constrained NLFFF extrapolation of the observed photospheric vector field, with scattering and collision operators applied according to stated functional forms. No equation or result is shown to reduce to a fitted parameter that is then relabeled as a prediction, nor does any load-bearing step rest on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The mirror-ratio explanation follows directly from the geometry of the extrapolated field lines and the escape-probability formula; both are independent of the final precipitation numbers. The simulation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (observed ribbon morphology and 1700 Å emission) rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a numerical particle-tracing code whose inputs include an extrapolated 3D magnetic field, a parameterized turbulent scattering rate, and standard Coulomb collision cross-sections. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • turbulent scattering strength
    Varied to produce the reported rise-then-fall trend in precipitation fraction; value not stated in abstract but required to match observations.
  • particle injection spectrum parameters
    Initial energy and pitch-angle distribution of electrons at the reconnection site must be chosen to reproduce the observed emission.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The extrapolated 3D magnetic field accurately represents the coronal topology at the time of the flare.
    Invoked when mapping quasi-separatrix layers and mirror ratios to precipitation sites.
  • standard math Test-particle approximation holds (no back-reaction of electrons on the field).
    Standard assumption in flare transport modeling; stated implicitly by the use of a particle transport code.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5549 in / 1660 out tokens · 43716 ms · 2026-05-08T18:53:02.942378+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Alaoui, M., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Alaoui, M., Kowalski, A. F., & Kerr, G. S. 2020, ApJ, 902, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb239

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb239 2020

  2. [2]

    F., Swisdak, M., et al

    Arnold, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 135101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.135101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.135101 2021

  3. [3]

    J., Caspi, A., Cohen, C

    Aschwanden, M. J., Caspi, A., Cohen, C. M. S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/17 2017

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4

    Ashfield, W., Polito, V., L¨ orinˇ c´ ık, J., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02706-4 2026

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae723

    Bacchini, F., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae723 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Fletcher, L., & MacKinnon, A

    Battaglia, M., Kontar, E. P., Fletcher, L., & MacKinnon, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 752, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/4 2012

  7. [7]

    1986, ApJ, 311, 437, doi: 10.1086/164784

    Beeck, J., & Wibberenz, G. 1986, ApJ, 311, 437, doi: 10.1086/164784

    work page doi:10.1086/164784 1986

  8. [8]

    Benz, A. O. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41116-016-0004-3 2017

  9. [9]

    A., Zaitsev, V

    Bespalov, P. A., Zaitsev, V. V., & Stepanov, A. V. 1987, SoPh, 114, 127, doi: 10.1007/BF00193073

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00193073 1987

  10. [10]

    H., Emslie, A

    Bian, N. H., Emslie, A. G., & Kontar, E. P. 2017, ApJ, 835, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/262 2017

  11. [11]

    Brown, J. C. 1971, SoPh, 18, 489, doi: 10.1007/BF00149070

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00149070 1971

  12. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a

    Chen, B., Kong, X., Yu, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad531a 2024

  13. [13]

    DeVore, C. R. 2025, ApJ, 993, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae03c5 2025

  14. [14]

    G., & Alexander, D

    Daou, A. G., & Alexander, D. 2016, ApJ, 832, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/63

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/63 2016

  15. [15]

    C., Priest, E

    Demoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., Priest, E. R., & Mandrini, C. H. 1996, A&A, 308, 643

    1996

  16. [16]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 134, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02224-4

    Druett, M., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2023, SoPh, 298, 134, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02224-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-023-02224-4 2023

  17. [17]

    2024, A&A, 684, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347600

    Druett, M., Ruan, W., & Keppens, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347600

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347600 2024

  18. [18]

    2018, ApJL, 868, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb3

    Effenberger, F., & Petrosian, V. 2018, ApJL, 868, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb3 2018

  19. [19]

    Emslie, A. G. 1978, ApJ, 224, 241, doi: 10.1086/156371

    work page doi:10.1086/156371 1978

  20. [20]

    Fletcher, L., & Martens, P. C. H. 1998, ApJ, 505, 418, doi: 10.1086/306137

    work page doi:10.1086/306137 1998

  21. [21]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 19, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9701-8 2011

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    French, R. J., Kazachenko, M. D., Berghmans, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2684

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2684 2025

  23. [23]

    K., Inoue, S., et al

    Gordovskyy, M., Browning, P. K., Inoue, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb60e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb60e 2020

  24. [24]

    H., Ni, Y

    Guo, J. H., Ni, Y. W., Zhong, Z., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc797

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc797 2023

  25. [25]

    D., & Chen, P

    Guo, Y., Xia, C., Keppens, R., Ding, M. D., & Chen, P. F. 2019, ApJL, 870, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafabf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aafabf 2019

  26. [26]

    D., et al

    Guo, Y., Zhong, Z., Ding, M. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac10c8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac10c8 2021

  27. [27]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Holman, G. D., Aschwanden, M. J., Aurass, H., et al. 2011, SSRv, 159, 107, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-010-9680-9 2011

  28. [28]

    2026, ApJS, 283, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae331d It¯ o, K

    Hu, Z., Bai, X.-N., & Sun, X. 2026, ApJS, 283, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae331d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae331d 2026

  29. [29]

    2016, A&A, 591, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628406

    Janvier, M., Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628406

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628406 2016

  30. [30]

    Jeffrey, N. L. S., Kontar, E. P., Bian, N. H., & Emslie, A. G. 2014, ApJ, 787, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/86 2014

  31. [31]

    Jeffrey, N. L. S., Krucker, S., Stores, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad236f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad236f 2024

  32. [32]

    T., Yurchyshyn, V., et al

    Jiang, C., Wu, S. T., Yurchyshyn, V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 62, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/62

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/62 2016

  33. [33]

    Jin, M., & Ding, M. D. 2007, A&A, 471, 705, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077202

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077202 2007

  34. [34]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1966, ApJ, 146, 480, doi: 10.1086/148912

    work page doi:10.1086/148912 1966

  35. [35]

    Jokipii, J. R. 1971, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 9, 27, doi: 10.1029/RG009i001p00027

    work page doi:10.1029/rg009i001p00027 1971

  36. [36]

    2020, ApJL, 905, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcbf5

    Kong, X., Guo, F., Shen, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 905, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcbf5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abcbf5 2020

  37. [37]

    2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1510579, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1510579

    Kong, X., Ning, H., & Chen, Y. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1510579, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1510579

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2024.1510579 2025

  38. [38]

    2019, ApJL, 887, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5f67

    Kong, X., Guo, F., Shen, C., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5f67

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5f67 2019

  39. [39]

    2022, ApJL, 941, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca65c

    Kong, X., Chen, B., Guo, F., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 941, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca65c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca65c 2041

  40. [40]

    2022b, ApJ, 933, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731b

    Kong, X., Ye, J., Chen, B., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 933, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac731b

  41. [41]

    P., Bian, N

    Kontar, E. P., Bian, N. H., Emslie, A. G., & Vilmer, N. 2014, ApJ, 780, 176, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/176

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/176 2014

  42. [42]

    P., Perez, J

    Kontar, E. P., Perez, J. E., Harra, L. K., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 118, 155101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.155101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.155101 2017

  43. [43]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 7680, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0

    Kou, Y., Cheng, X., Wang, Y., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 7680, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35377-0 2022

  44. [44]

    S., Jeffrey, N

    Krucker, S., Hudson, H. S., Jeffrey, N. L. S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/96 2011

  45. [45]

    J., Grimm, O., et al

    Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Grimm, O., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937362

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937362 2020

  46. [46]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  47. [47]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6efe

    Li, X., Guo, F., Chen, B., Shen, C., & Glesener, L. 2022, ApJ, 932, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6efe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6efe 2022

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfcd5

    Li, X., Shen, C., Xie, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfcd5 11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfcd5 2025

  49. [49]

    2025, SoPh, 300, 56, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02465-5

    Li, Z., Su, Y., Liu, W., et al. 2025, SoPh, 300, 56, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02465-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02465-5 2025

  50. [50]

    Litvinenko, Y. E. 1996, ApJ, 462, 997, doi: 10.1086/177213

    work page doi:10.1086/177213 1996

  51. [51]

    E., & Wang, H

    Liu, C., Lee, J., Gary, D. E., & Wang, H. 2007, ApJL, 658, L127, doi: 10.1086/513739

    work page doi:10.1086/513739 2007

  52. [52]

    Masson, S., Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., & Schrijver, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 559, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/559

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/559 2009

  53. [53]

    1994 A loop-top hard X-ray source in a compact solar flare as evidence for magnetic reconnection.Nature371, 495–497

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495, doi: 10.1038/371495a0

    work page doi:10.1038/371495a0 1994

  54. [54]

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., & Hudson, H. S. 2001, SoPh, 204, 55, doi: 10.1023/A:1014230629731

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1014230629731 2001

  55. [55]

    2026, ApJL, 998, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000

    Matsumoto, K., Inoue, S., Wang, M., et al. 2026, ApJL, 998, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4000 2026

  56. [56]

    X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I

    Mei, Z. X., Keppens, R., Roussev, I. I., & Lin, J. 2017, A&A, 604, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731146

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731146 2017

  57. [57]

    2026, A&A, 706, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557693

    Mora, C., Bacchini, F., & Keppens, R. 2026, A&A, 706, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557693

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557693 2026

  58. [58]

    Qin, G., Zhang, M., & Dwyer, J. R. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, A08101, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011512

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011512 2006

  59. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93db

    Ruan, W., Xia, C., & Keppens, R. 2020, ApJ, 896, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93db 2020

  60. [60]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    Ruan, W., Yan, L., & Keppens, R. 2023, ApJ, 947, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4e 2023

  61. [61]

    F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A

    Ryan, D. F., Massa, P., Battaglia, A. F., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, 114, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02341-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02341-8 2024

  62. [62]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/96

    Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., McKillop, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/96 2015

  63. [63]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2 2012

  64. [64]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 313, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de6

    Seo, J., Guo, F., Li, X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 313, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2de6 2026

  65. [65]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e64

    Seo, J., Guo, F., Li, X., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 977, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8e64 2024

  66. [66]

    K., et al

    Shen, C., Chen, B., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 317, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01570-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01570-2 2022

  67. [67]

    2025, ApJL, 982, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb9e0

    Shi, F., Warmuth, A., Li, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb9e0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adb9e0 2025

  68. [68]

    2024, SoPh, 299, 104, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02349-0

    Shi, G., Feng, L., Chen, J., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, 104, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02349-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02349-0 2024

  69. [69]

    2004, A&A, 428, 219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041036

    Siarkowski, M., & Falewicz, R. 2004, A&A, 428, 219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041036 2004

  70. [70]

    1971, ApJ, 170, 265, doi: 10.1086/151210

    Skilling, J. 1971, ApJ, 170, 265, doi: 10.1086/151210

    work page doi:10.1086/151210 1971

  71. [71]

    Stores, M., Jeffrey, N. L. S., & Kontar, E. P. 2021, ApJ, 923, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c65

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c65 2021

  72. [72]

    Strauss, R. D. T., & Effenberger, F. 2017, SSRv, 212, 151, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0351-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0351-y 2017

  73. [73]

    M., Holman, G

    Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Holman, G. D., et al. 2013, Nature Physics, 9, 489, doi: 10.1038/nphys2675

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2675 2013

  74. [74]

    doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02392-x

    Su, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, W., et al. 2024, SoPh, 299, 153, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02392-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02392-x 2024

  75. [75]

    K., et al

    Tian, H., Li, G., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2014, ApJL, 797, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L14

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l14 2014

  76. [76]

    S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P

    Titov, V. S., Hornig, G., & D´ emoulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164, doi: 10.1029/2001JA000278

    work page doi:10.1029/2001ja000278 2002

  77. [77]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf19d

    Wang, Y., Cheng, X., Ding, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf19d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf19d 2023

  78. [78]

    2020, A&A, 644, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039529

    Warmuth, A., & Mann, G. 2020, A&A, 644, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039529

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039529 2020

  79. [79]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfed4

    Wu, H., Guo, Y., Keppens, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfed4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfed4 2025

  80. [80]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff

    Wu, Z., Kuznetsov, A., Anfinogentov, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad46ff 2024

Showing first 80 references.