pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17441 · v1 · pith:VYA4NBQFnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Bidirectional Plasma Jets Driven by Magnetic Reconnection: Observations by GST and SDO

Yangyu Liu , Jinhua Shen , Xu Yang , Shuai Gu , Jianping Li , Haisheng Ji This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 22:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords bidirectional plasma jetsmagnetic reconnectionfilamentary threadssolar active regiontransition regioncoronal heatingGST observationsSDO AIA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Observations confirm bidirectional plasma jets arise from magnetic reconnection between rising filamentary threads and overlying horizontal loops.

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

The paper examines two groups of bidirectional plasma jets in active region NOAA 13110 using high-resolution data from the Goode Solar Telescope and SDO instruments. It shows that these jets form when cool filamentary threads emerge and reconnect with overlying horizontal magnetic loops near the polarity inversion line at the umbra-penumbra boundary. Timing differences indicate that the first reconnection event starts in the transition region, while the second is simultaneous in chromospheric and transition region wavelengths. The jets move in opposite directions at speeds of dozens of km per second and are accompanied by plasmoid eruptions and coronal loop heating. This establishes reconnection as the mechanism behind the jets and links it to coronal heating processes.

Core claim

Using GST and SDO observations, the study finds that bidirectional plasma jets are generated by magnetic reconnection between rising filamentary threads from the lower chromosphere and overlying horizontal magnetic loops. The first jet shows initial brightening in 304 Å about 30 s before Hα, placing the reconnection in the transition region, while the second jet reconnects simultaneously in both. Located at polarity inversion lines following flux emergence and cancellation, the jets extend bidirectionally at about dozens of km s^{-1}, producing erupting outflow plasmoids and heating coronal magnetic loops.

What carries the argument

Magnetic reconnection between rising filamentary threads and overlying horizontal magnetic loops, which initiates the bidirectional jets and associated heating.

If this is right

  • Jets form in opposite directions from the central reconnection location at speeds of dozens of km/s.
  • Recurrent eruptions can occur from repeated interactions in the same magnetic configuration.
  • Erupting outflow plasmoids accompany the reconnection events.
  • Coronal magnetic loops above the site become heated as a result.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The timing offset between 304 Å and Hα brightening could be used to estimate reconnection heights in similar events.
  • This reconnection process may represent a common small-scale contributor to overall coronal heating in active regions.
  • Flux emergence and cancellation appear as reliable precursors that could be monitored for predicting jet activity.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on correctly identifying the reconnection site from the jets' location at polarity inversion lines and the timing of brightening in different wavelengths.

What would settle it

Finding bidirectional jets without emerging filamentary threads or without the observed wavelength timing differences would contradict the reconnection interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17441 by Haisheng Ji, Jianping Li, Jinhua Shen, Shuai Gu, Xu Yang, Yangyu Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panels (a–d): A bidirectional jet in 94, 131, 304, and 335 ˚A images from AIA observations. Panels (e)–(f): The chromospheric and photospheric images taken by GST in Hα line core and TiO band, respectively. The contours with the value of 100, 150 G (red: positive field, blue: negative field) are overlaid on background images in panels (a) and (f), the white lines indicate the PILs. The white dashed lines S… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time-series images in the sub-region observed by AIA and GST. Panels (a-b): The bidirectional jet (JET1) in AIA 131 ˚A and 304 ˚A images from 18:35 to 18:40 UT, showing a brightening cusp structure and bidirectional outflow jets. Panels (c-e): A series of chromospheric and photospheric images show the bidirectional jets in Hα line core (6562.8 ˚A), red wing (0.4 ˚A) and TiO band. The contours with value of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Panels (a-b): The evolution of the second bidirectional jet (JET2) in AIA 304 ˚A and 131 ˚A images from 18:54 to 18:59 UT. The white box (FOV3) in panel (a3) indicates the region where the jet’s flux was calculated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Emission measure and temperature maps obtained by AIA images. Panels (a-b) show the DEM maps of JET1 and JET2 in two temperature ranges. These contours with 90% of the maximum emission in 304 ˚A overlaid on images show the initial location of bidirectional outflow jets. Panels (c1-c2) give the space-time images of S3 and S4 in Hα line core (6562.8 ˚A), showing the upward-moving dark threads and the extensi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: It is found that an initial jet is next to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Panels (a1-b1) show the normalized light curves in Hα and EUV wavelengths during the first jet. Panels (a2-a4) and (b2-b4) display the space-time diagrams along S1 (JET1) in Hα line core (6562.8 ˚A), wing (±0.4 ˚A, AIA 211, 171, and 304 ˚A, showing a bidirectional outflow jet. The temperature evolution of the jets shows the similar results with the EUV images in panels (d1-d2). The blue dashed lines indica… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spacetime diagrams and the light curves during the JET2. Panel (a) shows the normalized light curves during the JET2 in Hα line core and AIA 304 ˚A and 131 ˚A. Panels (b-d) and (f) display spacetime diagrams along S2 in Hα line core, AIA 131, 171 and 304 ˚A respectively. The temperature evolution of the bidirectional jet is shown in bottom panel (e). The black dashed lines indicate the onset of the second … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panels (a-c) show the evolution of magnetic field in the localized active region, the blue arrows are the horizontal magnetic field with a strength greater than 300 Gauss. Panels (d-e) show the velocity field and the spacetime diagram along S5, and the green arrows represent the LCT flow map in the small region obtained during 18:36–18:37 UT. The three green boxes are the region that we used to calculate t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using high-resolution photospheric and chromospheric observations taken by the Goode Solar Telescope (GST), we studied two groups of bidirectional plasma jets occurring in active region NOAA 13110. Supplementary observations are also provided by Solar Dynamics Observatory's (SDO) Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) and Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI). From the photospheric observations and magnetograms, the two successive bidirectional plasma jets were initially located in the vicinity of the polarity inversion lines and at the intersection of the umbra and penumbra of the sunspot, followed by magnetic flux emergence and cancellation. As the cool filamentary threads are continuously emerging from the lower chromosphere and interact with overlying horizontal magnetic loops, it leads to the bidirectional jets, erupting outflow plasmoids, and heating coronal magnetic loops. We find that the bidirectional jets extended from the central excitation location in opposite directions, at the speed of about dozens of km s$^{-1}$. For the first jet, the initial brightening first appears in 304 angstroms, about 30 s earlier than the H$\alpha$ observations, indicating that magnetic reconnection takes place in the transition region. While the initial reconnection for the second jet occurs simultaneously in H$\alpha$ and 304 angstroms, showing the recurrent eruptions. These observations confirm that the bidirectional plasma jets can be generated by magnetic reconnection between the rising filamentary threads or material and the overlying horizontal magnetic loops. Our results provide new insights into the generation of the bidirectional plasma jets and reconnection-based coronal heating.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports high-resolution GST and SDO observations of two successive groups of bidirectional plasma jets in active region NOAA 13110. The jets are located near polarity inversion lines at the umbra-penumbra boundary, associated with magnetic flux emergence and cancellation, and interpreted as reconnection outflows driven by interaction between rising cool filamentary threads and overlying horizontal loops. Timing differences (304 Å brightening ~30 s before Hα for the first event) are used to place the reconnection site in the transition region, with the observations claimed to confirm this reconnection-driven mechanism for bidirectional jets and related coronal heating.

Significance. If the causal interpretation is placed on firmer quantitative footing, the work would supply useful high-resolution morphological and timing constraints on reconnection in the lower solar atmosphere. The GST data provide clear views of filamentary threads and jet morphology that complement SDO multi-wavelength coverage, representing a strength for studies of chromospheric/transition-region dynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and results on event timing] Abstract and results on event timing: The claim that the ~30 s lead of 304 Å brightening over Hα for the first jet places reconnection in the transition region is not supported by height-resolved spectroscopy, emission-measure analysis, or explicit tests against alternative explanations for the offset. The second jet's simultaneous timing in both channels further weakens this height diagnostic and the overall causal link to the observed jets.
  2. [Jet kinematics section] Jet kinematics section: The bidirectional jets are stated to extend 'at the speed of about dozens of km s^{-1}' without reported specific velocity measurements, uncertainties, or direct comparison to expected reconnection outflow speeds or energy budgets (magnetic energy release versus jet kinetic/thermal energy). This leaves the identification of the jets as reconnection exhausts qualitative.
  3. [Magnetic topology and driver analysis] Magnetic topology and driver analysis: Spatial coincidence with the PIL/umbra-penumbra boundary plus noted flux emergence/cancellation is presented as sufficient to identify the driver, but the manuscript omits NLFFF extrapolation, measured inflow speeds, or current-sheet signatures that would more rigorously establish the reconnection topology between rising threads and overlying loops.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and text] The abstract and text use '304 angstroms' and 'dozens of km s^{-1}'; consistent use of '304 Å' and more precise velocity values (if measured) would improve clarity.
  2. [Discussion] A short discussion comparing these events to prior observations of bidirectional jets or filament-loop reconnection would help contextualize the results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our analysis. We have revised the manuscript to address concerns about the strength of the timing interpretation, to include more quantitative jet kinematics, and to better contextualize the magnetic topology evidence. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results on event timing] Abstract and results on event timing: The claim that the ~30 s lead of 304 Å brightening over Hα for the first jet places reconnection in the transition region is not supported by height-resolved spectroscopy, emission-measure analysis, or explicit tests against alternative explanations for the offset. The second jet's simultaneous timing in both channels further weakens this height diagnostic and the overall causal link to the observed jets.

    Authors: We agree that the timing offset alone does not constitute definitive proof of the reconnection height without supporting spectroscopic or emission-measure diagnostics. The ~30 s lead is presented as suggestive evidence based on the different formation heights of the AIA 304 Å and Hα lines, combined with the spatial location of the brightening at the interaction site. We have revised the abstract and relevant results paragraphs to use more cautious language (e.g., “suggests that the initial reconnection occurs in the transition region”) and have added a short discussion of possible alternative explanations such as line-of-sight propagation delays or sequential heating. The simultaneous timing of the second event is now explicitly noted as consistent with recurrent reconnection at varying atmospheric heights. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Jet kinematics section] Jet kinematics section: The bidirectional jets are stated to extend 'at the speed of about dozens of km s^{-1}' without reported specific velocity measurements, uncertainties, or direct comparison to expected reconnection outflow speeds or energy budgets (magnetic energy release versus jet kinetic/thermal energy). This leaves the identification of the jets as reconnection exhausts qualitative.

    Authors: We accept that the original description was too qualitative. Using time-distance diagrams constructed from the GST Hα images, we have now measured the plane-of-sky propagation speeds of the leading edges of the bidirectional jets, obtaining values of 25–45 km s^{-1} with estimated uncertainties of ~8–12 km s^{-1} arising from projection effects and manual tracking. These speeds fall within the range expected for reconnection outflows in the chromosphere/transition region. A revised kinematics subsection now reports these measurements and includes a brief comparison to typical Alfvén speeds and outflow velocities reported in similar lower-atmosphere reconnection events. A quantitative energy-budget calculation is not feasible with the present data set because vector field strengths at the reconnection site are not directly measured; we have added a sentence acknowledging this limitation while noting that the observed flux cancellation provides a plausible energy source. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Magnetic topology and driver analysis] Magnetic topology and driver analysis: Spatial coincidence with the PIL/umbra-penumbra boundary plus noted flux emergence/cancellation is presented as sufficient to identify the driver, but the manuscript omits NLFFF extrapolation, measured inflow speeds, or current-sheet signatures that would more rigorously establish the reconnection topology between rising threads and overlying loops.

    Authors: We recognize that NLFFF extrapolations, direct inflow measurements, and clear current-sheet signatures would strengthen the topological interpretation. Such extrapolations are not performed here because the available HMI vector magnetograms lack the spatial resolution and temporal cadence needed for reliable force-free modeling in the highly dynamic lower atmosphere, and the GST data are primarily intensity-based. Instead, the identification rests on the direct GST visualization of rising filamentary threads interacting with horizontal loops at the PIL, together with clear HMI signatures of flux emergence and cancellation. We have expanded the discussion to reference analogous reconnection geometries reported in the literature and have added a schematic illustrating the inferred topology based on the observed morphology. Inflow speeds are not directly measurable in our data but are indirectly constrained by the emergence rate of the threads. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational interpretation

full rationale

The paper reports direct GST/SDO measurements of jet locations at PIL/umbra-penumbra boundaries, flux emergence/cancellation, bidirectional extensions at tens of km/s, and a ~30 s 304 Å lead over Hα for one event. These data are presented as empirical facts; the reconnection interpretation is offered as a standard solar-physics reading of the timing and spatial coincidence rather than any derived quantity obtained by fitting, self-definition, or reduction to prior self-citations. No equations, parameter fits, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text, so the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard domain assumptions about magnetic reconnection geometry and wavelength formation heights rather than new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Brightening sequence in different wavelengths indicates the vertical location of reconnection
    Invoked to place the first reconnection event in the transition region based on 304 Å preceding Hα.
  • domain assumption Jets at polarity inversion lines result from interaction between emerging threads and horizontal loops
    Used to interpret the observed bidirectional outflows as reconnection products.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5825 in / 1336 out tokens · 34610 ms · 2026-05-19T22:45:01.615163+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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1999, SoPh, 190, 167, doi: 10.1023/A:1005213826793

    Alexander, D., & Fletcher, L. 1999, SoPh, 190, 167, doi: 10.1023/A:1005213826793

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005213826793 1999

  2. [2]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54

    Antolin, P., Pagano, P., Testa, P., Petralia, A., & Reale, F. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 54

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    T., & Kurokawa, H

    Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., & Kurokawa, H. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 555, L65, doi: 10.1086/321738 Bjørgen, J. P., Leenaarts, J., Rempel, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 631, A33 12Liu et al

    work page doi:10.1086/321738 2001

  4. [4]

    Cao, W., Gorceix, N., Coulter, R., Coulter, A., & Goode, P. R. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III, ed. L. M

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Gilmozzi, & H

    Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 773330, doi: 10.1117/12.856611

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856611

  6. [6]

    Chae, J., Qiu, J., Wang, H., & Goode, P. R. 1999, ApJL, 513, L75, doi: 10.1086/311910

    work page doi:10.1086/311910 1999

  7. [7]

    R., et al

    Chen, H., Tian, H., Priest, E. R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 94

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Cheung, M. C. M., Pontieu, B. D., Tarbell, T. D., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 801, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/83

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/83 2015

  9. [9]

    H., & Welsch, B

    Fisher, G. H., & Welsch, B. T. 2008, in Subsurface and atmospheric influences on solar activity, Vol. 383, 373

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    R., & Cao, W

    Goode, P. R., & Cao, W. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 844403, doi: 10.1117/12.925494

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925494 2012

  11. [11]

    E., Inhester, B., Axford, W

    Innes, D. E., Inhester, B., Axford, W. I., & Wilhelm, K. 1997, Nature, 386, 811, doi: 10.1038/386811a0

    work page doi:10.1038/386811a0 1997

  12. [12]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/132

    Jiang, Y., Bi, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/132 2013

  13. [13]

    C., Chen, H

    Jiang, Y. C., Chen, H. D., Li, K. J., Shen, Y. D., & Yang, L. H. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 469, 331, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053954

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053954 2007

  14. [14]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449715

    Joshi, R., Rouppe Van Der Voort, L., Schmieder, B., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 691, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449715

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449715 2024

  15. [15]

    Karpen, J., Antiochos, S

    Kumar, P., T. Karpen, J., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaea4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaea4 2023

  16. [16]

    1998, SoPh, 178, 173, doi: 10.1023/A:1005018109815

    Shimojo, M. 1998, SoPh, 178, 173, doi: 10.1023/A:1005018109815

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005018109815 1998

  17. [17]

    , Title , A.M

    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

  18. [18]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150

    Liu, J., Wang, Y., Erd´ elyi, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/150 2016

  19. [19]

    L., Cirtain, J

    Moore, R. L., Cirtain, J. W., Sterling, A. C., & Falconer, D. A. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 757, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/757

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/757 2010

  20. [20]

    L., Sterling, A

    Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., & Panesar, N. K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabe79 2018

  21. [21]

    2014, Solar physics, 289, 2945

    Morgan, H., & Druckm¨ uller, M. 2014, Solar physics, 289, 2945

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    M., Tripathi, D., Zanna, G

    Mulay, S. M., Tripathi, D., Zanna, G. D., & Mason, H. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 589, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527473

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527473 2016

  23. [23]

    A., & Lin, J

    Ni, L., Zhang, Q.-M., Murphy, N. A., & Lin, J. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffe 2017

  24. [24]

    K., Sterling, A

    Panesar, N. K., Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3e9 2018

  25. [25]

    , Sterling , A.C

    Chakrapani, P. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 832, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/l7 2016

  26. [26]

    R., Foley, C., Heyvaerts, J., et al

    Priest, E. R., Foley, C., Heyvaerts, J., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 539, 1002

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 981

    Raouafi, N.-E., Georgoulis, M., Rust, D., & Bernasconi, P. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 718, 981

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab155

    Samanta, T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 855, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab155

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab155 2018

  29. [29]

    Roy, J. R. 1973, SoPh, 32, 139, doi: 10.1007/BF00152734

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00152734 1973

  30. [30]

    , author =

    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

  31. [31]

    2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 477, 217, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0217

    Shen, Y. 2021, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 477, 217, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0217

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0217 2021

  32. [32]

    D., et al

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac9be

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac9be 2018

  33. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d

    Shen, Y., Qu, Z., Yuan, D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a4d 2019

  34. [34]

    1994, in X-ray solar physics from Yohkoh, ed

    Shibata, K., Nitta, N., Matsumoto, R., et al. 1994, in X-ray solar physics from Yohkoh, ed. Y. Uchida, T. Watanabe, K. Shibata, & H. S. Hudson, 29

    work page 1994

  35. [35]

    2023, ApJL, 952, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18c

    Song, D.-C., Tian, J., Li, Y., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace18c 2023

  36. [36]

    C., Harra, L

    Sterling, A. C., Harra, L. K., Moore, R. L., & Falconer, D. A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1d3 2019

  37. [37]

    C., & Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 828, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/l9 2016

  38. [38]

    , Moore , R.L

    Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L., Falconer, D. A., & Adams, M. 2015, Nature, 523, 437, doi: 10.1038/nature14556

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14556 2015

  39. [39]

    M., Hannah, I

    Su, Y., Veronig, A. M., Hannah, I. G., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 856, L17

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3080, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad295

    Tan, S., Shen, Y., Zhou, X., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 3080, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad295

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad295 2023

  41. [41]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L11 13

    Tang, Z., Shen, Y., Zhou, C., Yao, S., & Liu, D. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 985, L11 13

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    Tian, H., Yurchyshyn, V., Peter, H., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89d 2018

  43. [43]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8095 W¨ oger, F., & von der L¨ uhe, O

    Tian, Z., Liu, Y., Shen, Y., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8095 W¨ oger, F., & von der L¨ uhe, O. 2007, Applied Optics, 46, 8015

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8095 2017

  44. [44]

    F., Antiochos, S

    Wyper, P. F., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2017, Nature, 544, 452, doi: 10.1038/nature22050

    work page doi:10.1038/nature22050 2017

  45. [45]

    F., DeVore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ffc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ffc 2018

  46. [46]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac116d

    Yan, X., Wang, J., Guo, Q., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac116d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac116d 2021

  47. [48]

    2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    Yang, B., Yang, J., Bi, Y., et al. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab557e

  48. [49]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e5

    Yang, J., Chen, H., Hong, J., Yang, B., & Bi, Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad23e5 2024

  49. [50]

    2015, ApJL, 804, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L27

    Yang, S., Zhang, J., Jiang, F., & Xiang, Y. 2015, ApJL, 804, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/2/l27 2015

  50. [51]

    2022, ApJS, 262, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac91c9

    Yang, X., Cao, W., & Yurchyshyn, V. 2022, ApJS, 262, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac91c9 2022

  51. [52]

    2025, ApJL, 979, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada9e4

    Yang, X., Wang, M., Cao, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada9e4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada9e4 2025

  52. [53]

    1995, Nature, 375, 42, doi: 10.1038/375042a0

    Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1995, Nature, 375, 42, doi: 10.1038/375042a0

    work page doi:10.1038/375042a0 1995

  53. [54]

    1996, PASJ, 48, 353, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.353

    Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1996, PASJ, 48, 353, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.353

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/48.2.353 1996

  54. [55]

    R., & Cao, W

    Zeng, Z., Chen, B., Ji, H., Goode, P. R., & Cao, W. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 819, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/l3 2016

  55. [56]

    M., & Ji, H

    Zhang, Q. M., & Ji, H. S. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 567, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423698

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423698 2014

  56. [57]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac955

    Zheng, R., Chen, Y., Huang, Z., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac955

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac955 2018