Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 84 references

Radio Spectroscopic Imaging of a Solar Flare Termination Shock: Split-Band Feature as Evidence for Shock Compression

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The split-band radio feature of a solar flare termination shock places the high-frequency lane ~0.8 Mm below the low-frequency lane, supporting an upstream-downstream shock interpretation with an average density compression ratio…

desk verdict Plausible and genuinely new imaging of a termination-shock split band, but the 0.8 Mm spatial offset needs an astrometric control before I would call the scenario confirmed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09146 v2 pith:SWDYJYEI submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Bin Chen (1) , Chengcai Shen (2) , Katharine K. Reeves (2) , Fan Guo (3 , 4) , Sijie Yu (1) ((1) Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research , New Jersey Institute of Technology , (2) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
show 2 more authors
(3) Los Alamos National Laboratory (4) New Mexico Consortium)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords solarflaresterminationshockradiodynamicspectroscopysplit-bandfeaturestochasticspikeburstsplasmaemissiondensitycompressionratioMachnumber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that a two-lane split in the radio spectrum of stochastic spike bursts above a solar flare's looptop is direct evidence for a termination shock, the standing fast-mode shock formed where reconnection outflows slam into the top of flare arcades. Using high-cadence spectroscopic imaging, it finds that the high-frequency lane sits persistently ~0.8 Mm below the low-frequency lane at the same position along the shock front, exactly as expected if the high-frequency lane is emitted in the shock-compressed downstream and the low-frequency lane in the upstream. If this interpretation is right, the frequency split directly measures the shock's density compression ratio, giving an average $X\approx 1.78$ and a Mach number up to ~2.0. The paper also argues that the spatial and temporal variation of the compression along the shock front matches MHD simulations in which inflowing plasma blobs distort the shock surface. This matters because termination shocks are a leading candidate for accelerating particles in solar flares, and radio split bands would turn them into a quantitative observable diagnostic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the split-band feature in the vector radio dynamic spectrum, where the burst group separates into two nearly parallel frequency lanes while remaining resolved into individual stochastic spike bursts, defined as short-lived, narrow-band radio emissions. The key identity that carries the argument is $X = (\nu_{HF}/\nu_{LF})^2$, which converts the observed frequency ratio into a density compression ratio because plasma emission occurs near the local plasma frequency $\nu \propto \sqrt{n_e}$. Complementing this is the precise centroid localization of each spike burst, which allows the paper to measure the vertical offset $\Delta y = y_{HF} - y_{LF}$ at fixed positions along the shock front; this separates the upstream-downstream geometry from variation along the shock front and provides the spatial evidence that the two lanes straddle the shock.

What would settle it

Observe another termination-shock split-band event with the same imaging technique and check whether the high-frequency lane again lies below the low-frequency lane at the same position along the shock front; a reversal of sign, or a large offset that does not track the shock's upstream-downstream orientation, would break the interpretation. A more direct test would be to measure upstream and downstream densities independently, for example from EUV line ratios or from the drift of associated type-III-like bursts, and compare them with $(\nu_{HF}/\nu_{LF})^2$ from simultaneous radio observations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the split-band feature observed in decimetric stochastic spike bursts during the 2012 March 3 flare is produced by plasma radiation from the two sides of a flare termination shock. For each time and position along the shock front, the high-frequency (HF) lane is displaced below the low-frequency (LF) lane by an average of $-0.80\pm 0.02$ Mm, with the distribution of height differences strongly skewed negative; this persistent vertical ordering is what the upstream-downstream scenario predicts, whereas competing explanations would place the two lanes at different positions along the shock front. Under that scenario, the radio frequency $\nu \approx 8980\sqrt{n_e}$ Hz maps directly to electron density, so the density compression ratio across the shock is $X = n_2/n_1 = (\nu_{HF}/\nu_{LF})^2$. The data yield frequency ratios $R_\nu$ between 1.23 and 1.43 and compression ratios $X$ between 1.51 and 2.04, with an average of $X\approx 1.78$, corresponding to a shock Mach number of about 1.6 on average and up to 2.0. The measured spatiotemporal pattern of $X$, including a persistent gradient along the shock front and an asymmetry attributed to impacts of fast plasma blobs, matches the behavior of 2.5D MHD simulations of reconnection outflows hitting flare arcades.

Load-bearing premise

The whole measurement rests on the assumption that both split-band lanes are plasma emission at the same harmonic of the local plasma frequency, so that the frequency ratio directly equals the square root of the density ratio, and that the ~0.8 Mm vertical offset is a true spatial separation rather than a projection or frequency-dependent position artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Split-band radio observations can map the density compression ratio along a termination shock front with sub-Mm spatial resolution and sub-second cadence, turning a single shock measurement into a time-resolved two-dimensional diagnostic.
  • The inferred average compression $X\approx 1.78$ and Mach number up to 2.0 provide quantitative confirmation of long-standing MHD predictions for flare termination shocks.
  • The persistent downward displacement of the high-frequency lane supports the upstream-downstream interpretation of split bands (also called Scenario 1) and suggests that the same interpretation should be applied to, and tested on, split-band type II radio bursts with high-resolution imaging.
  • The absence of a matching density-jump signature in EUV images is explained by line-of-sight emission measure, so radio plasma emission can reveal shocks that EUV observations effectively bury.
  • The observed asymmetry in compression along the shock front is attributed to impacts of fast plasma blobs or plasmoids, so distorted shock fronts can be recognized and diagnosed from the radio split-band pattern alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same-harmonic frequency mapping holds across events, the split-band frequency ratio could become a routine remote diagnostic of termination shock Mach number and, indirectly, of the shock's particle-acceleration potential in flares.
  • The same centroid-offset method could be applied to high-frequency imaging of type II radio bursts to test whether the upstream-downstream geometry holds at CME-driven coronal shocks, where scattering and projection effects are stronger.
  • A testable extension of the MHD comparison is that larger or faster plasmoids should produce larger suppression of the compression ratio on the impacted side of the shock; this prediction could be checked by correlating EUV-detected downflow speeds with the inferred $X(x,t)$ asymmetry in more events.
  • If the spectral resolution and cadence are sufficient, one could search for third lanes or harmonic pairs in the spike bursts to directly test the same-harmonic assumption rather than assuming it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the split-band feature observed in decimetric stochastic spike bursts associated with a flare termination shock, using VLA dynamic spectroscopic imaging. The authors find that the high-frequency (HF) lane of the split band is located slightly below the low-frequency (LF) lane, with an average vertical offset of Δy = −0.80 ± 0.02 Mm. They interpret this as evidence for the shock upstream–downstream scenario, in which the HF and LF lanes correspond to plasma emission from the downstream and upstream sides of the shock front, respectively. From the frequency ratio they derive a density compression ratio X = (ν_HF/ν_LF)^2 ≈ 1.78 and a Mach number up to 2.0. They also construct spatially and temporally resolved maps of the compression ratio and compare them with 2.5D MHD simulations, finding qualitative agreement with the effects of plasmoid impacts on the shock front. The paper concludes that the split-band feature provides strong observational evidence for shock compression at a flare termination shock.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is the first direct, spatially resolved measurement of the upstream–downstream density jump at a flare termination shock, providing quantitative constraints on the shock compression ratio and Mach number that are relevant to particle acceleration and to the interpretation of split-band features in type II radio bursts. The paper is commendable for its careful use of high-cadence VLA spectroscopic imaging, for explicitly considering alternative scenarios (Scenario 1 vs. Scenario 2), and for honestly listing several limitations, including projection effects, the lack of EUV density signatures, and the qualitative nature of the MHD comparison. The quantitative central claim, however, rests on a small spatial offset whose statistical significance is not robust against frequency-dependent astrometric systematics, so the current manuscript is not yet suitable for acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Figure 5A] This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim and requires a control-source analysis in the same sub-bands or a quantitative bound on frequency-dependent astrometric errors.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 2.4 (X = R_ν^2)] This is also load-bearing because the main quantitative result is the compression ratio and Mach number.
  3. [Section 2.4, Figures 6 and 7] The authors should soften the language or add a quantitative metric, and clarify which features of the comparison are considered significant.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.3, Figure 5A/B] The current text quotes the mean and standard error but does not give N or the number of independent time–x bins.
  2. [Section 2.2, centroid uncertainty formula] The formula appears correct for a Gaussian source, but a citation would help readers.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] Please add a colorbar or explicit frequency labels so that the reader can relate symbol color to frequency.
  4. [Section 2.4, equations (1)–(3)] Also, the text introduces β before defining it in equation (1); please define β explicitly before or immediately after the equation.
  5. [Section 2.5, Figure 10] This would help the reader follow the argument about the expected EUV intensity jump.
  6. [Section 2.2] This is a minor numerical consistency issue.
  7. [General: data availability] This is increasingly standard for ApJ submissions and would be a useful addition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the split-band offset and frequency ratio are measured quantities, not fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's new result is a spatial measurement: the high-frequency split-band lane lies 0.80 ± 0.02 Mm below the low-frequency lane at matched x positions (Section 2.3). This offset is obtained directly from VLA centroid analysis and is not an output of the model or of a fit, so it is independent evidence for the upstream-downstream ordering. The compression ratio X = (ν_HF/ν_LF)^2 is a standard plasma-emission mapping (ν ∝ √n_e) applied to observed frequencies; the paper does not fit X to data and then rename it a prediction. The alternative Scenario 2 is explicitly considered and distinguished using the same spatial data, so the interpretation is not assumed by construction. The termination-shock identity of the source is inherited from Chen et al. (2015), a published, externally reviewable observation by overlapping authors; that cited work is independent support rather than an equation recycled here. The MHD comparison is qualitative and the authors explicitly caution that projection and 2.5D simulation limitations preclude detailed reproduction, so the comparison is not used to force the radio-derived compression values. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own input; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The main vulnerabilities (per-centroid errors, frequency-dependent astrometric systematics, projection effects) are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard plasma-emission diagnostics and the previous termination-shock interpretation of this event (Chen et al. 2015). No new free parameters are fitted to the radio data; the compression ratio is computed directly from the observed frequency ratio. The main assumptions are the plasma-emission mapping, the upstream-downstream assignment of the lanes, and the simplified shock-jump conditions used for the Mach number.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observed radio frequency equals the local plasma frequency (ν ≈ 8980 sqrt(n_e) Hz) at each source
    Used throughout to convert radio frequency into electron density; standard for coherent plasma radiation but not independently verified for this event.
  • domain assumption The HF and LF split-band lanes originate from the downstream and upstream sides of the same shock front
    This is the central interpretive claim; the compression ratio and Mach number derivation depend on it.
  • standard math Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions in simplified limits (perpendicular low-beta, or hydrodynamic high-beta) relate compression to Mach number
    Used in Section 2.4 to convert X into Mach number with assumed β and θ_Bn values that are not measured.
  • domain assumption The 2.5D resistive MHD simulation (Shen et al. 2018) is a qualitatively valid representation of the termination shock
    Used for the observational comparison; authors note limitations including missing third dimension and low Lundquist number.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio Spectroscopic Imaging of a Solar Flare Termination Shock: Split-Band Feature as Evidence for Shock Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWDYJYEI

@misc{pith2026190809146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio Spectroscopic Imaging of a Solar Flare Termination Shock: Split-Band Feature as Evidence for Shock Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWDYJYEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09146}
}
read the original abstract

Solar flare termination shocks have been suggested as one of the promising drivers for particle acceleration in solar flares, yet observational evidence remains rare. By utilizing radio dynamic spectroscopic imaging of decimetric stochastic spike bursts in an eruptive flare, Chen et al. found that the bursts form a dynamic surface-like feature located at the ending points of fast plasma downflows above the looptop, interpreted as a flare termination shock. One piece of observational evidence that strongly supports the termination shock interpretation is the occasional split of the emission band into two finer lanes in frequency, similar to the split-band feature seen in fast-coronal-shock-driven type II radio bursts. Here we perform spatially, spectrally, and temporally resolved analysis of the split-band feature of the flare termination shock event. We find that the ensemble of the radio centroids from the two split-band lanes each outlines a nearly co-spatial surface. The high-frequency lane is located slightly below its low frequency counterpart by ~0.8 Mm, which strongly supports the shock upstream-downstream interpretation. Under this scenario, the density compression ratio across the shock front can be inferred from the frequency split, which implies a shock with a Mach number of up to 2.0. Further, the spatiotemporal evolution of the density compression along the shock front agrees favorably with results from magnetohydrodynamics simulations. We conclude that the detailed variations of the shock compression ratio may be due to the impact of dynamic plasma structures in the reconnection outflows, which results in distortion of the shock front.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the eruptive C1.9 flare event on 2012 March 3. Background shows SDO/AIA 171 ˚A (red) and 94 ˚A (green) images at 18:30 UT. The solid and dashed contours are a radio stochastic spike burst source observed by VLA at 1.2 GHz (88% and 90% of the maximum) and RHESSI 15–25 KeV HXR source (60% and 90% of the maximum), respectively. The rectangle shows the field of view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the formation of the dm-λ stochastic spike bursts in the close vicinity of the flare termination shock. (A) At each time, small-scale density fluctuations on the shock surface emit radio bursts at different frequencies due to plasma radiation. The instantaneous radio spectrum is obtained at a time indicated by the vertical white line in the radio dynamic spectrum. (B) The instantaneous distribution of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the slow-moving, flare￾termination-shock-associated stochastic spike bursts (A) and a typical coronal-shock-associated type II radio burst with split-band features (B). The latter has both fundamental and harmonic plasma radiation signatures. Both dynamic spectra are shown with the same duration (20 minutes) and relative frequency range. Right panels show normalized in￾tensity profiles as a functi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Morphology and dynamics of both the high-frequency and low-frequency split-band features. (A) A more detailed view of the split-band feature in the vector dynamic spectrum. (B) Time sequence of the evolving surfaces associated with the HF and LF split-band features del…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histogram of the height difference ∆y(x, t) (panel (A)) and frequency ratio Rν(x, t) (panel (B)) between the HF and LF split-band sources at all times and locations along the shock. The ∆y distribution is skewed toward negative values, conforming with the expectation t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Spatial and temporal variation of the upstream density n1 (A), downstream density n2 (B), and density compression ratio X = n2/n1 (C) derived from radio observation of the split-band feature. The horizontal axis is time, and the vertical axis corresponds to the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MHD modeling of the reconnection downflow and the flare termination shock region at five selected times indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shock angle, Mach number, and density com￾pression ratio along the termination shock front for the sym￾metric (left column) and distorted (right column) case. (A) and (B) Detailed view of the termination shock region at t0 and t4 indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SDO/AIA 94 ˚A running difference images (grayscale background) showing a fast plasma blob impinging upon the termination shock front (black circles) when the split-band feature is present. The corresponding speed is ∼360 km s−1 in projection. Color symbols are centriod…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: EUV intensity variation across the termination shock front. (A) Detailed view of the SDO/AIA 94 ˚A time–distance plot in the looptop region obtained along the dotted line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2004, ApJL, 605, L77 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Asai, A., Yokoyama, T., Shimojo, M., & Shibata, K. 2004, ApJL, 605, L77 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    2004

  2. [2]

    2004, ApJ, 615, 526

    Aurass, H., & Mann, G. 2004, ApJ, 615, 526

    2004

  3. [3]

    2002, A&A, 384, 273

    Aurass, H., Vrˇ snak, B., & Mann, G. 2002, A&A, 384, 273

    2002

  4. [4]

    M., Krucker, S., Glesener, L., & Lin, R

    Bain, H. M., Krucker, S., Glesener, L., & Lin, R. P. 2012, ApJ, 750, 44

    2012

  5. [5]

    D., Reiner, M

    Bale, S. D., Reiner, M. J., Bougeret, J. L., et al. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1573

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Bastian, T. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 774

    1994

  7. [7]

    H., Knock, S

    Cairns, I. H., Knock, S. A., Robinson, P. A., & Kuncic, Z. 2003, SSRv, 107, 27

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Caspi, A., Krucker, S., & Lin, R. P. 2014, ApJ, 781, 43

    work page 2014

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Caspi, A., & Lin, R. P. 2010, ApJL, 725, L161

    2010

  2. [10]

    S., & Gary, D

    Chen, B., Bastian, T. S., & Gary, D. E. 2014, ApJ, 794, 149

    2014

  3. [11]

    S., Shen, C., et al

    Chen, B., Bastian, T. S., Shen, C., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 1238

    2015

  4. [12]

    S., White, S

    Chen, B., Bastian, T. S., White, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L21

    2013

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 62

    Chen, B., Yu, S., Battaglia, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 62

    2018

  6. [14]

    D., Zhang, J., et al

    Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., Zhang, J., et al. 2014, ApJL, 789, L35

    2014

  7. [15]

    D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 43

    2013

  8. [16]

    P., Holman, G

    Chrysaphi, N., Kontar, E. P., Holman, G. D., & Temmer, M. 2018, ApJ, 868, 79 Claßen, H. T., & Aurass, H. 2002, A&A, 384, 1098

    2018

  9. [17]

    Condon, J. J. 1997, PASP, 109, 166

    1997

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 52

    Du, G., Kong, X., Chen, Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 52

    2015

  11. [19]

    P., & Kennel, C

    Edmiston, J. P., & Kennel, C. F. 1984, Journal of Plasma Physics, 32, 429

    1984

  12. [20]

    D., Nita, G

    Fleishman, G. D., Nita, G. M., & Gary, D. E. 2017, ApJ, 845, 135

    2017

  13. [21]

    Forbes, T. G. 1986, ApJ, 305, 553

    1986

  14. [22]

    Forbes, T. G. 1988, SoPh, 117, 97

    1988

  15. [23]

    G., & Malherbe, J

    Forbes, T. G., & Malherbe, J. M. 1986, ApJL, 302, L67

    1986

  16. [24]

    E., Dulk, G

    Gary, D. E., Dulk, G. A., House, L., et al. 1984, A&A, 134, 222

    1984

  17. [25]

    E., & Yoshimura, K

    Plowman, J. E., & Yoshimura, K. 2015, ApJ, 800, 54

    2015

  18. [26]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 28 16 Chen et al

    Guo, F., & Giacalone, J. 2012, ApJ, 753, 28 16 Chen et al

    2012

  19. [27]

    2017, ApJL, 846, L12

    Guo, L., Li, G., Reeves, K., & Raymond, J. 2017, ApJL, 846, L12

    2017

  20. [28]

    G., & Kontar, E

    Hannah, I. G., & Kontar, E. P. 2012, A&A, 539, A146

    2012

  21. [29]

    Young, P. R. 2011, ApJ, 741, 107

    2011

  22. [30]

    A., Gallagher, P

    Hayes, L. A., Gallagher, P. T., Dennis, B. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 33

    2019

  23. [31]

    D., & Pesses, M

    Holman, G. D., & Pesses, M. E. 1983, ApJ, 267, 837

    1983

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJL, 776, L11

    Imada, S., Aoki, K., Hara, H., et al. 2013, ApJL, 776, L11

    2013

  25. [33]

    1997, The Nan¸ cay Radioheliograph, ed

    Kerdraon, A., & Delouis, J.-M. 1997, The Nan¸ cay Radioheliograph, ed. G. Trottet, Vol. 483, 192

    1997

  26. [34]

    I., & Aurass, H

    Khan, J. I., & Aurass, H. 2002, A&A, 383, 1018

    2002

  27. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 59

    Gopalswamy, N. 2016, ApJ, 832, 59

    2016

  28. [36]

    A., & Cairns, I

    Knock, S. A., & Cairns, I. H. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A01101

    2005

  29. [37]

    A., & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, SoPh, 50, 85

    1976

  30. [38]

    E., Wang, H., et al

    Kuroda, N., Gary, D. E., Wang, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 32

    2018

  31. [39]

    R., Title, A

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

    2012

  32. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 22

    Li, G., Kong, X., Zank, G., & Chen, Y. 2013, ApJ, 769, 22

    2013

  33. [41]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 2375

    2000

  34. [42]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 168

    Liu, W., Chen, Q., & Petrosian, V. 2013, ApJ, 767, 168

    2013

  35. [43]

    G., Bale, S

    Liu, Y., Luhmann, J. G., Bale, S. D., & Lin, R. P. 2009, ApJL, 691, L151

    2009

  36. [44]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 148

    Priest, E. 2018, ApJ, 868, 148

    2018

  37. [45]

    1996, ApJ, 466, 1054

    Magara, T., Mineshige, S., Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1996, ApJ, 466, 1054

    1996

  38. [46]

    1995, Theory and Observations of Coronal Shock Waves, ed

    Mann, G. 1995, Theory and Observations of Coronal Shock Waves, ed. A. O. Benz & A. Kr¨ uger, Vol. 444, 183

    1995

  39. [47]

    1995, A&A, 295, 775

    Mann, G., Classen, T., & Aurass, H. 1995, A&A, 295, 775

    1995

  40. [48]

    2009, A&A, 494, 669

    Mann, G., Warmuth, A., & Aurass, H. 2009, A&A, 494, 669

    2009

  41. [49]

    1994, Nature, 371, 495

    Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Hara, H., Tsuneta, S., & Ogawara, Y. 1994, Nature, 371, 495

    1994

  42. [50]

    McKenzie, D. E. 2013, ApJ, 766, 39

    2013

  43. [51]

    E., & Hudson, H

    McKenzie, D. E., & Hudson, H. S. 1999, ApJL, 519, L93

    1999

  44. [52]

    McLean, D. J. 1967, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 1, 47

    1967

  45. [53]

    J., & Labrum, N

    McLean, D. J., & Labrum, N. R. 1985, Solar Radiophysics: Studies of Emission from the Sun at Meter Wavelengths

    1985

  46. [54]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  47. [55]

    E., Carley, E

    Morosan, D. E., Carley, E. P., Hayes, L. A., et al. 2019, NatAs, 3, 452

    2019

  48. [56]

    2011, A&A, 531, A31

    Preka-Papadema, P. 2011, A&A, 531, A31

    2011

  49. [57]

    2013, PhRvL, 110, 051101 O’Dwyer, B., Del Zanna, G., Mason, H

    Nishizuka, N., & Shibata, K. 2013, PhRvL, 110, 051101 O’Dwyer, B., Del Zanna, G., Mason, H. E., Weber, M. A., & Tripathi, D. 2010, A&A, 521, A21

    2013

  50. [58]

    C., & Blackman, E

    Park, J., Ren, C., Workman, J. C., & Blackman, E. G. 2013, ApJ, 765, 147

    2013

  51. [59]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1

    2011

  52. [60]

    K., & Musset, S

    Polito, V., Galan, G., Reeves, K. K., & Musset, S. 2018, ApJ, 865, 161

    2018

  53. [61]

    2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun

    Priest, E. 2014, Magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun

    2014

  54. [62]

    J., Schneps, M

    Reid, M. J., Schneps, M. H., Moran, J. M., et al. 1988, ApJ, 330, 809

    1988

  55. [63]

    L., & McKenzie, D

    Savage, S. L., & McKenzie, D. E. 2011, ApJ, 730, 98

    2011

  56. [64]

    B., McKenzie, D

    Scott, R. B., McKenzie, D. E., & Longcope, D. W. 2016, ApJ, 819, 56

    2016

  57. [65]

    C., & Chen, B

    Shen, C., Kong, X., Guo, F., Raymond, J. C., & Chen, B. 2018, ApJ, 869, 116

    2018

  58. [66]

    Shen, C., Lin, J., & Murphy, N. A. 2011, ApJ, 737, 14

    2011

  59. [67]

    1995, ApJL, 451, L83

    Shibata, K., Masuda, S., Shimojo, M., et al. 1995, ApJL, 451, L83

    1995

  60. [68]

    F., Sheridan, K

    Smerd, S. F., Sheridan, K. V., & Stewart, R. T. 1974, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 57, Coronal Disturbances, ed. G. A. Newkirk, 389

    1974

  61. [69]

    F., Sheridan, K

    Smerd, S. F., Sheridan, K. V., & Stewart, R. T. 1975, Astrophysical Letters, 16, 23

    1975

  62. [70]

    V., & Kosugi, T

    Somov, B. V., & Kosugi, T. 1997, ApJ, 485, 859

    1997

  63. [71]

    Simon, J. B. 2008, ApJS, 178, 137 SunPy Community, Mumford, S. J., Christe, S., et al. 2015, Computational Science and Discovery, 8, 014009

    2008

  64. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 102

    Takahashi, T., Qiu, J., & Shibata, K. 2017, ApJ, 848, 102

    2017

  65. [73]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 135

    Takasao, S., Matsumoto, T., Nakamura, N., & Shibata, K. 2015, ApJ, 805, 135

    2015

  66. [74]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 150

    Takasao, S., & Shibata, K. 2016, ApJ, 823, 150

    2016

  67. [75]

    K., et al

    Tian, H., Li, G., Reeves, K. K., et al. 2014, ApJL, 797, L14

    2014

  68. [76]

    Treumann, R. A. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 409

    2009

  69. [77]

    1998, ApJL, 495, L67 Vrˇ snak, B., Aurass, H., Magdaleni´ c, J., & Gopalswamy, N

    Tsuneta, S., & Naito, T. 1998, ApJL, 495, L67 Vrˇ snak, B., Aurass, H., Magdaleni´ c, J., & Gopalswamy, N. 2001, A&A, 377, 321 Vrˇ snak, B., Magdaleni´ c, J., Aurass, H., & Mann, G. 2002, A&A, 396, 673 Vrˇ snak, B., Warmuth, A., Temmer, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 739

    1998

  70. [78]

    2009, A&A, 494, 677

    Warmuth, A., Mann, G., & Aurass, H. 2009, A&A, 494, 677

    2009

  71. [79]

    P., & McCready, L

    Wild, J. P., & McCready, L. L. 1950, Australian Journal of Scientific Research A Physical Sciences, 3, 387

    1950

  72. [80]

    C., Blackman, E

    Workman, J. C., Blackman, E. G., & Ren, C. 2011, Physics of Plasmas, 18, 092902 Solar Flare Termination Shock: Split-Band Feature 17

    2011

  73. [81]

    2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747

    Zhang, J., Cheng, X., & Ding, M.-D. 2012, Nature Communications, 3, 747

    2012

  74. [82]

    2012, A&A, 547, A6

    Struminsky, A. 2012, A&A, 547, A6

    2012

  75. [83]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 68

    Zucca, P., Pick, M., D´ emoulin, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 68

    2014

  76. [84]

    E., Rouillard, A

    Zucca, P., Morosan, D. E., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A89

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.